IntheBullseye.com
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

IntheBullseye.com (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Texans (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   So what? (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/showthread.php?t=810)

painekiller 10-25-2009 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBT (Post 15336)
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.
No I am not the only one to be beaten up. But I have been one of the only positive voices in the past, pointing to the growth and strong youth on this team when everyone else wanted Super Bowl or bust.

When I wrote the beaten up line, I did not like the tone of the that sentence but was to lazy to change it. So understand I am not the only one of us "beaten up on", I am not the only one chirped off.

I might be the only one to say so what, but I doubt it, the apathy is growing in this town at a faster rate than the past.

Roy P 10-25-2009 11:42 AM
Many fans focus on Wins and post-season success. I'm currently happy to see a competitive product on the field. I went to my only NFL game last year and spent what I consider to be quite a bit of money for "entertainment" at Reliant. I saw the Ravens completely destroy us. It was really no fun being there.

If the Texans can put a product on the field like I saw last week, I'd be willing to pay to watch it. Granted, I would like to see them win, but playing sound fundamental football is a good start.

WMH 10-25-2009 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 15342)
Many fans focus on Wins and post-season success. I'm currently happy to see a competitive product on the field. I went to my only NFL game last year and spent what I consider to be quite a bit of money for "entertainment" at Reliant. I saw the Ravens completely destroy us. It was really no fun being there.

If the Texans can put a product on the field like I saw last week, I'd be willing to pay to watch it. Granted, I would like to see them win, but playing sound fundamental football is a good start.
Roy, you make entirely too much sense to be on this board. I agree with you 100%. I have WANTED to watch all 4 quarters for 5 of our 6 games. IMO, that is good football entertainment, and that is all we can ask for.

NBT 10-25-2009 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 15341)
No I am not the only one to be beaten up. But I have been one of the only positive voices in the past, pointing to the growth and strong youth on this team when everyone else wanted Super Bowl or bust.

When I wrote the beaten up line, I did not like the tone of the that sentence but was to lazy to change it. So understand I am not the only one of us "beaten up on", I am not the only one chirped off.

I might be the only one to say so what, but I doubt it, the apathy is growing in this town at a faster rate than the past.
We have both been "beaten up" in the sense that our Houston teams seem to constantly put us on a roller coaster, then drop us from dizzy heights. I have been through every one of those games and those years with you PK. But I refuse to submit to apathy. The Texans nearly gave me a heart attack in todays SF game, but we did pull it out, so I will continue to be that glass half full fella.

Fonz the Boss 10-25-2009 08:01 PM
I think 9-7 may get us a wild card if all the other teams continue to play inconsistant football like us.

barrett 10-25-2009 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 15223)
Forget the "Jumbo" package. Trading out our OL for the guys not good enough to get on the field is not the mysterious answer.

Just stop running the ball in general.

1) We need to stop trying to establish the run. We can't. We come out and try to be balanced and start slow. This past game we came out throwing and moved the ball.

2) We need to stop running in the redzone. We can't do it. We can throw it in tight. Why not throw the screen to AJ on 1st and goal like last week. Why not go to OD or Slaton? I'd take a fade to either AJ or Walter (both are big with great hands) over a run from anyone on our team.

3) We need to stop running in short yardage unless it's close enough for a sneak. This has cost us repeatedly. Our odds of completing a short, medium, or long pass are all greater than our odds of running for a yard on 3rd and 1. Our QB completes a higher % of his throws than we convert running it on 3rd and 1. So have Schaub complete 65% of his throws for first downs on 3rd and 1 rather than running with a 25% conversion rate.

