PDA

View Full Version : Report: Texans G.M. prefers Khalil Mack to Jadeveon Clowney


CloakNNNdagger
04-21-2014, 07:14 AM
Smoke screen or valid is the question?

'
Posted by Darin Gantt on April 21, 2014, 7:39 AM EDT

When the longer-then-ever pre-draft process began, the general assumption was that the Texans would draft a quarterback.

Then, as everyone began to realize what a generational talent Jadeveon Clowney was, the pendulum of conventional wisdom swung that way.

Turns out, neither may be the case in two and a half weeks when the draft finally starts with the Texans on the clock.

According to Peter King of TheMMQB.com, one “Friend of Rick Smith” (the Texans’ General Manager) said that Smith preferred Buffalo linebacker Khalil Mack to Clowney, but his preference in quarterbacks was unclear.

While Clowney might be a better fit in a 4-3 defense than in a 3-4 such as Houston’s, that’s still a bold call.

In fact, it’s almost like the kind of thing that gets out there on purpose this time of year, as the Texans hope that someone calls a Friend of Rick Smith and says “Hey, if you don’t want that pick, we do.”

We only have 17 more days to wait to find out.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/21/report-texans-g-m-prefers-khalil-mack-to-jadeveon-clowney/)

disaacks3
04-21-2014, 07:19 AM
Smoke screen or valid is the question?

'link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/21/report-texans-g-m-prefers-khalil-mack-to-jadeveon-clowney/)

If true, trade back should be on the table.

PapaL
04-21-2014, 07:31 AM
I put it under the "meh" category. Pre-draft talk to drum up trade value.

IDEXAN
04-21-2014, 08:04 AM
In fact, it’s almost like the kind of thing that gets out there on purpose this time of year, as the Texans hope that someone calls a Friend of Rick Smith and says “Hey, if you don’t want that pick, we do.”
********
Well if so, then why not just wait for him to fall into your lap if the Texans aren't interested ?
Not that I buy these kind of stories, but the logic escapes if it's meant to be a strategy to induce a trade. Seems the desired approach would be for the Texans to express a strong preference for the most sought after player in the Draft if they are looking to flush out a trading partner.

Playoffs
04-21-2014, 08:09 AM
MMQB (http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/21/2014-nfl-draft-rumors-monday-morning-quarterback/)
Houston, at No. 1, isn’t set on Jadeveon Clowney. In fact, one FORS (Friend of Rick Smith) told me the Texans general manager likes Khalil Mack over Clowney, and we still don’t know which quarterback Houston would choose if it chooses one first overall. I still think the Texans would go with a more sure thing with the first overall pick than a quarterback—and that sure thing could also be tackle Greg Robinson. But imagine Mack, the outside linebacker from the University of Buffalo, being the first pick in a stacked draft. Wouldn’t that be something—a second straight Mid-American Conference player (Eric Fisher, Central Michigan, by Kansas City) as the top pick in the NFL draft?

Last week it was Rick wanted Teddy Bridgewater, O'Brien wanted Clowney, and McNair wanted Manziel.

This week it's Rick wants Mack, does not want QB, but might go Robinson.

Clear as mud..... 17 days.

http://www.pakwheels.com/forums/attachments/news-articles-driver-education-safety/1297598d1383965525-fog-alert-driving-fog-when-visibility-turns-bad-tumblr_me6aazet3z1rvn6njo1_500.gif

ArlingtonTexan
04-21-2014, 08:47 AM
If true, trade back should be on the table.

Trading is always "on the table' for the team with a pick, it is finding someone to sit down with said team at the table. in a draft with no sure fire number 1, but several rounds of solid depth, I would not be trading up to that position.

Texian
04-21-2014, 08:51 AM
An advertisement that Clowney is available to any team that wants him?

ArlingtonTexan
04-21-2014, 09:02 AM
MMQB (http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/21/2014-nfl-draft-rumors-monday-morning-quarterback/)


Last week it was Rick wanted Teddy Bridgewater, O'Brien wanted Clowney, and McNair wanted Manziel.

This week it's Rick wants Mack, does not want QB, but might go Robinson.

Clear as mud..... 17 days.

http://www.pakwheels.com/forums/attachments/news-articles-driver-education-safety/1297598d1383965525-fog-alert-driving-fog-when-visibility-turns-bad-tumblr_me6aazet3z1rvn6njo1_500.gif

I would rather the Texans take whatever player they had the most conviction for than taking Clowney or QB because "the rest of the of the world"

htownfan32
04-21-2014, 09:05 AM
Considering most of my stuff gets done this week school wise, it's going to be a long wait till the draft.

Texian
04-21-2014, 09:10 AM
Smoke screen or valid is the question?

[/URL][/B]

There are people in the know that also agree. Enough to give this credibility and make it a valid argument

powda
04-21-2014, 09:16 AM
And the next leak will be Robinson and the next will be Watkins. Listen up NFL, we're targeting the player you want. If you want him your going to have to trade with us.

steelbtexan
04-21-2014, 09:25 AM
I would prefer Rick Smith not have anything to do with the draft or for that matter the Texans org. 2-14.

kingtexan
04-21-2014, 09:44 AM
I would prefer Rick Smith not have anything to do with the draft or for that matter the Texans org. 2-14.

I concur.

kingtexan
04-21-2014, 09:45 AM
Last week it was Rick wanted Teddy Bridgewater, O'Brien wanted Clowney, and McNair wanted Manziel.

This week it's Rick wants Mack, does not want QB, but might go Robinson.



Then just for ****s and giggles ... we draft Watkins.

htownfan32
04-21-2014, 09:51 AM
Then just for ****s and giggles ... we draft Watkins.

I'd be cool with that.

Playoffs
04-21-2014, 10:34 AM
I would rather the Texans take whatever player they had the most conviction for than taking Clowney or QB because "the rest of the of the world"

Pretty sure that's how they'll do it, no? I don't think the Texans will be drafting on a consensus of other people's opinions.

Question is, who makes the choice? If it's QB (or even offense) I think we can agree that's OB 's domain. But who's choosing if it's a defensive player? Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

As to the Mack attack, I wonder if there's a team who'd trade up to #1 for Mack? ... So they dangled this tidbit out there to give them a nudge to make an offer. No "secrets" make it to Peter King this time of year. Oops, I accidentally revealed our draft strategy to the biggest NFL writer in the country. Sorry, Rick.

Looking forward I expect to be reading about Teddy's gang affiliation, Blake's crack addiction, Manziel's broken arm, Clowney's broken legs, and Mack & Robinson as roommates in a psychiatric hospital last summer. :kitten:

Texian
04-21-2014, 10:46 AM
I would prefer Rick Smith not have anything to do with the draft or for that matter the Texans org. 2-14.

I concur.

Based on the reading of the interview McClain did with O'Leary and others, the one consistent piece of advice O'Brien received from multiple mentors is, "Make sure you're in charge." I highly suspect that this is the case, same as it was with Kubiak and Smith remains O'Brien and McNair's make it happen guy.

PapaL
04-21-2014, 10:47 AM
I would prefer Rick Smith not have anything to do with the draft or for that matter the Texans org. 2-14.

You should put that in your signature block...just so you can stop beating that dead horse. :deadhorse

ArlingtonTexan
04-21-2014, 10:53 AM
Pretty sure that's how they'll do it, no? I don't think the Texans will be drafting on a consensus of other people's opinions.

Question is, who makes the choice? If it's QB (or even offense) I think we can agree that's OB 's domain. But who's choosing if it's a defensive player? Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

As to the Mack attack, I wonder if there's a team who'd trade up to #1 for Mack? ... So they dangled this tidbit out there to give them a nudge to make an offer. No "secrets" make it to Peter King this time of year. Oops, I accidentally revealed our draft strategy to the biggest NFL writer in the country. Sorry, Rick.

Looking forward I expect to be reading about Teddy's gang affiliation, Blake's crack addiction, Manziel's broken arm, Clowney's broken legs, and Mack & Robinson as roommates in a psychiatric hospital last summer. :kitten:

We have actually swung the door too far the other way in terms of thinking about smokescreens. It is like a poker player who gets a reputation as a 'bluffer," when other players always read bluff, the best play is to tell the truth, since nobody is believing you anyway.

Playoffs
04-21-2014, 10:59 AM
We have actually swung the door too far the other way in terms of thinking about smokescreens. It is like a poker player who gets a reputation as a 'bluffer," when other players always read bluff, the best play is to tell the truth, since nobody is believing you anyway.

I bet the "trade into 1-1" phone has not rung one time yet, with the draft pushed back. Other than the good-hair brothers already having a conditional trade in place, I don't think much will happen until the week of the draft. Playing chicken. http://club.omlet.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?avatar=3871.gif

DX-TEX
04-21-2014, 11:05 AM
Moving the draft back two weeks was just stupid.

Playoffs
04-21-2014, 11:11 AM
Moving the draft back two weeks was just stupid.

Agree. If they want to keep it in May, add 2 rounds to the draft and 10 team visits. If we continue to see underclassmen declarations swell, leaves too much talent on the table as UDFAs imo.

disaacks3
04-21-2014, 11:17 AM
I bet the "trade into 1-1" phone has not rung one time yet, with the draft pushed back. Other than the good-hair brothers already having a conditional trade in place, I don't think much will happen until the week of the draft. Playing chicken. http://club.omlet.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?avatar=3871.gif I'd take that bet, guessing that what's been offered hasn't been met with appropriate enthusiasm.

Porky
04-21-2014, 11:21 AM
If RS prefers Mack to Clowney, that at least makes two of us. I do too.

Either way, I suspect the friend of RS is actually not any more of a friend then the teenager who goes into the drug store saying his "friend" needs a pack of condoms.

It's RS putting out smoke screens and trying to draw a trading partner. I think they want to trade down bad. Don't think it happens - but I think they would like too.

Lucky
04-21-2014, 11:37 AM
Agree. If they want to keep it in May, add 2 rounds to the draft and 10 team visits. If we continue to see underclassmen declarations swell, leaves too much talent on the table as UDFAs imo.
That would require NFLPA approval.

Playoffs
04-21-2014, 11:45 AM
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet
They do love Clowney. 9 to 1 is a loooong way to go though RT @buffalobills1: @RapSheet Are the rumors of the Bills moving to 1 have any merits?


That would require NFLPA approval.

Yep, and that sucks.

DocBar
04-21-2014, 12:37 PM
I bet the "trade into 1-1" phone has not rung one time yet, with the draft pushed back. Other than the good-hair brothers already having a conditional trade in place, I don't think much will happen until the week of the draft. Playing chicken. http://club.omlet.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?avatar=3871.gifI bet that phone has rang a few time, if just to get an idea of how badly the Texans want to trade or feel them out for their price.

I agree that nothing will come of it til the draft is nearer. And I hope something does happen. I don't want to see the Texans picking at 1.1

Stemp
04-21-2014, 12:43 PM
Either way, I suspect the friend of RS is actually not any more of a friend then the teenager who goes into the drug store saying his "friend" needs a pack of condoms.

:spy:

Wolf6151
04-21-2014, 12:46 PM
Smoke screen or valid is the question?



Both. Mack may be a better player for our scheme, but I think all of this is being done to facilitate a trade down by pumping up other players.

Nawzer
04-21-2014, 12:51 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't mind the Texans drafting Khalil Mack provided it's a trade down. He not only feels a dire need, but is better suited to the position than Clowney. But 'tis the season of lies and deception, so take everything out there with a grain of salt.

DocBar
04-21-2014, 02:24 PM
Both. Mack may be a better player for our scheme, but I think all of this is being done to facilitate a trade down by pumping up other players.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind the Texans drafting Khalil Mack provided it's a trade down. He not only feels a dire need, but is better suited to the position than Clowney. But 'tis the season of lies and deception, so take everything out there with a grain of salt.I keep thinking back to Mario Williams and the hella fast start he got off to as a 3-4 OLB and wondering what might have been.

BullNation4Life
04-21-2014, 02:28 PM
Peter King is a blithering idiot...

Heard about this article by Peter King and who he thinks the Texans should pick #1. Now I know this is his opinion but this has got to be the dumbest opinion by a journalist I have seen yet, aside from hearing that some NFL executive compared Teddy Bridgewater to "Steamin" Willie Beamen, a fictitious football character...

Houston, at No. 1, isn’t set on Jadeveon Clowney. In fact, one FORS (Friend of Rick Smith) told me the Texans general manager likes Khalil Mack over Clowney, and we still don’t know which quarterback Houston would choose if it chooses one first overall. I still think the Texans would go with a more sure thing with the first overall pick than a quarterback—and that sure thing could also be tackle Greg Robinson. But imagine Mack, the outside linebacker from the University of Buffalo, being the first pick in a stacked draft. Wouldn’t that be something—a second straight Mid-American Conference player (Eric Fisher, Central Michigan, by Kansas City) as the top pick in the NFL draft?

Mack at #1 is extreme but Greg Robinson at #1 is just flat out stupid...IMO

here is the link (http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/21/2014-nfl-draft-rumors-monday-morning-quarterback/)

Playoffs
04-21-2014, 02:43 PM
I'd call the piece more "reporting" than "journalism"... garbage in/garbage out... sometimes (like these pre-draft times) these guys allow themselves to be used as conduits. As long as it's not personal attacks on these kids, I recognize it as part of the process and accept it for what it's worth.


4/21: A friend of general manager Rick Smith told Peter King (http://walterfootball.com/draft2014rumorsteams.php) that the Texans prefer Khalil Mack over Jadeveon Clowney. This is 100-percent smoke.

LikeMike
04-21-2014, 04:02 PM
I hate the late draft... why did they push it back again?

Mack shouldn`t be in the discussion for the #1 pick. If you are not sold on any player that teams in the top 5 would most likely select, then trade down. Mack is a great player, and I would be happy if we took him with, say the 6th pick. But so would I with Robinson, Watkins and a bunch of other guys.

IŽd say either take the QB you like, or take Clowney. Maybe Robinson desevers to be in the discussion - and a big maybe around Watkins. Nobody else should be in the discussion.

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 04:10 PM
I hate the late draft... why did they push it back again?


For an event that didn't even take place. The people booked for Radio City Music Hall canceled their production, so the place will be sitting there empty.


I'd have much preferred they moved the location... like Toyota Center, or the George R Brown.

BullNation4Life
04-21-2014, 04:20 PM
For an event that didn't even take place. The people booked for Radio City Music Hall canceled their production, so the place will be sitting there empty.


I'd have much preferred they moved the location... like Toyota Center, or the George R Brown.

I heard a another reason was it was sweeps month and ESPN/ABC wanted to dominate the ratings that week...

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 04:27 PM
I heard a another reason was it was sweeps month and ESPN/ABC wanted to dominate the ratings that week...

Then they need to move the pro bowl to that week. Great for ratings.

ObsiWan
04-21-2014, 04:35 PM
I would prefer Rick Smith not have anything to do with the draft or for that matter the Texans org. 2-14.

I concur.
There's a simple solution to that:
Buy the team from McNair.
:texflag:

steelbtexan
04-21-2014, 05:21 PM
You should put that in your signature block...just so you can stop beating that dead horse. :deadhorse

Not beating a dead horse

Just pointing out he's the GM of a 2-14 team. So his thoughts should be held in very low opinion. Unless you're OK with 2-14.

LikeMike
04-21-2014, 06:31 PM
Not beating a dead horse

Just pointing out he's the GM of a 2-14 team. So his thoughts should be held in very low opinion. Unless you're OK with 2-14.

While I don`t disagree - his draft track record isn`t bad. A couple of home runs, a couple of real good picks, and a couple of bad picks. Last seasons roster shouldn`t have been a 2-14 team - in fact most people expected it to be a playoff team.

mussop
04-21-2014, 06:48 PM
Peter King is a blithering idiot...

Heard about this article by Peter King and who he thinks the Texans should pick #1. Now I know this is his opinion but this has got to be the dumbest opinion by a journalist I have seen yet, aside from hearing that some NFL executive compared Teddy Bridgewater to "Steamin" Willie Beamen, a fictitious football character...



Mack at #1 is extreme but Greg Robinson at #1 is just flat out stupid...IMO

here is the link (http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/21/2014-nfl-draft-rumors-monday-morning-quarterback/)


Not a Peter King fan by any means but what would be stupid about taking not only the best OT in the entire draft, but also arguably the best athlete?

dalemurphy
04-21-2014, 07:42 PM
I would prefer Rick Smith not have anything to do with the draft or for that matter the Texans org. 2-14.

but, at least you can have confidence that he will get the 1st round right!:

His record is stellar in the first round (particularly if you assume he learned from the mistake made in his first draft: 2007-Okoye)

Duane Brown
Brian Cushing
Kareem Jackson
JJ Watt
Mercilus
Hopkins

--Brown, Cushing, Jackson, Watt were all unpopular picks at the time. No GM in the NFL has a better record in the 1st round the past 6 years. If you disagree, let's see the list (also, of note, 3 picks were in the 20s, and Watt was the highest selection at 11)

HJam72
04-21-2014, 08:02 PM
If I were in charge of any other team, I don't think I'd have any interest in giving what it took to get that #1 pick. I don't think the trade is going to happen, unless we are stupid enough to practically give it away.

Texian
04-21-2014, 08:05 PM
but, at least you can have confidence that he will get the 1st round right!:

His record is stellar in the first round (particularly if you assume he learned from the mistake made in his first draft: 2007-Okoye)

Duane Brown
Brian Cushing
Kareem Jackson
JJ Watt
Mercilus
Hopkins

--Brown, Cushing, Jackson, Watt were all unpopular picks at the time. No GM in the NFL has a better record in the 1st round the past 6 years. If you disagree, let's see the list (also, of note, 3 picks were in the 20s, and Watt was the highest selection at 11)

Duane Brown = Alex Gibbs
Brian Cushing = Frank Bush
Kareem Jackson = Rick Smith
JJ Watt = Wade Phillips
Mercilus = Wade Phillips
Hopkins = Gary Kubiak


Ian RapoportVerified account ‏@RapSheet

#Texans front office a bit frustrated with Kubiak/coaches (4-10 in last 14). Coaches have too much draft input, keep stars on field too long

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/399592512933101568

Texecutioner
04-21-2014, 08:37 PM
Mack is a hell of a lot safer of a pick than Clowney, that's for sure. I hope this is true, but I bet it is a smoke screen. At this point, I'll be happy to get anyone "but Clowney." Mack looks like a really good player with a low potential bust rate as well unlike Clowney.

DocBar
04-21-2014, 08:55 PM
Moving the draft back two weeks was just stupid.I read somewhere that the draft was moved back to more closely align with the mid-point between either the SB or Combine and the start of TC on the NFL calendar. Or maybe it was the start of FA and the new league year. Anywho, the gist was the NFL wanted the draft closer to right in the middle of things. I'll see if I can find a link.

mussop
04-21-2014, 09:12 PM
Mack is a hell of a lot safer of a pick than Clowney, that's for sure.

Based on what? Crap you've read?

Texian
04-21-2014, 09:12 PM
I read somewhere that the draft was moved back to more closely align with the mid-point between either the SB or Combine and the start of TC on the NFL calendar. Or maybe it was the start of FA and the new league year. Anywho, the gist was the NFL wanted the draft closer to right in the middle of things. I'll see if I can find a link.

The draft was moved to May because Radio City Musical Hall was previously booked the normal weekend of draft. The draft conflicted with RCMH's annual Easter show. I heard that Easter show cancelled but it was to late to change the draft.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/03/21/radio-city-scraps-big-budget-rockettes-show-that-was-supposed-to-launch-next-week

DocBar
04-21-2014, 09:13 PM
Mack is a hell of a lot safer of a pick than Clowney, that's for sure. I hope this is true, but I bet it is a smoke screen. At this point, I'll be happy to get anyone "but Clowney." Mack looks like a really good player with a low potential bust rate as well unlike Clowney.I'm not overly enamored with Mack, but I do believe he'll be a better pro than Clowney. I'm not sure there's a lot of separation between Mack and Barr.

PapaL
04-21-2014, 09:15 PM
Duane Brown = Alex Gibbs
Brian Cushing = Frank Bush
Kareem Jackson = Rick Smith
JJ Watt = Wade Phillips
Mercilus = Wade Phillips
Hopkins = Gary Kubiak


Ian RapoportVerified account ‏@RapSheet

#Texans front office a bit frustrated with Kubiak/coaches (4-10 in last 14). Coaches have too much draft input, keep stars on field too long

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/399592512933101568

Negationism at it's finest. When it's a hit, someone else OBVIOUSLY made the pick. When it's a strike out, the GM obviously made the pick. Funny how all those guys but the GM have been fired. No need to wonder who made those picks.

Texian
04-21-2014, 09:52 PM
Negationism at it's finest. When it's a hit, someone else OBVIOUSLY made the pick. When it's a strike out, the GM obviously made the pick. Funny how all those guys but the GM have been fired. No need to wonder who made those picks.

How does that explain that the Houston Texans front office was at odds with coaches having to much say in the draft.

I think the reason Rick Smith wasn't fired is because he didn't have a lot of say in the selection of draft picks. It works both ways, Rick wasn't responsible for Montgomery. And you can't ignore the rumors, Kubiak promised Gibbs the first pick to become the assitant head coach and full responsibilty for the running game. Frank Bush commenting that he new in the Fall before the draft that if Cushing was available, that Cush would be their draft pick and Bob McNair promising Wade Phillips the next two 1st RD picks to become the Texans DC. I think that Rick Smith was Gary Kubiak and Bob McNair's make it happen guy and I think the same situation is true, now with O'Brien and McNair.

Texecutioner
04-21-2014, 10:00 PM
I'm not overly enamored with Mack, but I do believe he'll be a better pro than Clowney. I'm not sure there's a lot of separation between Mack and Barr.

Well they are all a roll of the dice. We really never know what guys in the top ten will end up being franchise position players. SO many of them are busts. If I thought Clowney would be the next Demarcus Ware, I'd want him over everyone. He has way to many character issues for me to want this team to even touch him. Mack seems like a cornerstone LB though that could help this team right away, and I don't have any character concerns about him.

Another thing that people totally forget about Clowney is that we would only have him for this first contract. Once we re-sign Watt we won't have enough money to pay to big DE's if Clowney is pretty good. He'd be gone after his first contract most likely.

NastyNate
04-21-2014, 10:00 PM
If true, I'm on board. Mack is my favorite player in this draft and fills a huge need. Duet!

Texian
04-21-2014, 10:26 PM
Well they are all a roll of the dice. We really never know what guys in the top ten will end up being franchise position players. SO many of them are busts. If I thought Clowney would be the next Demarcus Ware, I'd want him over everyone. He has way to many character issues for me to want this team to even touch him. Mack seems like a cornerstone LB though that could help this team right away, and I don't have any character concerns about him.

Another thing that people totally forget about Clowney is that we would only have him for this first contract. Once we re-sign Watt we won't have enough money to pay to big DE's if Clowney is pretty good. He'd be gone after his first contract most likely.

I think if people took the time to get to know Jeremiah Attaochu, they would prefer Attaochu in RD 2 over to Clowney or Mack in RD 1.

dalemurphy
04-22-2014, 01:13 AM
Duane Brown = Alex Gibbs
Brian Cushing = Frank Bush
Kareem Jackson = Rick Smith
JJ Watt = Wade Phillips
Mercilus = Wade Phillips
Hopkins = Gary Kubiak


Ian RapoportVerified account ‏@RapSheet

#Texans front office a bit frustrated with Kubiak/coaches (4-10 in last 14). Coaches have too much draft input, keep stars on field too long

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/399592512933101568

Yes, like every other GM in the NFL, Rick Smith collects information from coaches and scouts before making each selection. And, like every draft pick in every round by every NFL team- one of the coaches that lobbied hard for the eventual pick is quite pleased. By the way, many others are disappointed. When Alex Gibb was lobbying for Duane Brown (I'm taking your word for it), don't you think that scouts and position coaches on defense were in Rick's ear about other players? In 2009, did everyone get silent for Frank Bush? In 2010, all of a sudden Rick Smith made a pick in a vacuum?

I remember an interview with Jimmy Johnson about the Cowboys' drafts. He discussed the importance of knowing his assistant coaches... He listed his assistants and described how he factored each man's attitudes/perspective into the decison-making process... He concluded with, "... and Butch Davis loved everybody (laughing)." I can't find it on youtube... However, it is the decision-making that makes a GM more than his scouting ability. The GM is given a mountain of information from many different sources- each with different self-interests, perspectives, philosophies- and the GM is accountable and expected to make the best set of decisions by sifting and prioritizing through all of that information.

bah007
04-22-2014, 12:50 PM
I think if people took the time to get to know Jeremiah Attaochu, they would prefer Attaochu in RD 2 over to Clowney or Mack in RD 1.

I like Attaochu a lot but I would prefer Mack because I think he is a more explosive athlete and far more versatile.

But passing on Clowney/Mack in the 1st and picking up Attaochu in the 2nd would be just fine with me, depending on who that first pick is.

Texian
04-22-2014, 12:58 PM
Yes, like every other GM in the NFL, Rick Smith collects information from coaches and scouts before making each selection. And, like every draft pick in every round by every NFL team- one of the coaches that lobbied hard for the eventual pick is quite pleased. By the way, many others are disappointed. When Alex Gibb was lobbying for Duane Brown (I'm taking your word for it), don't you think that scouts and position coaches on defense were in Rick's ear about other players? In 2009, did everyone get silent for Frank Bush? In 2010, all of a sudden Rick Smith made a pick in a vacuum?

I remember an interview with Jimmy Johnson about the Cowboys' drafts. He discussed the importance of knowing his assistant coaches... He listed his assistants and described how he factored each man's attitudes/perspective into the decison-making process... He concluded with, "... and Butch Davis loved everybody (laughing)." I can't find it on youtube... However, it is the decision-making that makes a GM more than his scouting ability. The GM is given a mountain of information from many different sources- each with different self-interests, perspectives, philosophies- and the GM is accountable and expected to make the best set of decisions by sifting and prioritizing through all of that information.

Kubiak had final say on the 53 man roster and was very Liberal with allowing coaches their picks. That's the way it was done in Denver under Shanahan and Smith was doing in Denver what he's doing in Houston. Kubiak was the director of the draft, Smith was the operator. If you watched the interviews with coaches after draft picks were made it wasn't difficult to discern how much the coaches were involved in the final decisions of the draft picks. The only two times that I know that Kubiak's final say on the 53 man roster was breached was when McNair promised Wade the next two 1st RD picks to intice him to be the next DC.

This goes hand in hand with reports that the front office was complaining to Ian Rappoport of NFLN that coaches had to much say and input in to the draft process. That report makes absolutely no sense if Smith was responsible for all the draft picks.

and Jimmy Johnson had a degree in Psychology.

Texian
04-22-2014, 01:04 PM
I like Attaochu a lot but I would prefer Mack because I think he is a more explosive athlete and far more versatile.

But passing on Clowney/Mack in the 1st and picking up Attaochu in the 2nd would be just fine with me, depending on who that first pick is.

I have only watched Mack in 2 games and I saw nothing that really got me excited. In those games he was easily blocked by the TE and to often taken out of the play. There must be better tape out there for so many to have him so high. However I saw nothing at all that suggest he's anything like Von Miller.

NastyNate
04-22-2014, 01:04 PM
I think if people took the time to get to know Jeremiah Attaochu, they would prefer Attaochu in RD 2 over to Clowney or Mack in RD 1.

The versatility for Mack to play anywhere in our defensive scheme makes him well worth the 1st overall. Attoachu is a player, I don't mind the selection in the second but we have the worst OLB core in football, and Brooks Reed will not magically stop sucking at ILB. Why not have a guy that can effectively play 4 different positions of need that is by far the BPA in our biggest hole?

JB
04-22-2014, 01:07 PM
The only two times that I know that Kubiak's final say on the 53 man roster was breached was when McNair promised Wade the next two 1st RD picks to intice him to be the next DC.





link?

beerlover
04-22-2014, 01:08 PM
How much input does social media/fan base weigh in on GM decision process?

NastyNate
04-22-2014, 01:12 PM
I have only watched Mack in 2 games and I saw nothing that really got me excited. In those games he was easily blocked by the TE and to often taken out of the play. There must be better tape out there for so many to have him so high. However I saw nothing at all that suggest he's anything like Von Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmMZ6gJeoMI

I see a guy who rarely gets engaged by blockers, who constantly schools tackles with strength or movement, who was a lone bright spot on a terrible buffalo team. Exceptional instincts, excellent backside pursuit. Everyone has their opinion though.

HOU-TEX
04-22-2014, 01:21 PM
Mack is a hell of a lot safer of a pick than Clowney, that's for sure. I hope this is true, but I bet it is a smoke screen. At this point, I'll be happy to get anyone "but Clowney." Mack looks like a really good player with a low potential bust rate as well unlike Clowney.

Based on what? Crap you've read?

Yup. I mean, how can a cat playing for the Buffalo Bulls not be the safer pick?

I like both Clowney and Mack, but to say Mack is the safer pick and potential lower bust rate than Clowney is just crazy.

Playoffs
04-22-2014, 01:38 PM
Doesn't appear to be selling well within the league...

John Middlekauff ‏@JohnMiddlekauff
Read in @theMMQB that sources say #Texans GM likes Mack > Clowney. Texted a ton of scouts/execs this morning ALL said Clowney > Mack

Texian
04-22-2014, 01:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmMZ6gJeoMI

I see a guy who rarely gets engaged by blockers, who constantly schools tackles with strength or movement, who was a lone bright spot on a terrible buffalo team. Exceptional instincts, excellent backside pursuit. Everyone has their opinion though.

I watched the clip in it's in entirety. Mack did have a good game, 3 sacks and pick 6. This is my observation which many will likely disagree. Sacks 1 & 3 were on Braxton Miller, he definitely held the ball to long. Sack 2 was a good speed sack but the announcer noted that it came against a rookie RT starting his first game. The pick six was a heads up play but I doubt any NFL QB is going to make that throw. Another thing I noticed is Mack is very susceptible to the play action fake. He bit on it to many times for my liking. He will have to fix this if he wants to play in the NFL for an extended time. And I thought #43 might have had the better game.

Texian
04-22-2014, 01:41 PM
link?

Check Wade's twitter account

Porky
04-22-2014, 02:03 PM
So Wade put on his Twitter account that he was promised 2 #1 draft picks to be DC?

You made the accusation that McNair did this, I think you ought to be the one that supports it with facts instead of conjecture.

Texian
04-22-2014, 02:29 PM
link?

So Wade put on his Twitter account that he was promised 2 #1 draft picks to be DC?

You made the accusation that McNair did this, I think you ought to be the one that supports it with facts instead of conjecture.

Here you go: http://prod.www.texans.clubs.nfl.com/tv-media/videos/Wade-Phillips-on-1st-rounder-Mercilus/9b60db14-c1ac-45a0-ac66-16223b9808b6

thunderkyss
04-22-2014, 03:33 PM
Kubiak had final say on the 53 man roster and was very Liberal with allowing coaches their picks. That's the way it was done in Denver under Shanahan and Smith was doing in Denver what he's doing in Houston. Kubiak was the director of the draft, Smith was the operator.


I don't think so. I believe you're taking a few words here & there & inferring an awful lot. Think back to when we drafted Brown. It was totally plausible that Smith could have traded down again & miss Brown all together. We then would have picked another player. Who had control then? Who had final say?


If you watched the interviews with coaches after draft picks were made it wasn't difficult to discern how much the coaches were involved in the final decisions of the draft picks. The only two times that I know that Kubiak's final say on the 53 man roster was breached was when McNair promised Wade the next two 1st RD picks to intice him to be the next DC.


Do you have anything to support that McNair promising Wade two draft picks? Even so, that's not infringing on Kubiak's say on the 53. It's unlikely that a first round pick wouldn't make the team, but that's Kubiak's call, not selecting the players, in the draft or FA. Rick picks them, Gary coaches them.


This goes hand in hand with reports that the front office was complaining to Ian Rappoport of NFLN that coaches had to much say and input in to the draft process. That report makes absolutely no sense if Smith was responsible for all the draft picks.

and Jimmy Johnson had a degree in Psychology.

Rick takes input from the coaches. If his lackeys thought the coaches had to much influence, they had a problem with the way Rick & the way he ran the draft. He's got scouts in one ear & coaches in the other. The scouts were a little upset that Rick obviously sided with the coaches far too often.

Texian
04-22-2014, 04:26 PM
I don't think so. I believe you're taking a few words here & there & inferring an awful lot. Think back to when we drafted Brown. It was totally plausible that Smith could have traded down again & miss Brown all together. We then would have picked another player. Who had control then? Who had final say?

I distinctly remember towards the end of the 2010 season in an after a game or a Monday Kubiak press conference, during the Q&A, McClain specifically asked Kubiak if he was willing to give up control and final say of the 53 man roster to keep his job. Gary responded with a solid NO, that it was in his contract and that was not going to change. Now, you can choose to believe that or not. I don't really care but I just don't go around making things up for the heck of it.

Do you have anything to support that McNair promising Wade two draft picks? Even so, that's not infringing on Kubiak's say on the 53. It's unlikely that a first round pick wouldn't make the team, but that's Kubiak's call, not selecting the players, in the draft or FA. Rick picks them, Gary coaches them.

Wade is on tape saying as much and I provided a link earlier. Promising a a coach draft pick(s) to take a coordinators position makes perfect sense and something that is not out of the ordinary. It happens all the time. It's called enticement! The great irony here is McNair promising coaches draft picks then a few years later complaining to NFLN that coaches have to much input in to the draft picks. The Dysfunction Junction is located on Kirby Lane.

Rick takes input from the coaches. If his lackeys thought the coaches had to much influence, they had a problem with the way Rick & the way he ran the draft. He's got scouts in one ear & coaches in the other. The scouts were a little upset that Rick obviously sided with the coaches far too often.


Rick was brought to Houston by Gary Kubiak to do in Houston what he did in Denver for Shanahan. The front office saying that coaches had to much input in to the draft picks, means just that, nothing else, the FO thought the coaches had to much say on who was drafted. The consensus advice O'Brien received from his trusted mentors and advisers was, "make sure you're in charge". I suspect things are much the same. The other thing that makes perfectly good sense is the reason Rick Smith didn't get fired is because he did not have complete authority and responsibility for the draft. Like Gary and Bob's make it happen guy then, Rick is now Bill and Bob's make it happen guy now.

My guess on why McNair became so dissatisfied with the coaches decision on draft picks stems directly from the Sam Montgomery fiasco.

steelbtexan
04-22-2014, 04:43 PM
Yes, like every other GM in the NFL, Rick Smith collects information from coaches and scouts before making each selection. And, like every draft pick in every round by every NFL team- one of the coaches that lobbied hard for the eventual pick is quite pleased. By the way, many others are disappointed. When Alex Gibb was lobbying for Duane Brown (I'm taking your word for it), don't you think that scouts and position coaches on defense were in Rick's ear about other players? In 2009, did everyone get silent for Frank Bush? In 2010, all of a sudden Rick Smith made a pick in a vacuum?

