Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Bring the House of Pain back to Houston!

DocBar said:
I agree 100%. My biggest worry is the talent level at the various positions in this draft. I don't think there is a GREAT CB in it. Some good ones, yes. Safety and DL are much deeper than CB.

Call me crazy, but our "multiple, deceptive schemes" usually end in a TD. As has been posted on this thread, we don't have the talent in the secondary at 3 of the 4 (MAYBE all 4) to realistically run "multiple, deceptive schemes" because our DL just can't consistently pressure QB's. Just look at the Redskins and the day Bruenell had here. Noway should he have had a career day. We threw the kitchen sink at the dude and his OL kept him upright for the most part and he ate our lunch.
Click to expand...

Totally understand where you are coming from and agree with you on the problem. But, I it seems like we can get better pressure if we cover better. Just how I see it. I don't know if we have to draft, maybe a free agent splash? Probably too expensive but worth exploring.

I think the last Super Bowl is a great example. Chicago had the talent to match up and play in the secondary, but they decided to let Manning have certain throws generally uncontested. In other words, their coverage was lax. The Bears coverage schemes basically made their pass rush ineffective in my opinion.

Like I said, I agree with you guys regarding the issues on the Dline and the overall problems with the defense. I would try and tackle those issues from a different perspective.
 
hollywood_texan said:
Totally understand where you are coming from and agree with you on the problem. But, I it seems like we can get better pressure if we cover better. Just how I see it. I don't know if we have to draft, maybe a free agent splash? Probably too expensive but worth exploring.

I think the last Super Bowl is a great example. Chicago had the talent to match up and play in the secondary, but they decided to let Manning have certain throws generally uncontested. In other words, their coverage was lax. The Bears coverage schemes basically made their pass rush ineffective in my opinion.

Like I said, I agree with you guys regarding the issues on the Dline and the overall problems with the defense. I would try and tackle those issues from a different perspective.
Click to expand...
That's what makes these MB's so much fun. I've learned a great deal from reading different perspectives of the same problem and different ways to solve those problems. i agree that Chicago had a poor scheme for the SB. All the talent in the world can't overcome horrible/bad coaching. See also DC.
:stirpot:
 
How about $ 8million to Nate Clemment to solve CB hole? Faggins back to nickle strengthen that position. Safeties and dline are then automatically better. $4m left under cap not including 2007 bump on cap and any renegotiation of existing contracts (Payne, Wong, Moulds, Carr). AP, Tony Ugoh (OT), Michael Johnson (S);a LB in 4th; best WR in 5th.
 
DocBar said:
That's what makes these MB's so much fun. I've learned a great deal from reading different perspectives of the same problem and different ways to solve those problems. i agree that Chicago had a poor scheme for the SB. All the talent in the world can't overcome horrible/bad coaching. See also DC.
:stirpot:
Click to expand...

No matter who we get, I have faith in Kubes and Smity to lead us in the right direction. They know this team better than all of us.
 
Meloy said:
How about $ 8million to Nate Clemment to solve CB hole? Faggins back to nickle strengthen that position. Safeties and dline are then automatically better. $4m left under cap not including 2007 bump on cap and any renegotiation of existing contracts (Payne, Wong, Moulds, Carr). AP, Tony Ugoh (OT), Michael Johnson (S);a LB in 4th; best WR in 5th.
Click to expand...

DBs still will not help our d-line get pressure on the QB. We really only have one solid d-lineman, and thats Mario. We have to help him along the line. The DBs will have to cover all day long if we don't upgrade the d-line. Its very true that both positions are needed, but you need to develop from the inside out.
 
trutxn said:
DBs still will not help our d-line get pressure on the QB. We really only have one solid d-lineman, and thats Mario. We have to help him along the line. The DBs will have to cover all day long if we don't upgrade the d-line. Its very true that both positions are needed, but you need to develop from the inside out.
Click to expand...

Manning is a good example, if you don't confuse the coverage and take away his hot receiver, he is probably going to expose and molest your blitz. I don't think we have the secondary talent to do that consistently and all the pass rush in the world isn't going to mitigate that issue.

A more balanced defensive approach seems more prudent and will yield better results, both in the short and long terms. At some point, the secondary has to be upgraded, and it needs it badly. I don't see any real benefit in waiting unless the talent or financial numbers don't work.
 
hollywood_texan said:
Manning is a good example, if you don't confuse the coverage and take away his hot receiver, he is probably going to expose and molest your blitz. I don't think we have the secondary talent to do that consistently and all the pass rush in the world isn't going to mitigate that issue.

A more balanced defensive approach seems more prudent and will yield better results, both in the short and long terms. At some point, the secondary has to be upgraded, and it needs it badly. I don't see any real benefit in waiting unless the talent or financial numbers don't work.
Click to expand...

Using Manning as the example, if our front four got pressure on him without having to send a linebacker, we would have extra people in coverage to cover the hot routes. Thus making our coverage better. Right now we have to blitz a backer every play just to get the QB to move around, taking away from the # of coverage personnel.

Don't get me wrong, balance is what every team needs to succeed and we will have to upgrade both our d-line and DBs to become balanced. But for quicker results pressure on the ball is important.
 
hollywood_texan said:
Manning is a good example, if you don't confuse the coverage and take away his hot receiver, he is probably going to expose and molest your blitz. I don't think we have the secondary talent to do that consistently and all the pass rush in the world isn't going to mitigate that issue.

A more balanced defensive approach seems more prudent and will yield better results, both in the short and long terms. At some point, the secondary has to be upgraded, and it needs it badly. I don't see any real benefit in waiting unless the talent or financial numbers don't work.
Click to expand...

There is no team in the NFL that has a secondary that can stop Peyton. Peyton has bad games when he is pressured, give him time and the worlds best corner has no chance.
 
"Stink" (Mark Schleareth , sp) probably said it best last night on NFL Live, "Until the Texans fix their core, O-line and defensive front 7, they will continue to struggle". Couldn't have said it better and fully agree.
 
hollywood_texan said:
Manning is a good example, if you don't confuse the coverage and take away his hot receiver, he is probably going to expose and molest your blitz. I don't think we have the secondary talent to do that consistently and all the pass rush in the world isn't going to mitigate that issue.

A more balanced defensive approach seems more prudent and will yield better results, both in the short and long terms. At some point, the secondary has to be upgraded, and it needs it badly. I don't see any real benefit in waiting unless the talent or financial numbers don't work.
Click to expand...

Mixing up and disguising coverages are great, provided you have A. Corners and safeties that CAN cover and B. consistent pressure on the QB. You don't have to have impressive sack numbers, just someone in a QB's face to throw off the timing of the play. Corners can do this, also with godd chucks at the LOS. IMO, our D bit on too many of the O's disguises and the O's absolutely abused our D, DESPITE all the aggressive and exotic packages. I'm not sure what a "balanced" D is. To me, it would be one equally adept at stopping the run and the pass. I'm much more in favor of a consistent D. The great D's in the league don't do a lot of mixing up over the course of a season. They rely on doing the basics consistently good. Like the commercial said:" Amatuers do it until they get it right; professionals do it until they can't get it wrong."
Better tackling and discipline in containment and assignments would do wonders for our D. I'm not sure of what I think of Our D Coordinator yet. I like the aggressiveness, but I wonder at some of the plays called and overall coaching ability that he brings to the table.
 
trutxn said:
There is no team in the NFL that has a secondary that can stop Peyton. Peyton has bad games when he is pressured, give him time and the worlds best corner has no chance.
Click to expand...

True, Manning is starting to have his way, which he didn't in the past.

But, there are few teams that consistently give him trouble regardless, which are the Chargers, Patriots, Ravens, and well maybe the Broncos.

All of those teams have pretty good secondaries.

I need to look this up, but I think Manning has way with the NFC because they don't imploy the schemes to confuse him. They just don't play him enough to sniff out his tendacies. That is where the Bears screwed up. In my opinion, they had the talent to give Manning all lot of problems, but they played a plain vanila defense and got burned.
 
hollywood_texan said:
True, Manning is starting to have his way, which he didn't in the past.

But, there are few teams that consistently give him trouble regardless, which are the Chargers, Patriots, Ravens, and well maybe the Broncos.

All of those teams have pretty good secondaries.

I need to look this up, but I think Manning has way with the NFC because they don't imploy the schemes to confuse him. They just don't play him enough to sniff out his tendacies. That is where the Bears screwed up. In my opinion, they had the talent to give Manning all lot of problems, but they played a plain vanila defense and got burned.
Click to expand...

