Franchise is heading in the wrong

[infantrycak]

I never heard anybody dog out Sharper until after he was cut. Then a whole bunch of people started saying he was slow and declining and needed to be cut like they knew all along. Same with Glenn.

Then you weren't reading around here because both were criticized for their play during the 2004 season. Personally, I did not think the criticism of Glenn was accurate and think letting him go may very well turn out to be a mistake. Sharper on the other hand, I did feel and post was noticeably not playing as well as in prior years.

 

[SESupergenius]

I think our secondary is suspect right now. P-Buc is a big ? right now. He was benched in Oakland for a while and then traded to us. Dunta is only in his 2nd year and while he is very good he will still make a few mistakes because of his inexperience. Put CC Brown behind them at SS and we can be burned with the pass if we can't get pressure on the QB quick.

Our LB's are a big ? also. I am not convinced that Babin/Wong/Greenwood/Peek are an upgrade over Babin/Sharper/Foreman/Wong. Speed wise yes but speed alone doesn't translate into an upgrade. We could have just cut Foreman, started Peek at ROLB, and moved Wong over to Foremans spot and kept Sharper. I never heard anybody dog out Sharper until after he was cut. Then a whole bunch of people started saying he was slow and declining and needed to be cut like they knew all along. Same with Glenn. The cuts we needed to make are ones that we couldn't because of contracts. GFunk and McKinney.

I concur, Sharper was not even in the minds of the fans to be cut. Sure he a less than stellar year, but after battling his injury at the end of the year and playing next to Foreman (who was cut by the Raiders too) he should have been cut a little slack. Last I saw, he's a starting LB on a team with more hope for the playoffs than we are. Sharper bashing became popular once we found out he wasn't coming back. Just 2 seasons ago he was recognized by most fans around here as the main cog in our linebacking unit, now fans think he has lost a step. Hmmm, I guess Seattle didn't get that message.

 

[infantrycak]

Sharper bashing became popular once we found out he wasn't coming back.

You are correct that a whole bunch of people came out for the 1st time after he was cut acting like he was bad to just average. On the other hand, there most certainly were people who observed during the season, i.e. when there wasn't even a hint of him being cut in the air, that he wasn't playing up to his previous seasons. No he did not fall all the way to bad LB, but he wasn't playing at his previous arguable/just outside pro-bowl level either.

 

[bckey]

Then you weren't reading around here because both were criticized for their play during the 2004 season.

No I try to read on here every day.

 

[GP]

In response to Powda:

Look at our NFL rankings in pretty much all the defensive categories. We were 22nd in total defense last year. That puts our defense in the bottom one-third of the LEAGUE, let alone the AFC.

Nuff said. Stats speak the truth when people try to cloud the waters with baseless opinions. Your response is just the typical "If you love the Texans, then you must believe that everything is okay....no worries....the sky is not falling...etc."

The 3-4 as I have seen it in Houston (and as the stats speak) is not working. How in the world can three guys be expected to be outnumbered against AT LEAST five offensive lineman all game long? And then teams through a big FB or a big TE into the mix...sheesh! With four defensive linemen, IMO, you can better control the line of scrimmage. You still have LBs, and the way our defensive backfield plays...they're practically pseudo-linebackers with their ability to come up in run support (Marcus Coleman). I just don't see how we lose a lot of ground to offenses by having four down linemen. Heck, a lot of the times I see us lining up a LB as a fourth down linemen anyway.

Our whole team suffers because of our inability to effectively and consistently call a good game (play calling on offense). SO many three-and-outs make our defense stay on the field longer, giving opposing teams' defense too much rest time....which then leads to their defense coming out and laying the smackdown on our offense...over and over and over...it's a vicious cycle.

 

[Lucky]

In response to Powda:

Look at our NFL rankings in pretty much all the defensive categories. We were 22nd in total defense last year. That puts our defense in the bottom one-third of the LEAGUE, let alone the AFC.

Don't you think that's why the Texans made the personnel changes they've made this offseason. This isn't the same defense that was on the field in '04.

 

[infantrycak]

IHow in the world can three guys be expected to be outnumbered against AT LEAST five offensive lineman all game long?

This is where your argument loses all credibility--the general idea that a 3-4 just can't work. Obviously it can work and in fact has been used by some of the best D's around. Acting like the 3-4 in inherently unworkable is the most obvious baseless opinion in this thread.

Try stepping back for even half a second and look at what you are talking about with the Texans

DL------------Walker--Payne--Smith
LB's---Babin--Greenwood---Wong---Peek

vs.