I remember an interview with Jimmy Johnson about the Cowboys' drafts. He discussed the importance of knowing his assistant coaches... He listed his assistants and described how he factored each man's attitudes/perspective into the decison-making process... He concluded with, "... and Butch Davis loved everybody (laughing)." I can't find it on youtube... However, it is the decision-making that makes a GM more than his scouting ability. The GM is given a mountain of information from many different sources- each with different self-interests, perspectives, philosophies- and the GM is accountable and expected to make the best set of decisions by sifting and prioritizing through all of that information.

What you described tells me that Smith is in way over his head.

steelbtexan
04-22-2014, 05:04 PM
How does that explain that the Houston Texans front office was at odds with coaches having to much say in the draft.

I think the reason Rick Smith wasn't fired is because he didn't have a lot of say in the selection of draft picks. It works both ways, Rick wasn't responsible for Montgomery. And you can't ignore the rumors, Kubiak promised Gibbs the first pick to become the assitant head coach and full responsibilty for the running game. Frank Bush commenting that he new in the Fall before the draft that if Cushing was available, that Cush would be their draft pick and Bob McNair promising Wade Phillips the next two 1st RD picks to become the Texans DC. I think that Rick Smith was Gary Kubiak and Bob McNair's make it happen guy and I think the same situation is true, now with O'Brien and McNair.

Or maybe Smith wasn't fired because of McNair having to pay 6 mil to buy out BOB's contract and didn't want to have to pay off the remaining yr of Kubiak's contract. Plus Smith's contract that doesn't run out until May 2017.

McNair made a BooBoo by extending them, (He wanted to extend Kubiak through the 2015 season also) and doesn't want to have to fully pay for his mistake. If Kubiak had accepted the longer extention he would probably still be the HC, regardless of whether the team quit on him last yr.

Lets hear all of the McNair/Smith love!!!!!!! 2-14 and still being employed says alot.

JB
04-22-2014, 05:31 PM
Here you go: http://prod.www.texans.clubs.nfl.com/tv-media/videos/Wade-Phillips-on-1st-rounder-Mercilus/9b60db14-c1ac-45a0-ac66-16223b9808b6

Seems to be a bad link. I do remember Wade answering a question tongue in cheek about being promised a first round pick of his choice, and it was discussed here quite a bit but I don't think anyone took it seriously

until now

Porky
04-22-2014, 05:41 PM
Here you go: http://prod.www.texans.clubs.nfl.com/tv-media/videos/Wade-Phillips-on-1st-rounder-Mercilus/9b60db14-c1ac-45a0-ac66-16223b9808b6

Are you talking about the comment at around 1:28? You do realize that was a joke right? :spit:

JB
04-22-2014, 05:51 PM
Are you talking about the comment at around 1:28? You do realize that was a joke right? :spit:


I never could get it to play, but do remember the joke

SAMURAITEXAN
04-22-2014, 06:21 PM
There's a lots of time left for draft and it is only natural for our FO to keep things open and fishing for now. Because, you never know what you may or not get an offer for 1.1 pick.

thunderkyss
04-22-2014, 06:24 PM
I distinctly remember towards the end of the 2010 season in an after a game or a Monday Kubiak press conference, during the Q&A, McClain specifically asked Kubiak if he was willing to give up control and final say of the 53 man roster to keep his job. Gary responded with a solid NO that it was in his contract and that was not going to change. Now, you can choose to believe that or not. I don't really care but I just don't go around making things up for the heck of it.


I remember that as well. I also remember Gary saying, "Rick gets them & I coach them." Rick can sign & draft whoever he wants, but it was up to Gary whether that person makes the 53, the active roster, the starting line-up, or finds a spot in the rotation.

Well, until McNair decided Case was going to start the remainder of the year.


Wade is on tape saying as much and I provided a link earlier.


did you watch the whole thing? What did you make of all the laughs after Wade said that? & he said it was in his contract that we would always draft a defensive player high in the draft.

Wade, as usual, was joking. He later, in that same video, flat out said, "We don't do that. We take the best player, offense or defense." He didn't say "From here on out." He didn't say, "starting now." He didn't say, "Except for the last two."

Rick was brought to Houston by Gary Kubiak to do in Houston what he did in Denver for Shanahan.


Normally I'm not a stickler for details, but you seem to genuinely, literally believe this. Rick was not the GM in Denver.

In his former role with the Broncos, Smith was responsible for evaluating players from around the NFL as well as those in NFL Europe, the Canadian Football League, the Arena Football League and other professional leagues. He also played a central role in the club’s preparation for the college draft and was one of the Broncos’ primary negotiators for player contracts.

With Smith heading the pro personnel department,


The front office saying that coaches had to much input in to the draft picks, means just that, nothing else, the FO thought the coaches had to much say on who was drafted.


That could mean any number of things. There maybe several front office personnel who believe the position coaches shouldn't be involved at all.

Again, I ask you if the Texans had traded out of that spot that got them Duane Brown, & ended up having to draft someone else, who's call would that have been?

Then in 2011, we could have traded up to get Aldon Smith, but we didn't. That was clearly Rick Smith's decision. Had he decided differently, we'd have gotten Aldon Smith & he would have been labled as "Wade's pick."



The consensus advice O'Brien received from his trusted mentors and advisers was, "make sure you're in charge".


Being "in charge" is an illusion. Ask Gary. .He thought he was in charge until he decided to bench Case.

infantrycak
04-22-2014, 07:09 PM
Or maybe Smith wasn't fired because of McNair having to pay 6 mil to buy out BOB's contract and didn't want to have to pay off the remaining yr of Kubiak's contract. Plus Smith's contract that doesn't run out until May 2017.

McNair made a BooBoo by extending them, (He wanted to extend Kubiak through the 2015 season also) and doesn't want to have to fully pay for his mistake. If Kubiak had accepted the longer extention he would probably still be the HC, regardless of whether the team quit on him last yr.

Lets hear all of the McNair/Smith love!!!!!!! 2-14 and still being employed says alot.

You're incredible. You try to spin McNair spending $6 mil to get exactly who he wants into taking a cheapshot swipe at him. You need to seek out a chapter of McNair Blamers Annonymous.

Seems to be a bad link. I do remember Wade answering a question tongue in cheek about being promised a first round pick of his choice, and it was discussed here quite a bit but I don't think anyone took it seriously

until now

Yup. Subsequently there has also been information out about the Texans having a deal in place to move up and get Patrick Peterson. The whole Watt = Wade thing is overblown.

Texian
04-22-2014, 08:40 PM
I remember that as well. I also remember Gary saying, "Rick gets them & I coach them." Rick can sign & draft whoever he wants, but it was up to Gary whether that person makes the 53, the active roster, the starting line-up, or finds a spot in the rotation.

Well, until McNair decided Case was going to start the remainder of the year.



did you watch the whole thing? What did you make of all the laughs after Wade said that? & he said it was in his contract that we would always draft a defensive player high in the draft.

Wade, as usual, was joking. He later, in that same video, flat out said, "We don't do that. We take the best player, offense or defense." He didn't say "From here on out." He didn't say, "starting now." He didn't say, "Except for the last two."



Normally I'm not a stickler for details, but you seem to genuinely, literally believe this. Rick was not the GM in Denver.





That could mean any number of things. There maybe several front office personnel who believe the position coaches shouldn't be involved at all.

Again, I ask you if the Texans had traded out of that spot that got them Duane Brown, & ended up having to draft someone else, who's call would that have been?

Then in 2011, we could have traded up to get Aldon Smith, but we didn't. That was clearly Rick Smith's decision. Had he decided differently, we'd have gotten Aldon Smith & he would have been labled as "Wade's pick."




Being "in charge" is an illusion. Ask Gary. .He thought he was in charge until he decided to bench Case.

You are without a doubt my absolute FAVORITE Houston Texans Kool Aid drinker. Sometime though I do wonder if your Kool Aid isn't electric or at a minimum spike with some mushrooms. :)

thunderkyss
04-22-2014, 09:05 PM
You are without a doubt my absolute FAVORITE Houston Texans Kool Aid drinker. Sometime though I do wonder if your Kool Aid isn't electric or at a minimum spike with some mushrooms. :)

It's not Kool Aid drinking if you don't extrapolate an obvious joke to base your understanding of front office operations.

I think the power structure was screwed up with Gary Kubiak having far more influence on this organization than he should. But there is enough real evidence to support this without having to make stuff up.

I'm not overly enthused with Rick Smith's draft picks, or his FA acquisitions, but there's definitely a pattern & a profile, Sam Montgomery & Ed Reed being the outliers. It wouldn't bother me one bit to pin it on Rick & be done with it. But we've already scapegoated our HC & QB... I'd like to have some kind of continuity, to "know" that we're building something, that we're on a path, rather than throwing darts while in a drunken stupor.

However, I also have not lost sight of the fact that Charlie Casserly was not let go until after the 2006 draft... his best ever.

Texian
04-22-2014, 09:51 PM
I think the power structure was screwed up with Gary Kubiak having far more influence on this organization than he should.

Like when Wade was asked if he was consulted about Ed Reed and how would Ed fit in the defense. Wade's response, right after McNair had sent his jet to pick up Ed, I have never been consulted about Reed, no one has ever asked me anything about Ed. And as you so eloqently pointed out, don't put Case Keenum in a corner, he's our damn starting QB.

steelbtexan
04-23-2014, 12:06 AM
You're incredible. You try to spin McNair spending $6 mil to get exactly who he wants into taking a cheapshot swipe at him. You need to seek out a chapter of McNair Blamers Annonymous.



Yup. Subsequently there has also been information out about the Texans having a deal in place to move up and get Patrick Peterson. The whole Watt = Wade thing is overblown.

Incredibly consistent, thou shalt not speak ill of Saint McNair and HIS 2-14 football team. (He should've spent the $$$$ and dumped Smith with the rest of his latest round of mistakes.

Peterson may have been #1 on Wade's list. I know he was #1 on mine. Smith was rumored to be #2 on the list and Wade got lucky with Watt his 3rd choice at pick #11.

thunderkyss
04-23-2014, 08:21 AM
Like when Wade was asked if he was consulted about Ed Reed and how would Ed fit in the defense. Wade's response, right after McNair had sent his jet to pick up Ed, I have never been consulted about Reed, no one has ever asked me anything about Ed. And as you so eloqently pointed out, don't put Case Keenum in a corner, he's our damn starting QB.

more power & influence doesn't mean he was omnipotent. Just that he had more influence on the teams direction than the GM.

McNair was/is the HNIC.

DocBar
04-23-2014, 09:20 AM
Incredibly consistent, thou shalt not speak ill of Saint McNair and HIS 2-14 football team. (He should've spent the $$$$ and dumped Smith with the rest of his latest round of mistakes.

Peterson may have been #1 on Wade's list. I know he was #1 on mine. Smith was rumored to be #2 on the list and Wade got lucky with Watt his 3rd choice at pick #11.IMO, that would've matched 99.9% of teams draft boards for those 3 players. No one had a clue that Watt was going to be the beast that he is. Smith had some known charcter issues coming out of college, but who knew he'd be this effed up in the head?

Go back and reread the JJ Watt draft thread. There were a ton of WTF????'s at the time. He was actually booed when he was selected.

It's easy to use hindsight to make things look better or worse than they really were. Well, except for Travis Johnson, maybe. LOL

Texian
04-23-2014, 09:33 AM
IMO, that would've matched 99.9% of teams draft boards for those 3 players. No one had a clue that Watt was going to be the beast that he is. Smith had some known charcter issues coming out of college, but who knew he'd be this effed up in the head?

Go back and reread the JJ Watt draft thread. There were a ton of WTF????'s at the time. He was actually booed when he was selected.

It's easy to use hindsight to make things look better or worse than they really were. Well, except for Travis Johnson, maybe. LOL

True, at the time Watt wasn't even the best player in the B1G 10 entering the draft.

IDEXAN
04-23-2014, 10:02 AM
Incredibly consistent, thou shalt not speak ill of Saint McNair and HIS 2-14 football team. (He should've spent the $$$$ and dumped Smith with the rest of his latest round of mistakes.

Peterson may have been #1 on Wade's list. I know he was #1 on mine. Smith was rumored to be #2 on the list and Wade got lucky with Watt his 3rd choice at pick #11.
The only guy I heard a lot about leading up to the Draft in terms of who Wade wanted was Aldon Smith. I got excited about him being on our team then was really surprised and disappointed when the 49ers drafted him ahead of our pick at 11. Don't remember any talk about Peterson or Watt preceeding the Draft that year ?

Double Barrel
04-23-2014, 10:37 AM
Like when Wade was asked if he was consulted about Ed Reed and how would Ed fit in the defense. Wade's response, right after McNair had sent his jet to pick up Ed, I have never been consulted about Reed, no one has ever asked me anything about Ed. And as you so eloqently pointed out, don't put Case Keenum in a corner, he's our damn starting QB.

I heard that interview, as well.

Except Wade chuckled during it, so that negates the entire thing. ;)

Although...Wade seems to chuckle every time he speaks.... :thinking:

While none of us really know the power structure on Kirby, we are good at speculating. I tend to think like you, that the coaching staff has traditionally had a lot of power in the draft. It's the Bill Parcells mentality: "If I'm going to be asked to cook the meal, I'd like to be able to pick the groceries."

And if this is the case with the Texans, then it is fairly obvious why Rick Smith is still around.

The Ed Reed thing was weird, though, because we can be fairly certain that Wade had very little to do with that signing based on his comments when they let Reed go. I'm still curious who was the driving force behind that one.

DocBar
04-23-2014, 10:50 AM
The only guy I heard a lot about leading up to the Draft in terms of who Wade wanted was Aldon Smith. I got excited about him being on our team then was really surprised and disappointed when the 49ers drafted him ahead of our pick at 11. Don't remember any talk about Peterson or Watt preceeding the Draft that year ?I heard quite a bit about Peterson and Smith and would've been ecstatic if the Texans had drafted either one. I was in the WTF crowd with Watt but wasn't upset with the pick. Just didn't know who he was.

DocBar
04-23-2014, 11:13 AM
I heard that interview, as well.

Except Wade chuckled during it, so that negates the entire thing. ;)

Although...Wade seems to chuckle every time he speaks.... :thinking:

While none of us really know the power structure on Kirby, we are good at speculating. I tend to think like you, that the coaching staff has traditionally had a lot of power in the draft. It's the Bill Parcells mentality: "If I'm going to be asked to cook the meal, I'd like to be able to pick the groceries."

And if this is the case with the Texans, then it is fairly obvious why Rick Smith is still around.

The Ed Reed thing was weird, though, because we can be fairly certain that Wade had very little to do with that signing based on his comments when they let Reed go. I'm still curious who was the driving force behind that one.100% speculation, but I think Reed was all McNair, based on his comments about getting mentally tougher and all. Reed is a sure-fire HOFer and McNair thought he could be an emotional leader for the Texans and show them how to rise up in big games.

Like I said, pure speculation on my part.

mussop
04-23-2014, 11:55 AM
True, at the time Watt wasn't even the best player in the B1G 10 entering the draft.

Maybe by you. I had him as the second best player in the draft for us. Several other guys here had him high as well.

Texian
04-23-2014, 11:57 AM
The Ed Reed thing was weird, though, because we can be fairly certain that Wade had very little to do with that signing based on his comments when they let Reed go. I'm still curious who was the driving force behind that one.

In my mind it was Bob McNair. The fact that Bob sent his jet after Reed, which rarely happens. A lot of 1st RD draft picks don't get the McNair jet treatment. Wade knowing nothing about Reed or even part of the discussion about Reed says to me this was a McNair wild hair and it fits McNair's pattern of behavior of trying to buy a Championship.

I think it may have been a quasi joke, the part about getting the 1st RD pick "EVERY YEAR" may have been the joke. The 1st RD pick in 2011 & 2012, I'm not so sure.

Texian
04-23-2014, 11:59 AM
Maybe by you. I had him as the second best player in the draft for us. Several other guys here had him high as well.

Just saying, at the time, Ryan Kerrigan, Purdue, had more Sacks, Tackles for Loss and Forced Fumbles than JJ Watt.

mussop
04-23-2014, 12:57 PM
Just saying, at the time, Ryan Kerrigan, Purdue, had more Sacks, Tackles for Loss and Forced Fumbles than JJ Watt.

Which is another example of why you shouldn't put too much emphasis on stats. There are just to many variables that can skew stats.

beerlover
04-23-2014, 01:02 PM
Trading down & taking Mack over Clowney makes more sense than taking Mack straight up over Clowney.

Texian
04-23-2014, 02:08 PM
Which is another example of why you shouldn't put too much emphasis on stats. There are just to many variables that can skew stats.

Kerrigan turned out to be a Pro Bowl player, just saying, not like he's been an utter disappointment.

revan
04-23-2014, 02:34 PM
Kerrigan turned out to be a Pro Bowl player, just saying, not like he's been an utter disappointment.

Hey Texian I have been watching replays of Buffalo games to get a better idea of Khalil Mack and correct me if I'm wrong here but does he not remind you of Mercilus back when he was at Illinois?. The only thing I can see where Mack is better than Mercilus is his coverage skills.

Texian
04-23-2014, 02:48 PM
Hey Texian I have been watching replays of Buffalo games to get a better idea of Khalil Mack and correct me if I'm wrong here but does he not remind you of Mercilus back when he was at Illinois?. The only thing I can see where Mack is better than Mercilus is his coverage skills.

That's a good observation. Mercilus is a bit bigger and Mack is a better athlete. Mercilus came from a 4-3 and Mack from a 3-4. You're right again, Mack may be the better in coverage and Mercilus better against the run.

ATXtexanfan
04-23-2014, 02:56 PM
Trading down & taking Mack over Clowney makes more sense than taking Mack straight up over Clowney.

this is my dream situation

WolverineFan
04-23-2014, 03:25 PM
Just saying, at the time, Ryan Kerrigan, Purdue, had more Sacks, Tackles for Loss and Forced Fumbles than JJ Watt.

Kerrigan was certainly more productive than Watt in college and even won the Big Ten DPOY award over him, but let's also not forget that Watt had only played DL for 2 years at that point in time. He was still pretty raw technically and quite a few people thought he had a high ceiling if developed. I doubt anybody saw him becoming what he is now though.

Kerrigan turned out to be a Pro Bowl player, just saying, not like he's been an utter disappointment.

I agree. Kerrigan has hardly been a disappointment. He has 24.5 sacks in his first 3 years in the league. For comparison sake, his teammate Brian Orakpo had 28.5 in his first 3 years with the 'Skins. Not bad.

WolverineFan
04-23-2014, 03:38 PM
Hey Texian I have been watching replays of Buffalo games to get a better idea of Khalil Mack and correct me if I'm wrong here but does he not remind you of Mercilus back when he was at Illinois?. The only thing I can see where Mack is better than Mercilus is his coverage skills.

I think it's important to note the consistent productivity of Mack though. Mercilus was a backup his first 2 years and then he wreaked havoc as a pass rusher his junior year and went pro. Mack put up great numbers all 4 years of his career. Even if you discount Mack's senior year and only count the first 3 years of each guy's college career you get....

Mercilus - 81 Tackles, 29.0 TFL, 18.0 Sacks, 11 Forced Fumbles, 0 INT, and 2 Passes Defended
Mack - 227 Tackles, 56.0 TFL, 18.0 Sacks, 11 Forced Fumbles, 1 INT, and 15 Passes Defended

I would also keep in mind that Mercilus was surrounded by much better talent. He played with future NFL draft picks Martez Wilson, Akeem Spence, Corey Liuget, Michael Buchanan, Tavon Wilson, and Terry Hawthorne. Mack didn't have that same luxury. The only defender I can recall getting drafted out of Buffalo is Josh Thomas.

IDEXAN
04-23-2014, 04:30 PM
I think it's important to note the consistent productivity of Mack though. Mercilus was a backup his first 2 years and then he wreaked havoc as a pass rusher his junior year and went pro. Mack put up great numbers all 4 years of his career. Even if you discount Mack's senior year and only count the first 3 years of each guy's college career you get....

Mercilus - 81 Tackles, 29.0 TFL, 18.0 Sacks, 11 Forced Fumbles, 0 INT, and 2 Passes Defended
Mack - 227 Tackles, 56.0 TFL, 18.0 Sacks, 11 Forced Fumbles, 1 INT, and 15 Passes Defended

I would also keep in mind that Mercilus was surrounded by much better talent. He played with future NFL draft picks Martez Wilson, Akeem Spence, Corey Liuget, Michael Buchanan, Tavon Wilson, and Terry Hawthorne. Mack didn't have that same luxury. The only defender I can recall getting drafted out of Buffalo is Josh Thomas.
Which should be countered by the presence of much better competition that Mercilus faced in the Big 10, don't you think ?

mussop
04-23-2014, 05:25 PM
Just saying, at the time, Ryan Kerrigan, Purdue, had more Sacks, Tackles for Loss and Forced Fumbles than JJ Watt.

Which is another example of why you shouldn't put too much emphasis on stats. There are just to many variables that can skew stats.


Kerrigan turned out to be a Pro Bowl player, just saying, not like he's been an utter disappointment.


I never suggested anything about Karrigan. The point is that stats don't tell the whole story.

mussop
04-23-2014, 05:34 PM
Hey Texian I have been watching replays of Buffalo games to get a better idea of Khalil Mack and correct me if I'm wrong here but does he not remind you of Mercilus back when he was at Illinois?. The only thing I can see where Mack is better than Mercilus is his coverage skills.

Mercilus is more a pin your ears back and go to the QB. That's pretty much it. Mack changes directions better, has better awareness and is really good in in the open field.

WolverineFan
04-23-2014, 05:35 PM
Which should be countered by the presence of much better competition that Mercilus faced in the Big 10, don't you think ?

Should or could? It could be countered. I wouldn't necessarily say that it should be. A team playing an opponent with one good defensive player can gameplan for that one guy without the risk of a teammate picking up the slack. A team playing an opponent with many good defensive players can't gameplan for all of them and faces a much higher risk of a teammate picking up the slack if they do gameplan against 1-2 guys.

Every situation is unique, but a guy having one great year against good competition strikes me as a bit fluky compared to a guy who had 4 great years against lesser competition.

In his one good year at Illinois, Mercilus had 2 teammates finish with 6+ sacks. In his four years at Buffalo, Mack had 2 teammates finish with 6+ sacks. Competition does matter, but so does supporting cast. Mack was a one-man show at Buffalo. Mercilus was just the next in line of a pretty solid group of pass rushers to go through Illinois.

ObsiWan
04-24-2014, 07:57 PM
I heard that interview, as well.

Except Wade chuckled during it, so that negates the entire thing. ;)

Although...Wade seems to chuckle every time he speaks.... :thinking:

While none of us really know the power structure on Kirby, we are good at speculating. I tend to think like you, that the coaching staff has traditionally had a lot of power in the draft. It's the Bill Parcells mentality: "If I'm going to be asked to cook the meal, I'd like to be able to pick the groceries."

And if this is the case with the Texans, then it is fairly obvious why Rick Smith is still around.

The Ed Reed thing was weird, though, because we can be fairly certain that Wade had very little to do with that signing based on his comments when they let Reed go. I'm still curious who was the driving force behind that one.
Well, if you're going to start a betting pool, I'd like to plunk down $20 on McNair being the driver on the Ed Reed pick.
...well, not pick but F/A move.
...you know whut I meant. :)

Texecutioner
04-24-2014, 08:01 PM
but, at least you can have confidence that he will get the 1st round right!:

His record is stellar in the first round (particularly if you assume he learned from the mistake made in his first draft: 2007-Okoye)

Duane Brown
Brian Cushing
Kareem Jackson
JJ Watt
Mercilus
Hopkins

--Brown, Cushing, Jackson, Watt were all unpopular picks at the time. No GM in the NFL has a better record in the 1st round the past 6 years. If you disagree, let's see the list (also, of note, 3 picks were in the 20s, and Watt was the highest selection at 11)

I have to agree with this about Smith as far as the first round goes. He has been pretty money in the first.

steelbtexan
04-24-2014, 11:22 PM
but, at least you can have confidence that he will get the 1st round right!:

His record is stellar in the first round (particularly if you assume he learned from the mistake made in his first draft: 2007-Okoye)

Duane Brown
Brian Cushing
Kareem Jackson
JJ Watt
Mercilus
Hopkins

--Brown, Cushing, Jackson, Watt were all unpopular picks at the time. No GM in the NFL has a better record in the 1st round the past 6 years. If you disagree, let's see the list (also, of note, 3 picks were in the 20s, and Watt was the highest selection at 11)

If you like drafts that equal this, and I will give Smith full credit for all of the 1st rd picks, even though we know Bown was a HOF Alex Gibbs pick.

Brown = Great pick
Cushing = Great pick if you like an ILB that plays 6-10 games a yr. Give me Matthews.

KJ= Avg to slightly above avg CB if used properly.
Watt= Great Pick
Mercilus = Borderline bust
Hopkins= Played last yr more like a 3rd rd pick than a 1st rd pick, but due to Schaub's injury I still have hopes for Hopkins.

Money, I think not,

Lets talk about Smith's 3rd/4th rd picks. Which is where competent GM's make their $$$$.

Texian
04-25-2014, 10:16 AM
Here you go, Frank Bush discussing why HE wanted Cushing (all along) and had Cush targeted in the Fall prior to the drafted if Cush was still available. Bush says, Cush was MY GUY all along. (This goes along and supports information that Kubiak was very liberal in allowing his coaches make their draft pick).

http://prod.www.texans.clubs.nfl.com/tv-media/videos/Bush-loves-Cushings-intensity/3B496EE7-3485-4F76-A827-C1A63E15B544

BullNation4Life
04-25-2014, 10:30 AM
Not a Peter King fan by any means but what would be stupid about taking not only the best OT in the entire draft, but also arguably the best athlete?

quite simple, you don't need a LT when you A: have arguably the best LT in the NFL, B: have nothing at QB C: have far more pressing issues at other need spots.

RT is an issue, but not even top 3 on the list. If they traded back and took Robinson, so be it but not at the #1 spot just to stick him at RT...

thunderkyss
04-25-2014, 10:45 AM
Here you go, Frank Bush discussing why HE wanted Cushing (all along) and had Cush targeted in the Fall prior to the drafted if Cush was still available. Bush says, Cush was MY GUY all along. (This goes along and supports information that Kubiak was very liberal in allowing his coaches make their draft pick).

http://prod.www.texans.clubs.nfl.com/tv-media/videos/Bush-loves-Cushings-intensity/3B496EE7-3485-4F76-A827-C1A63E15B544
:mariopalm:

bhsman
04-25-2014, 01:09 PM
Cushing = Great pick if you like an ILB that plays 6-10 games a yr. Give me Matthews.

This is kinda silly; Cushing's injuries have almost all been season-ending ones directed at his knees (ie, ones that would put anyone out). Matthews by comparison has been more prone to being nicked up and out for entire stretches.

PapaL
04-25-2014, 02:34 PM
:mariopalm:

Concur

Texian
04-25-2014, 02:42 PM
:mariopalm:

Concur

http://www.teamsquatchinusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/25/how-to-obtain-a-picture-or-video-of-a-bigfootforest-person/Truth.jpg

ObsiWan
04-25-2014, 08:58 PM
This is kinda silly; Cushing's injuries have almost all been season-ending ones directed at his knees (ie, ones that would put anyone out). Matthews by comparison has been more prone to being nicked up and out for entire stretches.On top of that, Matthews has never had over 60 tackles in a season. When Cush hasn't been low cut and has played the whole year he's always had over 100 tackles.

Lucky
04-25-2014, 09:19 PM
Here you go, Frank Bush discussing why HE wanted Cushing (all along) and had Cush targeted in the Fall prior to the drafted if Cush was still available. Bush says, Cush was MY GUY all along.
As a DC, Bush made a great GM.

DocBar
04-25-2014, 10:15 PM
On top of that, Matthews has never had over 60 tackles in a season. When Cush hasn't been low cut and has played the whole year he's always had over 100 tackles.REP!!! Matthews dreams of playing like Cush. His long hair, pedigree and being on a consistently good team gets him a lot of attention. He's a good player, but I can think of several other LB's I'd rather have on my team. Cush being one of them.

mussop
04-26-2014, 02:10 AM
quite simple, you don't need a LT when you A: have arguably the best LT in the NFL, B: have nothing at QB C: have far more pressing issues at other need spots.

RT is an issue, but not even top 3 on the list. If they traded back and took Robinson, so be it but not at the #1 spot just to stick him at RT...

A: Did you watch Brown last year?
B: Has nothing to do with it.
C: There is nothing wrong with making the OL a team strength especially when you know you are going to be bringing in a young QB at some point.

DocBar
04-26-2014, 09:01 AM
A: Did you watch Brown last year?
B: Has nothing to do with it.
C: There is nothing wrong with making the OL a team strength especially when you know you are going to be bringing in a young QB at some point.Brown played injured for most of the year. Turf toe is hedoublehockeysticks on anyone. And he lost weight to become quicker, that backfired and he's gained it back.
Brown will be fine this year. I think he'll be better than ever.
:koolaid::shades:

mussop
04-26-2014, 09:05 AM
Brown played injured for most of the year. Turf toe is hedoublehockeysticks on anyone. And he lost weight to become quicker, that backfired and he's gained it back.
Brown will be fine this year. I think he'll be better than ever.
:koolaid::shades:

I still think Brown is good and can bounce back from last year. He is still young and has the talent. I just don't agree that he is "arguably the best LT in the NFL" at this point.

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 09:08 AM
A: Did you watch Brown last year? .

does it matter?

Aren't we all (whether we admit it or not) at least a little bit worried about how Arian will produce when we're not as "Zone" focused as we used to be?

Aren't we all (though a little more willing to admit) worried that Chris Myers may not be sufficient in a non-Zone system?

Are we kidding ourselves to believe the zone system did not help Duane? Or that Matt's ability to get the ball out quickly didn't help Brown?

JB
04-26-2014, 09:16 AM
does it matter?

Aren't we all (whether we admit it or not) at least a little bit worried about how Arian will produce when we're not as "Zone" focused as we used to be?

Aren't we all (though a little more willing to admit) worried that Chris Myers may not be sufficient in a non-Zone system?

Are we kidding ourselves to believe the zone system did not help Duane? Or that Matt's ability to get the ball out quickly didn't help Brown?

I think we will still run quite a bit of zone, and a bit of diversity may actually help our line and backs. I have faith that OB and his coaching staff will call a game plan to best utilize the talents that the team does have.

Don't most teams run a good bit of zone?

Texian
04-26-2014, 09:22 AM
I think we will still run quite a bit of zone, and a bit of diversity may actually help our line and backs. I have faith that OB and his coaching staff will call a game plan to best utilize the talents that the team does have.

Don't most teams run a good bit of zone?

The last time the Texans ran a combination of a hybrid zone and a power run game brings back memories of Mike Sherman and Ahman Green

mussop
04-26-2014, 09:29 AM
does it matter?

Aren't we all (whether we admit it or not) at least a little bit worried about how Arian will produce when we're not as "Zone" focused as we used to be?

Aren't we all (though a little more willing to admit) worried that Chris Myers may not be sufficient in a non-Zone system?

Are we kidding ourselves to believe the zone system did not help Duane? Or that Matt's ability to get the ball out quickly didn't help Brown?

Not sure where you are going with this. I have said I would try and get something for Arian right now if I were GM. I don't see him being a Texan after this year anyway. He's getting up in age and his contract is to big. Get something for him now if we can. We are at minimum two years away from being relevant. No need to hang on to him and his fat contract while rebuilding.

Wonder if NE would consider him as part of a package for Mallet?

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 10:13 AM
I think we will still run quite a bit of zone, and a bit of diversity may actually help our line and backs. I have faith that OB and his coaching staff will call a game plan to best utilize the talents that the team does have.

Don't most teams run a good bit of zone?

Do you mean versatility?

If you do, then I agree. Having two really good tackles makes our OL more versatile.

JB
04-26-2014, 10:35 AM
Do you mean versatility?

If you do, then I agree. Having two really good tackles makes our OL more versatile.

I meant diversity thank you tho

di·ver·si·ty noun \də-ˈvər-sə-tē, dī-\
: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 12:07 PM
I meant diversity thank you tho

di·ver·si·ty noun \də-ˈvər-sə-tē, dī-\
: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.

Well in that case...

I think we will still run quite a bit of zone, and a bit of diversity may actually help our line and backs. I have faith that OB and his coaching staff will call a game plan to best utilize the talents that the team does have.

Don't most teams run a good bit of zone?

We don't need to draft anyone.

JB
04-26-2014, 12:25 PM
Well in that case...



We don't need to draft anyone.


Do you like to argue just for the sake of argument?

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 12:50 PM
Do you like to argue just for the sake of argument?

Duane Brown was hand-picked by the ZBS guru. We're moving away from pure ZBS... as far away as we've ever been. While Duane Brown has been identified as one of the best LT's in the game, that designation has been made because of his play in the ZBS.

Even in the ZBS, we've never had the ability for our QB to sit in the pocket & pick a defense apart. There isn't a franchise QB in the league that hasn't had that luxury with more consistency than we've been able to provide in Houston. ("We" meaning the Houston Texans).

That's what I want for our QB. That, plus a running game that can pick up 3rd & short with regularity. That, plus the ability to run the ball in the red zone. That, plus the ability to score in the red zone.

Can we do that with a third round pick? Maybe.

Maybe as likely as solving our pass rush issues with a 3rd round pick. Or solving our QB issue with a 3rd round pick.

JB
04-26-2014, 01:01 PM
Duane Brown was hand-picked by the ZBS guru. We're moving away from pure ZBS... as far away as we've ever been. While Duane Brown has been identified as one of the best LT's in the game, that designation has been made because of his play in the ZBS.

Even in the ZBS, we've never had the ability for our QB to sit in the pocket & pick a defense apart. There isn't a franchise QB in the league that hasn't had that luxury with more consistency than we've been able to provide in Houston. ("We" meaning the Houston Texans).

That's what I want for our QB. That, plus a running game that can pick up 3rd & short with regularity. That, plus the ability to run the ball in the red zone. That, plus the ability to score in the red zone.

Can we do that with a third round pick? Maybe.

Maybe as likely as solving our pass rush issues with a 3rd round pick. Or solving our QB issue with a 3rd round pick.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's gloom and doom just because we may not be a predominant zone team anymore. But we may be. We don't know yet what we will run or if it will be the same week to week. Or who is going to be the qb, rt or lg. Way too many questions to worry about right now

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 01:32 PM
I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's gloom and doom just because we may not be a predominant zone team anymore. But we may be. We don't know yet what we will run or if it will be the same week to week. Or who is going to be the qb, rt or lg. Way too many questions to worry about right now

Big apology if I were coming across as gloom & doom. Definitely not the way I ever want to come across.

ObsiWan
04-26-2014, 01:49 PM
I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's gloom and doom just because we may not be a predominant zone team anymore. But we may be. We don't know yet what we will run or if it will be the same week to week. Or who is going to be the qb, rt or lg. Way too many questions to worry about right now
Obviously this is just a guess but I think we'll run some form of the NE spread; two TEs/two WRs/one RB or One TE/3 WRs/one RB. The opportunities to run the ball will come from mismatches because the defense has their nickel or dime package on the field and - and this is crucial - our QB sees that mismatch and adjusts the play call. If NE's offense gives us any clues, we're more likely to see passing sets on 3rd and 3 or 4 instead of I formations like under Kubiak. In this new offense, Foster may make his money by catching the ball out of the backfield and making the LB miss who's trying to cover him.
Like I said, just my guess.

drs23
04-26-2014, 03:59 PM
Obviously this is just a guess but I think we'll run some form of the NE spread; two TEs/two WRs/one RB or One TE/3 WRs/one RB. The opportunities to run the ball will come from mismatches because the defense has their nickel or dime package on the field and - and this is crucial - our QB sees that mismatch and adjusts the play call. If NE's offense gives us any clues, we're more likely to see passing sets on 3rd and 3 or 4 instead of I formations like under Kubiak. In this new offense, Foster may make his money by catching the ball out of the backfield and making the LB miss who's trying to cover him.
Like I said, just my guess.

I like the way you guess.

I can't wait much longer to actually see it! :texflag:

dalemurphy
04-26-2014, 04:00 PM
Duane Brown was hand-picked by the ZBS guru. We're moving away from pure ZBS... as far away as we've ever been. While Duane Brown has been identified as one of the best LT's in the game, that designation has been made because of his play in the ZBS.

Even in the ZBS, we've never had the ability for our QB to sit in the pocket & pick a defense apart. There isn't a franchise QB in the league that hasn't had that luxury with more consistency than we've been able to provide in Houston. ("We" meaning the Houston Texans).

That's what I want for our QB. That, plus a running game that can pick up 3rd & short with regularity. That, plus the ability to run the ball in the red zone. That, plus the ability to score in the red zone.

Can we do that with a third round pick? Maybe.

Maybe as likely as solving our pass rush issues with a 3rd round pick. Or solving our QB issue with a 3rd round pick.

There is nothing about Duane Brown's talent or play at LT that limits time in the pocket more than any of the top LTs in the game. There are reasons for your perception, though:

1. ZBS- offensive line has wider splits which benefit the run game but it does add to pass blocking issues.

2. Usually, plays where a QB has 4+ seconds in the pocket occur for one of two reasons: maximum protection (6-7) on the play vs. 3-4 man rush, or QB mobility inside the pocket allows for OL recovery. The Texans almost never protected with more than 5 unless it was a play action pass. Also, Schaub did not have the feet and awareness to create the extended opportunities within the pocket.

3. Kubiak's protection scheme was very predictable, which allowed good defensive coordinators to be very efficient in how they schemed the pass rush.

4. Kubiak's offense was a rhythm/timing offense and almost all drop back passes were designed for the ball to leave the QB hand within 1 second after the QB took his drop.

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 04:26 PM
4. Kubiak's offense was a rhythm/timing offense and almost all drop back passes were designed for the ball to leave the QB hand within 1 second after the QB took his drop.

I don't remember the Bronco's offense with Elway being a rhythm offense. maybe there was some element of it there, but I recall Elway having "all day" on several occasions.

JB
04-26-2014, 04:31 PM
I don't remember the Bronco's offense with Elway being a rhythm offense. maybe there was some element of it there, but I recall Elway having "all day" on several occasions.

Elway made it by using his legs to buy some time... Schaub was no Elway

Ryan
04-26-2014, 04:32 PM
Not sure where you are going with this. I have said I would try and get something for Arian right now if I were GM. I don't see him being a Texan after this year anyway. He's getting up in age and his contract is to big. Get something for him now if we can. We are at minimum two years away from being relevant. No need to hang on to him and his fat contract while rebuilding.

Wonder if NE would consider him as part of a package for Mallet?


Trading Arian Foster for Mallett would be one of the dumbest moves in the history of this franchise and that says an awful lot.

DocBar
04-26-2014, 04:36 PM
Elway made it by using his legs to buy some time... Schaub was no ElwaySchaub is closer to Bernie Kosar and Dan Marino in the legs dept. and not even a cousin to Elway!!

The Pencil Neck
04-26-2014, 04:54 PM
Schaub is closer to Bernie Kosar and Dan Marino in the legs dept. and not even a cousin to Elway!!

Schaub is a cousin of Peyton Manning in the legs department.

mussop
04-26-2014, 09:16 PM
Trading Arian Foster for Mallett would be one of the dumbest moves in the history of this franchise and that says an awful lot.

Yeh trading a soon to be if not already worn out RB with serious off field issues and a huge contract who's coming off of back surgery for a young QB with all the tools the new head coach is looking for on a team who's rebuilding without a QB is just plain dumb!!! NOT!!!:mcnugget:

thunderkyss
04-26-2014, 09:20 PM
Yeh trading a soon to be if not already worn out RB with serious off field issues and a huge contract who's coming off of back surgery for a young QB with all the tools the new head coach is looking for on a team who's rebuilding without a QB is just plain dumb!!! NOT!!!:mcnugget:

Well, you won't be able to pay (http://overthecap.com/calculator/?Team=Texans)that QB, or your new draft picks if you did it, but other than that it's a brilliant idea.

CloakNNNdagger
04-26-2014, 11:11 PM
Everyone's an expert........and no one knows squat.........so now the name of the game is to cover ALL possibilities......then you can look like your'e half way smart anyway no matter what.........:chef:

Texans could be down to four possible players (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/26/texans-could-be-down-to-four-possible-players/)
Posted by Mike Florio on April 26, 2014, 8:41 PM EDT

In twelve days, the Texans will have to do something with the first pick. To help fill those twelve days, let’s summarize their options.

First, they can use the pick and keep the player selected. If that happens, the prevailing thought (as articulated by John McClain of the Houston Chronicle) is that the Texans will take defensive end Jadeveon Clowney or quarterback Johnny Manziel.

Second, they can trade the pick before the draft, moving down to a lower position in the top 10. If Clowney ends up being the first pick, the Texans would take Manziel if he’s still on the board. If Manziel is gone, McClain believes the choice would be linebacker Khalil Mack or quarterback Blake Bortles.

Of course, if they drop farther than No. 4, there’s a chance all four would be gone. The Texans would need to hope that a tackle or two get drafted early, like Greg Robinson or Jake Matthews. A 2013-style run, with Robinson, Matthews, and Taylor Lewan all gone in the top five, would be the best outcome for the Texans.

Third, the Texans could take Clowney and then trade him to a team that takes the player the Texans directs them to take, with a trade being done promptly thereafter. The risk in that case would be the other team not getting a player the Texans want, and then the Texans would have to keep Clowney.

Most of the speculation for trade talk has centered on the Falcons, who hold the sixth overall pick and who have made no secret of their flirtation with Clowney. On Friday, they got the closest thing to a workout from Clowney, with a biomechanical assessment on a force plate.

The real question is whether the Texans would take Clowney if they can’t trade the pick. A decision to use the pick and take Manziel would then create a potential trade down by the Rams, who could be inclined to ship the pick to the Falcons for Clowney.

Fourth, the Texans could pass the pick. Obviously, that will never happen. Not long ago, however, when rookie contracts at the top of the draft were spiraling out of control, there was actually speculation that a team’s best move would be to voluntarily move down.

ObsiWan
04-27-2014, 02:17 AM
Everyone's an expert........and no one knows squat.........so now the name of the game is to cover ALL possibilities......then you can look like your'e half way smart anyway no matter what.........:chef:
See Roger, this is the kind of crap we'll have to read for the next two weeks thanks to you moving the damned draft. Put it back at the end of April where it belongs.

:bat:

mussop
04-27-2014, 09:27 AM
Well, you won't be able to pay (http://overthecap.com/calculator/?Team=Texans)that QB, or your new draft picks if you did it, but other than that it's a brilliant idea.

Your link doesn't tell me anything. Please explain.

DocBar
04-27-2014, 12:05 PM
Your link doesn't tell me anything. Please explain.What it tells me is that, based on current contracts the Texans arte going to have a ton of cap space in 5 years. Of course, that's meaningless because there will be players added every year, contracts extended, etc.

thunderkyss
04-27-2014, 01:23 PM
Your link doesn't tell me anything. Please explain.

It says we can't afford to eat another $7M in dead money. If we're to cut or trade Arian, we're in a better position to do it next year. That's the way I read it anyway.

Ryan
04-27-2014, 05:44 PM
Yeh trading a soon to be if not already worn out RB with serious off field issues and a huge contract who's coming off of back surgery for a young QB with all the tools the new head coach is looking for on a team who's rebuilding without a QB is just plain dumb!!! NOT!!!:mcnugget:


Yeah, because we just know Mallett is going to pan out? If we really want him bad enough, we can get him without a trade next offseason. The Pats won't be able to retain him. Mallett had a ton of questions coming out, and people now according to reports have said his arm has gotten weaker.

mussop
04-27-2014, 08:51 PM
Yeah, because we just know Mallett is going to pan out? If we really want him bad enough, we can get him without a trade next offseason. The Pats won't be able to retain him. Mallett had a ton of questions coming out, and people now according to reports have said his arm has gotten weaker.

At least Mallet would have a chance to be a part of this teams future. Foster on the other hand won't likely even be on the team in 2 years. Which is more than likely how long it will take for this team to really be in contention again.

steelbtexan
04-27-2014, 09:18 PM
Yeah, because we just know Mallett is going to pan out? If we really want him bad enough, we can get him without a trade next offseason. The Pats won't be able to retain him. Mallett had a ton of questions coming out, and people now according to reports have said his arm has gotten weaker.

Mallett's arm has gotten weaker?

Where did you get this info?

dalemurphy
04-27-2014, 11:04 PM
I don't remember the Bronco's offense with Elway being a rhythm offense. maybe there was some element of it there, but I recall Elway having "all day" on several occasions.

Elway extended with his athleticism.

The West Coast offense has many variations. The Shanny/Kubiak ZBS run-oriented model is distinct in some ways from other variations. The play-action and bootlegging is quite distinct from the drop back passing portion of the offense. The drop back passing game is designed to by extremely rhythmic and designed to get the ball efficiently out of the hand of the QB. Pull up some old video on youtube of Bill Walsh talking about his offense.

thunderkyss
04-27-2014, 11:14 PM
Elway extended with his athleticism.


& still there were plenty of times when he had all day to throw the football. From the pocket.

IDEXAN
04-28-2014, 07:27 AM
At least Mallet would have a chance to be a part of this teams future. Foster on the other hand won't likely even be on the team in 2 years. Which is more than likely how long it will take for this team to really be in contention again.
Foster is an excellent red-zone back, but otherwise not a particularly gifted runner who had just average long-speed and minimal explosiveness & quickness. I'm thinking in O'Brien's offense he's a dime-a-dozen
kinda back.

ObsiWan
04-28-2014, 11:59 AM
& still there were plenty of times when he had all day to throw the football. From the pocket.
You got any data to back up that random assertion?

or maybe a better question is what's your definition of "all day to throw"?

Most QBs get rid of the ball in 2-3 seconds. Holding the ball for 3.5 seconds will get you sacked.

This ProFootballFocus Link (https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/11/07/signature-stat-snapshot-time-to-throw/)shows how long today's QBs take to pass the ball successfully vs. how long they can hold it before they end up being sacked.

Thoughts?

powda
04-28-2014, 12:08 PM
Foster is an excellent red-zone back, but otherwise not a particularly gifted runner

Foster has or HAD some of the best field vision i've ever seen in a running back.

Ryan
04-28-2014, 12:17 PM
Mallett's arm has gotten weaker?

Where did you get this info?


There's no validation to that report, but someone who saw him working out at the Arkansas Pro Day this past year(I think) said it appeared it had gotten weaker.

Playoffs
04-28-2014, 12:27 PM
Evan Silva ‏@evansilva
Despite trade rumors, Chris Mortensen (https://twitter.com/mortreport) said on SportsCenter he ultimately expects Clowney to Texans. "The coaches cant wait to get their hands on him."


The only viable options for Houston are Jadeveon Clowney, Blake Bortles or a trade. Clowney is still the heavy favorite to go to the Texans despite the trade rumors circling.
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftrumormill.php


.

IDEXAN
04-28-2014, 01:30 PM
Foster has or HAD some of the best field vision i've ever seen in a running back.
Perhaps but that's beside my point because "field vision" is an acquired skill, not a gift.

NastyNate
04-28-2014, 09:04 PM
Perhaps but that's beside my point because "field vision" is an acquired skill, not a gift.

I'd argue that field vision is a natural instinct, one of the few things you can't coach up. Some guys just have better vision than others.

I hope for Mack but accept that the pick will probably be Clowney. Hopefully RAC can come up with a hybrid scheme a la Seattle to take advantage of his skill set. I think he would be mediocre as a 34 WOLB

drs23
04-28-2014, 09:17 PM
I'd argue that field vision is a natural instinct, one of the few things you can't coach up. Some guys just have better vision than others.

I hope for Mack but accept that the pick will probably be Clowney. Hopefully RAC can come up with a hybrid scheme a la Seattle to take advantage of his skill set. I think he would be mediocre as a 34 WOLB

:tiphat:

That saved me some keyboarding. :)

BullNation4Life
04-29-2014, 02:09 PM
Trading Arian Foster for Mallett would be one of the dumbest moves in the history of this franchise and that says an awful lot.

right next to giving Arian the contract they gave him...

soooo if this was to happen why would it be a surprise?

mussop
04-29-2014, 09:17 PM
quite simple, you don't need a LT when you A: have arguably the best LT in the NFL, B: have nothing at QB C: have far more pressing issues at other need spots.

RT is an issue, but not even top 3 on the list. If they traded back and took Robinson, so be it but not at the #1 spot just to stick him at RT...

Many times when collegiate left tackles are drafted early, they get moved to right tackle in the NFL until they’ve proved to be ready to move back to the left side to protect a quarterback’s blind side. Robinson could offer another level of versatility if he is shuffled to right tackle or either guard position. (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2044559-breaking-down-every-nfl-teams-draft-tendencies/page/5)

Ryan
04-30-2014, 10:47 AM
right next to giving Arian the contract they gave him...

soooo if this was to happen why would it be a surprise?


Cutting Arian down the road is a better option than trading him now for a backup QB that probably wants an 8 million dollar a year contract, who we also don't know if he'll perform well at all. Sign Mallett next year for a modest contract when he becomes a FA if it is really what you want. Don't trade a star RB because he had one wasted season for a backup QB who has proven less than nothing.

Foster's contract is going to be a problem, but he is not going anywhere at least for this season and that would be an idiotic trade.

mussop
04-30-2014, 02:10 PM
Cutting Arian down the road is a better option than trading him now for a backup QB that probably wants an 8 million dollar a year contract, who we also don't know if he'll perform well at all. Sign Mallett next year for a modest contract when he becomes a FA if it is really what you want. Don't trade a star RB because he had one wasted season for a backup QB who has proven less than nothing.

Foster's contract is going to be a problem, but he is not going anywhere at least for this season and that would be an idiotic trade.

As far as the goes, We don't know if Foster will perform well at all. He had back surgery and missed eight games last year. And I love how you keep throwing out non factual arguments to support your POV. First it was his arm has gotten weaker and now you know how much money he will want. Whatever!

I won't go as far as saying it would be idiotic to keep him another year but it really is a waste of time. He's not going to be in this teams future. Hell he likely doesn't have much of a future. His time is nearly up. That is a forgone conclusion. Mallet on the other hand could turn out to be a decent QB. Trading a soon to be washed up RB even for a decent backup is a win for this team at this point.

thunderkyss
04-30-2014, 04:27 PM
I won't go as far as saying it would be idiotic to keep him another year but it really is a waste of time. He's not going to be in this teams future. Hell he likely doesn't have much of a future. His time is nearly up. That is a forgone conclusion. Mallet on the other hand could turn out to be a decent QB. Trading a soon to be washed up RB even for a decent backup is a win for this team at this point.

If I had your negative outlook... yeah. I see where you're coming from.

We're not going to win a championship in the next year or two... he's a wasted luxury & if Mallet can be a decent starter, we're the better for it.

mussop
04-30-2014, 06:18 PM
If I had your negative outlook... yeah. I see where you're coming from.

We're not going to win a championship in the next year or two... he's a wasted luxury & if Mallet can be a decent starter, we're the better for it.

What would you say the odds are that we sin a championship in the next year or two.

powda
04-30-2014, 06:26 PM
Getting anything out of arian would be a shrewd buisness move. While I like the idea of getting something outta him, thats not the kind of move the texans make. We hold on to players to long and reward them with huge contracts right before their performance falls off the cliff.

Should see what we can get....but we won't.

thunderkyss
04-30-2014, 06:58 PM
What would you say the odds are that we sin a championship in the next year or two.

40:1 (http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/03/super-bowl-xlix-odds-seattle-seahawks/)

But for me, that's not the point. I believe from the top down everything we do needs to be done with the goal of winning, both in the near & long term. If I think Ryan Mallet has a very good chance of being a franchise QB & the only way I can get him means I've got to trade my franchise RB, then yeah, I do it.

But I believe there's more football left in Arian Foster & I don't think he's getting too much of the salary cap. I do not believe he is so much of a drag that it would benefit us to trade him this year or next.

ObsiWan
05-01-2014, 04:36 AM
As far as the goes, We don't know if Foster will perform well at all. He had back surgery and missed eight games last year. And I love how you keep throwing out non factual arguments to support your POV. First it was his arm has gotten weaker and now you know how much money he will want. Whatever!

I won't go as far as saying it would be idiotic to keep him another year but it really is a waste of time. He's not going to be in this teams future. Hell he likely doesn't have much of a future. His time is nearly up. That is a forgone conclusion. Mallet on the other hand could turn out to be a decent QB. Trading a soon to be washed up RB even for a decent backup is a win for this team at this point.
Speaking of "non-factual arguments", do you have a quote to post from Bill O'Brien that supports this "forgone conclusion" that Foster isn't in his plans for this offense?

mussop
05-01-2014, 06:40 AM
Speaking of "non-factual arguments", do you have a quote to post from Bill O'Brien that supports this "forgone conclusion" that Foster isn't in his plans for this offense?

