Are we being fair to Kyle Shanahan?

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.

Don't you think that it's more important to get players that can create their own mismatches? The Colts don't formation you to death or use a lot of motion. I think it's more important to get some better players in here and work on execution.It depends on how you define important.

I think execution is essential regardless of the talent level.
And I think we all can agree that its easier to coach and with better talent.
But, banking on always having superior talent to win, in a league filled with the best players in the world, is a tall order.

Imo schematic or strategic superiority trumps all.

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.

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.

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 (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff2009), which more than doubled in 2010 (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff). 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.

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

...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.

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 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.

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