PDA

View Full Version : The Stat that says it all (Red Zone Thread)


BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:17 PM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


That is why the Saints are a playoff team and the Texans are a mediocre team looking for an identity....

Damn I am gonna hate this week....:vincepalm:

DexmanC
09-25-2011, 03:17 PM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


That is why the Saints are a playoff team and the Texans are a mediocre team looking for an identity....

Damn I am gonna hate this week....:vincepalm:

It's gonna be a GREAT week of talk radio, though.

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:19 PM
It's gonna be a GREAT week of talk radio, though.

No it's not, it's gonna be nothing but GET RID OF SCHAUB, GARY, TEAM SUCKS, LADADADLADA....

messes with my inner peace....

JamesBill
09-25-2011, 03:20 PM
Arian foster. 2009 terrible in Redzone. 2010 best in the redzone in the NFL. 2011 terrible in redzone.

foster.

TexanSam
09-25-2011, 03:21 PM
Arian foster. 2009 terrible in Redzone. 2010 best in the redzone in the NFL. 2011 terrible in redzone.

foster.

Yep. Tate is good but he's not Foster. At least not yet.

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:23 PM
Arian foster. 2009 terrible in Redzone. 2010 best in the redzone in the NFL. 2011 terrible in redzone.

foster.

Maybe, but they didn't even attempt to pound it in the endzone with Tate...

I think Gary was outsmarting himself instead of what was working, running the damn ball...

EllisUnit
09-25-2011, 03:24 PM
Maybe, but they didn't even attempt to pound it in the endzone with Tate...

I think Gary was outsmarting himself instead of what was working, running the damn ball...

agree on the 3 yard line, with our running game and you kick a field goal. Seriously Kubiak ???

Big Lou
09-25-2011, 03:26 PM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


That is why the Saints are a playoff team and the Texans are a mediocre team looking for an identity....

Damn I am gonna hate this week....:vincepalm:

No offense but I had to hear that shit from that f-ing missing link dumbbledorf for 2 hours, don't need to see it posted in here...

Brandon420tx
09-25-2011, 03:27 PM
I don't mind the field goals, they are point and points were what we need when playing the Saints. The Lack of AJ in the second half and the total abandonment of the running game are what bum me out

Mr teX
09-25-2011, 03:27 PM
Arian foster. 2009 terrible in Redzone. 2010 best in the redzone in the NFL. 2011 terrible in redzone.

foster.

basically...of course the yahoos will call in talking about this. some people just dont have a clue..rep your way.

TexansBull
09-25-2011, 03:28 PM
This game was brought to you by the Houston Texans Offense and the letters FG and the number 3.

Its like the field goal curses this team. Either its Kris Brown and his inability to make them in the clutch, or its this team making too many instead of TDs.

Errant Hothy
09-25-2011, 03:29 PM
We will need Foster to beat the Steelers and the Ravens.

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:29 PM
No offense but I had to hear that shit from that f-ing missing link dumbbledorf for 2 hours, don't need to see it posted in here...

no offense taken but It's the damn truth...When you have 5 opportunities in the redzone and you only come away with 1 TD against THAT NO offense...nuff said..

Dumbbledorf called it after the 2nd FG that kicking FGs int eh redzone was gonna come back to bite the Texans and guess what happened....

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:31 PM
You're missing one portion of the stats in the RZ..

How many delay, early, errant pass was throw by our QB in our TD drought?

Even our very last TD should've been intercepted.

Ok but twice they had the ball on 3, you gonna tell me Tate cannot get 3 yards for a TD? If not, then the Texans are in more trouble this year than they realize cause Foster will not be healthy all year...

Ckw
09-25-2011, 03:31 PM
I love how everyone was hating on me big time in the game day thread last week. I was ganged up on like crazy for being upset about what I saw in that game a majority of which had to do with our red zone woes.

What do you guys have to say to me now?

Naiirb
09-25-2011, 03:32 PM
Good thing its only the 3rd week. Hopefully they actually address the red zone problems and work on it cause they clearly didn't after the Miami game.

TheMatrix31
09-25-2011, 03:33 PM
Yeah, it's not like we're missing Arian Foster or anything.

And we should have had one more RZ TD than we did, because the refs missed a blatant PI on a pass to Andre.

Mr teX
09-25-2011, 03:36 PM
I love how everyone was hating on me big time in the game day thread last week. I was ganged up on like crazy for being upset about what I saw in that game a majority of which had to do with our red zone woes.



What do you guys have to say to me now?

nothing, u still don't have a point....at least not until Arian gets back healthy.

Atl Cav
09-25-2011, 03:41 PM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


That is why the Saints are a playoff team and the Texans are a mediocre team looking for an identity....

Damn I am gonna hate this week....:vincepalm:

You and Dan Dierdorf. It is obvious this was an issue, but we lost by allowing 40 points. 40 points.

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:42 PM
It might've been more of the Saints playing our run tough, moreso than Tate/The Line transforming into pumpkins when we were in the RZ

Tate was getting stuffed routinely in the RZ when we did tried to run it. Tate have shown he can bulldoze his way into the EZ before

Having a lame back-up who keeps running directly into the tacklers arms wasn't helping either.

and was it me or did Tate not use the cutback lanes like he normally does? several runs that got stuffed looked like they had huge backside lanes but Tate never took them...

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:44 PM
You and Dan Dierdorf. It is obvious this was an issue, but we lost by allowing 40 points. 40 points.

and would have won by scoring from the 3, twice...Not that hard of a concept.

defense gave up 40, but the Saints should have given up much more had it not been for bad play calling in the red zone...

Mr teX
09-25-2011, 03:49 PM
and would have won by scoring from the 3, twice...Not that hard of a concept.

defense gave up 40, but the Saints should have given up much more had it not been for bad play calling in the red zone...

In a vaccuum yes, you're right but its not like we were playing against air out there. Furthermore the saints STILL had to hang 40 on us to win the game. 40. How many teams have the ability to do that? Not many. Give credit to your opponent & keep it moving.

eriadoc
09-25-2011, 03:51 PM
This isn't a new thing. The team last year was good in the red zone for a change. Under Kubiak, the offense has stalled int he red zone far too often. I've been telling my friends for years that anytime the team lands on 16 points, they should just go ahead and chalk it up to an offensive failure. I hate the 16 point mark. It means you're 1 for 4, basically. We are continually told what a top offense this team is and has been for a few years, but top offenses don't go 1 for 4 as frequently as the Texans do.

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 03:53 PM
In a vaccuum yes, you're right but the saints STILL had to hang 40 on us to win the game. 40. How many teams have the ability to do that? Not many.

Actually the next 3 teams the Texans play have that ability, that includes Oakland...

Surreal McCoy
09-25-2011, 03:55 PM
You and Dan Dierdorf. It is obvious this was an issue, but we lost by allowing 40 points. 40 points.

This post sponsored by: Reality. When it's not just a coffee table topic!

Mr teX
09-25-2011, 03:56 PM
Actually the next 3 teams the Texans play have that ability, that includes Oakland...

uhh no dude...just stop it.

Hardcore Texan
09-25-2011, 03:58 PM
I don't mind the field goals, they are point and points were what we need when playing the Saints. The Lack of AJ in the second half and the total abandonment of the running game are what bum me out

The running game faltered as soon as Tate got hobbled. They clearly weren't very confident in having Slaton back there. We need Ward AND Foster back.


We will need Foster to beat the Steelers and the Ravens.

^
This

BullNation4Life
09-25-2011, 04:01 PM
uhh no dude...just stop it.

stop what, you don't think the Steelers, Ravens and Oakland can put 40 on the Texans? Take the Texan colored glasses off and put the kool aide down. Ravens dropped 35 on the Steelers, Oakland dropped 35 on the now 3-0 Bills and the Steelers can run the hell out of the ball....

ok Steelers maybe not but the other 2 defiantly can...

Ckw
09-25-2011, 04:12 PM
nothing, u still don't have a point....at least not until Arian gets back healthy.

Suck it. It's a team game. Players get hurt especially RBs. The fact that Schaub can't throw a TD in the RZ is very problematic.

I guess what you are saying is the team is screwed if Foster has this problem the whole season. There are 10 other guys on the field with Foster. If those guys can't get it done, then my point is completely valid little tex.

Kimmy
09-25-2011, 04:13 PM
Suck it. It's a team game. Players get hurt especially RBs. The fact that Schaub can't throw a TD in the RZ is very problematic.

I guess what you are saying is the team is screwed if Foster has this problem the whole season. There are 10 other guys on the field with Foster. If those guys can't get it done, then my point is completely valid little tex.

It's not just Schaub, the entire OLine needs to step up and block. I saw/heard a lot of opportunity there.

TheMatrix31
09-25-2011, 04:15 PM
Suck it. It's a team game. Players get hurt especially RBs. The fact that Schaub can't throw a TD in the RZ is very problematic.

I guess what you are saying is the team is screwed if Foster has this problem the whole season. There are 10 other guys on the field with Foster. If those guys can't get it done, then my point is completely valid little tex.


When you're forced to have to use Slaton to back up Tate because Foster AND Ward are hurt, it's a big deal.

We have the best RB rotation in football and 2 of the 3 are hurt. And our offense needs the run to be good, especially in the red zone.

Ckw
09-25-2011, 04:19 PM
This isn't a new thing. The team last year was good in the red zone for a change. Under Kubiak, the offense has stalled int he red zone far too often. I've been telling my friends for years that anytime the team lands on 16 points, they should just go ahead and chalk it up to an offensive failure. I hate the 16 point mark. It means you're 1 for 4, basically. We are continually told what a top offense this team is and has been for a few years, but top offenses don't go 1 for 4 as frequently as the Texans do.

Someone actually gets it here in the land of excuses known as Texans Talk.

I am so ****ing sick of our fans in Houston. We are a bunch of jokes the way we constantly make excuses for any and everything and settle for mediocrity.

Teams lose players. The good teams still know how to win without them.

Sure, it sucked being without Arian Foster. Well guess what suckers, the Saints were without their best receiver Colston, and best linebacker Vilma. And they still won.

Stop with the excuses. Quit with the acceptance of mediocrity.