4) We especially need to stop running the ball in an effort to sit on a lead. What runs more clock? A 3 and out with running plays (2 minutes or so without TOs being used), or a few first downs through the air? Obviously the latter. Statistically we use more clock when we pass this year than when we run (due to longer drives and more plays). So why not throw a screen or a hitch or a swing pass on 1st and 10 when we want to hold the ball and eat clock. Especially since our RBs fumble just as often as our QB throws an INT.
There is no need for us to run the ball any more often than is absolutely necessary to protect Schaub. We definitely didn't need 31 carries yesterday. It is almost like Kubiak knows he has to throw the ball to win but he is still going to run it simply because it is the "right" thing to do. Like the drive yesterday where our offense was in the middle of an unstoppable stretch throwing the ball and we came out and went 1 yard run, -1 yard run, incomplete pass, punt. What is the point? I don't think there is a team out there with the secondary talent to match up with the depth of our passing game weapons (AJ, Walter, Daniels, JJ, DA). All of these guys can play. Not to mention Slaton is better as a receiver than a runner. I love Leech as a lead blocker but there is no reason for him to see the field in our current offense.

We could have given that game away by trying to sit on the lead with the running game. And eventually Kubiak is going to run the ball right into getting fired.
I hope that Kubiak and company take note of what happened today. We threw the ball to get a big lead and then tried to sit on it. Neither our Defense or Running game are up to the task. We need to keep throwing it and put teams away. Especially with Slaton's tendency to fumble.

NBT 10-26-2009 05:10 PM
I think it (lack of run game) is really due to the weakness of our interior offense, especially Meyers at center. Singletqary decided to blitz two LB's up the middle to exploit that weakness.

Roy P 10-26-2009 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBT (Post 15521)
I think it (lack of run game) is really due to the weakness of our interior offense, especially Meyers at center. Singletqary decided to blitz two LB's up the middle to exploit that weakness.
Expect more of the same until we figure out how to stop it. We might have to bring a TE into the FB postion to help out on that.

barrett 10-26-2009 06:55 PM
Or we do a better job of disguising when we are going to run and we keep trying to score points even when we have a lead. We put SF on their heels with the passing game in the 1st half and the blitzing LBs were not that big of a concern. It's part of the reason why OD had such a great day. We simply should have done more of it in the 2nd half.

Roy P 10-26-2009 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 15526)
Or we do a better job of disguising when we are going to run and we keep trying to score points even when we have a lead. We put SF on their heels with the passing game in the 1st half and the blitzing LBs were not that big of a concern. It's part of the reason why OD had such a great day. We simply should have done more of it in the 2nd half.
It sounds good until Schaub takes one too many sacks or throws an interception. Then we start squawking about how we have got to be able to run the ball to milk time off the clock.

All ideas are great when they work.

Obviously, we were having pretty good success passing the ball to O.D. in the seam and running Patrick Willis away from the line of scrimmage. I think Kubiak or Shannahan start worrying that they might "go to the well" one time too many. Therefore, they try to utilize more formations and run different players on and off the field. The inside runs hopefully set up the outside runs.

I'm not agreeing or arguing here, simply making an observation.

Big Texas 10-26-2009 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 15529)
It sounds good until Schaub takes one too many sacks or throws an interception. Then we start squawking about how we have got to be able to run the ball to milk time off the clock.

All ideas are great when they work.

Obviously, we were having pretty good success passing the ball to O.D. in the seam and running Patrick Willis away from the line of scrimmage. I think Kubiak or Shannahan start worrying that they might "go to the well" one time too many. Therefore, they try to utilize more formations and run different players on and off the field. The inside runs hopefully set up the outside runs.

I'm not agreeing or arguing here, simply making an observation.
I think we ran one screen for Slaton. If not two. I think in the second half that should have been the staple of the offense. They are just like running the ball,

Yes, Slaton is having fumblitis right now. However he still can wreak havoc off the screen. Screens should definately be a major part of our offense.

Someone said the 3 TE set should be run 10 times a game. I think the screen should be as well. And not always the quick screen split out wide. Mix up the regular screen as well. I tell the screen is the best way to stop a blitzing team. Let me rephrase a SUCCESSFUL screen game is a great way to stop a blitzing team.

barrett 10-26-2009 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy P (Post 15529)
It sounds good until Schaub takes one too many sacks or throws an interception. Then we start squawking about how we have got to be able to run the ball to milk time off the clock.

