Official Texans @ Ravens Game Thread, 11/27/2017

[barrett]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Turn overs:Ravens = 0; Texans = 3. Just can't do anything but lose those games with those stats and Savage did throw a bad pic but the others were as much on the LT. Whether it's in the Draft or FA we've got to find a
LT in the upcoming offseason to replace the Clark/Lamm tandem and the rookie tackle Julian Davenport still appears to be a long ways from helping us in the starting lineup. On the other hand the overall pass-pro may have actually improved somewhat
since the beginning of the season.

The fumble was on the LT. Both picks are on Savage. We obviously need to upgrade LT, but when Watson was back there and the offense was functional we scored 35 ppg and protected our OL with a moving pocket, a running game, threatening teams downfield enough they paid for it when the rush didn't get home, and a QB who makes every DL remember there rush lanes instead of sprinting up field.

When your offense is incapable of big plays and can't run the ball, the defense will pin their ears back and make even the best pass blocking OL look bad. When those things are true AND your OL stinks, you end up with Tom Savage as target practice.

So yes we need to get better on the OL, but a great OL can prop up a QB (Cowboys last year, Minnesota this year) or a great QB can prop up an OL (Patriots the last 10 years, Houston under Watson this year).

[HPF Bob]

I didn't recognize half the guys they trotted out on defense but they just look slower than the Ravens, particularly on the edges. It's obvious where this team needs help for next year.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

I didn't recognize half the guys they trotted out on defense but they just look slower than the Ravens, particularly on the edges. It's obvious where this team needs help for next year.

Outstanding. With the seven picks they have in the fifth round they should really be able to beef up the team with guys they'll cut midseason for smoking cigars in the bathroom.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by barrett

The fumble was on the LT. Both picks are on Savage. We obviously need to upgrade LT, but when Watson was back there and the offense was functional we scored 35 ppg and protected our OL with a moving pocket, a running game, threatening teams downfield enough they paid for it when the rush didn't get home, and a QB who makes every DL remember there rush lanes instead of sprinting up field.

When your offense is incapable of big plays and can't run the ball, the defense will pin their ears back and make even the best pass blocking OL look bad. When those things are true AND your OL stinks, you end up with Tom Savage as target practice.

So yes we need to get better on the OL, but a great OL can prop up a QB (Cowboys last year, Minnesota this year) or a great QB can prop up an OL (Patriots the last 10 years, Houston under Watson this year).

Excellent analysis Barrett, very good !
But the Oline did start the season giving up double digit sacks vs the Jags (which we now know is one of the best Ds in the League), while they are now down to two sacks with a totally immobile Savage vs a good (maybe not =Jags) Ravens D, so some improvement IMO.
But I'm convinced that OT is easily our biggest need, followed by interior Olinmen & finally by Dbacks. What are your top priorites in FA & the Draft ?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Excellent analysis Barrett, very good !
But the Oline did start the season giving up double digit sacks vs the Jags (which we now know is one of the best Ds in the League), while they are now down to two sacks with a totally immobile Savage vs a good (maybe not =Jags) Ravens D, so some improvement IMO.
But I'm convinced that OT is easily our biggest need, followed by interior Olinmen & finally by Dbacks. What are your top priorites in FA & the Draft ?

It's so hard to evaluate the needs for a team that is going to rely on JJ Watt. You have to either take the hit and move on from him (will never happen), or you have to plan like he'll be there for 16 games (or close to it). This makes it nearly impossible to build a defense. I think this year's secondary was built with the idea that Clowney, Watt, and Mercilous would wreak havoc on QBs. Without 2/3 of those guys are secondary is terrible. So do you spend limited resources on DBs when your defense is built around pass rush and making DBs look good? If you don't improve the DBs and Watt is hurt again or just a shell of himself you have another year of getting beat in the passing game. Very tough call.