Our red zone woes were a problem last week against a bad team. Our red zone woes caused us to lose against a playoff team this week. We will continue to lose against playoff teams if these red zone woes continue.

Ckw
09-25-2011, 04:23 PM
It's not just Schaub, the entire OLine needs to step up and block. I saw/heard a lot of opportunity there.

I agree. It is a TEAM effort. But other QBs not named Schaub know how to pass for a TD in the RZ. It's what the great ones do. Schaub has had this problem ever since he has been here.

I say stop blaming everyone else and look at the common element: Matt Schaub.

When you're forced to have to use Slaton to back up Tate because Foster AND Ward are hurt, it's a big deal.

We have the best RB rotation in football and 2 of the 3 are hurt. And our offense needs the run to be good, especially in the red zone.

Quit with the excuses. The Saints were missing players too. What if Arian walks in the offseason? Are we ****ed next year because we don't have the leagues best rusher? Or do we need to find different ways to score in the RZ? Hell, quit running it with Slaton and Tate and give it to Casey in the RZ. Do something different. Just quit with the excuses. It makes it embarrassing to be a Texans fan.

thunderkyss
09-25-2011, 04:27 PM
I wonder if anyone realizes we were leaders in redzone efficiency last year. Im not denying the stat has some merit, but there were many things we could've done to negate that particular stat

The Third Man
09-25-2011, 04:30 PM
I love how everyone was hating on me big time in the game day thread last week. I was ganged up on like crazy for being upset about what I saw in that game a majority of which had to do with our red zone woes.

What do you guys have to say to me now?

That you need a hug because your identity is tied into getting approval on a message board from strangers?


That you are one of those tedious "I told you so" guys who make life miserable for everybody?

Take your pick.

Brandon420tx
09-25-2011, 04:32 PM
TBH, I just don't want to say anything to him, I'm logging off now, these guys are being unbearable

Mr teX
09-25-2011, 04:39 PM
Suck it. It's a team game. Players get hurt especially RBs. The fact that Schaub can't throw a TD in the RZ is very problematic.

I guess what you are saying is the team is screwed if Foster has this problem the whole season. There are 10 other guys on the field with Foster. If those guys can't get it done, then my point is completely valid little tex.

just like i thought you'd respond...like a chump.

There's a reason why people said backs like Emmitt Smith & Marcus Allen had a "nose for the end zone"..Foster clearly has it & was clearly the difference last year for us. if you could stop patting yourself on the back, you'd see it too.

Ckw
09-25-2011, 04:45 PM
I wonder if anyone realizes we were leaders in redzone efficiency last year. Im not denying the stat has some merit, but there were many things we could've done to negate that particular stat

Last year was the anomaly. How were we the year before? Or the year before that? Hell, how have we been in the red zone the entire time Kubiak has been here.

That you need a hug because your identity is tied into getting approval on a message board from strangers?


That you are one of those tedious "I told you so" guys who make life miserable for everybody?

Take your pick.

All of the above. You read me like a book. Thanks for being so astute.

TBH, I just don't want to say anything to him, I'm logging off now, these guys are being unbearable

Sorry bro. But when you have an issue like this that has the potential to derail the season, an inability to put up 6 in the red zone, and it is something that has been a problem the entire time you have had a particular head coach, then it is natural to be concerned.

The sky isn't falling. The season isn't over with. But you are a fool if you aren't concerned. If Foster comes back and he can stay healthy through the season and through the (hopefully) playoffs, then this probably won't be an issue.

But if Foster doesn't get back to 100% and can't stay healthy, then what I have seen through 3 games of the season is that we are screwed. If you can't score touchdowns in the red zone, you won't beat playoff teams that do put up 6 in the RZ.

Ckw
09-25-2011, 04:48 PM
just like i thought you'd respond...like a chump.

There's a reason why people said backs like Emmitt Smith & Marcus Allen had a "nose for the end zone"..Foster clearly has it & was clearly the difference last year for us. if you could stop patting yourself on the back, you'd see it too.

How many teams have an Emmitt Smith & a Marcus Allen? How often do guys like that come around? If having an Emmitt Smith or Marcus Allen type of player is a requirement for us to be a quality red zone team, then excuse my french but we are ****ed.

That's all I'm saying. Get back to your glass of koolaide.

Mr teX
09-25-2011, 04:55 PM
How many teams have an Emmitt Smith & a Marcus Allen? How often do guys like that come around? If having an Emmitt Smith or Marcus Allen type of player is a requirement for us to be a quality red zone team, then excuse my french but we are ****ed.

That's all I'm saying. Get back to your glass of koolaide.

Wow....you sir are an *****. That is all.

Ckw
09-25-2011, 04:59 PM
Wow....you sir are an *****. That is all.

Right back at you buddy.

EllisUnit
09-25-2011, 05:01 PM
How many teams have an Emmitt Smith & a Marcus Allen? How often do guys like that come around? If having an Emmitt Smith or Marcus Allen type of player is a requirement for us to be a quality red zone team, then excuse my french but we are ****ed.

That's all I'm saying. Get back to your glass of koolaide.

he was giving an example. Foster has a nose for the endzone noone can deny that. Foster is a redzone gem thats all he's saying.

Imatexanfan
09-25-2011, 05:05 PM
Well I look on the brightside Neil Rackers did great on my FFB team...:kitten:

Ckw
09-25-2011, 05:54 PM
he was giving an example. Foster has a nose for the endzone noone can deny that. Foster is a redzone gem thats all he's saying.

I understood that. Foster is awesome. I love the guy, and I really hope he can come back at 100% and remain healthy. My point was that lots of teams, in fact most, don't have an Arian Foster, Adrian Peterson, Emmit Smith, or Marcus Allen type player. In fact, most of them don't yet they still find ways to put the ball into the end zone.

We CAN'T rely on one player. We are seeing what happens to a team when they put all of their eggs into one basket with the Colts. This is a team game, and the team has to be built solid enough that you can withstand some injuries.

What you are all saying, and I agree, is this team is a different team without Foster. It is a team that can't score touchdowns in the red zone. Where I guess we disagree is I see this as a major problem. As we are seeing, you can't rely on one guy. We have got to find other ways to score touchdowns in the red zone without Foster.

If we can't do that, I don't believe we are a playoff team without Foster. That is where my concern stems from. I'm surprised more people don't feel the same way.

Scooter
09-25-2011, 06:06 PM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


means sqaut when despite winning the turnover battle we allow 40 points. any argument that starts with a situation where we lost by not putting up 40+ points is an auto-fail.

obviously we need to do a whole lot better in the redzone. that's not why we lost however. scoring 33 points needs to be a win every single time, and that's what our offense gave us, scoring atleast 3 on almost every drive.

thunderkyss
09-25-2011, 07:38 PM
If we didn't give up 23 points in the 4th qtr, those redzone woes wouldn't feel so bad.

PapaL
09-25-2011, 07:54 PM
The only stat that counts, 40-33.

Atl Cav
09-25-2011, 08:03 PM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


That is why the Saints are a playoff team and the Texans are a mediocre team looking for an identity....

Damn I am gonna hate this week....:vincepalm:

So the stat "23 points allowed in the fourth quarter" doesn't mean anything to ya? Interesting.

Texn4life
09-25-2011, 08:05 PM
We lost against an 11 win team on the road! It happens. The Patriots lost to a terrible team last year. It happens! You dudes make me laugh!

Craig.
09-25-2011, 08:10 PM
Right back at you buddy.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm186/Rising_Shadow/FRs/Image_Macros/intfight.jpg

Hervoyel
09-25-2011, 08:22 PM
Wow....you sir are an *****. That is all.

Right back at you buddy.

Can't all us *****'s get along?

steelbtexan
09-25-2011, 11:10 PM
This game was lost in the 1st half due to being inefficient in the red zone. (4 trips 3 FG's and 1 TD) Along with only 1 TD that didn't include an immaculate reception.

Factor this in with Schaubs once a game untimely pick and the lack of a pass rush in the 2nd half. All this = a big L.

Thanks Gary, great 2nd half.

EllisUnit
09-25-2011, 11:11 PM
This game was lost in the 1st half due to being inefficient in the red zone. (4 trips 3 FG's and 1 TD) Along with only 1 TD that didn't include an immaculate reception.

Factor this in with Schaubs once a game untimely pick and the lack of a pass rush in the 2nd half. All this = a big L.

Thanks Gary, great 2nd half.

agree D went conservative, where were the roll outs in the 2nd half that worked so well in the first ? i swear we get a little lead and we play not to lose, we dont play to win.

Nawzer
09-25-2011, 11:25 PM
I agree. I knew not converting those RZ trips to touchdowns was going to come back bite us in the ass. I didn't get what the Texans were trying to do once they got down there. It's almost as if they stopped thinking and ran some of the most boneheaded plays. The one to AJ, which was like a quick pass, was destined to fail the moment the ball was snapped. You're telling me Kubiak didn't have a better play than that one??? Even if AJ makes that catch he's not going anywhere. And all the run plays where they just ran right up the middle without trying to stretch the defense was weird. I don't get Kubiak's way of thinking. He's so far behind mentally compared to the elite head coaches in this league.

Surreal McCoy
09-25-2011, 11:27 PM
I agree, we should get a TD every possession or Kubiak needs to go. Seriously sick of his act now.

Lucky
09-25-2011, 11:39 PM
The stat may say it all, but the thread title doesn't. A big reason we have so many redundant threads is due to not putting the subject of the thread in the title. Ambiguous thread titles are subject to editing.

eriadoc
09-25-2011, 11:40 PM
If we didn't give up 23 points in the 4th qtr, those redzone woes wouldn't feel so bad.

That's pretty much the entire point, though. You can get away with going 1 for 4 against the hapless Colts. Against the Saints, not so much. When they fail to convert against teams they can beat, you hear complaining on this board despite the win because there's a feeling that those problems will come back to bite them when they face a team like the Saints. And it did. If the Texans go up 16-7 in the first half against the Jags, Titans, or Colts, there's a better than average chance that the team wins that. Against the Saints, Packers, Patriots, or Colts of old, not really.

At least we don't have to see this repeat against Peyton Manning this season.

leebigeztx
09-26-2011, 01:32 AM
if yhey score at least 3 tds in the money zone, the run game is coming and the game is shorter. That was huge no matter the final score.

