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

FIRE O'BRIEN NOW!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Double Barrel said:
Thanks, man.

Some people call me a hater. idonno:

But, I want O'Brien to have success. He's our head coach!

I just don't believe that he has what it takes to get this team to win an NFL championship based upon historical trends, logic, reason, and analysis of his career.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you and just like Kubiak he probably will win a SB with another org.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Clint Stoerner and Wade Smith were discussing the Colts game. The conclusion was that it was a well-called game by O'Brien, but the execution was poor. They pointed out that the Colts played most of the game with their DBs in deep cover........not in the box..........and that heavy run attempts called were what offenses should do in those circumstances. But the Oline stunted with the tackles ending up with no one to block, leaving unblocked D players. That along with Watson not showing the ability to recognize and/or hit mid field receivers.
Click to expand...

A recurring theme.

You can count on this happening often against the Pats.
 
Speedy said:
Not to toot my own horn, and others have said it as well, but this was seen coming 10 miles away.

My takes on Aug. 8, Aug.11, and Sep. 16. All about how this coaching staff would misuse Duke's talents.

To be fair though, it's pretty easy to have that kind of predictive insight when you've seen it for 5 years.

You can talk about all the game management, play calling, timeouts, etc. all you want. The nuts and bolts of why this coach will never win big is because he doesn't take advantage of his talent's strengths. He doesn't use his player's strengths to create the mismatches needed in this game.

The talent he has is good enough to win games and keep him mediocre, but that's as far as it's going to go until he starts putting his talent in better positions to thrive. And here in year 6, with Duke Johnson as the latest example, he still doesn't appear to be doing that.
Click to expand...
Preach!
 
steelbtexan said:
Or maybe, just
Click to expand...

Or maybe they're not hearing things the way Watson is saying it. We know of at least one WR who doesn't get what Watson is saying. Maybe there's one OL, or RB who isn't hearing what Watson is saying.

Could be a lot of things. I particularly don't like how much Watson is communicating from the LOS. It's like he's canceling everything they said in the huddle at times.

I wonder if he's calling 7 different guys as the MIKE & everyone has to figure out on their own which one he meant.
 
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...
Based on what I see from the all 22, yes. It’s like he has two versions of his playbook and he keeps going back to the one he really wants to work but doesn’t.
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...
yes but much has to do with the other team on the field. Still if we could stop beating ourselves---
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...

Good defenses seem to dictate how things turnout. The book is to keep Jesusincleats in the pocket and make him deliver the ball accurately. Notice the games where Jesusincleats doesn't have much of a chance to run the ball the offense struggles. I'm pretty sure Jesusincleats is going to struggle against disciple Belichick's multiple defensive looks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
badboy said:
After coaching under Dabo Sweeney at Clemson and three years with Houston he should be able to recognize most blitz by now.
Click to expand...
What's unspoken in this 'discussion' is the fact that often the defense doesn't show blitz until after the ball is snapped. Or sometimes they show blitz pre-snap then back out of it after the ball is snapped. The QB can set the protection one way only to see it negated by post-snap changes by the defense.
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...

The Texans don't have an identity on offense. They don't do something well, stick with it, and build off of it. They change it up week to week with this stupid ass game-to-game game planning BS they do, sometimes totally cutting out the things they do well because they think they need to do something else against team X this week. And because they don't stick with and build on the things they do well, there's where your inconsistency comes from.

I guess that falls under play calling but it all stems from this flawed game-to-game game planning philosophy they have and they just don't build on the things they do well. And I don't know why they don't do that, other than the tired cliche of pounding the square peg in the round hole. It absolutely fits here.

Their philosophy itself doesn't put the talent in the best possible position to succeed consistently, like Baltimore is doing, like New England does every year. Like I said, the talent is good enough to make enough plays to win some games, but their philosophy is why they're so Jekyll & Hyde so much. And now 6 years of it, I don't see why anyone would ever think it's going to change with this staff.
 
Speedy said:
The Texans don't have an identity on offense. They don't do something well, stick with it, and build off of it. They change it up week to week with this stupid ass game-to-game game planning BS they do, sometimes totally cutting out the things they do well because they think they need to do something else against team X this week. And because they don't stick with and build on the things they do well, there's where your inconsistency comes from.

I guess that falls under play calling but it all stems from this flawed game-to-game game planning philosophy they have and they just don't build on the things they do well. And I don't know why they don't do that, other than the tired cliche of pounding the square peg in the round hole. It absolutely fits here.

Their philosophy itself doesn't put the talent in the best possible position to succeed consistently, like Baltimore is doing, like New England does every year. Like I said, the talent is good enough to make enough plays to win some games, but their philosophy is why they're so Jekyll & Hyde so much. And now 6 years of it, I don't see why anyone would ever think it's going to change with this staff.
Click to expand...

You do know that the Pats gameplan from week to week.
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...
I think BOB would like to establish the run against every team we play and when this works, our offense is in rhythm. But our OLine isn't dominant enough to impose our will so if the run game isn't working, we're out of sorts. The way around that is getting your offense into rhythm w/ the passing game which we've done successfully when we finally shortened up our passing game. But we haven't consistently been able to do that. My take is that it's because we haven't emphasized/practiced it enough for our receivers to get open in short space and for Watson to be on the same page w/ them and get the ball out on time. So rather than make that our identity, we try to be a run oriented play action team that when this isn't working - half ass converts to a sometimes Randy Moss deep ball team, sometimes West Coast passing team that flashes potential because the talent is there but doesn't consistently do any of it well because we don't know who the hell we are.

Edit: I posted this before seeing Speedy's take. I guess we see the flaw in our version of the game plan offense similarly.
 
Last edited:
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...
I also noticed the offense depends on Fuller being healthy. When he’s on the field, the Texans do good. When he’s out, the offense struggles.
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...


We share the same perception ROO. Yes your perception is very fair and pretty much on point. DISCLAIMER: Not because we're thinking the same.

But because that's exactly what's going on.
 
thunderkyss said:
What?

I can see comparing Watson to Moon in that Moon played on winning teams in Houston. But there's nothing similar in their style of play.

Moon's wasn't very athletic was he? I don't think I ever saw him outside the pocket (hyperbole intended).

Watson is more like Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers.
Click to expand...

The Run-N-Shoot offense Moon ran had a very active pocket. Moon had amazing mechanics when throwing on the run. Most important, Moon had a tremendous OL doing the blocking for him in this offense. Me, it really sucked big time that Earlt Campbell couldn't have been the feature back in this offense....it wouldn't have been fair!!!!
 
Max said:
I think BOB would like to establish the run against every team we play and when this works, our offense is in rhythm. But our OLine isn't dominant enough to impose our will so if the run game isn't working, we're out of sorts. The way around that is getting your offense into rhythm w/ the passing game which we've done successfully when we finally shortened up our passing game. But we haven't consistently been able to do that. My take is that it's because we haven't emphasized/practiced it enough for our receivers to get open in short space and for Watson to be on the same page w/ them and get the ball out on time. So rather than make that our identity, we try to be a run oriented play action team that when this isn't working - half ass converts to a sometimes Randy Moss deep ball team, sometimes West Coast passing team that flashes potential because the talent is there but doesn't consistently do any of it well because we don't know who the hell we are.
Click to expand...

Some coaches script the first fifteen plays to see how the defense is going to play them. They then adjust their game plan as they see fit.

It doesn't appear we do anything like this.
 
steelbtexan said:
You do know that the Pats gameplan from week to week.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is the Pats commitment to the identity that they've chosen for the week from the beginning of the week in preparation for their opponent and their success in picking that identity correctly based on scouting. We did this successfully the week we played Atlanta. We had obviously prepared and practiced for the short passing game that week because it was uncharacteristicly short, short, short from the start. As I mentioned earlier, I think we try to be a run oriented play action team against whoever we're playing. Running on the first play of the game up the middle isn't coincidence - it's BOB's identity. This then has to morph into something else during the game if the running game isn't working versus coming into a game with an identity that we impose.
 
thunderkyss said:
Some coaches script the first fifteen plays to see how the defense is going to play them. They then adjust their game plan as they see fit.

It doesn't appear we do anything like this.
Click to expand...

All teams make adjustments from week to week. All teams have a game plan offense. All teams script their first 15 plays. Last week, I heard John Harris saying the Texans spend the first quarter trying to identify what the defense will give them for a particular game and that might be the reason for the slow starts.

I don't know if I buy that. The Texans are one of the worst offenses in the first quarter. The approach seems to be reactive instead of proactive. I like the approach that this is who we are, this is what we do, try to stop us instead of let me see what you do and we will take advantage of it.
 
Max said:
I think the difference is the Pats commitment to the identity that they've chosen for the week from the beginning of the week in preparation for their opponent and their success in picking that identity correctly based on scouting. We did this successfully the week we played Atlanta. We had obviously prepared and practiced for the short passing game that week because it was uncharacteristicly short, short, short from the start. As I mentioned earlier, I think we try to be a run oriented play action team against whoever we're playing. Running on the first play of the game up the middle isn't coincidence - it's BOB's identity. This then has to morph into something else during the game if the running game isn't working versus coming into a game with an identity that we impose.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with this.

The reason the Pats are able to change their gameplan every week successfully is because Brady understands what Belichick is trying to do. While Jesusincleats is still learning.
 
steelbtexan said:
I dont disagree with this.

The reason the Pats are able to change their gameplan every week successfully is because Brady understands what Belichick is trying to do. While Jesusincleats is still learning.
Click to expand...
I think that there's something to that. But BOB also is having to feel out what Watson is capable of at this point in his development and what he can game plan as a result. It's a little of both and there's some growing pains.

On the optimistic side, I feel like I've seen BOB grow/change this year in at least one area. He's shown that he can be more aggressive than what he's been in the past with going for it on 4th down and just being less conservative generally than what I've seen in the past.

And Watson has clearly made progress with his grasp of the offense which you see by him being more the field general than what he's been (instructing his receivers on what to do, etc).

So I still have some optimism that the BOB/Watson tandem can eventually work. But they're both going to have to improve for this thing to be what it should be.
 
Max said:
I think that there's something to that. But BOB also is having to feel out what Watson is capable of at this point in his development and what he can game plan as a result. It's a little of both and there's some growing pains.

On the optimistic side, I feel like I've seen BOB grow/change this year in at least one area. He's shown that he can be more aggressive than what he's been in the past with going for it on 4th down and just being less conservative generally than what I've seen in the past.

And Watson has clearly made progress with his grasp of the offense which you see by him being more the field general than what he's been (instructing his receivers on what to do, etc).

So I still have some optimism that the BOB/Watson tandem can eventually work. But they're both going to have to improve for this thing to be what it should be.
Click to expand...

You're much more optimistic than I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max
steelbtexan said:
You're much more optimistic than I am.
Click to expand...
I'm probably much more optimistic about Watson than you are but I still have a little optimism left for BOB even though it's not based on anything that I've seen. It's simply based on feeling that people can learn from their mistakes and get better at their job w/ experience.
 
Double Barrel said:
O'Brien is clearly the type of coach with his own scheme and demands that any given QB adapt to it.

I have yet to see a consistent scheme from him that he created in order to cater to his talent.

What Harbaugh has done with Lamar Jackson is just brilliant. He created a scheme that plays to all of Jackson's strengths, and they are now reaching a point where the entire team has bought into it and they are damn near unstoppable.

Meanwhile, on Kirby they keep trying to jam that square peg into the round hole.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Harbaugh handed the scheme reigns to Greg Roman offensively which allowed Jackson to flourish at his strengths.

Which still doesn't change anything about the bad peg jamming here.
 
Max said:
I think BOB would like to establish the run against every team we play and when this works, our offense is in rhythm. But our OLine isn't dominant enough to impose our will so if the run game isn't working, we're out of sorts. The way around that is getting your offense into rhythm w/ the passing game which we've done successfully when we finally shortened up our passing game. But we haven't consistently been able to do that. My take is that it's because we haven't emphasized/practiced it enough for our receivers to get open in short space and for Watson to be on the same page w/ them and get the ball out on time. So rather than make that our identity, we try to be a run oriented play action team that when this isn't working - half ass converts to a sometimes Randy Moss deep ball team, sometimes West Coast passing team that flashes potential because the talent is there but doesn't consistently do any of it well because we don't know who the hell we are.

Edit: I posted this before seeing Speedy's take. I guess we see the flaw in our version of the game plan offense similarly.
Click to expand...

I agree that BOB wants to establish the run. No big surprise, every offense in the league would love to establish the run game, it opens up so much. Lately, it seems like if defenses stop the run, then our offense struggles. Even in the Jax game, our offense struggled initially, until we started breaking open some big runs.

If you look at earlier in the season, though (specifically against the Chargers & Falcons), we were able to be productive on offense, even though the run game wasn't effective. What's the difference? IMO, the pass protection has regressed and Watson is getting happy feet.
 
TexansBull said:
I see changing head coaches more like when the Colts switched from Jim Mora to Dungy. Or the Broncos from Reeves to Shanahan. Or the (list goes on.)

The goal of a coach is to put a system in place that plays to a players strength and hides their weaknesses. Baltimore has done that. They took a project QB and turned him into a starter.

OB has a system of trying to hammer the square peg into the round hole to try to make things work when it won’t. Harbaugh didn’t do that with Jackson. He went from Flacco to Jackson.

Reid went from Alex Smith to Mahomes.

I know you get it because you agree on seeing the season through and then making an evaluation on OB.

But 6 years of the same stuff. He has one of the most talented QBs in the league and can’t make it work. His system and coaches he has chosen just aren’t working. 20% is on Watson, but 80% is on OB.

Game over man. Game over.
Click to expand...

Double Barrel said:
O'Brien is clearly the type of coach with his own scheme and demands that any given QB adapt to it.

I have yet to see a consistent scheme from him that he created in order to cater to his talent.

What Harbaugh has done with Lamar Jackson is just brilliant. He created a scheme that plays to all of Jackson's strengths, and they are now reaching a point where the entire team has bought into it and they are damn near unstoppable.

Meanwhile, on Kirby they keep trying to jam that square peg into the round hole.
Click to expand...

eb17c070341437f1e51e2050e0e17c81.jpg


Sad really.
 
dream_team said:
I agree that BOB wants to establish the run. No big surprise, every offense in the league would love to establish the run game, it opens up so much. Lately, it seems like if defenses stop the run, then our offense struggles. Even in the Jax game, our offense struggled initially, until we started breaking open some big runs.

If you look at earlier in the season, though (specifically against the Chargers & Falcons), we were able to be productive on offense, even though the run game wasn't effective. What's the difference? IMO, the pass protection has regressed and Watson is getting happy feet.
Click to expand...

Yet Tunsil is one of the best pass blocking LT's in the NFL. I would say that Howard's injury is a big reason for the drop off.

QB's usually don't recover from a case of the happy feet.
 
badboy said:
After coaching under Dabo Sweeney at Clemson and three years with Houston he should be able to recognize most blitz by now.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch Watson alot at Clemson. A good question is how well did Watson handle the blitz in college? If he was good in college, but struggling now, then that may suggest the coaching here hasn't been adequate.

BTW, recognizing blitzes and handling the blitz are two different things. And it's a whole team effort, not just all on DW4.
 
Thanks to everyone for the responses. Most seem to agree that my perceptions are fairly accurate.

Certainly, good defenses can hamper the offense, but can a good defense really dictate that the Texans have to run a very conservative, predictable offense? Shouldn't BOB try to make the offense unpredictable? Too many games the playcalling is just the same stuff over and over and over.

Does the type of players the Texans have eliminate many of the types of plays that could be run? Sweeps and pitches? Bootlegs? Options? Running back screens? Seriously, I have never seen BOB/Texans run a real RB screen.

DW needs to be under center more often in my opinion, which would allow more creativity. Is he simply not comfortable with that, or does BOB not want that?

Seems the Texans offense depends entirely on winning the head-to-head match-ups against the defense - just run straight into the heart of the defense. Sometimes you have to resort to "trickery" and I'm not talking about flea flickers and crazy sh1t. Just try to be unpredictable, mix it up, keep the defense guessing.

I certainly acknowledge that I am no great football mind, in fact I am kind of a dumbass, but geez, mix it up some.

I would like to hear some discussion on play types that y'all like and have seen work in the "good" Texans games. For example, the play where DW rolls out, the TE slips into the flat, and DW has the option to run or to throw. The few times I saw the Texans do it, it worked. But then BOB goes a couple of games and doesn't even use that once. Why not?
 
Max said:
I think the difference is the Pats commitment to the identity that they've chosen for the week from the beginning of the week in preparation for their opponent and their success in picking that identity correctly based on scouting. We did this successfully the week we played Atlanta. We had obviously prepared and practiced for the short passing game that week because it was uncharacteristicly short, short, short from the start. As I mentioned earlier, I think we try to be a run oriented play action team against whoever we're playing. Running on the first play of the game up the middle isn't coincidence - it's BOB's identity. This then has to morph into something else during the game if the running game isn't working versus coming into a game with an identity that we impose.
Click to expand...


The difference also is coach Beli and staff have mastered their craft. Even when Brady went down the backups came in and were able execute said plan. O’Brien and staff are nowhere close to mastering this type of philosophy.
 
steelbtexan said:
If you're going to quote me try to get it right.

What I said was I expected the OL to gel in 6 games like the Colts OL did and if it didn't happen Devlin should be fired. I stand by Devlin being fired.
Click to expand...

Only way he's getting fired is if obrien is fired
 
steelbtexan said:
I actually agree with you and just like Kubiak he probably will win a SB with another org.
Click to expand...

Kubiak had to be humbled by his experience with the Texans in order to become an adaptable head coach with the Broncos. Word from Bob Allen was that Manning wanted to come to Houston but Gary was against it because of his scheme.

He was obviously willing to change that attitude when he got to Denver and Manning was already there with his own offensive system in place. Gary just used his experience as a Texans HC - i.e. game and player management - more than his OC skills.

This is my speculation, of course, but to me it is a reasoned perspective.

Maybe that's what it will take with O'Brien?

btw, I don't hate O'Brien, and I could make a case for him. But, in my gut, I just don't feel like he's a good fit for this team and the current roster (based upon my previous statements and other reasons mentioned in this thread).

I never see his teams win big games, which obviously includes playoff games. I certainly don't expect them to win on SNF against NE. If anything, my expectations are for the Texans to get dominated and exposed (again).

santo said:
I also noticed the offense depends on Fuller being healthy. When he’s on the field, the Texans do good. When he’s out, the offense struggles.
Click to expand...

This offense relies too much on the big homerun plays, which is where the threat of Fuller really comes into play. What I do not understand, though, is that with such a reliance on big play threat, why do we have just one injury-prone WR to make that threat viable? This roster is clearly on O'Brien, so he's really got no excuse for not having a backup to Fuller. Once he's out, then this offense sputters, they double Nuk on every play, and they seem unable to consistently move the ball.

steelbtexan said:
I dont disagree with this.

The reason the Pats are able to change their gameplan every week successfully is because Brady understands what Belichick is trying to do. While Jesusincleats is still learning.
Click to expand...

Well, it's more Brady and McDaniels being on the same page. Belichick stays heavily invested in the defense, often getting them together during a game while McDaniels/Brady run the offense. You often see him on NFL Films getting down with his defenisve players making adjustments. He is part of overall offensive game planning from week to week, but to hear him and McDaniels talk about it, Belichick lets them do their thing during the games and he gets involved when needed.

And let's face it, the Brady brain is genius level at this point in his career, so apples and oranges to compare him to a player with 33 games in his career. Like you said, still learning with every game.

Mollywhopper said:
To be fair, Harbaugh handed the scheme reigns to Greg Roman offensively which allowed Jackson to flourish at his strengths.

Which still doesn't change anything about the bad peg jamming here.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think Greg Roman will be a HC candidate with the amount of attention he's getting this year.

And that's the smart HC right there, letting someone he's hired do their jobs instead of micromanaging the scheme and being HC/OC/GM. Those are all full time jobs, but yet O'Brien seems to believe that he can do it all.

TexansBull said:
eb17c070341437f1e51e2050e0e17c81.jpg


Sad really.
Click to expand...

ha! Great minds and all that jazz. . . :bravo:
 
steelbtexan said:
I dont disagree with this.

The reason the Pats are able to change their gameplan every week successfully is because Brady understands what Belichick is trying to do. While Jesusincleats is still learning.
Click to expand...
Partial answer... It's not just Brady, it's the whole offense. Everyone knows their job and does it well. It appears that not all the Texan WRs know (or execute correctly) their pass routes. We've seen Watson get on a WR's case when he (the WR) didn't run the route he was supposed to run. If that happens on a belichick team, that WR will soon be on the street.

Mollywhopper said:
To be fair, Harbaugh handed the scheme reigns to Greg Roman offensively which allowed Jackson to flourish at his strengths.

Which still doesn't change anything about the bad peg jamming here.
Click to expand...
psst... "reigns" is what Kings/Queens do.
"reins" are what you use to guide/steer your horse.
:D
Harbaugh/Roman decided when they scouted Jackson that they were going to make over their offense around his skillset. They ditched the offense that Kubiak installed... you know, the one that gave Flacco a couple the best statistical seasons of his career.

It appears that O'Brien/Kelly had no such plan for Watson.
 
ROO said:
I would appreciate some opinions on the following:

When the Texans have a particularly good offensive game (example London), my perception is that O'Brien used creative play-calling - misdirection, roll-outs, RPOs, etc and I think "Yes, BOB may turn into a great coach afterall!"

And when the Texans have a bad offensive game, my perception is that O'Brien called predictable "up-the-middle, up-the-middle, pass from the pocket" with a bubble screen thrown in once or twice and I want the mf-er to be fired.

So is my perspective fair? Is the playcalling really that different between the good games and bad games?
Click to expand...
yes but much has to do with the other team on the field. Still if we could stop beating ourselves---
 
Double Barrel said:
This offense relies too much on the big homerun plays, which is where the threat of Fuller really comes into play. What I do not understand, though, is that with such a reliance on big play threat, why do we have just one injury-prone WR to make that threat viable? This roster is clearly on O'Brien, so he's really got no excuse for not having a backup to Fuller. Once he's out, then this offense sputters, they double Nuk on every play, and they seem unable to consistently move the ball.
Click to expand...

Players like Fuller are not easy to find. He has size, elite speed, improved Hands and is a GREAT route running. You can't just have a "backup" for him. They were hoping to develop Vyncent Smith....but he was signed by the Jets off their PS.
 
dream_team said:
I didn't watch Watson alot at Clemson. A good question is how well did Watson handle the blitz in college? If he was good in college, but struggling now, then that may suggest the coaching here hasn't been adequate.

BTW, recognizing blitzes and handling the blitz are two different things. And it's a whole team effort, not just all on DW4.
Click to expand...

Agree. Some posters try to make it seem that Watson is the absolute worst QB against the blitz and don't even try to understand that it's a combination of Watson, the WRs, the OL and the play calling all plays a part in the failures in picking up DB blitzes. Watson needs to improve, but so does the WRs, OL and OC.

Surprisingly, Watson has one of the highest completion rates (70%) against the blitz. He has thrown for 600 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT. By the way, look where Tom Brady and Jimmy Garoppolo are ranked. Sometimes is good to look at the stats and ignore some of the posters in this forum.

https://www.milehighreport.com/2019/11/2/20943679/who-should-you-not-blitz
 
Last edited:
Earl34 said:
Yep. This looks like happy feet, drifting and not staying in the pocket.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197877107919114245
Click to expand...
He read a defense correctly.

Let him do that regularly and we can talk. Let's really talk when he's not giving potential/ real turnovers a game away when he's facing the best defenses.

How many times do you expect him to do what I'm talking about against the Pats? If he can limit that to 1 time, they will beat the Pats, but do you really expect this to happen? I don't.
 
Mr.Scarface said:
Players like Fuller are not easy to find. He has size, elite speed, improved Hands and is a GREAT route running. You can't just have a "backup" for him. They were hoping to develop Vyncent Smith....but he was signed by the Jets off their PS.
Click to expand...

That's fair and understandable. And since that's the case, whey don't they seem to have a backup PLAN for when Fuller eventually goes down (which is a given every season)?

Or, maybe they should have a more consistent playbook that moves the ball and brings out Fuller occasionally instead of expecting him to be an every-down WR. "Hoping" that Fuller is going to be here for 16+ games is futile based on his history.

I enjoy the big plays, but such a foundational reliance on them as a scheme seems sketchy for long term success. It's like the Astros bats and reliance on homeruns. Great when they are hitting, but seems directionless when they go cold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top