Fisher didn't look like a rookie last year; Fisher looked like he didn't belong on the field. However, I'm inclined to agree that the OL coaching and scheme probably contributed to his horrific performance.
If last year's scheme was the cause of our poor OL play, why didn't they change it? At some point last season management should have recognized and corrected the issue. So why didn't they? I dare say that, had the OL been marginally better in January, we could have beaten K.C. We now have a new OC and last season's assistant-OL coach is now the OL coach. If the OL is MUCH better then good on Nick for getting the right coaches in place even if it was a season late. But if the OL is again garbage then Nick has to go.
I really hope Nick gets the OL right. He’s struggled with it a LOT since he’s been here.. but I’m sorry, he’s killing it everywhere else. Not gonna say he has to go if he hasn’t gotten the OL right yet. He just will need to bring in some better help.
Coaching was not the only cause of the OL problems last year, but may have been the biggest contributing factor. At least that's what I think the Texans believe.
But the point some of us are making is we did not substantially in any way bring more talent than what we had last year. Were all praying that the new scheme and coaching will make a difference and everyone works out. It's a big gamble and we should've done better than not relying on a gamble
I don't have a problem with who they drafted. After Kenyon Green being a giant bust, Blake Fisher playing awful his rookie year, and Scruggs not exactly lighting the world on fire I really don't want to hear about "plug and play" lineman being available in the draft. ESPECIALLY this draft where the general consensus was even the top drafted lineman would have been drafted way later in a normal year plus our first pick was 25. The talent pool wasn't great this year for o-line. So I understand the strategy Nick went with this off-season of bringing in a bunch of veterans. The Texans are in a window where they have been a playoff team, have a QB on his rookie contract, and are trying to win. Going with a bunch of rookie offensive linemen sounds like a bad idea in this situation. My problem is the players they brought in during free agency. There were some better linemen available but Nick went bargain shopping. So now we will have to see what happens but that will be my critique if this goes bad.
Over exaggerating! That’s exactly what a rookie looks like. People fail to realize he came out a year earlier than expected as well. He had way more downs than ups but count me as someone that still believes in him. Seeing a rookie thrusted into the starting lineup of a team with Super Bowl aspirations and not playing well is not going to make me give up on him.
We drafted an offensive lineman in the 2nd round. We have 8 offensive line positions to fill. 4 of those will be filled with a rookie, 2 guys with 2 years experience and 1 with 1 year experience. Why should the FO take more shots on young OL guys just to satisfy fans? They decided this was a weak draft for OL (which most of the so-called pundits agreed on) and passed on guys they thought would have no chance of beating out the FA vets they brought in. I’m sure our OC has an archetype for the type of linemen he wants and is working with Caserio and Demeco on a plan to fix what was obviously a poor scheme for the personnel. Tunsil has been a great pass blocker, but was certainly regressing and provided nothing to the run game and was not gong to be affordable in the near future. Call me a blind optimist, but I think we will have an improved line this year and our offensive scheme will entrust CJ (a student of the game) to make the calls necessary at the line of scrimmage. Because of injuries to our WRs, even when Stroud had time he had no one open most of the time. It’s been said many times, but you can’t fix every position in one draft. We decided it was a good draft for receivers and acted accordingly. Wringing your hands over not selecting poorly graded OL in the later rounds for the hope of lucking out is plain silly.
Trent Williams stunk his first year too. Not all great offensive tackled are hall of famers right out of the gate. https://www.pff.com/news/2010-offensive-line-rankings-part-1 The Redskins at least attempted to upgrade the unit by investing in Trent Williams and trading for Jammal Brown. The only problem being both men were pretty poor. They weren’t alone, with only Korey Lichtensteiger ending up with a positive grade in run blocking, and Will Montgomery the only one in pass protection. Plenty of work still to do. Best Player: Will Montgomery. Although the only reasons that makes sense involves telling you how bad the rest were. Biggest Concern: You want a quicker return than the 11 sacks Trent Williams yielded. Even if he makes drastic improvements you’ve got plenty of other candidates waiting to step into the breach.
LOL that Nick has to go. We may have the best defense in football largely due to him and Demeco working together to build it in 2 short years. We are still a very young team, including the OL, and have made it to the second round of the playoffs 2 years in a row. Nick is a great GM.
My issue is that we are in a bit of no man’s land here. If coaching was the biggest issue, promoting the assistant OL coach doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If it was purely a scheme issue, why the semi-overhaul of personnel? I hope I’m wrong but it just doesn’t seem like we upgraded players or coaching on the OL.
How many linemen do you draft? Your whole draft? Throwing bodies at the problem is not going to fix it. You needed weapons on offense. The Texans are BETTER today than they were Wednesday.
Two in the first 6 rounds would have been nice. Competition and a little more depth on our offensive line wouldn't have pissed me off a bit
It sounds like the Jungle Book song. Accentuate the positive (DEFENSE), Eliminate the negative (the laid back workout powder puffs) and now we find out if that's enough.
