Zoners: How could we let this happen?

[theogt]

I heard it was Mike Solari who was in Dallas in the 1980s and most recently with the Chiefs and Seahawks.

Yup, edited my post after some digging. I have no idea if he would have been better than Houck, but in terms of picking assistants, my guess is Wade's gonna pick a better guy than Garrett.

 

[Dhragon]

The kicker is that if the line plays like this, the head coach might well lose his job.

And since Garrett is the heir apparent, and Houck was "his" hire, Houck might actually stay.

I'm not so sure he is the "heir apparent" anymore. He just needs to improve enough to keep his job at this point.

 

[jnday]

Edit: Mike Solari was the guy that Wade wanted.[/QUOTE]

Wonder if he`s available ?

 

[Bleu Star]

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/General%20Gifs/2757033f.gif​

:laugh2: Love that cute little anigif.

 

[jobberone]

Wade should have been able to bring his own staff if he was going to answer for their failings. Houck`s o-lines have shown the last few years that they lack the ability to handle stunts and blitzes. Wade is in a position where he can`t make a change due to Jerry. I don`t know who Wade had in mind but it would be an improvement over Houck.

You're entitled to your opinion and I tend to lean your way a little bit. My only reservation is what would another coach do differently. If we didn't have a contending team then you could replace Gurode and Davis and possibly Colombo with backups and let them sink or swim. Coach them up. But you can't just bust up a contending team as Gurode and Davis are pretty good with the exception of stunts and overloads. And they aren't that mobile either.

My main concern over the years is the lack of interest in drafting OL higher. I think that and apathy serving conservation of the status quo are more important than any questionable coaching change.

I would still hold Houck accountable for the OL.

 

[jnday]

I agree that you can`t bust them up at this point . These moves should have been addressed the last couple of years. These moves moves will have to be made next off-season. The line problems have made me pay attention to the prospects coming out in the 2011 draft more than ever.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

They should have just let Wade hire his O-line coach from the beginning.

No doubt.

I bet Solari could at least stay awake in meetings.

I'm not going too berzerk over this, because I want to see what happens in the real games. But those games where we can't block the blitz at all are all too common. Who knows, maybe we don't use max protect enough, and that's on Garrett.

 

[TheCount]

True that. But I don't think we can do anything with the line as long as Gurode is the shot-caller there. Our approach to the line is fine. Look at some of the best lines in the business. Look at the Colt's line. Their only former 1st round pick on the line is currently a backup. Tony Ugoh. They're pretty good as a group.

Difference is that Jeff Saturday is smart.

Colts oline isn't all that great, Manning makes them seem great.

 

[jobberone]

I agree that you can`t bust them up at this point . These moves should have been addressed the last couple of years. These moves moves will have to be made next off-season. The line problems have made me pay attention to the prospects coming out in the 2011 draft more than ever.

I agree completely. I'd bench Gurode for a series or possibly the entire game Thursday and play Costa. That will get his attention. You can't bench both Gurode and Davis with Kosier down. It won't happen though.

 

[percyhoward]

No doubt.

I bet Solari could at least stay awake in meetings.

I'm not going too berzerk over this, because I want to see what happens in the real games. But those games where we can't block the blitz at all are all too common. Who knows, maybe we don't use max protect enough, and that's on Garrett.

Pro Football Focus used this formula for 2009:[TOTAL PRESSURE/PASSING PLAYS]*AVERAGE BLOCKERS/PLAY=PASS PROTECTION RATING, (with SACKS + 0.75[HITS] + 0.75[HURRIES] = TOTAL PRESSURE)...

That put us at 26th in pass protection rankings last year. That was the worst of any team that made the playoffs.

 

[theogt]

Pro Football Focus used this formula for 2009:[TOTAL PRESSURE/PASSING PLAYS]*AVERAGE BLOCKERS/PLAY=PASS PROTECTION RATING, (with SACKS + 0.75[HITS] + 0.75[HURRIES] = TOTAL PRESSURE)...

That put us at 26th in pass protection rankings last year. That was the worst of any team that made the playoffs.

Hmm...a couple things are worrisome about this formula. I wonder how they came up with 0.75 divisors for hits and pressures. I think obviously they didn't come up with those numbers after running a statistical analysis -- it appears, rather, that they just picked a number out of thin air, which isn't comforting.

