PDA

View Full Version : New big 3 will make old big 3 shine


jmerog
01-05-2006, 11:13 AM
You are all throwing around the wrong names. The names that need to be coming out of your mouths (or fingertips) are D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Virginia, Marcus McNeill, Auburn,and Nick Mangold,Ohio state. With Ferguson at LT, McNeil at RT, and Mangold at C,we could make all of our craziest football dreams come true. Allow me to elaborate

With this offensive line, we can:

1. Pass the ball to the studly Mr. Johnson, the speedy Mr. Mathis, and the sticky and acrobatic Mr. Armstrong. We do this by protecting Carr and giving him the time he needs to throw the ball down field. He has the arm to do it if given the time. Whatever your opinion of Carr, He has a strong arm. More protection(time,security) would solve most of his problems. Even a mediocre QB could do a fantastic job with enough time and talent surrounding him. Ferguson is an outstanding pass blocker and the best this draft has to offer or has had for years. An upright QB is a GOOD thing.

2.Run, Run, Run ! Marcus McNeill at RT along with Mangold at C would give DD more running room and possibly more longevity. Mangold and McNeil are both big punishing meanies. With a solid, punishing line , even our #2 and #3 RB's would look like stars. Mangold also has shown great leadership on the line and once he learned the new system (everyone else will be learning a new system too), he would provide cohesion and a mean push up front.
These three players would be solid anchors to build our new line around and allow the talent on our team to shine and allow new talent to develop.

3. Have picks left over for defense (and possibly a reciever). Stopping the other team from scoring is :yahoo: a good thing:) We have many needs to address defensively. By getting oline instead of bush or young, we not only inprove the rb and qb we have, we possibly have more picks left over to address these many needs.

We already some good recivers that could be successful but you can never have too many good recievers. Hopefully the new coaches won't overlook Armstrong and maybe Mathis can be developed, too. Gaffney is servicable.

Year in and year out, O-line along with outstanding coaching make winners. They make ok players look great, and great players look phenominal

jmerog
01-05-2006, 11:25 AM
kubiak or another west coast offense coach will seal the deal

Coach C.
01-05-2006, 11:32 AM
Although I like mangold and McNeil I am not and may never be sold on Ferguson. If he shows up to the combine at 310 which is 20+lbs and shows some strength then he might turn me around. Everyone knows what LT I like in this draft so no reason to mention it, Mangold is good, but Eslinger is so much better. Eslinger plays with a nasty streak reserved for LBs. Also we can address C in the 3rd so that gives us options after we trade down.

Double Barrel
01-05-2006, 11:33 AM
Year in and year out, O-line along with outstanding coaching make winners. They make ok players look great, and great players look phenominal

yep, I agree. Football is won and lost in the trenches. But people would rather focus on the position players because it's more exciting.

Good post, though. Nice to see some analysis around here beyond just Bush and Young.

bdiddy
01-05-2006, 11:35 AM
Although I like mangold and McNeil I am not and may never be sold on Ferguson. If he shows up to the combine at 310 which is 20+lbs and shows some strength then he might turn me around. Everyone knows what LT I like in this draft so no reason to mention it, Mangold is good, but Eslinger is so much better. Eslinger plays with a nasty streak reserved for LBs. Also we can address C in the 3rd so that gives us options after we trade down.

I am NOT a Ferguson fan. He plays way too high and will be VERY susceptible to bull rushes. I think he is athletic (meaning good feet), but lacks enough strength, plays high, and at times appears stiff.

Coach C.
01-05-2006, 11:37 AM
Well Bdiddy it seems like you have watched some film on Fergy. Nice to see something other than blind loyalty to D'brick, Bush, or VY, even though you are a homer for VY.

jmerog
01-05-2006, 11:37 AM
Although I like mangold and McNeil I am not and may never be sold on Ferguson. If he shows up to the combine at 310 which is 20+lbs and shows some strength then he might turn me around. Everyone knows what LT I like in this draft so no reason to mention it, Mangold is good, but Eslinger is so much better. Eslinger plays with a nasty streak reserved for LBs. Also we can address C in the 3rd so that gives us options after we trade down.

I agree that ferguson is underwight now but he has a frame that should accomodate more and his footwork is superb. At any rate, Substituting your picks for these positions would make me almost as happy as mine because the point remains the same. I like your idea of posibly getting a center late and saving the pick but not if we cant get a great one.He needs to be punishing and smart.