Where did I say That foster isn't in OBs plans for this offense?

ObsiWan
05-01-2014, 09:40 AM
Where did I say That foster isn't in OBs plans for this offense?
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Who were you speaking of when you said this:

Originally Posted by mussop http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2331371#post2331371)

I won't go as far as saying it would be idiotic to keep him another year but it really is a waste of time. He's not going to be in this teams future. Hell he likely doesn't have much of a future. His time is nearly up. That is a forgone conclusion. Mallet on the other hand could turn out to be a decent QB. Trading a soon to be washed up RB even for a decent backup is a win for this team at this point.

steelbtexan
05-01-2014, 09:45 AM
Getting anything out of arian would be a shrewd buisness move. While I like the idea of getting something outta him, thats not the kind of move the texans make. We hold on to players to long and reward them with huge contracts right before their performance falls off the cliff.

Should see what we can get....but we won't.

Why is this the kind of move the Texans org doesn't make? Is it the owner/GM/HC that has refused to make these kinds of moves in the past?

steelbtexan
05-01-2014, 09:50 AM
40:1 (http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/03/super-bowl-xlix-odds-seattle-seahawks/)

But for me, that's not the point. I believe from the top down everything we do needs to be done with the goal of winning, both in the near & long term. If I think Ryan Mallet has a very good chance of being a franchise QB & the only way I can get him means I've got to trade my franchise RB, then yeah, I do it.

But I believe there's more football left in Arian Foster & I don't think he's getting too much of the salary cap. I do not believe he is so much of a drag that it would benefit us to trade him this year or next.

So you're not concerned that Foster will be coming off of the kind of back surgery that ended Shaun Cody's career? Kubiak overworked Foster and now he's damaged goods. It would be best to trade Foster a yr early and get something for him than a yr too late. IMHO

mussop
05-01-2014, 10:09 AM
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Who were you speaking of when you said this:

I was referring to foster. But you did misunderstand. I'm saying the combination of his age, recent injury history and the wear on him has added up. He's on the backend of his career. He has a limited amount of time left. It doesn't fit within the time frame of this teams return to contention.

Never said anything about how OB would or wouldn't use him in his offensive plans. Of course he won't be able to use him of he is broke down.

Texian
05-01-2014, 10:10 AM
So you're not concerned that Foster will be coming off of the kind of back surgery that ended Shaun Cody's career? Kubiak overworked Foster and now he's damaged goods. It would be best to trade Foster a yr early and get something for him than a yr too late. IMHO

I have as much concern about the changing and dismantling of the OL that Foster was use to running behind. That OL was a two year project it Alex Gibbs to install and refine. Sometimes ZBS RB don't perform as well in other systems.

dalemurphy
05-01-2014, 11:44 AM
So you're not concerned that Foster will be coming off of the kind of back surgery that ended Shaun Cody's career? Kubiak overworked Foster and now he's damaged goods. It would be best to trade Foster a yr early and get something for him than a yr too late. IMHO

If he is damaged goods, what do you think we would get in a trade for him? ... Assuming he passed the physical... I think there is more value in keeping him, hoping fora healthy season, than in dumping him for a late round pick... The mistake to avoid is keeping him and managing the position with an expectation he will remain healthy.

Ryan
05-01-2014, 11:57 AM
As far as the goes, We don't know if Foster will perform well at all. He had back surgery and missed eight games last year. And I love how you keep throwing out non factual arguments to support your POV. First it was his arm has gotten weaker and now you know how much money he will want. Whatever!

I won't go as far as saying it would be idiotic to keep him another year but it really is a waste of time. He's not going to be in this teams future. Hell he likely doesn't have much of a future. His time is nearly up. That is a forgone conclusion. Mallet on the other hand could turn out to be a decent QB. Trading a soon to be washed up RB even for a decent backup is a win for this team at this point.


The point being most people have complaints of Foster's cap number this year and the years coming, and I don't think it helps the team's case trading for an unproven QB who is due for an extension in the next year.

I'm not under the belief that Arian is still in his prime or anything, but I do believe we can get more production out of him than you believe, and we can find a QB to match Mallet's likely production in the middle rounds of this year's draft for next to nothing cap wise. Mallett has not taken meaningful snaps in almost 4 years, and he's not exactly an Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young ability wise.

Ryan
05-01-2014, 12:00 PM
*edit*

thunderkyss
05-01-2014, 01:25 PM
So you're not concerned that Foster will be coming off of the kind of back surgery that ended Shaun Cody's career? Kubiak overworked Foster and now he's damaged goods. It would be best to trade Foster a yr early and get something for him than a yr too late. IMHO

Not at all worried. I'd be thrilled if Arian can lead us to a division title.

& yes, with the schedule we're playing in 2014 with an improved OL, I believe he can.


Longshot... maybe. But I don't think he's damaged goods.

hookinreds
05-02-2014, 02:29 PM
ESPN's Adam Schefter indicated on SportsCenter Friday that Buffalo OLB Khalil Mack may still be in the mix to go No. 1 overall to the Texans.
"I do not believe Khalil Mack can be dismissed from the conversation at the No. 1 pick," were Schefter's words. Mack has never been truly dismissed from the discussion, but the commonly held expectation is Houston will select South Carolina DE/OLB Jadeveon Clowney. It's worth noting Mack might be a better scheme fit than Clowney for Romeo Crennel's 3-4. In April, SI's Peter King reported a "friend" of Houston GM Rick Smith told him Smith prefers Mack over Clowney. The Texans also shocked the world in 2006 when they picked Mario Williams over Reggie Bush at No. 1, though Smith wasn't their GM at the time.

IDEXAN
05-02-2014, 03:58 PM
Right now today, Mack would probably be a better fit in Crennel's defense than Clowney, but who even knows if Crennel will be in Houston much beyond this year, while whoever the Texans draft with their 1.1 will almost certainly be a Texan for atleast 4 or 5 years.

drs23
05-02-2014, 05:24 PM
ESPN's Adam Schefter indicated on SportsCenter Friday that Buffalo OLB Khalil Mack may still be in the mix to go No. 1 overall to the Texans.
"I do not believe Khalil Mack can be dismissed from the conversation at the No. 1 pick," were Schefter's words. Mack has never been truly dismissed from the discussion, but the commonly held expectation is Houston will select South Carolina DE/OLB Jadeveon Clowney. It's worth noting Mack might be a better scheme fit than Clowney for Romeo Crennel's 3-4. In April, SI's Peter King reported a "friend" of Houston GM Rick Smith told him Smith prefers Mack over Clowney. The Texans also shocked the world in 2006 when they picked Mario Williams over Reggie Bush at No. 1, though Smith wasn't their GM at the time.

One can only hope. At least one is.

That's in spite of that Texian guy/gal chirping about me being a "TeddyBot". Whatever the hell that is.:slapfight:

Lucky
05-02-2014, 05:25 PM
Right now today, Mack would probably be a better fit in Crennel's defense than Clowney, but who even knows if Crennel will be in Houston much beyond this year, while whoever the Texans draft with their 1.1 will almost certainly be a Texan for atleast 4 or 5 years.
That's actually a very salient point. It's a player's league. And a good coach should be able to utilize a great player. Not that I've ever bought into Clowney not fitting into Crennel's defense in the first place.

DX-TEX
05-02-2014, 10:47 PM
Right now today, Mack would probably be a better fit in Crennel's defense than Clowney, but who even knows if Crennel will be in Houston much beyond this year, while whoever the Texans draft with their 1.1 will almost certainly be a Texan for atleast 4 or 5 years.

Ive said it since they hired Mike Vrabel as linebackers coach: Vrabel is the heir to Crennel at DC

DocBar
05-02-2014, 11:00 PM
Ive said it since they hired Mike Vrabel as linebackers coach: Vrabel is the heir to Crennel at DCAgreed.

powda
05-02-2014, 11:14 PM
Who is mack or Clowney replacing? Are we sitting reed or mercy? If we're not going to move reed inside and make either of those guys 3 down Sam's im starting to lean towards Robinson.

DocBar
05-02-2014, 11:22 PM
Who is mack or Clowney replacing? Are we sitting reed or mercy? If we're not going to move reed inside and make either of those guys 3 down Sam's im starting to lean towards Robinson.IMO, if the Texans draft Clowney (which I don't see happening ever), Reed goes to the middle and Merci goes to the strong side and that could be fluid. Clowney might be better from the strong side, I'm not sold on Merci. This is his year to prove himself.

The Pencil Neck
05-03-2014, 12:05 AM
Who is mack or Clowney replacing? Are we sitting reed or mercy? If we're not going to move reed inside and make either of those guys 3 down Sam's im starting to lean towards Robinson.

If your approach to drafting is to take the best player available, then you can't tie yourself in knots about taking a guy who's going to force someone else out that's not getting production but whom you used a high draft pick on.

Neither Reed or Mercilus have performed up to this point. If either one of them or BOTH of them become redundant, if one of them can't beat out Clowney for their job, then "Hello, Mr. Bench."

Our biggest goal should be putting the best, most productive players on the field who are going to help us win. If the FO decides Clowney or Mack is the best player in this draft AND RAC can use him, then we should draft him and let the chips fall where they may.

This is why I'm for Watkins and Robinson. Those are the two guys I think would do the most to improve this team. But I could be wrong. Clowney could be that guy. Mack could be that guy. (A. J. McCarron could be that guy, but for goodness sake don't tell TK I said that.) It's up to the FO to figure that out and make the right play.

So I'm probably not going to blast them about their picks until we see the product they put on the field. It's the organization's job to figure out which guys we want, it's Smith's job to figure out how to maneuver ourselves to get the guys that are going to do us the most good, and it's OB and RAC's job to take whatever Smith gets for them and turn it into a winning team.

thunderkyss
05-03-2014, 12:47 AM
So I'm probably not going to blast them about their picks until we see the product they put on the field.

Agreed. I was befuddled when they picked Jj Watt, but seems like they knew what they were doing.

NastyNate
05-03-2014, 07:03 AM
Who is mack or Clowney replacing? Are we sitting reed or mercy? If we're not going to move reed inside and make either of those guys 3 down Sam's im starting to lean towards Robinson.

We had the two worst OLB's in the NFL last year. I don't know how you can't focus on that position. Mack is a 3 down player, he can play DE in a 4-3, Will, sam, both inside positions, he's about as versatile a player as you can get and the best player in this draft. He's what you want if you are looking to create a dominant Seattle like defense. Reed won't produce inside, just as he hasn't produced outside. He should ride the pine. Maybe Williams steps up, maybe Mercilus does but I wouldn't bank on it.

Mack is BPA, fits our biggest defensive need, and is extremely versatile. He's the best possible fit.

LikeMike
05-03-2014, 08:01 AM
We had the two worst OLB's in the NFL last year. I don't know how you can't focus on that position. Mack is a 3 down player, he can play DE in a 4-3, Will, sam, both inside positions, he's about as versatile a player as you can get and the best player in this draft. He's what you want if you are looking to create a dominant Seattle like defense. Reed won't produce inside, just as he hasn't produced outside. He should ride the pine. Maybe Williams steps up, maybe Mercilus does but I wouldn't bank on it.

Mack is BPA, fits our biggest defensive need, and is extremely versatile. He's the best possible fit.

Mack is probably the better fit and the safer player since he has a really good motor.

Clowney is the better talent though. I don`t think you draft the #1 pick based on fit. Clowney could play DE or OLB for us and a good coach should be able to teach him, what he needs to no. If Clowney plays OLB, he`d drop perhaps 3 times a game (just what we wanted to do with Mario).

I think we could pick up Mack after a trade down, and that would probably be the best case scenario. But if we stay at #1, I think we need to take a long hard look at Clowney.

And who should sit? Is that really a question? If he plays DE, we have a need right there right now. If he plays OLB we either have a solid 3 men rotaton or Reed turns into an ILB. OLB is a position of need, although we have Merciless and Reed - they couldn`t get it done last season. So it wouldn`t be tough to make room for Clowney or Mack.

NastyNate
05-03-2014, 08:27 AM
Mack is probably the better fit and the safer player since he has a really good motor.

Clowney is the better talent though. I don`t think you draft the #1 pick based on fit. Clowney could play DE or OLB for us and a good coach should be able to teach him, what he needs to no. If Clowney plays OLB, he`d drop perhaps 3 times a game (just what we wanted to do with Mario).

I think we could pick up Mack after a trade down, and that would probably be the best case scenario. But if we stay at #1, I think we need to take a long hard look at Clowney.

And who should sit? Is that really a question? If he plays DE, we have a need right there right now. If he plays OLB we either have a solid 3 men rotaton or Reed turns into an ILB. OLB is a position of need, although we have Merciless and Reed - they couldn`t get it done last season. So it wouldn`t be tough to make room for Clowney or Mack.

Only position Clowney fills is OLB. He's not going to make an impact as a 3-4 DE, he doesn't have the motor for it. Funny thing is, when teams knew how impactful Clowney was last year, they easily took him out of the game. He managed just 3 sacks and 1 FF when all eyes were on him. When teams realized how impactful Mack was, they tried to do the same, and yet he produced unreal stat lines. Macks' production increased every single year in college. Clowney was the opposite. I would argue that talent is measured on the field. Talent shines through, and Mack is the most talented. Clowney is perhaps a better athlete. I mean, he can run faster in shorts in a straight line. He's slower by 2 tenths in the 3-cone drill than Mack. Mack put up 2 more reps on the bench than Clowney so who's to even say who the better athlete is.

bah007
05-03-2014, 09:42 AM
Possible LB configurations with Clowney:
SOLB - Brooks Reed, Trevardo Williams
SILB - Mike Mohamed, Paul Hazel
WILB - Brian Cushing, Jeff Tarpinian, Justin Tuggle
WOLB - Jadeveon Clowney, Whitney Mercilus, Ricky Sapp

SOLB - Trevardo Williams
SILB - Brooks Reed, Mike Mohamed, Paul Hazel
WILB - Brian Cushing, Jeff Tarpinian, Justin Tuggle
WOLB - Jadeveon Clowney, Whitney Mercilus, Ricky Sapp

With Mack:
SOLB - Khalil Mack, Brooks Reed
SILB - Mike Mohamed, Paul Hazel
WILB - Brian Cushing, Jeff Tarpinian, Justin Tuggle
WOLB - Whitney Mercilus, Trevardo Williams, Ricky Sapp

SOLB - Khalil Mack, Trevardo Williams
SILB - Brooks Reed, Mike Mohamed, Paul Hazel
WILB - Brian Cushing, Jeff Tarpinian, Justin Tuggle
WOLB - Whitney Mercilus, Ricky Sapp

Playoffs
05-03-2014, 09:57 AM
Possible LB configurations...

With LDE Tim Jamison, DT Jerrell Powe, RDE JJ Watt

Thanks goodness we have 11 draft picks. (Maybe more)

Number19
05-03-2014, 10:30 AM
A while back I found a good break down on Mercilus' play last season at Battle Red Blog (part one : http://www.battleredblog.com/2014/2/7/5348558/2013-season-review-whitney-mercilus part two : http://www.battleredblog.com/2014/2/14/5384220/2013-houston-texans-season-review-whitney-mercilus-part-ii ).

This analysis shows Mercilus has a good set up move - outside rush plus rip - but that's it. He doesn't effectively use, or have, a counter move to the inside nor does he have a finishing move such as the swim or spin.

Going up against the LT every game, the opposing players quickly learned this and was able to neutralize his rush.

The good news is that OLB's make their biggest improvement in production their second year of starting, which would be 2014 in Whitney's case. His deficiencies are correctable with a little more coaching and training.

bhsman
05-03-2014, 11:32 AM
Only position Clowney fills is OLB. He's not going to make an impact as a 3-4 DE, he doesn't have the motor for it. Funny thing is, when teams knew how impactful Clowney was last year, they easily took him out of the game. He managed just 3 sacks and 1 FF when all eyes were on him. When teams realized how impactful Mack was, they tried to do the same, and yet he produced unreal stat lines. Macks' production increased every single year in college. Clowney was the opposite. I would argue that talent is measured on the field. Talent shines through, and Mack is the most talented.

This is pretty wrong considering that Mack had a much lower level of competition and didn't receive near as much attention as Clowney (25% vs ~13% on passing downs alone). Meanwhile, as a result of all that extra attention, his teammate Kelcy Quarles went from 3.5 sacks in 2012 (when Clowney was a legit defensive Heisman candidate) to double digits when he was only given single coverage by the offensive line. Mack, by comparison, shows great instincts and speed but really struggles going against any sort of experienced lineman (Mewhort in the Ohio State game and against Baylor) that isn't playing in the MAC, and offenses were content to often leave a TE on him to block (the bowl game versus SDSU).

Finally, Mack has been succeeding despite relative obscurity in the MAC, whereas Clowney has been hailed as a #1 pick since coming out of high school and had to deal with all of the media hype from 'The Hit' last year. To compare their situations directly and claim that Mack had an 'unreal' season while Clowney faltered is not only incorrect, but kinda dumb!

Clowney is perhaps a better athlete. I mean, he can run faster in shorts in a straight line. He's slower by 2 tenths in the 3-cone drill than Mack. Mack put up 2 more reps on the bench than Clowney so who's to even say who the better athlete is.

Clowney is 15-20lbs heavier and has longer arms than Mack (which has a big enough the bench press - nevermind that any weight trainer would scoff at the bench press being an indication of functional strength), so I'm not sure how you can just look at the results without any context and conclude that Mack is simply better. Clowney is easily the BPA of the draft, not Mack.

IDEXAN
05-03-2014, 12:02 PM
I dunno, but why am I starting to think of Clowney as Michael Jordan and Mack as Sam Bowie ? Don't blow this one Rick !

NastyNate
05-03-2014, 12:17 PM
This is pretty wrong considering that Mack had a much lower level of competition and didn't receive near as much attention as Clowney (25% vs ~13% on passing downs alone). Meanwhile, as a result of all that extra attention, his teammate Kelcy Quarles went from 3.5 sacks in 2012 (when Clowney was a legit defensive Heisman candidate) to double digits when he was only given single coverage by the offensive line. Mack, by comparison, shows great instincts and speed but really struggles going against any sort of experienced lineman (Mewhort in the Ohio State game and against Baylor) that isn't playing in the MAC, and offenses were content to often leave a TE on him to block (the bowl game versus SDSU).

Finally, Mack has been succeeding despite relative obscurity in the MAC, whereas Clowney has been hailed as a #1 pick since coming out of high school and had to deal with all of the media hype from 'The Hit' last year. To compare their situations directly and claim that Mack had an 'unreal' season while Clowney faltered is not only incorrect, but kinda dumb!



Clowney is 15-20lbs heavier and has longer arms than Mack (which has a big enough the bench press - nevermind that any weight trainer would scoff at the bench press being an indication of functional strength), so I'm not sure how you can just look at the results without any context and conclude that Mack is simply better. Clowney is easily the BPA of the draft, not Mack.

You can cry about MAC vs. SEC talent level but Devin Taylor made Clowney what he was in his two years of production. When he left you saw the dropoff. Mack made his own success, name one other notable pass rusher on that Buffalo defense. I could go through and debate your other points but they're all pretty moot. Mack beat Clowney in every measurable at the combine aside from 40 time. Better work ethic, better athlete, better talent, higher upside, everything points to Mack.

bhsman
05-03-2014, 12:55 PM
You can cry about MAC vs. SEC talent level but Devin Taylor made Clowney what he was in his two years of production. When he left you saw the dropoff.

Clowney had his best season ever the year after Melvin Ingram left, so perhaps you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Go watch some tape.

Mack made his own success, name one other notable pass rusher on that Buffalo defense.

I don't downgrade a guy for playing in the MAC, but watching Mack play against Mewhort or a team like Baylor and not show up as a pass rusher when facing decent talent wasn't encouraging, and why I like him better as the ILB next to Cush if we draft him rather than OLB.

I could go through and debate your other points but they're all pretty moot.

"I could actually address the points that are inconvenient to my argument but those involve actually watching tape and putting my own points to the test."

Mack beat Clowney in every measurable at the combine aside from 40 time. Better work ethic, better athlete, better talent, higher upside, everything points to Mack.

Ryan Shazier beat Mack in the vertical, bench press, 40 time (comparing pro days) AND the 20-yard shuffle, so by your logic he's a lock for first overall, right?

mussop
05-03-2014, 12:56 PM
Only position Clowney fills is OLB. He's not going to make an impact as a 3-4 DE, he doesn't have the motor for it. Funny thing is, when teams knew how impactful Clowney was last year, they easily took him out of the game. He managed just 3 sacks and 1 FF when all eyes were on him. When teams realized how impactful Mack was, they tried to do the same, and yet he produced unreal stat lines. Macks' production increased every single year in college. Clowney was the opposite. I would argue that talent is measured on the field. Talent shines through, and Mack is the most talented. Clowney is perhaps a better athlete. I mean, he can run faster in shorts in a straight line. He's slower by 2 tenths in the 3-cone drill than Mack. Mack put up 2 more reps on the bench than Clowney so who's to even say who the better athlete is.

Yeh in a base defense which OB has said will only be ran about 30% of the time. So your argument is really 70% NA. On top of that Clowney is almost unanimously considered the better prospect. The only thing I see Mack better at is open field tackling. I don't see RAC having a problem finding a way to utilize a player with Clowneys ability. He's not some rookie DC.

bhsman
05-03-2014, 12:58 PM
The only thing I see Mack better at is open field tackling.

Mack is also very polished when he's in coverage.

WolverineFan
05-03-2014, 01:48 PM
Mack, by comparison, shows great instincts and speed but really struggles going against any sort of experienced lineman (Mewhort in the Ohio State game and against Baylor) that isn't playing in the MAC, and offenses were content to often leave a TE on him to block (the bowl game versus SDSU).


You're dead wrong here. Mack made Mewhort look like an UDFA in the game against Ohio State. He recorded 2.5 sacks, 9 tackles, and returned an INT for a TD. He would have had 3.5 sacks if Mewhort hadn't traded a sack for a holding penalty.

Against Baylor, he only had 4 tackles. But that's mainly because Baylor's quick passing attack neutralizes most pass rushers. They only gave up 1 more sack this year than A&M's vaunted O-Line. You can also bet, as he was the only weapon in the Buffalo front seven, that he saw most of Baylor's attention in pass pro. Especially considering that game was 1 week after he shredded the Ohio State O-Line. I'm sure he had their attention that week as much as Clowney has had any opponent's attention.

Also, Baylor jumped out to a huge lead early in the game and Petty only threw 16 passes. Hard to blame Mack for not filling up the stat sheet.

NastyNate
05-03-2014, 01:49 PM
Clowney had his best season ever the year after Melvin Ingram left, so perhaps you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Go watch some tape.

Actually his best season ever was Devin Taylor's senior year. I think that just illustrates my point even more.

I don't downgrade a guy for playing in the MAC, but watching Mack play against Mewhort or a team like Baylor and not show up as a pass rusher when facing decent talent wasn't encouraging, and why I like him better as the ILB next to Cush if we draft him rather than OLB.

Both good points and I see the versatility for him to fit anywhere in our starting lb core. If he has to play 40 minutes a game like in Buffalo because their offense can't stay on the field, I can see how he'd wear down on the outside just like against Mewhort. I'm pretty sure the pick-6 came against a heads up play to beat the Mewhort cut-block. He fared much better against the RT though in that game.

Realistically I project him more as a SOLB in RAC's defense.

"I could actually address the points that are inconvenient to my argument but those involve actually watching tape and putting my own points to the test."

I'm at work right now, don't have a ton of time to respond to every point about a taller heavier player arm length to strength translation. I'm 6'4" 275, it doesn't matter. You want to get stronger? Lift more or increase reps.

Ryan Shazier beat Mack in the vertical, bench press, 40 time (comparing pro days) AND the 20-yard shuffle, so by your logic he's a lock for first overall, right?

Yes, that's all great, but I didn't say a lick about Shazier. We were comparing two players to determine "talent". I used two different metrics; stats, and measured athleticism. Mack had the edge in both except for the '40. If we were comparing all players to find a combine king for a #1 overall pick I'd use your logic.


I appreciate the debate and am just talking footall. No ill will intended.

NastyNate
05-03-2014, 01:53 PM
You're dead wrong here. Mack made Mewhort look like an UDFA in the game against Ohio State. He recorded 2.5 sacks, 9 tackles, and returned an INT for a TD. He would have had 3.5 sacks if Mewhort hadn't traded a sack for a holding penalty.

Against Baylor, he only had 4 tackles. But that's mainly because Baylor's quick passing attack neutralizes most pass rushers. They only gave up 1 more sack this year than A&M's vaunted O-Line. You can also bet, as he was the only weapon in the Buffalo front seven, that he saw most of Baylor's attention in pass pro. Especially considering that game was 1 week after he shredded the Ohio State O-Line. I'm sure he had their attention that week as much as Clowney has had any opponent's attention.

Also, Baylor jumped out to a huge lead early in the game and Petty only threw 16 passes. Hard to blame Mack for not filling up the stat sheet.

I thought both his sacks came off the RT in that game... The pick-6 came lined up over LT. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

WolverineFan
05-03-2014, 02:14 PM
I thought both his sacks came off the RT in that game... The pick-6 came lined up over LT. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

His sacks did come against Decker. However, he had another sack dead to rights against Mewhort but Mewhort held him and got called. He also had another sack lined up against Mewhort and Mewhort got away with the hold that time. He also beat Mewhort clean for another one but couldn't wrap Miller up for the sack. Later he had Norwell beat but got held and got the flag. Then he beat Marcus Hall for an almost safety but Miller was able to flush out the other side. The guy was 2 flags and about a hair away from having 5 sacks in the game, 2 of which were against Mewhort.

And yes, his pick-six came when lined up over Mewhort, who totally whiffed his cut block. He also out-ran Dontre Wilson on the return, who has been lazer timed at sub-4.4 in the forty. OSU is lucky he started to gas toward the end of the game.

bhsman
05-03-2014, 02:31 PM
You're dead wrong here. Mack made Mewhort look like an UDFA in the game against Ohio State. He recorded 2.5 sacks, 9 tackles, and returned an INT for a TD. He would have had 3.5 sacks if Mewhort hadn't traded a sack for a holding penalty.

Watch the game tape and then re-read your own post here. Mack's sacks came against the freshman right tackle; the interception was a great play by Mack but Mewhort screwed up a cut block and took himself out of the play. Otherwise, whenever Mewhort got his hands on Mack, Mack stayed put.

This is why you have to watch tape and not just read statlines all day.

Against Baylor, he only had 4 tackles. But that's mainly because Baylor's quick passing attack neutralizes most pass rushers. They only gave up 1 more sack this year than A&M's vaunted O-Line. You can also bet, as he was the only weapon in the Buffalo front seven, that he saw most of Baylor's attention in pass pro. Especially considering that game was 1 week after he shredded the Ohio State O-Line. I'm sure he had their attention that week as much as Clowney has had any opponent's attention.

1) Watch the game tape and then re-read your own post. Again, Mack was about as effective against either of Baylor's tackles as he was against Mewhort.

2) You can be sure of a lot of things, but you simply don't have the the benefit of the facts here:

Clowney defenders will be the first to say that teams threw extra double teams his way when asked about his decrease in production. In this case, the numbers bear that out. He was double teamed on 8.9% of his pass rush attempts, but was chipped by a RB or TE on a whopping 16.7% of his plays. In total, he faced extra offensive blocking on 25% of plays – more than double some others in this group.

Khalil Mack is naturally going to have a low strength of sack playing at Buffalo and indeed comes in lowest of the group with a SOS of 23.09. However, more important is that 37.5% of his sacks were unblocked – the highest in the group. Suddenly that could cast some doubts on his quick sack time – was he beating blockers soundly or just on the receiving end of some good luck?

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46928/349/peshek-edge-rushers-10

The link also points out that Mack was only given extra attention on 13.89% of his pass-rushing snaps, only a little more than half of the attention Clowney got. To say Mack received just as much attention is to be dead wrong.

While Khalil Mack split his time relatively evenly amongst the left and right sides, he was significantly less effective when rushing against teams’ left tackle. When playing right defensive end he only managed to pressure the QB once every seventeen snaps – a much poorer showing than his time against right tackles.

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46981/349/peshek-edge-rushers-20

Also, Baylor jumped out to a huge lead early in the game and Petty only threw 16 passes. Hard to blame Mack for not filling up the stat sheet.

That's fair when it comes to accruing stats, but Mack still didn't look all-that-impressive. And even then, how is that any different from pointing out that UNC and Tennessee used an excessive amount of quick-passing to negate Clowney, as well as rarely running any plays towards his side of the field?

People are awfully quick to defend Mack for a poor game against Baylor but are already prejudiced against Clowney. Beats me, but here we are.

bhsman
05-03-2014, 02:38 PM
I appreciate the debate and am just talking footall. No ill will intended.

Fair enough on being at work; that's totally fine. Your comment came off as not wanting to put in the effort, but my mistake for misinterpreting it.

That said:

-You are really high on Devin Taylor for some reason. Dude had less sacks in 2012 than Quarles did, and has had even less in the NFL as a 4th-round pick. If you think he was the reason for Clowney's success, all I can say is that you're being a little ridiculous.

-I'm not talking about late in the game when Mack and the rest of Buffalo were worn out against Baylor, I'm talking about in the first quarter on two big runs where he has no ability to get in the backfield when facing their Tackles.

-If you're that big and heavy, all the more power to you. But if you're going to use combine tests as a purely dispositive point against Clowney, why can't I use that against Mack with Shazier? It makes no sense. Also, the longer arms thing w/r/t bench reps is true, I don't see why that makes Mack's all of two more reps impressive considering it's less stress on his arms.

WolverineFan
05-03-2014, 03:03 PM
Watch the game tape and then re-read your own post here. Mack's sacks came against the freshman right tackle; the interception was a great play by Mack but Mewhort screwed up a cut block and took himself out of the play. Otherwise, whenever Mewhort got his hands on Mack, Mack stayed put.

This is why you have to watch tape and not just read statlines all day.

I watched the tape. Read my post above. He beat Mewhort on 3 separate occasions for pressures. On one he got held and got a flag, on the next he got held and no call, on the last he beat him clean and then missed the tackle on the QB. He also beat each OG for a pressure in the game and dominated the other OT. He beat 4 different O-Linemen in that game for pressures, including Mewhort. That hold that Mewhort was flagged for is almost the same thing as a sack.


1) Watch the game tape and then re-read your own post. Again, Mack was about as effective against either of Baylor's tackles as he was against Mewhort.

Mack was less effective against Baylor and, IMO, it had a lot to do with Baylor's scheme. Look at how quickly Petty is getting the ball out on every pass. The 90-yard TD pass was an 8-yard slant throw where Mack was a step away from a sack. Buffalo manned up across the board and their DB's got slaughtered.

Mack didn't apply the same amount of pressure as he did against OSU, but Baylor was also exploiting matchups outside and getting the ball out much quicker. They also spent half the day running away from him and on the few plays where they ran at him, he set the edge and the runner cut back into open field. Mack didn't play great, but I wouldn't say he played bad. The rest of that defense totally no-showed.


2) You can be sure of a lot of things, but you simply don't have the the benefit of the facts here:



http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46928/349/peshek-edge-rushers-10



The link also points out that Mack was only given extra attention on 13.89% of his pass-rushing snaps, only a little more than half of the attention Clowney got. To say Mack received just as much attention is to be dead wrong.

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46981/349/peshek-edge-rushers-20


I never argued that he received as much attention as Clowney. I said that Baylor likely game planned for him that week just like teams were game planning for Clowney every week. Their plan was to make other players beat them. It worked.

And yes, those metrics do not support Mack's case. However, let's also realize that half the time Mack is rushing the passer he is coming from off the line of scrimmage. Clowney exclusively rushes from the DE spot with his hand down. It's a lot easier to double a guy on the LOS than it is to double a guy who's 4-5 yards off of it. Also, Mack dropped into coverage quite a bit. Is a team going to try to send a double team his way every play when he's not even rushing half the time? We know Clowney is coming, so we send the double. But Mack? If we try to double a guy who's not there then we're playing at a disadvantage against the rest of the front.


That's fair when it comes to accruing stats, but Mack still didn't look all-that-impressive. And even then, how is that any different from pointing out that UNC and Tennessee used an excessive amount of quick-passing to negate Clowney, as well as rarely running any plays towards his side of the field?

People are awfully quick to defend Mack for a poor game against Baylor but are already prejudiced against Clowney. Beats me, but here we are.

It's not any different and I've never argued that. Do you have me confused with someone else? Teams went out of their way to disrupt Clowney. The only argument that I've made is that, if he's this generational talent that everyone says he is, then why was it so successful?

And yes, I agree that Mack wasn't all that impressive against Baylor. But it was one game. You're annoyed that people criticize Clowney for a poor game and yet here you are criticizing Mack for one poor game. A bit ironic no?

mussop
05-03-2014, 03:21 PM
Mack is also very polished when he's in coverage.

This is corect.

Playoffs
05-04-2014, 07:37 PM
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet
If #Texans pass on Jadeveon Clowney, it sets up incredible drama at No. 2. Do #Rams take the star pass-rusher? Or auction their pick off?

I believe I read a version of this thought process in @theMMQB 2 weeks ago (http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/21/2014-nfl-draft-rumors-monday-morning-quarterback/ …). Khalil Mack a name to watch this week.

After discussing the topic with people familiar with Rick Smith, it doesn’t appear #Texans are 100% sold on Clowney. Thus, willing to trade

In talking to people who know #Texans GM Rick Smith well, I no longer believe it’s a certainty that Jadeveon Clowney would be their 1st pick

IDEXAN
05-05-2014, 08:04 AM
If we are one or two players away from the kind of team that can take us deep into the POs (like what we thought we had the last couple years), then go with that player that most compliments your existing defense or offense and puts you over the top. But if we are drafting for sheer talent which is what you do anyway with the 1.1 and are in atleast a semi-rebuild of the roster, lets take the most talented player and figure out how to use him and best apply his talent(s).

ObsiWan
05-05-2014, 09:39 AM
If we are one or two players away from the kind of team that can take us deep into the POs (like what we thought we had the last couple years), then go with that player that most compliments your existing defense or offense and puts you over the top. But if we are drafting for sheer talent which is what you do anyway with the 1.1 and are in at least a semi-rebuild of the roster, lets take the most talented player and figure out how to use him and best apply his talent(s).
Since we have a 95% new coaching staff, I'd say that doesn't apply (I know, that's your point).

I'd rephrase your second option this way:
Take the player that will have the greatest, immediate impact toward team success.
A lot of you say that guy has to be a QB. I disagree because if you're going to spend the better part of a year (or two) getting him indoctrinated into the NFL. That doesn't present "immediate impact" to me.
Better to go with a guy that can step in right away and have an immediate positive impact. Now we can talk for days (and we have) about who will make the greatest immediate impact.

DX-TEX
05-05-2014, 09:59 AM
Since we have a 95% new coaching staff, I'd say that doesn't apply (I know, that's your point).

I'd rephrase your second option this way:
Take the player that will have the greatest, immediate impact toward team success.
A lot of you say that guy has to be a QB. I disagree because if you're going to spend the better part of a year (or two) getting him indoctrinated into the NFL. That doesn't present "immediate impact" to me.
Better to go with a guy that can step in right away and have an immediate positive impact. Now we can talk for days (and we have) about who will make the greatest immediate impact.

Seems like a no brainer IMO. Mack already plays a 3-4 OLB. No need to get him to learn much just tweak. Where as Clowney is a complete build upt o learn the position.

beerlover
05-05-2014, 10:11 AM
Seems like a no brainer IMO. Mack already plays a 3-4 OLB. No need to get him to learn much just tweak. Where as Clowney is a complete build upt o learn the position.

been thinking about this & came to another possibility - Texans are letting another team know (Buffalo) if they really want to draft Mack they'll have to deal with Rick Smith aka Texans in blockbuster draft day trade. Texans would then use the 9th overall pick on a QB, best available left on their board.

draft trade value table gives us a glimpse @ what Texans should or could receive in return-

1st overall - 3000

9th - 1350
41st - 500
73rd - 225
= 2075 +
next years #1 or next years #2 & #3

steelbtexan
05-05-2014, 10:19 AM
Give me

1. Clowney
2. Savage
2. James after trading up

That would be a very successful first 2 days of the draft. IMHO

I also think sitting at 3-1 and taking a CB might be the way to go. What would you guys think if Savage went 33rd and Verrett was there at 35 would you be willing to give up 3-1 and 4-1 to take Verrett?

That would give you
1. Best pass rusher in draft
2. QB of the future
3. Best CB in the draft.

You could do a lot worse.

WolverineFan
05-05-2014, 11:40 AM
Give me

1. Clowney
2. Savage
2. James after trading up

That would be a very successful first 2 days of the draft. IMHO

I also think sitting at 3-1 and taking a CB might be the way to go. What would you guys think if Savage went 33rd and Verrett was there at 35 would you be willing to give up 3-1 and 4-1 to take Verrett?

That would give you
1. Best pass rusher in draft
2. QB of the future
3. Best CB in the draft.

You could do a lot worse.

I'll be pissed if we take Savage at 33. I've been very open about not being a believer in Savage. Does the guy have physical tools? Yes. But he also has flaws and from what I have seen people are highlighting his physical skills/measureables while making excuses for his flaws.

You should always be wary of a guy who rises like this after all the games have been played.

Playoffs
05-05-2014, 11:52 AM
draft trade value table gives us a glimpse @ what Texans should or could receive in return-

1st overall - 3000

9th - 1350
41st - 500
73rd - 225
= 2075 +
next years #1 or next years #2 & #3
I'd have a hard time justifying that King's ransom for Mack. With the depth of this draft, that's potentially 4 or 5 starters.

idymoe
05-05-2014, 11:53 AM
Give me

1. Clowney
2. Savage
2. James after trading up

That would be a very successful first 2 days of the draft. IMHO

I also think sitting at 3-1 and taking a CB might be the way to go. What would you guys think if Savage went 33rd and Verrett was there at 35 would you be willing to give up 3-1 and 4-1 to take Verrett?

That would give you
1. Best pass rusher in draft
2. QB of the future
3. Best CB in the draft.

You could do a lot worse.


Who is James?

Playoffs
05-05-2014, 11:56 AM
Who is James?

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/ja'wuan-james?id=2543755

kingtexan
05-05-2014, 12:19 PM
Give me

1. Clowney
2. Savage
2. James after trading up

That would be a very successful first 2 days of the draft. IMHO

I also think sitting at 3-1 and taking a CB might be the way to go. What would you guys think if Savage went 33rd and Verrett was there at 35 would you be willing to give up 3-1 and 4-1 to take Verrett?

That would give you
1. Best pass rusher in draft
2. QB of the future
3. Best CB in the draft.

You could do a lot worse.

Wouldn't reach for Savage in the second. Only QB I take in the second is if Carr drops. Otherwise BPA ...

IDEXAN
05-05-2014, 12:40 PM
Seems like a no brainer IMO. Mack already plays a 3-4 OLB. No need to get him to learn much just tweak. Where as Clowney is a complete build upt o learn the position.
Very few are talking about Mack with the same kind of superlatives and descriptions as a prospect that they are about Clowney who's the consensus if not near unanimous choice as the top talent in this Draft, and as an edge-rusher he's plays at a highly valued, premium position. Now if your argument is that these people are just off of the mark in their ratings of Clowey, OK fine that's your prerogative.

idymoe
05-05-2014, 01:33 PM
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/ja'wuan-james?id=2543755

Doh. That was the only James I could think of. I went through Draftek's mock three times looking for a cb named James.

I didn't read the entire post very well.

LikeMike
05-05-2014, 01:38 PM
Very few are talking about Mack with the same kind of superlatives and descriptions as a prospect that they are about Clowney who's the consensus if not near unanimous choice as the top talent in this Draft, and as an edge-rusher he's plays at a highly valued, premium position. Now if your argument is that these people are just off of the mark in their ratings of Clowey, OK fine that's your prerogative.

I think Mack is the safer pick. A guy that doesn`t have to learn a new position, a guy that already has pretty good technique and a guy with a neverending motor. Clowney doesn`t have the technique down and a questionable motor. As far as upside is concerned, I don`t think there is a question that Clowney is the guy.

So do you bet on the once in a generation physical talent or do you take the "safe" pick. IŽd take the former, but I fully understand anyone who would rather have Mack. My thing is just: if we want Mack, IŽd prefer to trade down. Even if we don`t end up with him, I see him in a group of a couple of guys talentwise, and if we get any of them plus extra picks IŽm fine.

IDEXAN
05-05-2014, 01:44 PM
Is there wisdom in a strategy of first taking Clowney with the intention of trading him later in the Draft ?

Playoffs
05-05-2014, 01:57 PM
Is there wisdom in a strategy of first taking Clowney with the intention of trading him later in the Draft ?Draft then trade is tougher now because teams are married to the slot after selection... would have problems fitting #1 pick into a #6 rookie $$ pool.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2329566&#post2329566

DocBar
05-05-2014, 08:33 PM
Draft then trade is tougher now because teams are married to the slot after selection... would have problems fitting #1 pick into a #6 rookie $$ pool.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2329566&#post2329566That's a good point that I hadn't thought of before. I would think that would be negotiated into the deal in the form of fewer picks traded.

Playoffs
05-06-2014, 09:50 AM
Lance Zierlein ‏@LanceZierlein
I don’t see the Houston Texans and Bill O’Brien/Rick Smith taking a chance at #1 on just traits if a guy has questionable football character

If this information is correct, and I have no reason to believe his team didn’t hear this Clowney info, I think Texans go Mack.

Had conversation w/ friend for team inside top 10 about Clowney late last night. He said his team got rough evals on football character from South Carolina

Playoffs
05-06-2014, 02:52 PM
Draft room debates... (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10888202/2014-nfl-draft-examining-options-texans-rams-jaguars-browns-raiders)
1. Houston Texans
Matt Williamson's recommendation: Jadeveon Clowney
The main reason to take Clowney with this pick is because he is a unique talent with the upside to turn into an all-time great player. With Clowney and J.J. Watt, the Texans could have an elite defense as soon as 2014, with two players that every offense they face must game plan for. Think of it this way: Who would the division-rival Indianapolis Colts rather Houston draft, Clowney or Blake Bortles? Of course the answer to that question is Bortles. The Texans shouldn't overthink this one, and instead just take the best player in this draft.

Aaron Schatz's recommendation: Teddy Bridgewater, Khalil Mack or Jadeveon Clowney
Projecting guys from college to the pros is still one of the most difficult things in football; even for positions where we've developed projections, those formulas are imperfect. Scouting still plays the biggest role here. Where analytics come in is to determine not whom to pick, but rather how to best use picks to get the most value compared to the other 31 teams. Mack and Clowney are the best players available (our projection system actually prefers Mack, but more on that later). Pass rush is a hugely important part of the game, but ask yourself this: How often does a team with a top quarterback go far in the playoffs, and how often does a team with top pass-rushers go far in the playoffs? To give one example, last year's final four teams featured two of the top veteran quarterbacks and two of the top young quarterbacks, but no pass-rusher with 12 or more sacks. If the Texans want to take a quarterback, then you get to the confusing problem of which quarterback to take. I favor Bridgewater (more on that later as well), although others on this panel may believe he'll be available for the Texans to take later.

Louis Riddick's recommendation: Khalil Mack or a trade down
I would recommend that the Texans do whatever they can to trade out of the first overall pick if they can get reasonable value. Given the Falcons' history, need for perimeter rushers and the fact that Clowney played in the SEC, they are a legitimate trade partner. But if the Texans can't trade the pick, I'd suggest they take Mack, which is a departure from what I would have said a few weeks ago. The staff in Houston that would be working closely with Clowney on a daily basis has zero tolerance for anything resembling less than 100 percent commitment to practice and preparation, so when you factor in some of the effort concerns with Clowney, along with the fact that Mack is a better scheme fit, I'd lean toward Mack.

Mark Dominik's pick: Jadeveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina
There are some compelling arguments here, but to me this one comes down to a simple rule: Don't ever pass up the best player on the board. Clowney is such a rare athlete and has so much upside and potential. Being able to pair him with a player like Watt gives them so much latitude on defense to do so many different things schematically, and you can never have too many pass-rushers. If there were a quarterback in this grade range, you'd go with him here. But in this class, Clowney is a level above every player in this draft, quarterbacks and Mack included.

deucetx
05-06-2014, 03:00 PM
All of this seems to contradict this:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfl-draft-scout/24552756/nfl-draft-jadeveon-clowney-texans-gm-smith-in-constant-contact

He has been called spoiled and lazy by anonymous NFL evaluators, but perhaps the only opinion that should matter to pass rusher Jadeveon Clowney is that of Houston Texans general manager Rick Smith.

And according to Clowney, all Smith is calling him is ... often.

Clowney told The State he spoke with Smith two or three times last week, and the volume of contact won't be dialed back this week.

Think what all this means is that the draft is near and every little story is coming out from every direction. Let the fun begin!

Blake
05-06-2014, 03:12 PM
All of your draft questions can be answered with my jump to conclusions mat!

http://www.averagemarrieddad.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg

Double Barrel
05-06-2014, 04:56 PM
Seems like a no brainer IMO. Mack already plays a 3-4 OLB. No need to get him to learn much just tweak. Where as Clowney is a complete build upt o learn the position.

I agree with this mentality. The more I see on Mack, the more I think he's ultimately going to prove to be the defensive great in this draft. High motor guy who wants to be Ray Lewis and Clay Matthews in one package. Put him next to Cushing behind Watt, and this could really be the nucleus of a great D.

And like you said, he's already plug-and-play ready for the 3-4 defense.

I know the metrics have Clowney rated higher, but the Texans should pick who they really want instead of going for the favorite.

Blake
05-06-2014, 04:59 PM
I agree with this mentality. The more I see on Mack, the more I think he's ultimately going to prove to be the defensive great in this draft. High motor guy who wants to be Ray Lewis and Clay Matthews in one package. Put him next to Cushing behind Watt, and this could really be the nucleus of a great D.

And like you said, he's already plug-and-play ready for the 3-4 defense.

I know the metrics have Clowney rated higher, but the Texans should pick who they really want instead of going for the favorite.

I predict that Barr has a better career than Mack. If Mack can even make it past 4 years.

Double Barrel
05-06-2014, 05:02 PM
I predict that Barr has a better career than Mack. If Mack can even make it past 4 years.

I'm cool with Barr, too. I like high motor defenders who can contribute almost immediately. (Which is why I sorta' hope they pass on Clowney.)

Texian
05-06-2014, 05:02 PM
I predict that Barr has a better career than Mack. If Mack can even make it past 4 years.

I predict that Jeremiah Attaochu will be the best edge rusher/defensive player in this draft.

NastyNate
05-06-2014, 06:32 PM
I predict that Barr has a better career than Mack. If Mack can even make it past 4 years.

Barr is a prospect where Mack is a proven commodity. The butthurt is strong with you.

steelbtexan
05-06-2014, 06:41 PM
Barr is a prospect where Mack is a proven commodity. The butthurt is strong with you.

What has Mack/Clowney/Barr or any other player in this draft proven? The draft is all about projection.

DocBar
05-06-2014, 06:47 PM
Barr is a prospect where Mack is a proven commodity. The butthurt is strong with you.??? That's a pretty strong statement!!! Sounds like the man-crush is strong with you!! LOL:kitten:

Since when did playing at Buffalo State give you "proven commodity" status in the NFL?

NastyNate
05-06-2014, 07:11 PM
??? That's a pretty strong statement!!! Sounds like the man-crush is strong with you!! LOL:kitten:

Since when did playing at Buffalo State give you "proven commodity" status in the NFL?

Proven in college, where Barr only has 1 real year of production. 4>1. I seem to remember another guy who came out of a small school (troy university) doing pretty well in the NFL. Demarcus something...

DocBar
05-06-2014, 08:10 PM
Proven in college, where Barr only has 1 real year of production. 4>1. I seem to remember another guy who came out of a small school (troy university) doing pretty well in the NFL. Demarcus something...Don't forget the best to ever lace 'em up...Jerry Ricecake...Not of that means proven commodity, though. And it also makes me think Barr has the higher ceiling while Mack would have the higher floor. Regardless, it's all a role of the dice.

For every Ware and Rice, there are 10+ Leaf's and Russell's.

Just sayin....

BTW, I like Mack. I'm just not infatuated in him and I'm not sure how well he'll translate in the NFL. Kinda like the D version of Manziel to me.

LikeMike
05-07-2014, 07:55 AM
Proven in college, where Barr only has 1 real year of production. 4>1. I seem to remember another guy who came out of a small school (troy university) doing pretty well in the NFL. Demarcus something...

Mack is a great defensive player in college, which has gotten better every year. He has very good stats and had a pretty good combine. But the little tape I watched on him, he didn`t look dominant. He looked hesistant at times, got pushed around a lot, showed little explosion of the snap and didn`t seem to make fast decisions. All of this against not really the best competition.

This might sound very negative - I am not that negative on him. I believe he deserves to be a top 5 or at least a top 10 pick. I am just saying he also has some question marks around him and he definetly lacks the wow factor of a guy like Manziel or Clowney. IŽd be ok if we take him, mostly because he fits our defense perfectly and he is actually pretty good in coverage as well. But IŽd prefer a player that looks like something really special (Clowney, Robinson - probably even Manziel, though I have way more question marks around him than I do around Mack).

Texian
05-07-2014, 08:03 AM
Mack is a great defensive player in college, which has gotten better every year. He has very good stats and had a pretty good combine. But the little tape I watched on him, he didn`t look dominant. He looked hesistant at times, got pushed around a lot, showed little explosion of the snap and didn`t seem to make fast decisions. All of this against not really the best competition.

This might sound very negative - I am not that negative on him. I believe he deserves to be a top 5 or at least a top 10 pick. I am just saying he also has some question marks around him and he definetly lacks the wow factor of a guy like Manziel or Clowney. IŽd be ok if we take him, mostly because he fits our defense perfectly and he is actually pretty good in coverage as well. But IŽd prefer a player that looks like something really special (Clowney, Robinson - probably even Manziel, though I have way more question marks around him than I do around Mack).

I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Mack. All the things you noted that is lacking in Mack's game you will find in Attaochu's game and against much better competition.

Blake
05-07-2014, 09:52 AM
Barr is a prospect where Mack is a proven commodity. The butthurt is strong with you.

:kubepalm:

mussop
05-07-2014, 12:01 PM
I predict that Barr has a better career than Mack. If Mack can even make it past 4 years.

I agree. I think Barr is being overlooked.

Playoffs
05-07-2014, 01:55 PM
Ed Werder ‏@Edwerderespn
Talked to Texans HC Bill O'Brien, who says DE Jadeveon Clowney and Khalil Mack would be OLB in base 3-4. But multiple D so play down 60 pct.

ObsiWan
05-07-2014, 03:13 PM
Ed Werder ‏@Edwerderespn
O'Brien said THAT much?
to the press?? :mcnugget:
I don't believe Werder

mussop
05-07-2014, 03:21 PM
Ed Werder ‏@Edwerderespn

So much for Mack being the better fit.

LikeMike
05-07-2014, 03:22 PM
So much for Mack being the better fit.

I still think he`d be the better fit since he actually is pretty good in coverage. But IŽd also still prefer Clowney, because I consider him the way better talent and way more excitiong player.

Fred
05-07-2014, 03:47 PM
O'Brien said THAT much?
to the press?? :mcnugget:
I don't believe Werder

Werder had to pad a little.
Actual transcript is probably:

EW: What about Clowney?
BOB: <GLARE>
EW: What about Mack?
BOB: <GLARE>
EW: Would they both be OLBs in a 3-4?
BOB: Grunt. (Walks away).

thunderkyss
05-07-2014, 06:45 PM
So much for Mack being the better fit.

How's that? If you rate them as OLBs, Mack is the better of the two.

Playing down 60% of the snaps... I'll have to see how we do it, but if we're going to do it based on offensive personnel, it won't be too hard for offenses to keep Clowney standing up. That 60% may turn into 30% in real time.

DocBar
05-07-2014, 10:31 PM
How's that? If you rate them as OLBs, Mack is the better of the two.

Playing down 60% of the snaps... I'll have to see how we do it, but if we're going to do it based on offensive personnel, it won't be too hard for offenses to keep Clowney standing up. That 60% may turn into 30% in real time.According to BOB, it was 30% last year.