Further, I wonder how much variance there is on "AVERAGE BLOCKERS/PLAY." Seems like that have more impact than it's worth. Unfortunately, they don't have their numbers if an easy format to run some tests (i.e., I would have to copy and past the numbers from each team's individual stat sheet). And I'm too lazy to do anything about copying and pasting from one page.

Edit: After looking at variance in both pressures and hits, their 0.75 number is most certainly questionable and it makse their formula almost totally useless. In other words, ignore it. I'm going to try and run some tests to see if there's a better divisor to use.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Pro Football Focus used this formula for 2009:[TOTAL PRESSURE/PASSING PLAYS]*AVERAGE BLOCKERS/PLAY=PASS PROTECTION RATING, (with SACKS + 0.75[HITS] + 0.75[HURRIES] = TOTAL PRESSURE)...

That put us at 26th in pass protection rankings last year. That was the worst of any team that made the playoffs.

Wow. Great stat.

 

[percyhoward]

Hmm...a couple things are worrisome about this formula.

Same formula for all teams. It meets the "eye test" too.

 

[theogt]

Same formula for all teams. It meets the "eye test" too.

See my edit. The formula is certainly flawed. The results may not vary much by correcting it -- I won't know that until I've ran the tests, but based on what I've seen, I think it may be critically flawed.

 

[percyhoward]

See my edit. The formula is certainly flawed. The results may not vary much by correcting it -- I won't know that until I've ran the tests, but based on what I've seen, I think it may be critically flawed.

Before you run the tests, where would your dead reckoning put our pass protection?

 

[UnoDallas]

The kicker is that if the line plays like this, the head coach might well lose his job.

And since Garrett is the heir apparent, and Houck was "his" hire, Houck might actually stay.

are you sure Houck was Garrett's pick - I tend to think it was Jerry's

and really I don't know what more you could do

its up to the players

I was glad to hear Houck was comimg back

but he put together a Oline who blocked for LT in SD

With the Chargers in 2004, Houck helped to revitalize an offensive line which featured five new starters from the previous year. The Chargers ranked 10th in the NFL in total offense, and sixth on the ground, as they rushed for 136.6 yards-per-contest. LaDainian Tomlinson ran for more than 1,300 yards in each of Houck's three years there, including more than 1,600 in his first two. The Chargers line permitted just 21 sacks in 2004, the fourth-lowest total in the NFL and the eighth-fewest in that franchise's 45-year history. Overall in Houck's three seasons with the Chargers, the offensive line allowed an average of only 24.6 sacks-per-season. Their total of 74 sacks over a three-year period was the fourth-lowest in the NFL over this stretch

Overall in his 25 years as an NFL assistant, Houck's lines have paved the way for twenty individual 1,000-yard rushing seasons. The running backs who benefitted from the blocking, who also have compiled six NFL rushing titles, consist of Smith (Dallas, 9), Eric Dickerson (Rams, 4), Tomlinson (San Diego, 3), Greg Bell (Rams, 2), Ronnie Brown (Miami, 1), Warren (Seattle, 1) and Charles White (Rams, 1).

tho I know he is getting up there in age 67

I bet when the new regime takes over he retires

has been in the league 27 years

I really don't blame him - you have to blame the scouting dept and the drafting - we should have been using higher draft picks on the O line

JMO

 

[burmafrd]

In a situation with as many variables as trying to figure out how many pressures a team gets to is something that NO formula will really be of any help. You need direct observation of every play by itself to look for trends.

Frankly I think maybe Houck has lost some fire; he is getting up there in age. I have not been impressed by his work here in the last three years. He so far has managed to develope one new player in Free and I cannot see where really any of the other players are better since he got here.

 

[Hostile]

Zoners:

I DO NOT understand how such a great and proud organization could do such a poor job recently of evaluating OFFENSIVE LINE talent!

Who do we blame?

******......

I blame Canada.

 

[percyhoward]

In a situation with as many variables as trying to figure out how many pressures a team gets to is something that NO formula will really be of any help. You need direct observation of every play by itself to look for trends.

PFF observed the pass blocking of all teams and found that we were 27th in "extra blockers." Meaning we used more blockers on an average pass play than 26 other teams in 2009. No formula here. All they did was count pass plays and pass blockers. IOW, the coaches are telling us what they thought of the protection provided by the OL, more than any formula ever could.

 

[theogt]

Before you run the tests, where would your dead reckoning put our pass protection?

Probably below average to average. I've long argued that Romo makes our line look much better than it is.