TXurias
01-05-2006, 11:38 AM
yep, I agree. Football is won and lost in the trenches. But people would rather focus on the position players because it's more exciting.

Good post, though. Nice to see some analysis around here beyond just Bush and Young.
I'm not sure everyone would rather focus on position players but we do have the #1 pick so that's the hot topic. But I do agree there should be a thread on what players will be available to us in the later rounds. I hope we pick up the best OL or LB available with the 2nd round pick. Does anyone know what picks we gave up for Buchanon?

MightyTExan
01-05-2006, 11:40 AM
Add a kickbutt TE and I'm sold.

bdiddy
01-05-2006, 11:42 AM
I agree that ferguson is underwight now but he has a frame that should accomodate more and his footwork is superb. At any rate, Substituting your picks for these positions would make me almost as happy as mine because the point remains the same. I like your idea of posibly getting a center late and saving the pick but not if we cant get a great one.He needs to be punishing and smart.

Addressing weight issues, I have heard many on this board suggesting Feguson gain weight - however, his sophomore season he weighed 325-335 and lost A LOT of quickness and was told to lose weight. Scouts are not sure he could maintain his current level of play with additional weight.

Coach C - I know I am a Homer for considering the jump on to the VY bandwagon, but the guy is unique (as is Reggie Bush). Even if he is a Longhorn you have got to give him his due.

HoustonFrog
01-05-2006, 11:42 AM
Where I think your analysis is good, I will never agree because the talent isn't here. A great line can do wonders. However, and I know I'm a broken record, these guys can be found in lower rounds and in free agency. If you go back decades and look at the two teams squaring off in the SB, which I'm assuming is where people want to be, EVERY team but maybe a couple had either a franchise QB, RB or both. No exceptions. Armstrong and these secondary receivers will not get it done. IMHO opinion Carr isn't the guy either. You have this one shot to parlay this pick into a special skill guy. There is a reason why this team has lost every year..TALENT. A O-line doesn't make average backs better or healthier. They aren't game breakers. Plain and simple. If you look at Tackles taken in the draft over the years there is no guarantee they will lead their team to the playoffs. Look at the Raiders. Rober gallery was a can't miss guy. He starts and they have Collins, L. Jordan. Moss and some other athletic receivers in Porter and Gabriel and it got them nowhere. Part of that is coachign but still these guys aren't guarentees.

jmerog
01-05-2006, 11:49 AM
Armstrong and these secondary receivers will not get it done. .


Armstrong is a magnet and catches almost everything near him. He is simply not used enough. and We do have a franchise reciver in Johnson. A good O-line DOES make a decent running back better.the denver broncos of last year are a fine example. Besides DD isnt a slouch.

HoustonFrog
01-05-2006, 12:13 PM
Armstrong is a magnet and catches almost everything near him. He is simply not used enough. and We do have a franchise reciver in Johnson. A good O-line DOES make a decent running back better.the denver broncos of last year are a fine example. Besides DD isnt a slouch.

I'm so glad that the Broncos keep coming up because their line is made up of a guy that was a 20th pick in the 1st round, a free agent, 2 4th rounders and a 7th rounders. Pretty good production for guys who weren't over the top high draft picks, huh?

TexanSam
01-05-2006, 12:21 PM
I don't think the answer to our O-line problems is by drafting 3 rookies. I like D'Brickashaw, draft him. Adding 2 other rookies though would be bad, in my opinion. If we can sign a free agent offensive lineman, I would be happy with that.

On the wide recievers, I don't think Mathis and Armstrong are 2nd and 3rd wide recievers. I think we have to draft another wide reciever or sign a FA WR. Reggie Wayne is a FA, I would like him.

Texans86
01-05-2006, 12:25 PM
I'm so glad that the Broncos keep coming up because their line is made up of a guy that was a 20th pick in the 1st round, a free agent, 2 4th rounders and a 7th rounders. Pretty good production for guys who weren't over the top high draft picks, huh?

You said an offensive line doesn't make an average running back better. The Denver Broncos are a good example of how a good line can make a running back look really good. Where the lineman get drafted is irrelevant.

