NFL Network will re-air week 14 Texans vs Pats

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

No, the Pats play cover 2 on the 3yd loss and the 1yd gain by Foster,
Schaub did the right thing checking into a run there.

People complete passes on cover 2 all the time. Just because the defense is in cover 2, you don't check to a run.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by DX-TEX

Gpoing by what 76 is saying we killed ourselves more than the Pats dominated.

Truth is, our offense was dominated after the Patriots went up 21-0.... we barely moved the ball from then on.

Defensively, Tom Brady took advantage of our mistakes early. We finally settled down, but the damage was done. Their offense didn't really dominate our defense the entire game.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Then came that stupid play by Demps that gave Stalworth his 63yd TD to put them up by 28.

What's really important to understand here, is that again this is third down. 3rd & 10. Our defense repeatedly got the Patriots to third & long situations but a gaff by our defense, or a ticky-tack foul extended the drives & kept the Patriots on the field. The Pats first scoring drive was made possible because of a holding call five & a half yards past the LOS. five & a half yards.... then the flag was late, made it look like the ref was thinking, "What can I do to help Brady here? Oh.. Oh, I know."

What makes this play in particular so bad, is that our defense was handling the run well enough at this point. Well enough, that you wouldn't think we were going to give up a 10 yard gain on the ground. It is 3rd & long (10 yards).

There is no way a receiver should have been allowed to get deep on our defense.

Now, 3rd & 10 I might have told my safety to squat there on the 10 yard line, but I would have had my corner play about 5 yards on top of the receiver. At the snap, he would stay on top of the receiver & cover anything deep. The Safety would be looking for the short pass. If it's a quick out or slant, it would be his job to tackle the receiver before he covered the 10 yards. If it's a 10 yard curl, the safety should be able to make a play on the ball, or break up the throw. If the receiver continues to run deep, the safety would take underneath coverage & run with the receiver, underneath with the corner on top.

So it's possible that Demps was doing the right thing & the corner screwed up, but it looks like the corner took a trailing position after trying to bump the receiver (makes sense) & Demps is facing this so he should have seen the corner was trailing meaning he should "adjust" his coverage on the fly & stay on top.

However, this is the same thing that happened against the Colts just before the half when Hilton scored on a 70 yard TD pass. He was pulled from that game. He didn't play against Minnesota. He snuck back in against the Colts week 17 & he got burned the same way again.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

People complete passes on cover 2 all the time. Just because the defense is in cover 2, you don't check to a run.

Up to this point, we had called 8 passing plays and 7 run plays (including the one that got called back).
Including the play that was called back, we gained 35 yads on 7 runs, a healthy 5 yd clip.
Why should we be afraid of their rushing defense?

Secondly, in the ZBS, with the flow going to one side, we normally option one defender (we did on both these occasions.)
It means we have one more man to block.
Look at Schaub; remember that we always have the bootleg in play;
their end man is always taught not to sell out; he has to stay disciplined and be ready for the PA pass.
It's to our advantage, and we should to take it.
Once the RB bust through the LOS, he will have room to run for a good gain.

On the first play, Casey got blown up 4 yards in the backfield; that was too big of a lost;
otherwise Foster would have a huge hole to burst through inside LT.
Besides, there were nobody running a hot route; it was a run play all the way.

On the second play, O.D. had original help from Harris;
he simply cannot allowed the SOLB Ninkovich to go around him to the outside and come back up to make the tackle,
That's insane when he totally whiffed that block.
Again, there was no hot route. AJ didn't even run a full route and the rest of them were blocking.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Up to this point, we had called 8 passing plays and 7 run plays (including the one that got called back).
Including the play that was called back, we gained 35 yads on 7 runs, a healthy 5 yd clip.
Why should we be afraid of their rushing defense?

My mistake, I thought you were saying that he checked to a run play because they were in cover 2. That's the only thing I had issue with. If we're checking to a run play because they are in cover 2, then that goes to the assumption that Schaub has serious confidence issues.