All ideas are great when they work.

Obviously, we were having pretty good success passing the ball to O.D. in the seam and running Patrick Willis away from the line of scrimmage. I think Kubiak or Shannahan start worrying that they might "go to the well" one time too many. Therefore, they try to utilize more formations and run different players on and off the field. The inside runs hopefully set up the outside runs.

I'm not agreeing or arguing here, simply making an observation.
I think all this is true in football theory. But when you have an OL that is good at pass blocking and screen blocking in space but bad in tight...

But when you have great WRs and a pass catching TE...

But when you have a RB who fumbles...

But when you have a RB who is better on screens then on the lead...

But when your defense is shaky and gives up 21 in a half to a guy who hasn't played in two years...

And when it has already worked so well that you are up 21-0...

I know I am preaching to the choir here Roy, but does anyone doubt that we are going to lose a game at some point because we take the foot off the accelerator too soon. And one win could mean playoffs or not.

It's like I said last week, if Gary Kubiak was the coach of the patriots last week they would have gone up 10-0 on Tennessee and stopped throwing in an effort to win 10-0. That's just Kubiak to the core. He is throwing right now to get the lead because he has to. But the second he thinks he is able he goes straight back into the shell.

painekiller 10-26-2009 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 15537)
It's like I said last week, if Gary Kubiak was the coach of the patriots last week they would have gone up 10-0 on Tennessee and stopped throwing in an effort to win 10-0. That's just Kubiak to the core. He is throwing right now to get the lead because he has to. But the second he thinks he is able he goes straight back into the shell.
That is Mike Shanahan to the core. Throw the ball to get a lead then run the ball to kill the clock. So Gary is just doing it the way he was taught. Unfortunately he did not have Dick Vermeil or Sam Wyche as his mentor.

barrett 10-26-2009 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 15545)
That is Mike Shanahan to the core. Throw the ball to get a lead then run the ball to kill the clock. So Gary is just doing it the way he was taught. Unfortunately he did not have Dick Vermeil or Sam Wyche as his mentor.
The truth is I agree with Shanahan and Kubiak far more than I do Vermeil or Wyche. I just don't think this team was put together to win that way. We have huge deficiencies to win Kubiak style football games. But we have skill position talent that I would take over anyone in the NFL.

We need to take a page from Ken Wisenhunt who was a Steelers coach under Cowher, calling a steady diet of 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He'd love to run it in Arizona but he is smart enough to recognize what he has (and what he doesn't). And he parlayed it into a superbowl bid with a less talented team than we have.

nunusguy 10-27-2009 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 15546)
We need to take a page from Ken Wisenhunt who was a Steelers coach under Cowher, calling a steady diet of 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He'd love to run it in Arizona but he is smart enough to recognize what he has (and what he doesn't). And he parlayed it into a superbowl bid with a less talented team than we have.
And Wisenhunt didn't have somebody named Peyton Manning in his division, or even other competition over the last couple years like the Titans or Jags. But you're right about Wisenhunt, he's much more intellectually agile than Kubiak.
How does Kubiak lose tract of and not have his defense prepared for the backup QB who came into the league a few years ago as the #1 overall Draft pick ? As soon as the Texans started jumping offsides I figured there was a different QB cadence in the game. And BTW, why doesn't Kubiak have Schaub take a knee instead of handing off to Slaton with just a few seconds left at the end of the half ?

Dennis2112 10-27-2009 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 15550)
How does Kubiak lose tract of and not have his defense prepared for the backup QB who came into the league a few years ago as the #1 overall Draft pick ?

Honestly, what team prepares their defense for the backup QB?

I do feel that we did not make the proper adjustments "after" they scored their first TD with Smith @ QB.

