PDA

View Full Version : Would Your Trade the 1st Pick for Rg3?


thetexanator
12-12-2013, 02:02 PM
one really good year, one bad year. could go either way, looks like he was brought back too soon.

would you give up the 1st for him?

id have to say i dont think i would. looks really damaged out there.:kitten:

badboy
12-12-2013, 02:06 PM
one really good year, one bad year. could go either way, looks like he was brought back too soon.

would you give up the 1st for him?

id have to say i dont think i would. looks really damaged out there.:kitten:A 100 % healthy RG I would. With the Oline we are going to put together, he would be perfect.

Tailgate
12-12-2013, 02:07 PM
No brainer if cleared fully fit.

ubecool454
12-12-2013, 02:10 PM
one really good year, one bad year. could go either way, looks like he was brought back too soon.

would you give up the 1st for him?

id have to say i dont think i would. looks really damaged out there.:kitten:

I wouldn't do it. If anything I would trade out of the first round and have 2 the following year and get Jameis Winston.

thetexanator
12-12-2013, 02:10 PM
guys the injury is the only reason why it would happen. snyder wouldnt give up on a fully healthy rg3.
he wont be back before the draft, so you gotta try and strike while there are still injury concerns otherwise it would never happen.

badboy
12-12-2013, 02:13 PM
I wouldn't do it. If anything I would trade out of the first round and have 2 the following year and get Jameis Winston.What if Winston does not come out or team with first pick does not want your two firsts?

badboy
12-12-2013, 02:15 PM
guys the injury is the only reason why it would happen. snyder wouldnt give up on a fully healthy rg3.
he wont be back before the draft, so you gotta try and strike while there are still injury concerns otherwise it would never happen.So to clarify the trade has to be today based on known injury rather than the draft four months away when he could be better? I would not trade for an injured player as we learned from FA Ed Reed.

Blake
12-12-2013, 02:19 PM
Its really a sad situation IMO. The Redskins ruined RG3 by letting him play with damaged ligaments last season. It really pissed me off seeing that as I am a huge Rg3 fan.

kingtexan
12-12-2013, 02:22 PM
No, he was a flash in the pan. Will remain injury prone if he keeps running (like Vick) or be a mediocre passing QB (like Vick). Now Russel Wilson I would trade for ...

Dutchrudder
12-12-2013, 02:39 PM
Only if Shanahan comes with him.

Texian
12-12-2013, 02:51 PM
Before the 2nd knee surgery YES, after the 2nd knee surgery doubtful.

BullNation4Life
12-12-2013, 03:01 PM
Only if Shanahan comes with him.

You mean this Shannahan
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2013/01/03/010313-NFL-redskins-kyle-shanahan-LN-PI_20130103173222890_660_320.JPG


and not THIS Shannahan...

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/S/Mike-Shanahan-17134070-1-402.jpg

right?

Double Barrel
12-12-2013, 03:09 PM
Would Your Trade the 1st Pick for Rg3?

Nope. And I like RGIII, but I'm not convinced that he can consistently be the man for clutch situations.

Not a popular pick, but I'd like Jake Matthews on the right side of our o-line. A badass offensive line can provide a lot of positive things to a variety of QBs and RBs. Gotta' consistently win in the trenches to do anything great in the NFL, and that is tried and true wisdom regardless of era.

TheIronDuke
12-12-2013, 03:27 PM
I would, I think him having a full off-season off to get healed would do him good. A lot of QB's have sophomore slumps, i.e Andrew Luck. I'd take RG3 over any QB in this draft class for sure. I'd like to hear what Seegara's racist daughter has to say about this though.

Hervoyel
12-12-2013, 03:45 PM
No. I would not do that.

That would get in the way of my drafting Jake Matthews.

DBCooper
12-12-2013, 03:48 PM
Nope.

TheIronDuke
12-12-2013, 03:49 PM
Why would y'all want to draft a RT so high in the draft? RT's can be had with 2nd round or even later picks. We didn't get Duane until the end of the 1st and he might've even have fallen to the second.

2slik4u
12-12-2013, 03:50 PM
Only if Shanahan comes with him.

Only without Shanahan would I take him.

badboy
12-12-2013, 03:57 PM
Why would y'all want to draft a RT so high in the draft? RT's can be had with 2nd round or even later picks. We didn't get Duane until the end of the 1st and he might've even have fallen to the second.But not the quality of Matthews nor could most of them replace Brown in a few years and keep going to pro bowl; even my guy James would be solid RT but not a left.

TEXANRED
12-12-2013, 03:59 PM
Nope. Getting RGIII is also aquiring RGII. I don't need no baby daddy drama.

dc_txtech
12-12-2013, 04:00 PM
Only without Shanahan would I take him.

I'm pretty sure that comment was saturated with sarcasm.

TheIronDuke
12-12-2013, 04:07 PM
But not the quality of Matthews nor could most of them replace Brown in a few years and keep going to pro bowl; even my guy James would be solid RT but not a left.

I'm sure that no draftnik had Brown on their boards in the first round and look at him now. Look at Buffalo getting Cordy Glenn in the second round and making him into a Pro Bowl level LT.

I see no reason to spend a high draft pick on a RT to maybe someday replace LT when we have needs at way more important positions (QB, LB, DT) and we have a high draft pick to use it on.

The Pencil Neck
12-12-2013, 04:32 PM
No. I'm not convinced he'll ever be the same guy he was at the beginning of his career again. I think Shanahan broke him and then continued to pile on by not sitting him for Cousins at the beginning of this season.

I think we can do more with that first pick than get a guy who's probably already washed up.

Double Barrel
12-12-2013, 04:58 PM
Why would y'all want to draft a RT so high in the draft? RT's can be had with 2nd round or even later picks. We didn't get Duane until the end of the 1st and he might've even have fallen to the second.

A good GM can leverage a high pick for more choices and still get the guy they have targeted when it's not an over-hyped QB.

I don't care what QB they bring in here, if the line cannot consistently protect him, he's going to struggle and most likely fail.

A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great. And if you happen on a great QB with an awesome line, you are looking at a formula for long term success and Super Bowl potential.

I know McNair wants playoff contention in 2014 and does not want to be seen as a rebuild year, but that is either naively shortsighted or wishful thinking on his part. This team does not have a starting QB, does not have a HC, and most likely has to install a new offense. To expect immediate results is setting himself up. Yeah, it can happen, but let's not be ready to jump off bridges if immediate gratification is not satisfied.

I have no problem with a 2 year "rebuild" to re-stock players and fully implement new schemes. They will have high picks in every round, so do it right and make both the offensive and defensive lines something to build on for the long term future, IMO.

The1ApplePie
12-12-2013, 05:44 PM
A good GM can leverage a high pick for more choices and still get the guy they have targeted when it's not an over-hyped QB.

I don't care what QB they bring in here, if the line cannot consistently protect him, he's going to struggle and most likely fail.

A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great. And if you happen on a great QB with an awesome line, you are looking at a formula for long term success and Super Bowl potential.

I know McNair wants playoff contention in 2014 and does not want to be seen as a rebuild year, but that is either naively shortsighted or wishful thinking on his part. This team does not have a starting QB, does not have a HC, and most likely has to install a new offense. To expect immediate results is setting himself up. Yeah, it can happen, but let's not be ready to jump off bridges if immediate gratification is not satisfied.

I have no problem with a 2 year "rebuild" to re-stock players and fully implement new schemes. They will have high picks in every round, so do it right and make both the offensive and defensive lines something to build on for the long term future, IMO.

I kind of doubt any coach would want to come in with no QB. The Texans have no starting NFL QBs on the roster. Taking Matthews and rolling with Mark Sanchez or a second-tier rookie QB doesn't seem like a real possibility. Look how well the Jake Long-Chad Hennie combo worked for the Phins

I honestly doubt that anyone would be bringing up Jake if his last name wasn't Matthews. Of course the board would be talking up Derek if his last name wasn't Carr

kiwitexansfan
12-12-2013, 05:49 PM
No thanks.

RG3 might be RGdone.

His mobility was his calling card and that is possibly gone.

I'm currently Ready for Teddy.

Double Barrel
12-12-2013, 05:58 PM
I kind of doubt any coach would want to come in with no QB. The Texans have no starting NFL QBs on the roster. Taking Matthews and rolling with Mark Sanchez or a second-tier rookie QB doesn't seem like a real possibility. Look how well the Jake Long-Chad Hennie combo worked for the Phins

I get that a new HC will probably want to use this pick on a QB. It's such a crap shoot at best, and with a rookie QB, there is little doubt about rebuild as you wait for the player to mature and absorb an NFL playbook.

And I'm not seeing any veteran QBs to really get excited about.

