Why do people have problems with Texans offense?

That's normally true of an offense that turns the ball over. This offense is actually quite good at protecting the football, though.

What's your defenition of "short"? The average starting field position of Texan opponents last year was their own 30 (technically: 29.89), good for 18th in the league, which is roughly league average. (League average = 29.49, BTW.)

The Texans' offense actually ranked 3rd in drive success rate, which measures the % of drives that produce a first down and/or touchdown. (BTW, the Texans' defense ranked 32nd in this statistic.)

Out of 16 second halves, the Texans held their opponents to 7 or fewer points five times, and that includes two halves against back-up QBs.

In fact, looking at all 32 halves, the Texans allowed 7 or fewer points just *seven* times - and, again, that includes 3 halves against Rusty Smith and - was it Trent Edwards? Meanwhile, they surrended 17+ points (a 34-point pace) 12 times. They gave up 20+ points six times.

I guess you could make a case for the offense being inconsistent, etc. But, RR, I've responded to this a lot: *Any* attempt to hang the defense's shortcomings on the offense is an incredibly fruitless endeavor. It was a historically bad defense by any and every measure. And it absolutely impacted the offense, not vice versa.

Sorry, man - that dog just ain't gonna hunt.

 

Ric you should know better than to post to threads like this by now.

 

I want to make one more point here. The Texans gave up 235 *first half* points last year. And that includes two shut-outs (Tennessee and Denver). The Pittsburgh Steelers gave up 232 points.... *ALL SEASON*.

The Green Bay Packers gave up 240 points.... *ALL SEASON*. The Baltimore Ravens gave up 270 points.... *ALL SEASON*. The Chicago Bears gave up 286 points.... *ALL SEASON*. The Atlanta Falcons gave up 288 points.... *ALL SEASON*. The Falcons essentially gave up roughly a FG more a game than the Texans gave up in the first half.

And it's not like the Texans became the '00 Ravens in the second half - they gave up, on average, 12/game in the second half, a 24-point pace - and that included two shut-outs against back-up QBs. I mean, we are talking *all-time bad* here.

 

all that matters is the score at the end of the game, not when those points are scored. apparently, the Texans aren't the only ones guilty one half of football. all you have to do is look at their opponents. a texans come back after being down at the half implies the opponent isn't playing 4 quarters of football either.

 

There is a huge difference if you go down 10, or even 20, points in basketball vs football. In football, if you go down by that much it renders your offense pretty much one-dimensional. In basketball, it's more common to see teams come back from double digit deficits (maybe not quite 20 pts, but into the teens) than in football.

Don't get me wrong, our defense is pathetic and they are the primary reason we are lost 10 games. I like Schaub and I like our offense, but I'm not going to sit here and act like they have no improving to do. You just can't get away with not showing up for entire halves. Sure, you'll win some games by making strong comebacks, but it really puts you at a disadvantage.

If you want to put it into numbers, the Packers had nine halves (among 7 games) this entire season in which they scored 7 points or less. They lost four of those games (one without Rodgers) Even a team with a great defense only managed to win 3 out of 7 in which the offense couldn't put together two good halves of scoring. (This is not including postseason - they did win a couple of games scoring 7 pts or less in a half there, but generally teams score less in the postseason on average due to the improved competition)

The Texans had 13 halves (among 12 games) in which they scored 7 points or less, and went 3-9 in those games. So, say we had a good defense like the Packers who could carry them through a couple of those, maybe we go 6-6 in those games if we're lucky? That's only three more wins, and that puts you right back at 9-7. I don't think that's what we're shooting for here.

The bottom line is the offense needs to improve too, not just the defense. Even a good defense can only overcome so many ****ty halves of offense, regardless of how much the offense picks it up in the other half.

Repped for actually looking it up.

But, using one game does not provide an end-all-be-all conclusion. Find me a team that has more first quarter three-and-outs than the Texans that is a winning team and maybe that will convince me. There might be some anomalies ... teams that are all defense with a poor offense ... but for the most part I believe you need balanced offense across both halves to win consistently. Going a quarter scoring 3 pts or less is easier to overcome than an entire half of scoring 3-6 points or less in most situations.

It's hard to put a finger on, but I guess we can just chalk it up to Kubiak finding new ways to lose. There's really not a rational way to explain how we've found ways to not be good since 2008, other than something is missing at HC. A couple of years ago we couldn't score in the red zone but we were great on opening drives ... now we have the red zone down, but we can only get there in the 2nd half of games. Baffling.

 

There's a huge difference between coming out flat in the first half and going down 14 or 20 points, versus being the team that is up by 14 or 20 points at the half and coming out flat in the second half. By that point you've given yourself some cushion and you know that all you need is a couple of stops and a couple of scores to seal the victory, whereas if you are the team losing at the half, you have to put together an entire half of near flawless football.

 

To chime in:

No one (in their right mind) is saying we were a 6 win sad sack because the offense stunk. No one (in their right mind) is saying we can't win with the current offense.

What IS being said is that the offense, productive as it was overall, left room for improvement. Kubiak's opening gameplans were atrocious and essentially handicapped us to giving the other team a one quarter head start most games.

Foster was plainly underused, which is astonishing to say about a guy that lead the league in rushing. For whatever reason, Kubiak was lightning quick to go away from him in games. Kindergarten Football states that you pass when coming from behind....but if you go deeper than that, you'd say that if you have a Hall of Fail defense, you do anything you can to keep them off the field. Point being - Foster should have been utilized more often.

