PDA

View Full Version : HPF: "Should the Texans Hold 'Em?" (good article about VY/Bush and an OL


Wolf
01-11-2006, 07:57 PM
This is a lean year at the top of the NFL draft. The Houston Texans will lavish untold millions on either an incomplete running back or an incomplete quarterback, further slowing what they really ought to do, which is to trade down and rebuild their porous offensive line.


IMO.. very good and reasonable article

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/review/review40.html

gtexan02
01-11-2006, 08:05 PM
Hooray! A logical piece of information for a change. Both Bush and Young have some glaring flaws, which other teams seem to be willing to ignore so we could get years worths of drafts out of our #1 pick

bdiddy
01-11-2006, 11:07 PM
IMO.. very good and reasonable article

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/review/review40.html

The premise that this years draft is lean at the top is ridiculous. It is widely agreed that there are three legit players that could be number #1 choices in any given year: (1) VY, (2) Bush, and (3) Leinart. Any of these three players would easily have been taken over Alex Smith last year. This is the deepest draft in the last 5-8 years. The article is advocating a fair point of getting good help at other positions, but its initial premise is incorrect and makes me wary of its validity.

Texans86
01-11-2006, 11:47 PM
This is one of the most logical pieces I have read or head from anyone in the media. Thank you for bringing it to light, and I hope everyone in this forum takes the time to read it. Take the five minutes, it's worth it.
It's hard to believe theres people out there that can look past the glitz and glamour and look at the player, from both a positive and negative side.

Bobo
01-12-2006, 01:10 AM
IMO.. very good and reasonable article

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/review/review40.html

This is nothing I haven't said from day one.

texan279
01-12-2006, 01:11 AM
I guess we are the minority here...:)

Texans86
01-12-2006, 01:46 AM
I guess we are the minority here...:)

You know what? I thought the same thing, then I saw a poll in another post that had a mojority (by a long shot) working on OL and keeping Carr. The other choices included various versions of draft Vince and/or Bush and/or trade for picks. I think we've just gotten tired of argueing what we see as the "obvious". at the end of April, all of this will die down (haha).

Double Barrel
01-12-2006, 10:26 AM
I'd have no complaints if the pick was traded for some stellar deal that puts many quality players on our team. At the end of the day, the team concept is what wins championships in the NFL. No single player can do it alone, regardless of his talent.

That being said, I don't have a lot of confidence in Casserly to not only make a great deal for the pick, but to pick up the right players for our team.

edo783
01-12-2006, 10:38 AM
That being said, I don't have a lot of confidence in Casserly to not only make a great deal for the pick, but to pick up the right players for our team.

The good news here is that I believe that CC has basically been casterated. He will have a LOT of help making the picks. Kubiak, Reeves and McNair will all be involved. I also give CC a BIT of a pass on some of the previouse picks, because I firmly believe he was unduly influenced/pressured by what has been proven to have been an incompetent coaching staff. I look for a MUCH better draft this year.

Chance_C
01-12-2006, 11:37 AM
That was a very good read. Thanks for the link. Very rarely do you have a college football player come in that is the complete package. When reading player's profiles (predraft) there are always strengths and weaknesses. I have seen Vince improve greatly as a passer over the last two years and knowing what kind of heart he has, I think he will succeed as a QB in the NFL. I really prefer that we don't draft either one of them. Vince, because I think we have a more than capable QB. Just like Posey was a product of the system, I think David Carr has been a victim of the system, or lack thereof. With Reggie, I would hate to spend the #1 pick of the draft on a dare I say, "tweener". Trade down a couple of spots, fill some real needs.

Wolf
01-28-2006, 10:07 AM
I bumped the wrong read earlier.. this is article was for the VY or nothing crowd or the Bush or nothing crowd

Grid
01-28-2006, 10:31 AM
good article. some thoughts...

1. Bush wont HAVE to be an every down back here.. and word is that he is up to 208 pounds. He could end up being 215 or so after a year in the NFL. So he could last longer than 10 years. In our system, Bush will get less wear and tear on him than he would get in alot of others.

2. I agree with his assessment that the team who takes VY is going to have to change their offense to work for him. This is the problem that is at the root of my aversion to taking him.

3. Dbrick isnt the only guy available on a trade down. Williams (the answer at DE when we switch to a 4-3) and Hawk (the answer at MLB and the leader we have needed on defense) are also possibilities.

Bronco Texan
01-28-2006, 10:34 AM
I could go for either D'brick or Hawk. Every championship team has a star left tackle. Hawk would give us a Al Wilson type player. Either would work for me.

SheTexan
01-28-2006, 10:58 AM
Thanks for the link. Good read!

Double Barrel
01-28-2006, 11:16 AM
good article. some thoughts...

1. Bush wont HAVE to be an every down back here.. and word is that he is up to 208 pounds. He could end up being 215 or so after a year in the NFL. So he could last longer than 10 years. In our system, Bush will get less wear and tear on him than he would get in alot of others.

2. I agree with his assessment that the team who takes VY is going to have to change their offense to work for him. This is the problem that is at the root of my aversion to taking him.

3. Dbrick isnt the only guy available on a trade down. Williams (the answer at DE when we switch to a 4-3) and Hawk (the answer at MLB and the leader we have needed on defense) are also possibilities.

Good takes. I agree with all three points. :thumbup

The more I look at trading down to get more bang for our buck, the more appealing this option is to me. It's not like we are an established team that just needs one player to put us over the top. We are a team with lots of holes to fill, and the stellar talents of both VY and RB are not what we necessarily need at this time.

D'brick or Williams would be awesome first round picks, and I'd have no problem if they traded down for either of these two players.

barzilla
01-28-2006, 11:22 AM
I'd have no complaints if the pick was traded for some stellar deal that puts many quality players on our team. At the end of the day, the team concept is what wins championships in the NFL. No single player can do it alone, regardless of his talent.

That being said, I don't have a lot of confidence in Casserly to not only make a great deal for the pick, but to pick up the right players for our team.

That's interesting because I heard the exact same point made on Charlie Pulilo's show on Friday. His response was reasoned and very lucid. Basically, he said that if you can't trust your draft guy to make the right selections with the extra picks then why would you keep him as your personnel guy? Bob McNair made more than a billion dollars by having quality people around him. He isn't going to keep Casserly around unless he really does believe he could do it.

I'm fine with all three options myself. I prefer Bush out of the three choices, but if someone comes in with a Hershal Walker or Ricky Williams deal you CAN'T turn that down. With the number of bad contracts we have this might be a two year project anyway. We can always lay the foundation now and then get the skill position players next year.

aj.
01-28-2006, 11:29 AM
If Kubiak thinks he can make it work this year with DD, Morency and a re-signed Wells, trade-down is a lot more likely. You think talk radio and mb's are blowin' up now? Even though there's a solid case to be made for a trade down, we will all have to head for the underground shelters if that happens ...

Double Barrel
01-28-2006, 11:32 AM
That's interesting because I heard the exact same point made on Charlie Pulilo's show on Friday. His response was reasoned and very lucid. Basically, he said that if you can't trust your draft guy to make the right selections with the extra picks then why would you keep him as your personnel guy? Bob McNair made more than a billion dollars by having quality people around him. He isn't going to keep Casserly around unless he really does believe he could do it.

That's a good point (Palillo is always good with points, 'eh?). There was another thread around here that had a story from Washington which mentioned that Casserly is a pushover with his head coach. Meaning that his job was more about acquiring the talent that the coaches picked, as opposed to making the decision on his own talent evaluation.

This would actually make sense when wondering why Mr. McNair kept him on board. If Casserly's job was to get the players that Capers & Co. wanted, then he can't really be blamed (per say). His role in the organization could be what it is, and Mr. McNair understands that concept (much like a board of directors at a large corporation). Casserly's job is now focussed on getting the players that Coach Kubiak wants on his team.

beerlover
01-28-2006, 11:35 AM
If Kubiak thinks he can make it work this year with DD, Morency and a re-signed Wells, trade-down is a lot more likely. You think talk radio and mb's are blowin' up now? Even though there's a solid case to be made for a trade down, we will all have to head for the underground shelters if that happens ...

I'm currently in process stocking the cellers now with top quality homebrew, no telling what the run on supplies will be once the draft hits the fan :stirpot:

SESupergenius
01-28-2006, 11:36 AM
I understand almost every scenario for us in this draft. There are way to many avenues we go with this 1st pick and somebody is going to be whinning after it is made. There is a small group here that understands this and will be happy with either of the scenarios. I want us to trade down and get D'Brick or D'Angelo if we have a good package, but I'm not going to fly off the wall if we pick Bush. Heck, I would even be ok if we picked Vince Young if we only Franchised Carr for a year. The point is, Texas fans need to understand that and not be pouty if VY isn't selected.

Kaiser Toro
01-28-2006, 11:39 AM
I understand almost every scenario for us in this draft. There are way to many avenues we go with this 1st pick and somebody is going to be whinning after it is made. There is a small group here that understands this and will be happy with either of the scenarios. I want us to trade down and get D'Brick or D'Angelo if we have a good package, but I'm not going to fly off the wall if we pick Bush. Heck, I would even be ok if we picked Vince Young if we only Franchised Carr for a year. The point is, Texas fans need to understand that and not be pouty if VY isn't selected.

