PDA

View Full Version : Forget a good, solid team. Let's go for amazing.


Nighthawk
02-04-2006, 09:55 PM
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.

gg no re
02-04-2006, 10:23 PM
Solid but dull, please.

You're making the assumption that our team will be composed of nothing but nobodies with no one special if we go the team route.

Big B Texan Fan
02-04-2006, 10:28 PM
Nighthawk-

Although I share your desire of drafting VY I would trade anyone player for a Championship if the alternative meant no championship. Example: I'm cool with Hakeem Olajuwan cuz we eventually got a couple but if we were to never get one the Bulls win 8 straight (imagine if MJ never retired) then I would've been the first in line to say we made a mistake by passing on MJ when we had the chance to get him.

Same goes for this scenario. We have all players at our disposal for one pick (the #1 overall) and we deathly need to make the right decision. My opinion we need VY, others say Bush. My opinion is Bush is a Band-aid on a bad gash while VY is the the stitches needed to stop the bleeding permanently.

Mario Williams
02-04-2006, 11:01 PM
You VY fans are really trying, aren't you? Sheesh how many more of these kinds of threads?

Hardcore Texan
02-04-2006, 11:13 PM
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. Iím trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs heís been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, itís always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isnít if all youíve got is a really ďgoodĒ team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because heís on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, itís a good team, but Iím not sure you can care too much about Ďem, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl Iím not sure weíd have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, thatís just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I donít care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasnít been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.


The best post I have seen from you, very nice job.
Personally, I have been leaning towards a trade down scenario from day one, not that I don't think Bush and VY (and I really like VY) will be great players but that we have too many holes to plug. But you have done a great job of stating your case, and got me wondering. Some will say it is all about the Championships and the W's and with good reason. It is however a little unfair to compare the past accomplishments of Earl Campbell that have already been cemented in our memories to the possiblities of what Might will happen. That is why hindsight is 20/20 and the keyword is Might, and the same reason we can't close our minds to that possibility once more. Only time will tell and in the present it is not always that clear.

Scottyboy
02-04-2006, 11:14 PM
Okay you made some vaild points, but you made the most clear one!

We have to draft Vince, best fit! RB come a dime a dozen now days,

look at the top drafted backs last season, no big deals!!! Vince is a Talent

that comes around once every 12-15 years, a forsure hall-of-famer!

Sure Bush is great, but unproven.... I think D.Davis is good, and could do a

great job if healthy and an upgraded O.line! Think about it!!!!!! Carr has pretty

good trade value? (I think, he does dosn't he?) hell draft young, then Trade

Carr, #2, #3, #4 pick, and P.Buc for the #2 overall from NO, and get your

Bush!!! (now that would be something! God, I would be a great Pro GM!)

what do ya'll think about my post, please fill me in guys i've been outta of the

loop) !! CANT WAIT UNTIL: NEXT YEAR!!!!!

AustinJB
02-04-2006, 11:29 PM
Nighthawk, I agree w/ most everything in your post. I would not take astonishing over a championship though. My desire to have VY is that he WILL lead us to a championship; not just to watch the exciting, unbelievable plays that he'll make. Those plays are just icing on the cake (just like his being from Houston), but it is these exciting, unbelievable plays that makes him special and will help lead the team to the SB.

I love what BigBTexan Fan said...."Bush is a Band-aid on a bad gash while VY is the the stitches needed to stop the bleeding permanently." That is exactly why I want VY. He'll solidify the team for the future IMO. I just can't envision Carr ever leading us to the SB...if we do make it to the SB w/ Carr as our QB, I feel like our defense will have to be like the 2000 Ravens and they'll be the ones leading us there.

thunderkyss
02-04-2006, 11:35 PM
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"

Scottyboy
02-04-2006, 11:51 PM
Thunder Well said.

Heart i belive is Key in the NFL, I would draft heart over speed, size, or
overall Talent! Im not saying take the "rudy" type player, but I belive
its a strong factor, and a rare factor! How many players have a chance
to play for there home squad? Vince loves the Texans, You can see it! It shines!
It would be such a huge mistake to pass on him! Has anyone seen the commerical of him, with the Texans hemlet in the background? Please Gary,
make the best, right, and sound choice- pick the HomeTown Hero- #10 V.Young!

