Yahoo Article: Input From Rosenfels

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by GP

Until one of you guys becomes an NFL coach, we're all stating our opinions.

And TC, just because Dennison says he was surprised how well the play action worked with a crap running game doesn't necessarily equate to your slant on it. I think there's some reaching going on by more than just GP here.

But I don't have a blog, and I don't have access to Wade's play books...sooooo yeah, my opinion is crap, I suppose. LOL. When I think of a truly artistic and mostly pass-happy offense I think of the Saints. The Patriots are there, as well. Folks could argue the Packers fit there, as well.

I don't see us as being those teams, not by a mile. We're balanced, but I'd hate to see this team with a plug nickel RB back there. Get me a Tony Hollings back there and let's see how bad ass this passing offense becomes over a 16-game season.

GP, don't hurt your arms here on the EPIC REACH.

Maybe you're p.o.'d that multiple folks' analysis doesn't match up with yours, and you want to be the smartest guy in the room tonight, but nobody's buying.

I'd suggest a graceful bow out before this gets even uglier.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Texans_Chick

That was the first comment that Rick Dennison said when he came to the Texans. That after looking at tons of tape, he was amazed that the play action worked as well as it did despite a lack of consistent running game.

The running game doesn't have to work. It's much better when it does. The defense just has to not know run or pass based on the feel of the play.

And with some game plans, the Texans come out throwing in the first half. Like you wouldn't even know you had good runners on the team. The run stats get gaudy when you have leads and are using run to burn clock after the lead.

You have to give Dennison immense credit for his contributions. I did so here. http://is.gd/cuDIqp I think he added what was missing that has really allowed Kubiak's system to shine.

Gibbs laid the foundation for the concept, Dennison made it hard to defend and the rest is Gary's genius I believe.

[GP]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

No, those have nothing to do with your opinion being crap.

Infantry said it though, Andre & Schaub had their best years in this system, with one of the three worst running attacks in the league.

Other teams have great passing stats, too, yet stink from an overall perspective, but we're going to really sit here and say because some stats were the best ever for two guys that it EQUATES to something else??????????

Cam Newton was a beast last year, didn't mean ****. Doesn't mean **** now, either. So what. LOL. Running QBs like Newton and Vick, they excel at what they do best but yet look at their teams' success: CRAP. Consistently. If they had an offense SYSTEM like ours, and they bought into it whole-hog, they'd be better than they are. We'd be worse off if all we did was pass or expected the pass game to be our savior every game.

So yeah, let's talk about the awesome year Schaub and AJ had and how that's the proof we should be looking at. Makes zero sense. LOL.

[GP]

Originally Posted by disaacks3

GP, don't hurt your arms here on the EPIC REACH.

Maybe you're p.o.'d that multiple folks' analysis doesn't match up with yours, and you want to be the smartest guy in the room tonight, but nobody's buying.

I'd suggest a graceful bow out before this gets even uglier.

I don't run my campaign based on what others say, never have and never will.

I don't take a poll and state my opinion based on how the majority is saying this or that.

Frankly, a lot of you parrot what others say JUST for the sake of avoiding conflict. To get along. I at least back up my opinions with reasons. If the reasons aren't accepted, it doesn't mean I go back to the drawing board or bow out, either. I still believe what I say and it's my opinion.

I don't have to get everybody to agree, but it'd be nice to just have someone interact rather than make fun of me. Right? Besides, at the end of the day I'm talking football and not out to build alliances and garner praise. I'm just talking football. I should bow out? LOL.

[LondonTex]

Originally Posted by Trail.Blazr

And then there's those plays which we don't know if we should run or pass

Hahaha

[GP]

Originally Posted by barrett

You have to give Dennison immense credit for his contributions. I did so here. http://is.gd/cuDIqp I think he added what was missing that has really allowed Kubiak's system to shine.

Gibbs laid the foundation for the concept, Dennison made it hard to defend and the rest is Gary's genius I believe.

I think Gary's major contribution is talent identification. The guy knows what cogs fit within his machine (much like Wade does with the defense). He stumbled a bit with the RB situation, but even found a way to get it corrected within a few seasons of sporadic results.

I also think Gary is Tom Landry'ish developer of offense scheming and planning. Don't get me wrong, I think Landry was on a higher level (NFL football eras aside).

