So what?

[papabear]

Originally Posted by barrett

But watch HOW New England runs the ball. They spread the field and beat you through the air. Then they run at you out of those spread alignments when you are worried about stopping the pass. They run draws and screens to Faulk out of a shotgun formation. They don't needlessly pound it on first down because that's what NFL logic says you do.

We run a bunch of plays in 3/4 WR sets and throw the ball. THEN we get in the I with Leach and try to run it. We do a very poor job of using the pass threat to open up the run game because we don't design for it. We are still more worried about using the run game to set up the play action. But our run game needs the help, not the other way around. There is no reason for us to ever show an I formation with the personell we have. Spread the field, throw the ball to win, and run it only as much as you have to OUT OF THAT SPREAD. I bet we can run it far more effectively with AJ, Walter, OD, and JJ/Anderson all split out and Schaub in the gun with Slaton (or even under center in a trips/trey one back), as opposed to getting in the "I" and running into the back of the center/guard who has been pushed into the backfield.

I just don't understand the stubborness that we have to go I formation and put a fullback on the field for half of our snaps when we are far less effective in that situation.

That's fine with me....what got me to respond was your comment,

Originally Posted by barrett;

Just stop running the ball in general

It might to be fair to just cherry pick one comment like that, but that is what got my attention.

I have no problem with running out of more of spread look. I have no problem using screens and dump offs as a quasi running game(though if your going to do that you also need to make sure that your are throwing the ball down field enough). You just can't stop "running the ball in general". Spreading the field doesn't work as well down by the goal line though, when the field is already compressed so much vertically. Every team has some type of power formation for a reason...though I agree with you that we need to play to our strengths and not our weaknesses.

[Joshua]

Agree 100% with everything Barrett is saying. Probably the most cogent explanation of the reason our offense occasionally struggles. My buddies and I sit in section 611 and can routinely call the play pre-snap simply based on the personnel and formation. I suspect that if we can do it in section 611 after about 4 beers, most D coordinators can do it as well.

Finally, I must say I'm perplexed by Kubes somewhat. He has always preached running the ball, but yet he's never done anything to actually improve our ability to do so. Instead, we continually draft receivers and tight ends. I'm not complaining because it has created a pretty potent passing attack for us. I just find it weird that he places such a premium on being a run-first team, then does nothing to actually acquire the players to do it.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

Agree 100% with everything Barrett is saying. Probably the most cogent explanation of the reason our offense occasionally struggles. My buddies and I sit in section 611 and can routinely call the play pre-snap simply based on the personnel and formation. I suspect that if we can do it in section 611 after about 4 beers, most D coordinators can do it as well.

Finally, I must say I'm perplexed by Kubes somewhat. He has always preached running the ball, but yet he's never done anything to actually improve our ability to do so. Instead, we continually draft receivers and tight ends. I'm not complaining because it has created a pretty potent passing attack for us. I just find it weird that he places such a premium on being a run-first team, then does nothing to actually acquire the players to do it.

This has been my thought all year. We are doing a good job of picking players individually but we lack a sense of cohesiveness with what we attempt to do on the field and what we attempt to do on the personnel side. We seem to be putting together two different teams at the same time.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by Joshua

Finally, I must say I'm perplexed by Kubes somewhat. He has always preached running the ball, but yet he's never done anything to actually improve our ability to do so. Instead, we continually draft receivers and tight ends. I'm not complaining because it has created a pretty potent passing attack for us. I just find it weird that he places such a premium on being a run-first team, then does nothing to actually acquire the players to do it.

I think it's similar to the D-line. It's not as if they haven't tried, it just hasn't come together the way they planned. Since Kubes has gotten here he has drafted four O-lineman in the 3rd round or higher(one in the first). I consider anything 3rd round or higher to be very valuable, and while these picks were meant to help in pass protection as much as the run game they we're all guys Kubes felt fit with our Zone blocking scheme. He's also made a trade for Veteran Center(with experience in the scheme). He spent a fairly large amount of McNair cash for Ahman Green, and also brought in Chris Brown as a free agent. Of course he also drafted Slaton in the third round. Anthony Hill was also drafted in the fourth primarily as a run blocking TE. He also went out and got the most respected Zone Blocking guru there is out of retirement.

I'll agree that the results haven't been what we want, but I think you can definitely see the effort in that area. Not every problem can be fixed by a first round pick or a top flight free agent.

[chuck]

I have to say that barrett's got it right here, almost down to the syllable. If the Texans effectively abandoned the two-back set and began to run the ball out of a spread formation (in the gun or under center) opposing DCs would have nightmares. Now, in a two-back set the Texans will either run the ball (we all know how that goes) or bootleg. I like Schaub more than most but he is poor to terrible throwing on the run. He is not a guy who can zip the ball all over the field running to his left. Hell, he can't zip the ball anywhere, any time.

With the defense's steady improvement a little self-scouting on the offense could lead to a pretty formidable team, or at the very least a respectable one.

[barrett]

Agreed Chuck. The NFL is a league designed for every team to have 8-8 talent. It doesn't always work that way obviously. A small few are superior. A small few are inferior. And the middle 25 or so are pretty even in talent. This middle wins and loses depending on scheme. Basically can your coach "take his'n and beat your'n, or he could take your'n and beat his'n." It's a very small line between 5-11 and 11-5.

I think if we change the script and stay one back we become nearly impossible to defend. Nobody has secondary depth to deal with Slaton, OD, AJ, Walter, and Anderson/JJ on the field at once. When we put those guys out there we will face a steady diet of dime defenses and deep safeties. Now all of sudden our OL just has to guide an upfield DE out of the play while Slaton runs or catches it in the spot they just vacated. And our OL is good at this because they can move. Duane Brown's block on Slaton's screen was a thing of beauty. So put him in position to do that rather than asking him to push a DE off the ball.

[Big Texas]

Originally Posted by barrett

Bringing in Jumbo lineman will tip the defense of our intention to run and make it even harder to run. I don't know of one NFL team that brings in different OL to run the ball or for short yardage. Not one.

No other teams are running the wildcat as often as Miami. There has never been this many young head coaches in the league either. Now it has become popular. Also having two (and sometimes three) good backs by committee was not all that common a while back either. Now almost everyone has two good backs (besides us).

All that to say, someone had to start the trend. Who knows we may start the next trend.

So what other teams do or don't do is of little concern to me.

As far as tipping off the other team; for a large majority of the league (outside us), anything less than a yard is almost an automatic run anyway. So we just need to find a way (whatever works for us).

And I am not saying that the entire line needs to be replaced on short yardage. (specifically goal line situations) Maybe our weak links, or areas where the opposing DLineman is "massive".

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by barrett

I don't think you go wildcat if you can beat a team straight up with your offense. But I don't mind it as an option for when we struggle and need to change the pace.

The Wildcat could be used to sit on a lead and control clock. One of the problems the Colts have is that their defense is on the field for extended periods of time as teams run the ball and keep Peyton on the sidelines. Then the Colts' offense gets on the field and scores a TD in 75 seconds, causing that Defense to go back on the field before they've had a chance to catch their breath.

The question becomes who runs it? We don't have to great RB's like the Dolphins to make a defense respect the hand off. Would we take Schaub off the field or put him as a WR? Is this something Casey or Daniels could pull off to keep the threat of a pass? I don't know exactly

I'm still wanting to see Dreesen, Daniels, and Casey on the field at the same time for multiple pass plays.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

Agreed Chuck. The NFL is a league designed for every team to have 8-8 talent. It doesn't always work that way obviously. A small few are superior. A small few are inferior. And the middle 25 or so are pretty even in talent. This middle wins and loses depending on scheme. Basically can your coach "take his'n and beat your'n, or he could take your'n and beat his'n." It's a very small line between 5-11 and 11-5.

I think if we change the script and stay one back we become nearly impossible to defend. Nobody has secondary depth to deal with Slaton, OD, AJ, Walter, and Anderson/JJ on the field at once. When we put those guys out there we will face a steady diet of dime defenses and deep safeties. Now all of sudden our OL just has to guide an upfield DE out of the play while Slaton runs or catches it in the spot they just vacated. And our OL is good at this because they can move. Duane Brown's block on Slaton's screen was a thing of beauty. So put him in position to do that rather than asking him to push a DE off the ball.

If I were the OC my main objective would be to force the defense to play with two LBs - nickel, dime, whatever the package. I would then do everything I could to get the ball to Slaton in space. He is not the fastest guy out there nor is he going to run over anyone, but when he has a little room to work with very seldom does one guy bring him down. If I can get the defense into a two LB set I'll likely end up with one of them covering OD (which is a matchup I like just fine) and I'll also have plenty of space for screens to Slaton. You should also be able to run draw plays out of this formation until the cows come home easily racking up 8 yards a pop.

The team's OL is surprisingly adept at pass protection but what strikes me about them overall is that they are highly athletic. You can forget about their manhandling any DL at the LOS, but if you ask them to block guys on the move I think you'll see much better results.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by chuck

Force the defense to play with two LBs - nickel, dime, whatever the package. Get the ball to Slaton in space. I'll likely end up with one of them covering OD (which is a matchup I like just fine) and I'll also have plenty of space for screens to Slaton. You should also be able to run draw plays out of this formation until the cows come home easily racking up 8 yards a pop.

The team's OL is highly athletic. You can forget about their manhandling any DL at the LOS, but if you ask them to block guys on the move I think you'll see much better results.

I think we may have come to a consensus. Getting mismatches that are advantageous to our players makes good sense.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Roy P

I think we may have come to a consensus. Getting mismatches that are advantageous to our players makes good sense.

