The Texans a run-first team, I think not!

[GP]

RUN FIRST is not the question. Nobody is a ANYTHING FIRST.

Again, what makes everything work BETTER?

With the Saints and old Colts...they passed so well that they could sneak in HB draws and HB sweeps or stretch run plays, and you could get caught napping.

With the Texans, we run the ball sooooo beautifully (coordination between everyone, btw, not JUST a RB and not JUST the OL...but rather even the WR, the TEs, the QB. Everybody) that people get caught napping on the pass.

If I had to choose which poison to take, when playing defense against the Texans...I choose to stuff the run and pray to God that the Texans can't chew me up and spit me out on the pass plays. Because if I don't stop the run, the clock keeps burning and my offense doesn't hit the field. If the Texans must pass against me, then maybe they drop a ball or get sacked...a much better chance of success for my team if I'm opposing the Texans.

76, I love ya' man, but let us know when you're doing this for a living and not as a hobby. Until then, you're going to be able to skew stats and find things that support your hunch...i.e. the whole Kareem Jackson saga.

[GP]

Originally Posted by eriadoc

What's your definition of a run-first team? Is there one in the NFL?

As I have said elsewhere, Kubiak would like to be able to put up a lead int he first half and grind it out in the second. That doesn't always go his way.

Exactly.

Some teams do some things better. For each of the 32 teams, they can each have a widely, vastly different "makeup" of how they approach each game of a season.

For some teams, they might understand that they have to focus or emphasize one thing in order for another thing to work better (compensating or leveraging, for effect). Another team might have that focus/attention flip flopped for reasons specific to their team's coaches, players, etc.

I doubt that Wade Phillips and Dom Capers, both arguably very good 34 Defense d-coords, are going to pattern or do things exactly as the other fellow does. They do the same thing, they do it differently though. Various nuance and subtle wrinkles, maybe even degrees of different philosophies on certain aspects too.

This isn't about finding the statistical ABSOLUTE of run vs. pass. To me, this is being blown out of proportion. Nobody here, doing this as a hobby, is going to have the whole picture no matter how much the person watches or listens or studies. To me, we're all offering a scattered patchwork of our own ideas about what makes the Texans tick. This is getting comical.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Rey

All this stuff is fine and dandy, but in a vacuum it doesn't mean a whole lot really.

For instance, against Miami Arian wasn't doing all that well. So instead of 2nd and 5 or 3rd and 3 were in 2nd and 8 and 3rd and 6.....

Basically we needed to rely more heavily on the pass than we did on the run because of how the game played out.

Try again, Rey.
Nothing of the sort happened in the first half.
(1) The running game was not the focus.
(2) It wasn't the failure of the running game that forced the Texans into passing the ball.
(3) Hell, for a run-oriented team, how do you suggest the Texans to "abandon" the run when they led throughout the first half to the tune of 16-3???

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by GP

RUN FIRST is not the question. Nobody is a ANYTHING FIRST.

Again, what makes everything work BETTER?

With the Saints and old Colts...they passed so well that they could sneak in HB draws and HB sweeps or stretch run plays, and you could get caught napping.

With the Texans, we run the ball sooooo beautifully (coordination between everyone, btw, not JUST a RB and not JUST the OL...but rather even the WR, the TEs, the QB. Everybody) that people get caught napping on the pass.

If I had to choose which poison to take, when playing defense against the Texans...I choose to stuff the run and pray to God that the Texans can't chew me up and spit me out on the pass plays. Because if I don't stop the run, the clock keeps burning and my offense doesn't hit the field. If the Texans must pass against me, then maybe they drop a ball or get sacked...a much better chance of success for my team if I'm opposing the Texans.

76, I love ya' man, but let us know when you're doing this for a living and not as a hobby. Until then, you're going to be able to skew stats and find things that support your hunch...i.e. the whole Kareem Jackson saga.

Dude, on this one, all I'm saying is that the Texans were not a RUN-FIRST team as some proclaimed.

I have no fight with you here, LOL!

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by GP

76, I love ya' man, but let us know when you're doing this for a living and not as a hobby. Until then, you're going to be able to skew stats and find things that support your hunch...i.e. the whole Kareem Jackson saga.

BTW, how many guys that do it for a living you think are worth listening to (as a percentage of paid guys)?

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by eriadoc

What's your definition of a run-first team? Is there one in the NFL?

As I have said elsewhere, Kubiak would like to be able to put up a lead int he first half and grind it out in the second. That doesn't always go his way.

A run-first team is one that works to establish the run or trust that the running game can give them a litlle better chance to win more than the passing game.

Let's say the Ravens, do they count on Flacco more than Ray Rice?
Can the Jets count on Sanchez more than the combo of Greene and LT?
Did the Dolphins count on their combo of QBS more than their combos at RBs?
Were the Browns more comfortable with their Qb situation than their RB situation?
Were the Jags more happy with old-man MJD or Gabbert?
Did the Raiders count on their QBs as much as they did their RBs the last few years?
The Redskins had Grosman as their starting QB.


The list goes on as I look at last year standings in order:

http://www.nfl.com/standings

Schaub has been in the conversation.
Even Yates earned some positives.
Obviously, both Foster and Tate also earned their due.

What I don't agree is that we were a RUN-FIRST team.
Hell, we did pretty well last year even with Schaub getting hurt and AJ out.
Including the second half of the season and the two play-off games, we passed more than we ran the ball in the first half of the games.

To be that consistent through the course of an 18-game season (especially considering the better pass defenses we faced later on), there's no ground for anybody to say that we were a RUN-FIRST offense.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by TexansRule1

76Texan, I appreciate very much your effort in this regard. I wanted to do the same statistical effort to show the "feelers" on the board that the numbers don't stand up to their feelings.

The Texans are a BALANCED TEAM not a RUN FIRST team.

I would recommend the following study
1) 1st down tendency. A RUN FIRST team would tend to run more on 1st down. A balanced team would tend to show a 50/50 split. I would exclude 2nd half since point differential will skew towards run (since Texans led in so many games). I would also exclude games started by TJ Yates since the team should be expected to run more to protect a 3rd string QB. (potentially you could do both to show)

2) As a basis for comparison, compare this to the rest of the league.

Thank you for the understanding (there are also other board members that share the same sentiment.)
I did the study for all 18 games.
I only presented the first 8 games so far.

At the end of the day, OVERALL, the Texans were as you said:

The Texans are a BALANCED TEAM not a RUN FIRST team.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

(3) Hell, for a run-oriented team, how do you suggest the Texans to "abandon" the run when they led throughout the first half to the tune of 16-3???

Looks like you're still missing the point entirely.

The score at that point in the game is not relevant because no one wants to concede on third and 7 and just be content to punt the ball. ESPECIALLY NOT IN THE FIRST HALF....

My point was that the run game was not doing all that well that day, so if you are constantly in 3rd and longs and 2nd and longs because you're only averaging about 3 ypc, then simple logic is that you will see more passes being thrown.

Not even sure what you're disputing here.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Thank you for the understanding (there are also other board members that share the same sentiment.)
I did the study for all 18 games.
I only presented the first 8 games so far.

At the end of the day, OVERALL, the Texans were as you said:

The Texans are a BALANCED TEAM not a RUN FIRST team.

Yes if you look at the Texans in a vaccum they were a balanced team.

I don't know what "run first" really means, but I would say "they were a running team in today's NFL".

We had very balanced play calling, but we if we are not a running team, no one is.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Rey

Looks like you're still missing the point entirely.

The score at that point in the game is not relevant because no one wants to concede on third and 7 and just be content to punt the ball. ESPECIALLY NOT IN THE FIRST HALF....

My point was that the run game was not doing all that well that day, so if you are constantly in 3rd and longs and 2nd and longs because you're only averaging about 3 ypc, then simple logic is that you will see more passes being thrown.

Not even sure what you're disputing here.

For one, we averaged 3.9 ypc in the first half.
14 runs for 54 yards.
It wasn't great, but it wasn't as shoddy as your 3.0 claim.
Sorry, but you were giving INCORRECT information!

Your next claim was thus:


For instance, against Miami Arian wasn't doing all that well. So instead of 2nd and 5 or 3rd and 3 were in 2nd and 8 and 3rd and 6.....
Basically we needed to rely more heavily on the pass than we did on the run because of how the game played out.


Houston Texans at 15:00
1-10-HST 20 (15:00) M.Schaub pass short left to A.Johnson to HST 25 for 5 yards (S.Smith).
2-5-HST 25 (14:42) M.Schaub pass short left to O.Daniels to HST 35 for 10 yards (R.Jones). P1

We were not making a living out of the run here, that's for sure!
And certainly not on 2nd and 5 as you suggested.

1-10-HST 35 (14:11) M.Schaub pass incomplete deep right.
2-10-HST 35 (14:03) A.Foster left tackle to HST 49 for 14 yards (Y.Bell). R2
1-10-HST 49 (13:26) A.Foster right tackle to MIA 49 for 2 yards (K.Burnett).
2-8-MIA 49 (12:50) A.Foster right tackle to MIA 43 for 6 yards (C.Wake; Y.Bell).
3-2-MIA 43 (12:09) (Shotgun) M.Schaub pass short right to A.Foster pushed ob at MIA 39 for 4 yards (S.Smith). P3

2nd and 8 and we ran, 3rd and 2 and we passed.
Ain't nothing like you suggested, yet!


1-10-MIA 39 (11:46) M.Schaub pass deep right to J.Jones ran ob at MIA 8 for 31 yards. P4
1-8-MIA 8 (11:17) A.Foster right end pushed ob at MIA 5 for 3 yards (K.Dansby).
2-5-MIA 5 (10:52) A.Foster left tackle to MIA 5 for no gain (K.Dansby).
3-5-MIA 5 (10:11) M.Schaub pass incomplete short left.
4-5-MIA 5 (10:02) (Field Goal formation) N.Rackers 23

OK so after we countered 2nd and 5 with a run and 3rd and 5 with a pass after we completed a 31-yd pass on 1st and 10, followed by 2 runs that netted 3 yards, can you claim that we only pass out of neccessity?

....

Houston Texans at 8:37
1-10-MIA 44 (8:37) M.Schaub pass short right to B.Johnson to MIA 28 for 16 yards (S.Smith; R.Jones). P5
1-10-MIA 28 (8:02) A.Foster left tackle to MIA 30 for -2 yards (R.Starks).
2-12-MIA 30 (7:29) M.Schaub pass short left to A.Foster to MIA 27 for 3 yards (V.Davis).
3-9-MIA 27 (6:48) (Shotgun) M.Schaub pass short left to A.Johnson to MIA 12 for 15 yards (R.Jones) [C.Wake]. P6


OK, so there was a 2nd and 12 here, but it was due to a 2yd loss on a run.
So we countered with a 3-yd pass to Foster.
We got out of the jam with a 15 yard pass to AJ.
Where does it suggest run-first as in we really really make our living on the run?
Especially when we started the drive with a 16 yd pass!

1-10-MIA 12 (6:06) M.Schaub pass incomplete short left to O.Daniels.
2-10-MIA 12 (5:59) (Shotgun) A.Foster right guard to MIA 6 for 6 yards (R.Baker).
3-4-MIA 6 (5:24) A.Foster right tackle to MIA 4 for 2 yards (J.Taylor; Y.Bell).
4-2-MIA 4 (4:38) (Field Goal formation) N.Rackers 22 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-J.Weeks, Holder-B.Hartmann.

We ran on 2nd and 10 and 3rd and 4; you can't claim that we had to pass.

...

Yes, there was one instance we had to pass due to the shortcoming of the running game in the second quarter.

But you can do what I did here to finish up the 2nd qtr.
Don't let me do all the homework to disprove your claim.
Back up your claim with some homeowork of your own.

...

Overall, there was nothing to suggest that the Texans were a RUN-FIRST team.

If they decided to be a RUN-FIRST team and failed to achieve a decent result in the first half, they would have been out of contention last year.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Rey

Yes if you look at the Texans in a vaccum they were a balanced team.

I don't know what "run first" really means, but I would say "they were a running team in today's NFL".

We had very balanced play calling, but we if we are not a running team, no one is.

So did you see some gigantic play calling difference last year before Schaub went down from the prior year when we had the league's leading rusher and Schaub threw for 4370 yds?

Anyone - remind me of the QB who has gone 4000 yards three years straight in a run oriented (since some people don't understand run first means something like the Jets in the first year of Rex Ryan as HC) offense?

Having a successful running game and being a rushing oriented team are not synonymous.

[powda]

I think someone's going to have to define what makes a running team before much more progress can be made in this thread. Some terms are to loosely tossed about and have subjective meanings.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by powda

I think someone's going to have to define what makes a running team before much more progress can be made in this thread. Some terms are to loosely tossed about and have subjective meanings.

This.

Right now, it's a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing. Everyone's got their own definition of what it takes to be a run-first team, a balanced attack team, a pass-first team, or whatever.

[powda]

I think statistically a starting point everyone should be able to agree with is that a 50/50 run/ pass play call ratio is clearly a balanced offense. At what point does that shift from balanced to a clear display of run or pass oriented? Is it a 45/55% play calling split?

I like and agree with the focus on first half play calling. Game circumstances should dictate play calling a little less and we can get a better sense of what the offense actually wants to do.

Furthermore, a back up quarterback would handcuff an offense and a play caller in a number of ways. So heres my question: while schaub was the qb what was the the first half play calling ratio of run vs. pass?

Finally, let me say that often times stats can be interpreted to mean what you want them to. It would only take 1 or 2 games to skew a percentage. But it is a recognizable starting point and gives an opinion a backbone.

[Thorn]

With two studs in the backfield, the Texans will run a lot, but as Cak pointed out that doesn't mean we are a run oriented team. In any case, who cares as long as we win?

[DBCooper]

Originally Posted by Thorn

With two studs in the backfield, the Texans will run a lot, but as Cak pointed out that doesn't mean we are a run oriented team. In any case, who cares as long as we win?

Ahhhhh, the drunken sound of reason.....

[The Pencil Neck]

We rush 52.20% of the time. Which is pretty close to balanced.

BUT. Only 1 team rushed for a higher percentage of the time than we did: The Denver Broncos @ 53.69% of the time.

The Niners rushed 50.15% of the time.

The "average" was rushing 42.91% of the time.

The Detroit Lions rushed the least at 33.65% of the time.

[powda]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

We rush 52.20% of the time. Which is pretty close to balanced.

BUT. Only 1 team rushed for a higher percentage of the time than we did: The Denver Broncos @ 53.69% of the time.

The Niners rushed 50.15% of the time.

The "average" was rushing 42.91% of the time.

The Detroit Lions rushed the least at 33.65% of the time.

Good job pn. I read that as balanced but others may not. Are those season long stats (including 2nd halves and yates?)

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by powda

Good job pn. I read that as balanced but others may not. Are those season long stats (including 2nd halves and yates?)

Yep. That's just pure stats from profootballreference.com. I grabbed the basic numbers there and then calculated the percentages myself. Going game by game and grabbing the data for the Texans before/after and splitting it out would consume more time than I've got right now.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

We rush 52.20% of the time. Which is pretty close to balanced.

Last year. A year in which we changed essentially nothing from the year before when we had the leading rusher in the NFL.

In that year we passed 58% of the time and rushed 42%.

This is what I am getting at. Kubiak wants this to be a balanced attack which can respond as needed to the situation and do either to use as he feels appropriate.

Dude is a WCO guy and a QB. He loves it when Foster goes out and gets 7 on first down giving him the latitude to call what looks like exactly the same stretch play on 2nd and 3 and give AJ or OD an open hole for a 30 yard reception. He likes exactly the opposite as well. Come out and make it look like here comes Foster on 1st down and toss it down field and make it a new first down. We are not a line up and everyone knows but for desperation we are going to run the ball team. We are a team designed to make things look the same and confuse the crap out of people and then both work better.