Well said SES, this is where I sit as well, except for D'Angelo. Very good back though.

vtech9
01-28-2006, 11:51 AM
Well said SES, this is where I sit as well, except for D'Angelo. Very good back though.
DITTO...if we were to take a RB from USC, I would rather have LenDale White after a trade down.

Maddict5
01-28-2006, 04:36 PM
its a nice article but the main reason im posting is this is the 1st thread ive read since ive got here that is a joy to read-that there are sensible fans out there. i ,like the rest of ye out there, am in favour of a trade-down,if possible. however i wouldnt mind bush or young although personally i think young is too much of a gamble for a #1 overall. anyway thanks, as i was reading down the posts, i was expecting some VY jackass to come in and post that any1 who doesnt love VY isnt a real fan lol

thunderkyss
01-28-2006, 05:19 PM
good article. some thoughts...

1. Bush wont HAVE to be an every down back here.. and word is that he is up to 208 pounds. He could end up being 215 or so after a year in the NFL. So he could last longer than 10 years. In our system, Bush will get less wear and tear on him than he would get in alot of others.

2. I agree with his assessment that the team who takes VY is going to have to change their offense to work for him. This is the problem that is at the root of my aversion to taking him.

3. Dbrick isnt the only guy available on a trade down. Williams (the answer at DE when we switch to a 4-3) and Hawk (the answer at MLB and the leader we have needed on defense) are also possibilities.

1. If he isn't going to be an every down back, then why take him #1 overall, if he isn't the best WR in the bunch?? How does gaining the weight affect his speed??

2. 29 out of 32 teams will have to change their offensive system if they want to work REggie Bush into the slot......... It doesn't happen as often as you think.

3. By trading down, it will be possible to take a D'angelo, and still be able to get a nice Offensive Lineman Prospect. You'd still need to be high in the draft to have a shot at D'brick.

Grid
01-28-2006, 05:25 PM
we dont know how gaining weight effects his speed.. or if it will effect it at all if he goes up to 215 or so. So commenting on it is pointless. There is no guarantee that he couldnt be an every down back either.. but even if he cant, he is versatile and can see the ball in many ways, and provide us with mismatches.

changing your scheme to work an RB into the slot.. and changing your scheme to work with a running QB incapable of playing the position like a normal QB.. is very different. Young requires a complete change to the offense.. to put reggie in the slot just requires a couple of different packages.

tulexan
01-28-2006, 05:28 PM
This whole full time RB argument doesn't make sense. Reggie Bush does not need to have 20 carries a game be a very effective RB in the NFL.

Marshall Faulk won the league MVP in 2000 and averaged a little over 15 carries a game and 5 catches a game. Those are both numbers that Reggie could easily achieve. I'm not saying that Reggie is going to be the league MVP, but the notion that to be a great RB you have to carry the ball 20 times a game is wrong. If Marshall could do it, there is no reason why Reggie can't if he turns out to be as good as he is touted to be.

Grid
01-28-2006, 05:34 PM
This whole full time RB argument doesn't make sense. Reggie Bush does not need to have 20 carries a game be a very effective RB in the NFL.

Marshall Faulk won the league MVP in 2000 and averaged a little over 15 carries a game and 5 catches a game. Those are both numbers that Reggie could easily achieve. I'm not saying that Reggie is going to be the league MVP, but the notion that to be a great RB you have to carry the ball 20 times a game is wrong. If Marshall could do it, there is no reason why Reggie can't if he turns out to be as good as he is touted to be.

That too.

thunderkyss
01-28-2006, 05:47 PM
This was a nice thread, till it was Hi-Jacked by all you Draft Reggie or else folks.

cap1
01-28-2006, 05:54 PM
This whole full time RB argument doesn't make sense. Reggie Bush does not need to have 20 carries a game be a very effective RB in the NFL.

Marshall Faulk won the league MVP in 2000 and averaged a little over 15 carries a game and 5 catches a game. Those are both numbers that Reggie could easily achieve. I'm not saying that Reggie is going to be the league MVP, but the notion that to be a great RB you have to carry the ball 20 times a game is wrong. If Marshall could do it, there is no reason why Reggie can't if he turns out to be as good as he is touted to be.

I don't know if this has been brought up, but couldn't the fact that Bush has not carried the ball that much in college extend his playing career? I mean he should not be a beat up or worn down like a full time college RB would be right?

By the way I am in the Trade down catagory. I say we trade down to 4 or 5 and then trade back again to around 10. Pick up 2 more first next year and 2 more 2nds this year. At 10 we could pick up a great player for any need position.