Are we being fair to Kyle Shanahan?

[redsk1]

We have had a poor to bad offensive line, not much of a running game, a weak WR core, and not much at the QB position.

Kyle's not to blame.

I think we're going to get better but it takes some time.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by redsk1

We have had a poor to bad offensive line, not much of a running game, a weak WR core, and not much at the QB position.

Kyle's not to blame.

I think we're going to get better but it takes some time.

That pretty much sums it up. Schaub/Andre Johnson > any QB on our roster/our entire receiving corps combined.

Give the guy some weapons and some time.

[musicmaster45]

I think he will get better in time. All our offense was terrible last year. I'm predicting significant improvement this year and it will show. But because he is Mike's son i think there will always be more criticism than normal

[NLC1054]

I mean, you gotta remember, Mike won a lot of football games with some quarterbacks that would make you scratch your head. He wasn't going to get over the hump with some of those guys, but the fact that he won with some less than ideal quarterbacks says something.

And let's look at what Andy Reid has done. How many times did the Eagles not miss a step when McNabb got injured, and then they somehow turned around and spun those guys into draft picks and trades, and then those guys went elsewhere and did exactly frak all? Heck, that even happened with McNabb.

So yeah, sometimes it is the offensive coordinator over the player at the position, or at least how the offense is designed.

[Alvin Walton]

As far as I'm concerned Kyle is just a kid that hasn't done anything yet.
Until he helps deliver me some consistent playoff wins, that's his status.

[NLC1054]

In that case, only two of our coordinators have done anything; Mike and Bobby Turner.

The "you're not anything until you win me some playoff games!" mentality has been one that's stunted the growth of this football team for a long time, which is why we've switched so many coordinators, which has led to so much inconsistency.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

In that case, only two of our coordinators have done anything; Mike and Bobby Turner.

The "you're not anything until you win me some playoff games!" mentality has been one that's stunted the growth of this football team for a long time, which is why we've switched so many coordinators, which has led to so much inconsistency.

Doesnt the head coach pick the OC?
If so then the OC selection has nothing to do with this teams "stunted growth".
The root cause there belongs to Snyders inability to find a decent coach.

[Chico23231]

Kyle is not indanger and I think is a decent coach and we will see improvement this year.

I think Haslett's lesh is very short at this point. If he doesnt get it together this year, he's done for sure.

[Defensewins]

Interesting. I am neither for or against Kyle. I can not develop an opinion on him in one season. So it is interesting to hear both sides. One thing I notice is the people that defend Kyle say give him more time. One thing the Shanahan's did not give Donovan McNabb. Which is what probably pisses off the people that criticize Kyle.
Norv Turner had great success with HOF's Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Novacek and Johnston. The very next season he immediately did poorly with Heath Shuler running the same system. Then later he does OK with Brad Johnson.
Kyle had success with Schaub and Johnson. But Schaub and Johnson had success before Kyle and they had even better success since he left. The Texans did not fall apart or skip a beat when Kyle left.
I think this shows talent is more important or as important the the coaching. The great players will play well as long as their coaches are competent. Coach does have to be great.
Kyle's large reputation as he was leaving the Texans and on his way to the Redskins was a bit larger than reality.
I think that is what is irking the haters.

[Big C]

i didnt realize people were throwing kyle under the bus. i thought our offense did alright considering our #2 receiver was playing in the intense football league the year before or whatever. our running back was an undrafted rookie for a decent part of the season, and an untested 4th round pick coming off injuries (torrain) for most of the rest.

[NLC1054]

...Isn't this really just battling one set of stats versus a different set of stats?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

...Isn't this really just battling one set of stats versus a different set of stats?

If it is, it's the difference between using the right stats and the wrong stats. I'm just trying to show that the specific claim of Houston offense 2010>2009 is airtight. I actually think explode is a good word, though I admit that word doesn't make one think of Arian Foster's 2010 season, which is really what we're talking about.

Now what was Kyle Shanahan's role on that switch? I may be implying that he might have had a limiting effect on the Texans, but that's not supported by the evidence. All we know is that the Texans ran the ball really, really well w/Dennison, and Kyle didn't value the running game much here. I don't want to go any further with that claim. I just want to point out that 2010 weakened the idea that Kyle Shanahan was boy genius with the Texans.