80tothezone
09-26-2011, 02:07 AM
5 Redzone appearances....

1 touchdown
4 fgs....


That is why the Saints are a playoff team and the Texans are a mediocre team looking for an identity....

Damn I am gonna hate this week....:vincepalmj:
Acually belive in k
Omg!!! A negative threac that I actually believein... foster kfixes this

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 08:24 AM
I agree, we should get a TD every possession or Kubiak needs to go. Seriously sick of his act now.

Again, last season we were among the best teams in the Redzone. We've had issues this year, something we need to work on.

No reason to give up on the team, on what we have right now.

They'll fix it. My point is that this isn't a chronic issue, again I point to last year. We'll get it fixed.

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 08:45 AM
That's pretty much the entire point, though. You can get away with going 1 for 4 against the hapless Colts. Against the Saints, not so much. When they fail to convert against teams they can beat, you hear complaining on this board despite the win because there's a feeling that those problems will come back to bite them when they face a team like the Saints. And it did. If the Texans go up 16-7 in the first half against the Jags, Titans, or Colts, there's a better than average chance that the team wins that. Against the Saints, Packers, Patriots, or Colts of old, not really.

At least we don't have to see this repeat against Peyton Manning this season.

The game would have been totally different had we scored TDs earlier in the game. The Saints may have turned it on before the second half, their defense might have clamped down our offense entirely in the second half, we don't know.

So I don't buy the, "we should have scored TDs instead of FG argument."

Sure there is some merit to it, but the Saints scored 26 points in the 4th Qtr & thankfully they took three points off the board.

The fact still remains that we went into the 4th qtr with a lead & our offense scored 14 points.

Think about last year, if this was last year, we'd be pissed because we scored 30 points in the first half & nada in the second, remember the Raiders? Just about everyone here blamed that performance on the defense, with some merit. I think the problem that game, was that the offense couldn't stay on the field.

Yesterday, we scored 16 points in the first half, 17 in the second. So while the offense had issues... not scoring in the redzone, we lost it in the 4th qtr, when the offense scored 14 (that's two touchdowns if you didn't know).

We lost that game, because our young defense couldn't hold up. So while we have problems to work out on offense, I would be spending most of my energy trying to figure out what the biggest problem was on defense & get it fixed.

To me, it looked like when Mario left the game, our defense disappeared, which is a problem we've had for 6 years now, that we thought we fixed. What happened to JJ Watt? What happened to our "best DLman" Smith? What happened to Brooks? People want to trade Mario & move Brooks Reed into the starting line-up, last nights game should end that goofy talk.

93 yards. The winning touchdown drive for the Saints was 93 yards. If we could have stopped them on that drive, the TD/FG argument wouldn't mean crap.

We had them, & we let them off the hook.

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 08:53 AM
if yhey score at least 3 tds in the money zone, the run game is coming and the game is shorter. That was huge no matter the final score.

That's something else... did they stop the run game or did we stop running?

I thought we would pound the ball from the 9 minute mark of the 4th qtr..... but I didn't see it.

Joe Texan
09-26-2011, 09:06 AM
16 points we leave in the red zone and we lose by less than that. Plain and simple we have to do something in the redzone, Seems Kubiak has had this problem since he became a head coach so is it a coaching flaw, do we put in Lienhart for our redzone appearances. Whatever we need to do we need to do it now. And Now we get ready for the steelers. GGlad I saved my money on this trip

Texan_Bill
09-26-2011, 09:08 AM
Generally speaking, when you put up 33 points on a team, you win.

Texas T
09-26-2011, 09:08 AM
I agree. It is a TEAM effort. But other QBs not named Schaub know how to pass for a TD in the RZ. It's what the great ones do. Schaub has had this problem ever since he has been here.

I say stop blaming everyone else and look at the common element: Matt Schaub.



Quit with the excuses. The Saints were missing players too. What if Arian walks in the offseason? Are we ****ed next year because we don't have the leagues best rusher? Or do we need to find different ways to score in the RZ? Hell, quit running it with Slaton and Tate and give it to Casey in the RZ. Do something different. Just quit with the excuses. It makes it embarrassing to be a Texans fan.

I think the problem everyone is having with your comments here is that you keep saying that one person (Foster) doesn't make or break a team but then you say that it's all Schaubs fault...those lines are not exactly straight.

Yes Schaub needs to LEAD this team in the RZ but as you keep saying there are 10 other players out there.


agree D went conservative, where were the roll outs in the 2nd half that worked so well in the first ? i swear we get a little lead and we play not to lose, we dont play to win.

This is exactly what I saw. I'm wondering if Kubs had them hold off-I don't think that this was Wade's decision-but I don't know. The team needs to quit slowing down with a lead-it's gonna bite us in the butt everytime-just as much as 3's in the RZ.

eriadoc
09-26-2011, 09:47 AM
The game would have been totally different had we scored TDs earlier in the game. The Saints may have turned it on before the second half, their defense might have clamped down our offense entirely in the second half, we don't know.

So I don't buy the, "we should have scored TDs instead of FG argument."

Sure there is some merit to it, but the Saints scored 26 points in the 4th Qtr & thankfully they took three points off the board.

The fact still remains that we went into the 4th qtr with a lead & our offense scored 14 points.

Think about last year, if this was last year, we'd be pissed because we scored 30 points in the first half & nada in the second, remember the Raiders? Just about everyone here blamed that performance on the defense, with some merit. I think the problem that game, was that the offense couldn't stay on the field.

Yesterday, we scored 16 points in the first half, 17 in the second. So while the offense had issues... not scoring in the redzone, we lost it in the 4th qtr, when the offense scored 14 (that's two touchdowns if you didn't know).

We lost that game, because our young defense couldn't hold up. So while we have problems to work out on offense, I would be spending most of my energy trying to figure out what the biggest problem was on defense & get it fixed.

To me, it looked like when Mario left the game, our defense disappeared, which is a problem we've had for 6 years now, that we thought we fixed. What happened to JJ Watt? What happened to our "best DLman" Smith? What happened to Brooks? People want to trade Mario & move Brooks Reed into the starting line-up, last nights game should end that goofy talk.

93 yards. The winning touchdown drive for the Saints was 93 yards. If we could have stopped them on that drive, the TD/FG argument wouldn't mean crap.

We had them, & we let them off the hook.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm not so down on the defense for giving up those points TO THE SAINTS. I'd be saying what you're saying if it weren't the Saints. Against the Saints, your offense has to put up the points and not settle for FGs, because your defense is not going to hold them down.

Gotta Know
09-26-2011, 10:20 AM
The game would have been totally different had we scored TDs earlier in the game. The Saints may have turned it on before the second half, their defense might have clamped down our offense entirely in the second half, we don't know.

So I don't buy the, "we should have scored TDs instead of FG argument."

Sure there is some merit to it, but the Saints scored 26 points in the 4th Qtr & thankfully they took three points off the board.

The fact still remains that we went into the 4th qtr with a lead & our offense scored 14 points.

Think about last year, if this was last year, we'd be pissed because we scored 30 points in the first half & nada in the second, remember the Raiders? Just about everyone here blamed that performance on the defense, with some merit. I think the problem that game, was that the offense couldn't stay on the field.

Yesterday, we scored 16 points in the first half, 17 in the second. So while the offense had issues... not scoring in the redzone, we lost it in the 4th qtr, when the offense scored 14 (that's two touchdowns if you didn't know).

We lost that game, because our young defense couldn't hold up. So while we have problems to work out on offense, I would be spending most of my energy trying to figure out what the biggest problem was on defense & get it fixed.

To me, it looked like when Mario left the game, our defense disappeared, which is a problem we've had for 6 years now, that we thought we fixed. What happened to JJ Watt? What happened to our "best DLman" Smith? What happened to Brooks? People want to trade Mario & move Brooks Reed into the starting line-up, last nights game should end that goofy talk.

93 yards. The winning touchdown drive for the Saints was 93 yards. If we could have stopped them on that drive, the TD/FG argument wouldn't mean crap.

We had them, & we let them off the hook.


What is so hard to understand about quick releases.

The D-Line had no chance against Brees when he can throw quick routes to his first read. I posted in a different thread that every single throw except two was released in under three seconds. Most got out in two.

To further stop the "defense was the problem" crowd, in the second half the Offense/Punter handed the ball to the Saints on the Texans side of the field TWICE.

What is so hard to understand? It would have been nice to have the Defense step up on a short field but to say they failed because they didn't is over the top.

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 10:57 AM
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not so down on the defense for giving up those points TO THE SAINTS. I'd be saying what you're saying if it weren't the Saints. Against the Saints, your offense has to put up the points and not settle for FGs, because your defense is not going to hold them down.

But we scored 33 points. At the end of the day, 33 points wins most games.

It would have been nice to hang 40 on the Saints, but that is less likely to happen than stopping them or holding them to 3 points on a 93 yard drive.

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 11:16 AM
What is so hard to understand about quick releases.

The D-Line had no chance against Brees when he can throw quick routes to his first read. I posted in a different thread that every single throw except two was released in under three seconds. Most got out in two.

To further stop the "defense was the problem" crowd, in the second half the Offense/Punter handed the ball to the Saints on the Texans side of the field TWICE.

What is so hard to understand? It would have been nice to have the Defense step up on a short field but to say they failed because they didn't is over the top.

Put your hands up.

The ball comes out quick, put your hands up.

He's throwing a quick slant 5 or 6 plays in a row.... put a LB in the middle of the field. Or man up on the line.

To say a defense has no chance against a guy getting the ball out under 3 seconds doesn't make any sense. The defense should make it difficult to get the ball out that quick.

The winning drive went 93 yards. A defense should have something to say about that.

Ckw
09-26-2011, 12:19 PM
I think the problem everyone is having with your comments here is that you keep saying that one person (Foster) doesn't make or break a team but then you say that it's all Schaubs fault...those lines are not exactly straight.

Yes Schaub needs to LEAD this team in the RZ but as you keep saying there are 10 other players out there.

