PDA

View Full Version : Texans on ESPN right now talking about Bush


gtexan02
12-13-2005, 06:47 PM
Tune in everyone!

gtexan02
12-13-2005, 06:50 PM
Salisbury says we have to take Bush because by himself, he will take pressure off the QB and make the line look above average. Eric Allen is saying that we have to trade down and pick up a left tackle and a defensive player. Allen says that we don't know what Bush will be like in the NFL, and Salisbury says that Bush is top 5 talent in the NFL, with peyton manning, lt, etc. crazy, good discussion, i would try and listen to it if you can.

Corrosion
12-13-2005, 06:50 PM
So Salsbury and Allen have the exact same arguement that many of us are having .. Whats new ? :brickwall

ccdude730
12-13-2005, 06:53 PM
i had never seen 2 guys act like they care so much about the texans. im flattered really....

GP
12-13-2005, 06:53 PM
More scoop from Dan Patrick Show at 5:25 p.m. 12-13-05 (I'm a loser, I know) about the Texans and what they should do with draft position:

Dan plays tape of earlier comments from Sean Salisbury Steak: "The Houston Texans should take Reggie Bush. If they don't, they're stupid. He's a once-in-40-years type of player."

Dan brings on Eric Allen, live, and asks for Eric's take on the situation: "Dan, of course Sean is going to say that...he wants to see his USC guy go first no matter what (Eric giggles, and so does Dan). One player is not going to make this team win right now, and that's what they need to do: Win right now. They need to STOP somebody. Look at the Bears this year. Stopping people with great defense is what the Texans need to do. This isn't the 1980 era Lakers type of game where you go fast break and outscore people. The Texans need to slide down and get two good defensive players and then an offensive tackle."

Eric goes on to say why take Reggie when you basically have a suitable back like Domanick Davis who is gettig his yards, has a reasonable average per carry, can catch out of the backfield (basically what I and others have been saying).

Dan leans toward Sean's take and says that Reggie will make everybody better around him. Eric strongly disagrees and says the Texans need defensive help that can step onto the field immediately and make a difference.

Pretty nuts and bolts here, folks. You either want to gamble like the Lions have the past four years and bank roll an offensive fireworks show that can't even get the wick lit, or you make the ugly pick and stick to meat and potatoes like most clubs do (Steelers, Patriots, etc.) Those teams make the ugly pick that gets no headlines each year, and they just continue to field solid teams every year.

My two cents: STICK TO THE PLAN. Make the ugly picks, regardless of the hype.

tiger06
12-13-2005, 06:55 PM
i had never seen 2 guys act like they care so much about the texans. im flattered really....

seems like we've got as much coverage as the Colts this year. I kind of like it...

God of Wine
12-13-2005, 06:57 PM
Nope I say pick Bush, see signature............

YoungTexanFan
12-13-2005, 06:58 PM
seems like we've got as much coverage as the Colts this year. I kind of like it...

no such thing as bad publicity

YoungTexanFan
12-13-2005, 07:03 PM
My two cents: STICK TO THE PLAN. Make the ugly picks, regardless of the hype.

we have never gone with the ugly pick. I dont quite know which plan you are following, but I agree with it. If only our front office did too. :hmmm:

Grid
12-13-2005, 08:12 PM
Salisbury came off sounding like a total moron.

Funny that he was saying some of the same junk im seeing on this board.

texplayer2
12-13-2005, 08:26 PM
Dan leans toward Sean's take and says that Reggie will make everybody better around him. Eric strongly disagrees and says the Texans need defensive help that can step onto the field immediately and make a difference.

Pretty nuts and bolts here, folks. You either want to gamble like the Lions have the past four years and bank roll an offensive fireworks show that can't even get the wick lit, or you make the ugly pick and stick to meat and potatoes like most clubs do (Steelers, Patriots, etc.) Those teams make the ugly pick that gets no headlines each year, and they just continue to field solid teams every year.

My two cents: STICK TO THE PLAN. Make the ugly picks, regardless of the hype.

Last years draft? Didn't we pick TJ and........Babin? Defensive Guys right? I have not seen many headlines on those guys, you are right. I think these guys will get better, but you have to go with good players and adapt your game to them. Sean is right.

God of Wine
12-13-2005, 08:37 PM
Funny that he was saying some of the same junk im seeing on this board.

Same can be said for Eric also. :) Eric was a defensive player, Sean was a QB , so you know they are biased to their side of the ball.

awtysst
12-13-2005, 08:53 PM
If you watched the ESPN interview with Eric and Sean you will notice Sean did some SERIOUS backpeddling. At one point he called reggie bush an equal talent of non other then P. Manning. He then claimed that R. Bush was a top 5 player in terms of talent right now. Later when pressed he referred to Bush as a "top 10 back". So in a few minutes he went from top 5 to top 10 back. Nice job of backpeddling SS.

Big B Texan Fan
12-13-2005, 09:17 PM
Weren't the Portland Trailblazers content with Clyde Drexler when they passed on Michael "Freaking" Jordan so instead they go with Sam Bowie. The JailBlazers actually said that about Drexler leading up to the draft. Drexler is great, but Jordan is super-great. DD is great but Bush is __________________!!!!!!(fill in the blank)

Well I'm content with DD but...........This guy could be the next Jordan of RB's. I'm still confused because we do need the extra pix. I just wish we had this scenario last year, there was no Reggie or Leinert. It would've been a No-Brainer to trade down from #1 or #2 last year.

Although I'm at a crossroad with my feelings on this, I can say that I'm leaning more to the "Draft Reggie" side of the fence.

And to all of you Jordan Lovers out there that are thinkin' that I just compared Bush to Jordan, I comparing their pre-draft fanfare as they were coming out of college. I'm in no way saying that they are equals or anything like that.

Sarg01
12-13-2005, 09:22 PM
Pretty nuts and bolts here, folks. You either want to gamble like the Lions have the past four years and bank roll an offensive fireworks show that can't even get the wick lit, or you make the ugly pick and stick to meat and potatoes like most clubs do (Steelers, Patriots, etc.) Those teams make the ugly pick that gets no headlines each year, and they just continue to field solid teams every year.