However, I am mentally preparing myself for the possible Wade at HC and Case at QB. There is the potential when the owner said it's an on-going evaluation process over the next three games. Should they go this route, expect to see the BPA mentality with the draft pick.

I honestly doubt that anyone would be bringing up Jake if his last name wasn't Matthews. Of course the board would be talking up Derek if his last name wasn't Carr

Maybe. But don't most draft boards have Matthews going high? He's not going to be rated high on name alone.

kiwitexansfan
12-12-2013, 06:10 PM
Maybe. But don't most draft boards have Matthews going high? He's not going to be rated high on name alone.

Matthews and Carr are both good prospects but neither are consensus best player at their position let alone worthy of 1.1

The1ApplePie
12-12-2013, 07:23 PM
I get that a new HC will probably want to use this pick on a QB. It's such a crap shoot at best, and with a rookie QB, there is little doubt about rebuild as you wait for the player to mature and absorb an NFL playbook.

And I'm not seeing any veteran QBs to really get excited about.

However, I am mentally preparing myself for the possible Wade at HC and Case at QB. There is the potential when the owner said it's an on-going evaluation process over the next three games. Should they go this route, expect to see the BPA mentality with the draft pick.



Maybe. But don't most draft boards have Matthews going high? He's not going to be rated high on name alone.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/AFA76/brian-vomiting-o_zps719ed67a.gif (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/AFA76/media/brian-vomiting-o_zps719ed67a.gif.html)

toronto
12-12-2013, 07:36 PM
No for any team. I think Shanahan (and maybe RG3 a bit himself) ruined his career by what they did in the Seahawks game last year. I don't think he will ever be truly 100% again.

mussop
12-12-2013, 08:05 PM
In a blink of the eye. And Mathews is so overrated on this board it's rediculous.

Seegara
12-12-2013, 08:13 PM
one really good year, one bad year. could go either way, looks like he was brought back too soon.

would you give up the 1st for him?

id have to say i dont think i would. looks really damaged out there.
Not no but heck no. Trade a 1st overall for Sir King Failure? We know you were just trying to stimulate interesting speculation. We know you weren't serious.

Hervoyel
12-12-2013, 08:14 PM
Why would y'all want to draft a RT so high in the draft? RT's can be had with 2nd round or even later picks. We didn't get Duane until the end of the 1st and he might've even have fallen to the second.

The kind of lineman you're talking about drafting that early can play multiple positions on the line and play those positions at an exceptionally high level. When the Oiler's line was stocked with Bruce Matthews, Mike Munchak, and Dean Steinkuhler It really didn't make all that much difference who the other two guys were as long as they were at least minimally capable. Building that kind of wall up front makes everything work better and it's an investment that can last a decade.

infantrycak
12-12-2013, 08:55 PM
The kind of lineman you're talking about drafting that early can play multiple positions on the line and play those positions at an exceptionally high level. When the Oiler's line was stocked with Bruce Matthews, Mike Munchak, and Dean Steinkuhler It really didn't make all that much difference who the other two guys were as long as they were at least minimally capable. Building that kind of wall up front makes everything work better and it's an investment that can last a decade.

True it can pay dividends for a decade. That still leaves a lot of room on how to do it. A Football Life did an episode on The Wall of the 90's Cowboys. It started with a 3rd round pick as its highest picked player.

badboy
12-12-2013, 09:03 PM
A good GM can leverage a high pick for more choices and still get the guy they have targeted when it's not an over-hyped QB.

I don't care what QB they bring in here, if the line cannot consistently protect him, he's going to struggle and most likely fail.

A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great. And if you happen on a great QB with an awesome line, you are looking at a formula for long term success and Super Bowl potential.

I know McNair wants playoff contention in 2014 and does not want to be seen as a rebuild year, but that is either naively shortsighted or wishful thinking on his part. This team does not have a starting QB, does not have a HC, and most likely has to install a new offense. To expect immediate results is setting himself up. Yeah, it can happen, but let's not be ready to jump off bridges if immediate gratification is not satisfied.

I have no problem with a 2 year "rebuild" to re-stock players and fully implement new schemes. They will have high picks in every round, so do it right and make both the offensive and defensive lines something to build on for the long term future, IMO.Very well stated DB. We need to make wise choices and not make "predictions". This would be a good time to use the old one game at a time.

toronto
12-12-2013, 09:03 PM
True it can pay dividends for a decade. That still leaves a lot of room on how to do it. A Football Life did an episode on The Wall of the 90's Cowboys. It started with a 3rd round pick as its highest picked player.

That still blows my mind...Tuinei, Newton? Undrafted. Williams was a 3rd IIRC and believe Allen was the 2nd...I can't remember Stepnoski but I'm sure it was a steal.

Crazy luck or great scouting or both.

badboy
12-12-2013, 09:08 PM
Matthews and Carr are both good prospects but neither are consensus best player at their position let alone worthy of 1.1
I could be wrong but I think Matthews is the consensus #1 at his position with exception of message board experts. Whether he is worthy of first pick is arguable.

Texan_Bill
12-12-2013, 09:15 PM
one really good year, one bad year. could go either way, looks like he was brought back too soon.

would you give up the 1st for him?

id have to say i dont think i would. looks really damaged out there.:kitten:

Hhhmmmmm... :thinking:


Let me smoke copious amounts of pot............

I'm thinking....


Still thinking..........




No!



All joking aside, this was pretty much the dumbest question ever asked....



WOW!!!

:gun:

Texecutioner
12-12-2013, 09:16 PM
Yeah I'd do it. The guy had a very stellar rookie season. Showed tons of skill, but just needed to learn to slide better and to avoid hits. Last season he came into the team with no preseason and still hurt. He didn't seem mentally prepared for the speed and the physical demand of a long game. I think with a full off season where he can let his body heal and work on a lot of things internally, he can come back prepared mentally again and in top physical shape, he easily can return to a progressing form again. He'll need some weapons, but his skill set is far to great for me to pass if I had the decision. I'd easily roll the dice on RG3.

BetaV1
12-12-2013, 09:28 PM
I think a lot of people are underrating Griffin's ability as a passer. The guy can certainly make all the throws you'd want in an NFL quarterback. Griffin's ability to scramble certainly helps him out, but Tim Tebow he is not.

I wouldn't do it solely based on contractual reasons. His rookie deal is a four year contract, of which two years have already passed. So we'd be giving up a first round pick for two years of Griffin. Sure, we could franchise him, but you never want to reserve your franchise tag years in advance when anything can happen, like Griffin's injury for example.

I do honestly pause though if, say, Griffin would agree to an extension before a trade.

kiwitexansfan
12-12-2013, 09:35 PM
I could be wrong but I think Matthews is the consensus #1 at his position with exception of message board experts. Whether he is worthy of first pick is arguable.

How many T have gone #1 ever?

RT?

badboy
12-12-2013, 09:43 PM
How many T have gone #1 ever?

RT?without research Joekiel last draft to answer first question and I think none for second question. That was not the topic however. Your original point was best at his position & Matthews is definitely that. Kouandijo could develop into the same type after a year maybe two. I am still hoping for a trade.

TheIronDuke
12-12-2013, 09:48 PM
without research Joekiel last draft to answer first question and I think none for second question. That was not the topic however. Your original point was best at his position & Matthews is definitely that. Kouandijo could develop into the same type after a year maybe two. I am still hoping for a trade.

Fisher was first picked this last draft and Joeckel #2. Joeckel was drafted and used at RT but only because they weren't going to reup Monroe. We have a stud LT who we just extended a contact with.

Hervoyel
12-12-2013, 09:51 PM
How many T have gone #1 ever?

RT?

Matthews can play both sides (RT/LT) and both very well. This is why he's coveted. Also three T's (all I believe LT's) have been picked first overall since 1997 when Orlando Pace was taken. The other two were Jake Long in 2008 and Eric Fisher just last year.

Hervoyel
12-12-2013, 10:01 PM
True it can pay dividends for a decade. That still leaves a lot of room on how to do it. A Football Life did an episode on The Wall of the 90's Cowboys. It started with a 3rd round pick as its highest picked player.


There is no "only" way to do it of course. I'd prefer to start with Matthews. Others may and will disagree. If Luck was there or another Manning I'd go that route but there isn't. Just Bridgewater who I don't see as nearly as likely to be a franchise QB as I do Matthews being a franchise LT. Brown is wrapping up his 6th season. He can be a "bookend" with Matthews for another few years, get his next (maybe last) big contract from someone else, and Matthews can slide over to the left side at that time.

Hell, if Matthews turns into a better LT than Duane then they can swap positions earlier. If Brown doesn't like it I'm sure someone will be willing to trade for a LT of Brown's quality, though I'd hate for that to happen. I prefer the scenario where they play on the same line for another 3-4 years.

Lots of directions to go with this.

infantrycak
12-12-2013, 10:05 PM
That still blows my mind...Tuinei, Newton? Undrafted. Williams was a 3rd IIRC and believe Allen was the 2nd...I can't remember Stepnoski but I'm sure it was a steal.

Crazy luck or great scouting or both.

The original Wall was:
Tuinei - undrafted
Newton - undrafted
Stepknoski - 3rd round, just 269 lbs
Gesek - 10th round
Williams - 3rd round

The 2nd SB Gesek was replaced with Gogan an 8th round pick. Larry Allen (2nd round 1994) was to take that spot but played RT with Williams out.

Luck, scouting and Hudson Houck as OL coach.

Erik Williams still blames himself for their not winning 4 SBs in a row because of his 1994 car wreck.

There is no "only" way to do it of course. I'd prefer to start with Matthews. Others may and will disagree.

I was advocating exactly what you laid out with Matthews and Brown a while back in the draft forum. I sm not against the concept. I was surprised to find only 3 1st round OT's have played on the past 10 SB winners with #15 the highest pick (the other two both at #23 iirc). So I do question using the #1 pick on any OT. Wouldn't mind a trade back and get a 1st round OT at all though.

mussop
12-12-2013, 10:06 PM
Matthews can play both sides (RT/LT) and both very well. This is why he's coveted. Also three T's (all I believe LT's) have been picked first overall since 1997 when Orlando Pace was taken. The other two were Jake Long in 2008 and Eric Fisher just last year.

Mathews will get eaten alive if he starts at LT his rookie season. He doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Pace, Ling or Fisher.

badboy
12-12-2013, 10:34 PM
Fisher was first picked this last draft and Joeckel #2. Joeckel was drafted and used at RT but only because they weren't going to reup Monroe. We have a stud LT who we just extended a contact with.Yeah I had them backwards but point is OT is possible pick one. Give Matthews three years as we did Brown and he could be LT and Brown would have just turned 32 days before opening season in the 4th year could switch to right side and might earn himself another contract.

badboy
12-12-2013, 10:41 PM
Mathews will get eaten alive if he starts at LT his rookie season. He doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Pace, Ling or Fisher.No way he or any other tackle could beat out Brown nor would they have to. That is why he would play RT for 3 years then switch as has been repeatedly stated.

mussop
12-12-2013, 11:19 PM
No way he or any other tackle could beat out Brown nor would they have to. That is why he would play RT for 3 years then switch as has been repeatedly stated.

Point is Mathews isn't worth the number one pick.

steelbtexan
12-12-2013, 11:55 PM
I wouldn't do it. If anything I would trade out of the first round and have 2 the following year and get Jameis Winston.

^^^^
This

But if I couldn't make that trade I would trade this yrs pick and a 2015 1st for RG3 if his meds checked out.

I'm a huge RG3 guy though and think once the Shanny purge happens the Skins will be tetter in a couple of yrs. Like the Texans they Skins need to fix the OL.

mussop
12-13-2013, 12:06 AM
^^^^
This

But if I couldn't make that trade I would trade this yrs pick and a 2015 1st for RG3 if his meds checked out.

I'm a huge RG3 guy though and think once the Shanny purge happens the Skins will be tetter in a couple of yrs. Like the Texans they Skins need to fix the OL.

I wouldn't touch Winston. Maybe next year if there isn't any more issues but right know no thanks.

Marcus
12-13-2013, 03:16 AM
Point is Mathews isn't worth the number one pick.

Neither is anyone else.

This is typical. Whenever a team has a very high pick, there is always going to be a block of fans that think that drafting a lineman isn't "sexy" enough. Instead, they want that "exciting" pick, like the current hot-shot QB or RB, that will help them be 'entertained'. :rolleyes:

I'll take Jake Matthews with the first pick without a second thought.

And NO to RG3. He's damaged goods. He is beyond the point of just letting his body heal during the offseason. I put him in the same category as Sam Bradford and Jay Cutler. When they are healthy, it's fine, but when it's time to play, more often than not, they won't answer the bell.

kingtexan
12-13-2013, 05:43 AM
Point is Mathews isn't worth the number one pick.

The son of one of the greatest OL players of all time, that has already shown he is going to be a force himself, isnt worth picking #1? :shades:

Matthews or Clowney is the the #1 pick.

Anyone else is a reach.

mussop
12-13-2013, 08:19 AM
The son of one of the greatest OL players of all time, that has already shown he is going to be a force himself, isnt worth picking #1? :shades:

Matthews or Clowney is the the #1 pick.

Anyone else is a reach.

Who cares who his father is. And when has he show he's going to be a force? What does that even mean? The only way Mathews is top 5 is if he has an great combine.

mussop
12-13-2013, 08:25 AM
Neither is anyone else.

This is typical. Whenever a team has a very high pick, there is always going to be a block of fans that think that drafting a lineman isn't "sexy" enough. Instead, they want that "exciting" pick, like the current hot-shot QB or RB, that will help them be 'entertained'. :rolleyes:

I'll take Jake Matthews with the first pick without a second thought.

And NO to RG3. He's damaged goods. He is beyond the point of just letting his body heal during the offseason. I put him in the same category as Sam Bradford and Jay Cutler. When they are healthy, it's fine, but when it's time to play, more often than not, they won't answer the bell.

You can go back years in here and see that there isn't a bigger supporter of building the trenches than me. Mathews is simply overrated because of his name. I'm not saying he's not good. I think right now he would be a good RT in the nfl who COULD grow into a quality LT eventually. That's not top 5 material.

And lol and RG3 being damaged goods.

False Start
12-13-2013, 08:54 AM
Nope. I am not buying into the hype

steelbtexan
12-13-2013, 09:36 AM
I wouldn't touch Winston. Maybe next year if there isn't any more issues but right know no thanks.

What issues?

Man was guilty of hanging out with hoes.

What 20 yr old kid in college hasn't.

welsh texan
12-13-2013, 09:41 AM
With rg3 shut down for the season were about to see an audition from cousins.

Anyone fancy him for a 2nd?

mussop
12-13-2013, 10:09 AM
What issues?

Man was guilty of hanging out with hoes.

What 20 yr old kid in college hasn't.

Just because they didn't press charges doesn't mean he didn't do it. If he was available to draft right now I would pass.

You've never met either one of them( him or her) and you weren't there so how do you know she's a hoe and he's not a rapist?

The1ApplePie
12-13-2013, 10:20 AM
The son of one of the greatest OL players of all time, that has already shown he is going to be a force himself, isnt worth picking #1? :shades:

Matthews or Clowney is the the #1 pick.

Anyone else is a reach.

Again the Texans have no QB. Keenum is a marginal backup, and no way Schaub is going to be on the roster. Unless you want Mark Sanchez or Jay Cutler (if the Bears lose their minds and let him walk) starting next year, it is pretty much going to be QB with the first pick.

Wouldn't be mad about Clowney. The Texans have one pass rusher on the whole roster

cstyle42
12-13-2013, 10:37 AM
With rg3 shut down for the season were about to see an audition from cousins.

Anyone fancy him for a 2nd?

Nope that's how we got into the Matt Schaub situation.

Honoring Earl 34
12-13-2013, 10:42 AM
I wouldn't because RG3 was dynamic until his knee went south . Can he be good afterwards as a different type of QB now ?

welsh texan
12-13-2013, 11:05 AM
Nope that's how we got into the Matt Schaub situation.

I really don't think Schaub was a bad trade, it was just the timing with his injury, at his age, coming up to being UFA that led to the bad contract we signed him to.

In fact I'd go as far as to say we could have won a SB with Schaub had the right people been put around him. Take the 2011 roster for example, and with draft misses like travis Johnson and amobi okoye, the injury to Charles spencer, key FA misses like Morlon greenwood, Ahman green etc, you could make a case to say it should never have taken the time it did to give him the supporting cast.

There's every chance that we're about to head into a QB wilderness and well all be longing for the days of a healthy Matt Schaub pre injury.

darnbni99a
12-13-2013, 11:46 AM
No thanks.

RG3 might be RGdone.

His mobility was his calling card and that is possibly gone.

I'm currently Ready for Teddy.

cosign this......

nero THE zero
12-13-2013, 12:01 PM
A good GM can leverage a high pick for more choices and still get the guy they have targeted when it's not an over-hyped QB.

I don't care what QB they bring in here, if the line cannot consistently protect him, he's going to struggle and most likely fail.

A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great. And if you happen on a great QB with an awesome line, you are looking at a formula for long term success and Super Bowl potential.

I know McNair wants playoff contention in 2014 and does not want to be seen as a rebuild year, but that is either naively shortsighted or wishful thinking on his part. This team does not have a starting QB, does not have a HC, and most likely has to install a new offense. To expect immediate results is setting himself up. Yeah, it can happen, but let's not be ready to jump off bridges if immediate gratification is not satisfied.