[NLC1054]

I don't think Kyle has any problem running the football when he has a player that can run the football. Steve Slaton rushed for 1,282 yards in 2008, before he bulked up and was ineffective and coughed up fumbles and got hurt in 2009.

He showed he didn't have a problem running the ball with Ryan Torain, when Torain was healthy and when he can be effective.

I even said, the one place the Texans improved was in the run game. So yes, in that facet, the Houston Texans offense DID explode, but ranking wise (I know, bad set of stats) that explosion didn't mean a whole lot in terms of the rankings, nor did it make a hugely noticeable difference in Matt Schaub's performance as a quarterback, the offenses ability to score, etc., etc.,..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

I don't think Kyle has any problem running the football when he has a player that can run the football. Steve Slaton rushed for 1,282 yards in 2008, before he bulked up and was ineffective and coughed up fumbles and got hurt in 2009.

He showed he didn't have a problem running the ball with Ryan Torain, when Torain was healthy and when he can be effective.

I even said, the one place the Texans improved was in the run game. So yes, in that facet, the Houston Texans offense DID explode, but ranking wise (I know, bad set of stats) that explosion didn't mean a whole lot in terms of the rankings, nor did it make a hugely noticeable difference in Matt Schaub's performance as a quarterback, the offenses ability to score, etc., etc.,..

I think your argument is fair: they didn't score a bunch more points or throw for a bunch more yards. Maybe then, to me, it's more impressive that the offense got better, arguably much better, in 2011. Because they were already quite good when Kyle called the offense. It's difficult for me to explain how they could have gotten so much better if they didn't score more points.

Perhaps Kyle actually maximized scoring for the Texans offense. With that said, they missed the playoffs by a game, and lost a number of close games in 2009. So the ineffectiveness of the running games was probably chiefly responsible for the Texans missing the playoffs as otherwise a really good team. Like I said, you can either credit Kyle for doing what he could without a running game, or you can criticize him for never developing a running game that could put away opponents in a year the Texans underachieved. Kyle was probably in between a great asset and a huge liability for the Texans in 2009, but you often only get one side of the story.

But your other point is more important to me: if Kyle thinks that Ryan Torain is a guy who should get carries and Keiland Williams isn't (as I criticized him during the season), there's no doubt that he's more responsible for the lack of rushing offenses under his watch the last two years. Giving Torain carries has been a weak strategic decision based on his propensity to lose yards in like 27% of his carries, but at least because he can break off the "big" (14 yards!) run from time to time, it's a worthwhile alternative to throwing every play.

But to not give Keiland Williams, a better runner IMO, the same opportunity you give a relatively valueless player like Torain, that's why he's open to criticism at this point. And I think you're absolutely right in your assessment. Torain gets opportunities that Williams doesn't, all else equal. But this is hardly a defense of Kyle. It's a criticism. And like you pointed out with Slaton, this is two years in a row he's let an ineffective back carry the load. At least in Houston, Kubiak forced Kyle's hand after Slaton couldn't hold on to the ball and benched him. Two years running now suggests that Kyle wouldn't have done that on his own.

There's a lot to consider there, but the bottom line is that Kyle Shanahan offenses let ineffective backs run the football, and that has shown strong in the results. Gary Kubiak made Arian Foster a starter, and that turned out great. I highly doubt Keiland Williams is the next Arian Foster (or even Redskins starter), but Kyle and Torain are acting as obstacles to find out.

[NLC1054]

I like Keiland Williams as well, a lot, actually. And I agree he's a much better runner in the scheme. But...I guess the illusion was that Torain was more productive. Actually, I agree, I have no idea why Keiland didn't get more touches. YOU WIN THAT ONE, SIR!

But in 2009, Kyle had no running backs. His number one back got injured. They tried inserting guys in there, but couldn't find anyone. But when Arian Foster came in and he played well, they let him play, and he played well.

I don't think Kyle has a problem running the ball, I just think he has to find the guy to run the ball consistently.

Or maybe Mike needs to smack Kyle upside the head sometimes and tell him to run the ball or he'll have to mow the grass