Yahoo Article: Input From Rosenfels

[The Pencil Neck]

The original point of this was whether or not you have to have a good running game in order to sell the play action fake.

Our play action fake has worked with this offense ever since 2006. Our play action fake worked when Darius Walker and Ron Dayne were our running backs. The play action fake is about making the defense read run when you're passing. The cornerstone of our offense is that zone run and a lot of our passing attack is based off that.

The past couple of years, we've integrated more power blocking concepts and we're not relying on that as much but it's still the majority of what we do.

And it works.

[ObsiWan]

I think you're all missing - or ignoring - Rosenfels' main point:

It's not how successful the running game is - or was - that makes our play-action offense successful, it's making both run and pass look EXACTLY the same after the snap so the defense can't tell the difference. Those split seconds of doubt in the defense's mind - while they try and figure what's actually going on - gives us an edge.

History has shown (and several folks have posted the proper stats to show it) that a monster running game isn't necessary for our passing game to be successful.

[barrett]

One of the main reasons that the passing game isn't as "prolific" is simply because it doesn't have to be. Slaton's 1200 yard season was an anomaly and specifically, the running game wasn't that good, Slaton was making off schedule plays and getting it done, but he wasn't running the zone correctly. Slaton had terrible vision when it came to pressing the play side and reading the cutback. It's nothing like the zone look that we're running now. It's the same concept, but it's being carried out much better by the offensive line (on a much more complex level, thanks to Dennison) and the RB is reading it correctly, making it that much more effective.

To go back to the Gibbs reference, Gibbs wanted to run the same 4 or 5 plays and he wanted them to be run perfectly. I have no issue with that in theory and that is why I believe very strongly that his presence here, though not successful, was critical in laying the groundwork for the attention to detail in the zone game that doesn't exist for 31 other teams.

Everyone runs some aspect of the zone, nobody is dedicated to it like Houston is.

There is not another team in the NFL that runs the zone as purely as Houston does. We don't run it as simply as Gibbs believed it should be run, but we do run it with the same dedication, systematically, that Gibbs believed it should be in order to create the carbon copy looks that Rosenfels references.

Dennison just made it much more effective.

Gary's genius, for who ever it was that challenged that label, is how he works within the concept and his willingness to stay completely dedicated to it. The pre snap design, the play calling that minimizes defensive aggression and the dedication to the purity of the system are all keys to why the offense is so successful. It's not exciting because by design, it is very low risk. So on the week side boot that gives Schaub three options on the same side of the field, he's almost always taking the safer short route for 8 yards now a days instead of the 25 yard route that puts the safety in play, even though he's trailing, because you don't need to risk it when the next play is very likely going to be for another 8 - 15 yard gain and if it's not and you have to punt, the defense is ready to pounce.

[houstonspartan]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

I think you're all missing - or ignoring - Rosenfels' main point:

It's not how successful the running game is - or was - that makes our play-action offense successful, it's making both run and pass look EXACTLY the same after the snap so the defense can't tell the difference. Those split seconds of doubt in the defense's mind - while they try and figure what's actually going on - gives us an edge.

History has shown (and several folks have posted the proper stats to show it) that a monster running game isn't necessary for our passing game to be successful.

Agree.

Also, maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this a more complex version of the West Coast Offense? (i.e., we just hide our intentions better)?

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by barrett

One of the main reasons that the passing game isn't as "prolific" is simply because it doesn't have to be. Slaton's 1200 yard season was an anomaly and specifically, the running game wasn't that good, Slaton was making off schedule plays and getting it done, but he wasn't running the zone correctly. Slaton had terrible vision when it came to pressing the play side and reading the cutback. It's nothing like the zone look that we're running now. It's the same concept, but it's being carried out much better by the offensive line (on a much more complex level, thanks to Dennison) and the RB is reading it correctly, making it that much more effective.

To go back to the Gibbs reference, Gibbs wanted to run the same 4 or 5 plays and he wanted them to be run perfectly. I have no issue with that in theory and that is why I believe very strongly that his presence here, though not successful, was critical in laying the groundwork for the attention to detail in the zone game that doesn't exist for 31 other teams.

Everyone runs some aspect of the zone, nobody is dedicated to it like Houston is.

There is not another team in the NFL that runs the zone as purely as Houston does. We don't run it as simply as Gibbs believed it should be run, but we do run it with the same dedication, systematically, that Gibbs believed it should be in order to create the carbon copy looks that Rosenfels references.

Dennison just made it much more effective.

Gary's genius, for who ever it was that challenged that label, is how he works within the concept and his willingness to stay completely dedicated to it. The pre snap design, the play calling that minimizes defensive aggression and the dedication to the purity of the system are all keys to why the offense is so successful. It's not exciting because by design, it is very low risk. So on the week side boot that gives Schaub three options on the same side of the field, he's almost always taking the safer short route for 8 yards now a days instead of the 25 yard route that puts the safety in play, even though he's trailing, because you don't need to risk it when the next play is very likely going to be for another 8 - 15 yard gain and if it's not and you have to punt, the defense is ready to pounce.