If you're saying tailgate was wrong, they were not sold out to stop the run, because they were in cover 2..... then I agree. (Not that I made that observation myself, I don't remember what they were playing at the moment).

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

What's really important to understand here, is that again this is third down. 3rd & 10. Our defense repeatedly got the Patriots to third & long situations but a gaff by our defense, or a ticky-tack foul extended the drives & kept the Patriots on the field. The Pats first scoring drive was made possible because of a holding call five & a half yards past the LOS. five & a half yards.... then the flag was late, made it look like the ref was thinking, "What can I do to help Brady here? Oh.. Oh, I know."

What makes this play in particular so bad, is that our defense was handling the run well enough at this point. Well enough, that you wouldn't think we were going to give up a 10 yard gain on the ground. It is 3rd & long (10 yards).

There is no way a receiver should have been allowed to get deep on our defense.

Now, 3rd & 10 I might have told my safety to squat there on the 10 yard line, but I would have had my corner play about 5 yards on top of the receiver. At the snap, he would stay on top of the receiver & cover anything deep. The Safety would be looking for the short pass. If it's a quick out or slant, it would be his job to tackle the receiver before he covered the 10 yards. If it's a 10 yard curl, the safety should be able to make a play on the ball, or break up the throw. If the receiver continues to run deep, the safety would take underneath coverage & run with the receiver, underneath with the corner on top.

So it's possible that Demps was doing the right thing & the corner screwed up, but it looks like the corner took a trailing position after trying to bump the receiver (makes sense) & Demps is facing this so he should have seen the corner was trailing meaning he should "adjust" his coverage on the fly & stay on top.

However, this is the same thing that happened against the Colts just before the half when Hilton scored on a 70 yard TD pass. He was pulled from that game. He didn't play against Minnesota. He snuck back in against the Colts week 17 & he got burned the same way again.

KJ was moving around to disguise his intention against Welker as the #1 receiver on the most inside.
He finally settled to defend any quick in-breaking route.

It looks like Harris played basically the same tecnique on the #2 receiver.
He sticks to the receiver to the inside; he was ready to defend any short-to-medium routes.

The only concern Demps may have is a 10-yd square out by Welker.
He didn't have to worry about the 10-yd square in by Stallworth, nor any short route by this #2 receiver.

He just has to get back because neither CB on either side of him were playing deep; they were both playing on-man coverage.
The only help they needed was on the deep routes.

[Tailgate]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Up to this point, we had called 8 passing plays and 7 run plays (including the one that got called back).
Including the play that was called back, we gained 35 yads on 7 runs, a healthy 5 yd clip.
Why should we be afraid of their rushing defense?

Secondly, in the ZBS, with the flow going to one side, we normally option one defender (we did on both these occasions.)
It means we have one more man to block.
Look at Schaub; remember that we always have the bootleg in play;
their end man is always taught not to sell out; he has to stay disciplined and be ready for the PA pass.
It's to our advantage, and we should to take it.
Once the RB bust through the LOS, he will have room to run for a good gain.

On the first play, Casey got blown up 4 yards in the backfield; that was too big of a lost;
otherwise Foster would have a huge hole to burst through inside LT.
Besides, there were nobody running a hot route; it was a run play all the way.

On the second play, O.D. had original help from Harris;
he simply cannot allowed the SOLB Ninkovich to go around him to the outside and come back up to make the tackle,
That's insane when he totally whiffed that block.
Again, there was no hot route. AJ didn't even run a full route and the rest of them were blocking.

After those first two runs, one of which was called back... Foster had 5 carries for 1 yard in the 1st quarter.

[Tailgate]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

My mistake, I thought you were saying that he checked to a run play because they were in cover 2. That's the only thing I had issue with. If we're checking to a run play because they are in cover 2, then that goes to the assumption that Schaub has serious confidence issues.

If you're saying tailgate was wrong, they were not sold out to stop the run, because they were in cover 2..... then I agree. (Not that I made that observation myself, I don't remember what they were playing at the moment).