HoustonFrog
01-05-2006, 12:35 PM
You said an offensive line doesn't make an average running back better. The Denver Broncos are a good example of how a good line can make a running back look really good. Where the lineman get drafted is irrelevant.

It ISNT irrelevant!!!That is has been the big argument. Taking a guy with a Top 5 pick. Their line proves that through drafting, free agency and scouting you can find these guys without wasting a Top 5 pick. The Texans have 4 of the first 66 picks and 7 overall more after #1. If Charlie did his job you could have the best of both worlds. The World Champ Patriots have a 2nd rounder, free agents and everyone else is below the 3rd round. DD isn't going to be the breakaway, game winning guy even with the top line. He is injured frequently and had no breakaway bursts. Do teams key on the guy?No, they let him get yards and attack Carr.

DRAMA
01-05-2006, 12:37 PM
...and lets move Chester Pitts BACK to Guard right? Or wait...let me guess...to Right Tackle?

DaBrick is not going to be taken in the top 3 and is not rated that much higher than like 7 other tackles. WOW...just don't get the obsession with someone that very few have actually seen play.

Reggie or Bush - get a playmaker and use the OH MY GOSH!!! the 33rd pick on a lineman or a gerat TE, imo.

eriadoc
01-05-2006, 12:43 PM
I'm so glad that the Broncos keep coming up because their line is made up of a guy that was a 20th pick in the 1st round, a free agent, 2 4th rounders and a 7th rounders. Pretty good production for guys who weren't over the top high draft picks, huh?

You're really looking at this in thw wrong light, IMHO. Every offensive line in the NFL is formed from later-round picks. However, most of them have a 1st-round stud tackle to anchor them, taken in the top-20 overall. There are exceptions, sure. And I'd be really happy if the Texans turned out to be a team that stumbled across their franchise LT in later rounds. But the odds aren't in favor of that happening. That doesn't mean it cannot happen, but it's not as likely as if we take a stud tackle in the 1st round.

Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round with a compensatory pick. Using your logic, teams shouldn't bother spending top picks on QBs, right? The majority of the league (at least 20 teams) currently have a tackle starting for them that was taken in the top 20 overall. I've posted the list before, so just check my post history if you want to see it, or look at the depth charts for each team and cross reference it on drafthistory.com. Again, I am not discounting what you say, but I am saying that you're touting thr exception, rather than the rule. If the Texans find themselves lucky enough to be in that camp, sign me up. Otherwise, I'd rather see us take a top tackle and build the line from there. I don't think many are saying spend a first round pick on a center or guard.

Texans Horror
01-05-2006, 12:45 PM
Add a kickbutt TE and I'm sold.

Dave Thomas has looked real good all season - tough and can catch - but I don't think we'll have a shot at him.

Runner
01-05-2006, 12:49 PM
...and lets move Chester Pitts BACK to Guard right? Or wait...let me guess...to Right Tackle?



I think you are missing the big picture - if we start 3 rookies on the line we can get the first pick again next year!:)

HoustonFrog
01-05-2006, 01:01 PM
You're really looking at this in thw wrong light, IMHO. Every offensive line in the NFL is formed from later-round picks. However, most of them have a 1st-round stud tackle to anchor them, taken in the top-20 overall. There are exceptions, sure. And I'd be really happy if the Texans turned out to be a team that stumbled across their franchise LT in later rounds. But the odds aren't in favor of that happening. That doesn't mean it cannot happen, but it's not as likely as if we take a stud tackle in the 1st round.

Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round with a compensatory pick. Using your logic, teams shouldn't bother spending top picks on QBs, right? The majority of the league (at least 20 teams) currently have a tackle starting for them that was taken in the top 20 overall. I've posted the list before, so just check my post history if you want to see it, or look at the depth charts for each team and cross reference it on drafthistory.com. Again, I am not discounting what you say, but I am saying that you're touting thr exception, rather than the rule. If the Texans find themselves lucky enough to be in that camp, sign me up. Otherwise, I'd rather see us take a top tackle and build the line from there. I don't think many are saying spend a first round pick on a center or guard.