Joshua 10-27-2009 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis2112 (Post 15552)
Honestly, what team prepares their defense for the backup QB?
While I can't say for sure, my guess would be virtually all of them. While I doubt it is substantial, I bet most defenses at least go over the backup and a few of his tendencies. This is even more true when the team you're playing has questions at the QB position or a starter who is prone to injury. Shaun Hill is not Peyton Manning. The possibility that he might play bad and get yanked was not terribly far-fetched.

papabear 10-27-2009 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 15550)
How does Kubiak lose tract of and not have his defense prepared for the backup QB who came into the league a few years ago as the #1 overall Draft pick ?

While I agree there should have been at least a little preparation for Smith, it's doubtful that it would have helped much. He didn't play at all last year, and it has been since week 10 of 2007 since he took a snap. They have new head coach and a new, first time, offensive coordinator. We started playing a lot of zone and the 49'rs adjusted...and figured out they could abuse our LB's with Vernon Davis, which they probably should have been trying all day.

I think way too much is getting made of this. It's not like they went in at halftime and installed a whole new offense at halftime...they just figured out what they had in their playbook that would work, and put in a QB who got hot and played significantly better than he ever had before.

painekiller 10-27-2009 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua (Post 15555)
While I can't say for sure, my guess would be virtually all of them. While I doubt it is substantial, I bet most defenses at least go over the backup and a few of his tendencies. This is even more true when the team you're playing has questions at the QB position or a starter who is prone to injury. Shaun Hill is not Peyton Manning. The possibility that he might play bad and get yanked was not terribly far-fetched.
I would think not many go over the backups unless your playing a team with split QBs like the Texans last year, then you study both Schaub and Sage, but on a Farve team you do not waste your time looking at preseason tape of the backup.

Now I am talking about the players not worrying about the backups. The coaches should have some kind of scouting report on the back up.

WMH 10-27-2009 12:53 PM
IMO blaming the 2nd half struggles on the QB switch is a stretch. I would give him credit for a couple of cadence changes/off-sides penalties, but that is about it. The TE was in the game plan, and that was who was catching the ball, wide open I might add. From what I saw on the DVR, there weren't a lot of folks around him & even someone like....Alex Smith could hit him.

Regardless, SCOREBOARD, we won. :)

nunusguy 10-27-2009 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMH (Post 15561)
The TE was in the game plan, and that was who was catching the ball, wide open I might add. From what I saw on the DVR, there weren't a lot of folks around him & even someone like....Alex Smith could hit him.
We were sitting in the Texans EZ (section 115, S row), and I swear it was deja vu all over again and again, three times ! It was the same freakin play to that big TE who was doin his best Owen Daniels immitation and somebody was throwing him strikes so Smith gets some credit. But Smith is mobile, moves well.
Hard to figure how he could be benched that long, given the kind of invesment the 9ers origionally made in him ? And the TE, he's got a new career start himself after that performance.
The only thing that saved the Texans was the clock, because San Fran had taken over the game after the second half started.

cadams 10-27-2009 02:53 PM
i don't think the different qb had much to do with it, other than maybe he was more mobile. i think that bush got worried about giving up the big play and not losing rather than keeping with the formula that had been working perfectly in the first half. i could be wrong, but i don't think they blitzed or used pressed coverage much at all in the second half. that made a huge difference.

NBT 10-27-2009 03:39 PM
All a prevent does is keep you from winning!! :(

painekiller 11-01-2009 04:01 PM
Ok they have won the 2 games they should have won, to be 5-3. Now prove you have turned the corner and go into Indy and win.

A bad showing and the "so what" is still in play.

A solid showing with a lose mean nothing + or -. How you deal with the next four weeks does show me who this team is.

Today we saw the team play an ugly 1st half on offense, and yet they stayed with in themselves and ended up with a nice win.

