Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



15 Jul 2009

FOA 09 MEDIA: Texans, Jaguars, Jets Win Predictions

In the second part of our interview with the Houston Chronicle's Stephanie Stradley, we look at the Texans and Jaguars' respective win projections for 2009, and why they're not to the liking of Houston fans.

Oh, and I trash REO Speedwagon.

UPDATE: Mike Tanier has a piece on the Jets' dismal prediction on the New York Times' Fifth Down blog.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 15 Jul 2009

27 comments, Last at 05 Aug 2009, 6:33pm by Goran

Comments

1
by Doug Farrar :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 12:29pm

The Jags' interior defensive line could get younger in a hurry -- Del Rio and John Henderson seem to be involved in the same sort of DEFCON 3 feud that Del Rio and Mike Peterson had last year, and the rookie Terrance Knighton could get a lot of reps inside.

I'd be interested in Stephanie's take on the Texans' relative inability to turn yards into points.

2
by Stephanie Stradley (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 1:15pm

Doug-

Here's a little bit here on that (along with my strange fascination with Starship Troopers): http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/06/so_bad_its_good_blowing_up_bu...

But overall, here are some factors I think that explain the yards into points issue:

1. In general, I do not think the Texans trusted their defense. http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/05/the_secret_to_the_houston_tex... Wisely. So, instead of settling for field goals or punts, their offense was hyper aggressive at times and not as football strategic as you would normally be if you had a quality defense. If you know you have to score 29+ points to win a game, you might take some chances in the red zone.

2. Predominantly zone blocking offensive lines aren't typically known for being great in the redzone relative to the rest of the field. Last year was the first year that the Texans ran an Alex Gibbs' taught ZBS. With the changes to the line and relying on a rookie RB and a heavily weighted road start to 2008 with a hurricane in the middle, it took them a while to get their feet under them.

3. The Texans rely very much on the tight end position, have good coaching at that position, and there wasn't a blocking tight end on the gameday roster last year. Blocking specialist Mark Bruener was on the roster but didn't play. They drafted TE Anthony Hill as a blocking guy they could see helping out goal line. Also, Third round C/G Antoine Caldwell is a guy who may find his way as a starter to make the middle more physical.

4. Their running game, though improved with Steve Slaton, was still a huge work in progress. Ahman Green was the second leading rusher for the Texans before he predictably fell apart. So the backups that the Texans ended up using were guys who weren't on the roster at the beginning of the year, or didn't even have a camp with the Texans, like Ryan Moats. Slaton moved piles better than I thought he would, and I still think they want him as the primary goal line option.

But I think some of the pass-heavy play calling during certain games was to protect him some to get him through the season. He got some pretty bad bruised ribs in the middle of the season, and they didn't want to overuse him because they had no other realistic options. More on the running back situation here:

The Texans are all talking about how they want to be able to trust the run to work better in the red zone so that teams can't load up on the pass. Here's my way too early breakdown of the Texans running back competition: http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/06/clay_travis_talks_about_arian...

5. Matt Schaub is going into his third year of being a starting NFL quarterback with Kubiak and the Texan. Mike Shanahan has said in the past that it takes a QB about three years to really feel comfortable in his system (which is generally what the Texans run with slight changes in emphasis depending on personnel ability). I anticipate that his red zone decision making will be better this year. I think the entire offense gets better this year with stability with players in position and another year with Gibbs. Also think it helps that he isn't going to be facing as many good pass defenses this year.

I make no predictions for the defense given the changes on that side of the ball. Hope this is what you were looking for.

-Steph

4
by Doug Farrar :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 1:49pm

Well, THAT was comprehensive. Thank you!

21
by Mr Shush :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 7:15pm

Steph, as usual I agree with most of what you say. I think the lack of a blocking tight end was far more significant than people realise. Among other things, I think it may well in large part explain the massive drop-off in Eric Winston's performance detected by FO's charters and some others. If Hill can be effective in that role as a rookie, it could be a great help.

However, I don't really think the offense is the main issue. Worst case (barring catastrophic injuries), it's a bit worse than last year, but still slightly above league average. Best case, everything clicks, everyone stays healthy, and it improves by 5-10 points of DVOA and becomes a top 5 unit. Most likely, we see slight improvement over last year, for a DVOA around the 12-15% mark.