My only issue is when things aren't going well on game day. When the plan is faltering early on. I feel Gary is sometimes slow to react. We all sit here and agree that half-time can sometimes be Gary's best friend on rainy days when the plan isn't going to plan. To his credit, though, he usually succeeds in countering in the 2nd half even if it doesn't lead to a win for us.

I'd like to be able to compare and contrast Rick Dennison and Kyle Shanahan. It would be cool to put those two o-coordinators side by side and compare/contrast the styles and results they both had as our OC here. My observation is that Dennison utilizes a lot of deep drop backs by Schaub and longer developing passing plays than Shanahan employed when Shanahan was OC here. To me, the result seems to be bigger plays downfield, more dynamic plays. Those 20+ and even 30+ yarders we see to Owen Daniels and even Kevin Walter to some extent.

The run game, IIRC, became better after Gibbs left us. Granted, he laid a foundation and established a tone here. Just saying that maybe Dennison developed that even more after Gibbs departed.

[SAMURAITEXAN]

Originally Posted by GP

I think Gary's major contribution is talent identification. The guy knows what cogs fit within his machine (much like Wade does with the defense). He stumbled a bit with the RB situation, but even found a way to get it corrected within a few seasons of sporadic results.

I also think Gary is Tom Landry'ish developer of offense scheming and planning. Don't get me wrong, I think Landry was on a higher level (NFL football eras aside).

My only issue is when things aren't going well on game day. When the plan is faltering early on. I feel Gary is sometimes slow to react. We all sit here and agree that half-time can sometimes be Gary's best friend on rainy days when the plan isn't going to plan. To his credit, though, he usually succeeds in countering in the 2nd half even if it doesn't lead to a win for us.

I'd like to be able to compare and contrast Rick Dennison and Kyle Shanahan. It would be cool to put those two o-coordinators side by side and compare/contrast the styles and results they both had as our OC here. My observation is that Dennison utilizes a lot of deep drop backs by Schaub and longer developing passing plays than Shanahan employed when Shanahan was OC here. To me, the result seems to be bigger plays downfield, more dynamic plays. Those 20+ and even 30+ yarders we see to Owen Daniels and even Kevin Walter to some extent.

The run game, IIRC, became better after Gibbs left us. Granted, he laid a foundation and established a tone here. Just saying that maybe Dennison developed that even more after Gibbs departed.

I agree GP. Our running game is really improved since Dennison's arrival here as our OC and I remember some of our TTC members here were predicting our running game will improve under Dennison as our OC. My hat off to those guys.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GP

Other teams have great passing stats, too, yet stink from an overall perspective, but we're going to really sit here and say because some stats were the best ever for two guys that it EQUATES to something else??????????

Nobody is saying if it was true in 2009 then it is true now. What we are saying is that the premise is bad. Our passing game in 2009 proves the premise is bad.

Maybe our play action is so good now because of our run game, maybe Greenbay spanked us because they shut down the run game (hence the boot).

But we've all seen the play action work, for whatever reason, without a run game. 2009. It worked all year long.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by Trail.Blazr

And then there's those plays which we don't know if we should run or pass

you just HAAAD to go there...

[GP]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

Nobody is saying if it was true in 2009 then it is true now. What we are saying is that the premise is bad. Our passing game in 2009 proves the premise is bad.

Maybe our play action is so good now because of our run game, maybe Greenbay spanked us because they shut down the run game (hence the boot).

But we've all seen the play action work, for whatever reason, without a run game. 2009. It worked all year long.

The Dolphins made the Wildcat work for ONE YEAR, as well. All year long. Rode that bad boy to a playoff appearance, too. After that? Crash. Because people figured it out, weren't intimidated by it anymore. Vince Young? Same thing. League teams figured him out. Crash. We're not bulletproof just because one phase of our offense is awesome. It has taken BOTH sides to make this team a contender.

I'm no closer to changing my mind, and it's not for lack of listening to other ideas.

This team's passing game is solid, but the run game magnifies it and makes it really BIG. I never want to see the day when we have crap RBs and a decent passing game, like we had for 75% of our franchise's history.

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by GP

I'm no closer to changing my mind, and it's not for lack of listening to other ideas.

No, it's because you're steadfastly sticking to a theory that no one else is buying. But, since all the rest of us are just "parroting" ideas and trying not to "rock the boat" all the rest of us must be wrong.

[Trail.Blazr]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

Nobody is saying if it was true in 2009 then it is true now. What we are saying is that the premise is bad. Our passing game in 2009 proves the premise is bad.

Maybe our play action is so good now because of our run game, maybe Greenbay spanked us because they shut down the run game (hence the boot).

But we've all seen the play action work, for whatever reason, without a run game. 2009. It worked all year long.

Is it possible that 2009 was a product of relying more heavily on the pass, simply because the run game wasn't as competent as it has been in the past few years? Or maybe the past couple of years, Schaub has been less likely to force things, thus, as GP states, the number of big plays have gone down? Or there's still consideration to be made that Dre hasn't played as much in the past seasons as Houston would like to have seen, and even this year, he's appearing to no longer be SUPER-Human? Maybe alot of factors, but I don't know that 2009 proves GP's premise bad, as much as 2009 provides a form of exception to GP's premise.

I don't think any of us would argue that a strong running game can't do anything but help the passing game. That's not what is being debated here, is it?

IMHO, I think this 2012 passing attack has been less it's best in season's past, but still is showing it has a solid pulse. Same can be said for the run game. I personally feel that on either side of the fence, the success is built off of execution more than anything. We have a lot of new components, in terms of OL and Wide outs as well as Dreeson being gone, that week by week, are having to learn how to cohesively "execute". Fortunately, with a 6-1 record going into the buy and a manageable schedule ahead, this team has every probability of cruising into the playoffs, and a good opportunity of possibly landing some home-field. All the while, they continue to find their ceiling on this "cohesive execution" I speak to. The way I see it, offensively, the Texans have a good chance of peaking in time for a real good post season run.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by barrett

You have to give Dennison immense credit for his contributions. I did so here. http://is.gd/cuDIqp I think he added what was missing that has really allowed Kubiak's system to shine.

Gibbs laid the foundation for the concept, Dennison made it hard to defend and the rest is Gary's genius I believe.

Agreed

Except the Garys genius part.

That made me LOL.

Atleast Gary seems to be able to manage the 2 min drill better than he used too. Tell me more about Garys challenge record when you start throwing around the word genius?

[GP]

Originally Posted by disaacks3

No, it's because you're steadfastly sticking to a theory that no one else is buying. But, since all the rest of us are just "parroting" ideas and trying not to "rock the boat" all the rest of us must be wrong.

Your sig pic is stupid.

So there.



Hey, I read your Cloud Atlas review btw. And posted in that thread.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by Trail.Blazr

Is it possible that 2009 was a product of relying more heavily on the pass, simply because the run game wasn't as competent as it has been in the past few years? Or maybe the past couple of years, Schaub has been less likely to force things, thus, as GP states, the number of big plays have gone down? Or there's still consideration to be made that Dre hasn't played as much in the past seasons as Houston would like to have seen, and even this year, he's appearing to no longer be SUPER-Human? Maybe alot of factors, but I don't know that 2009 proves GP's premise bad, as much as 2009 provides a form of exception to GP's premise.

I don't think any of us would argue that a strong running game can't do anything but help the passing game. That's not what is being debated here, is it?

IMHO, I think this 2012 passing attack has been less it's best in season's past, but still is showing it has a solid pulse. Same can be said for the run game. I personally feel that on either side of the fence, the success is built off of execution more than anything. We have a lot of new components, in terms of OL and Wide outs as well as Dreeson being gone, that week by week, are having to learn how to cohesively "execute". Fortunately, with a 6-1 record going into the buy and a manageable schedule ahead, this team has every probability of cruising into the playoffs, and a good opportunity of possibly landing some home-field. All the while, they continue to find their ceiling on this "cohesive execution" I speak to. The way I see it, offensively, the Texans have a good chance of peaking in time for a real good post season run.

In 2012 Slaton got hurt so Gary didn't have a horse RB to go to. (Oh that's right he had Foster but chose not to play him.) This is why the Texans were a pass 1st team in 2009. Now that Gary has 3 stud RB's and Dennison has improved the run scheme even more since Gibbs left, it only makes since that the Texans would be a run 1st team. It's the strength of the offense.

[Trail.Blazr]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

In 2009 Slaton got hurt so Gary didn't have a horse RB to go to. (Oh that's right he had Foster but chose not to play him.) This is why the Texans were a pass 1st team in 2009. Now that Gary has 3 stud RB's and Dennison has improved the run scheme even more since Gibbs left, it only makes since that the Texans would be a run 1st team. It's the strength of the offense.