My two cents: STICK TO THE PLAN. Make the ugly picks, regardless of the hype.

I'm still undecided.

That being said, just to play devil's advocate here. I can toss you a different example of a team in a similar funk to the Lions. The Bengals took a Dlineman with the #4 pick in 2001. They took an OT with the #10 pick in 2002. The next year they had the #1 overall and the worst record in franchise history - those two ugly picks didn't seem to differentiate them much from the Lions. In fact, they were worse.

The Lions problem is two-fold. First, the administration is terrible. Second, despite the high-profile WR draft picks, they haven't had a decent passer nor a good running back. Since they can't get Charles Rogers on the field, teams can double Roy Williams all day long (sound familiar?). In short, they haven't put together a working offense. They've added enough sheer talent that heroic effort at times by individual players is sometimes enough to get them over the top. Most of the time though, they fall just short.

Their lines on both sides of the ball are solidly better than anything the Texans might hope to field next year. Oh, and 4 of their last 10 first day picks were on the defensive front 7, and we're talking high seconds type picks - the same sort that we can probably expect to get in trade-downs.

Grid
12-13-2005, 09:46 PM
football aint basketball. You dont go to five superbowls cause you have one really talented player.

gg no re
12-13-2005, 09:50 PM
Not true.

Jordan did need Pippen.

Team sports FTW.

Grid
12-13-2005, 09:53 PM
Basketball isnt NEARLY as team oriented as FOotball. It takes more than two great players to win a superbowl too.

Big B Texan Fan
12-13-2005, 10:07 PM
football aint basketball. You dont go to five superbowls cause you have one really talented player.
Really........football ain't basketball. It's good thing you came. Everybody hear that, football ain't basketball, just in case you were confused like I was.

As far as the "one really talented player" you refered to. If I remember correctly Jordan had a little help in the form of a perrinial All-Star and Gold medal winner Scottie Pippen. Maybe Bush and DD and AJ team up. Then Carr gets on board with a little tweakin' of the O-Line. The possibilities are endless.

Bball has 5 on the court at a time. Fball has 11 on the field. 5 divided by eleven is 2.2ish. Let us round down for arguments sake to 2. Jordan was one of the 5. Brady and Dillon are 2 of the 11 for the offense. Bruschi and Law were 2 of the 11 for the defense. Montana and Rice, Elway and Davis, Bradshaw and Swan, Aikman and Smith and Irving (those guys are there if you wanna round the 2.2 up). Ray Lewis and the rest of his D, Brooks and Lynch, and Barber.:cool:

mean mark8
12-13-2005, 10:14 PM
How much of a difference did Earl Campbell make to the Oilers? If Bush will be an Earl Campbell type player in the NFL, the jury is still out. The scouts seem to think he may be. Of course they also thought Ryan Leaf and that OT the Packers drafted years back as can't miss prospects. This is a giant guessing game. I don't think you can pass on the type of talent Bush may be. If he's a bust, then he's a bust. We won't be the first one to have it happen. I wouldn't want to be the one to pass on the next Earl Campbell.

Grid
12-13-2005, 10:24 PM
blah blah blah blah blah blah.. weve been over this. if you want the "other" opinion.. then read the past posts on it.

here is the readers digest version:


"We have bigger needs"

run-david-run
12-13-2005, 10:29 PM
Weren't the Portland Trailblazers content with Clyde Drexler when they passed on Michael "Freaking" Jordan so instead they go with Sam Bowie. The JailBlazers actually said that about Drexler leading up to the draft. Drexler is great, but Jordan is super-great. DD is great but Bush is __________________!!!!!!(fill in the blank)

Well I'm content with DD but...........This guy could be the next Jordan of RB's. I'm still confused because we do need the extra pix. I just wish we had this scenario last year, there was no Reggie or Leinert. It would've been a No-Brainer to trade down from #1 or #2 last year.

Although I'm at a crossroad with my feelings on this, I can say that I'm leaning more to the "Draft Reggie" side of the fence.

And to all of you Jordan Lovers out there that are thinkin' that I just compared Bush to Jordan, I comparing their pre-draft fanfare as they were coming out of college. I'm in no way saying that they are equals or anything like that.
How good were the Bulls before they got Jordan some help? Even with MJ they didnt win it all because one player can nor carry a team. Reggie might be the next coming of Barry Sanders, but just like the Lions back then, we wont win with just Barry/Reggie if we dont fix the major problems of this team (O-line, secondary)

Big B Texan Fan
12-13-2005, 10:31 PM
blah blah blah blah blah blah.. weve been over this. if you want the "other" opinion.. then read the past posts on it.

Well if that's the case then lets just stop starting new threads, shut down the MB's, hell why not even just go ahead and run the team out of town to somewhere that rhymes with Schmennessee.

Grid
12-13-2005, 10:34 PM
Well if that's the case then lets just stop starting new threads, shut down the MB's, hell why not even just go ahead and run the team out of town to somewhere that rhymes with Schmennessee.

that whole thing has been talked about to. check the other threads.

keyfro
12-13-2005, 10:35 PM
bottom line is we need playmakers on both sides...you can make the argument that having both davis and bush would greatly help this team...you can make the argument that trading down and picking up two defensive studs like mario williams and jimmy williams or aj hawk could greatly improve this team...in all likely hood though we won't get two 1st round draft picks this year...the only team with two 1st rounders is denver...who would they be willing to trade up for...bush? really why...they have too many freakin backs there already...if we trade down we're looking at getting a lower 1st rounder(something we really don't need) and some additional day one and two picks(something we really do need)...basically pick your poison...me personally all i can think about is this...pick reggie bush...this year then next year trade david carr for a 1st rounder and some other players...trade up if needed to get vince young...can you imagine an offense with young, bush, davis, andre johnson, and mathis all at the same time...who you gonna focus on?...sickest offense ever!!!!!