The whole point was Schaub did not check to anything. It was a run the whole time, and it was clear to me pre snap the D was selling out on the run with their front 7... enough to stifle our run game with their talent, thus calling for a change of play by Schaub which never happened. The LBs stepped up pre snap, Schaub handed off, and wham a 3-4 yd loss. All I was making was an observation that Schaub needed to recognize the D as they did give away their tendencies from time to time and its something I felt we should have exploited in this situation, not put us in 2nd and 13 or whatever.

[El Tejano]

I might be misunderstanding but I noticed they showed the Washington/Seattle game, and the Baltimore/Indy game...all games that were played this weekend. Also, Replay is supposed to be for games that are real close right? Yet they don't show our playoff win, and the only game they show, not once but twice, is the blow out loss to New England?

[76Texan]

Tailgate, you can't just subtract plays out like that.

Like I said, even if the LBs crouch the LOS, the offense can still run because we have more men to block.

And when we do our job right, Foster can bust out for a long gain.

Also, I still remember the loss to the Cowboys the last year Wade was with them.
Aikman was noting during the game that the Cowboys run every time we were in cover 2, and pass when we were on cover 1 or 3.

And they didn't even have the extra man to block.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

The whole point was Schaub did not check to anything. It was a run the whole time, and it was clear to me pre snap the D was selling out on the run with their front 7... enough to stifle our run game with their talent, thus calling for a change of play by Schaub which never happened. The LBs stepped up pre snap, Schaub handed off, and wham a 3-4 yd loss. All I was making was an observation that Schaub needed to recognize the D as they did give away their tendencies from time to time and its something I felt we should have exploited in this situation, not put us in 2nd and 13 or whatever.

Most every team picks 5 guys that they put on the OL. They pay these guys a lot of money to be able to knock people off the line & give our RB the opportunity to run 3+ yards (10 feet). Just because they have 7 guys lined up to stop you is no reason to check out of a run play.

We run when we want to run....... that's the way you've got to be, regardless if you're a running team or not. If you're good at it, then it's true more times than not. If you're not.... then you don't say it as loud as other teams, but the premise of your running game is always the same.

If there is only 7 guys in the box, then we should be able to find an advantage, either to the right or the left of the center. We've got three guys to the strong side, two guys to the weak side, unless we're playing with two TEs. If we've got a fullback, that's one more person to put the numbers in our favor.

Unless they put all 7 guys on one side of the center, there is no reason to check out of the run play. If we ran it to the 7 man side, then yeah, that's on Schaub.

If we ran it to the side we had numbers & the OL still got blown up, that's a totally different issue that has nothing to do with Schaub.

[Tailgate]

And guys, I would usually agree with you. But NOT vs BB and the Patriots. The way to beat them is to throw the ball and keep them off balance... NOT to play into their strength. "we are going to do what we do" time and time again does not work against that team.

[76Texan]

Tailgate, go back and look at the first two run plays when Foster gained 12 and 15 yards; their LBs crouched the line.


On the two plays that we gained only 2 yards each, their LBs didn't sell out to play the run.

On the play that we lost a yard, their LBs didn't sell out to play the run either.

We gained 5 on the other play.

We've only called 6 running plays up to that series (my mistake, I counted wrong when I said it was 7.)

35/6 = 5.83 ypc

What else do you want?

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

And guys, I would usually agree with you. But NOT vs BB and the Patriots. The way to beat them is to throw the ball and keep them off balance... NOT to play into their strength. "we are going to do what we do" time and time again does not work against that team.

Like I said, our pass/run ratio in the first half is 25/13 as compared to 19/11 by the Pats.
We took 4 shots downfield (the stat keepers usually score deep attempts as 20 yd from the LOS or longer in corelation with the pass routes as defined in the route tree, not counting YAC) and a couple of intermediate ones.

(And of course, we threw even more in the second half.)

We were not playing conservatively.

[Tailgate]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Tailgate, go back and look at the first two run plays when Foster gained 12 and 15 yards; their LBs crouched the line.


On the two plays that we gained only 2 yards each, their LBs didn't sell out to play the run.

On the play that we lost a yard, their LBs didn't sell out to play the run either.

We gained 5 on the other play.

We've only called 6 running plays up to that series (my mistake, I counted wrong when I said it was 7.)

35/6 = 5.83 ypc

What else do you want?

After that first 15 yard gain. The next Foster 8 runs went for 11 total yards.

On the first two runs you keep bringing up, they only had 1 LB at the second level for the most part. On the play I am referencing, they had 2 LBs loaded up on our left side, where we were handing off the ball, and they came up just before the snap to fill exaclty where we were running to. Basically what you guys are saying is that it is OK for the LB to be able to get into the backfield immediately and take out Casey right in front of the hand off? Thats the 1 on 1 battle situations we want to be in??

At the very minimum the play should have been redirected to the right.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

After that first 15 yard gain. The next Foster 8 runs went for 11 total yards.

On the first two runs you keep bringing up, they only had 1 LB at the second level for the most part. On the play I am referencing, they had 2 LBs loaded up on our left side, where we were handing off the ball, and they came up just before the snap to fill exaclty where we were running to. Basically what you guys are saying is that it is OK for the LB to be able to get into the backfield immediately and take out Casey right in front of the hand off? Thats the 1 on 1 battle situations we want to be in??

At the very minimum the play should have been redirected to the right.

TG, up to that point, the fact that the LB(s) crouching the LOS had no real effect on our running game.

On the first play where we gained 12, they had 6 on the line, and the LB jumping before the snap. They had 7, we still gained 12.

On the 3-yd loss, they had 5 on the line, one ILB jumping just before the snap, with the other one followed shortly.

On the 1-yd gain, they had 5 on the line; neither ILBs jumped.

There's nothing to support your assertion, I'm afraid.

[Tailgate]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

TG, up to that point, the fact that the LB(s) crouching the LOS had no real effect on our running game.

On the first play where we gained 12, they had 6 on the line, and the LB jumping before the snap. They had 7, we still gained 12.

On the 3-yd loss, they had 5 on the line, one ILB jumping just before the snap, with the other one followed shortly.

On the 1-yd gain, they had 5 on the line; neither ILBs jumped.

There's nothing to support your assertion, I'm afraid.

The first play is not comparable in terms of the look the D gave us. On the play IN PARTICULAR, it was dead before it started. The difference is that the LB who jumped up pre snap (and there were two of them that did) was able to meet Casey head on in the BACKFIELD, thus forcing Foster to step back, giving time for the rest of the D to swarm. Tell me, how was that play ever supposed to work with the LB meeting Casey in the backfield? The -1 loss play was because Wilfork completely blew Jones up on the play. Different situations alltogether.

[76Texan]

At any rate, when they started inching up to the line, the ball was ready to be snapped; there's no changing play.

On the back side, we had a guy optioned (unblocked.)

We had more blockers on play side; there's no excuse.

Even if you want Schaub to call the run to the right instead; we didn't gain any advantage.
They had 3 on 3 plus the WILB readying to flow to that side.
That WILB was near the LOS in the middle; it doesn't matter which way the flow went.

Like I said, it's a case where if we can get Foster to bust through the line, it would be a big gain.
That's what we're looking for on first down, isn't it?

[Tailgate]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

At any rate, when they started inching up to the line, the ball was ready to be snapped; there's no changing play.

Now THAT is where you have a valid argument. I totally get that part, and yes... it would be asking alot of this offense to be a little more patient pre snap, and we had a guy in motion prior to hand off... and the snap was always going to be snapped when the motion guy got into position. BUT, we will hopefully be a little more patient on occasion prior to snap to see if we can get anything out of their looks. Again, this is the Patriots we are playing... we have to keep them on their toes by any means necessary.

[76Texan]

The way I saw it, the LB had a slow running start; Casey had the power of starting from his crouching stand.

It doesn't matter where they met (even though I expected Casey to meet the LB about at least half a yard deeper forward); what matters was that Casey got jolted backward by the collision.

That prevented Foster to cut outside early; instead, he got stucked behind the block.

It's good chatting with ya' Tailgate.
I need a break now though