DL-------Babin----Walker-----TJohnson-----Peek
LB's--------Greenwood--Wong--Orr/Anderson

Guess what (or sheesh in your vernacular), your front 7 has less beef on the field with the 4-3 alignment (5LB sized guys and 2 DL) than the 3-4 alignment (4 LB sized guys and 3 DL). Changing the position names on the roster for Babin and Peek doesn't make them bigger.

SO many three-and-outs make our defense stay on the field longer, giving opposing teams' defense too much rest time....which then leads to their defense coming out and laying the smackdown on our offense...over and over and over...it's a vicious cycle.

The Texans were 14th in the league in 1st downs last year. The problem wasn't 3 and outs so much as it was marching 50 yards instead of 70. Also, the Texans D was on the field just 1 sec. more per game than the O--i.e. exactly the same amount of time as opposing D's. But don't let those stats mess with your vicious cycle.

 

[Honoring Earl 34]

The most dominant defense in recent memory was the 85 Bears . They had talent and a good scheme . So is it the talent or the scheme with the Texans ?

New England is not as dominating but they win . They are a very bright defense who can even fool Manning with a lot of looks . So are we not that bright of a team ?

 

[HJam72]

I would say the the 3-4 is supposed or hoped to have 3 guys take up 5 blockers, but it USUALLY only takes up 4, allowing the 5th to take on a blitzing linebacker. Otherwise, the 3-4 would bring forth a rediculously large number of sacks. If there is a second blitzing LB, he is at least slowed down by a blocking back. The 4-3, on the other hand, is no better. The linemen are smaller on average and there is one less LB. In the end, the 4-3 is slightly better against the run and the 3-4 is slightly better against the pass. The 4-3 is easier to master, but confuses the offense less often. It's all a bunch of trade-offs. It seems to me that sacks in a 4-3 are usually accomplished by the DEs, but they are, for the most part, blocked to the outside in a circle pattern. Going inside for most of them is pointless. The 3-4 is said to be better for pass coverage, but that is partly created by having an extra LB in coverage, limiting the pass rush. It is also partly said to be better for pass coverage by confusing the QB, but this can also be confusing to the LBs themselves when professional Wide-outs are running well executed routes. IT'S ALL A TRADE-OFF.

I say we use whatever we have the best personnel for, keeping in mind that experience at their positions is VERY important.

 

[powda]

In response to Powda:
Look at our NFL rankings in pretty much all the defensive categories. We were 22nd in total defense last year.

Stats speak the truth when people try to cloud the waters with baseless opinions.

so injuries have no impact on the game? so starting 3 rookies has no impact on the game? so 2 players starting at new poistions has no impact on the game?

im not an appologist. 22nd isnt good enough for me either but if your going to be critical look to why we got those results. dont call for a new coach out of "whoever university" cause your buddy told ya they looked good.

the logic you missed was...the coaches had questions about the secondary and rightly so...in order to safeguard that the lbs were in coverage more often.

and i find it odd how people have all of a sudden forgotten how good our d looked at the end of last season.

i have yet to see you back up an opinion. all youve actually said was you think the 3-4 is flawed. you think we're destined for failure cause your a bigger fan of the 4-3 then the 3-4. and yet...our opinions are baseless.

Your response is just the typical "If you love the Texans, then you must believe that everything is okay....no worries....the sky is not falling...etc."

and your response is "good god, jesus help us because we havent looked so good in preseason. they're not playing the defense i want them to....waaaaaaaa."

gimme a break. im so sick of reading this **** over and over again before the season even starts.

The 3-4 as I have seen it in Houston (and as the stats speak) is not working. How in the world can three guys be expected to be outnumbered against AT LEAST five offensive lineman all game long?

3 guys arent expected to outnumber 5. the 3-4 provides more coverage and blitz possibilities. they know that 4 th player is comming but where from? and those 3 are expected to hold up blockers long enough to allow the lbs to pursue unhindered. theyre not expected to domminate anyone and you shouldnt assume they will.

and your 1 jewel of knowledge to pass on to capers was "keep the offense on the field longer then 3 downs" ?

brilliant

stop sobbing over spilled milk.

it's a vicious cycle.

have you tried medication?

 

[SESupergenius]

In response to Powda:

The 3-4 as I have seen it in Houston (and as the stats speak) is not working. How in the world can three guys be expected to be outnumbered against AT LEAST five offensive lineman all game long? And then teams through a big FB or a big TE into the mix...sheesh!

I just watched the Raiders 4-3 get torched by the Patriots. They don't run the 3-4 anymore and switched to the 4-3, why are they not better??? HMM maybe it's because of the personnel they have? Hmmm I might be on to something here.