Go Texans!!!! - ps- whats Carr's trade value? Thanks

TEXANFAN23435
02-05-2006, 12:29 AM
You VY homers are incredible. He's the one with ONE good season under his belt. We have no DATA on how he will do pulling out from under center??? He's the QB in this draft with question marks. I see him as a taller MV so if he doesn't want to find out the hard way, he better hope that he is drafted by a team who has a veteran in place which could give him 18 to 24 months to adjust.

AustinJB
02-05-2006, 12:39 AM
You VY homers are incredible. He's the one with ONE good season under his belt. We have no DATA on how he will do pulling out from under center??? He's the QB in this draft with question marks. I see him as a taller MV so if he doesn't want to find out the hard way, he better hope that he is drafted by a team who has a veteran in place which could give him 18 to 24 months to adjust.

You VY bashers are incredible.

While I understand that he will have to learn and adjust to playing under center as opposed to shotgun, I just don't seeing it being as big a problem as you do. I have come to realize that even if he did play under center, there would be some that would say, "what if he has to play in the shotgun sometime? Can he do it?" The kid is smart and talented...he can adjust.

I find it interesting that you see him as a taller MV. Why is that? Because MV is the only one that has running skills like VY? That must be your only basis for this comparison b/c if you review their stats, you'll see that VY is a MUCH better passer and QB than Vick was when he was coming out of college. The simple fact that you'd compare the two shows how little you know about VY and his abilities.

:superman:

Vinny
02-05-2006, 01:38 AM
You VY homers are incredible. He's the one with ONE good season under his belt. We have no DATA on how he will do pulling out from under center??? I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center (http://jcdenton.unmatchedmedia.com/UTvUM04-TonyJeffrey-Catch%28DivX%29.avi) to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.

swtbound07
02-05-2006, 01:47 AM
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center (http://jcdenton.unmatchedmedia.com/UTvUM04-TonyJeffrey-Catch%28DivX%29.avi) to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.

that link didnt so much work for me vinny...it tried to pull up in windows media player and then i got sound but no visual:brickwall

TreWardTxn
02-05-2006, 02:02 AM
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"

Did you honestly call the 49er/Dallas teams of the 90's dull? I can name O Lineman from those teams. This all comes down to taste in how you like your football. If you like watching 7 step drops and deep bombs, then ya, go with the Rams. If you like watching perfectly executed running plays and He-Man blocks by the O-line, then you want the Cowboys. If you like precision passing, then you want the 49ers, it all comes down to preference...Personally, I would rather have a team that could steamroll any other on the ground and plays lockdown defense. When WRs get planted over the middle and QBs get chin-checked, THAT's excitement...

But yeah, it's (been) time for DC to Man Up...

Nighthawk
02-05-2006, 02:07 AM
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center (http://jcdenton.unmatchedmedia.com/UTvUM04-TonyJeffrey-Catch%28DivX%29.avi) to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.

Good clip, not only because he looks just perfect taking the ball under center, but because he appears to look off his reciever, and check through at least one, maybe two other receivers before finding the one he ends up hitting. Something certain QBs who shall remain nameless seem to have trouble doing.

TreWardTxn
02-05-2006, 02:17 AM
You VY bashers are incredible.

While I understand that he will have to learn and adjust to playing under center as opposed to shotgun, I just don't seeing it being as big a problem as you do. I have come to realize that even if he did play under center, there would be some that would say, "what if he has to play in the shotgun sometime? Can he do it?" The kid is smart and talented...he can adjust.

I find it interesting that you see him as a taller MV. Why is that? Because MV is the only one that has running skills like VY? That must be your only basis for this comparison b/c if you review their stats, you'll see that VY is a MUCH better passer and QB than Vick was when he was coming out of college. The simple fact that you'd compare the two shows how little you know about VY and his abilities.