I think the Bears were trying the Pats method of dealing with Manning....slobberknocking the stuffing out of him AND his receivers. It just didn't work. That's why they kept using soft coverages...let'em catch it, then hit hard and get a turnover.When Manning has people in his face and/or gets knocked around some, he becomes merely mortal pretty quickly. Almost...dare I say?....David Carrish in the flinching and happy feet dept. Getting the crap pounded out of you has that effect.JMHO
:bubble:
 
hollywood_texan said:
But, there are few teams that consistently give him trouble regardless, which are the Chargers, Patriots, Ravens, and well maybe the Broncos.

All of those teams have pretty good secondaries.
Click to expand...

These teams give him trouble because of the pressure they put on him, not because they shut down his receivers. They make him uncomfortable in the pocket, thus messing up his timing with his receivers.
 
hollywood_texan said:
True, Manning is starting to have his way, which he didn't in the past.

But, there are few teams that consistently give him trouble regardless, which are the Chargers, Patriots, Ravens, and well maybe the Broncos.
All of those teams have pretty good secondaries.

I need to look this up, but I think Manning has way with the NFC because they don't imploy the schemes to confuse him. They just don't play him enough to sniff out his tendacies. That is where the Bears screwed up. In my opinion, they had the talent to give Manning all lot of problems, but they played a plain vanila defense and got burned.
Click to expand...


The best way to play the Colts is to control the football on your own offensive side.

Those teams can run the football and eat clock.

Bears can't run, and can't rely on their QB, well then, they lose.
 
I went to a few games over the last five years and to be perfectly honest I think that in many ways you could call Reliant Stadium the "House of Pain".

Granted it's not usually painful to visiting teams or their fans but there's definitely some pain going down in Reliant. I felt it.
 
Texans_Chick said:
The best way to play the Colts is to control the football on your own offensive side.

Those teams can run the football and eat clock.

Bears can't run, and can't rely on their QB, well then, they lose.
Click to expand...

The Bears could run the football in 2006. Unfortunately, Cedric Benson got hurt early in the game and the Bears lost their 1-2 punch Benson and Jones.

Look, I keep repeating myself over and over and provide backup.

Some guy said earlier that defensive backs weren't important in playing the Colts and cited Jacksonville as an example. My response, a cornerback for Jacksonville played in the Pro Bowl this year. Jacksonville has a better secondary than the Texans. The Texans probably have the worst secondary in the NFL.

You are right TC, clock managment and keeping the ball way from Manning is a good tool, but it isn't the be all end all and Manning is too good to just be stopped by that. Manning is going to get the same amount of opportunities to mount drives unless a team does onside kicks and gets recovers the ball.

As I have said over and over, a balanced team will beat the Colts. All of you are right in the areas that are important.

But, if you have the weakest secondary in the NFL, your chances of beating Manning consisently will be tough, I don't care what your running game is like or how stout your pass rush is. Manning is too good of a QB to not expose a glaring weaknesses in talent or gameplan, which the secondary for the Texans is a glaring weakness.

I keep repeating myself, so if you guys respond, you will have the last word.

Also, TC, the Bears couldn't stop Manning's passing game. That's why they lost! You'll blame Grossman but won't blame Carr, go figure? You state the Bears lose because of the offense, implying that the defensive side was unimportant. In my opinion, the game was lost before it was played because the Bears defensive gameplan was crap. Maybe that's why their defensive coordinator is now the linebacker's coach for the Chargers.

Thanks for the convo, I enjoyed it. I really mean that, but at some point things run their course.
 
I just need to say that this 'Bring Back' the "House of Pain" talk is bad medicine.

Do you really want Jerry Glanville back in Houston?

1989 Dec 17th 61-7

at least Dungy has been christian enough to ease off a little after putting up 40 points. With that evil little toad back on the sideline, I doubt everybody would be so forgiving and sportsmanlike.
 
TwinSisters said:
I just need to say that this 'Bring Back' the "House of Pain" talk is bad medicine.

Do you really want Jerry Glanville back in Houston?

1989 Dec 17th 61-7

at least Dungy has been christian enough to ease off a little after putting up 40 points. With that evil little toad back on the sideline, I doubt everybody would be so forgiving and sportsmanlike.
Click to expand...
Does Glanville have trademark rights on the phrase? I wouldn't mind bringing that defensive intensity back to Houston. Glanvilles freakshow can stay on the road or wherever he is today.
 
hollywood_texan said:
The Bears could run the football in 2006. Unfortunately, Cedric Benson got hurt early in the game and the Bears lost their 1-2 punch Benson and Jones.