And going one step further...the more good players on the field at once the more easier to get a mismatch. Thus the one back sets that spread a defense out and make them deal with all of our playmakers at the same time.

I also agree with you Roy that we don't have a back that could be a Wildcat triggerman. JJ had a few snaps there in the preseason and didn't look good. I'd be fine trying OD or Casey like you mentioned but am not sure they provide a real running threat. I think I'd try AJ back there just to put the ball in his hands more. Heck I'd give him a carry or a screen at RB on occasion if I'm having a hard time throwing it to him. There is nobody on our team (maybe nobody in the league) who is as talented. I don't think we can go wrong going to him in any situation.

[popanot]

Gee, you guys act like that flair-out screen to Leach doesn't send fear into the opposition! I get excited every time I see him rumbling and stumbling in anticipation for the killer big play.

But seriously, there were 4 or 5 plays last week were they sent OD in a tight motion. I was commenting to the guys I was watching the game with that they should just wildcat it and hand the damn ball to him. They ran it once close to our redzone and Schaub ended up passing it to him out in the flat anyway. It looked like it may have been able to pick up more yards had they just handed the ball of to him. It looked like he had a wide open corner and sideline every time they sent him in motion. I wish they'd do it once in awhile.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by barrett

I think I'd try AJ back there just to put the ball in his hands more. Heck I'd give him a carry or a screen at RB on occasion if I'm having a hard time throwing it to him. There is nobody on our team (maybe nobody in the league) who is as talented.

That was my original thought. Slaton would take the direct snap and read the DE as AJ came in motion. I'm sure Slaton could remember his W.Va days when he was with Pat White. Would be fun to see in 3rd and 4 situations as first.

[NBT]

The wildcat to Slaton seems to be a hell of an idea to me, but Kubes is so stodgy, I doubt if he would try anything so new.

[NBT]

Originally Posted by painekiller

We won yesterday and I am like "So What". We are 3-3, and right now we should be 5-1.

Dang it is not even Christmas yet, and the Grinch has already stolen yours. Be of good cheer. The Texans are turning it around. The problems you enumerate are at this moment being fixed. Frank Bush has finally gotten the attention of his defensive guys, and they are playing some shutout football part of the last 3 games. If we are 5-3, or even 6-3 in a few weeks you will be feeling a lot better, and you will, Santa told me so!

[mussop]

Originally Posted by NBT

Dang it is not even Christmas yet, and the Grinch has already stolen yours. Be of good cheer. The Texans are turning it around. The problems you enumerate are at this moment being fixed. Frank Bush has finally gotten the attention of his defensive guys, and they are playing some shutout football part of the last 3 games. If we are 5-3, or even 6-3 in a few weeks you will be feeling a lot better, and you will, Santa told me so!

I bet if we get blown out this Sunday vs SF you wont be singing the same tune. I think that is the point that Painkiller is trying to get across. We need to show some consistancy. After every win people say "we've turned the corner". Its going to take more than 1 win in a row or a .500 record for some of us to jump on that bandwagon.

[NBT]

Jeez, can't you guys see any humor at all? I was just trying to keep a positive attitude on the game. But, now that I think about it, I don't think Crabtree is ready to break out, and I think our run defense has stiffened. And NO, I don't think we will be blown out Sunday or anytime soon from now on!!

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by mussop

I bet if we get blown out this Sunday vs SF you wont be singing the same tune. I think that is the point that Painkiller is trying to get across. We need to show some consistancy. After every win people say "we've turned the corner". Its going to take more than 1 win in a row or a .500 record for some of us to jump on that bandwagon.

Someone else gets it. For me to get to this state, remember I am the tea drinker here, I have to have been beaten up a long time.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Someone else gets it. For me to get to this state, remember I am the tea drinker here, I have to have been beaten up a long time.

Beaten up? Dang, better go see a doctor or call the cops or something....

I learned a long time ago, I have no control over what the team does. Zip, nada, zilch. Let me repeat: I have no control over what the team does.

Sure, a part of me feels badly when they lose just as a part of me is elated when they win. But as far as helping the team, all I can offer is my support.

With this team, I'm seeing improvement. I'm seeing some things I've never seen in a Texan team before. So this gives me hope that they can make something of this season.

I think it's about expectations. I'm comfortable with .500. Not happy, just comfortable. We all know what the alternative is like....

A winning season would be a good start. Playoffs would be nice. Advancing in the playoffs would be even better. Going to the Super Bowl would be great. Winning the Super Bowl would be super.

Not pointing at you PK, but some people are never happy. Some people won't be happy until the Lombardi trophy is at Reliant and even then they would probably find something to bitch about....

[NBT]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Someone else gets it. For me to get to this state, remember I am the tea drinker here, I have to have been beaten up a long time.

Do you think you are the only one? Again, I was just trying to throw a more positive light on the game and the season.