IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2009, 05:03 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Again, it's not about the % of runs. Its the fact that no matter how well we have thrown the ball we haven't opened up the run game. And it's not because teams are stacking the box. It's because we have two separate offensive identities.

One identity recognizes the matchup problems our depth at WR create. It gets in Shotgun/Trips/Trey formations and throws the ball all over the field. Schaub gets to stand in and make quick reads and accurate throws both down the field and short. Screens work great because the formation encourages pass rush from the defense. Slaton is maximized because of the space he has. Daniels and Anderson are at their best because they get favorable matchups underneath due to AJ. Kyle Shanahan has shown great creativity in these sets with misdirection and screens. It should theoretically put the defense in 5 and 6 man fronts which we can actually run against. New England has been doing it for 3 years. Make the Defense bracket AJ and cover your possession guys underneath, and then run the draw for 7 yards. This offense suits our personnel perfectly.

The other identity gets in the "I" with Leach and attempts to run the ball into the teeth of the defense. Slaton, the o-line, and Daniels are all ill-suited for this. The one advantage is that it creates play action passing attempts off of the bootleg (schaub is ill suited for this by the way due to lack of mobility). That means that this formation has lots of drawbacks for our personnel and the one advantage is it helps the passing game (the part of our offense that needs no help).

So why do we insist on doing our running from under center exclusively and in the I most of the time. The only thing I can think is that it's what Kubiak knows best. Did anyone see Ray Rice's go ahead TD yesterday. The same counter play we run, but it came from the shotgun after 350+ yards of passing so all he had to do was beat the safety and then jog to the endzone. If they had gone into the I there like we do for our running plays, then they would have had to block it perfectly to make it work for 4 yards. And we don't block anything perfectly.

We need to take advantage of our personnel. No more I formation. No more Leach (I am a fan but he doesn't fit). No more running on running downs. Start running from passing formations when the Defense is having a nervous breakdown about AJ and JJ bunched on the outside about to run deep routes. Then you are facing 5 in the box with 6 DBs and the safety bracketed over the top. Start using formation to allow the pass game to help the run game, not the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-19-2009, 05:24 PM
kravix kravix is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 285
Default

Many of our big plays come off play action, and completely abandoning the run makes the team one dimensional, which will usually get your QB hit alot more from all out blitzing and pass rushes. It is a integral part of our Off, and I think Schaub does a great job in bootlegs as long as the DL bites and doesnt chase him down. The problem is he cannot scramble for yards from a bootleg when there is good coverage, but when the play works we usually get decent yardage out of it and it keeps our play calling unpredictable.

And that is the key, unpredictable. If you know a team is never going to bootleg, run from the I, pass from the I, run up the middle, screen, etc; then you never have to plan for it. Making it alot easier on def. Just becuase we are not running the ball well from the I does not mean it is not doing what it is intended for: Play Action.

Now I would like to see some more inspirational run calling, out of different formations, and I think we saw a few yesterday. I also think that had Brown gotten the load of carries it is possible he would have had a 100 yard game. Becuase he seems to be hitting the holes and lanes faster and and with more power than Slaton, I just dont ever see him knocking out 30+ yard runs. I would settle for 4-5 YPC all game though over break away runs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-19-2009, 06:10 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kravix View Post
Many of our big plays come off play action, and completely abandoning the run makes the team one dimensional, which will usually get your QB hit alot more from all out blitzing and pass rushes. It is a integral part of our Off, and I think Schaub does a great job in bootlegs as long as the DL bites and doesnt chase him down. The problem is he cannot scramble for yards from a bootleg when there is good coverage, but when the play works we usually get decent yardage out of it and it keeps our play calling unpredictable.

And that is the key, unpredictable. If you know a team is never going to bootleg, run from the I, pass from the I, run up the middle, screen, etc; then you never have to plan for it. Making it alot easier on def. Just becuase we are not running the ball well from the I does not mean it is not doing what it is intended for: Play Action.

Now I would like to see some more inspirational run calling, out of different formations, and I think we saw a few yesterday. I also think that had Brown gotten the load of carries it is possible he would have had a 100 yard game. Becuase he seems to be hitting the holes and lanes faster and and with more power than Slaton, I just dont ever see him knocking out 30+ yard runs. I would settle for 4-5 YPC all game though over break away runs.
So we should get in the I so other teams have to plan for our weakest personnel package? Hopefully the Colts will take that advice before we play them and they will decide to run out of the I a bunch to make future opponents prepare for it.

As for Play action, that is my point. We are using our terrible running game to help our great passing game simply because that is what Kubiak knows best. It is our running game that needs help. So instead of calling passes that look like runs (or in addition to), how about we start calling some runs designed to look like passes.

The bottom line is that even if it means a more varied prep, Defensive Coordinators would pay Houston to get in the I and take one of our play makers off the field. They'd also pay us to hand the ball to Chris Brown, because it means AJ, Slaton, Daniels, Walter, JJ, Anderson, and Davis (all better players) are not getting it.

Indisputable facts
1. The I is a weak package for us personnel wise. It takes a good player off the field for one who has little impact.
2. Our OL is fast and blocks screens well. They would likely do well with draws as well since opposing DLs are flying upfield to rush the passer against us. They are undersized and terrible at traditional run blocking.
3. Schaub is at his best going through his progressions and using his accuracy/desicion making. He is average when coming out on the bootleg. The defense does not even honor it and simply tackles the RB first and then goes after schaub if he kept. We could get the same play action benefits without running the boot and without making Schaub turn his back on the defense or throw on the run (not strengths of his).

If Kubiak wanted to be Denver then he should have assembled Denver personnel. But he has struggled to put together a good OL and has never had a tough inside runner. But he has done a great job of finding WRs and a pass catching TE. He needs to play to the team's strengths and use them.

Last edited by barrett; 10-19-2009 at 06:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.