Look, I keep repeating myself over and over and provide backup.

Some guy said earlier that defensive backs weren't important in playing the Colts and cited Jacksonville as an example. My response, a cornerback for Jacksonville played in the Pro Bowl this year. Jacksonville has a better secondary than the Texans. The Texans probably have the worst secondary in the NFL.

You are right TC, clock managment and keeping the ball way from Manning is a good tool, but it isn't the be all end all and Manning is too good to just be stopped by that. Manning is going to get the same amount of opportunities to mount drives unless a team does onside kicks and gets recovers the ball.

As I have said over and over, a balanced team will beat the Colts. All of you are right in the areas that are important.

But, if you have the weakest secondary in the NFL, your chances of beating Manning consisently will be tough, I don't care what your running game is like or how stout your pass rush is. Manning is too good of a QB to not expose a glaring weaknesses in talent or gameplan, which the secondary for the Texans is a glaring weakness.

I keep repeating myself, so if you guys respond, you will have the last word.

Also, TC, the Bears couldn't stop Manning's passing game. That's why they lost! You'll blame Grossman but won't blame Carr, go figure? You state the Bears lose because of the offense, implying that the defensive side was unimportant. In my opinion, the game was lost before it was played because the Bears defensive gameplan was crap. Maybe that's why their defensive coordinator is now the linebacker's coach for the Chargers.

Thanks for the convo, I enjoyed it. I really mean that, but at some point things run their course.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you want to improve the Texans secondary. Who doesn't? Of course, all the teams want to improve their secondaries.

And you think the rest of the defense needs to be improved too. Well yeah.

Few teams can beat the Colts offensive straight up, especially now that the enforce the contact rules in the secondary. The Bears defense actually got some key turnovers but had to keep defending short fields because the Bears offense was looking anemic.

The Bears didn't lose just because they couldn't stop Manning. They couldn't stop the run either. And they couldn't keep their offense on the field.
 
DocBar said:
Does Glanville have trademark rights on the phrase? I wouldn't mind bringing that defensive intensity back to Houston. Glanvilles freakshow can stay on the road or wherever he is today.
Click to expand...

Robert Lyles coined the phrase iirc while Glanville was leaving tickets for Elvis and pissing off Chuck Noll.

Richard Smith had almost as much to do with the freakshow as Glanville with his 'Hit the Beach' crapola.
 
DocBar said:
Does Glanville have trademark rights on the phrase? I wouldn't mind bringing that defensive intensity back to Houston. Glanvilles freakshow can stay on the road or wherever he is today.
Click to expand...

I beleive he's at U of H.... No, not that U of H, the one in Hawaii with June Jones - another local coaching hero.... :rolleyes:
 
Well to to be the true "house of pain" again they need to keep the roof closed so it can get as loud as the dome. and a defense that doesnt give up an overtime qb scramble
 
aj. said:
Robert Lyles coined the phrase iirc while Glanville was leaving tickets for Elvis and pissing off Chuck Noll.

Richard Smith had almost as much to do with the freakshow as Glanville with his 'Hit the Beach' crapola.
Click to expand...
I know that...I just wish we didn't have to link a cool nickname to such an unmitigated jackass like Glanville. I have no problem at all with an intense, hard-hitting, intimidating defense. I actually thought the Elvis tickets were funny and who cares if a %*&*(*&^^% Steelers coach gets pissed? I know that wsn't the maain point of your post, but I HATE ALL THINGS STEELERS!!!!
Luv Ya Blue, Bum, Earl and all that...
 
The only positive thing about the "house of pain" era and Glanville's antics is that it was during a time when the Oilers sorely needed an identitiy and to break free from being the league (self-edit), at that time...
 
hollywood_texan said:
The Bears could run the football in 2006. Unfortunately, Cedric Benson got hurt early in the game and the Bears lost their 1-2 punch Benson and Jones.

Look, I keep repeating myself over and over and provide backup.

Some guy said earlier that defensive backs weren't important in playing the Colts and cited Jacksonville as an example. My response, a cornerback for Jacksonville played in the Pro Bowl this year. Jacksonville has a better secondary than the Texans. The Texans probably have the worst secondary in the NFL.

You are right TC, clock managment and keeping the ball way from Manning is a good tool, but it isn't the be all end all and Manning is too good to just be stopped by that. Manning is going to get the same amount of opportunities to mount drives unless a team does onside kicks and gets recovers the ball.

As I have said over and over, a balanced team will beat the Colts. All of you are right in the areas that are important.

But, if you have the weakest secondary in the NFL, your chances of beating Manning consisently will be tough, I don't care what your running game is like or how stout your pass rush is. Manning is too good of a QB to not expose a glaring weaknesses in talent or gameplan, which the secondary for the Texans is a glaring weakness.

I keep repeating myself, so if you guys respond, you will have the last word.

Also, TC, the Bears couldn't stop Manning's passing game. That's why they lost! You'll blame Grossman but won't blame Carr, go figure? You state the Bears lose because of the offense, implying that the defensive side was unimportant. In my opinion, the game was lost before it was played because the Bears defensive gameplan was crap. Maybe that's why their defensive coordinator is now the linebacker's coach for the Chargers.

Thanks for the convo, I enjoyed it. I really mean that, but at some point things run their course.
Click to expand...


Hollywood, we don't disagree with you at all, not only is balance and consistency important in football, it is important in life. But since we are talking football, teams should be built from the inside out. This is hard for me to say because I have always been a WR and DB, but if you control the trenches on both sides of the ball, you are more likely to win.

If the o-line pushes the defense 5 yds off the ball every play, it doesn't matter who the RB or QB is, we will move the ball methodically down the field 5 yds at a time. Although, it would make it much easier and more entertaining if we had talent at the skill positions.

If the d-line got into the backfield every play the opposing offenses would have difficulty running and throwing no matter who was in coverage. Consistent d-line pressure could cover up flaws in our coverage, because teams would not be able to run and would not have time to throw deep. On the other hand if the d-line got no pressure and the QB had all day, the DBs are not going to cover the d-line's flaws as easily because eventually the WRs will get open.

We all would love to have a true shut down corner on our team, but they are very rare. There has only been a handful in league history that could shut down half the field. In this years draft there are not any corners with the potential of being a shut down corner immediately, but their are a few d-lineman with the potential to make an instant impact.

For entertainment value I would love our offense to score 40 pts a game, I'm sure we would win a few games as well. But for the purpose of building a championship team we need to be able to at least slow down the opposing teams. We are not going to out do Vince and Peyton offensively, so we need to be consistent on offense and dominant on defense. Vince and Peyton aren't everything, but if we win the division every yr, we make the playoffs every yr.
 
Texan_Bill said:
The only positive thing about the "house of pain" era and Glanville's antics is that it was during a time when the Oilers sorely needed an identitiy and to break free from being the league (self-edit), at that time...
Click to expand...

We want a Texan House of Pain! The Oilers are gone with Vince.
 
Many of you seem to be fair weather fans, show some support and stop being so damn negative. Give Kubes and Smity a chance, ya'll will be kissing their a.... in a couple yrs when the House of Pain is back in Houston. Many of the pieces are already in place, not to mention that a few members of our current coaching staff were a part of it.
 
trutxn said:
Many of you seem to be fair weather fans, show some support and stop being so damn negative. Give Kubes and Smity a chance, ya'll will be kissing their a.... in a couple yrs when the House of Pain is back in Houston.
Click to expand...

I really hope that isn't directed at me... Fair weathered fan is something I can never be accused of, and I am far from negative.. I see a bright future, in the not so far off time spectrum. As far as the Texans House of Pain, we had it for one night in September of 2002. That night will never be forgotten and may we have many more just like it.....
 
Texan_Bill said:
I really hope that isn't directed at me... Fair weathered fan is something I can never be accused of, and I am far from negative.. I see a bright future, in the not so far off time spectrum. As far as the Texans House of Pain, we had it for one night in September of 2002. That night will never be forgotten and may we have many more just like it.....
Click to expand...

Not directed towards any one individual, all everyone can talk about is losing. Some fans seem to have grown accustomed to it, but we can still be hopeful and support our teams decisions. Fans should be the same every game, not only for the Cowboys or when we win.
 
trutxn said:
Not directed towards any one individual, all everyone can talk about is losing. Yeah, so we have grown accustomed to it, but we can still be hopeful and support our teams decisions. The fans should be the same every game, not only for the Cowboys.
Click to expand...

AGREED!!! Thats why I sit in the Bull Pen.

And, we should never get accustomed to losing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top