Arian masks Schaub's red zone dificiencies. We can get by with Schaub in the RZ as long as we have Arian. That simply is unacceptable. All of the burden cannot and should not rest on one man's shoulder except for maybe the QB. We have to be able to be successful without Arian. Schaub's errant passes, lack of pocket presence, and general lack of poise (especially in the red zone) is directly causing the TEAM to be unable to perform in the red zone.

Poor AJ. He has dealt with two shitty red zone quarterbacks and that is directly why he has never had a double digit TD season.

The1ApplePie
09-26-2011, 12:21 PM
The Texans lack of a red zone weapon not named Andre Johnson has been a weakness for years.

OD is not up to speed and there is really no other option in the red zone.

The Texans need a guy like Finley for the Pack or Gronkowski for the Pats

Gotta Know
09-26-2011, 12:40 PM
Put your hands up.

The ball comes out quick, put your hands up.

He's throwing a quick slant 5 or 6 plays in a row.... put a LB in the middle of the field. Or man up on the line.

To say a defense has no chance against a guy getting the ball out under 3 seconds doesn't make any sense. The defense should make it difficult to get the ball out that quick.

The winning drive went 93 yards. A defense should have something to say about that.


Getting hands up, LB's on short drops, bump and run coverage are exactly what needed to be done. So why post about line play?

Pressure simply will not get there in time. Coverage and taking away lanes is required.

Lots of near misses on pass blocks so hands up was taking place. Saw Watt have one go BETWEEN his arms. An inch either way would have been a great play.

It would have been nice to make a defensive stop on the long drive as it would have been nice to score more in the red zone. Maybe the Texans Offense should have had something to say about scoring TD in the red zone. Why is the defense the scapegoat?

The D got two picks. Both gave the ball the the Texans Offense on the Saints side of the field. Might those picks have contributed to the Offense scoring some of those points?

To blame the Defense because they couldn't stop short field drives courtesy of the offense while diminishing the offensive contributions to the loss isn't reasonable.

Vinny
09-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Arian masks Schaub's red zone dificiencies. We can get by with Schaub in the RZ as long as we have Arian. That simply is unacceptable. All of the burden cannot and should not rest on one man's shoulder except for maybe the QB. We have to be able to be successful without Arian. Schaub's errant passes, lack of pocket presence, and general lack of poise (especially in the red zone) is directly causing the TEAM to be unable to perform in the red zone.

Poor AJ. He has dealt with two shitty red zone quarterbacks and that is directly why he has never had a double digit TD season.
great in theory, but players matter. Take out the most dynamic player on many teams and that team will suffer. In the rz, Foster is a dynamic player. He is much more of a slasher than Tate is and finds creases like Marcus Allen. Take Marcus Allen off those Raider teams and they don't score as much either.

Mr teX
09-26-2011, 01:00 PM
great in theory, but players matter. Take out the most dynamic player on many teams and that team will suffer. In the rz, Foster is a dynamic player. He is much more of a slasher than Tate is and finds creases like Marcus Allen. Take Marcus Allen off those Raider teams and they don't score as much either.

dont bother vinny, i tried bridging his football "knowledge" yesterday & this is the response i got..


How many teams have an Emmitt Smith & a Marcus Allen? How often do guys like that come around? If having an Emmitt Smith or Marcus Allen type of player is a requirement for us to be a quality red zone team, then excuse my french but we are ****ed.

That's all I'm saying. Get back to your glass of koolaide.

Texan_Bill
09-26-2011, 01:05 PM
great in theory, but players matter. Take out the most dynamic player on many teams and that team will suffer. In the rz, Foster is a dynamic player. He is much more of a slasher than Tate is and finds creases like Marcus Allen. Take Marcus Allen off those Raider teams and they don't score as much either.

Pretty much this. Arian Foster represents 16 rushing touchdowns and 2 receiving TD's last season. Thats a lot of production standing on the sidelines. I also thnk it helps the explain first to worst in red-zone efficiency in the course of one season.

b0ng
09-26-2011, 01:14 PM
Do we have more than 1 rushing TD yet?

eriadoc
09-26-2011, 01:14 PM
But we scored 33 points. At the end of the day, 33 points wins most games.

Well, that's what I said - most games, as in ... anyone but the top 3 or 4 offenses in football, which describes the Saints. Also worth noting, teams with truly elite offenses are going to put up their highest point totals against the teams that either challenge them the most or the very least. The Saints had to keep scoring in that game, so they did. We didn't do much to stop them when it mattered, but I'm just saying that there aren't too many teams that can do much to stop them when it matters. So your better bet is to take advantage of your offensive opportunities, which didn't happen.

great in theory, but players matter. Take out the most dynamic player on many teams and that team will suffer. In the rz, Foster is a dynamic player. He is much more of a slasher than Tate is and finds creases like Marcus Allen. Take Marcus Allen off those Raider teams and they don't score as much either.

Agreed, but it's not like the Texans have done much to determine whether Tate is a decent goal line back yet. He did get a goal line dive vs. the Colts and converted, but I don't think he's gotten any opportunities since. Tate should have been given a chance early in the game, IMO.

I see both sides of the debate. Foster is a special talent, and you can't really replace or diminish that. But in the absence of Foster, you have to have a better plan to score in the red zone than Neil Rackers.

Texan_Bill
09-26-2011, 01:19 PM
Do we have more than 1 rushing TD yet?

Yes. A whopping 2. Tate and Ward.

b0ng
09-26-2011, 01:19 PM
Yes. A whopping 2. Tate and Ward.

Those were both in the Colts game weren't they?

Vinny
09-26-2011, 01:27 PM
Well, that's what I said - most games, as in ... anyone but the top 3 or 4 offenses in football, which describes the Saints. Also worth noting, teams with truly elite offenses are going to put up their highest point totals against the teams that either challenge them the most or the very least. The Saints had to keep scoring in that game, so they did. We didn't do much to stop them when it mattered, but I'm just saying that there aren't too many teams that can do much to stop them when it matters. So your better bet is to take advantage of your offensive opportunities, which didn't happen.



Agreed, but it's not like the Texans have done much to determine whether Tate is a decent goal line back yet. He did get a goal line dive vs. the Colts and converted, but I don't think he's gotten any opportunities since. Tate should have been given a chance early in the game, IMO.

I see both sides of the debate. Foster is a special talent, and you can't really replace or diminish that. But in the absence of Foster, you have to have a better plan to score in the red zone than Neil Rackers.
lack of a legit wr2 is the biggest culprit outside of a lack of Foster. He takes us from a great RZ team to a lesser one without him... Walter is a good possession guy, good blocker, but not an ideal rz guy. JJ is good in space...and that's about it. We play action to the te/fb as much as anyone. Signing a guy like Plaxico in the off season would have helped. He draws double coverage still. Dustin Keller has been open all year.

eriadoc
09-26-2011, 01:31 PM
lack of a legit wr2 is the biggest culprit. Walter is a good possession guy, good blocker, but not an ideal rz guy. JJ is good in space...and that's about it. We play action to the te/fb as much as anyone. Signing a guy like Plaxico in the off season would have helped. He draws double coverage still. Dustin Keller has been open all year.

Lack of a legit WR1 in the red zone is the biggest culprit, if we want to go down that road. And what I mean by that is they never use AJ. And inside the five, thye basically take him out of the game, or if he is in, he's a blocker. I have zero doubt AJ could be like Calvin Johnson in the red zone, but he's never used that way. I honestly don't get it. I wonder how many TDs AJ has in his career from inside the ten yard line?

God, that drives me crazy.

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 01:35 PM
Arian masks Schaub's red zone dificiencies. We can get by with Schaub in the RZ as long as we have Arian. That simply is unacceptable. All of the burden cannot and should not rest on one man's shoulder except for maybe the QB. We have to be able to be successful without Arian. Schaub's errant passes, lack of pocket presence, and general lack of poise (especially in the red zone) is directly causing the TEAM to be unable to perform in the red zone.

Poor AJ. He has dealt with two shitty red zone quarterbacks and that is directly why he has never had a double digit TD season.

If we can run the ball as well as we think we can run the ball, then it wouldn't just be Arian Foster.

We took ourselves out of the run game yesterday, for the most part, but the Saints did their part as well.

If we are who we think we are, Steve Slaton, Ben Tate, Derrick Ward should get it done.

Vinny
09-26-2011, 01:37 PM
Lack of a legit WR1 in the red zone is the biggest culprit, if we want to go down that road. And what I mean by that is they never use AJ. And inside the five, thye basically take him out of the game, or if he is in, he's a blocker. I have zero doubt AJ could be like Calvin Johnson in the red zone, but he's never used that way. I honestly don't get it. I wonder how many TDs AJ has in his career from inside the ten yard line?

God, that drives me crazy.AJ is always covered with multiple players in the rz. You run out of real estate in the rz (you no longer have to cover the length of the field...just the width), and with no real threat across from him, its really not that hard to triple team a guy in short space.

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 01:42 PM
Getting hands up, LB's on short drops, bump and run coverage are exactly what needed to be done. So why post about line play?



What? I'm putting this on the defense as a whole, not just the line
Yesterday, we scored 16 points in the first half, 17 in the second. So while the offense had issues... not scoring in the redzone, we lost it in the 4th qtr, when the offense scored 14 (that's two touchdowns if you didn't know).

We lost that game, because our young defense couldn't hold up. So while we have problems to work out on offense, I would be spending most of my energy trying to figure out what the biggest problem was on defense & get it fixed.

To me, it looked like when Mario left the game, our defense disappeared, which is a problem we've had for 6 years now, that we thought we fixed. What happened to JJ Watt? What happened to our "best DLman" Smith? What happened to Brooks? People want to trade Mario & move Brooks Reed into the starting line-up, last nights game should end that goofy talk.

93 yards. The winning touchdown drive for the Saints was 93 yards. If we could have stopped them on that drive, the TD/FG argument wouldn't mean crap.

We had them, & we let them off the hook.


Pressure simply will not get there in time. Coverage and taking away lanes is required.

Lots of near misses on pass blocks so hands up was taking place. Saw Watt have one go BETWEEN his arms. An inch either way would have been a great play.

I must have missed it.

It would have been nice to make a defensive stop on the long drive as it would have been nice to score more in the red zone. Maybe the Texans Offense should have had something to say about scoring TD in the red zone. Why is the defense the scapegoat?

In the 4th Qtr.. when it counted, we scored two touchdowns. Offense= good enough (considering we started with a lead)

The defense gave up 23 points (not counting the FG they took off the board). Defense = bad.

The D got two picks. Both gave the ball the the Texans Offense on the Saints side of the field. Might those picks have contributed to the Offense scoring some of those points?

I believe that turned into 10 points, what's your point? The Defense needed to make one more play.

To blame the Defense because they couldn't stop short field drives courtesy of the offense while diminishing the offensive contributions to the loss isn't reasonable.

The one that counted, the one they needed to stop was 93 yards.

eriadoc
09-26-2011, 01:48 PM
AJ is always covered with multiple players in the rz. You run out of real estate in the rz (you no longer have to cover the length of the field...just the width), and with no real threat across from him, its really not that hard to triple team a guy in short space.

OK, I just looked up red zone receiving TDs for AJ and CJ. Without going into individual game logs, I can't tell who has more inside the 10 or 5, where I suspect CJ has a huge advantage. But from 20-in, AJ and CJ both have 23 TDs over the past 5 years (counting 2011 so far). So I guess it just seems like CJ is used more in the red zone. I still think CJ is used more inside the 5, where you basically know CJ is getting the ball, and we don't seem to do that. But maybe it's just perception.

During the same stretch of time, Larry Fitzgerald has 35 TDs in the red zone.

Vinny
09-26-2011, 01:52 PM
OK, I just looked up red zone receiving TDs for AJ and CJ. Without going into individual game logs, I can't tell who has more inside the 10 or 5, where I suspect CJ has a huge advantage. But from 20-in, AJ and CJ both have 23 TDs over the past 5 years (counting 2011 so far). So I guess it just seems like CJ is used more in the red zone. I still think CJ is used more inside the 5, where you basically know CJ is getting the ball, and we don't seem to do that. But maybe it's just perception.

During the same stretch of time, Larry Fitzgerald has 35 TDs in the red zone.
he also had Anquan Boldin over most of that time.

Texan_Bill
09-26-2011, 01:55 PM
Those were both in the Colts game weren't they?

YUP, they sure were.

Honoring Earl 34
09-26-2011, 02:20 PM
AJ is always covered with multiple players in the rz. You run out of real estate in the rz (you no longer have to cover the length of the field...just the width), and with no real threat across from him, its really not that hard to triple team a guy in short space.


The place CJ isn't covered is straight up . He's a long 6'5 and AJ is what 6'2 ? I've also read where the Z blocking is harder in the RZ so the Texans will have to start trying for TD's or big plays from the 30 . Maybe Schaub can run the sloth gun formation which is an offshoot of the shotgun in the red zone .

The1ApplePie
09-26-2011, 02:46 PM
lack of a legit wr2 is the biggest culprit outside of a lack of Foster. He takes us from a great RZ team to a lesser one without him... Walter is a good possession guy, good blocker, but not an ideal rz guy. JJ is good in space...and that's about it. We play action to the te/fb as much as anyone. Signing a guy like Plaxico in the off season would have helped. He draws double coverage still. Dustin Keller has been open all year.

AJ and Dez Bryant would have be an incredible sight to behold:cow:

Being a Cowboys fan too I won't complain but good lord.

Gotta Know
09-26-2011, 03:06 PM
What? I'm putting this on the defense as a whole, not just the line



I must have missed it.

In the 4th Qtr.. when it counted, we scored two touchdowns. Offense= good enough (considering we started with a lead)

The defense gave up 23 points (not counting the FG they took off the board). Defense = bad.

I believe that turned into 10 points, what's your point? The Defense needed to make one more play.


The one that counted, the one they needed to stop was 93 yards.

Really, the 4th Qtr. is the only "when it counted"? They don't keep score in the early quarters so not scoring in the red zone didn't matter?

Allowing 23 points with two short fields is totally on the defense?

Yup this loss in on the D because THEY had a poor quarter in the only quarter that counted.

Thought I'd find some reasonable football minds here.

Oh well. See Ya

thunderkyss
09-26-2011, 05:20 PM
Really, the 4th Qtr. is the only "when it counted"? They don't keep score in the early quarters so not scoring in the red zone didn't matter?

Allowing 23 points with two short fields is totally on the defense?

Yup this loss in on the D because THEY had a poor quarter in the only quarter that counted.

Thought I'd find some reasonable football minds here.

Oh well. See Ya

Look, we can coulda, woulda, shoulda all day long on the first half field goals. But there are so many different things that could've happened from the kick off of the second half, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to go back that far.

I personally didn't want to shoot it out with the Saints, because I felt we couldn't win that fight. & we didn't. With the score on the low side, it was our game & that's what I saw on Sunday. We put their backs against the wall, they had no choice but to go 5 wide & start slinging it & we lost.

So if we had turned a few of those FGs into TDs, they would have "turned it on" earlier, they wouldn't have waited for the 3rd Qtr & we'd have to go score for score with them & we're not winning that battle. How many times did we lose it last year to lesser teams?

They would have kicked an onside if they needed it, they would have got it & we would still have to stop them. We showed that we couldn't do that.

Or... we can break it down to one possession. The one that counted. The one they took the final lead. 93 yards.

Is it too much to expect them to stop a 93 yard TD drive?

The offense could have helped... we got the ball with 9 minutes to go & a lead. We should have ran the ball again & again & again. They aren't a great run stopping defense. They could stop us once, maybe twice, but there is no way they should have been able to stop us handing the ball to Ben Tate three times in a row.

Regardless, if I've got a team pinned on their seven, little time on the clock, I know they are going to throw it, I would expect a defense to get a stop..... or at least hold them to a field goal.


93 yards. That doesn't happen everyday, you've got to try to give up a 93 yard touchdown drive.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 08:14 AM
great in theory, but players matter. Take out the most dynamic player on many teams and that team will suffer. In the rz, Foster is a dynamic player. He is much more of a slasher than Tate is and finds creases like Marcus Allen. Take Marcus Allen off those Raider teams and they don't score as much either.

Fair enough and good point.

I guess what plays into my frustration is that this has been a problem for the entire Kubiak regime except for last season when we had Arian. This is a problem that has to be fixed either by designing better plays for Matty is the red zone to get the ball to AJ or finding a new QB.

You guys may say "aw shucks" we lost but only because we didn't have Arian. I say bull shit, we should have won the game without Arian. Maybe we aren't as good of a red zone team without him but with our weapons (AJ, OD, Casey, Tate) we should be at least an average red zone team; instead, we are one of the worst teams in football at scoring tds in the red zone. That's why I'm pissed.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 08:23 AM
Look, we can coulda, woulda, shoulda all day long on the first half field goals. But there are so many different things that could've happened from the kick off of the second half, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to go back that far.

I personally didn't want to shoot it out with the Saints, because I felt we couldn't win that fight. & we didn't. With the score on the low side, it was our game & that's what I saw on Sunday. We put their backs against the wall, they had no choice but to go 5 wide & start slinging it & we lost.

So if we had turned a few of those FGs into TDs, they would have "turned it on" earlier, they wouldn't have waited for the 3rd Qtr & we'd have to go score for score with them & we're not winning that battle. How many times did we lose it last year to lesser teams?

They would have kicked an onside if they needed it, they would have got it & we would still have to stop them. We showed that we couldn't do that.

Or... we can break it down to one possession. The one that counted. The one they took the final lead. 93 yards.

Is it too much to expect them to stop a 93 yard TD drive?

The offense could have helped... we got the ball with 9 minutes to go & a lead. We should have ran the ball again & again & again. They aren't a great run stopping defense. They could stop us once, maybe twice, but there is no way they should have been able to stop us handing the ball to Ben Tate three times in a row.

Regardless, if I've got a team pinned on their seven, little time on the clock, I know they are going to throw it, I would expect a defense to get a stop..... or at least hold them to a field goal.


93 yards. That doesn't happen everyday, you've got to try to give up a 93 yard touchdown drive.

Great post and some very good points.

Regardless of my frustration with our piss poor red zone offense, the defense did screw the pooch.

Blake
09-27-2011, 08:46 AM
I hope everyone seeing the Cowboys win with 6 FG's puts this "redzone efficiency cost us the game" theory to bed.

You win, you overlook redzone efficiency and comment on how Romo played through injury and was a game manager to get the win.

You lose and you dissect every flaw ad nauseum.

"Thats all I have to say about that."

Ckw
09-27-2011, 11:50 AM
I hope everyone seeing the Cowboys win with 6 FG's puts this "redzone efficiency cost us the game" theory to bed.

You win, you overlook redzone efficiency and comment on how Romo played through injury and was a game manager to get the win.

You lose and you dissect every flaw ad nauseum.

"Thats all I have to say about that."

No. The Cowboys were lucky to win that game. If you want to beat the good teams, red zone efficiency DOES matter. Having Neil Rackers as your red zone offense isn't going to help you beat good teams. Sure, it will work against the Miamis, Washingtons, and Colts of the world, but it won't, typically, against the Ravens, Packers, Saints, and Steelers of the world.

But hey, why do I care about beating the good teams when I can just be happy and cheer when we beat up on the crappy ones? I'm just a stupid debbie downer!

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 12:43 PM
I hope everyone seeing the Cowboys win with 6 FG's puts this "redzone efficiency cost us the game" theory to bed.

Not really. A good team can afford to go 0 for 6 in the red zone for TDs when they play the Redskins. The Saints/Packers/Pats, not so much. You cannot let the elite offenses hang around, because they'll beat you. Defenses in the NFL today have all the rules against them. So when an elite offense faces them, they're going to give up points. That is the NFL today.

Hell, you're not even allowed to play safety in the NFL anymore. You just have four cornerbacks out there because the minute you try and knock the ball loose, it's a penalty. The rules are configured for offense. So if you get a chance to put away an elite offense early, you better damn well do it.

