Jaws gives breakdown on Schaub (AFC South Blog)

[ckhouston]

Originally Posted by JB

Gary is a west coast coach, we are not going to be a ground and pound type of team

Gary came from Denver

In 1997 they rushed 520 times, passed 513 times in the reg season, and then went 150 rush to 96 pass in the postseason, and won the SB.

In 1998 they rushed 525 times and passed 491 times in the reg season,and then went 112 rush to 86 pass in the postseason, and won the SB.

Before they they were a pass first team (by a wide margin in some years) and didn't win.

Think Gary remembers that?

[JB]

Originally Posted by ckhouston

Gary came from Denver

In 1997 they rushed 520 times, passed 513 times in the reg season, and then went 150 rush to 96 pass in the postseason, and won the SB.

In 1998 they rushed 525 times and passed 491 times in the reg season,and then went 112 rush to 86 pass in the postseason, and won the SB.

Before they they were a pass first team (by a wide margin in some years) and didn't win.

Think Gary remembers that?

I guess i misunderstood your "ground and pound" comment. I agree we will run the ball

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by ckhouston

Gary came from Denver

In 1997 they rushed 520 times, passed 513 times in the reg season, and then went 150 rush to 96 pass in the postseason, and won the SB.

In 1998 they rushed 525 times and passed 491 times in the reg season,and then went 112 rush to 86 pass in the postseason, and won the SB.

Before they they were a pass first team (by a wide margin in some years) and didn't win.

Think Gary remembers that?

Ground and pound is different than just being a rushing team. Ground and pound implies a straight-ahead, hat-on-a-hat blocking scheme.

The knock on those teams back then was that, although they were a rushing team, they were still a "finesse" team because of the zone blocking scheme. That's what Lombardi was really going on about last year about us being soft. He was just aping that old bs about a zone blocking scheme team being soft because it's not a ground and pound, hat-on-a-hat, "manly" approach. It's more cerebral.

[JB]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

Ground and pound is different than just being a rushing team. Ground and pound implies a straight-ahead, hat-on-a-hat blocking scheme.

The knock on those teams back then was that, although they were a rushing team, they were still a "finesse" team because of the zone blocking scheme. That's what Lombardi was really going on about last year about us being soft. He was just aping that old bs about a zone blocking scheme team being soft because it's not a ground and pound, hat-on-a-hat, "manly" approach. It's more cerebral.

Yeah, when I hear "ground and pound", I envision the steelers with Franco Harris or the Oilers with Earl Campbell

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by JB

Gary is a west coast coach, we are not going to be a ground and pound type of team

Exactly. Even when I hear rushing first team I don't think of any WCO team.

ck put some stats up - here is a contrasting example in what it actually means to be rushing first.

2009 New York Jets - 393 passing attempts, 607 rushing attempts.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GP

Kubiak opens with passing game because defenses are keying on the run.

They've got Arian Foster on their mind all week leading up to the game against us. They've got Foster on their mind Sunday breakfast. And in the locker room. And during warmups. And during the national anthem.

So you go with a few passes right off the bat...because they're anticipating Foster.

Then the run game. Then the play action. Then AJ or OD. And soon, the defense doesn't know what to defend.

Of course we're going to trick them up with the pass. They obviously have absolutely no reason to be thinking about Matt Schaub & Andre Johnson.

None.

They'll just be so focused on Arian Foster & Ben Tate.

Andre Johnson.... pfft....

Matt 4,000 yards per year... pfft....

[Rey]

The Texans led the league in rushing attempts.

We were 30th in passing attempts.

If we aren't a running team then no one is.


Schaub had about 70 more completions in '08 than he did last year even though in '08 he only played one more game.

Schaub was having his worst year in completion percentage since he's been here, but he was still on pace to have a very good season because his ypc were the highest it's been since he's been here by far. I think some of that has to do with the fact that we had our first back to back years of a dynamic rushing attack.

You can point to Yates as the reason passing attemps were down, but Yates on average attempted only 7 less passes than Schaub and that is with him sitting out the entire Titans game with the exception of the first drive. And that's also including the game Where TJ took over for Leinart.

The most attempts Matt had in a game was 39 and the most TJ had in a game was 44.

Despite popular belief, we didn't go into a shell because TJ was the QB. We still threw the ball around about the same.


Now, that's not saying that in specific situations they didn't pull back on the reins some. Like for instance the Colts game. TJ was having a good game actually, but for some reason the coaches didn't give him more attempts. (I will admit that I didn't watch that game...I was in Vegas and only caught bits and pieces and highlights)

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Against the Raiders, a team that was known to be mediocre at defending the run, one would expect the Texans would at least run as much as they did in 2010.

