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

Yahoo Article: Input From Rosenfels

Exascor

Exascor

Veteran
Interesting heariing from someone with the highest level of knowledge of Kubiak's system.
"It's football's version of Newton's Third Law of Motion," longtime NFL quarterback Sage Rosenfels, who played for Kubiak's Texans from 2006-08, said Sunday night. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, whatever the defense decides to try to take away, he has an answer for it."

The foundation of Kubiak's offense, according to Rosenfels, is that players are coached to behave almost identically on running and passing plays. Defenders are constantly kept off balance because they can't be sure that what they're seeing is actually what's taking place – and because if they take aggressive action to stop a particular type of play, Kubiak has a built-in mechanism for making them pay.

"They're the ultimate play-action team," Rosenfels explained. "They teach you to behave very similarly on run plays and pass plays, and it's very easy to get fooled. There were times when I played there that the back judge would walk up and say, 'Guys, I can't tell when it's a run and when it's a pass – your play action's that good.' For example, the fullback on a pass play will still hit the linebacker as hard as he can, like he would [run-blocking]. You really keep the defense on their toes, 'cause everything looks the same."
Click to expand...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--m...the--law--while-taking-upper-hand-in-afc.html
 
And then there's those plays which we don't know if we should run or pass

texanslolslomo-1.gif
 
A play-action play is good if the tv camerman is fooled and he follows the running back and the television audience misses the pass.
 
Then there's the QB Huey chopper play, which _unfortunately_ we took out of the playbook a few years back..

TJ
 
Jokes aside, this really is a very good description of the Texans offense.

Much better than the moronic view that it is run first despite how it tends to look in the first half of games.

As for Rosencopter, that was as sick of a game as you could watch on the losing side, but I appreciate people who are pressing more than the ones that don't give effort. He didn't want Manning to get the ball back. Made him try to do things he couldn't do.

Rosenfels has had as bad luck as you can have as an NFL QB but still get paid pretty handsomely. Drafted by someone who wanted him and then new coaching staff came. Went to the abyss that was the Dolphins dysfunction QB development. Came to a good situation in Houston, and may have taken over the QB job in 2006 but for a fluke hand injury that he got because the regular holder had a rare injury. Rare long field goal return, he's the first one down for the coverage, breaks his hand. With his uncertainty, and likely anyway, Texans give up the farm for Schaub. Goes to the Vikings for a better situation, then they do the Favre thing. Does Giants, then Dolphins, but with a mystery illness that is lingering, doesn't have a chance. Because of illness status, Texans couldn't deal for him after Schaub got hurt last year, and the Dolphins didn't release him until it was too late given Schaub's injury.
 
Texans_Chick said:
Jokes aside, this really is a very good description of the Texans offense.

Much better than the moronic view that it is run first despite how it tends to look in the first half of games.
Click to expand...
Yeah-sadly the thread title doesn't do the article justice. I hope people actually read the piece. It's really one of the best insights into Kubiak's system I've ever seen.
 
I like Sage Rosenfels. I didn't like that hit or the fumble, but I liked the courage and desire of the man.

Is he retired, or does he still suit up when teams go looking for mid-season replacements due to injury?
 
Texans_Chick said:
Jokes aside, this really is a very good description of the Texans offense.

Much better than the moronic view that it is run first despite how it tends to look in the first half of games.

As for Rosencopter, that was as sick of a game as you could watch on the losing side, but I appreciate people who are pressing more than the ones that don't give effort. He didn't want Manning to get the ball back. Made him try to do things he couldn't do.

Rosenfels has had as bad luck as you can have as an NFL QB but still get paid pretty handsomely. Drafted by someone who wanted him and then new coaching staff came. Went to the abyss that was the Dolphins dysfunction QB development. Came to a good situation in Houston, and may have taken over the QB job in 2006 but for a fluke hand injury that he got because the regular holder had a rare injury. Rare long field goal return, he's the first one down for the coverage, breaks his hand. With his uncertainty, and likely anyway, Texans give up the farm for Schaub. Goes to the Vikings for a better situation, then they do the Favre thing. Does Giants, then Dolphins, but with a mystery illness that is lingering, doesn't have a chance. Because of illness status, Texans couldn't deal for him after Schaub got hurt last year, and the Dolphins didn't release him until it was too late given Schaub's injury.
Click to expand...