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 01:03 PM
Also, I'm hearing that Foster is so much better in the red zone than Tate, and I'm not sure it's true. Foster was great in the red zone last year, but the only real opportunities Tate has had in the red zone came in preseason and the Colts game, and he delivered. So how can anyone say he's not as good an option? Fact is, we don't know because he wasn't used in the red zone. Against the Saints, just the red zone and a little out from it:

Drive 1:

2-4-NO 26 (11:34) 44-B.Tate right tackle to NO 15 for 11 yards (91-W.Smith).
1-10-NO 15 (10:58) 44-B.Tate left end to NO 14 for 1 yard (98-S.Ellis; 58-S.Shanle).
2-9-NO 14 (10:18) 8-M.Schaub pass short middle to 81-O.Daniels for 14 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Pass 7, YAC 7

Drive 2:

1-10-NO 22 (5:34) 44-B.Tate right tackle to NO 11 for 11 yards (41-R.Harper).
1-10-NO 11 (4:51) 44-B.Tate left tackle to NO 8 for 3 yards (92-S.Rogers; 98-S.Ellis).
2-7-NO 8 (4:09) 8-M.Schaub pass incomplete short right to 81-O.Daniels (41-R.Harper).
3-7-NO 8 (4:03) (Shotgun) 8-M.Schaub pass short right to 80-A.Johnson to NO 4 for 4 yards (58-S.Shanle; 24-L.Torrence). Pass 4, YAC 0
4-3-NO 4 (3:20) 4-N.Rackers 22 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Weeks, Holder-2-B.Hartmann.

Drive 3: Punt
Drive 4: No rushing attempts, ended in FG
Drive 5: post-INT

1-10-NO 34 (6:10) 44-B.Tate left tackle to NO 33 for 1 yard (41-R.Harper; 94-C.Jordan).
2-9-NO 33 (5:32) 44-B.Tate left end to NO 14 for 19 yards (56-J.Dunbar).
1-10-NO 14 (4:49) 44-B.Tate left end to NO 14 for no gain (56-J.Dunbar; 91-W.Smith).
2-10-NO 14 (4:06) 44-B.Tate right tackle to NO 9 for 5 yards (98-S.Ellis).
Timeout #1 by NO at 04:00.
3-5-NO 9 (4:00) 8-M.Schaub pass incomplete short right to 81-O.Daniels.
4-5-NO 9 (3:56) 4-N.Rackers 27 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Weeks, Holder-2-B.Hartmann.

Drive 6: End of Half
Drive 7:

1-10-NO 25 (6:38) 44-B.Tate left tackle to NO 17 for 8 yards (41-R.Harper; 58-S.Shanle).
2-2-NO 17 (5:58) 20-S.Slaton right end to NO 18 for -1 yards (58-S.Shanle; 56-J.Dunbar).
3-3-NO 18 (5:18) 8-M.Schaub pass incomplete deep middle to 80-A.Johnson (24-L.Torrence).
4-3-NO 18 (5:12) 4-N.Rackers 36 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-J.Weeks, Holder-2-B.Hartmann.

Drive 8: post-INT

1-10-NO 42 (2:00) 8-M.Schaub pass short left to 80-A.Johnson to NO 30 for 12 yards (21-P.Robinson). Pass 12, YAC 0
1-10-NO 30 (1:26) 44-B.Tate left end to NO 22 for 8 yards (93-J.Galette).
2-2-NO 22 (:44) 44-B.Tate left end to NO 26 for -4 yards (91-W.Smith).
4th Quarter
3-6-NO 26 (15:00) (Shotgun) 8-M.Schaub pass deep right to 86-J.Casey for 26 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

Drive 9: punt
Drive 10: Schaub INT
Drive 11: (should have been Schaub INT)

1-10-NO 30 (4:31) 8-M.Schaub pass incomplete deep right to 86-J.Casey (52-J.Casillas).
2-10-NO 30 (4:26) 8-M.Schaub pass short right to 83-K.Walter pushed ob at NO 20 for 10 yards (33-J.Greer). Pass 10, YAC 0
1-10-NO 20 (4:21) 8-M.Schaub pass short left to 83-K.Walter for 20 yards, TOUCHDOWN [91-W.Smith]. Penalty on NO-41-R.Harper, Defensive Holding, declined. Pass 6, YAC 14

Drive 12: 4th down failure, game over

So I'm not seeing all this evidence that Tate is not a good red zone runner. If he'd been stuffed inside the 5 or even on subsequent attempts, we'd have something to discuss. But they just usually passed in the red zone.

Blake
09-27-2011, 01:05 PM
No. The Cowboys were lucky to win that game. If you want to beat the good teams, red zone efficiency DOES matter. Having Neil Rackers as your red zone offense isn't going to help you beat good teams. Sure, it will work against the Miamis, Washingtons, and Colts of the world, but it won't, typically, against the Ravens, Packers, Saints, and Steelers of the world.

But hey, why do I care about beating the good teams when I can just be happy and cheer when we beat up on the crappy ones? I'm just a stupid debbie downer!

Not really. A good team can afford to go 0 for 6 in the red zone for TDs when they play the Redskins. The Saints/Packers/Pats, not so much. You cannot let the elite offenses hang around, because they'll beat you. Defenses in the NFL today have all the rules against them. So when an elite offense faces them, they're going to give up points. That is the NFL today.

Hell, you're not even allowed to play safety in the NFL anymore. You just have four cornerbacks out there because the minute you try and knock the ball loose, it's a penalty. The rules are configured for offense. So if you get a chance to put away an elite offense early, you better damn well do it.

So all of the sudden the Redskins are chop liver? All I am trying to convey is you win the game you are praised and congratulated on a great game. If that same team ends up losing the game they are destroyed by the media, and fans pick apart your decisions. If a team gives you 3 points in their building you take them. Besides worrying about our teams redzone woes, maybe we should worry about our defense who gave up 23 points in the 4th quarter alone. Let the Saints convert 8-13 on 3rd down, and gave up 2 first downs on penalties.

These headlines would be quite different had they lost. So would have ours, had we won.

NFL.com: Tony Romo and a battered Cowboys team gut out an 18-16 victory over the Redskins behind rookie kicker Dan Bailey's six field goals.

ESPN.com: Jason Garrett provided the mindset. Tony Romo delivered the game-winning drive.

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 01:13 PM
So all of the sudden the Redskins are chop liver?

Yes. At least when comparing the offense to the Saints, Packers, and Pats. That's not to say you won't lose games against the Redskins by going 0-6 in the red zone. What I'm saying is the odds of having that backfire on you go up dramatically when you face an elite offense. That's why you see people complaining around here after a win. If the offense screws up in the red zone and wins 23-x or 26-x, then people know that will come back to bite you against the best teams. Now the Texans can finally compete against the best teams, but that old Achilles Heel is still there to remind us all where the team is still.

If you land on 16 points against the Redskins, you have a much better chance of coming away with a win than if you do the same against the Saints. So when you get the opportunity to put away those elite offenses early, you better take advantage of them. That's all I'm saying.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 01:25 PM
Besides worrying about our teams redzone woes, maybe we should worry about our defense who gave up 23 points in the 4th quarter alone. Let the Saints convert 8-13 on 3rd down, and gave up 2 first downs on penalties.

The Packers and their ELITE defense gave up 34 points to the Saints. Every once in a while, the Saints will have a bad game but most of the time, the Saints will get their points. You pretty much have to beat them with your offense and do your best to cause a few turnovers with your defense.

Yes, the defense should have done better, but the offense not being able to stay on the field in the second half caused them to get gassed and put them in a position to fail.

But this is not about one game. This is about a pattern with Kubiak's Texans. Either it is his playcalling, it is Matt, or it is some mixture of problems, but this offense has always had trouble scoring TDs in the red zone. You can write it off all you want to, but the fact is it is a problem and will continue to be a problem until Foster is back and is healthy.

The danger is our red zone problems are not something that can simply be overcome. They can and will cause us to lose football games. If Miami is a better football team, we are sitting at 1-2 right now instead of 2-1.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 01:35 PM
Yes. At least when comparing the offense to the Saints, Packers, and Pats. That's not to say you won't lose games against the Redskins by going 0-6 in the red zone. What I'm saying is the odds of having that backfire on you go up dramatically when you face an elite offense. That's why you see people complaining around here after a win. If the offense screws up in the red zone and wins 23-x or 26-x, then people know that will come back to bite you against the best teams. Now the Texans can finally compete against the best teams, but that old Achilles Heel is still there to remind us all where the team is still.

If you land on 16 points against the Redskins, you have a much better chance of coming away with a win than if you do the same against the Saints. So when you get the opportunity to put away those elite offenses early, you better take advantage of them. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you!!!!!!! Much better said than what I have been reiterating over and over. Every person on this board should read this post and reread it, and then come tell us what is so wrong with our line of thinking.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

I just don't get how more posters don't see this. It was a problem in the Miami game but because Miami isn't an upper tier team, we were still able to win. When the same problem, our Achilles Heel, popped up again in the Saints game, we lost. If the problem doesn't get fixed, we will continue to lose against the good teams.

This is where I just get pissed off at Texans fans. Either they just don't see what you and I are seeing or they just don't demand enough from their football team. Are you Texans fans simply ok with beating the Miamis and Jaguars of the world, or do you demand excellence from our football team? Me, personally, I'm sick of playing second fiddle to the Pats, Packers, Steelers, Saints, etc. I'm ready for us to be considered elite along with those guys. I'm not content with "moral victories" or playing it close. I want to WIN, and I want to be able to say and truly believe our team can beat any team on any given Sunday. Right now, you're kidding with yourself if you really believe that.

thunderkyss
09-27-2011, 01:54 PM
This is where I just get pissed off at Texans fans. Either they just don't see what you and I are seeing or they just don't demand enough from their football team. Are you Texans fans simply ok with beating the Miamis and Jaguars of the world, or do you demand excellence from our football team? Me, personally, I'm sick of playing second fiddle to the Pats, Packers, Steelers, Saints, etc. I'm ready for us to be considered elite along with those guys. I'm not content with "moral victories" or playing it close. I want to WIN, and I want to be able to say and truly believe our team can beat any team on any given Sunday. Right now, you're kidding with yourself if you really believe that.

My way would have won the game just as well. Defense, get one more stop.

On a 93 yard drive... that's the game right there.

Or even if the offense would have held the ball longer, not giving them an opportunity to drive the field.

