Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

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

7

76Texan

Hall of Fame
I have some numbers that I crunch when tallying up the first-half run/pass distribution last year.

But first off, I want to bring up another stat (one that I had brought up before.)
Advanced NFL stats chart it as Percentage of Deep Pass Attempts (pass attempts over 15 yards).

Basically, they involve routes longer than the 10-yd in/out routes by the receivers and all the screen passes, quick slants, etc.

It's a stat that charts the vertical passing game of a team.

Colt McCoy was at 14%. McNabb 15.4%, Kolb 16.6%, Alex Smith 17.3%, Brees 17.6%, Fitzpatrick 17.9%, Brady and Gabbert 18.6%, and so forth.

In the meantime, Schaub was at 21.6% and Yates 21.7%.
The numbers include play-off games.

The inference here is that we had more of a vertical attack than pass-oriented offenses such as the Pats and the Saints.
We were not a dink-and-dunk team even with Yates in the play-offs.

Let us be clear on that point.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php
 
Let's begin with some numbers:

Week 1 Colts

RUSHING ATT YDS AVG LG TD
B.Tate 10 61 6.1 14 1
D.Ward 11 39 3.5 9 1
Total 21 100 4.8 14 2

PASSING ATT CMP YDS SK/YD TD LG IN RT
M.Schaub 16 12 162 1/3 1 21 1 101.6

There was also a pass play in which the Colts was called for defensive holding (no play) and a sack while Schaub attempted to execute a pass play.

Overall, the run/pass distribution was 21/18
This was with the Texans leading all the way to a blow-out.

We did have 3 more running plays in the first half, so noted!
 
Week 2 Miami

RUSHING ATT YDS AVG LG TD
A.Foster 10 33 3.3 14 0
B.Tate 4 21 5.3 15 0
Total 14 54 3.9 15 0

M.Schaub 22 16 170 1/5 1 43 0 110.0

There was also a sack just before we kicked a FG to end half-time.

Overall, the run/pass distribution was 14/23 with the Texans leading 16-3 at the half.

This is way in favor of the pass (by 9).

The updated distribution after week 2 was 6 more passing plays.
 
Week 3 Saints

RUSHING ATT YDS AVG LG TD
B.Tate 12 66 5.5 19 0
S.Slaton 2 7 3.5 6 0

There was also a reverse to AJ for 8.
This was credited as a run, obviously.
In reality, a reverse is called as a play that combats a run defense.
Unless a team is known for trickery; ie. one that run the reverse on a more consistent basis (a couple of times almost every game), only then you can really consider this as a running play.

PASSING ATT CMP YDS SK/YD TD LG IN RT
M.Schaub 17 11 223 1/3 1 62 0 127.7

Including the sack, the run/pass distribution was 14/18 in favor of the pass.

The updated distribution after week 3 was 10 more passing plays.
 
Week 4 Steelers

The run/pass distribution was 23/15 in favor of the run (including a QB sneak by Schaub for 2 yards - counting as a run.)

Up to now, the distribution was still skewed toward the passing game by 2 plays.
 
Week 5 vs Raiders

RUSHING ATT YDS AVG LG TD
A.Foster 15 54 3.6 20 0 0
C.Ogbonnaya 1 2 2.0 2 0
Total 16 56 3.5 20 0

PASSING ATT CMP YDS SK/YD TD LG IN RT
M.Schaub 21 13 177 1/5 2 56 1 100.7

With the sack, the run/pass distribution was 16/22 in favor of the pass.

The updated distribution favored the pass by 8 plays.
 
Week 6 Ravens

14/22 distribution (8 more passing plays).
The updated distribution favored the pass by 16 plays.
 
Week 8 Jags

17/22 distribution (5 more passing plays - even though the running plays included a 2-yd TD run by Schaub; we don't know for sure if it was a QB draw by design or an improvision by Schaub.)

The updated distribution favored the pass by 21 plays after 8 games.

....

Were the Texans a run-first team?

I think the answer should be quite clear: NO!
 
combo_breaker.jpg
 
B-B-B-B-B-B-But, anyone that knows football, knows we are a run first team NOW..........
 
Arian Foster with or without him, the team depends on him before Schuab. No matter where you look at it.
 
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. I think the Raiders game was another game like that. I don't remember what was up with Tate that game, but you had Foster taking almost all the carrier with OBO getting 2 and not doing anything with them...

Also, I don't understand how you are tallying your totals. It seems like you are double dipping on plays. If we run a pass play and we take a sack or have a penalty that pushes us back it's not unreasonable that we would come out and pass again to try to make up that yardage.

Also, if it's third down or something we might come out an run it and concede the punt depending on the situation....

Basically my point is that there are so many situations and variables that can determine run or pass.

If anything I'd say overall we were balanced....

BUT my contention is that in today's pass happy NFL we are a running team. We led the league in rushing attempts and we were 30th in passing attempts. A team like the Saints, Packers or Pats will use the run as an afterthought and use their passing game a majority of the time. Those are teams that I'd call true passing teams.

Like I said, this is a pass happy league. If we had this same distribution 30 years ago then no way would people even think this was a running team. But I think the idea that we are a running team comes in relation to the rest of the league.

I said this in another thread and I'll say it here. If we aren't a running team. No one is.

Overall, we were balanced, but in comparison to the rest of the league we are a running team and we run the damn football.
 
The numbers are great but you have to look at this in the context of the league as it exists.

The Texans had 1046 offensive plays. That's 6th most in the NFL.

546 of those plays were rushing attempts (they do not count sacks in that total.) That ties us for most in the league with the Denver Broncos.

We had 500 pass attempts (including sacks.) If you exclude sacks (because those numbers are readily available), we had 467 passing attempts. That's 30th in the league.

Although we were fairly balanced (500 pass plays to 546 rushing plays) for the entirety of the season, that balance places us among the most run oriented teams in the league.

If I had time, I'd pull out everyone's percentages to see where we sit, but I'm pretty sure that we were the 2nd or 3rd most rush-heavy team.

Now. I consider us a BALANCED team more than a Rush-first team. But in a league where everyone else is un-balanced in the direction of the pass, it makes us appear un-balanced in the direction of the run.
 
JPPT1974 said:
Arian Foster with or without him, the team depends on him before Schuab. No matter where you look at it.
Click to expand...

Except that we didn't have Foster in week 1 and we killed the Colts.
In week 2, Foster was 10 for 33.
In week 3, we didn't have Foster and the offense still ran great with Tate and Slaton combined for 23-90 yards. The running game did well against the Saints, even though it didn't quite catch up to the passing game.
In the last game, without Foster, Tate and Ward combined for 28-147.

Overall, the Texans were a good team that can both run and pass.
Who's going to say that with AJ, the passing game would'nt have been better?
 
Rey said:
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. I think the Raiders game was another game like that. I don't remember what was up with Tate that game, but you had Foster taking almost all the carrier with OBO getting 2 and not doing anything with them...

Also, I don't understand how you are tallying your totals. It seems like you are double dipping on plays. If we run a pass play and we take a sack or have a penalty that pushes us back it's not unreasonable that we would come out and pass again to try to make up that yardage.

Also, if it's third down or something we might come out an run it and concede the punt depending on the situation....

Basically my point is that there are so many situations and variables that can determine run or pass.

If anything I'd say overall we were balanced....

BUT my contention is that in today's pass happy NFL we are a running team. We led the league in rushing attempts and we were 30th in passing attempts. A team like the Saints, Packers or Pats will use the run as an afterthought and use their passing game a majority of the time. Those are teams that I'd call true passing teams.

Like I said, this is a pass happy league. If we had this same distribution 30 years ago then no way would people even think this was a running team. But I think the idea that we are a running team comes in relation to the rest of the league.

I said this in another thread and I'll say it here. If we aren't a running team. No one is.

Overall, we were balanced, but in comparison to the rest of the league we are a running team and we run the damn football.
Click to expand...

My contention is about a RUN-FIRST team.
The Texans were not a run-first team.
We ran the ball more at the end of the day, but we WERE NOT a run-first team.
A run-first team is one that establishes the game with its running ability in the first half.
We did not do that!

I will counter you point on point in later posts.
 
I get the point that you're trying to make: the Texans look like a run-first team because they literally ran out the clock often. I like the idea of looking at 1st half since it reduces the effect of game-state. However, why not just look at run vs play on first down? Otherwise, the run/pass ratio would still be dependent on the yard/down scenario.
 
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.
 
dsorc said:
I get the point that you're trying to make: the Texans look like a run-first team because they literally ran out the clock often. I like the idea of looking at 1st half since it reduces the effect of game-state. However, why not just look at run vs play on first down? Otherwise, the run/pass ratio would still be dependent on the yard/down scenario.
Click to expand...

I can tell you without looking it up because I've gone through this like "a million times"; there was no real tendency for the Texans on first and 10 (taken into consideration the distance to the end zone) in the first half - or on third down conversion, whatever.

Overall, they did not show their hand!
 
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.
 
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.
 
eriadoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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???
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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



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.
 
TexansRule1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
76Texan said:
(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???
Click to expand...

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.
 
76Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
powda said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Thorn said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, the drunken sound of reason.....
 
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.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
We rush 52.20% of the time. Which is pretty close to balanced.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
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.
Click to expand...

In today's NFL we are considered a running team.

The end.

Overall, we are balanced. But comparatively speaking we like to run the ball a lot.

Not really sure why folks can't admit that.

Oh wait, yeah I do...
 
powda said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. Does an offense have to run the wildcat or have a passing attack that would be considered putrid in 1972 to be considered "run oriented"?

The Texans offense revolves around the zone blocking scheme. Not only the running game, but much of the passing game. That's the foundation. And it has been that way with Kubiak's offenses for years. As Denver's O.C., the Broncos finished in the top 10 in rushing attempts in 9 of his 11 seasons. Top 2 in 5 seasons. But the passing game didn't suffer, as they were top 10 in yards/attempt in 7 seasons.

2011 was closest to what Kubiak wants to see with the Texans offense. He was able to achieve that balance because his defense was no longer a sieve. I see more of the same in 2012. Control the clock, keep your defense fresh, make big plays in play action with your healthy QB and #1 WR. It hasn't always worked out as hoped, but that's always been the plan.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I understand, it looks like TPN used stats for 16 regular season games and counted the entire game.
This also held out in the play-offs.

There were 546 rushing attempts on record out of 1,056 total plays.
And he didn't account for situations like a sack (which is actually a pasing play, but was recorded as a rushing attempt.)
There are other circumstances which I can bring up later - like a busted play, where the QB scrambled and gain a yard or two; these were also passing plays but ended up being running plays.

By "my defintion", one needs to look at the first half stats (and/or the "so-called" 25 scripted plays the Texans ran to determine whether they were a RUN-FIRST team or not.

So far by my count, the distribution in the first eight games of the season resulted in 21 more pass plays in the first half of these games.

The second half of the season saw a plus five count in favor of the passing game despite a multitude of players at QB.

In the play-offs, we were even against the Bengals and passed 4 more times in the Ravens game.

All this despite the in-and-out of QBs throughout the season and your #1 receiver on the shelf for 9 games (while rounding into shape in the first couple of games back and playing a few games less than 100% due to the injury.)
 
Last edited:
76Texan said:
As I understand, it looks like TPN used stats for 16 regular season games and counted the entire game.
This also held out in the play-offs.

There were 546 rushing attempts on record out of 1,056 total plays.
And he didn't account for situations like a sack (which is actually a pasing play, but was recorded as a rushing attempt.)
There are other circumstances which I can bring up later - like a busted play, where the QB scrambled and gain a yard or two; these were also passing plays but ended up being running plays.

By "my defintion", one needs to look at the first half stats (and/or the "so-called" 25 scripted plays the Texans ran to determine whether they were a RUN-FIRST team or not.

So far by my count, the distribution in the first eight games of the season resulted in 21 more pass plays in the second half.

The second half of the season saw a plus five count in favor of the passing game despite a multitude of players at QB.

In the play-offs, we were even against the Bengals and passed 4 more times in the Ravens game.

All this despite the in-and-out of QBs throughout the season and your #1 receiver on the shelf for 9 games (while rounding into shape in the first couple of games back and playing a few games less than 100% due to the injury.)
Click to expand...

This is all true EXCEPT that according to Pro Football Reference sacks were NOT included in the rushing attempts. In those numbers, there is the total number of plays, the total number of pass attempts (where the ball was actually thrown), and the total number of rush attempts (which excludes sacks.) If you add rush attempts to pass attempts, it does not add up to the number plays. So I based my percentages entirely off of rush attempts which numerically lumps the sacks in with the pass attempts.

Almost sacks that turn into rushes are counted as rushing attempts but numerically, I think that's small enough to be inconsequential except for a few QBs. (And that would tend to raise the rushing percentage, not decrease it.)

But the reason I put those numbers up there is because you're looking at the Texans out of context of the rest of the league. Looking at anything only in terms of how many of these plays the Texans ran vs. the number of these plays the Texans ran without comparing that to all the other teams in the league doesn't tell you anything significant. A team that runs 50% of the time is balanced in terms of their play selection but they are unbalanced in terms of the type of team they are.

So there are apples and there are oranges. Are we a rushing-oriented team? Yes. We run for a higher percentage of our plays than any team except for the Broncos last year and the Broncos were an anomaly.

And whether a team was a rushing oriented team had zilch to do with whether they were running to close out games. The teams with the highest percentage of rushes were, in order: The Broncos, Us, The Niners, the Jaguars, the Chiefs, the Dolphins, the Bears, the Raiders, the Bengals, and the Panthers (which is a team where the QB scrambling would significantly reduce their actual rush percentage.) There's not a lot of winners in that list.

Are we a team that strives for balance? Yes. We try to balance out our play-calling so teams don't know whether to defend the pass or the rush. We try to disguise our plays so they look as similar from situation to situation as we can. And we try to pass when people expect the run and run when people expect the pass.

These are, for the most part, two different and unrelated things.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
This is all true EXCEPT that according to Pro Football Reference sacks were NOT included in the rushing attempts. In those numbers, there is the total number of plays, the total number of pass attempts (where the ball was actually thrown), and the total number of rush attempts (which excludes sacks.) If you add rush attempts to pass attempts, it does not add up to the number plays. So I based my percentages entirely off of rush attempts which numerically lumps the sacks in with the pass attempts.

Almost sacks that turn into rushes are counted as rushing attempts but numerically, I think that's small enough to be inconsequential except for a few QBs.
Click to expand...

OK, so my bad.
We can clarify that sacks are not rushing attempts.

What I wanted to point out was that many of these were really a product of a pass play.

Another thing is when the QB ran with the ball, some were by designs but with the Texans, mostly they were results of a passing play gone awry.
These were recorded as runs while in actually, they were desgined to be pass plays.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
But the reason I put those numbers up there is because you're looking at the Texans out of context of the rest of the league. Looking at anything only in terms of how many of these plays the Texans ran vs. the number of these plays the Texans ran without comparing that to all the other teams in the league doesn't tell you anything significant. A team that runs 50% of the time is balanced in terms of their play selection but they are unbalanced in terms of the type of team they are.

So there are apples and there are oranges. Are we a rushing-oriented team? Yes. We run for a higher percentage of our plays than any team except for the Broncos last year and the Broncos were an anomaly.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you need to look at these numbers (the real ones after adjusting all the different situations) for all the teams in the first half to see whether they are RUN-first team or PASS-first team, or somewhere in between.

Other situations may include:
A run called back due to a some sort of penalties like holding.
A pass called back due to defensive holding or PI or some sort of other penalties.
 
I'm getting back to Schaub here.

So far by my count, the distribution in the first eight games of the season resulted in 21 more pass plays in the first half of games.


In week 9 vs the Browns, in the first half, Schaub passed 15 times, our RBs rushed 14 times.

Schaub also had a QB run near the goal line for a TD. It looks like a design run.
So we call it a run which even up the pass/run count at 15 apiece.

With a 24-3 lead at the half and the defense holding the Browns in check, there was little wonder why the Texans passed only 8 times and ran 25 times in the second half.

The Browns were out of time outs by the 2-min warning (due to 3 run plays called by the Texans.) Three more run plays ensued (including 2 kneel-downs by Schaub) ran out the last 2 minutes of the game.

These six plays should in no way get counted to say that the Texans were a run-heavy team.
Rather, it was an example how/why the rushing attempts adds up for the Texans in the second half of some games.

I'm not interested in the later numbers (what happended in sesond halves of games), but I put them out there for considerations when looking at the run/pass ratio of teams.

One reason they ran the ball more was because they had big leads in the second half of some games.
 
In week 10 vs the Bucs, the Texans came out of the gate with an 80-yd TD to JJ.
They never looked back as the defense was equally dominating.

Schaub was 9 of 12 in the first half while the Texans ran the ball 15 times.

This included 3 runs near the end of the half when the Texans were pinned deep near their own goal line.
From their 3, Foster lost 3 to move the ball back to the one.
Schaub sneaked for 1 to give the Texans a little breathing room (this is the play where Haynie rolled on Schaub's leg.)
Foster rushed one more time before the Texans punt.

If the Texans were to have better field position, they might not have ran the ball 3 straight times.

In the first half, Schaub was sacked once while attempting to execute a pass play. This should count as a pass play such that the run/pass count at the half was 15/13, two (2) plays in favor of the run, leading all the way through.
...


With Schaub hobbling on one leg and no AJ, the Texans only passed 3 times in the second half while recording 29 running plays.

Thanks to 3 Ints a a fumble, the defense limited the Bucs to 65 yard net gain (on 27 plays in the second half) as compared to 166 yards on 30 plays in the first half.

Again, this is another example why the Texans rushing attempts continued to mount up in the second half. It wasn't because they were a RUN-FIRST team.

On the other hand, several other teams find themselves in a big hole early and had to start to open up their passing game.

The Bucs, for example, called 2 running plays and 13 passing plays from the midway point in the second quarter to the end of the first half - after the Texans jumped out to a 16-0 lead.

The Bucs found themselves trailing big-time a lot and that was why their number of rushing attempts lagged so heavily throughout the season, which is the total reverse of the Texans.
 
For his tenure, the Texans run/pass count in the 10 games with Schaub was plus 19 in favor of the pass (in first halves of games.)

The rushing attempt numbers included runs to close out the half (to kill the clock and not to execute the true game plan.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top