However, thie year, the Raiders were determined to stop the Texans running game. They played mostly single safety, and even zero coverage to bring more men into the box.

The Texans ran the ball 16 times and passed the ball 21 times in the first half.
Then they started the second half with roughly the same distribution (7 runs and 10 pass attempts) as the Raiders continued with their defensive game plan and forged ahead by 8 with 10 minutes to go in the 4th.

It was only then that the Texans switched full gear to the passing game.

The Texans tried to stay with the running game for as long as possible even though it wasn't working.

In fact, a case could be made for the Texans to throw a few more times in the first 3 quarters given the defensive game plan by the Raiders.

Originally Posted by Lucky

I think you have to see the game, rather than the stats. The Texans passed 2X the number of rushes, yet you are saying they didn't pass enough? And passing ypa will always be greater than rushing yards per attempt. The Texans hit on 3 big pass plays to get a big chunk of that yardage. And only came away with 10 points off those plays. It was a poor offensive showing all around, but it was the negative plays in the passing game (ints & sacks) that kept the Raiders in the game, and eventually lost the game for the Texans.

Not only did I rewatch the 2011 game; I also rewatched the 2010 game.
That was why I made the comparison.
(I went back and re-rewatch them again to be sure.)

In 2010, the Texans ran 12 running plays and 21 passing plays in the first half as compared with 16 and 22 in 2011.

We attempted a few more running plays in 2011 (16 of 38) as opposed to (12 of 33) even though the Raiders geared a little more toward defending the run.

I only said that a case can be made for us to pass the ball a few more times in the first 3 quarters.

To really look at how well the passing game, let's take a closer look:

1. On our first drive, Schaub converted a third and 2 with a pass to JJ for 9. The drive resulted in a TD completion to Walter.

2. On our second drive, Schaub converted a third and 1 with a 4 yd pass to Walter. He followed it up with an interception. On this play, we had max protect. Schaub's execution was not good as he threw the ball where there was a single block. There were a few things Schaub can do better here, including throwing the ball away, but it doesn't mean that the passing game wasn't working.

3. On our 3rd drive, 2 runs by Foster netted two yards, leaving Schaub to face 3rd and 8. The Raiders sent an all-out blitz (zero coverage). Schaub had a natural screen on the left to Dreessen but he picked the wrong side as he threw an incompletion to Casy on the right. There was also an extra blitzer on this side, making the throw more difficult. Again, it was not the best execution by Schaub, but his job was made tougher when the run game bogged down.

4. On our 4th drive (2nd quarter), the Texans failed to convert on 3rd and 2 as Foster rushed for no gain (the Raiders had more men then the Texans can block effectively).

5. Our 5th drive needeed only one 56yd pass to Dreessen for a TD.

6. We faced 2nd and 6 on our next drive. Schaub's pass to JJ was slightly too far ahead; both JJ and Walter were "open" on the same side.
On third down, the Raiders sent another all-out blitz; McClain batted down a pass to Foster. Basically a good gamble that paid off for the Raiders - even though Schaub might have a chance to extend the play here, I can't be too hard on him. There were a couple of receiver "open" on this play.

7. Schaub converted another third and 5 with a pass to Anderson for 9.
Then on third and 7, Schaub's screen pass to Walter only worked for 5 yards as Wade Smith whiffed on a block. This one could have resulted in a TD easily as the Texans had 2 more blockers than the Raiders on this side (as the came in on another blitz).

8. With 1:04 left in the half, there wasn't really a whole lot of time here to take any risk as the Texans still had the lead 14-12.

...

I don's see how any one can say that the passing game wasn't working. It didn't work great, but 13 of 21 for 177 yards and 2 TDs is plenty good for me.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Rey

The Texans led the league in rushing attempts.

We were 30th in passing attempts.

If we aren't a running team then no one is.

Check the distribution between the run ans the pass in the first half; it will tell you a different story.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Rey

The Texans led the league in rushing attempts.

We were 30th in passing attempts.

If we aren't a running team then no one is.

One year, particularly one with a QB change doesn't define a franchise.

Schaub threw 32 times per game. TJ threw 22.

Pretty simple question - was having Schaub in the game our preference? It was according to the coaches who put him in there and called the plays.

15 TD's 6 INT's with Schaub. 3 TD's 3 INT's with TJ.

20 passing TD's, 16 rushing TD's on the season. 27 ppg under Schaub, 17 ppg under TJ.

[badboy]

Rather than passing or rushing, I am more interested in how many times we cross the goal line this season rather than on the means of crossing. We have a balanced attack.

[Texn4life]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

One year, particularly one with a QB change doesn't define a franchise.

Schaub threw 32 times per game. TJ threw 22.

Pretty simple question - was having Schaub in the game our preference? It was according to the coaches who put him in there and called the plays.

15 TD's 6 INT's with Schaub. 3 TD's 3 INT's with TJ.

20 passing TD's, 16 rushing TD's on the season. 27 ppg under Schaub, 17 ppg under TJ.

On top of of that and the other stats you and others put out there, we were missing Andre Johnson for most of the year. That obviously played a big role in why we were so run heavy oriented last year. With AJ out, we never really had a huge threat in the passing game. Couple that with a smart mentality of Kubiak not wanting his young QB to lose the game for us and its a recipe for putting the ball in the gut of Foster/Tate quite a bit.

[Texecutioner]

Originally Posted by Rey

Despite popular belief, we didn't go into a shell because TJ was the QB. We still threw the ball around about the same.

They hardly threw the ball at all. Kubiak didn't trust Yates, because he was a young rookie. Andre Johnson wasn't out there either, so the weapons in the passing game were very limited as well. It's popular belief, because that's what happened.

Originally Posted by Texn4life

On top of of that and the other stats you and others put out there, we were missing Andre Johnson for most of the year. That obviously played a big role in why we were so run heavy oriented last year. With AJ out, we never really had a huge threat in the passing game. Couple that with a smart mentality of Kubiak not wanting his young QB to lose the game for us and its a recipe for putting the ball in the gut of Foster/Tate quite a bit.

Exactly. I"m not sure why this is hard to understand. A team loses it's top ten QB, and it's top 3 WR in the entire league, what are the odds that the offense becomes more run oriented when your other best weapons on that offense are the two RB's?? The Texans had to become a lot more run oriented.

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

To really look at how well the passing game, let's take a closer look:

1. On our first drive, Schaub converted a third and 2 with a pass to JJ for 9. The drive resulted in a TD completion to Walter. (The scoring drive was setup by a 20 yard run into Raider territory by Foster on a 3rd &1).

2. On our second drive, Schaub converted a third and 1 with a 4 yd pass to Walter. He followed it up with an interception. On this play, we had max protect. Schaub's execution was not good as he threw the ball where there was a single block. There were a few things Schaub can do better here, including throwing the ball away, but it doesn't mean that the passing game wasn't working. (So other than poor execution that led to Raider points, the passing game was working? OK).

3. On our 3rd drive, 2 runs by Foster netted two yards, leaving Schaub to face 3rd and 8. The Raiders sent an all-out blitz (zero coverage). Schaub had a natural screen on the left to Dreessen but he picked the wrong side as he threw an incompletion to Casy on the right. There was also an extra blitzer on this side, making the throw more difficult. Again, it was not the best execution by Schaub, but his job was made tougher when the run game bogged down. (So neither the pass nor the run worked on that drive. So abandon the run.)

4. On our 4th drive (2nd quarter), the Texans failed to convert on 3rd and 2 as Foster rushed for no gain (the Raiders had more men then the Texans can block effectively). (After the initial scoring drive, the Texans went 2 for their next 11 in 3rd down conversions while passing. Was that an indication that the passing game was working?)

I'm not suggesting that the Texans ran the ball too little. What I'm saying is that the passing game was sub par, as well. More passing and less running wasn't necessarily going to help the cause of the passing game. What would have helped was a better job of executing in both the run and pass game. If either had been consistently effective, the Texans wouldn't have lost that Sunday.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Lucky

I'm not suggesting that the Texans ran the ball too little. What I'm saying is that the passing game was sub par, as well. More passing and less running wasn't necessarily going to help the cause of the passing game. What would have helped was a better job of executing in both the run and pass game. If either had been consistently effective, the Texans wouldn't have lost that Sunday.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

To me, with the defense gearing up to play the run in the first half, the Texans could have done better attempting about two more passes for a better run/pass distribution according to the opponent's defensive game plan.

We did it in 2010 against the Raiders; we didn't do that in 2011 (a better run/pass distribution according to how the defense schemes for us.)

13 for 21, 177 yards and 2 TDs in the passing game vs. 16 carries for 56 yards clearly showed that it was the running game that dragged us down.

13 for 21 is a 61.9 % completion percentage (Schaub's number for the year is 61%).
The 8.42 ypa is almost the same as Schaub's average for the year (8.49 ypa).

On the other hand, our RBs averaged 4.62 ypc for the year;
in the first half of this game, they posted 3.5 ypc, which is way below that average.

[76Texan]

Also, note that the Texans covert 4 of 8 third down chances with the pass in the first half; including the sack Schaub took with 23 secs left to go in the half instead of risking a throw. That's not a bad third-down conversion rate.