If your run game is trash, nobody on defense cares to worry about how good your OL and RBs fake a run play that's actually a pass play "in disguise."

This team wasn't deadly until Foster and that OL started tearing new you-know-whats into teams on a consistent basis. Schaub and the WR/TE crew had always been very prominent (That's Kubiak's wheelhouse). It's just that they became ultra lethal when defenses had to account for a newfound running game.

We're a do-what-it-takes offense, not run first and not pass first. But I am a firm believer that the ground game has to have some semblance of productivity on game day for the passing game to work. Otherwise, Schaub ends up on his butt like he did in the GB game two weeks ago. Regularly.
 
GP said:
If your run game is trash, nobody on defense cares to worry about how good your OL and RBs fake a run play that's actually a pass play "in disguise."...

But I am a firm believer that the ground game has to have some semblance of productivity on game day for the passing game to work. Otherwise, Schaub ends up on his butt like he did in the GB game two weeks ago. Regularly.
Click to expand...

Obviously it is best to have both but this sounds like it comes from a theoretician rather than a Texans fan. Schaub led the league in passing (298 ypg) and AJ led the league in receiving with a crap running game (30th). The year before with a mediocre running game Schaub averaged 276 yards passing when he started.

Commentators repeatedly noted during that time period how well the passing game worked without an effective rushing game.

The Texans built their passing game first. That is historical fact even if it doesn't meet the theory.
 
GP said:
From my sig pic archives:

rosencopter-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Ugh. I just watched the NFL replay highlights of that game on Youtube and it still makes me sick to my stomach. But now I kind of want to go look at the archives of the gameday thread to torture myself more.
 
infantrycak said:
Obviously it is best to have both but this sounds like it comes from a theoretician rather than a Texans fan. Schaub led the league in passing (298 ypg) and AJ led the league in receiving with a crap running game (30th). The year before with a mediocre running game Schaub averaged 276 yards passing when he started.

Commentators repeatedly noted during that time period how well the passing game worked without an effective rushing game.

The Texans built their passing game first. That is historical fact even if it doesn't meet the theory.
Click to expand...

I'm not kidding, but GP is a master of disguise who can paint perception as reality.

He has a very vivid imagination, that's for sure (and that's a real compliment).
 
infantrycak said:
Obviously it is best to have both but this sounds like it comes from a theoretician rather than a Texans fan. Schaub led the league in passing (298 ypg) and AJ led the league in receiving with a crap running game (30th). The year before with a mediocre running game Schaub averaged 276 yards passing when he started.

Commentators repeatedly noted during that time period how well the passing game worked without an effective rushing game.

The Texans built their passing game first. That is historical fact even if it doesn't meet the theory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
infantrycak said:
Obviously it is best to have both but this sounds like it comes from a theoretician rather than a Texans fan. Schaub led the league in passing (298 ypg) and AJ led the league in receiving with a crap running game (30th). The year before with a mediocre running game Schaub averaged 276 yards passing when he started.

Commentators repeatedly noted during that time period how well the passing game worked without an effective rushing game.

The Texans built their passing game first. That is historical fact even if it doesn't meet the theory.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Thanks for the perspective.
 
76Texan said:
I'm not kidding, but GP is a master of disguise who can paint perception as reality.

He has a very vivid imagination, that's for sure (and that's a real compliment).
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Texans_Chick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fiddler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
disaacks3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
barrett said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GP said:
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??????????
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fiddler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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. :brando:
 
Fiddler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
barrett said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
disaacks3 said:
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. :brando:
Click to expand...

Your sig pic is stupid.

So there.

:kitten:

Hey, I read your Cloud Atlas review btw. And posted in that thread.
 
Trail.Blazr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
steelbtexan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

:hides: Did anyone say Matt Schaub?? :hides:

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.
 
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.
 
Trail.Blazr said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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).

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

:hides: Did anyone say Matt Schaub?? :hides:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good argument.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
ObsiWan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)?
 
barrett said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
GP said:
Good, subpar, average, elite, I don't know why you're tossing out qualifiers like that. Why? LOL.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Thanks, end of discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top