So I'd just load up on offense and helping Watson and cross my fingers for health on defense. Even if we are hurt and bad on defense I think Watson can win the AFC South and be very dangerous in the playoffs. So I go after OL, OL, and OL. After LT, I prioritize run blocking since that is probably the best way to protect Watson and the best way to capitalize on the fear he puts in the defense. I like Miller but I replace him if I can and spend the money elsewhere. I count on Foreman and a 2nd cheap option giving me all the production I got from Miller. I draft a slot WR who is what Miller was supposed to be. Maybe the Clemson kid or someone like him. Ellington is a not very good NFL player who looked really good in this offense. Put a real player in that role and look out.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

I think this year's secondary was built with the idea that Clowney, Watt, and Mercilous would wreak havoc on QBs.

This year's secondary was "built" on the idea that they were going to sign a 40 year old, immobile, terminally crippled guy that would play behind THIS OL and lead the team to Never-never Land. (Just let the sheer lunacy of that notion sink in for a second.) They didn't have the money to sign, no, wait, RE-sign one of the top CBs in football (who is leading a defense that appears to be poised to go down as one of the all time great defenses in the history of the sport) (of course their offense is deftly guided by one Blake Bortles) (somehow only just now did it occur to me that his name conveniently rhymes with chortles) because they were operating under the fantasy that they would sign this walking MRI. They could easily have matched or beaten Jacksonville's offer, or they could have fking franchised his ass. Whatever. But to suggest that there was actual planning going on with respect to the secondary is an actionable insult to anyone who has ever made out a grocery list.

I think it is imperative for the team to plan as if Watt will never return. It's impossible to admit that publicly of course, but to "plan" a defense that sees Watt as a centerpiece or even as a functioning member is completely irresponsible.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

This year's secondary was "built" on the idea that they were going to sign a 40 year old, immobile, terminally crippled guy that would play behind THIS OL and lead the team to Never-never Land. (Just let the sheer lunacy of that notion sink in for a second.) They didn't have the money to sign, no, wait, RE-sign one of the top CBs in football (who is leading a defense that appears to be poised to go down as one of the all time great defenses in the history of the sport) (of course their offense is deftly guided by one Blake Bortles) (somehow only just now did it occur to me that his name conveniently rhymes with chortles) because they were operating under the fantasy that they would sign this walking MRI. They could easily have matched or beaten Jacksonville's offer, or they could have fking franchised his ass. Whatever. But to suggest that there was actual planning going on with respect to the secondary is an actionable insult to anyone who has ever made out a grocery list.

I think it is imperative for the team to plan as if Watt will never return. It's impossible to admit that publicly of course, but to "plan" a defense that sees Watt as a centerpiece or even as a functioning member is completely irresponsible.

This is pragmatic, except you cannot operate on the assumption that you get an 80% salary cap. Bellichek isn't good to give away 20% of his cap and put together a complete team. You have to operate like Watt will be here and then cross your fingers he is. The truth is that we are handicapped for the next 3 seasons or so until he is gone. Too bad that will eat up the window where we could put a team around a cheap rookie contract QB. By the time we get Watt off the books we'll have to pay Watson all of that money. So no shortcut through the cheap QB like Seattle got.

But back to your statement, if you try to plan like Watt won't be there while keeping him on because fans love him, then you are doomed from the start with 80% of a roster. At least if you plan on him playing you aren't doomed until September.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by barrett

This is pragmatic, except you cannot operate on the assumption that you get an 80% salary cap. Bellichek isn't good to give away 20% of his cap and put together a complete team. You have to operate like Watt will be here and then cross your fingers he is. The truth is that we are handicapped for the next 3 seasons or so until he is gone. Too bad that will eat up the window where we could put a team around a cheap rookie contract QB. By the time we get Watt off the books we'll have to pay Watson all of that money. So no shortcut through the cheap QB like Seattle got.

But back to your statement, if you try to plan like Watt won't be there while keeping him on because fans love him, then you are doomed from the start with 80% of a roster. At least if you plan on him playing you aren't doomed until September.

Speaking of being handicapped by big contracts:
While I like Clowney and recognize his value to the team which probably now is that with or without Watt he is the new Alpha male on the defense, but as Gruden said last night Clowney is possibly on the verge of realizing a bigger payday than any defender including JJ ever got and I wonder about the wisdom of the Texans doing that deal with Clowney especially considering the likely opportunity cost involved ?