NBT 11-01-2009 04:15 PM
You are indeed, a hard man to please, but I think we have crossed the rubicon myself. Peyton will be a very tough nut to crack.

barrett 11-01-2009 05:08 PM
That is the first time I have ever seen the Texans play bad, but simply be so much better than the other team that they won anyways. A very solid effort in a game that was very easy to look past.

nunusguy 11-01-2009 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 15718)
Now prove you have turned the corner and go into Indy and win.
C'mon man, get real and expecting to sweep Indy is not real, especially at this time with the kind of year Peyton is having. If we can split with those guys, that's enough for the time being IMO.

painekiller 11-01-2009 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy (Post 15731)
C'mon man, get real and expecting to sweep Indy is not real, especially at this time with the kind of year Peyton is having. If we can split with those guys, that's enough for the time being IMO.
I don't think I am calling for a sweep of Indy, though I think we can sweep Indy. And I think we should play them tough.

Play like you did in Cincy and you win in Indy, play like you did in the 1st half today and you are in trouble against Indy.

Nconroe 11-01-2009 07:22 PM
I think the so what is that the team is learning to win, to have confidence in themselves as a team. And, it is nice as a fan to see the team actually win, perhaps dominate at times, not just luck out as maybe they had the previous seven years. I hope this continues to build for the team and us fans. A win next week isn't required, but perhaps, people give us a good chance now, both offensively and defensively to compete with Indy and not be surprized if we win or get close.

painekiller 11-02-2009 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nconroe (Post 15743)
I think the so what is that the team is learning to win, to have confidence in themselves as a team.
Learning to win is indeed one of the hardest things to do in the NFL. And being an expansion team with no history makes it doubly tough to learn to win. Kubiak has had his hands full teaching this team to A) be a team, B) believe in it's self, C) Win at home, D) Win anywhere.

Interesting stat, since 11/23 of last year this team is 5-2 on the road.

We are currently 3rd in the AFC in scoring,
We are 8th in pts allowed in the AFC. After the slow start, the team has played itself into a nice place.

If this team wins the next 3 games this town will be going nuts.
If they split with Indy and beat the Titans, then they will start to be noticed by average citizen in Houston.

I am hoping for the 3 big wins against the division rivals, this town will be nuts just like the House of Pain days. NBT and I have been waiting for this team to mature a long time, and they will have matured if they are 8-2. or 7-3.

Think about it, if we win on Sunday at Lucas Oil, what do you think the stands will be like on the Monday Night when VY comes to town? Utter chaos.

painekiller 11-10-2009 01:23 PM
So what? We are 5-4 with a medium sour taste. Small issues still plague this team, but unlike the past, I am seeing a gleamer of hope.

Reason to believe:
We had a chance to tie or beat the Colts even though we had 13 penalties for 103 yds.
" " even though we did not get a 1st down until Indy had 16 of them.
" " even though we barely touched the ball in the 1st half, we out gain the Colts.
Our Defense is becoming a strength of this team.
Frank Bush and staff seem to be making key adjustments at half time.


Reason to not believe:
Schaub makes that pass or two every game that makes you think. "What?"
Our running game has not gelled.
Stupid Turnovers.
Bad coaching decisions

NBT 11-10-2009 02:20 PM
Agreed PK. And to be 10-6, with a shot at a playoff, we have to win 5 of the last 8. It can be done. Like you say we have waited a long time for that to happen. But we can't have anymore of those squirrely momentum reversing plays. We have to be airtight from here on, or it will for sure be, "So What"!

nunusguy 11-10-2009 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBT (Post 16138)
Agreed PK. And to be 10-6, with a shot at a playoff, we have to win 5 of the last 8. It can be done.
Check your math NBT, I'm afraid it's 5 of 7 which makes 10 wins more than possible, but unlikely.
I dunno, but really think our fate to miss the playoffs again this year was sealed way back in September when we lost those first 2 home games to the Jets and Jags. Dang, at the very least we should have won one of them, preferably the game against our division opponent, the Jags.
Remember that September schedule this year, unlike the one in 2008, was much more friendly but Kubiak failed to take advantage of it.

painekiller 11-10-2009 11:21 PM
IMO We need to win the games in blue.


Mon. 23 TITANS
Sun. 29 COLTS
Sun. 6 @ Jaguars
Sun. 13 SEAHAWKS
Sun. 20 @ Rams
Sun. 27 @ Dolphins
Sun. 3 PATRIOTS

Colts is a throw away game. No way do we beat the Colts 3 times in a season, so the lose on Sunday did not matter, the next game against the Colts, if we win then we know we can, if we don't win, we might miss the playoffs. 6 teams have fewer loses than we do, and based on wins Pittsburgh/Cincy and San Diego have the inside track to the playoffs.

I agree with nunusguy, if we miss the playoffs, it's due to September lose to the Jags, and the Cards.

Roy P 11-11-2009 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller (Post 16156)
IMO We need to win the games in blue.


Mon. 23 TITANS
Sun. 29 COLTS
Sun. 6 @ Jaguars
Sun. 13 SEAHAWKS
Sun. 20 @ Rams
Sun. 27 @ Dolphins
Sun. 3 PATRIOTS
\playoffs.

due to September lose to the Jags, and the Cards.
I could see us losing to the Dolphins. If we had only beat Jax and Arizona, then we wouldn't be having this converation.

nunusguy 11-11-2009 07:49 AM
IMO the season, if the season/seasons-success is defined as making the playoffs, comes down to winning both of the the next 2 games of which the first one vs the Titans will be more challenging than the second vs the Colts.
If we can accomplish that then we are down to winning 3 of the remaining 5 games which includes the Rams & Seahawks in Reliant. Of course this would all be predicated upon 10 wins getting us qualified into the playoffs.
I have to admit based upon the teams performance to this point in this year I have a different attitude about them than I've ever had and that's based upon our new and improved defense. Led by new Texan starters Antonio Smith, Bernard Pollard, & Brian Cushing we have for the first time ever a respectable verging on a superior defensive unit.

Nconroe 11-11-2009 09:33 AM
I agree the defense seems to have become the strength of our team. With the bye, perhaps a few injuries such as Marios shoulder and Cushings ankle will get a little better.

On offense, somehow Schaub has got to quit throwing those easy picks he seems to have a problem with this year. Maybe they can find something on film to help their running game. And perhaps the middle of OL can heal up some of their wounds.

I think it is a lot more funny watching this team than any of the previous 7 years. And they always have a chance to win. Team is good enough to play with any team now, just need that consistency. I think the team is still +1 in turnovers, which is way different from previous years where we were way - on turnovers.

I don't know what happened this last game with guys lining up offsides and committing late hit penalties, these were not what our team usually does.

I think we'll go 10-6 and that will likely get us into the playoffs, but I'd be quite satisfied with 10-6 anyways.

TheMatrix31 11-12-2009 06:17 AM
We're 7th right now, behind the Chargers who are 5-3. We are 5-4

This is their remaining schedule.

Eagles
@ Broncos
Chiefs
@ Browns
@ Cowboys
Bengals
@ Titans
Redskins

Can they go 4-4? I think they can lose to the Eagles, Broncos, Cowboys, and Bengals but really, those four are games that can easily go SD's way.

We HAVE to beat the teams we can. Beating Indy this past week would have been huge. We could have ****************in' been 6-3 going into the bye. Damn. Can we beat Indy at home?

NBT 11-14-2009 07:49 PM
We can, but no more stupid inexcusable turnovers!!!

Fonz the Boss 11-15-2009 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMatrix31 (Post 16167)
We could have ****************in' been 6-3 going into the bye. Damn. Can we beat Indy at home?
I think the better question would be... Can we beat the Titans at home? They look like they have their swagger back and they will be looking forward for the Monday Night spotlight. I have a really bad feeling about that game.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.