Big B Texan Fan
12-13-2005, 10:41 PM
How good were the Bulls before they got Jordan some help? Even with MJ they didnt win it all because one player can nor carry a team. Reggie might be the next coming of Barry Sanders, but just like the Lions back then, we wont win with just Barry/Reggie if we dont fix the major problems of this team (O-line, secondary)
So then which one do you first:
Take some O-linemen along with some extra pix then grab next years Bush.
I'm cool with that but what if next years Bush isn't but 3/4 as good as this years Bush.
Logic says trade down, I'm OK with trading down a long as we trade down effectively.
Or, we can just do it backwards. Go Bush this year and O-line/extra pix next. If were gonna suck as bad as most you think if we draft Bush, then we'll have a high tradable pick next year.

Big B Texan Fan
12-13-2005, 10:43 PM
that whole thing has been talked about to. check the other threads.
I'm sure it has but I don't have 12 weeks to read them all. I'm busy just like most of you guys and would love to catch up. I used to visit the MB's alot back in the day. I've just now started back on them.

Grid
12-13-2005, 10:43 PM
If we trade down just a few spots.. we could grab Dbrick, or Hawk.. and have two high second rounders to grab anyone who slides out of the first. If we trade down again from there to the middle of the first.. we could get Winston or Scott or Jimmy/Mario Williams.. and get a third second rounder.

No we wont be able to get 2 1st rounders.. but we could do quite well in the second round.

Our biggest need is Oline.. we NEED Olinemen..and we NEED to spend a first rounder on one of these elite tackle prospects... cause you dont get really good LTs outside the first round (usually). Now.. Pitts has been pretty good at LT for us.. but he could be good at RT for us too.. and honestly we just need more talent on the line no matter how you cut it.

Reggie Bush is a great talent.. I wouldnt MIND having him.. but with DD on this team, we really dont NEED Bush.. Bush is NOT going to jumpstart this team to anything. Anyone who thinks he is going to come in and shake the foundations of the earth is fooling themselves. It will be the same situation as LT and Barry Sanders.. Bush MAY come in and put up 2000 yards...yay for him.... without a good defense and a functioning Oline..we still arent gonna go anywhere.

but hey.. he is a great prospect right? so lets tie up 40 million bucks and toss the best player on our offense to the street to make room for him.

whatever.. im not gonna take part in this debate anymore. Until we know who our new coaching staff is.. and what our new identity is going to be.. we have nothing to base this debate on.

bigcarlos
12-13-2005, 10:54 PM
Didnt sean go to USC:challenge

berkman17
12-13-2005, 10:56 PM
Weren't the Portland Trailblazers content with Clyde Drexler when they passed on Michael "Freaking" Jordan so instead they go with Sam Bowie. The JailBlazers actually said that about Drexler leading up to the draft. Drexler is great, but Jordan is super-great. DD is great but Bush is __________________!!!!!!(fill in the blank)

Well I'm content with DD but...........This guy could be the next Jordan of RB's. I'm still confused because we do need the extra pix. I just wish we had this scenario last year, there was no Reggie or Leinert. It would've been a No-Brainer to trade down from #1 or #2 last year.

last year there was no talent quite like reggie bush. this draft is setting up sorta like the mike vick-lt draft a few years back. and, if memory serves me correctly, the falcons traded up to #1 to get mike vick and gave up the #2 overall, the #2 in the second round, plus their first round pick the next year.

i'm not gonna lie, i'm in the draft reggie camp, but think of all the loot we could get it we traded down ...

tulexan
12-13-2005, 10:58 PM
The Falcons traded the #4 overall pick.

Carr Bombed
12-13-2005, 11:13 PM
Im begining to be drawn on the fence with this one. Although I'm am and have been leaning towards bush. As for the previous post about Campbell. I don't think there will be another E. Campbell. The game has changed so much since then. E Campbell was straight power and during a time of enormous difference of talent levels. Todays game is about straight speed and elusiveness and enough power to break a tackle. Earl just ran over people, you don't see that today. The only argument I have towards the trade down comunity is they automaticly believe if we trade down we'll hit on all our picks. As I've stated above in a game where talent levels are separated by a hair, it is wishful thinking that your automaticlly going to be able to trade down and be garanteed to pick out studs, especially with the way our FO is set up now. Some times a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (bush, thats kinda ironic j/k) To wrap it all up, Im glad I'm not the gm and I don't know what we're going to do.

dat_boy_yec
12-13-2005, 11:18 PM
Everyone says we need o-line but I'm of the opinion that the line simply wasnt coached well or handled well this yr. all these arguments dont take into account the coaching. If we have a decent line coach next yr. I know the line will be better. The TE wasnt utilized well at all. I think Rivers could really contribute to the team. If we had second pick which could happen then yeah it would be great to trade down or fill one of those needs, I take into consideration that the D-line improved with the backups and I wonder what else do we have we dont know about well I know that Bush is an upgrade for sure I mean passing on this guy would not be smart. Immidiate impact on this team is what he brings. Deal with o-line and D in later rounds and free agency I think.

Jagsman28
12-13-2005, 11:34 PM
I will be seriously dissapointed if the Texans draft Bush. Bush, to me, is a product of the system. Look at the holes that USC line makes! Effin huge. Not to mention Lienart keeps them honest with the passing game, so they never stack the box. USC schedule isnt even that great. Bush will never be able to wear down a defense because he is a scat back, not a pounder.

Texan should do the right thing and trade down. Get a few more first day picks and sign some FA's. Drafting Bush is NOT the answer.

And no im not saying this because im afraid of you guys picking him up.

dalemurphy
12-14-2005, 12:53 AM
Any team that wants to be successful in the NFL for the long haul needs to do two things: manage the draft and manage the cap well.

The simple truth is that, though Bush could be a great player, the value we get for that pick is too good to pass up. In addition, trading down is also more cap friendly. Bush could also blow out his knee as a rookie and never be heard from again. We can get 4-5 first day players for him and pay less for those 4 combined than we do for him.