The defense, on the other hand . . . I have simply no idea whatsoever what it's going to be like. Ryans should be healthy, which should help. Almost all the starters are very young, and should develop, which should help. Smith is better than Weaver, which should help. Frank Bush may not have any sort of a track record from which we could conclude he's any good, but he is at the very least not Richard freakin' Smith, which . . . should help. In the best case scenario, Bush and the new position coaches have a better organised, more creative and more aggressive defense, Cushing excels from the start, Okoye recovers from his injury and develops (he's still only 22, remember) into a disruptive force on the interior, Robinson shakes off the effects of his ACL tear from 2007 and plays lights out for a new contract, and one or more of the young corners develops alongside him. The defense could even conceivably be above average. In the worst case scenario, Bush is a numpty, Cushing can't stay healthy, Barwin has no idea how to play in the NFL, Okoye lacks the power and aggression to ever succeed, Adibi bites on every play-fake he sees, Robinson holds out for ten games and the kids at corner suck, and Mario Williams gets injured, leaving the team bereft of anything even slightly resembling a pass-rush. We may have imported the Bronco offense. I really, really don't want their 2008 defense. It's not inconceivable we could have it. The Texans' defense, as far as I'm concerned, could be anywhere between -5% DVOA and 25%. This largely explains why I think the win total could be anywhere between 5 and 11.

I do agree with you about the Jaguars, though. I see no reason to think their defense will be any good. I see no reason to think MJD can cope with the workload they're presumably planning to give him. I see no reason to think Garrard will see an uncovered receiver in teal all season - unless they give Troy Williams another shot, and that's not what most people will consider a solution. When you want to run the ball down people's throats, but you're not sure your workhorse is really a workhorse and there's every chance your defense is sub-par, you should probably have a plan B. I don't see one in Jacksonville.

25
by Stephanie Stradley (not verified) :: Thu, 07/16/2009 - 9:34am

No, I don't think the offense is the main issue either. I'm expecting better performance from them with a group that gets another year the system and likely facing a schedule that doesn't have as many stout scoring defenses.

The 2009 Texans season is all about whether the defense can improve. Last year, I had very little optimism for defensive improvement. The best defense for the Texans in 2008 was for the offense to burn up as much clock as possible to keep the defense off the field.

This year, I cannot make any predictions for the defense. You are right, you can spin any number of defensive scenarios.

I will add just for information purposes that when Gary Kubiak spoke a couple of weeks ago about the hiring of Frank Bush as DC, he said very positive things about him. As a point of emphasis, he talked about surrounding him with experienced assistant coaches. "Assistant head coach/defensive line" Bill Kollar was described by Kubiak as one of the two best defensive line coaches in the league. Secondary coach, David Gibbs (son o' Alex) was mentioned as well. (The previous secondary coach had no NFL experience prior to joining the Texans in 2002).

The generalized spin about the defense is that they will be playing better now that they have ditched former-DC Richard Smith's "read and react" defense. We will have to wait and see.

3
by JPS (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 1:30pm

I like the love FO seems to be getting from local sportswriters this year.

5
by t.d. :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 1:50pm

Man, I loved starship troopers. the texans are going to struggle because schaub always misses games, and their backup is inferior to rosenfels.

15
by Stephanie Stradley (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 4:18pm

Schaub has missed games because he has received $65,000 worth of illegal hits against his knee and head. Also missed one game because of an illness where his coaches wouldn't let him on the field, and some other hits that were potentially fineable. It's quite possible he gets more fineable hits against him next year, like it is possible that Tom Brady gets Brady'd again. Helmets in knees are not a good thing.

When Rosenfels came to the Texans, the national analysis was that the Texans paid too much for someone that wasn't worth it. Similar to Orlovsky, Gary Kubiak got him to the team early in the offseason so he'd have time to work with him. If you look at Orlovsky's numbers, they are strikingly similar to Schaub's before the Texans picked him up: http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/03/matt_schaub_and_ken_orlovsky_... . I like the work that Gary Kubiak does with quarterbacks. A number of QBs have their more effective seasons working with him, and past QBs who have worked with him have said positive things.

I like Sage Rosenfels more than most for a lot of reasons, but I do not think that the Texans season hinges on the backup QB that they got some value for before he left.

-Steph

6
by ammek :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 1:50pm

Ugh, I hate the word "negatory". What's wrong with "negative"?

It's not just hurricanes that affect a team's season: all kinds of off-field events can play a role, whether it be Art Modell announcing his departure to Baltimore or the tragic shooting of Sean Taylor. There's no way that this can be accounted for: concurrent swings in performance may or may not be related to these events, but they're too irregular to be computable. The effect is up to beat-writers and pundits to analyze; it should not appear in stats-based projections.

And REO Speedwagon has a coolness correlation way inferior to -0.85. Cheap Trick are probably -0.85 cool. The 'Wagon are worse than that.

8
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 2:40pm

"Ugh, I hate the word "negatory". What's wrong with "negative"?"

Negatory sounds cooler.

9
by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 3:22pm

"Negatory sounds cooler."

Maybe if you're 13.

----------------------------
"Just look at that pumpkin."
-John Madden, looking at the moon.

14
by tuluse :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 3:57pm

Don't underestimate the 13 demographic.

16
by Stephanie Stradley (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 4:21pm

There is nothing at all wrong with the word "negative." Personally, I think the word "negatory" is more funny but that might just be my own idiosyncrasy.

20
by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 6:53pm

Now that I am actually reading TFA, negatory makes sense in context.
I withdraw my objection

----------------------------
"Just look at that pumpkin."
-John Madden, looking at the moon.

10
by Tundrapaddy (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 3:31pm

Whoa there! Just...whoa!

Did you just bag on Cheap Trick? '-0.85 cool'? Okay, I can more than live with the REO Speedwagon diss, but you, sir, stepped over the line.

I only say this because 'I want you...to want...me.'

I otherwise have nothing further (read: salient) to add to your post.

23
by justanothersteve :: Thu, 07/16/2009 - 12:55am

Agreed. REO to Cheap Trick is like Poison to early 70's Deep Purple. It's no contest.

11
by Hurt Bones :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 3:42pm

Let's all just agree not to mention REO Journeywagon again. They're like some undead creature. They'd be really ugly if they weren't so banal, and you swore someone drove a stake through them 20 years ago.

7
by Moon_Hippo :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 2:13pm

Love the comments from Jets fans on the Tanier piece - "We just don't like reality, damn you, leave us in peace in our delusion..."

13
by Bad Doctor :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 3:56pm

In fairness to the one comment, there does seem to be a typo in the win spread projection. Should it be a 50-some percent chance that they only win six of fewer games?

17
by Bill Barnwell :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 5:25pm

Re-read that sentence Mike wrote again. A little closer.

19
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 6:52pm

It's this:

"they’re far more likely to lose six or more games (56% chance, according to our simulations) than to win nine or more (18% chance)."

That's got to be a typo, Bill. A 56% chance to *lose* 6 or more games means a 56% chance to *win* 10 or fewer games (ignoring ties), which means a 44% chance to win 11 or more games, which contradicts the 18% chance to win 9 or more.

My guess is he meant "lose 10 or more games," not 6.

22
by Bill Barnwell :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 7:33pm

:) Maybe I need to read the sentence more carefully. I would assume Mike meant lose 10 or more games as well. I'll check with him.

27
by Goran (not verified) :: Wed, 08/05/2009 - 6:33pm

"But the biggest reason for pessimism: the Jets just weren’t very good last year. Their won-loss record was inflated by an easy slate of opponents from the A.F.C. West and N.F.C. West."

The Jets went 3-5 against those 2 divisions and 6-2 against the rest of the league (including walkovers like the Patriots or the Titans).

Hoorah, another win for the know it all Football Outsiders board member. I'd feel so good about my awesome football knowledge super powers if I were you.

12
by Dennis :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 3:55pm

In regards to Tanier's column, the line that stood out to me was "the average third-down pass went just 5.5 yards in the air (roughly across your kitchen)". I'm sure all the people who live in NYC want to know where these apartments are that have 16.5 foot kitchens.

18
by Moon_Hippo :: Wed, 07/15/2009 - 6:19pm

Yeah, i was wondering about that- what is the width of the average kitchen in NYC anyone??

24
by dryheat (not verified) :: Thu, 07/16/2009 - 8:13am

Easily explained away by virtue of NYC natives are Giants fans. Jets fans are concentrated in Long Island, where the kitchens tend to be larger.

Good research, Mr. Tanier.

26
by are-tee :: Thu, 07/16/2009 - 10:40am

One of the NYT's readers' comments was spot on - you can't say the Jets' record was inflated by games against the AFC and NFC West divisions - they lost 5 out of 8 in those games, and were 6-2 against everyone else.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.