Honoring Earl 34
09-27-2011, 02:00 PM
I love how everyone was hating on me big time in the game day thread last week. I was ganged up on like crazy for being upset about what I saw in that game a majority of which had to do with our red zone woes.

What do you guys have to say to me now?

Where all you CKW haters now ... huh ? :spin:

Mr teX
09-27-2011, 02:11 PM
Thank you!!!!!!! Much better said than what I have been reiterating over and over. Every person on this board should read this post and reread it, and then come tell us what is so wrong with our line of thinking.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

I just don't get how more posters don't see this. It was a problem in the Miami game but because Miami isn't an upper tier team, we were still able to win. When the same problem, our Achilles Heel, popped up again in the Saints game, we lost. If the problem doesn't get fixed, we will continue to lose against the good teams.

This is where I just get pissed off at Texans fans. Either they just don't see what you and I are seeing or they just don't demand enough from their football team. Are you Texans fans simply ok with beating the Miamis and Jaguars of the world, or do you demand excellence from our football team? Me, personally, I'm sick of playing second fiddle to the Pats, Packers, Steelers, Saints, etc. I'm ready for us to be considered elite along with those guys. I'm not content with "moral victories" or playing it close. I want to WIN, and I want to be able to say and truly believe our team can beat any team on any given Sunday. Right now, you're kidding with yourself if you really believe that.

I gave Ericadoc rep for the post b/c he's right. The difference with how he said it & how you've been saying it is that he's using the qualifier "when facing elite offenses". He's saying it knowing that it's not likely that we'll face an offense anymore this year that is anywhere in the stratosphere as capable of doing what that saints offense did to us in that 4th quarter.

You're saying it wrapping in elite "teams" as if every elite team has an offense that is capable of doing what the saints did to us & that's just not the case. In doing this, you're trying to ring the bell like our offense as whole is in trouble b/c we haven't been good in the redzone thus far while also ignoring the fact that we've had the opportunity to put up 30+ points in each of our 3 games this season....The only reason why that didn't happen is b/c we took a kneel at the 1 yd. line against Mia. That's good enough to win against ANYBODY...elite or not.

To boot, you're completely downplaying the significance of not having a 1600 yd. 16 TD beast in the backfield, like it would be easy for any team to overcome losing that kind of production available for you in the red zone.

You see the colts missing manning? nooooottttt quite an elite offense/team without him are they?

I'm sure you don't mean to do this but that's how it comes off........to me anyway.

Blake
09-27-2011, 02:38 PM
Thank you!!!!!!! Much better said than what I have been reiterating over and over. Every person on this board should read this post and reread it, and then come tell us what is so wrong with our line of thinking.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

I just don't get how more posters don't see this. It was a problem in the Miami game but because Miami isn't an upper tier team, we were still able to win. When the same problem, our Achilles Heel, popped up again in the Saints game, we lost. If the problem doesn't get fixed, we will continue to lose against the good teams.

This is where I just get pissed off at Texans fans. Either they just don't see what you and I are seeing or they just don't demand enough from their football team. Are you Texans fans simply ok with beating the Miamis and Jaguars of the world, or do you demand excellence from our football team? Me, personally, I'm sick of playing second fiddle to the Pats, Packers, Steelers, Saints, etc. I'm ready for us to be considered elite along with those guys. I'm not content with "moral victories" or playing it close. I want to WIN, and I want to be able to say and truly believe our team can beat any team on any given Sunday. Right now, you're kidding with yourself if you really believe that.

Agree with Ckw or he will get pissed off at you. News flash, not everyone agrees with your line of thinking. We are not the only team who has to kick FG's. Get that through your head.

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 02:48 PM
My way would have won the game just as well. Defense, get one more stop.

And I just think it's more realistic to expect a better TD ratio when in the red zone than to expect the defense to stop an elite offense with an elite QB when the game is on the line. Our defense isn't there yet. And frankly, with the rules going the way they're going, I don't think ANY defense is. Look at the Steelers in the Super Bowl last year against the Packers. The Steelers last year were probably the best defense in the NFL since the SB-winning Ravens. Except they didn't face the same caliber offense on the other side of the field. You can disagree with my point, but I think the stats at the end of the year will bear out that I'm right.

The difference with how he said it & how you've been saying it is that he's using the qualifier "when facing elite offenses". He's saying it knowing that it's not likely that we'll face an offense anymore this year that is anywhere in the stratosphere as capable of doing what that saints offense did to us in that 4th quarter.

Until the playoffs, no. The Colts' offense is obviously crippled without Manning, so that's the main one we have to face off against every year. Manning has taken advantage of the Texans' inability to put them away early on more than a few occasions. Drew Brees just did the same thing. The Pats and probably the Chargers are the two in the AFC we'd need to outscore and take advantage of those red zone opportunities. I mean, we need to score on all of them, but you can get away with it a little more against a dozen other AFC teams.

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 02:49 PM
We are not the only team who has to kick FG's.

No, but the really good offenses don't go 1 for 4 quite as frequently as the Texans do.

Mr teX
09-27-2011, 03:01 PM
And I just think it's more realistic to expect a better TD ratio when in the red zone than to expect the defense to stop an alite offense with an elite QB when the game is on the line. Our defense isn't there yet. And frankly, with the rules going the way they're going, I don't think ANY defense is. Look at the Steelers in the Super Bowl last year against the Packers. The Steelers last year were probably the best defense in the NFL since the SB-winning Ravens. Except they didn't face the same caliber offense on the other side of the field. You can disagree with my point, but I think the stats at the end of the year will bear out that I'm right.



Until the playoffs, no. The Colts' offense is obviously crippled without Manning, so that's the main one we have to face off against every year. Manning has taken advantage of the Texans' inability to put them away early on more than a few occasions. Drew Brees just did the same thing. The Pats and probably the Chargers are the two in the AFC we'd need to outscore and take advantage of those red zone opportunities. I mean, we need to score on all of them, but you can get away with it a little more against a dozen other AFC teams.

I agree, But the reality is we'd be in the same boat as other teams once the playoffs hit though.

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 03:08 PM
I agree, But the reality is we'd be in the same boat as other teams once the playoffs hit though.

Yep! In the playoffs!! I just think the sensible way to view it is to understand that if you give Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Philip Rivers, and maybe one or two other QBs the chance to drive 93 yards to win the game, they're going to do it more often than not. After all, they've done it often enough that everyone should have learned by now. So don't give them that chance. The easiest way to avoid giving them that chance is to take advantage of your scoring opportunities and give those guys a couple less possessions. The Texans did one of those.

thunderkyss
09-27-2011, 04:55 PM
And I just think it's more realistic to expect a better TD ratio when in the red zone than to expect the defense to stop an elite offense with an elite QB


One stop out of three possessions? That's asking too much?


when the game is on the line.

& that's the difference right there. Do you agree then, that our offense is not elite? Not until we get that intangible quality.

& by the way, GB stopped them, with the game on the line.



Our defense isn't there yet.


Ah... ok, I agree.


And frankly, with the rules going the way they're going, I don't think ANY defense is. Look at the Steelers in the Super Bowl last year against the Packers. The Steelers last year were probably the best defense in the NFL since the SB-winning Ravens. Except they didn't face the same caliber offense on the other side of the field. You can disagree with my point, but I think the stats at the end of the year will bear out that I'm right.


Well see. I didn't think we'd ever have that kind of defense, that #1, intimidating defense. But after watching what they did the first three weeks... & realizing that's where we've been spending our money, I don't see why not. With Wade doing what he do, for "his dad's team"


why not?

eriadoc
09-27-2011, 05:58 PM
One stop out of three possessions? That's asking too much?


& that's the difference right there. Do you agree then, that our offense is not elite? Not until we get that intangible quality.

& by the way, GB stopped them, with the game on the line.


Ah... ok, I agree.



Well see. I didn't think we'd ever have that kind of defense, that #1, intimidating defense. But after watching what they did the first three weeks... & realizing that's where we've been spending our money, I don't see why not. With Wade doing what he do, for "his dad's team"


why not?

Personally, I think the days of shutdown defense are over. I think you're far more likely to see blitzing, opportunistic defenses that try and get the ball rather than stop teams. Because realistically, look at how infrequently offenses have been stopped over the past ten years .... five years .... one year. And my point about Pittsburgh stands. They were the most dominant defense we've seen in a decade and they got scored upon plenty in the SB. The game is just geared to offense now. It sucks, but it's what we're left with.

If I have to bet odds in Vegas and it's the best defense this year against Drew Brees or Tom Brady, with 93 yards to go and the game on the line ...... I'm thinking Brees wins that one more often than not. Put Kareem Jackson on that defense and see which way the odds go.

So if you believe that (you don't have to, but we'll see, won't we?), then it logically follows that you better land that KO blow when you can. Because late in the game, these offenses are so good, even Belichick will make a stupid call to avoid giving the QB the ball back.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 06:22 PM
Agree with Ckw or he will get pissed off at you. News flash, not everyone agrees with your line of thinking. We are not the only team who has to kick FG's. Get that through your head.

I disagree with him, but Mr tex has at least taken the time to respond to my posts. He clearly has stated his perspective and does make some very good points.

You on the other hand, just made the single most pointless post I've read all day. Not everyone agrees with me? You don't say! I get pissed off at some Texans fans? My goodness you are an astute individual!

Thanks for responding to the actual substance of my post and especially what I said after the statement you bolded. I truly am curious exactly what goes through the minds of some fans. This constant talk of moral victories, in it for 3 quarters, and we hung in there against the best offense in the NFL has been going on for years. Even with as tired as you probably are of reading my posts, I am even more tired of this sissy bull shit of this being a different team because we somehow lost in more style. We didn't get our asses handed to us! Hooray! Newsflash: we still lost.

All I'm asking is for the team to show me something different. I've seen us beat up on nobodies before. I've seen us dominate a good team for 3 quarters only to go off and lose. I've watched plenty of moral victories and celebrated along with many of you about those moral victories. Now, I'm tired of it. I've been there and done that.

I want to see something different from these Texans. So far I haven't.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 06:36 PM
I gave Ericadoc rep for the post b/c he's right. The difference with how he said it & how you've been saying it is that he's using the qualifier "when facing elite offenses". He's saying it knowing that it's not likely that we'll face an offense anymore this year that is anywhere in the stratosphere as capable of doing what that saints offense did to us in that 4th quarter.

You're saying it wrapping in elite "teams" as if every elite team has an offense that is capable of doing what the saints did to us & that's just not the case. In doing this, you're trying to ring the bell like our offense as whole is in trouble b/c we haven't been good in the redzone thus far while also ignoring the fact that we've had the opportunity to put up 30+ points in each of our 3 games this season....The only reason why that didn't happen is b/c we took a kneel at the 1 yd. line against Mia. That's good enough to win against ANYBODY...elite or not.

Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for the "spat" we got into the other day that morphed into name calling. I'm enjoying your posts, and I enjoy the debate.

I still stand by what I have been saying. If this offense can't score TDs in the red zone against weaker defensive opponents (Miami and New Orleans), then I doubt we will be scoring many red zone touchdowns against Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

Right now, I just don't think our defense is good enough YET to withstand our offense blowing opportunities in the red zone like they have been. I definitely think we have a good offense; I don't think we have an elite offense. And if our defense is going to be no better than middle of the pack, then I personally believe our offense needs to be elite.

To boot, you're completely downplaying the significance of not having a 1600 yd. 16 TD beast in the backfield, like it would be easy for any team to overcome losing that kind of production available for you in the red zone.

You see the colts missing manning? nooooottttt quite an elite offense/team without him are they?

I'm sure you don't mean to do this but that's how it comes off........to me anyway.

I apologize if that's what it seems like I'm doing. Arian happens to be probably my second favorite Texan (behind AJ), so I am not communicating my thoughts (had heart surgery last Monday and have been on major pain killers since) well enough. Arian is a beast and our team no doubt will be better when he returns.

My issue/gripe is with Kubiak as we have had red zone issues his entire issue except for last year for Arian came out of nowhere. It is a major problem IMO, and I'm truly not sure if the problem lies solely with Gary, with Matt, with our receivers, etc. But to be an elite offense, we have got to be able to score TDs in the red zone. I don't understand why we can't seem to get the ball more in the red zone to the best WR in the game. I don't understand why we can't seem to get the ball more to one of the best pass catching TEs in the game in the red zone.

So yes, we will be better when Arian gets back, but no player should matter this much to an offense (especially one we didn't even know we had) except for maybe a QB. Because of the amount of control a QB has on an offense, I can understand a team collapsing when they lose their star QB. But we didn't draft Arian thinking he was going to be Marcus Allen. Everything Arian does for us should just be icing on the cake. Instead, he has become the entire meal and without him, our team appears to be anemic in the red zone.

TejasTom
09-27-2011, 06:40 PM
I just don't get how more posters don't see this. It was a problem in the Miami game but because Miami isn't an upper tier team, we were still able to win. When the same problem, our Achilles Heel, popped up again in the Saints game, we lost. If the problem doesn't get fixed, we will continue to lose against the good teams.

Reminds me of my favorite Jeff Van Gundy quote.

"Donít accept in victory what you wonít accept in defeat. You canít overlook mistakes when you win a game, because they will come back to haunt you later. "

Ckw
09-27-2011, 06:42 PM
Reminds me of my favorite Jeff Van Gundy quote.

"Don’t accept in victory what you won’t accept in defeat. You can’t overlook mistakes when you win a game, because they will come back to haunt you later. "

Rep your way. Very nice quote! Definitely sums it up much more succinctly than I have. So true. Even if it is impossible to reach, we should always strive for perfection.

Oh shit! And I am officially a lose. 5,000 posts!!!!!!!!

thunderkyss
09-27-2011, 06:56 PM
So if you believe that (you don't have to, but we'll see, won't we?), then it logically follows that you better land that KO blow when you can. Because late in the game, these offenses are so good, even Belichick will make a stupid call to avoid giving the QB the ball back.

Agreed

leebigeztx
09-27-2011, 11:01 PM
The redzone has always been a problem for the texans with the exception of last year. Whether its the playcalling or the qb talent, they've struggled. The qb becomes even more important because of this. Its really hard to understand why when the team has 2 6'3 wrs and a 6'4 te and fb hybrid. I watched kolb just throw it up to fitz and he went a got it. Stafford does the same with megatron. Inside the 20, you don't have to fool people, just do what you should do. Let the big wrs use their attributes.

DexmanC
09-27-2011, 11:07 PM
Stats occur within the context of a game.
You may score a touchdown in a situation against a certain team,
but go 3-and-out in the same situation against a better team.

These stats mean shit, outside of the game in which they were played.
There is only one stat that carries its importance from one game to
the next, all the way until the final whistle of the 16th game.

This is why the ULTIMATE barometer for how good a team is, shall
ALWAYS BE WIN/LOSS.

The Texans have yet to beat an opponent that has at least ONE win
on the season.

Ckw
09-27-2011, 11:14 PM
Just want to say I love all you guys and especially love the fact that we have a TEAM that we can all get on this message board and argue about!

Blake
09-28-2011, 08:24 AM
I disagree with him, but Mr tex has at least taken the time to respond to my posts. He clearly has stated his perspective and does make some very good points.

You on the other hand, just made the single most pointless post I've read all day. Not everyone agrees with me? You don't say! I get pissed off at some Texans fans? My goodness you are an astute individual!

Thanks for responding to the actual substance of my post and especially what I said after the statement you bolded.

That is the problem. Your posts have no substance to respond to. You would ***** and complain if we lost on the road to the '72 Dolphins. We are not better than all 31 teams! We have a chance to win every Sunday but that doesnt mean we will execute our gameplan flawlessly and pull out the W. You are the type of fan that wont be happy until we go 16-0 and win each contest by 2 touchdowns.

I truly am curious exactly what goes through the minds of some fans. This constant talk of moral victories, in it for 3 quarters, and we hung in there against the best offense in the NFL has been going on for years. Even with as tired as you probably are of reading my posts, I am even more tired of this sissy bull shit of this being a different team because we somehow lost in more style. We didn't get our asses handed to us! Hooray! Newsflash: we still lost.

All I'm asking is for the team to show me something different. I've seen us beat up on nobodies before. I've seen us dominate a good team for 3 quarters only to go off and lose. I've watched plenty of moral victories and celebrated along with many of you about those moral victories. Now, I'm tired of it. I've been there and done that.

I want to see something different from these Texans. So far I haven't.

I feel bad for you if you are unable to enjoy our victories by chalking them up as beating up on nobody, because you will never be happy with the team you follow. I guarantee the Steelers fans are ecstatic about their W in Indy while you chalk it up to a trash win.

Here is to ignoring your next 5,000 posts. Cheers.

Mr teX
09-28-2011, 09:13 AM
Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for the "spat" we got into the other day that morphed into name calling. I'm enjoying your posts, and I enjoy the debate.

I still stand by what I have been saying. If this offense can't score TDs in the red zone against weaker defensive opponents (Miami and New Orleans), then I doubt we will be scoring many red zone touchdowns against Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

Right now, I just don't think our defense is good enough YET to withstand our offense blowing opportunities in the red zone like they have been. I definitely think we have a good offense; I don't think we have an elite offense. And if our defense is going to be no better than middle of the pack, then I personally believe our offense needs to be elite.



I apologize if that's what it seems like I'm doing. Arian happens to be probably my second favorite Texan (behind AJ), so I am not communicating my thoughts (had heart surgery last Monday and have been on major pain killers since) well enough. Arian is a beast and our team no doubt will be better when he returns.

My issue/gripe is with Kubiak as we have had red zone issues his entire issue except for last year for Arian came out of nowhere. It is a major problem IMO, and I'm truly not sure if the problem lies solely with Gary, with Matt, with our receivers, etc. But to be an elite offense, we have got to be able to score TDs in the red zone. I don't understand why we can't seem to get the ball more in the red zone to the best WR in the game. I don't understand why we can't seem to get the ball more to one of the best pass catching TEs in the game in the red zone.

So yes, we will be better when Arian gets back, but no player should matter this much to an offense (especially one we didn't even know we had) except for maybe a QB. Because of the amount of control a QB has on an offense, I can understand a team collapsing when they lose their star QB. But we didn't draft Arian thinking he was going to be Marcus Allen. Everything Arian does for us should just be icing on the cake. Instead, he has become the entire meal and without him, our team appears to be anemic in the red zone.

Yeah, i apologize as well, we both were ticked off about the game that day, we just expressed it differently. U vented immediately & i tried to hold it in....unsuccessfully of course. I really try not to get so emotionally wrapped up when posting on this messageboard but i can't help it at times. i guess i was setting myself up for failure coming here right after a crushing defeat.

as far as the topic at hand, i agree we probably should try to do more of just throwing it up to AJ & letting him go get it, but with the saints dropping 8 into coverage every time we got down there (as i heard on the radio williams was doing every time we got down there) even that is difficult to execute. What's more is that putting the ball up like that with so many defenders in close proximity increases the chances of something bad happening. Then we also don't have any legit #2 opposite AJ so....

At the end of the day i think people often forget what this offense really wants to do (which is run the ball) b/c we've passed the ball so well under kubiak. That becomes more critical in the red zone when you've got a qb not known for his arm strength to zip a ball in a tight spot if so like you often have to do passing the ball in the red zone. when you look at it from that perspective, it makes sense why we've had red zone issues on & off since Kubiak has been here.........It's been b/c we haven't had a legit starting rb under the kubiak regime to do what he really wants to do in the red zone...until last year of course.

Sure, there are creative passing options available for us now that we've got casey more involved, but those will only work so many times & at the end of the day, you don't want to stray too far from your overall philosophy. The jets have the same issue. They want to run it all day, but shaun greene has terrible vision (fantasy nightmare for me in 2 leagues) except they don't have a an AF to look forward to & they don't have a qb that can pass the ball as well as Schaub....imo of course.

This is why i think we decided to go ahead & release Slaton & bring up OB. OB isn't a world beater by any stretch, but he's smart & can do everything just as well or better than slaton. Its too early to tell, but i'm sure his vision can't be any worse than slaton's. Most importantly however, he's alot bigger (205 vs. 225) & able to slam the ball up in there & push the pile better than slaton if need be. Up to this point, Tate's been the only back we've had available with the attributes to be able to do that but he needs a breather.