I completely disagree. It is not the exception to the rule. The difference between this and your Brady anaology is that QBs are a prime position where you rarely find the diamon in the rough late. Most are taken early and groomed. Tackles are found all through the draft and a majority are not Top 20 guys. I took the Top 4 AFC teams, all division winners. Here are the results, and you might be surprised

Indy: Diem--4th round; T. Glenn, Undrafted

Denver: Foster--20th pick, 1st round; M. Lepsis--Undrafted

Cincy: W. Anderson--Undrafted; L. Jones, 10th pick, 1st round

NE: Ashworth--Undrafted; N. Kaczur--3rd round

So basically, with the exception of 2 guys who aren't Top 5, most were undrafted or lower picks. So it still begs the question, why do you need to spend that pick on a tackle when you could find him elsewhere and still get the skill guy. All of the guys you talked about being drafted, I looked at them earlier in the week on the draft history, mostly play for losing teams and they did not make it to the big dance. The Texans aren't going to trade down into the Top 20. It will be near the top of the draft.

eriadoc
01-05-2006, 01:10 PM
I completely disagree. It is not the exception to the rule. The difference between this and your Brady anaology is that QBs are a prime position where you rarely find the diamon in the rough late. Most are taken early and groomed. Tackles are found all through the draft and a majority are not Top 20 guys. I took the Top 4 AFC teams, all division winners. Here are the results, and you might be surprised

Indy: Diem--4th round; T. Glenn, Undrafted

Denver: Foster--20th pick, 1st round; M. Lepsis--Undrafted

Cincy: W. Anderson--Undrafted; L. Jones, 10th pick, 1st round

NE: Ashworth--Undrafted; N. Kaczur--3rd round

So basically, with the exception of 2 guys who aren't Top 5, most were undrafted or lower picks. So it still begs the question, why do you need to spend that pick on a tackle when you could find him elsewhere and still get the skill guy. All of the guys you talked about being drafted, I looked at them earlier in the week on the draft history, mostly play for losing teams and they did not make it to the big dance. The Texans aren't going to trade down into the Top 20. It will be near the top of the draft.


Tarik Glenn was taken 1.19 in 1997 and has done one heck of a job for them.
Denver took a tackle at 1.20, thus further supporting my statement.
Cincy took Levi Jones at 1.10 overall and he's done a heck of a job for them.
Washington (you mentioned prior) took Chris Samuels at 1.3 overall in 2000.

New England is one of the 12 exceptions. As I said, 20 teams have taken a tackle in the first 20 picks overall. That is indisputable fact. Read into it what you will, but that is fact. All I said was that most teams (at least 20 - that's "most") take a tackle in the top 20 picks overall with which to build a line. Most of the other positions are later round picks. Our team does not have that stud tackle around which to build a line. It would be nice if Pitts turns out to be that guy, but it's probably a better idea to hope for that than it is to plan for it.

HoustonFrog
01-05-2006, 01:17 PM
Tarik Glenn was taken 1.19 in 1997 and has done one heck of a job for them.
Denver took a tackle at 1.20, thus further supporting my statement.
Cincy took Levi Jones at 1.10 overall and he's done a heck of a job for them.
Washington (you mentioned prior) took Tra Thomas at 1.11 overall in 1998.

New England is one of the 12 exceptions. As I said, 20 teams have taken a tackle in the first 20 picks overall. That is indisputable fact. Read into it what you will, but that is fact. All I said was that most teams (at least 20 - that's "most") take a tackle in the top 20 picks overall with which to build a line. Most of the other positions are later round picks. Our team does not have that stud tackle around which to build a line. It would be nice if Pitts turns out to be that guy, but it's probably a better idea to hope for that than it is to plan for it.

Right so the undrafted guys came in through free agency. It isn't like we can't do that. I think your facts and posts are good, I think we just look at it differently. I don't trust that any O-lineman taken that high is an automatic player or is going to change your fortunes overnight. I think you can find other guys though and that a skill guy drafted high will get the job done is quicker amount of time. My problem is with the 3 backs we have. None seems to be the gamebreaker that will make Defenses game plan and that will keep someone from blitzing the QB all day.

eriadoc
01-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Here, just to save any readers the effort --

ARI -- Leonard Davis -- 1.2 overall
BAL -- Ogden -- 1.4 overall
CAR -- Gross -- 1.8 overall
CHI -- John Tait -- 1.14 overall
CIN -- Levi Jones -- 1.10 overall
DEN -- Foster -- 1.20 overall
DET -- Backus -- 1.13 overall
IND -- Tarik Glenn -- 1.19 overall
KC -- Roaf -- 1.8 overall
MIN -- McKinnie -- 1.7 overall
NO -- Gandy -- 1.15 overall
NO (again) -- Jammal Brown -- 1.13 overall
NYG -- Petitgout -- 1.19 overall
OAK -- Gallery -- 1.2 overall
PHI -- Tra Thomas -- 1.11 overall
SEA -- Jones -- 1.6 overall
STL -- Pace -- 1.1 overall
TEN -- Hopkins -- 1.13 overall
WAS -- Chris Samuels -- 1.3 overall

New England, by the way, normally has Matt Light playing left tackle. He was taken 2.17 overall. He, along with Marvel Smith, are the only two second-round starting left tackles in the NFL currently. SF took Kwame Harris at 1.26 overall and Cleveland's left tackle was taken at 1.21 overall, as an aside.

eriadoc
01-05-2006, 01:25 PM
Right so the undrafted guys came in through free agency. It isn't like we can't do that. I think your facts and posts are good, I think we just look at it differently. I don't trust that any O-lineman taken that high is an automatic player or is going to change your fortunes overnight. I think you can find other guys though and that a skill guy drafted high will get the job done is quicker amount of time. My problem is with the 3 backs we have. None seems to be the gamebreaker that will make Defenses game plan and that will keep someone from blitzing the QB all day.

In the time I was editing and adding a post, you came back to this thread. The Tra Thomas was incorrect - I always mix up WAS and PHI. Washington took Samuels at 1.3 overall. Each of these tackles are with the teams that drafted them, with the exception of Roaf and ..... I think just Roaf. And this year, there is only one starting tackle in free agency.

HoustonFrog
01-05-2006, 01:42 PM
In the time I was editing and adding a post, you came back to this thread. The Tra Thomas was incorrect - I always mix up WAS and PHI. Washington took Samuels at 1.3 overall. Each of these tackles are with the teams that drafted them, with the exception of Roaf and ..... I think just Roaf. And this year, there is only one starting tackle in free agency.

I am still sticking to my convictions that we can find guys in later rounds and in free agency AND get the skill guy. I have a problem with building a like with your Top 5 pick when you still don't have guys who are considered elite and QB or RB. Pitts wasn't horrible the end of the year. I think NE adn Denver show you can do it without using a high first rounder.

bdiddy
01-05-2006, 01:50 PM
HoustonFrog is right you can build a line in the 2-5 rounds. Let us not forget Chester Pitts was the first pick of the second round (basically a first rounder). I think we can get a quality tackle with our second round pick. He can compete with Chester for the LT position, whoever loses moves to RT.

rmartin65
01-05-2006, 02:27 PM
These are some great ides, but it wont work the first year. Too many new players will prevent them from going far next year if it goes this way. The year after that though, will be beastly.

eriadoc
01-05-2006, 02:35 PM
I never disagreed with the assertion that it can be done. It doesn't happen the majority of the time.

zeplin
01-05-2006, 03:05 PM
The big picture is that it all starts and stops at the OL Period!!
If we keep screwing around with the other positions w/o addressing the OL we will be having the same conversation this time next year.

Bubbajwp
01-05-2006, 03:07 PM
yep, I agree. Football is won and lost in the trenches. But people would rather focus on the position players because it's more exciting.

Good post, though. Nice to see some analysis around here beyond just Bush and Young.
There are very good linemen in the second and third rounds. Max jean Giles or Davin Joseph in the second and Taitusi Lutui and the best C in the third would much improve our oline
LT- C Pitts
LG- Max Jean Giles
C- ? S Mckinney, Hogdgon, Bently, Eslinger, Mangold whoever.
RG- Taitusi Lutui
RT- Wade, riley,Wiegert, Mckinney.

now you can do whatever you want with the first pick. Bush, Young, or still trade back.

WaylonJennings67
01-05-2006, 03:11 PM
Name Jim Brown or Gale Sayers OL :rolleyes:



Just trying to make a point........................certain talents @ the skill positions, that come along once a generation or so, CANNOT be passed up in the draft......YOUNG & BUSH both fall into that category..................not to mention just the plain damnmn excitement it'll bring back to the org. :yahoo: