This thread was killed by stats....according to the data posted by previous posters...Foster % of carries is 45% 1H and 55% 2H. 5.2YPC 1H & 2.6YPC 2H /thread
I haven't always been a staunch Kubiak supporter over the years, but it's borderline ridiculous to hate on the decisions he's made this year. We've dominated time of possession all year, still #1, and IIRC there's hasn't been a game in which we didn't win it (somehow includes GB). Only 5 teams have fewer giveaways on the year. There's no sense in airing it out when you don't have to. If you can control the ball, keep the other offense on the sideline and the opposing D grinding and wearing down, you do it. It's not the funball we had a few years back, but it's absolutely effective and smart. And as seen Sunday, when the D lays a rare egg, the offense is potent enough to rise up and scorch teams.
Foster has been overthinking his cuts this year. There's been plenty of times where he one cuts only to one cut again into a defenders arms. He needs to go back to what was working.
this is a hard concept for people to swallow. People are in love with the Saints/Pats/Packers style of throwing the ball around like it's a game of Blitz. Ball control/grinding out games is not always the prettiest but, when done properly, it is the most effective and least risky. Of course, no plan if full proof. I sure do wish the 92 oilers adopted the "boring" theory of running the ball and eating up clock.
I've been reading the other Texans forum and many posters on there think that part of the issue is the O-line but also Foster is possibly "preserving" himself to prevent injury and wear? What do you guys think about this notion? In my opinion, it does appear that he's not "running as hard" and going down after contact to "last" until the playoffs.
Well I agree with your post, but want to pose a Devil's Advocate question. Wouldn't these defenses implement the same strategy against Adrian Peterson, Spiller etc? Why are these backs still getting money yards?
A few teams have a better running game. The 49ers and Vikings run the ball better, and a few others. But the Bills run the ball 8 less times than us. We get up and force the run late, when everybody on the planet knows we are gonna run. Our stats clearly indicate we run the ball extremeley successfully in the first half when defenses have to somewhat respect all facets of our offense, but late they know were gonna run. Our running game isn't s good as it has been. But it is still extremely effective and still forces defenses to respect it even knowing how effective our play action is.
Well, Spiller is enjoying split carries with Fred Jackson, so that's one example in favor of Foster missing the more prominent Tate rotation we had last season. Peterson actually had a fairly mundane start to the year (83 ypg his first 6). He's exploded in his last 4 (avg 157)(!!!). Seattle and Detroit aren't super against the run, but Arizona's okay and Tampa's arguably the best in the league (#1 a-YPC, #1 a-YPG). Can't say I've watched Minnesota enough this year to answer the question, but they did come into the season knowing that Peterson was critical to the offense. Even with Harvin, they're almost at the bottom of the league in passing. I still think it's a combination of all factors: Overuse and lack of RB rotation Defenses gameplanning around him more than the passing attack Kubiak's ball control emphasis Retooled line etc You might also wonder if the increased workload has already worn him down and taken away some of the explosiveness he had when Tate keeping him fresh.
Perhaps, but why would Foster insist to Kubiak to stay in games if he's that worn down? I guess outside of heart (which no doubt Foster has), I would think if your'e worn down you would want to get a breather.
Not worn out. More that his legs, over the course of time, don't have the same explosiveness with the increased workload. I'm no ringer, but I've done a few marathons and am training for one (Disney) now. You have to strike a balance with the amount of miles you put in each week. Obviously, you'll tap out after doing X amount of miles on any given run, but if you start doing Y miles or more each week, you end up with dead legs and it effects your subsequent runs from the get go. For myself, I know that if I start doing 40 miles or more each week for several weeks, I'm going to end up dragging on my runs.
Ok good points. Conventional Wisdom is that Kubiak and the coaching staff and even Foster himself would know this correct? I really wanted to believe that Foster is playing more "conservatively" for the playoffs. But your argument is starting to concern me a little for the rest of this season.
This. Reading thru this thread I was wondering when someone was going to finally say this. I would have brought it up if no one else did.
WTF!? Isn't that the OPPOSITE of /thread? When anyone says a team has a "dominating running game," they mean said team can run the ball whenever they want. Could Jacksonville run with MJD and Blaine Gabbert? Yes. Could KC run the ball with Charles and Cassell? Yes. Could Minnesota run the ball with Adrian Peterson and Christian Ponder? Yes. Could Houston run the ball with last year's Foster and TJ Yates? Yes. That's what a true running team should be able to do. If you can only run the ball because opponents have to respect the passing game, then the run game is less than elite. When the offense is predicated on an elite running attack, and it's not, then there can be problems.
If Foster's saving himself, and I'd be very happy if he is, then there's no reason why he should be out there killing the clock. Those runs were hard runs, with pretty serious collisions with DL/LBs. And the bigger problem is, he's bad at it. As evident by our horrible ypc towards the end of games. Both the Ben Tate argument and the good-hands argument don't make sense either. For one thing, Forsett hasn't been bad. And Foster was running straight up the middle for no gain even when Tate was healthy. Also, RBs can run in a way to better protect the football. They sacrifice yards to do so. But it's not like we're gaining yards normally anyway.
just because he hasnt had a big run, doesnt mean he is slowing down in his productivity or something like that. he had a running TD in all games except last one and vs denver he got a rec. TD. and the explanation why are the texans foster to kill the clock, its simple in the denver game, we were dominating them, it was going to be a blowout, but then tate fumbled the ball, and peyton manning and the broncos started a comeback. one comparison: last year he had 7 runs over 20 yards, and 2 over 40. this year he had 5 runs over 20 yards and 1 over 40 but I agree with two things, the offensive line was better last year, and that he should be more involved in the pass game.
Foster is like a Clinton Portis light when it comes to picking up the blitz. I haven't seen him miss a block yet this year (though it's probably happened). He needs to be in there most of the game.