:superman:

This is one of the truest statements I have seen posted on this entire discussion. Young and Vick are the same in that they are Black, fast, and play QB, that's it. Why does no one compare Young as a more athletic Roethilisberger? They are much more alike in stature and Ben is very mobile for his size. Ben doesn't run all the time, but when he does, he gets positive yards; imagine that with a few extra 10-15 even 25yd chunks here and there. I suppose everyone's concern with Young being under center is making reads (of course), but what do we really think is going to happen? Is Young, a great athlete at QB not going to be able to keep his head up (making reads) and take steps backwards at the same time? The Option-read was used at TX to take advantage of his ability to run the option. In the pros, the threat of him being able to take off in man coverage almost forces zone and would be a nightmare to defend in short yardage situations. Every QB has a learning curve; Carr will have a learning curve with a new system this year; if you have the ability, then it is simply a matter of repitition...

thunderkyss
02-05-2006, 06:43 AM
You VY bashers are incredible.

While I understand that he will have to learn and adjust to playing under center as opposed to shotgun, I just don't seeing it being as big a problem as you do. I have come to realize that even if he did play under center, there would be some that would say, "what if he has to play in the shotgun sometime? Can he do it?" The kid is smart and talented...he can adjust.

I find it interesting that you see him as a taller MV. Why is that? Because MV is the only one that has running skills like VY? That must be your only basis for this comparison b/c if you review their stats, you'll see that VY is a MUCH better passer and QB than Vick was when he was coming out of college. The simple fact that you'd compare the two shows how little you know about VY and his abilities.

:superman:


Better than McNabb, Culpepper, Favre, etc... to boot.

Did you honestly call the 49er/Dallas teams of the 90's dull? I can name O Lineman from those teams. This all comes down to taste in how you like your football. If you like watching 7 step drops and deep bombs, then ya, go with the Rams. If you like watching perfectly executed running plays and He-Man blocks by the O-line, then you want the Cowboys. If you like precision passing, then you want the 49ers, it all comes down to preference...Personally, I would rather have a team that could steamroll any other on the ground and plays lockdown defense. When WRs get planted over the middle and QBs get chin-checked, THAT's excitement...

But yeah, it's (been) time for DC to Man Up...

It's all relative........ I'm saying the Rams were Amazing, which they were... those other two teams IMHO while exciting to watch, were solidly built teams on both sides of the Ball..... the Rams, were ranked like 29th in D.

thunderkyss
02-05-2006, 06:49 AM
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center (http://jcdenton.unmatchedmedia.com/UTvUM04-TonyJeffrey-Catch%28DivX%29.avi) to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.


Are you crazy?? He took like five steps back.... looked to his right, then his left, then back to his right.. Then, he started bouncing up in the pocket....

You are crazy if you think that kind of play will make it in the NFL.

:sarcasm:

Texan in Japan
02-05-2006, 07:59 AM
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"

TK, that is the difference between a winner and a loser. A winner accepts responsibility and says what do I need to get it done.

bdiddy
02-05-2006, 09:13 AM
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. Iím trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs heís been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, itís always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isnít if all youíve got is a really ďgoodĒ team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because heís on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, itís a good team, but Iím not sure you can care too much about Ďem, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl Iím not sure weíd have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, thatís just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I donít care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasnít been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.

This is why you are not a football coach! Ask any coach and they would take a dull winning team over the astonishing team b/c the spectacular fades but good solid teams remain worth watching for years.

It should be noted that the teams in the Super Bowl today are the solid dull type. What happened to the astonishing team, the Colts, the last few seasons? It seems to me I would much rather the like the Patriots, Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks, or Panthers. These teams are solid football teams, I am sorry if they cannot entertain you.

Vince Young is a wonderful talent and I think he will eventually be a very good player in the NFL. However, I think everyone in Texas, myself included, has a severe set of beer-googles on when viewing his talents. You are mistaking the idea that having the overall best player makes for the overall best team. Vince Young may be great, but his value to the Texans would not exceed David Carr + Reggie Bush or D'Brickashaw Furguson. You have to consider what makes the best "team." Individual talents do not make the team, sure they may be "astonishing" and fun to watch, but football is about winning.

Do you go in business to have a great year once a decade, or to make money every year? I hope to make money every year or else you may have trouble putting food on the table. The same is true with football, you want to win and you want to win often. I do not care how you get it done, just getter done.

