PDA

View Full Version : o-line injuries


utahmark
11-08-2005, 06:32 PM
looks like wiegart, hodgdon, and washington wont play.

i was sure hoping to see hodgdon back. i think our offense looked a lot better with him in there.

they did say mathis would probably play.

Texans Horror
11-08-2005, 06:49 PM
any news on double d?

utahmark
11-08-2005, 07:21 PM
i think it said he would play. (not sure). i found it at houstonchronicle.com

keyfro
11-08-2005, 09:17 PM
man hodgdon looked like he had made a lot of progress from the seattle game on...i hope he is able to go because he looks like he could be our anchor at center

Runner
11-08-2005, 09:35 PM
man hodgdon looked like he had made a lot of progress from the seattle game on...i hope he is able to go because he looks like he could be our anchor at center

Some of that depends on if he gets the Wand or the Pitts treatment.

Chester was on 610 today, and they asked him how he was improving on his biggest weakness - incurring penalties at a rapid clip. He said he thought he was 3rd highest in the league in penalties his rookie year. I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but he then attributed his doing better now to being in his fourth year and finally having enough ingrained understanding and comfort with his responsibilities to play without having to think about every little thing. I think we are all fairly happy the coaches stayed with him rather than benching him after that first year as a starter.

In contrast, Wand progressed enough that he started his entire second year, (a year earlier than projected) but then was junked by the coaches before he had a chance to apply that first year's playing experience on the field. Hopefully he'll get enough playing (and practice) time due to the OL injuries to shake the rust off and show if he does have any improvement. It'll take a couple of games though as he comes back up to speed; I doubt he'll have the chance. Then I fear he'll go to another team next year and we'll be adding him to our list of players who's capabilities the coaches failed to recognize and develop.

If Hodgdon is the man at center, the coaches will have to let him have some growing pains and stick with him. He isn't going to shine and improve every game.

phan1
11-09-2005, 12:30 AM
Whatever you do, LEAVE PITTS AT LT!!! No matter how you shuffle the cards, Pitts needs to remain at LT. Wand at LT was horrible last week, and looking back on it, probably could have cost us the game.

MorKnolle
11-09-2005, 12:44 AM
Whatever you do, LEAVE PITTS AT LT!!! No matter how you shuffle the cards, Pitts needs to remain at LT. Wand at LT was horrible last week, and looking back on it, probably could have cost us the game.

I agree, Pitts needs to stay at LT at least until the end of this year. If we bring in a stud rookie I'd put them at RT for at least half the year to get adjusted to the game, if we bring in a FA that is better than Pitts (hopefully not another Victor Riley) then move Pitts to RT. I wouldn't mind seeing Riley at RG since he is a stronger, slower type. Hodgdon is pretty good but he's so small for OL that I fear he will have injury problems and won't be a great run blocker because of his size, but he has played well.

College Texan
11-09-2005, 12:53 AM
I always thought Wand could play RG. I say keep Pitts at LT until after next year and the rookie tackle we get should play RT for a year, I say we keep Mckinney, he's not too bad and was playing better at LG. Hodgdon can play center and I see him developing like a Mawae type, which is exciting to hope for this at center. Assuming I'm coach, this is next years line....
Pitts--Mckinney--Hodgdon--Wand--D'Brick
If we get two rookies, I doubt both will start. Hopefully we get one and begin to develope a good RG.

utahmark
11-09-2005, 07:40 PM
I always thought Wand could play RG. I say keep Pitts at LT until after next year and the rookie tackle we get should play RT for a year, I say we keep Mckinney, he's not too bad and was playing better at LG. Hodgdon can play center and I see him developing like a Mawae type, which is exciting to hope for this at center. Assuming I'm coach, this is next years line....
Pitts--Mckinney--Hodgdon--Wand--D'Brick
If we get two rookies, I doubt both will start. Hopefully we get one and begin to develope a good RG.

i hope your not coach. cause wand cant play rg. and mckinney is gonna cost to much to keep. i think wiegert will be at rg if healthy. not sure who will be at lg.

College Texan
11-09-2005, 10:57 PM
I think Mckinney and Pitts have started every game. If we start two rookies it will *** more problems, Instead of using weigert who I think is not any good, I would hope for Wand to step it up anywhere on the line, he has more potential than wiegert

Vinny
11-09-2005, 10:59 PM
I think Mckinney and Pitts have started every game. If we start two rookies it will *** more problems, Instead of using weigert who I think is not any good, I would hope for Wand to step it up anywhere on the line, he has more potential than wiegert Weigert is our best Guard and right up with Pitts as one of our best two linemen. His problems lie in his injuries, not his skills.

Ibar_Harry
11-10-2005, 01:13 AM
Weigert is our best Guard and right up with Pitts as one of our best two linemen. His problems lie in his injuries, not his skills.

I'm having a big one over that Vinny, because you and I agree on Wiegert. Injuries is the issue. He is the O-line leader in addition to everything else you can say about him. That's why I keep saying I want a line of Wand, Wiegert, Hodgdon, Pitts and Wade left to right. I still think Wand and Wiegert would work real well together, but it will never see the light of day. Good luck Vinny and I agree it has been a very frustrating season. Youth on the O-line wouldn't be a bad think. Some healthy young colts could do wonders for us.............................

Malloy
11-10-2005, 05:05 AM
I agree, Pitts needs to stay at LT at least until the end of this year. If we bring in a stud rookie I'd put them at RT for at least half the year to get adjusted to the game, if we bring in a FA that is better than Pitts (hopefully not another Victor Riley) then move Pitts to RT. I wouldn't mind seeing Riley at RG since he is a stronger, slower type. Hodgdon is pretty good but he's so small for OL that I fear he will have injury problems and won't be a great run blocker because of his size, but he has played well.

Keeping Pitts at LT, and drafting a rook designated for LT but playing RT to get "into the game" sounds like a good idea. I'm scared about the lack of depth at LT in case Pitts go down. A good draft pick could take care of that since FA's are starting to hurt our cap.

ccdude730
11-10-2005, 05:39 AM
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/3451298
Rookie center Drew Hodgdon may need season-ending foot surgery. Hodgdon left Sunday's game early after spraining the arch in his foot. Hodgdon, who started the last three games at center, is getting a second opinion, but the Texans fear his season is over.

"He's getting a second opinion, but chances are we could lose Drew for the year," coach Dom Capers said.

not a good time for bad news

as for next season who knows how that will turn out but they have a "plan" as to what they want it to be. (1st rounder-pitts-hodgdon-weigert-wade) thats my guess as to what the coaching staff feels will be the best combo. but weigert is struggling with injuries and wade struggles with pass protection. and we arent even sure if the staff will even be around much longer

eriadoc
11-10-2005, 11:13 AM
I'm not sure I understand the point of view that has Pitts moving the right side that I see so many people uphold on here. Pitts has only played on the left side for us and he's played rather well there, given the situation. The one area that everyone could bust his chops - penalties - has improved quite a bit this year. I have seen some plays from him at LT this year where he has simply dominated the rusher. He's the steadiest LT we have and he didn't even start the season there. I say keep him at LT, then move him to LG only if you think you've found a Pace-type LT.

Runner
11-10-2005, 02:16 PM
I have a question here and would like to see what others think. Capers has stated that he is committed to having Pitts play left tackle. Does this seem to be exactly the wrong time for this?

Many people have always had a preference for Pitts at tackle. Although I’m of the opinion Wand should have started the year there, this is not the point of this question. If they were going to change tackles this year, Pitts should have been put there to start the year, instead of Riley. Riley was never the answer to any question at left tackle, as far as I could see. I think the main thing Pendry liked about him was his “non-Wandedness”. So if you are going to commit to Pitts at LT, do it a game 1.

However, right now our line is a shambles. Keeping Pitts at tackle puts Weary, Brown, and McKinney in the middle, with the possibility that McKinney plays center, where he is weaker than at guard. This seems about the worst combination of players we could put into these 3 positions.

We’ll be double teaming Freeney almost constantly this week anyway, so the LT spot is less critical then when that guy is doing one on one blocking. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have Pitts play guard again for now to strengthen the middle, at least until Weigert comes back to shore it up?

It just seems to me our coaches are a couple of steps behind the parade. Examples abound. It took four games for them to see (admit?) that Riley wasn’t the answer, it is taking them forever to limit Bradford’s playing time, waiting until we're into the season to fire Palmer (right or wrong), etc.

Opinions?

eriadoc
11-10-2005, 04:33 PM
Personally, I think Pitts should never have left the LT position. I understand that the coaching staff thinks he's better at LG than LT, but to me, he was a young player being thrust into a difficult position and then just as he was finally beginning to adjust well, he got moved to LG. I was even OK with them projecting Wand out at LT at the beginning of last year, but I was not OK with them just handing him the job. If they really thought/still think Wand can be the LT, then work him iinto it. They've handled that situation all wrong.

I never understand why coaches tend to meddle with things like this and the reasons that are given through the media are things like the player is not a prototypical LT, or his arms are too short, or whatever. If the results are there, go with it. Feel free to question what might be, but don't question what has been. And Pitts has been the best LT this organization has had. I really think he has a chance to be the LT of the future, but that won't be realized until he gets one long look at LT, not just a few games in a row, then move it back out.

I say, despite the problems that we have with injury on the line, leave Pitts at LT for the balance of this season. At least that way, you have a better idea of whether you need a 1st-round LT or can focus on other spots.

Runner
11-10-2005, 04:38 PM
I say, despite the problems that we have with injury on the line, leave Pitts at LT for the balance of this season. At least that way, you have a better idea of whether you need a 1st-round LT or can focus on other spots.

That's a pretty good point, given the anguish we'll see over the use of next year's pick.

It might get real ugly Sunday though - we only had 6 net yards passing against them last game with a fairly healthy line!

eriadoc
11-10-2005, 04:53 PM
I think Pitts can do as well as anyone on Freeney (other than Pace, obviously). Help him out with Wand at LTE or something, but I think we need to see how good Pitts can really be. I think he's pretty good and if the guys around him were good and had any continuity, he'd really shine. Unfortunately, with injuries and a coaching SNAFU or two, the continuity hasn't been there.

At any rate, I'd rather see them focus on getting Pitts firmly pegged into wherever he's going to be next year and adjust accordingly.

Runner
11-11-2005, 09:17 AM
I just listened to Mark Breuner on 93.7. He said he was going to see a lot of Freeney this weekend, so the double team will be there.

Too bad the coaches didn't figure out that giving Wand help with Freeney last year might have been the thing to do. At least they used the off-season productively. Maybe that was their idea of improving the line - double team Freeney.

keyfro
11-11-2005, 09:31 AM
man discussing the o-line shuffles of this year and probably next year is depressing...the fact is we need to draft a stud LT, and a stud G...because there are a couple of things that are for sure about this line...weigert is gonna get hurt and we need somebody to start grooming for his replacement(david joseph)...and eventually the coaches are gonna put pitts back at guard

Texans Horror
11-11-2005, 09:31 AM
At any rate, I'd rather see them focus on getting Pitts firmly pegged into wherever he's going to be next year and adjust accordingly.

No way. The Texans' idea of pegging Pitts to a position is to put him in at LT the rest of this season, hire a new LT, then return Pitts to Guard...

Texans Horror
11-11-2005, 09:32 AM
man discussing the o-line shuffles of this year and probably next year is depressing...the fact is we need to draft a stud LT, and a stud G...because there are a couple of things that are for sure about this line...weigert is gonna get hurt and we need somebody to start grooming for his replacement(david joseph)...and eventually the coaches are gonna put pitts back at guard

We need a Center.

Runner
11-11-2005, 09:42 AM
More than anything else we need good line coaching. Examples have been given in numerous places on this board of less experienced and cheaper lines doing well.

- We say we have a plan with the line, then we abandon that plan on a whim, (Riley? C'mon coach - explain the on-field logic behind that)

- We are slow to change (takes a year to figure out almost everybody double teams Freeney, maybe we should try that)

- People miss assignments, miscommunicate, and don't seem to know their responsibilites at times

- The best players aren't on the field

- The coaches want their players to be automatons rather than aggressive and thinking (Carr makes great pass, Bradford drops, yell at Carr)

Texans Horror
11-11-2005, 09:56 AM
More than anything else we need good line coaching. Examples have been given in numerous places on this board of less experienced and cheaper lines doing well.

- We say we have a plan with the line, then we abandon that plan on a whim, (Riley? C'mon coach - explain the on-field logic behind that)

- We are slow to change (takes a year to figure out almost everybody double teams Freeney, maybe we should try that)

- People miss assignments, miscommunicate, and don't seem to know their responsibilites at times

- The best players aren't on the field

- The coaches want their players to be automatons rather than aggressive and thinking (Carr makes great pass, Bradford drops, yell at Carr)

In my assessment, I'm assuming a coaching change. Do you think that we have all the players we need and all that is required is a coaching change?

Runner
11-11-2005, 10:05 AM
In my assessment, I'm assuming a coaching change. Do you think that we have all the players we need and all that is required is a coaching change?

No, we can certainly use some better players. I'm not sure the coaches could identify them as better and start them though.

I do think we have the players in hand to be far less pathetic then we are now.

This team is far too disjointed. It seems we can never get entire units all executing in sync. If the o-line holds, Carr makes a mistake. If Carr makes a good throw, the receiver breaks off the route. Same types of things on defense - we get a good pass rush, the DBs had given the receivers a 10 yard cushion anyway. All of these things point to poor coaching, in my opinion.

edo783
11-11-2005, 11:37 AM
Geee, it only took our brain trust nearly 4 years to figure out we need to double team Freeny. These guys must come to the stadium on the short bus.

keyfro
11-11-2005, 01:54 PM
i still think hodgdon can be our long-term center...although i think we need a veteran back-up to him

Runner
11-11-2005, 02:42 PM
Don't be surprised to see Riley starting at right guard Sunday. Another chance for the out of shape player to start at a position he hasn't played.

I don't know what the plan is for the scond half when he's exhausted.

Texans Horror
11-11-2005, 03:30 PM
Don't be surprised to see Riley starting at right guard Sunday. Another chance for the out of shape player to start at a position he hasn't played.

I don't know what the plan is for the scond half when he's exhausted.


WHAT THE HELL? :hairpull: Have the coaches learned nothing?????:brickwall :brickwall

The only thing I can think is that putting Riley at LT will reduce the sack ratio that Wand/Pitts would have, so they can hopefully find better work elsewhere next year...

Wade, Weary, McKinney, Pitts, Riley is the weakest line-up they have tried yet. We'll be fortunate if they get a single first down!
:dangit:

Texans Horror
11-11-2005, 03:31 PM
In the second half, we will move Breuner over to LT cause god-forbid we use Wand. It's like that dude's got leprosy or something...

Runner
11-11-2005, 03:44 PM
Wade, Weary, McKinney, Pitts, Riley is the weakest line-up they have tried yet. We'll be fortunate if they get a single first down!


Actually from RT to LT it'll probably be Wade, Riley, McKinney, Brown, Pitts.

Same results though - Riley at another new position, move Brown to the other side just so that he doesn't get too comfortable playing the same position all the time, etc.

I bet the Indy DL will have a good pool on who gets the most sacks. The defensive tackles will be happy to have a chance to win.

Texans Horror
11-11-2005, 03:57 PM
I heard a rumor that Marcus Spears is back...

This could be a drinking game. For every time that Wand is passed up by another has-been or fat lineman, you take a swig. (I would recommend taking a swig with every sack during the Colts game, but I'm afraid nobody would last past the first quarter.)

Paragon Blue
11-11-2005, 04:04 PM
Hodgdon was placed on IR does this mean that he is out for the year?

eriadoc
11-11-2005, 04:25 PM
Hodgdon was placed on IR does this mean that he is out for the year?

