Are we being fair to Kyle Shanahan?

[Paintrain]

I think if his name was Kyle Anderson and not related to the head coach we wouldn't hear any of this criticism but he's an easy target because he's young, relatively inexperienced and the son of a big name-big ego head coach. He was already being criticized when he was hired because it was seen in some (ignorant) circles as nepotism.

To judge him on last years production with a constantly revolving line, a complete in season overhaul (starting with Portis & Larry Johnson-finishing with Torrain & Keiland Williams), one of the worst WR corps in recent NFL memory-also in constant flux and a QB who wouldn't/didn't grasp and implement the system is ridiculous.

In watching the games again this offseason, I see lots of potential for this offense to be explosive. More passes downfield than we'd seen in decades, more opportunities to move the chains (squandered by lack of execution on McNabb or the lines part in many cases) and more opportunities to score points in the red zone than we'd seen in the recent past. If Gano connects on 50% more of his FG we're talking about at least an 8 win team last year. We were in position to make plays and score points, we just didn't.

He's got work to do this year for sure. Establish (and commit to) the running game more. Get Davis more involved in the passing game. Continue to get Armstrong the ball and incorporate Hankerson in the passing game. Figure out a way to get the ball in Banks hands 3-5 times a game.

I have few concerns about Kyle as a coach and think we've got a future star on the sidelines.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I think if his name was Kyle Anderson and not related to the head coach we wouldn't hear any of this criticism but he's an easy target because he's young, relatively inexperienced and the son of a big name-big ego head coach. He was already being criticized when he was hired because it was seen in some (ignorant) circles as nepotism.

To judge him on last years production with a constantly revolving line, a complete in season overhaul (starting with Portis & Larry Johnson-finishing with Torrain & Keiland Williams), one of the worst WR corps in recent NFL memory-also in constant flux and a QB who wouldn't/didn't grasp and implement the system is ridiculous.

In watching the games again this offseason, I see lots of potential for this offense to be explosive. More passes downfield than we'd seen in decades, more opportunities to move the chains (squandered by lack of execution on McNabb or the lines part in many cases) and more opportunities to score points in the red zone than we'd seen in the recent past. If Gano connects on 50% more of his FG we're talking about at least an 8 win team last year. We were in position to make plays and score points, we just didn't.

He's got work to do this year for sure. Establish (and commit to) the running game more. Get Davis more involved in the passing game. Continue to get Armstrong the ball and incorporate Hankerson in the passing game. Figure out a way to get the ball in Banks hands 3-5 times a game.

I have few concerns about Kyle as a coach and think we've got a future star on the sidelines.

Are you at all concerned that the pretty good Texans offense truly exploded when Kyle left? I mean sure, it doesn't take a genius to draw up plays that will allow Matt Schaub, Owen Daniels, and Andre Johnson to put up their numbers, but Kyle left and the Texans found that they had great pieces in Arian Foster, Vonta Leach, and Joel Dressen as well, not to mention they finally found five offensive lineman who could be their starting OL 4 years from now.

I don't know how much that really says about Kyle, probably nothing, but if he's going to be given a pass based on his success with the Texans, it's worth pointing out that the Texans offense w/o Kyle was better than it was with him.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Are you at all concerned that the pretty good Texans offense truly exploded when Kyle left? I mean sure, it doesn't take a genius to draw up plays that will allow Matt Schaub, Owen Daniels, and Andre Johnson to put up their numbers, but Kyle left and the Texans found that they had great pieces in Arian Foster, Vonta Leach, and Joel Dressen as well, not to mention they finally found five offensive lineman who could be their starting OL 4 years from now.

I don't know how much that really says about Kyle, probably nothing, but if he's going to be given a pass based on his success with the Texans, it's worth pointing out that the Texans offense w/o Kyle was better than it was with him.

Come now, sir. The Houston Texans offense did not "explode" when Kyle left.

In 2009 they were number 4 in total offense. In 2010, they were number three.

In 2010, the Texans were number 4 in passing offense. In 2009 they were number one.

In 2010, they were 9th in scoring offense. In 2009 they were tenth.

In 2010, Matt Schaub passed for 4,370 yards, 24 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. In 2009, he passed for 4,770 yards (most in the league), 29 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

The only statistical category the Texans truly improved in was rushing offense, where they ranked 30th. But even then, when Arian Foster finally worked his way into the starting line up for the last two games in 2009, he rushed for 97 yards and 119 yards.

And even a more balanced offensive attack and the league's leading rusher only bumped them from four to three in total offense.

So no, sir, I wouldn't call that an "explosion", nor is it proof that the team did better when Kyle left.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Come now, sir. The Houston Texans offense did not "explode" when Kyle left.

In 2009 they were number 4 in total offense. In 2010, they were number three.

In 2010, the Texans were number 4 in passing offense. In 2009 they were number one.

In 2010, they were 9th in scoring offense. In 2009 they were tenth.

In 2010, Matt Schaub passed for 4,370 yards, 24 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. In 2009, he passed for 4,770 yards (most in the league), 29 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

The only statistical category the Texans truly improved in was rushing offense, where they ranked 30th. But even then, when Arian Foster finally worked his way into the starting line up for the last two games in 2009, he rushed for 97 yards and 119 yards.

And even a more balanced offensive attack and the league's leading rusher only bumped them from four to three in total offense.

So no, sir, I wouldn't call that an "explosion", nor is it proof that the team did better when Kyle left.

Why are you using total offense ranking to examine a claim that a very good offense got much better? A ranking can't show you that.

What I said was based on the DVOA totals of the Texans offense, which more than doubled in 2010. They weren't the best offense in the league in 2010 because they weren't the Patriots.

You probably already know that passing offense, scoring offense, and total offense are highly correlated. But rushing offense isn't strongly correlated to those three. Teams that run better than other teams don't generally score more points, and it has hardly any bearing on how many yards they throw for. But they get more first downs, control time of possession, and dominate critical end of game scenarios.

And when you go from a team that absolutely can't run the ball and you produce the NFL's leading rusher the following year with no meaningful passing dropoff, how is that not a huge gain? They went from the worst rushing team in football under Shanahan to perhaps the best under Dennison. Only the Pats and Eagles would join the Texans in the discussion for the most improved offenses in 2010.

I don't think you can shrug off going from worst to best at rushing the ball as insignificant. I'll give you that it doesn't affect point scoring all that much, but teams need to both score AND prevent points. Teams that run efficiently prevent points.

More shocking is that the Redskins offense somehow declined from 2009 to 2010. In a year, we'll know if it was just a one year fluke.