Kubiak is not about flash or gimmicks, he is a rock solid guy that is going to build the team and organization right. You are knocking the Broncos, but this is likely the second or third best organization in the NFL (behind the Patriots and possibily the Steelers). The team has been a consistent winner for 20 years. I would much rather take that then a couple of good years during the Love Ya Blue era and the Run-and-Shoot theatrics.

texan279
02-05-2006, 09:34 AM
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.

So you're saying you would rather have a team in Houston with one big superstar that you can watch instead of having a championship team?

run-david-run
02-05-2006, 11:16 AM
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"
Big Ben threw 3 picks in that game! Including one that was returned for a TD when they were only down by 10 and with the ball in scoring range. Hate to break it to you, but it was Big Ben's fault they lost that game. Look, if we draft VY, or any other QB for that matter, he will get pounded just like Carr. Until you get a mediocre O-line, we will not succeed on offense.

Maddict5
02-05-2006, 01:44 PM
Seattle is a 'solid' team and look where its gotten them

Edit: ok a good few other people have basically made the same point so sorry just read the first 5 posts

Vinny
02-05-2006, 01:46 PM
Seattle is a 'solid' team and look where its gotten themOnly took them 30 years too. I hope we are at least this solid.:redtowel:

Maddict5
02-05-2006, 01:51 PM
well they obviously werent solid before this

aj.
02-05-2006, 01:52 PM
Looking at your avatar and then at your post.....welll...... never mind...

gg no re
02-05-2006, 02:02 PM
The whole Bush/Bandaid and VY/Stitches analogy was hilarious.

Bush and Young are more like morphine shots. Gets you feeling good, but gets you nowhere. Maybe covered by Medicare.

Marcus
02-05-2006, 02:26 PM
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. Iím trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs heís been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, itís always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isnít if all youíve got is a really ďgoodĒ team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because heís on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, itís a good team, but Iím not sure you can care too much about Ďem, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl Iím not sure weíd have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, thatís just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I donít care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasnít been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.

That's pathetic. Sorry, don't mean to offend, but I think that's absolutely pathetic . . . to place the need to "be entertained" over the value of team concept, and desire to see your team win. I imagine watching the New England Patriots win all those Super Bowls was really boring to you . . .watching all those "boring no-names" placing the value of "the team" above anything else.

"Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?"

I find it absolutely unconscionable that anyone in his right mind wouldn't.

"Winning isn't everything. It's the ONLY thing!"

The name of the person who said that, has his name inscribed on the trophy that will be awarded to the winning team today. And to think that someone would take the attitude that you have towards NFL football would make that man turn over in his grave.


________________________________

TreWardTxn
02-05-2006, 02:56 PM
Seattle is a 'solid' team and look where its gotten them

Edit: ok a good few other people have basically made the same point so sorry just read the first 5 posts

You're about to find out what "solid" gets you in the Big Game...

Fighting Blue Hen
02-05-2006, 03:03 PM
You're about to find out what "solid" gets you in the Big Game...

I agree...lol.

http://www.kosmo.com/blogs/TimsBlog/images/HynesWardTerribleTowel.jpg

TreWardTxn
02-05-2006, 03:05 PM
This is why you are not a football coach! Ask any coach and they would take a dull winning team over the astonishing team b/c the spectacular fades but good solid teams remain worth watching for years.

It should be noted that the teams in the Super Bowl today are the solid dull type. What happened to the astonishing team, the Colts, the last few seasons? It seems to me I would much rather the like the Patriots, Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks, or Panthers. These teams are solid football teams, I am sorry if they cannot entertain you.

Vince Young is a wonderful talent and I think he will eventually be a very good player in the NFL. However, I think everyone in Texas, myself included, has a severe set of beer-googles on when viewing his talents. You are mistaking the idea that having the overall best player makes for the overall best team. Vince Young may be great, but his value to the Texans would not exceed David Carr + Reggie Bush or D'Brickashaw Furguson. You have to consider what makes the best "team." Individual talents do not make the team, sure they may be "astonishing" and fun to watch, but football is about winning.