If you want an applicable example of this kind of move look at SD. They traded the Vick pick away in order to move down 3 spots. In return, they drafted Tomlinson and Drew Brees in the 2nd round, in addition to collecting extra picks. Then 3 years later, they traded down again. It was a bad trade on one hand. However, it was still a net gain because they received extra picks that have been useful and they are less cap-strapped than they would have been if they'd taken someon at #1 overall.

tulexan
12-14-2005, 12:56 AM
Im begining to be drawn on the fence with this one. Although I'm am and have been leaning towards bush. As for the previous post about Campbell. I don't think there will be another E. Campbell. The game has changed so much since then. E Campbell was straight power and during a time of enormous difference of talent levels. Todays game is about straight speed and elusiveness and enough power to break a tackle. Earl just ran over people, you don't see that today. The only argument I have towards the trade down comunity is they automaticly believe if we trade down we'll hit on all our picks. As I've stated above in a game where talent levels are separated by a hair, it is wishful thinking that your automaticlly going to be able to trade down and be garanteed to pick out studs, especially with the way our FO is set up now. Some times a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (bush, thats kinda ironic j/k) To wrap it all up, Im glad I'm not the gm and I don't know what we're going to do.

Did you see the Bus on Sunday? He was rumbling over people all day.

texplayer2
12-14-2005, 01:21 AM
The only argument I have towards the trade down comunity is they automaticly believe if we trade down we'll hit on all our picks. As I've stated above in a game where talent levels are separated by a hair, it is wishful thinking that your automaticlly going to be able to trade down and be garanteed to pick out studs, especially with the way our FO is set up now. Some times a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (bush, thats kinda ironic j/k) To wrap it all up, Im glad I'm not the gm and I don't know what we're going to do.

The faces on all the trade down talk is where I have a problem. Some of the trades I have seen proposed would take a gun pointed at another owner to be pulled off. Then if we do pull it off ( because being from Texas, Mcnair probably owns a gun or two) then we have to hope this guy falls that far or someone else doesn't jump in and get this guy before us. Why would we go that route and get half or less of what we want, instead of going with what we know we can get and following through on a plan. If we can get the farm at the time by all means get it, otherwise take what you get and stick to a plan. Don't go to the grocery store hungry.

tulexan
12-14-2005, 01:25 AM
that is what worries me too. everyone is saying to trade down to the 6th or 8th pick and then take winston. well what if winston is taken. ok then take ferguson. well what if ferguson is taken too. then we are stuck at the 8th pick without the guy we wanted.

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 01:35 AM
that is what worries me too. everyone is saying to trade down to the 6th or 8th pick and then take winston. well what if winston is taken. ok then take ferguson. well what if ferguson is taken too. then we are stuck at the 8th pick without the guy we wanted.

that would be awful, but you are assuming that we get no player in return from the team that would be willing to trade with us

Jagsman28
12-14-2005, 01:46 AM
that would be awful, but you are assuming that we get no player in return from the team that would be willing to trade with us

Then you could keep trading down. The more picks the better for the Texans. For the Texans to be more productive faster, they need more first day picks than few. Tackle has alot of depth in this years draft. If you cant get DBrick, get Winston. If you cant get Winston, get Justice. Trading down will produce more first day picks. Reggie Bush alone though should get you plenty of picks.

tulexan
12-14-2005, 01:50 AM
i guess i have a hard time seeing a team giving up draft picks and a good player that we could use. expecting a player like julian peterson is unrealistic because that is just another hole that the niners or whatever bad team that we are expecting to trade with is going to have to fill.

tulexan
12-14-2005, 01:51 AM
yeah but you don't want too many picks because you have to sign all of them and give them spots on the roster.

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 01:52 AM
i guess i have a hard time seeing a team giving up draft picks and a good player that we could use. expecting a player like julian peterson is unrealistic because that is just another hole that the niners or whatever bad team that we are expecting to trade with is going to have to fill.

If that were the case then you are overvalueing Bush.

Wolf
12-14-2005, 01:53 AM
to me alot is going to depend on our next coach.. Mike Martz (not saying he is our next coach) would take Bush.. yet a philosophy like capers (3 yards and a cloud of dust) doesn't (I would be suprised if he did)....

Wolf
12-14-2005, 01:54 AM
yeah but you don't want too many picks because you have to sign all of them and give them spots on the roster.


I'd be willing to stockpile a few picks for next season if peterson comes out :heh:

tulexan
12-14-2005, 01:59 AM
I don't think so. I believe that he is very valuable, but I don't think that a team is going to give up a few draft picks and a potential pro bowler like Julian Peterson like some here are expecting. It's not like we are trading with teams that are perennial playoff teams that have a lot of depth and can afford to give up quality players and draft picks. We are talking about the Niners, Jets, Saints, Cardinals, Packers, and Titans. All of these teams are in a rebuilding phase right now and can't really afford to break the bank in order to get Reggie Bush.

Wouldn't that mean that I am undervalueing him?

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 02:03 AM
I don't think so. I believe that he is very valuable, but I don't think that a team is going to give up a few draft picks and a potential pro bowler like Julian Peterson like some here are expecting. It's not like we are trading with teams that are perennial playoff teams that have a lot of depth and can afford to give up quality players and draft picks. We are talking about the Niners, Jets, Saints, Cardinals, Packers, and Titans. All of these teams are in a rebuilding phase right now and can't really afford to break the bank in order to get Reggie Bush.

Wouldn't that mean that I am undervalueing him?

Something is only valuable as the demand for that asset. If you do not believe other teams will give up something of substance to take this once in a generation back then is there tangible value for us to take him given our best asset is currently at RB?

tulexan
12-14-2005, 02:12 AM
No I believe that teams would be willing to give something of substance up for him, but all of the teams that would trade up for him (Niners, Packers, and Jets) are in arguably as worse or even worse condition than the Texans. Just like us, they need to fill a lot of holes too. The difference between us taking him at #1 and trading up to get him at #1 is huge. That is asking them to ignore holes that they must fill so they can give us picks plus remove a quality player from their team who again they will have to replace. If we were not at #1 I would not want us to trade up to get him because I think that would be blowing up our team for one player, but we don't have to because he is going to fall in our lap.

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 02:19 AM
No I believe that teams would be willing to give something of substance up for him, but all of the teams that would trade up for him (Niners, Packers, and Jets) are in arguably as worse or even worse condition than the Texans. Just like us, they need to fill a lot of holes too. The difference between us taking him at #1 and trading up to get him at #1 is huge. That is asking them to ignore holes that they must fill so they can give us picks plus remove a quality player from their team who again they will have to replace. If we were not at #1 I would not want us to trade up to get him because I think that would be blowing up our team for one player, but we don't have to because he is going to fall in our lap.