I have no problem with a 2 year "rebuild" to re-stock players and fully implement new schemes. They will have high picks in every round, so do it right and make both the offensive and defensive lines something to build on for the long term future, IMO.

I don't think history supports this narrative. Aaron Rogers has never had a good line and he won the SB. Peyton Manning's lines were rarely good (if ever) and never great and we all know what he did.

A great QB transcends line play. If you think Bridgewater or Manziel or Carr or whoever is that kind of QB, you take him, regardless of the line.

Look at Luck; his line is awful and he will be making the playoffs for the second time in two years. Look at Wilson; he's playing behind patchwork and leading the best team in football.

IMO, a good/great line can make up for mediocre QB play (see: Matt Schaub), but a great QB almost make the line superfluous.

Surreal McCoy
12-13-2013, 12:48 PM
No, he was a flash in the pan. Will remain injury prone if he keeps running (like Vick) or be a mediocre passing QB (like Vick). Now Russel Wilson I would trade for ...

QFT

infantrycak
12-13-2013, 01:16 PM
I don't think history supports this narrative. Aaron Rogers has never had a good line and he won the SB. Peyton Manning's lines were rarely good (if ever) and never great and we all know what he did.

I think you are underrating the lines you are using as examples particularly with respect to pass blocking.

TheMatrix31
12-13-2013, 01:32 PM
I don't doubt Griffin can return to health, but I wouldn't want his circus here.

The Pencil Neck
12-13-2013, 01:32 PM
It's an equation. The better the line, the more time the QB has; this can make bad QBs appear to be better than they are and can sometimes elevate good QBs and make them appear elite. Certain QBs however can offset a bad line by making better reads and getting rid of the ball faster.

For some QBs, it doesn't really matter how much time the line gives them, they're still going to make bad decisions or be unable to make the throws they need to make.

I've always believed in building out from the lines. But for some QBs, it's really not going to make a difference.

Carr Bombed
12-13-2013, 01:41 PM
Just because they didn't press charges doesn't mean he didn't do it. If he was available to draft right now I would pass.

You've never met either one of them( him or her) and you weren't there so how do you know she's a hoe and he's not a rapist?

Just because there was a accusation doesn't mean he's a rapist either.. Charges were never filed and the cops didn't really even talk to Winston. You don't know them either to say she's isn't a "hoe" and he's a rapist either, so it goes both ways.

Innocent until proven guilty right? Especially if a case doesn't even make it's way into a court room and I highly doubt any starting QB at a division 1 school is going to have any problems getting laid on campus where he has to resort to raping somebody.

QuantumMortis
12-13-2013, 01:51 PM
To answer the question: No.

Double Barrel
12-13-2013, 03:19 PM
I really don't think Schaub was a bad trade, it was just the timing with his injury, at his age, coming up to being UFA that led to the bad contract we signed him to.

In fact I'd go as far as to say we could have won a SB with Schaub had the right people been put around him. Take the 2011 roster for example, and with draft misses like travis Johnson and amobi okoye, the injury to Charles spencer, key FA misses like Morlon greenwood, Ahman green etc, you could make a case to say it should never have taken the time it did to give him the supporting cast.

There's every chance that we're about to head into a QB wilderness and well all be longing for the days of a healthy Matt Schaub pre injury.

Agree on Schaub. I know there is a lot of negative feelings about him this season, but overall, dude has been a pretty solid QB.

And your last point is where my fears are at right now. It is a gamble to take most QBs, regardless if they are rookies or vets.

I don't think history supports this narrative. Aaron Rogers has never had a good line and he won the SB. Peyton Manning's lines were rarely good (if ever) and never great and we all know what he did.

QBs and their line have a symbiotic relationship. It's not all of one or the other. There is a balance.

Look at the dynasties that have won multiple Super Bowls and you will see consistently good offensive line play.

As far as Aaron Rodgers, consider this about the 2010 Packers:

OT Chad Clifton made the Pro Bowl
OG Josh Sitton was named Lineman of the Year by the NFL Alumni Association (and Pro Bowl alternate)
OT Bryan Bulaga was named to the 2010 NFL All Rookie Team

There's three out of five that played exceptionally well that year.

Now for Peyton Manning in 2006, consider this:

C Jeff Saturday made the Pro Bowl (one of six times, and a two time First Team All Pro)
LT Tarik Glenn made the Pro Bowl (one of three times)

I'm not going to argue that this was the best line ever, but take into account that we are talking about Peyton Manning, one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

Do you think we are going to get a QB anywhere near the caliber as Rodgers or Manning?

Of course not. So there is a direct correlation between great QBs and their line. Great talent can pick up the slack.

A great QB transcends line play.

Of course, nobody is saying otherwise.

If you think Bridgewater or Manziel or Carr or whoever is that kind of QB, you take him, regardless of the line.

This is where your argument gets shaky. You put an "if" in there, which basically undermines critical analysis. We can "if" all kinds of scenarios.

Do you honestly think Bridgewater or Manziel or Carr are going to be elite like Manning and Rodgers?

We cannot depend on it happening, so the logical thing to do is make sure the line can protect whoever the Texans get as QB.

Look at Luck; his line is awful and he will be making the playoffs for the second time in two years. Look at Wilson; he's playing behind patchwork and leading the best team in football.

I like Luck, but c'mon, be real. The Colts make the playoffs by default because the AFCS is the worst division in football right now. The Colts will be the only team in the division that does not have a losing record.

And do not be surprised when the Colts lose in the first round of the playoffs.

As far as Wilson, let's see how the Seahawks do in the playoffs before crowning them "the best team in football". Their line problems could cost them in the post season.

IMO, a good/great line can make up for mediocre QB play (see: Matt Schaub), but a great QB almost make the line superfluous.

So, in the end you agree with me. Interesting... :hmmm:

"A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great."

toronto
12-13-2013, 03:55 PM
I think you are underrating the lines you are using as examples particularly with respect to pass blocking.

Especially Seattle IMO. And DB, Seattle is going to be damn near impossible to beat at home, even if the team looks vulnerable in spots. This is the most acute home field advantage I have seen in a while. It's been ages since I've seen teams walk into a stadium intimidated.

Marshall
12-13-2013, 04:10 PM
Just because they didn't press charges doesn't mean he didn't do it. If he was available to draft right now I would pass.

You've never met either one of them( him or her) and you weren't there so how do you know she's a hoe and he's not a rapist?

I didn't realize till yesterday that the 911 call was made by someone else. I don't know the story, but alcohol induced activity with morning after regret sounds likely. It might technically still be rape because the girl wasn't in control of her faculties, but the guy is usually in the same boat.

But again, I'm not Judge Judy who is sure of everything she suspects.

nero THE zero
12-13-2013, 04:39 PM
This is where your argument gets shaky. You put an "if" in there, which basically undermines critical analysis. We can "if" all kinds of scenarios.

Do you honestly think Bridgewater or Manziel or Carr are going to be elite like Manning and Rodgers?

We cannot depend on it happening, so the logical thing to do is make sure the line can protect whoever the Texans get as QB.


I don't think it makes my argument shaky. My argument is that a great QB is great, regardless of what kind of line he plays behind. My argument is that, if you think a rookie QB coming out will be great, you take that QB, OL be damned. You'll obviously reach a tipping point somewhere along the continuum where no matter how great a QB is he cannot succeed behind an o-line, but I certainly don't think that's applicable to our situation.

Do I think Bridgewater/Manizel/Carr are going to be Manning or Rogers? I'm a pretty big Bridgewater fan, and I think he could be. At least, I think so enough to take the risk if I am Rick Smith.

So, in the end you agree with me. Interesting... :hmmm:

"A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great."
I would probably say:

"A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a great QB can make a mediocre OL look good."

CloakNNNdagger
12-13-2013, 05:27 PM
You can go back years in here and see that there isn't a bigger supporter of building the trenches than me. Mathews is simply overrated because of his name. I'm not saying he's not good. I think right now he would be a good RT in the nfl who COULD grow into a quality LT eventually. That's not top 5 material.

And lol and RG3 being damaged goods.

There are certainly exceptions to all rules. However, studies have borne out that not only do 2nd time around ACLs have a higher rate of failure, but that the loss of performance found after the first is more significantly impacted after the second. Add to the fact that RGIII tore up his entire left lateral knee support (complete LCL tear) along with the re-rupture of his ACL, you can also expect that he now carries an inordinate risk of contralateral ACL and other lower limb injuries.

A February study published in the Bone and Joint Journal showed that patients with ACL injury had just as much loss of position sense (proprioception [loss of which leads to instability]) in their good knee as their ACL injured knee, so what happens on one side seems to impact the other. The upshot? Getting one knee ACL “fixed” surgically appears to markedly increase the chance that the other knee will be injured. Is this due to the ACL injury itself or the ACL surgery? It could be either. In an ACL repair, there is no free lunch, less so with a re-repair, meaning that removing the ligament and installing one that can't under any circumstances be considered to be equivalent to the "original equipment" is at best a compromise option.

Double Barrel
12-13-2013, 06:16 PM
Especially Seattle IMO. And DB, Seattle is going to be damn near impossible to beat at home, even if the team looks vulnerable in spots. This is the most acute home field advantage I have seen in a while. It's been ages since I've seen teams walk into a stadium intimidated.

I agree. Going into the playoffs, Seattle is clearly ahead of everyone with their dominating defense and obvious homefield advantage.

But even with all of that, there is a pressure in the playoffs that simply doesn't exist in the regular season. We see strong regular season teams struggle in the playoffs every year, so my main point was mainly to see them do it before becoming a true believer.

And their line, while 'patchwork', is clearly playing better as the season progresses. Several recent articles on the net talking about it.

I don't think it makes my argument shaky. My argument is that a great QB is great, regardless of what kind of line he plays behind. My argument is that, if you think a rookie QB coming out will be great, you take that QB, OL be damned. You'll obviously reach a tipping point somewhere along the continuum where no matter how great a QB is he cannot succeed behind an o-line, but I certainly don't think that's applicable to our situation.

My shaky argument comment was more description than trying to tear it down. "If" arguments start to go into areas that have to be quantified and we can go in any direction.

I do not see a QB out there, either in the draft or veteran, that is going to be so good that they can make the right side of the Texans line look good.

And that's my point. The FO cannot stay status quo and hope for an "if" in the unknown QB. I'm a believer in old school fundamentally sound football, so this is my perspective. I don't have a problem if they draft a QB, but I'm not going to be upset if they 'draft ugly' to build the line.

Do I think Bridgewater/Manizel/Carr are going to be Manning or Rogers? I'm a pretty big Bridgewater fan, and I think he could be. At least, I think so enough to take the risk if I am Rick Smith.

I don't have a problem with a decision like this, even if they go with Carr. But I'm not one to buy into hype, but rather I am more about see what happens to analyze.

I would probably say:

"A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a great QB can make a mediocre OL look good."

Well, I don't disagree. It almost gets to the point of debating semantics, because we both are in basic agreement about the overall point.

Playoffs
12-13-2013, 06:17 PM
A February study published in the Bone and Joint Journal showed that patients with ACL injury had just as much loss of position sense (proprioception [loss of which leads to instability]) in their good knee as their ACL injured knee, so what happens on one side seems to impact the other...

Wow, Doc, that's pretty surprising to me. I guess a loss of proprioception of a repaired ACL knee is expected? It that because of loss of nerves/receptors/feeling???

CloakNNNdagger
12-13-2013, 06:55 PM
Wow, Doc, that's pretty surprising to me. I guess a loss of proprioception of a repaired ACL knee is expected? It that because of loss of nerves/receptors/feeling???

All of the above. Proprioception in the knee is a feedback to and from the brain as to where the knee is in space. It is required for that limb's stability. However, the right knee and the left knee work together to create total body/lower extremity stability. If one knee sends incorrect messages to the brain, the other knee which normally also requires feedback from the brain for the position of the contralateral knee fails to stabilize due to the fact that its feedback is also incorrect.

Thorn
12-13-2013, 06:57 PM
No. A thousand times NO.

Our offensive line needs fixing before any frigging QB no matter who the **** it is. I want to see the O line fixed in the off season. Then lets talk QB.

TheIronDuke
12-13-2013, 07:18 PM
I think a lot of posters are overstating how bad the offensive line is. Our next LG is already on the roster (Quessenberry) and we just need a RT which aren't that hard to find. We are right in the middle of the league in sacks allowed and that's mostly because one player (Newton) is terrible. We have a frigging Pro Bowl LT and center for crying out loud, we don't need an All Pro o line to win games.

drs23
12-13-2013, 07:39 PM
A good GM can leverage a high pick for more choices and still get the guy they have targeted when it's not an over-hyped QB.

I don't care what QB they bring in here, if the line cannot consistently protect him, he's going to struggle and most likely fail.

A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a good QB look great. And if you happen on a great QB with an awesome line, you are looking at a formula for long term success and Super Bowl potential.

I know McNair wants playoff contention in 2014 and does not want to be seen as a rebuild year, but that is either naively shortsighted or wishful thinking on his part. This team does not have a starting QB, does not have a HC, and most likely has to install a new offense. To expect immediate results is setting himself up. Yeah, it can happen, but let's not be ready to jump off bridges if immediate gratification is not satisfied.

I have no problem with a 2 year "rebuild" to re-stock players and fully implement new schemes. They will have high picks in every round, so do it right and make both the offensive and defensive lines something to build on for the long term future, IMO.

Well stated and I agree. I can take a 2-3 year rebuild but I'm too damned old for a 20 year hunt-n-peck till ya get lucky "remodel" and so is McNair. I hope THIS head-hunter that he hired can talk some sense into him. I want to see Tiffany raised in our house before I croak.

Is that to f'in much to ask?

houstonspartan
12-13-2013, 07:44 PM
Nope. Getting RGIII is also aquiring RGII. I don't need no baby daddy drama.

Baby daddy? What in the world are you talking about? RGIII doesn't have a "baby daddy." He has a father. His parents have been married for a long time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

drs23
12-13-2013, 07:49 PM
With rg3 shut down for the season were about to see an audition from cousins.

Anyone fancy him for a 2nd?

Depending how he shows, yeah, one here. I've been impressed when he came in cold and covered for the damaged goods. To my untrained eye he looked pretty damn good. Not easily rattled and made plays. That's what we need isn't it?

JB
12-13-2013, 08:01 PM
Depending how he shows, yeah, one here. I've been impressed when he came in cold and covered for the damaged goods. To my untrained eye he looked pretty damn good. Not easily rattled and made plays. That's what we need isn't it?

The price of rice in china has changed... he's not worth a second imho


maybe a 4th

mussop
12-13-2013, 11:02 PM
Just because there was a accusation doesn't mean he's a rapist either.. Charges were never filed and the cops didn't really even talk to Winston. You don't know them either to say she's isn't a "hoe" and he's a rapist either, so it goes both ways.

Innocent until proven guilty right? Especially if a case doesn't even make it's way into a court room and I highly doubt any starting QB at a division 1 school is going to have any problems getting laid on campus where he has to resort to raping somebody.

Legally yeh innocent until proven guilty but I'm not using a high first round pick on him until I'm sure this is completely over and he has had time to show he can stay away from these type situations.

Norg
12-13-2013, 11:08 PM
Ummm No why would u get RG III when u can get Teddy


and besides guys I don't think we are running a old 90's Denver system and type of players so I don't think no more players from Washington LOL

welsh texan
12-14-2013, 07:53 AM
The price of rice in china has changed... he's not worth a second imho


maybe a 4th

I'm only ever on my phone these days so struggle to give links etc, but there was an article on nfl.com where something like 6 nfl gms were anonymously canvassed and said his value was a 2, but something like half of them said the skins wouldn't trade away their cheap insurance.

Still get the impression Snyder is fully behind RG3, it was his pick after all, he's probably going to bin shanny over his QB, and a new regime may value an extra pick.

If that sorts the QB situation for a decade, it gives us chance to take clowney or trade back for RT and back into the 2nd to get more contributors.

I'm not saying itd definitely work out, but I think it's a far more likely scenario than us getting RG3 and would give us chance to rebuild the framework as well as fixing QB.

CloakNNNdagger
12-14-2013, 11:01 AM
Cousins isn't going anywhere with so many questions surrounding RGIII's injury status and ultimate attainable level of performance after full rehab.

markn
12-14-2013, 11:48 AM
1st pick overall seems a bit steep for rg3. If we could trade back to around 8, picking up an extra pick or two in the process, I'd think that would be a fairer trade.

Marcus
12-14-2013, 03:35 PM
I would probably say:

"A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a great QB can make a mediocre OL look good."

Says anyone in that block of fans that think drafting a lineman with the first pick isn't "sexy" enough. You build a house on a bad foundation, then everything on the property is bad.

IDEXAN
12-14-2013, 04:28 PM
In a heartbeat !

Marshall
12-14-2013, 05:28 PM
I don't think it makes my argument shaky. My argument is that a great QB is great, regardless of what kind of line he plays behind. My argument is that, if you think a rookie QB coming out will be great, you take that QB, OL be damned. You'll obviously reach a tipping point somewhere along the continuum where no matter how great a QB is he cannot succeed behind an o-line, but I certainly don't think that's applicable to our situation.

Do I think Bridgewater/Manizel/Carr are going to be Manning or Rogers? I'm a pretty big Bridgewater fan, and I think he could be. At least, I think so enough to take the risk if I am Rick Smith.


I would probably say:

"A good line can make a decent QB look good, and a great QB can make a mediocre OL look good."

A bad OL can end a QBs career so he can never be great to begin with. No matter how much people try to make this about QBs only, it's still a team game.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 09:46 AM
You can go back years in here and see that there isn't a bigger supporter of building the trenches than me. Mathews is simply overrated because of his name. I'm not saying he's not good. I think right now he would be a good RT in the nfl who COULD grow into a quality LT eventually. That's not top 5 material.

And lol and RG3 being damaged goods.

Matthews will be an above avg LT/RT. He more likely could become a HOF OG, just like his dad. His dad could play any position on the OL and did through out his career. But Bruce was a HOF OG.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 09:48 AM
Again the Texans have no QB. Keenum is a marginal backup, and no way Schaub is going to be on the roster. Unless you want Mark Sanchez or Jay Cutler (if the Bears lose their minds and let him walk) starting next year, it is pretty much going to be QB with the first pick.

Wouldn't be mad about Clowney. The Texans have one pass rusher on the whole roster

Just because the Texans dont have a QB lets reach for Bridgewater at 1-1. Great idea, Carr part deaux.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 09:59 AM
There are certainly exceptions to all rules. However, studies have borne out that not only do 2nd time around ACLs have a higher rate of failure, but that the loss of performance found after the first is more significantly impacted after the second. Add to the fact that RGIII tore up his entire left lateral knee support (complete LCL tear) along with the re-rupture of his ACL, you can also expect that he now carries an inordinate risk of contralateral ACL and other lower limb injuries.

A February study published in the Bone and Joint Journal showed that patients with ACL injury had just as much loss of position sense (proprioception [loss of which leads to instability]) in their good knee as their ACL injured knee, so what happens on one side seems to impact the other. The upshot? Getting one knee ACL “fixed” surgically appears to markedly increase the chance that the other knee will be injured. Is this due to the ACL injury itself or the ACL surgery? It could be either. In an ACL repair, there is no free lunch, less so with a re-repair, meaning that removing the ligament and installing one that can't under any circumstances be considered to be equivalent to the "original equipment" is at best a compromise option.

After reading this I would pass on RG3 with 1-1.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 10:05 AM
No. A thousand times NO.

Our offensive line needs fixing before any frigging QB no matter who the **** it is. I want to see the O line fixed in the off season. Then lets talk QB.

We've been saying this for about a decade and counting. They haven't fixed the OL/DL and this is a big reason why the team is on a 2-14 course again. Lets see if history repeats itself and Rick decides to go with style (Bridgewater) before substance. (Clowney/Matthews)

Thanks Rick.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 10:14 AM
I think a lot of posters are overstating how bad the offensive line is. Our next LG is already on the roster (Quessenberry) and we just need a RT which aren't that hard to find. We are right in the middle of the league in sacks allowed and that's mostly because one player (Newton) is terrible. We have a frigging Pro Bowl LT and center for crying out loud, we don't need an All Pro o line to win games.

You mean 6th rd pick Ques is going to be the savior of the OL?

The Texans dont need an all pro OL, but it wouldn't hurt?

I dont want to win games. I want to win SB's and an all pro OL/DL seems to be a common theme for teams that compete for SB's

New England/Baltimore/SF/N.O./Sea when healthy etc.....

VS team that dont value OL, Houston/ATL/Mia/Ariz etc....

dalemurphy
12-15-2013, 10:15 AM
Why would y'all want to draft a RT so high in the draft? RT's can be had with 2nd round or even later picks. We didn't get Duane until the end of the 1st and he might've even have fallen to the second.

Great players from every position are available in the second round of a draft, certainly at 33. There is no reason why it would be irresponsible to take a great tackle at #1... He is not a "right tackle". He is an elite LT prospect that we would play at RT, meaning, the team could have two great pass blockers on the edges of the offensive line. That would be a welcomed problem, IMO. Realize that his cap costs would be on par with what Winston was making (5 for $25 million)... So, it is not as if we would be investing too much cap money into the OL. Actually, with Wade Smith's exit, the cap hit for the OLine would likely decrease next year.

I still believe we should draft Bridgewater #1 if the scouts/coaches believe in him, but I certainly don't see a problem with Matthews joining Brown on the Texans' OL the next 5 years.

infantrycak
12-15-2013, 10:41 AM
We've been saying this for about a decade and counting. They haven't fixed the OL/DL and this is a big reason why the team is on a 2-14 course again. Lets see if history repeats itself and Rick decides to go with style (Bridgewater) before substance. (Clowney/Matthews)

Thanks Rick.

I dont want to win games. I want to win SB's and an all pro O/DLL seems to be a common theme for teams that compete for SB's

New England/Baltimore/SF/N.O./Sea when healthy etc.....

VS team that dont value OL, Houston/ATL/Mia/Ariz etc....

The past 10 SB winners:

1 pro bowler
0
1 PB
2 PB
0
0
2 PB
2 PB, 1 AP
0
0

2012 Texans - 3 PB, 1 AP

The facts do not bear out your ongoing narrative.

Texecutioner
12-15-2013, 11:20 AM
I'll bet that RG3 comes back next season and plays great. Nothing wrong his skill set at all. He could use a better coach, a healthy body, and a long off season of preparation. This thread will get bumped a year from now. I think it's crazy to write him off just because of one bad season in only his 2nd year where he played hurt and had no pre season to prepare.

mussop
12-15-2013, 08:07 PM
Matthews will be an above avg LT/RT. He more likely could become a HOF OG, just like his dad. His dad could play any position on the OL and did through out his career. But Bruce was a HOF OG.

You've come to this conclusion because of who his dad is? Which is exactly my point. He is being over rated exactly because of that.

Double Barrel
12-15-2013, 08:46 PM
I'll bet that RG3 comes back next season and plays great. Nothing wrong his skill set at all. He could use a better coach, a healthy body, and a long off season of preparation. This thread will get bumped a year from now. I think it's crazy to write him off just because of one bad season in only his 2nd year where he played hurt and had no pre season to prepare.

I do not think his rookie season was a fluke. The second year is tough on a lot of QBs when teams have a season of film to study. Add in a serious injury, and it should not be a surprise that he's struggling. But, I think he could come back in year 3 and show the league why he was a no. 1 pick.

That being said, I would not give up a no. 1 overall pick for him this year. The Texans would be getting a shorter contract on a player that still struggled this year regardless of his potential. Not worth it, IMO.

After seeing that garbage today and the on-going spewage of horrible football since early September, I think they do the historical trend and draft a QB. Makes sense with a new HC coming in. This team needs an overhaul.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 09:11 PM
The past 10 SB winners:

1 pro bowler
0
1 PB
2 PB
0
0
2 PB
2 PB, 1 AP
0
0

2012 Texans - 3 PB, 1 AP

The facts do not bear out your ongoing narrative.

Last yrs Baltimore team

McKinney 1st Rd, Osemele high 2nd rd Birk Former All Pro player, Yanda 3rd rd, Oher 1st Rd.

San Francisco

Staley 1st rd pick, Iupati 1st Rd Goodwin FA pick up, Boone Was scheduled to be a 1-2nd rd pick before his alcoholism issues. 6th Rd pick. Davis 1st rd pick

I would say these 2 teams invested very heavily in their OL's.

I find it interesting that McKinney came in fat so Ozzie traded him in the middle of the season and gave up a 5th/6th rd in this yrs draft to replace McKinney. This shows the value Ozzie places in the OL.

San Fran invested 3 1sts and took a chance on Boone, a player Rick didn't/would never invest in. Meanwhile Boone turns into an all pro caliber OG. So yeah, San Fran certainly is heavily invested in their OL.

But carry on and continue to flood us with stats, when you already know what I stated above. Sometimes I think you love to argue for the sake of arguing.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 09:14 PM
You've come to this conclusion because of who his dad is? Which is exactly my point. He is being over rated exactly because of that.

Nope, I came to that conclusion after watching the LSU DE's run the arch against him.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 09:16 PM
I'll bet that RG3 comes back next season and plays great. Nothing wrong his skill set at all. He could use a better coach, a healthy body, and a long off season of preparation. This thread will get bumped a year from now. I think it's crazy to write him off just because of one bad season in only his 2nd year where he played hurt and had no pre season to prepare.

I wouldn't bet on it after seeing C-N-D's post.

infantrycak
12-15-2013, 10:02 PM
Last yrs Baltimore team

McKinney 1st Rd, Osemele high 2nd rd Birk Former All Pro player, Yanda 3rd rd, Oher 1st Rd.

San Francisco


You said all pro OL. I gave you benefit of the doubt and included pro bowl.

You're the one playing games.
McKinnie - 1st round quasi-bust brought in as an aged vet. Hardly a serious investment. Didn't start a game last season - the SB one.
Birk - never an All Pro. Another aged vet, this one formerly a very good C but well past those days.
Oher - yes investment of a 1st akin to the Texans much more successful investment in Brown.

The Texans have invested as much in the OL as Baltimore.

San Francisco has invested more. Of course that was by the GM and HC they found to be unsatisfactory and fired rather than the GM and HC who have them SB contenders.

But carry on and continue to flood us with stats, when you already know what I stated above. Sometimes I think you love to argue for the sake of arguing.

Pssst, the round a player is in and whether they were in the pro bowl/all pro (which you brought up as the standard) are both facts/stats so spare me the lame "stats" as a derogatory argument. Putting aside the departed GM and HC, the best example you have for your argument is San Fran and none of their guys were picked top 10 - they were 11, 17 and 28. They don't support the Texans burning 1.1 on OL to match their investment. I am not arguing with you just to argue. I disagree with spending a top 10 pick on the OL because I do not believe it will upgrade as much as other positions which will also be available. If you were arguing for moving back up into the bottom of the 1st if necessary to get a RT I would be right there with you.

steelbtexan
12-15-2013, 11:27 PM
You said all pro OL. I gave you benefit of the doubt and included pro bowl.

You're the one playing games.
McKinnie - 1st round quasi-bust brought in as an aged vet. Hardly a serious investment. Didn't start a game last season - the SB one.
Birk - never an All Pro. Another aged vet, this one formerly a very good C but well past those days.
Oher - yes investment of a 1st akin to the Texans much more successful investment in Brown.

The Texans have invested as much in the OL as Baltimore.

San Francisco has invested more. Of course that was by the GM and HC they found to be unsatisfactory and fired rather than the GM and HC who have them SB contenders.



Pssst, the round a player is in and whether they were in the pro bowl/all pro (which you brought up as the standard) are both facts/stats so spare me the lame "stats" as a derogatory argument. Putting aside the departed GM and HC, the best example you have for your argument is San Fran and none of their guys were picked top 10 - they were 11, 17 and 28. They don't support the Texans burning 1.1 on OL to match their investment. I am not arguing with you just to argue. I disagree with spending a top 10 pick on the OL because I do not believe it will upgrade as much as other positions which will also be available. If you were arguing for moving back up into the bottom of the 1st if necessary to get a RT I would be right there with you.

Birk was an aging but smart leader of the Ravens OL. 6 time pro bowler.

McKinnie made the Pro Bowl in 2010 I think and although out of shape upgraded the Dolphins OL. He was traded to the Dolphins (Out of shape again) where their OL has gotten much better despite losing Martin and Incognito they are still in the running for a wildcard spot. I'm not saying McKinnie is a decent human being, but sometimes you have to dance with the devil if you want to win.

I agree with you about not taking an OL 1-1 especially in this draft. I would take Matthews in the 5-10 range after trading down.

I know you were a big MW guy. I think Clowney is an even better player. What do you think about Clowney 1-1. No to Bridgewater, IMHO

infantrycak
12-15-2013, 11:58 PM
I know you were a big MW guy. I think Clowney is an even better player. What do you think about Clowney 1-1. No to Bridgewater, IMHO

Well, on MW to illustrate - I figured the Texans had taken QB off the table and so pretty much thought discussing VY was a waste of time. Bush I didn't think would translate to the NFL as a primary RB. That left Mario and Ferguson. Mario seemed like more of a freak with a higher upside.

Here Clowney shows the same kind of upside with a more extreme chance of bust due to taking plays off turning into taking a season off. Then there is injury concern. Haven't had a chance to talk to Doc about it but doing a little research bone spurs in feet can result from problems like plantar fasciitis and can be a real problem for a DLmen/OLB who lives off of initial burst. Basically he scares me.

If forced to stay I would be happy with either Bridgewater then the best of RT, OLB or NT ... or Barr then maneuver to get Bortles, Carr (after an interrogation that would make the CIA at Guantanamo proud).

Best case, trade down get Nix, Matthews or Moseley and then use the next two on a QB and RT (or OLB, NT if Matthews taken) in either order.

steelbtexan
12-16-2013, 08:40 AM
Well, on MW to illustrate - I figured the Texans had taken QB off the table and so pretty much thought discussing VY was a waste of time. Bush I didn't think would translate to the NFL as a primary RB. That left Mario and Ferguson. Mario seemed like more of a freak with a higher upside.

Here Clowney shows the same kind of upside with a more extreme chance of bust due to taking plays off turning into taking a season off. Then there is injury concern. Haven't had a chance to talk to Doc about it but doing a little research bone spurs in feet can result from problems like plantar fasciitis and can be a real problem for a DLmen/OLB who lives off of initial burst. Basically he scares me.

If forced to stay I would be happy with either Bridgewater then the best of RT, OLB or NT ... or Barr then maneuver to get Bortles, Carr (after an interrogation that would make the CIA at Guantanamo proud).

Best case, trade down get Nix, Matthews or Moseley and then use the next two on a QB and RT (or OLB, NT if Matthews taken) in either order.

Clowney only took plays off this and that was to avoid an injury situation like his former teammmate. They were saying the same things about Peppers before he was drafted. IIRC, I'm more of a risk taker so if Doc said Clowney was medically OK he would be my pick.

Your best case scenerio would be my dream come true. I'm very high on Nix and think he could do for the Texans almost as much as Clowney. (Draw double teams) Nix having knee surgery does worry me and would be another call for the Doc's.

The Pencil Neck
12-16-2013, 11:42 AM
Who our coach (and possibly GM) is will be a big part of what we do.

There's still a long way to go and a lot of process to follow.

handswarmer
12-16-2013, 11:51 AM
I would not trade the top pick for RGIII. I think he is over rated as are some of the other Read/Option QB's...

ObsiWan
12-16-2013, 06:30 PM
No. A thousand times NO.

Our offensive line needs fixing before any frigging QB no matter who the **** it is. I want to see the O line fixed in the off season. Then lets talk QB.

Thank you, Master Thorn (and the rest of you who follow this logic train).

Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the David Carr debacle?

It's real simple folks:

Promising young QB + crappy O-line = DISASTER

Oh and lest we forget a not-so-minor detail, anyone have any clue as to what the heck will our offensive scheme be??
...or who's calling the plays? Shouldn't that play into who we go out and get at QB? I'd like to know who the new OC/HC will be and what system he/they intend to run before I shop for a QB.

Oh and I'll pass on RGIII. Put me into the group that wants to parley that overall #1 pick into more picks. We got lots of holes to fill.

Texecutioner
12-16-2013, 07:29 PM
Clowney only took plays off this and that was to avoid an injury situation like his former teammmate. They were saying the same things about Peppers before he was drafted. IIRC, I'm more of a risk taker so if Doc said Clowney was medically OK he would be my pick.

Your best case scenerio would be my dream come true. I'm very high on Nix and think he could do for the Texans almost as much as Clowney. (Draw double teams) Nix having knee surgery does worry me and would be another call for the Doc's.

How in the world do you dismiss all of the stuff about Clowney? Look at the history of players that have that criticism in the draft and almost all of them are busts or average players compared to their draft status. Watching Mario all of those years should be an easy one for you. And it's not just the taking plays off thing. It's the attitude that his coaches have put out there and the stupid decisions by this guy like driving 110 down the highway. I can guarantee you that the Texans don't touch him though. Way to many red flags for Bob Mcnair to even consider him at this point, and good for Bob. Clowney is nothing but a media sensation that quickly had his candles blown out by mid season after he looked average all year. Using an injury as an excuse when he had such a spotlight on him for a high draft pick and even a Heisman pick is one of the worst spin efforts I've ever seen by a player's camp. Clowney cost himself a lot of money most likely. I'm just happy to know that the Texans won't be anywhere near this guy on their draft board unless he is somehow sticking around in the 2nd round.

hradhak
12-16-2013, 08:47 PM
Thank you, Master Thorn (and the rest of you who follow this logic train).

Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the David Carr debacle?

It's real simple folks:

Promising young QB + crappy O-line = DISASTER

Oh and lest we forget a not-so-minor detail, anyone have any clue as to what the heck will our offensive scheme be??
...or who's calling the plays? Shouldn't that play into who we go out and get at QB? I'd like to know who the new OC/HC will be and what system he/they intend to run before I shop for a QB.

Oh and I'll pass on RGIII. Put me into the group that wants to parley that overall #1 pick into more picks. We got lots of holes to fill.


A lot of Carr's sacks are on Carr. He held the ball too long. Great QBs make their O lines look good. I don't know that Brady has had any pro bowlers blocking for him, but they never have more than 5 guys blocking because he gets the ball out fast.

It's actually one of the reasons I think Luck will be an average QB. He doesn't make quick reads and he doesn't get the ball out fast enough (and he's not that accurate) Manning in comparison has had less than 25 sacks his entire career and his accuracy was always above 60% (except his first year). Luck has had 30+ sacks both years and is below 60% both years

CloakNNNdagger
12-16-2013, 10:06 PM
Well, on MW to illustrate - I figured the Texans had taken QB off the table and so pretty much thought discussing VY was a waste of time. Bush I didn't think would translate to the NFL as a primary RB. That left Mario and Ferguson. Mario seemed like more of a freak with a higher upside.

Here Clowney shows the same kind of upside with a more extreme chance of bust due to taking plays off turning into taking a season off. Then there is injury concern. Haven't had a chance to talk to Doc about it but doing a little research bone spurs in feet can result from problems like plantar fasciitis and can be a real problem for a DLmen/OLB who lives off of initial burst. Basically he scares me.

If forced to stay I would be happy with either Bridgewater then the best of RT, OLB or NT ... or Barr then maneuver to get Bortles, Carr (after an interrogation that would make the CIA at Guantanamo proud).

Best case, trade down get Nix, Matthews or Moseley and then use the next two on a QB and RT (or OLB, NT if Matthews taken) in either order.

Clowney only took plays off this and that was to avoid an injury situation like his former teammmate. They were saying the same things about Peppers before he was drafted. IIRC, I'm more of a risk taker so if Doc said Clowney was medically OK he would be my pick.

Your best case scenerio would be my dream come true. I'm very high on Nix and think he could do for the Texans almost as much as Clowney. (Draw double teams) Nix having knee surgery does worry me and would be another call for the Doc's.

Clowney has been dealing with the bone spur(s) of his foot since highschool. He also missed time for this problem last season and this season, he has played lame. We don't know if it is a single spur or multiple spurs....if it is a heel spur or ankle spur. If it is an isolated spur, surgery may cure him. If multiple spurs, as chronic as it has been, it could very well be a reflection of significant arthritic changes. Unfortunately, like usual, we have little information to work with. One thing I can pretty well tell you is that if he has surgery after the season, he won't be at the Combine, and teams will likely have to make a decision on what they've seen so far. He should be ready to go for the 2014 season no matter was his pathology is. His performance will be dictated by the extent of the pathology that required attention. I don't like the fact that this has been a chronic problem already.......in a very young player.........a pass rusher that needs no compromise of any type with his ability to push off.

As far as Nix, no mention was made of which meniscus/menisci were torn. But, if accurate, some reports reveal that the surgery involved "repair" not "excision." Repair is a harder longer recovery. What bothers me the most about Nix is that he has been dealing with a chronic case of patellar tendonitis.......the predecessor of patellar tendon rupture, ala our own Cushing and Newton. Being a big man, the condition and potential of rupture is more concerning. If he does eventually rupture, expect a long recovery closer to Newton (who was rushed back and not given enough time to completely rehab)........and we know how that's turned out.

Both great players with great potential................for stellar careers.........or ongoing injury history...........only time will tell, and someone will take the chance for sure.

badboy
12-16-2013, 10:26 PM
Clowney has been dealing with the bone spur(s) of his foot since highschool. He also missed time for this problem last season and this season, he has played lame. We don't know if it is a single spur or multiple spurs....if it is a heel spur or ankle spur. If it is an isolated spur, surgery may cure him. If multiple spurs, as chronic as it has been, it could very well be a reflection of significant arthritic changes. Unfortunately, like usual, we have little information to work with. One thing I can pretty well tell you is that if he has surgery after the season, he won't be at the Combine, and teams will likely have to make a decision on what they've seen so far. He should be ready to go for the 2014 season no matter was his pathology is. His performance will be dictated by the extent of the pathology that required attention. I don't like the fact that this has been a chronic problem already.......in a very young player.........a pass rusher that needs no compromise of any type with his ability to push off.

As far as Nix, no mention was made of which meniscus/menisci were torn. But, if accurate, some reports reveal that the surgery involved "repair" not "excision." Repair is a harder longer recovery. What bothers me the most about Nix is that he has been dealing with a chronic case of patellar tendonitis.......the predecessor of patellar tendon rupture, ala our own Cushing and Newton. Being a big man, the condition and potential of rupture is more concerning. If he does eventually rupture, expect a long recovery closer to Newton (who was rushed back and not given enough time to completely rehab)........and we know how that's turned out.

Both great players with great potential................for stellar careers.........or ongoing injury history...........only time will tell, and someone will take the chance for sure.
This is reason I pulled Nix off my board when he missed games at end of season.

steelbtexan
12-16-2013, 11:12 PM
How in the world do you dismiss all of the stuff about Clowney? Look at the history of players that have that criticism in the draft and almost all of them are busts or average players compared to their draft status. Watching Mario all of those years should be an easy one for you. And it's not just the taking plays off thing. It's the attitude that his coaches have put out there and the stupid decisions by this guy like driving 110 down the highway. I can guarantee you that the Texans don't touch him though. Way to many red flags for Bob Mcnair to even consider him at this point, and good for Bob. Clowney is nothing but a media sensation that quickly had his candles blown out by mid season after he looked average all year. Using an injury as an excuse when he had such a spotlight on him for a high draft pick and even a Heisman pick is one of the worst spin efforts I've ever seen by a player's camp. Clowney cost himself a lot of money most likely. I'm just happy to know that the Texans won't be anywhere near this guy on their draft board unless he is somehow sticking around in the 2nd round.

I dont blame Clowney for taking it easy this yr after seeing in person Lattimore get his knee blown up and Lattimore going from a top 20 pick to a 6th rd pick. (It's human nature) Clowney was a dominate pass rusher his first 2 yrs at South Carolina. Getting Sacks in the SEC and constantly drawing double/triple teams against some of the best OL's in college football. How many NC's has the SEC won in a row?

After reading CND's post below I'm starting to back off Clowney a bit. If he checks out medically this season wouldn't preclude me from taking Clowney. He's a once in a generation type player.

The difference between MW and Clowney is, until this yr Clowney never took plays off. He was the #1 recruit coming out of high school. Clowney was a targerted man from day 1 of his college career.

Mario on the otherhand wasn't highly recruited played on a DL with three 1st rd draft picks. He was known for taking plays off at N.C.St. Mario wasn't even on the radar for pick 1-1 until he blew up at the combine.

Can you see why I think there's a difference between the 2 players and if healthy why Clowney would be worth the risk?

YeaLikeRightNow
12-17-2013, 12:22 AM
NO....:kitten:

Marcus
12-17-2013, 08:06 PM
I don't know if this has been posted yet on this thread, but if it hasn't, it needs to be read.

Stubbornness and the father's interference (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1891163-rgiiis-stubbornness-and-his-fathers-interference-bedevil-shanahan-redskins?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t3)

CloakNNNdagger
12-17-2013, 10:02 PM
Reminds me of David Carr and his father.

TEXANRED
12-17-2013, 10:05 PM
I don't know if this has been posted yet on this thread, but if it hasn't, it needs to be read.

Stubbornness and the father's interference (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1891163-rgiiis-stubbornness-and-his-fathers-interference-bedevil-shanahan-redskins?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t3)

And we thought Carr's dad was bad.

Hervoyel
12-18-2013, 12:07 PM
I don't know if this has been posted yet on this thread, but if it hasn't, it needs to be read.

Stubbornness and the father's interference (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1891163-rgiiis-stubbornness-and-his-fathers-interference-bedevil-shanahan-redskins?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t3)

Worst thing about that is that if his dad is actually that involved then you probably don't have a "man" there. You have a man-child who is going to be very hard to coach. Maybe for a long time. Maybe for the duration of his career. It makes you think that RGIII has a great deal of growing up still to do and who has time for that?

Texecutioner
12-21-2013, 03:14 PM
Worst thing about that is that if his dad is actually that involved then you probably don't have a "man" there. You have a man-child who is going to be very hard to coach. Maybe for a long time. Maybe for the duration of his career. It makes you think that RGIII has a great deal of growing up still to do and who has time for that?

Keep in mind that Shanahan is his HC, and I just have never bought into the idea that Shanny is great with QB's or that his offense is any good in this day and age with how he runs it. I think he does a better job than Kubiak with his offense, but he is just as stubborn and close minded to adapting it to who they play and what they have on offense to operate and execute with.

A lot will depend on who the next HC is for RG3. I think he bounces back next year.