That's straight out of Vince Lombardi's football philosophy. Vince made them run that Packer sweep to perfection. And even when the defense knew it was coming, that attention to detail, that insistence on all 11 guys executing to perfection, made it hard to stop. That's what our offensive braintrust is trying to instill here. Do your job to perfection and we'll be very hard to stop.

[barrett]

I agree that the attention to detail has carried over, but where Gibbs failed and Dennison has succeeded is using several new twists on the concept such as adding in pulling guards, centers and even the occasional tight end.

The concept remains the same but Dennison is using more misdirection on top of getting everyone flowing the same way to really make the zone work that much better.

If you compare the Texans running the zone to any other team in the league, it's not even close. The Texans have clearly spent an inordinate amount of time on the little details of the concept.

With all due respect to Vince Lombardi, Gibbs' failure to adapt or inability to properly teach the execution is what got him gone.

[Norg]

is sage still in the NFL?????

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Norg

is sage still in the NFL?????

Last year, he was with Minnesota. This year, he's with his couch.

[GP]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good, subpar, average, elite, I don't know why you're tossing out qualifiers like that. Why? LOL.

Our passing game has always been great. The one thing Kubiak has always done well, in spite of any other phases of our game since he's been HC here, is the passing game. Obviously being a former QB, he would excel at that.

I mean, seriously...yeah, out of the run game, the pass game, special teams play, run defense, pass defense, only ONE phase was rocking and rolling here at the beginning of Kubiak's tenure here as HC. He but Carr's sack numbers in half that first year compared to Carr's last year with Dom Capers. His impact on the passing game came BEFORE the arrival of Matt Schaub. He was making chicken salad out of chicken ****. That's impressive, that shows how well he knows PASSING.

And I "get it" that our passing game is lethal. I really do. Hell, we even go with a passing play on our very first snap a healthy 90% of the time. This past week's game, IIRC, was the first run play on our very first snap that I can remember in ages. So yeah, Kubiak wants to pass the ball. I get that. I really do.

But, again, if we had a crap run game year in and year out...not just for ONE season as it's being framed in this topic (and we can't remove the previous years of Foster and theorize what our offense would look like with a crap run game and a great pass game these past 3 seasons here, either) so ultimately we have to be a bit subjective about "what if" we had Jonathan Wells at running back for 3 straight seasons. I don't think the passing game would be consistently good enough.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by GP

Good, subpar, average, elite, I don't know why you're tossing out qualifiers like that. Why? LOL.

Crappy, OK, Best - I guess those are all qualifiers in your world.

Our passing game has always been great. The one thing Kubiak has always done well, in spite of any other phases of our game since he's been HC here, is the passing game. Obviously being a former QB, he would excel at that.

Thanks, end of discussion.

[GP]

I also typed that post in a rush, just to let everyone know. LOL.

I think of offenses that are truly what I consider to be elite passing teams, those teams where you can't stop the passing game. Manning's heyday with the Colts. Brees' ongoing affair with the Saints. Tom Brady who keeps slinging his team to wins with regularity every single season he's there. Rodgers arguably fits in that category. Do we look like/appear like those teams in terms of how we win games? I don't think we do. It can happen, but it's not the norm.

For me, it seems like IF we were to go on a 3 or 4-year bender without a quality running game to utilize, the passing game (even with Schaub and his crew operating at their highest levels they could operate at) we're not going to be a contending team for a Super Bowl trophy. I don't think Schaub has the Manning/Brees/Brady chops to do that year in and year out. That's not me saying he isn't a great QB, heck I have really grown to fully appreciate his talent this season...he's cemented it for me, in my mind, and I was a "hater" for many seasons. I just don't envision Kubiak building this team to be a passing game juggernaut.

I bet if we were to ask him, he'd say the run game is more valuable than people think. It's not an either/or. Without one, the other shrinks over time. What I think is patently obvious THIS season is that even the guys on offense have figured that out, IMO. Kubiak ran the ball down the throats of our first few weeks' worth of opponents...then the Broncos game we lit up the stat sheet on passing plays. I think we're deadly and this year's best team because if our run game is faltering, then the passing game can be deployed at a higher level and compensate and get us the win. When the passing game is faltering, the run game can help to settle us down and get things opened up for our passing game. Arian Foster's contract is proof that Kubiak places a high premium on RBs and the run game. It just took him awhile to acquire the right ones.

I just know that this team has to have a legitimate running attack or I think the passing game, over time, can't sustain things from game to game. Not with just OD stretching defenses and Walter sneaking past confused secondaries who are looking shallow for Foster or Tate, because AJ is aging and slowing down...and the rookies are not progressing fast enough. Outside of OD, we don't have a secondary-stretching passing game to rely upon. If a defense shuts down OD, it causes us problems everywhere. This has to become a larger priority for Kubiak in the next few seasons here. We need home run draft choices in the area of receiver and/or TE. And we need OL and LB too. LOL.