Yes.

TEXANS84
11-11-2005, 09:17 PM
HoustonTexans.com

HOUSTON - The Houston Texans have placed C Drew Hodgdon on the Reserve/Injured list after he suffered a sprained right foot Sunday against Jacksonville. To fill Hodgdon’s spot on the roster, the Texans have signed WR Donavan Morgan from the practice squad to their active roster.

Donovan Morgan was a AFL stud. Can't wait to see what he can do in the bigtime.

YoungTexanFan
11-11-2005, 09:27 PM
Donovan Morgan was a AFL stud. Can't wait to see what he can do in the bigtime.

yes, now only to see if he gels with the rest of the offensive line...:brickwall

Vinny
11-11-2005, 10:24 PM
yes, now only to see if he gels with the rest of the offensive line...:brickwall He is a WR

YoungTexanFan
11-11-2005, 10:36 PM
He is a WR

i know. my sarcasim failed, but i shall explain myself.

WHY ARE WE BRINGING IN A WR TO REPLACE A C ON THE ROSTER?

we have WR covered with or without bradford!!

our oline is in desperation! now...to see where he fits in on the O line...:sarcasm: but to better illustrate my point, i leave you with this: :fight:

utahmark
11-11-2005, 10:37 PM
I have a question here and would like to see what others think. Capers has stated that he is committed to having Pitts play left tackle. Does this seem to be exactly the wrong time for this?

Many people have always had a preference for Pitts at tackle. Although I’m of the opinion Wand should have started the year there, this is not the point of this question. If they were going to change tackles this year, Pitts should have been put there to start the year, instead of Riley. Riley was never the answer to any question at left tackle, as far as I could see. I think the main thing Pendry liked about him was his “non-Wandedness”. So if you are going to commit to Pitts at LT, do it a game 1.

However, right now our line is a shambles. Keeping Pitts at tackle puts Weary, Brown, and McKinney in the middle, with the possibility that McKinney plays center, where he is weaker than at guard. This seems about the worst combination of players we could put into these 3 positions.

We’ll be double teaming Freeney almost constantly this week anyway, so the LT spot is less critical then when that guy is doing one on one blocking. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have Pitts play guard again for now to strengthen the middle, at least until Weigert comes back to shore it up?

It just seems to me our coaches are a couple of steps behind the parade. Examples abound. It took four games for them to see (admit?) that Riley wasn’t the answer, it is taking them forever to limit Bradford’s playing time, waiting until we're into the season to fire Palmer (right or wrong), etc.

Opinions?

i was thinking the same thing about pitts. why start your best lineman at a position thats going to need help this week. i guess they have decided to keep pitts at lt tackle and leave him there. of course they are not real good at game planning. they are kinda single minded. "we want pitts at lt tackle, doesnt matter what would be best for this game."

thats pretty much why we su@@.

edo783
11-11-2005, 11:32 PM
WHY ARE WE BRINGING IN A WR TO REPLACE A C ON THE ROSTER?

we have WR covered with or without bradford!!

our oline is in desperation! now...to see where he fits in on the O line...:sarcasm: but to better illustrate my point, i leave you with this: :fight:

Totally valid point. The cupboard may be bare of O-lineman on the practice squad. Anyone know if we have an O-lineman squirreled away on the squad.

Runner
11-11-2005, 11:35 PM
Totally valid point. The cupboard may be bare of O-lineman on the practice squad. Anyone know if we have an O-lineman squirreled away on the squad.

Marcus Spears was brought back in - he was at practice today.

Ibar_Harry
11-11-2005, 11:36 PM
Totally valid point. The cupboard may be bare of O-lineman on the practice squad. Anyone know if we have an O-lineman squirreled away on the squad.

They cut the young man from Lousianna and another one early in TC. Had no talent and didn't need any backup. We had a vertern line ready to go.....

utahmark
11-12-2005, 12:49 AM
They cut the young man from Lousianna and another one early in TC. Had no talent and didn't need any backup. We had a vertern line ready to go.....

im ready for them to go also.....