Do you go in business to have a great year once a decade, or to make money every year? I hope to make money every year or else you may have trouble putting food on the table. The same is true with football, you want to win and you want to win often. I do not care how you get it done, just getter done.

Kubiak is not about flash or gimmicks, he is a rock solid guy that is going to build the team and organization right. You are knocking the Broncos, but this is likely the second or third best organization in the NFL (behind the Patriots and possibily the Steelers). The team has been a consistent winner for 20 years. I would much rather take that then a couple of good years during the Love Ya Blue era and the Run-and-Shoot theatrics.

Any REAL coach will tell you that he wants the guy that makes the other guys around him lift their level of performance. This is not a myth, players like this actually do exists, people feed off their competitiveness and spirit. Barry Sanders himself (greatest running back talent, ever could not lift his team beyond mediocrity, and in his defense, that had a lot to do with poor management and personnel decisions. Everyone knows that Barry was not the kind of vocal leader every team needs, he let his play do the talking. What I'm saying is the team needs somebody that can mentally elevate them to that level...

Nighthawk
02-05-2006, 03:38 PM
Ask any coach and they would take a dull winning team over the astonishing team b/c the spectacular fades but good solid teams remain worth watching for years.

Different strokes. Maybe you remember all the dull, solid teams. I remember Earl Campbell.

I'm afraid you're simply wrong. The spectacular does not fade.

Nighthawk
02-05-2006, 03:40 PM
So you're saying you would rather have a team in Houston with one big superstar that you can watch instead of having a championship team?

No, I'm saying I would rather have a team with a touch of greatness. If it has that I can live without the silly championship. Greatness is indelible.

whiskeyrbl
02-05-2006, 03:43 PM
This may be a little off yhe line here but what about this scenario.We go ahead and take Bush,let Vy go to the Titans.4Years from now after Vince has had some grooming,if he is so adament about playing for the Texans,maybe we could trade for him or even pick him up off free agency.I'm sure we all agree that we are 2-3 years from a serious playoff run at best. By then we will know for sure if Carr is a flop or not.

Nighthawk
02-05-2006, 03:49 PM
That's pathetic. Sorry, don't mean to offend, but I think that's absolutely pathetic . . . to place the need to "be entertained" over the value of team concept, and desire to see your team win. I imagine watching the New England Patriots win all those Super Bowls was really boring to you . . .watching all those "boring no-names" placing the value of "the team" above anything else.

"Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?"

I find it absolutely unconscionable that anyone in his right mind wouldn't.

"Winning isn't everything. It's the ONLY thing!"

The name of the person who said that, has his name inscribed on the trophy that will be awarded to the winning team today. And to think that someone would take the attitude that you have towards NFL football would make that man turn over in his grave.

No offense taken. But it's not entertainment, it's reaching the sublime, the transcendent. The point at which something (whatever it is) is done so brilliantly that it takes your breath away.

Lombardi was a fine coach but the dictum is just stupid. You ought to know that by now. Winning is just bar talk. Excellence fills up the heart and soul.

Marcus
02-05-2006, 04:20 PM
No offense taken. But it's not entertainment, it's reaching the sublime, the transcendent. The point at which something (whatever it is) is done so brilliantly that it takes your breath away.

Lombardi was a fine coach but the dictum is just stupid. You ought to know that by now. Winning is just bar talk. Excellence fills up the heart and soul.

Well . . . all I can say about that is . . if most of the posters on this board take your viewpoint about the game, then I can finally understand the obsession with Vince Young.

(sigh) I'm going to end up rooting against this team before it's all said and done. I can just see it coming.

zeplin
02-05-2006, 04:59 PM
The best post I have seen from you, very nice job.
Personally, I have been leaning towards a trade down scenario from day one, not that I don't think Bush and VY (and I really like VY) will be great players but that we have too many holes to plug. But you have done a great job of stating your case, and got me wondering. Some will say it is all about the Championships and the W's and with good reason. It is however a little unfair to compare the past accomplishments of Earl Campbell that have already been cemented in our memories to the possiblities of what Might will happen. That is why hindsight is 20/20 and the keyword is Might, and the same reason we can't close our minds to that possibility once more. Only time will tell and in the present it is not always that clear.

:homer: I think your right about trading to plug holes. Stick to your guns. What could be is not necessarily what will be. VY might be a great NFL player and then again he might not be. The same goes for Mr. Bush.We know that DC is middle of the pack right now. With a revamped Ol and a Head Coach that specializes in QB's I think we are looking pretty good. Remember they key word... Might!! Thats all a potential draft pick represents.
Whatever Earl Did is not material to any discussion about our current team.

rmartin65
02-05-2006, 05:22 PM
I'll take winning the super bowl over a superstar anyday.

ClintonPortis26
02-05-2006, 07:19 PM
David Carr has a great chance to be a really good Quarterback. I just dont think its in Houston with all the stuff hes gone through and the Texans players not sure if hes here to stay or what. I really think you guys should trade Carr for a 3rd round pick or whatever you can get for him and draft Vince Young. After that draft all defence. Then just go straight up for Edgerinn James since the Colts will release him. get some lineman that dont have to be state-of-the-art lineman, just ones you can give your quarterback a chance and open holes for Edgerinn.

Truthfully, i dont think Reggie Bush has the dicipline to run the Denver style of offence. Then the system that Kubiak might bring will pro-long edgerinn james career for 2 more extra years then what he would play anywhere else.

Carr Bombed
02-05-2006, 07:58 PM
No offense taken. But it's not entertainment, it's reaching the sublime, the transcendent. The point at which something (whatever it is) is done so brilliantly that it takes your breath away.

Lombardi was a fine coach but the dictum is just stupid. You ought to know that by now. Winning is just bar talk. Excellence fills up the heart and soul.Your view makes no sense. You can't reach excellence without winning a title. Excellence=Championship winning team, anything short of that is short of excellence.

Look at Marino, He has become a metaphor in the foot notes of football history, example when his brodcast partner Boomer who was sitting next to Dan called Peyton Manning, "The Dan Marino of our Era".

You say you have memories of Earl Campbell, but nobody outside of Houston has memories. Everybody around the league has memories of the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Patriots, and every other WINNING team.

The only thing that can take my breath away is watching a team being built and watching them grow and then watching them play brilliantly TOGETHER in a championship game.

Nighthawk
02-06-2006, 12:35 AM
Your view makes no sense. You can't reach excellence without winning a title. Excellence=Championship winning team, anything short of that is short of excellence.

Look at Marino, He has become a metaphor in the foot notes of football history, example when his brodcast partner Boomer who was sitting next to Dan called Peyton Manning, "The Dan Marino of our Era".

You say you have memories of Earl Campbell, but nobody outside of Houston has memories. Everybody around the league has memories of the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Patriots, and every other WINNING team.

The only thing that can take my breath away is watching a team being built and watching them grow and then watching them play brilliantly TOGETHER in a championship game.


Everybody remembers Earl Campbell. Sure, it would have been sweeter if we'd won a super bowl with him, for him, for us. But as it played out, we got Earl and he us, and that's enough.

Did you watch today's "super" bowl? A joke. A couple of ordinary teams playing very ordinary football. Will be forgotten immediately, except by the football press whose job it is to make much of it. It was a dull game, period. Bill Cowher will remember it forever, probably, and some of the players, but otherwise it was as undistinguished a performance as could be imagined.

I want to win a championship as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of being a "competent" team. I want the Texans to be a brilliant team. Almost by definition that means no David Carr. That means no "serviceable" running backs. That means no run of the mill offensive linemen. That means no pretty good defensive backs.

But I'm realistic, too. You can't have everything. Maybe -- just maybe -- Vince Young is destined to have an NFL career just like his college career, just like his Rose Bowl performance. Wouldn't you want to be there for that if he does? Wouldn't you risk the loss of Bush for the possibility that our next QB might be the Michael Jordan of the NFL? Or another Earl Campbell? Or whatever superior sports figure you'd care to name?

I figure this: Vince Young only costs us Bush. We've already got Carr and Dominic Davis and a couple of other good RBs. And if they don't want to trade Carr now, why, that's fine--keep him as insurance. After a couple years trade Carr or Young, whichever you don't want.