Fixed and agree.. I conceded the competency(lack of) of the run game in 2009. The point made was that there were other underlying factors that may have played into the 2009 passing success, not just a ho-hum rushing game.

Overall, when trying to see the forest for the trees, one has to go back to 2006 to see a Night and DAy difference of what a good offense looks like and what a bad offense looks like. From 2007 and on, the Houston Offense has statistically been in a different league than it's 2006 and earlier predecessors.

What's the biggest common denominator since 2006? I'll give you a hint.. the answer isn't found in the running game.

Did anyone say Matt Schaub??

Back on point, I believe lining up in a way that leaves question to "are they running or are they passing" on a regular basis, is a good solid strategy. I certainly don't think it as gadgetry like the wild cat. But I do agree with GP that balance is important. I think it takes above average intelligence to consistently sell it and execute it successfully. And most of all, the better balanced a team is the ability to consistently sell it becomes easier.

[76Texan]

OK, so then GP, why is it that last year when our run game worked very well (we ranked 2nd) but out passing game was below average (we ranked 18th).

On the other hand, in 2008, it was somewhat of a reverse, we ranked just 13th in rushing but 4th in passing.

A good running game doesn't automatically elevate the passing game.
A subpar running game doesn't automatically means that a poor passing game is sure to follow.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Trail.Blazr

Is it possible that 2009 was a product of relying more heavily on the pass, simply because the run game wasn't as competent as it has been in the past few years?

Well of course, but the point was the passing game can and did perform at an extremely high level with one of the poorest rushing games in the league.

Or maybe the past couple of years, Schaub has been less likely to force things, thus, as GP states, the number of big plays have gone down?

Go look at the numbers 2009 v. 2010: 583 pass att. v. 574, 62 20+ yd plays v. 59. So crud rushing game v. league's leading rusher, the passing attack remained (with AJ missing 3.5 games in 2010).

Originally Posted by Trail.Blazr

What's the biggest common denominator since 2006? I'll give you a hint.. the answer isn't found in the running game.

Did anyone say Matt Schaub??

You shouldn't hide because it is true or more fully Kubiak/Schaub.

I certainly don't think it as gadgetry like the wild cat.

Bingo. Wild cat analogies have no place here. This is neither new fangled nor a gimmick offense. Kubiak has put his personal touches on it but teams have been facing it for decades.

But I do agree with GP that balance is important. I think it takes above average intelligence to consistently sell it and execute it successfully. And most of all, the better balanced a team is the ability to consistently sell it becomes easier.

If all GP had said was balance is important then this thread would be on page 3 of the MB. Of course balance is a goal.

What some of us have been trying to convey is the rushing results are only one factor in the success of the passing game. The fundamental point is the sales job - how the OL comes off the line, great example from TC about the FB and TE's selling their blocks as run blocks rather than pass protection, how the RB behaves after a fake, how Schaub roles out like he is bootlegging after he actually hands off, etc. all add up to the success even more than the ypa.

Some of us have been saying Schaub has one of the best play fakes in the league for a couple years now. Carr was miserable at it. Frankly Alex Smith has a huge tell - he locks his elbow when he is faking but not when he is actually handing it off. Little things like that all add up to make the Texans passing attack successful whether they are averging 3.5 ypc or 4.5 ypc.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GP

The Dolphins made the Wildcat work for ONE YEAR, as well. All year long. Rode that bad boy to a playoff appearance, too. After that? Crash. Because people figured it out, weren't intimidated by it anymore. Vince Young? Same thing. League teams figured him out. Crash. We're not bulletproof just because one phase of our offense is awesome. It has taken BOTH sides to make this team a contender.

That's actually a good argument.

[DocBar]

GP makes some good points.
The basis of the offense is keeping the D guessing run or pass for a split second. IIRC, in 2008, Slaton had a good year and made D's honor the run. In 2009, not so much and we paid for it in how many games? We lost some serious heartbreakers in 2009 because we couldn't run the ball effectively or stop anybody defensively(a recurring theme prior to 2011).

IMO, Kubiak's prior attempts at trickery have ruined it for him. He'll try a reverse, or even a double, every now and then but, for the most part, those plays haven't done so well. That explains to me why he is so slow to change the "plan" during a game. Either that, or he is the son of Red from "the Waterboy" and only has an old copy of the Bronco's '98 playbook and has been searching for those players ever since.