So what you are saying is that roughly six teams (Niners, Jets, Saints, Cardinals, Packers, and Titans) would only have interest in a once in a generation back?

You seem to be blowing up your rationale of taking Bush. You love him, but would not trade up for him? Hardly seems like the once in a generation player, does it?

tulexan
12-14-2005, 02:26 AM
I don't think so. If the Texans didn't have as many holes then I would be more than willing to trade up to get him, but we do not and a lot of the teams that are in the pick area (4-7) that we are looking at have just as many holes as we do. I thought the whole reason of trading down was to go down to that area and pick up one of the two elite LTs because that is our biggest need right now. If we trade down any farther then we might as well just keep the pick and pick up one of the second tier LTs with our second pick.

I do think he is a once in a generation back and am sure that we will have plenty of offers to trade down but I don't want to trade down just to trade down and not get equal value for the pick.

HJam72
12-14-2005, 02:31 AM
Here's an idea: We take Bush (I know, I've been against it for the most part) and then tell them that DD and Wells are the only reliable RBs around that are available for trade. We rip them in the DD trade and get more over-all. :)

Erratic Assassin
12-14-2005, 04:15 AM
comments from Sean Salisbury Steak: "The Houston Texans should take Reggie Bush. If they don't, they're stupid. He's a once-in-40-years type of player."

Salisbury is a former male cheerleader. What the hell does he know?

We have needs and running back isn't one of them. We haven't addressed those needs in 4 years, and now we're supposed to make it 5 years? At what point will we finally address our needs? Looks like never.

How many future hall of famers do the Patriots have on their team? Not many, they just have a ton of above average players. I'm okay with drafting Bush, only if we turn around a trade him to a team that believes he is "once-in-40-years type of player". One of those Cowboys-Vikings: Hershel Walker for 12 players type trades. THAT WOULD ROCK!

Assuming of course that Casserly doesn't get to decide how we use those picks. He'd probably piss away 3 of those picks for a shot at the next Jason Babin.

sakebomb
12-14-2005, 08:09 AM
It would be great to have a weapon like Bush but that doesn't equal wins. Look at Arizona or St. Louis. They have weapons on offense but they still don't win enough games. I want wins. I don't care how ugly they are and the best way for us to get wins is to be able to stop someone on defense when it counts. We have a lot of holes but the turn around can start next year. Bring in a new staff with new schemes for both sides of the ball. Protect the QB. Find some defensive players that can strike the fear of God in the opponents. :twocents:

Here's to next season. :party:

Erratic Assassin
12-14-2005, 08:57 AM
It would be great to have a weapon like Bush but that doesn't equal wins.

How many superbowl rings does did Barry Sanders bring Detroit? He was certainly a once in every 40 years player.

It makes no sense to hamstring the franchise with the outrageous salary and signing bonus Reggie Bush will command. I've never seen so much hype in all my life.

This isn't basketball where 1 player equals one-fifth of your team.

dat_boy_yec
12-14-2005, 10:15 AM
The holes we need to fill can be addressed in many ways free agency 2nd and other rounds of the draft trades what not, but you can only draft one Reggie Bush. That our holes arent being filled, hardly I get the feeling that coaching and front office changes are coming and those are our biggest holes, once those are filled I expect immediate improvement, and a better opportunity to evaluate our players. I know its been posted on here before the linemen we got through trades or fa played well on other teams, but when they got to Houston they started sucking, wtf that dont make sense to me. I think we could have won some games this season if not for playcalling. The conservative play againts the Rams in the second half, the blitz againts Baltimore. Those are mistakes on the football field, it makes me wonder if they cant do anything right in the game how much are they doing right in practice. The biggest prob. I see with the line isnt talent but mental errors. Milford Brown is a great example when he helps the center instead of picking up blitzes. These kinda mistakes have been happening all season false starts illegal formations. Thats the coaching because if somebody consistently ****s up you pull them. On defense look at Shante Orr and DaShaun Polk those two guys have been playing a huge part in our improving defense but if Wong and Babin hadnt been hurt would the coaches have given these guys opportunities. I think we should get Bush and see the improvement next yr. we have talent at qb, we have a passing game, and a running game, our line can run block and pass block(somewhat) but these aspects arent refined the way they should be by the coaches. If I were a line coach I would drill the o-line on pass blocking all day until they got it right and well Im getting off the subject. Everyone says we need more talented ppl but I think we need coaching to see what we really need, you always take a risk in the draft I think it would be wisest to take that risk on the player that has the most potential (Bush) and hope for the best.

MorKnolle
12-14-2005, 10:33 AM
The holes we need to fill, especially OL, will be filled much better in the draft than in free agency, and not a lot of starting-quality OL, especially a future LT, will fall past the 1st round, not to mention by trading off the #1 pick (assuming we get it, there are three games left in the season) we save ourselves from having to pay out a $50+ million contract to a single player and can add 2-4 more high 2nd and 3rd round picks this year and a 1st or 2nd round pick next year. We can add an additional 3-6 immediate starters (that we would otherwise not be able to get) over the next two drafts by trading away the pick for Bush, and likely pay all of them combined less than what we'd have to pay Bush.

TheOgre
12-14-2005, 10:50 AM
Bengals took a Dlineman with the #4 pick in 2001. They took an OT with the #10 pick in 2002. The next year they had the #1 overall and the worst record in franchise history - those two ugly picks didn't seem to differentiate them much from the Lions. In fact, they were worse.

That OT they took in 2002 was Levi Jones. It took him 2-3 years, but he is moving up the ranks of the starting LT's in the league. He is a key part of the foundation in place for Palmer to excel. We need our foundation for Carr (or whoever our QB will be) to prosper.

TexanAlmighty
12-14-2005, 11:02 AM
Barry Sanders didn't get a ring because they didn't know how to build a team around him. Emmitt Smith won 3 rings. They had the big 3. With Bush we will have our big 3. Bush will make everyone around him better. Carr will definitely benefit from having Bush, from picking up the blitz and from breaking from the line of scrimmage quicker than DD. He will not be caught from behind either. We can pick up OL later in the draft and through FA. Who knows what a different scheme would do also. You have to draft Reggie Bush. You cannot pass on his talent.