Some of the offense's issues should be healed by a healthy season from the receiving corps - a limited AJ and a severely hampered OD may as well have been orange juice in the gas tank.

I think everyone is in agreement here: the defense has to improve dramatically for the team to go anywhere. The offense has room to improve, but isn't the reason we were so terrible last year.

 

Its okay to start flat and play from a come-from-behind deficit than it is to play with an early LEAD? If you end up racking up more yards than everyone else, thats all that counts?

The defense was absolutely DEPLORABLE. And the offense definitely wasn't. Everyone realizes that. Its the better teams mix in a few more instances of of NOT starting out flat (on both sides of the ball). Its not night-and-day difference but it can be the difference between and 8-8 season and out the playoffs, from a 10-6 playoffs records.

I think the issue is people aren't going to use the great offense as a reason to give coaching a PASS on TOTAL game management. The same guy calling the great offense was responsible for bringing in the personnel for the DEFENSIVE side of the ball and the bad SPECIAL TEAMS.

Its exactly how it looks - "Yeah, BUT _". In football you can remove out individual players on one side of the field or other ones. But Kubiak is like a basketball player in that he's a "two way player", he impacts BOTH sides of the ball. Though his offense IS why he's been retained and they made the decision to bring in a capable defensive coordinator.

 

can we all agree we just have a problem with the coach and lock this up?

 

But that's a little misleading, and here's why: In those 13 halves, the defense gave up 209 points. That's 16 points a half. And, again: The Rusty Smith Game (TRSG) is in play. Throw that anomaly out and the average jumps to 17. In seven of those halves, the defense gave up 17+ points, including five games of 20+.

Let's try and put that in perspective: The Patriots led the league with 518 points, or 32/game. So even the top scoring offense in football, assuming an average of 16/half, would have trailed in 7 of those 13 halves. Now, granted - it's a slippery slope, and I recognize a more efficient first-half offense could radically change the outcome of games, etc., etc. But I'm merely trying to use an extreme example (and the Pats are an *extreme* example to the max*) to demonstrate that even if the offense *had* been more effective, it still likely would have been playing from behind a lot.

Note, that even with the offense playing better in the second half, the defense still gave up 11.6/game, which, again, includes TRSG. So even with a competent, efficient offense, in 15 games started by at least second-string QBs, the defense surrended 12.4/half, or a 24.8/game pace.

* SD was 2nd in points scored with 441 (77! less than NE), or, on average, 13.8/half. Using that #, the Texans would have trailed eight halves and been tied in two others.

 

Still playing from behind, yes, but also much more within striking distance at the half. IE not having to throw the ball 80% of the time in the second half.

I think it's very much a see-saw effect. If the offense can put it together for more halves (especially first halves) and the defense can even be average, we'll see drastic results.

 

The question, for me, is just how pervasive was our all-time bad defense? I contend that if Phillips can make the defense merely competent - 16th-20th in the league - that a lot of our offensive woes will be “miraculously” healed.

To wit, how were Kubiak's "atrocious" opening game plans and underutilization of Foster tied to the poor play of our defense? I think some of it certainly falls on Kubiak for over-thinking some things and getting in his own way - but that's what you do when you know - undeniably *know* - that even before the opening kick-off, you have to be prepared to score a lot of points. And let's remember: Not only did they give up buckets of points, the defense also excelled at *not* creating turnovers. They were last in the league in takeaways. Dallas gave up more points but forced nearly twice as many turnovers - that greatly reduces your margin for error offensively. That kind of albatross absolutely seeps into your entire organization.

I keep running back to that. Phillips *will* make this defense better. If it can right the ship and lets Kubiak do what he wants to do - I just have a feeling this will work itself out and we will truly look at 2010 as the anomaly.

 

I completely agree. This idea that the offense is overrated is some kind of bizarre clutch bbs meme. Nowhere else have I seen it even suggested that the offense isn't that good and is partly to blame for the defensive struggles.

The Texans offense is awesome, one of the best in the league. The ONLY thing I would have a problem with is some of the play calling, timeouts, and clock management by Kubiak. (When he calls a timeout on 4th down then punts, that really bothers me).

 

Because the team went 6-10, people are just nick picking at everything. If the Texans scored 35 points a game and went 6-10, people will still complain.

 

... if only Kubiak rushed Foster more then the Texans surely would have scored 42 points a game and gone 7-10 instead ...

It was clear to me last year that the Texans defense could have allowed more points if needed for the L.

 

I think that's such a key point. Sure, they stepped up in the second half against Baltimore. Whoopdydoo. At no point during the season did I have *any* faith that that defense could stop someone if needed. OK, I take that back: I swore up and down to my doubting wife that there was NO WAY they could blow the Jet game..................

The defense gave no indication whatsoever that they were ever going to be an important piece of a victory. Heck, the Texans gave up 20.5/game in their 6 *wins*, including 26.5 in their first 4 wins (ie prior to the Rusty Smith/Trent Edwards gifts).

 

This is the best chicken-and-egg argument since, well, since the chicken and the egg.

It never ends...

 

Well, yeah. 6-10 sucks. It's a symptom of something wrong with the organization and, contrary to what you seem to be saying, we ARE allowed to b**** about it.

 

So you're regardless of whether it was the chicken or the egg, we're left with chicken****? I'm with you. :grin: