Yes, I know it was both. I want to know which you think was the biggest reason for the 2-14 debacle, and then explain. That's why I didn't include 'both' in the poll question. Personally, I think it was more coaching than bad players. For example, look at the offensive line. HORRIBLE pass blocking, but respectable run blocking. It's easy to say that all 5 guys suck, but then how do you explain the run blocking? Leads me to believe the the pass blocking schemes sucked more than the actual players. Another example is the defense. Pretty much the entire front 7 had never played in the 3-4 before. Almost to a man, they were all playing out of position. Many of them (Walker, R. Smith, Payne, Babin, Wong) have said in interviews that they prefer the 4-3. Adapting players to a system instead of adapting a system to players = bad coaching. Again, I'm not saying we have a Superbowl team just waiting for the right coach. Far from it. I just think 2-14 had more to do with coaching than anything else, which is why I can't WAIT until the 2006 season.
I voted for the coaches and schemes, because not only did they design that piece of ****, but they staffed it with the 22 collective pieces of **** that tried to execute the pile of ****.
I think it was bad coaching and bad schemes. Even the players said the protection schemes were a joke. I know the player is not going to come out say I suck but the opponents radio and TV broadcast teams would say the same thing. John McClain and 610 have said players on the other teams thought the same thing. I think it was Gary Walker who said Dom didn't get himself fired his coordinators did. It also seems like we have been complaining about the bad play calling and the offensive play book from the the start.
Why were these coaches ever hired? Because they were once successful. Why were they once successful? Because they had better players. Now, were they doing the best job they could have... given the quality of players on this team? Of course not. But, at the point where you have a team with as little talent on the offensive line and defensive line as the Texans did (any member of any media/team will also tell you that much)... you almost have to re-invent the way you coach/call plays/conduct practices... and you're not going to get good results, even if you're Vince Lombardi out there. They were attempting to dumb everything down... the schemes, the number of steps Carr can drop back, the coverage patterns... all because they didn't have players with the capabilities that they had previously coached when they were successful. Now, adaptability is a vital characteristic a great coach should have... so they don't get off without a fair amount of criticism for failing to get as much out of this team that they could. But, put a known great coach on a mediocre team with little talent (see Larry Brown, or Bill Parcells when he first goes to a new team)... and the team won't be good... until they get BETTER players.
I know you did it on purpose, but where's the "both" option? Really I don't think you can separate the two edit: see Nick's post for why.
This is far too logical and well-stated. I prefer my approach of just calling everyone and everything "collective pieces of ****." IOW, good post.
its obvious talent issues with the texans. charley casserly has like three good picks out the first round in four years.
It's much easier to execute effective run blocking than pass blocking for a couple of reasons. 1. Lineman love run blocking more than pass blocking because they get to be active and punish the other side rather than sit back and wait 2. It's simply easier for a lineman to go forward and hit somebody rather than to backpedal and try to stay in front of somebody - it's like playing defense in basketball. If Michael Jordan tried to guard Michael Jordan, offensive michael woudl beat defensive MJ to the hole more ofthen than not. To take a football example - look at Nebraska - they produced tons of superstar O-lineman but a lot of them (like Texans journeyman OL Zach Wiegert - who was all-Universe in college, simply an animal when he pulled along the line) were a lot more successful in college than in the pros, simply because run blocking is a lot simpler and physically less demanding than pass blocking 3. Possibly, the fact that the Texans were likely to be behind (and hence throwing) caused teams to play them for the pass rather than the run, plus the tempatation of opposing DE's to head right to Carr more ofthen than not due to the ease of sacking him rather than play the run. Edit: one more thing, when you talk about the texans players not being good vs. scheme, make sure you consder the players that were NOT playing: the 3 second and 2 third round pics unloaded on Jason Babin, Phillip Buchanon, and Tony Hollings. combine that with Texans 2nd and 3rd rounders: Chester Pitts, Fred Weary, Jabbar Gaffney, Charles Hill, Seth Wand, Bennie Joppru, and Dave Ragone - and that's a recipe for mediocrity in any scheme.
No option for both? Capers' scheme obviously didn't fit the players we had, but let's not forget that his coaching also led us to a 7-9 record just the year before. We also replaced Sharper and Glenn w/ Greenwood and P-burnt. While Greenwood was good, P-burnt was absolutely atrocious. Coleman was always a step behind. And let's not forget we lost Wong for the entire season. Interesting that all the moves were made on the defensive side, the offensive side of the ball didn't change all that much, makes you wonder how we took such HUGE step backwards on offense.
Quoted for the benefit of everyone who looks at the poll and immediately starts banging the keyboard.
LOL! That was great! Not to mention it hit the nail on the head... edit: Still laughing that is sig material I hope you dont mind....
True, but they also had players that fit the scheme (Greg Lloyd, Kevin Green) unlike they had here, so they didn't have to adapt the system at all. Then again, I don't know if these players ever played in a 3-4 before playing for the Steelers and Panthers. We're moving towards a 'what comes first, the chicken or the egg' like argument here. This is true but if I'm not mistaken, in the zone-blocking scheme (which was employed last year) don't the lineman pretty much just push the D linemen around a little bit and let the RB choose the hole, instead of the traditional run blocking where they're blowing the D lineman off the line of scrimmage? I could be wrong about that.
I read the post and I still vote BOTH! but I'd lean a little more towards bad players but they all sucked.
Man I have to disagree with that. When your WHOLE team sucks its not the players. The WHOLE team couldnt have possibly sucked. Just MO' though. edit: Okay some of it is a valid argument from a certain perspective, however I still think it was the coaches more so than the players.
Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this part. I have to disagree with this, at least when talking about the defense. From interviews I've heard, the main problem with the defense was that it wasn't 'dumbed down' enough. Gary Walker was interviewed and said that it was so complicated that players spent more time trying to figure out where they were supposed to be and what they were supposed to be doing instead of just hitting people. The new LB coach (can't think of his name) has pretty much said the same thing about the 3-4.
possibly true but the same principle of going forward and mauling somebody vs. hanging back and getting hit applies - anyway I'm not sure if there was a huge differnce (adjsuted for other factors) from the prior year in terms of the running game, was there? That would tend to indicate it's the players.
Well, I do know that the defense that Capers installed was better during the EXPANSION year than the 4th year.... so, did the coaches get dumber and forget how to coach, or were the new players not receptive to their style of coaching? And, if the new players weren't receptive to the coaching, was it the coach's fault for not finding a way for them to understand it... or the players fault for not being able to grasp a scheme that other successful teams had gotten down before? Also, is it the GM's fault for not acquiring the players that would have fit the scheme perfectly? As you can see, there's a lot of arguments to be made in every direction... and in the end, the answer is its a combination of all of them. I know you want to know which one was MORE... and all I can tell you is that at times, the players were at fault... and at other times, the coaches were at fault. As I said before, you can't change all your players... but you can fire all your coaches. But, I stand by my statement that the majority of our defenders that were expected to be "playmakers" (Gary Walker, especially) would not have been expected to be in that role if they were on another team... a direct function of the players not being talented enough, and the coaches unable to create a system that helps maximize the positives of these "lesser-talented" guys, and negate their negatives. It would be one thing if a coach were to take over a Super Bowl contender with everyone intact, and in their prime... and that team went on to finish in last place since the coach decided to change their entire playbook and schemes... then, you can completely say "it was the coaches fault." But, that isn't the case here... superior coaching may have helped this team win 2-4 more games by itself (which I'm really overestimating)... but at the end of the day, you still have a crappy team.