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 11:07 AM
Barry Sanders didn't get a ring because they didn't know how to build a team around him. Emmitt Smith won 3 rings. They had the big 3. With Bush we will have our big 3. Bush will make everyone around him better. Carr will definitely benefit from having Bush, from picking up the blitz and from breaking from the line of scrimmage quicker than DD. He will not be caught from behind either. We can pick up OL later in the draft and through FA. Who knows what a different scheme would do also. You have to draft Reggie Bush. You cannot pass on his talent.

Please mail me your crystal ball. Or better yet look back into it and you will see that the best running back prospect currently in the NCAA is at OU.

Big B Texan Fan
12-14-2005, 11:16 AM
You fill holes with rd 2-7 plus FA. You take impact players if available if you're picking #1 - #12ish in rd 1. In all those crappy years leading up to the Cowboys reign of the 90's, they never once took an OL in the 1st. As a matter of fact the year they drafted Irving, they didn't even take an OL until the 3rd 4th 7th rds. The year after that, they drafted Aikman then Moose then an OL. After that draft, they gave up next years 1st (which wound up being the #1 overall) in the Supp Draft for a QB. The following Draft they they found themselves back in the 1st with the 17th overall and too Emmit, they didn't even draft an OL that draft. The draft after that they took DT R. Maryland 1st overall then later on in the 1st rd. they drafted WR A. Harper.

Then after all that the next 6 seasons had 10 or more wins per season with 3 rings.

Hmmm. Impact players with the 1st rd. Fill holes with the rest plus FA.

Now lets look at teams that took OL high in the 1st:

Rams/Pace - 1 ring, 1 SB loss, another playoff or 2
Jags/Boselli - 2 AFC Champ losses with a few other playoff appearances
Ravens/Ogden - 1 ring that was won on the wings of the Lewis led D
Just to name a few.

MorKnolle
12-14-2005, 11:20 AM
Barry Sanders didn't get a ring because they didn't know how to build a team around him. Emmitt Smith won 3 rings. They had the big 3. With Bush we will have our big 3. Bush will make everyone around him better. Carr will definitely benefit from having Bush, from picking up the blitz and from breaking from the line of scrimmage quicker than DD. He will not be caught from behind either. We can pick up OL later in the draft and through FA. Who knows what a different scheme would do also. You have to draft Reggie Bush. You cannot pass on his talent.

Emmitt won three rings because the Cowboys built a stellar defense and one of the best OLine in history around him, and they had good offensive weapons too. The Cowboys drafted Michael Irvin in the first round in 1988, Troy Aikman in 1989, and Emmitt Smith in 1990. They didn't decide a couple years later that Emmitt wasn't fast enough so they were going to upgrade RBs for a much higher priced guy that was a better athlete but probably a less complete overall RB. They already had a solid team built around their players and they didn't waste money and a high draft pick for a slight upgrade at a single position. Emmitt Smith and Domanick Davis are very similar RB. Both are 5-9 (I think Davis is more realistically 5-7 or so) 215-220 lbs. not elite straight-line speed, but pretty fast, quick side-to-side, a good receiver out of the backfield, and smart runners who recognize the whole and get there. Emmitt was probably a better blocker (Davis can improve that and I don't remember Emmitt in his first couple seasons so I can't compare that Emmitt to Domanick, and if you think Bush is going to block blitzing LBs any better than Davis then I'd say you're crazy) and Emmitt was a little more durable, but most of Davis' nagging injuries come from him having to get the ball and get hit 30-35 times a game. I'll bet Davis has as many 40+ yard runs as Emmitt did in his first three years, but the Cowboys recognized that they had a solid back and weren't going to give him up for a newer, flashier model. They didn't give up on Emmitt to go get Marshall Faulk after Emmitt had been around for a few years. Don't compare Bush to Emmitt Smith, he compares much, much better to Domanick Davis. We already have our big 3 in Carr, Davis, and AJ. Carr and Davis compare pretty well to Aikman and Emmitt at that age, and Carr is more athletic than Aikman ever was. AJ is a much better athlete than Irvin ever was. The difference between our team and the Cowboys of the 90s is the OLine and the defense, so if you want to look like those Cowboys teams then let's improve on our weaknesses, and the part of the team that really wins championships without receiving the same recognition for it.

TexanAlmighty
12-14-2005, 11:20 AM
Please mail me your crystal ball. Or better yet look back into it and you will see that the best running back prospect currently in the NCAA is at OU.

No lie there, he is special also. Is he coming out or staying?

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 11:21 AM
You fill holes with rd 2-7 plus FA. You take impact players if available if you're picking #1 - #12ish in rd 1. In all those crappy years leading up to the Cowboys reign of the 90's, they never once took an OL in the 1st. As a matter of fact the year they drafted Irving, they didn't even take an OL until the 3rd 4th 7th rds. The year after that, they drafted Aikman then Moose then an OL. After that draft, they gave up next years 1st (which wound up being the #1 overall) in the Supp Draft for a QB. The following Draft they they found themselves back in the 1st with the 17th overall and too Emmit, they didn't even draft an OL that draft. The draft after that they took DT R. Maryland 1st overall then later on in the 1st rd. they drafted WR A. Harper.

Then after all that the next 6 seasons had 10 or more wins per season with 3 rings.

Hmmm. Impact players with the 1st rd. Fill holes with the rest plus FA.

Now lets look at teams that took OL high in the 1st:

Rams/Pace - 1 ring, 1 SB loss, another playoff or 2
Jags/Boselli - 2 AFC Champ losses with a few other playoff appearances
Ravens/Ogden - 1 ring that was won on the wings of the Lewis led D
Just to name a few.

And you call yourself a Bush supporter? The reason why the Cowboys did that was that they traded a coveted RB for many picks. If Bush is of value as you think he is then we could trade for multiple picks and find those nuggets in the draft.

Kaiser Toro
12-14-2005, 11:22 AM
No lie there, he is special also. Is he coming out or staying?

If he came out, sign me up for taking AP at #1.

MorKnolle
12-14-2005, 11:36 AM
Adrian Peterson is a sophomore and can't come out this year, so let's hold off on the "let's draft Peterson" stuff until next year, we have enough of the Bush ones now.

MorKnolle
12-14-2005, 11:40 AM
And you call yourself a Bush supporter? The reason why the Cowboys did that was that they traded a coveted RB for many picks. If Bush is of value as you think he is then we could trade for multiple picks and find those nuggets in the draft.

Excellent observation, and the Cowboys didn't give up on Emmitt after a few years and go draft Marshall Faulk or anyone else that was "amazing and a home run threat".

Emmitt wasn't capable of breaking a 70 TD every time he touched the ball, so obviously he wasn't fast enough and should have also been traded for a real home run threat. :sarcasm:

awtysst
12-14-2005, 11:49 AM
that is what worries me too. everyone is saying to trade down to the 6th or 8th pick and then take winston. well what if winston is taken. ok then take ferguson. well what if ferguson is taken too. then we are stuck at the 8th pick without the guy we wanted.


I dont think we can be stuck. Think about this:
If we are 8 who could be gone: Bush, Leinart, Winston, DBrick, Kiwanuka, Williams, Hawk, De Angelo Williams. These are reasonable picks in the top 8. So what could we do? We could look at Micahel Huff, Chad Greenway, Rod Wright trade down for Jon Scot, etc. I would consider trading for a pick in NEXT year's first as well. That is a reasonable strategy.

tulexan
12-14-2005, 12:08 PM
I dont think we can be stuck. Think about this:
If we are 8 who could be gone: Bush, Leinart, Winston, DBrick, Kiwanuka, Williams, Hawk, De Angelo Williams. These are reasonable picks in the top 8. So what could we do? We could look at Micahel Huff, Chad Greenway, Rod Wright trade down for Jon Scot, etc. I would consider trading for a pick in NEXT year's first as well. That is a reasonable strategy.


Of course there will be players that we could pick, but our biggest need is at OT. If we trade down and both Winston and Ferguson are gone in addition to AJ Hawk and some of the elite DE's then we might as well just stayed at #1 and pick Reggie Bush and then take one of the second tier OT's with the 33rd pick.

That and not getting equal value are my major worries about trading down.

MorKnolle
12-14-2005, 01:01 PM
Of course there will be players that we could pick, but our biggest need is at OT. If we trade down and both Winston and Ferguson are gone in addition to AJ Hawk and some of the elite DE's then we might as well just stayed at #1 and pick Reggie Bush and then take one of the second tier OT's with the 33rd pick.

That and not getting equal value are my major worries about trading down.

That is always a danger of trading down but they can make sure they don't trade down too far. Right now Ferguson seems to have the most hype of the OL in the draft and could likely go somewhere from 4-7 or so, while Winston is getting a little less attention and could likely go from 5-11 or so. To make sure we get one of them (preferably Winston IMO) we can stop trading down at like #6. Again, all of that depends on the final order of the draft, where teams are at that would be willing to trade up, and which teams and what their needs are that will end up being in front of us. There are so many different things that can happen before the draft and I don't want to get into writing up a round one mock draft or anything this early, but you can make sure that you'll still be in the running for one of the OT. We have previously done a thread on the teams that should be in the top 9 in the draft and their needs, we have done a thread on the Texans players and their contract situations, and a thread on free agents that will be available this offseason. After the regular season is over and the draft order is set, at least for the non-playoff teams, cadahnic, coach c and I will put the information from those threads together and create a list of the draft order, those teams primary needs, free agents that will be available to fill various teams' needs, and then possible draft pick trade scenarios, so stay tuned and look for that in a couple weeks. I doubt we'll do any kind of partial mock with specific players drafted until after the combine, but in a couple weeks we'll go a lot more in depth at the realistic trade options and everything like that so hopefully that will help calm some of your worries. Until then just keep an open mind and consider some of the possible options in front of us, some of us are trying to post somewhat objective scenarios so people can see what options are available and make up their own minds.

TexanAlmighty
12-14-2005, 02:58 PM
Emmitt won three rings because the Cowboys built a stellar defense and one of the best OLine in history around him, and they had good offensive weapons too.

Why can't we draft Bush and build a stellar offensive line/defense also?? Drafting Bush over DD would be an upgrade. Don't get me wrong folks, I really do like DD but I think it would be an upgrade to draft Bush and trade DD to get extra picks/players.

TheOgre
12-14-2005, 04:31 PM
I don't mean to pull one string out of your argument and question it (I hate it when posters do that to me), but I have to ask: when you say Bush will "pick up the blitz" are you referring to his backfield blocking?

Davis is bad at that, but how in the world would Bush be an improvement?


Bush is supposed to be a very good pass blocker. He would be a good asset to the team if we retain (assuming it is ours) the #1 pick. I'm in favor of trading down, if the compensation is sufficient. I don't want us to broker a bargain deal and trade down for less though. If our GM plays it right, we should be able to get a very good/great offer for the pick.

The Preacher
12-14-2005, 04:44 PM
Bush is supposed to be a very good pass blocker. He would be a good asset to the team if we retain (assuming it is ours) the #1 pick. I'm in favor of trading down, if the compensation is sufficient. I don't want us to broker a bargain deal and trade down for less though. If our GM plays it right, we should be able to get a very good/great offer for the pick.

At least we get to have an exciting offseason after such a miserable year. :rolleyes:

MorKnolle
12-14-2005, 05:36 PM
Why can't we draft Bush and build a stellar offensive line/defense also?? Drafting Bush over DD would be an upgrade. Don't get me wrong folks, I really do like DD but I think it would be an upgrade to draft Bush and trade DD to get extra picks/players.

We are not going to get more than a 3rd round pick for Domanick Davis not to mention we eat $7.5 million in dead cap next year for doing that, not to mention we're going to have to pay Bush at least $50 million over 5-6 years while we're currently paying Davis $25 million for 5 years. If we trade the #1 pick we can add at least one 2nd round and two 3rd round picks over the next two years. If we trade down a second time, we can add another 1st round pick for next year and a 2nd or 3rd round pick for this year. By trading twice, we can pick up 1 future 1st, two 2nds (this and/or next year), three 3rds (this and/or next year) draft picks in addition to what we would already have, all the picks in this year's draft would be in the top 5 of their respective round, and we can probably pay all 5-6 people we get from these draft picks less than what we'd pay Reggie Bush by himself. That is how you build a successful team.

Bush is supposed to be a very good pass blocker. He would be a good asset to the team if we retain (assuming it is ours) the #1 pick. I'm in favor of trading down, if the compensation is sufficient. I don't want us to broker a bargain deal and trade down for less though. If our GM plays it right, we should be able to get a very good/great offer for the pick.

I have yet to see Bush block at all yet, he is usually either in the slot or running a route out of the backfield, but I doubt he's a great blocker at all, and either way if he's such a great weapon that people claim he is I wouldn't want him sitting back there and blocking anyways. Obviously we will have to make sure we get an adequate trade, I am not at all advocating trading down for some bargain deal for another team, but there should be several teams that are high in the draft that want Bush and will be willing to trade for him, and we can take competing offers from all these teams and play them against each other and come out with a trade that is very beneficial to us.

Erratic Assassin
12-14-2005, 08:40 PM
The holes we need to fill can be addressed in many ways free agency 2nd and other rounds of the draft trades what not

I've been hearing that same story for the past 4 years and it simply isn't true. We're not get a stud linemen in free agency or in the later rounds of the draft. That is a fairy tale. That's what got us into this mess. That is why we are actually WORSE than an expansion team after building this team for 4 years.

Stud linemen are almost impossible to come by. Teams will hang on to them because they are damn near irreplaceable. All the top linemen in the league were high first round picks. The sooner we figure that out the sooner we can start winning. You can draw up all the plays in the world and none of them are going to work until you get your line in order.

TheOgre
12-15-2005, 02:44 PM
I have yet to see Bush block at all yet, he is usually either in the slot or running a route out of the backfield, but I doubt he's a great blocker at all, and either way if he's such a great weapon that people claim he is I wouldn't want him sitting back there and blocking anyways.

Depending upon the situation, he will have to block. If you send him out on every single pass play, Carr will get murdered. I tend to think we will trade down and get Ferguson or Winston and acquire more picks. If we draft Bush, I would be disappointed, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

TexanAlmighty
12-15-2005, 03:04 PM
We are not going to get more than a 3rd round pick for Domanick Davis not to mention we eat $7.5 million in dead cap next year for doing that, not to mention we're going to have to pay Bush at least $50 million over 5-6 years while we're currently paying Davis $25 million for 5 years. If we trade the #1 pick we can add at least one 2nd round and two 3rd round picks over the next two years. If we trade down a second time, we can add another 1st round pick for next year and a 2nd or 3rd round pick for this year. By trading twice, we can pick up 1 future 1st, two 2nds (this and/or next year), three 3rds (this and/or next year) draft picks in addition to what we would already have, all the picks in this year's draft would be in the top 5 of their respective round, and we can probably pay all 5-6 people we get from these draft picks less than what we'd pay Reggie Bush by himself. That is how you build a successful team.

How do you know for sure we can only get a 3rd rounder for DD? When the Colts traded Marshal Faulk they got a second rounder for him. Alexander and James could not get a 3rd rounder because they were not signed to long term contracts and teams were afraid of getting them and seeing them walk after their contract was up. DD is signed and may be more valuable. Why would you want to go through another season waiting on picks for next year? If we do trade down I want the picks for this year. No way I want to go through another season like this. Trading down is not as easy as you think. If you are selling to trade down for extra picks to pass on Reggie's talent I ain't buying :)

Kaiser Toro
12-15-2005, 03:10 PM
How do you know for sure we can only get a 3rd rounder for DD? When the Colts traded Marshal Faulk they got a second rounder for him. Alexander and James could not get a 3rd rounder because they were not signed to long term contracts and teams were afraid of getting them and seeing them walk after their contract was up. DD is signed and may be more valuable. Why would you want to go through another season waiting on picks for next year? If we do trade down I want the picks for this year. No way I want to go through another season like this. Trading down is not as easy as you think. If you are selling to trade down for extra picks to pass on Reggie's talent I ain't buying :)

Valid take on Alexander and James. Our situation is a little different with DD bacause if we are trying to move him it would signal to the other team that we need to unload him and would diminsh our leverage.

infantrycak
12-15-2005, 03:20 PM
We are not going to get more than a 3rd round pick for Domanick Davis not to mention we eat $7.5 million in dead cap next year for doing that

Even if there is another $3 mil in guaranteed money in DD's contract, the trade scenario is different than the cut scenario because the contract would go with DD and the $3 mil bonus would go on the team with the contract when it was paid. Thus, assuming the other $3 mil is fully guaranteed--cutting DD may have a $7.5 mil cap hit, but trading him would have about a $4.2 mil cap hit. Still don't think DD gets traded...

Coach C.
12-15-2005, 03:47 PM
Even if there is another $3 mil in guaranteed money in DD's contract, the trade scenario is different than the cut scenario because the contract would go with DD and the $3 mil bonus would go on the team with the contract when it was paid. Thus, assuming the other $3 mil is fully guaranteed--cutting DD may have a $7.5 mil cap hit, but trading him would have about a $4.2 mil cap hit. Still don't think DD gets traded...

Infantry the bonus money due to a player is paid by the team, not the team that the player is traded to.

infantrycak
12-15-2005, 03:49 PM
Infantry the bonus money due to a player is paid by the team, not the team that the player is traded to.

Not if it is a future payment. The signing bonus he has already received would all hit the Texans and none would go to the trading team but from the date of the trade, the other team takes on all the obligations and rights of the contract, including future bonuses--see Ricky Williams and about $3 mil of the bonus money the Dolphins sought repayment for under Ricky's contract written with the Saints. The Texans would not trade DD and hand him a check for a bonus due June 1, 2007 and pay him on the butt on the way out the door--they would hand him his contract and tell him to go get it on June 1, 2007 from his new team.