What we do not want to do is miss the opportunity to have Vince Young as our QB if he turns out to be as spectacular as he's been so far.

Bobo
02-06-2006, 01:38 AM
Games are won in the trenches. Last I heard, Young doesn't play in the OL.

Marcus
02-06-2006, 06:38 AM
Nighthawk, with that type of outlook, and with your priorities so screwed, you clearly don't deserve to have Vince Young on your football team.

Yesterday's Super bowl was a boring yawn. I'll admit that. But I'm not a Steelers fan, nor am I a Seahawks fan. If I were, then it wouldn't be boring. If both of those teams had an "Earl Campbell", it would make no difference.

You look at Vince Young as some kind of hedge to a bet. It's like, "Oh well, if the Texans win, fine, if the they lose, fine, but I'll still "be entertained".

That's the 'corporate' outlook, and it makes me gag.

thunderkyss
02-06-2006, 07:55 AM
Games are won in the trenches. Last I heard, Young doesn't play in the OL.


That's about the goofiest crap I've ever heard. Sure, this is a team sport, but having a dominant Offensive line means nothing, if you don't have the right QB, REcievers, RunningBacks, etc....

As an example of having the right QB, look at NE, the year Brady replaced Bledsoe. The Jags, the year Brunnel's was replaced by LeftWhich, NO, the year Brooks took over for Blake, ST Louis, the year Warner took over, Minnesota this year. In each of those examples, the starter went down, and never came back, because the alternate was moving the ball & the Starter wasn't. Same Oline, Same Recievers, Same RBs.......

texan279
02-06-2006, 10:13 AM
That's about the goofiest crap I've ever heard. Sure, this is a team sport, but having a dominant Offensive line means nothing, if you don't have the right QB, REcievers, RunningBacks, etc....

As an example of having the right QB, look at NE, the year Brady replaced Bledsoe. The Jags, the year Brunnel's was replaced by LeftWhich, NO, the year Brooks took over for Blake, ST Louis, the year Warner took over, Minnesota this year. In each of those examples, the starter went down, and never came back, because the alternate was moving the ball & the Starter wasn't. Same Oline, Same Recievers, Same RBs.......


Brunell outperformed Lefty this season, Brooks is done in New Orleans, Warner plays in Arizona now, and Culpepper did not return this season because he was still rehabing his injury. And Culpepper will be the Viking's QB in the upcoming season unless he does not want to be.

texan279
02-06-2006, 10:20 AM
Did you watch today's "super" bowl? A joke. A couple of ordinary teams playing very ordinary football.

Pittsburgh an ordinary team? :rolleyes:

thunderkyss
02-06-2006, 10:22 AM
Brunell outperformed Lefty this season, Brooks is done in New Orleans, Warner plays in Arizona now, and Culpepper did not return this season because he was still rehabing his injury. And Culpepper will be the Viking's QB in the upcoming season unless he does not want to be.

Great argument......... totally missing the point. I'm saying Bobo's "war in the trenches" argument is completly off-base, and wrong about the effectiveness of having the right QB.

Texans86
02-06-2006, 10:53 AM
Great argument......... totally missing the point. I'm saying Bobo's "war in the trenches" argument is completly off-base, and wrong about the effectiveness of having the right QB.

One reason these QB's can step in is because they have decent/above average/great OL to get behind. Without an OL, any QB looks average or poor. Look at Tom Brady when he is under a lot of repeated pressure in a game, or P.Manning, or (for running QB sake) Mike Vick. When a QB is pressured many times a game, he makes quick and often bad decisions. "The game is often won in the trenches" also means on the defensive side of the ball. If your DL can control the other teams OL, then you force their QB to make quick and often bad decisions. Again, those few QBs that you metioned stepped in behind pretty good OLs.

thunderkyss
02-06-2006, 12:00 PM
One reason these QB's can step in is because they have decent/above average/great OL to get behind. Without an OL, any QB looks average or poor. Look at Tom Brady when he is under a lot of repeated pressure in a game, or P.Manning, or (for running QB sake) Mike Vick. When a QB is pressured many times a game, he makes quick and often bad decisions. "The game is often won in the trenches" also means on the defensive side of the ball. If your DL can control the other teams OL, then you force their QB to make quick and often bad decisions. Again, those few QBs that you metioned stepped in behind pretty good OLs.


Once again, the original post I was replying to seemed to minimize the effect of the quarterback...... I agree with you and did not intend to suggest that the lines are not important.

You have to have the right QB behind the right O-Line. I mentioned the QBs in particular situations, because the O-Line did not change in any of those instances. If they were in fact dominating Offensive lines, then they were dominating with Culpepper, Brunnel, Bledsoe, Maddox(I think), or whoever else was in the line up, but they weren't. As a matter of fact, each one of those QBs were sufferring from what appeared to be protection problems. Change the QB, and voila....... protection problems went away. Brunnel & Culpepper oddly enough are as mobile as Carr, and was replaced by a real gunslinger. Bledsoe is not a statue, and can get out of trouble... it's definitely not his strong suit. He was replaced by Brady, who is more or less pretty Bledsoe like. So I'm not saying it's a simple mobile vs immobile issue, but that changing the QB(ala YOung for Carr) may have more to do with winning, than what is going on in the trenches.

Texans86
02-06-2006, 01:08 PM
Once again, the original post I was replying to seemed to minimize the effect of the quarterback...... I agree with you and did not intend to suggest that the lines are not important.

You have to have the right QB behind the right O-Line. I mentioned the QBs in particular situations, because the O-Line did not change in any of those instances. If they were in fact dominating Offensive lines, then they were dominating with Culpepper, Brunnel, Bledsoe, Maddox(I think), or whoever else was in the line up, but they weren't. As a matter of fact, each one of those QBs were sufferring from what appeared to be protection problems. Change the QB, and voila....... protection problems went away. Brunnel & Culpepper oddly enough are as mobile as Carr, and was replaced by a real gunslinger. Bledsoe is not a statue, and can get out of trouble... it's definitely not his strong suit. He was replaced by Brady, who is more or less pretty Bledsoe like. So I'm not saying it's a simple mobile vs immobile issue, but that changing the QB(ala YOung for Carr) may have more to do with winning, than what is going on in the trenches.

Actually, I believe you are comparng apples to oranges. First, Bledsoe and Brunnel are on the downside of their careers, so comparing them to young "gunslingers" is a little unfair. The entire Vikings organization was in chaos when Culpepper went down with an injury, when he was replaced by Johnson. Who knows where his head was. Brunnel did not fit the new coaches scheme, and is older, therefore, he was replaced and sent packing to Washington, where he has done fairly well. Bledsoe went down with an injury, therby forcing Brady into the line-up. In game two, where he got hurt, he had a 60.6% completion rate, and 400 yards. I would hardly call that struggling. Kurt Warner took over for Trent Green, who was injured in a preseason game. Green had come over from the Washington Redskins, where he threw for 3,441 yards, 23 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions. Green never got a chance in the Rams offense. Finally, we come to Aaron Brooks. If you consider Aaron Brooks an improvemnt over Carr, well, I think I just wasted 15 minutes.

thunderkyss
02-06-2006, 01:22 PM
Actually, I believe you are comparng apples to oranges. First, Bledsoe and Brunnel are on the downside of their careers, so comparing them to young "gunslingers" is a little unfair. The entire Vikings organization was in chaos when Culpepper went down with an injury, when he was replaced by Johnson. Who knows where his head was. Brunnel did not fit the new coaches scheme, and is older, therefore, he was replaced and sent packing to Washington, where he has done fairly well. Bledsoe went down with an injury, therby forcing Brady into the line-up. In game two, where he got hurt, he had a 60.6% completion rate, and 400 yards. I would hardly call that struggling. Kurt Warner took over for Trent Green, who was injured in a preseason game. Green had come over from the Washington Redskins, where he threw for 3,441 yards, 23 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions. Green never got a chance in the Rams offense. Finally, we come to Aaron Brooks. If you consider Aaron Brooks an improvemnt over Carr, well, I think I just wasted 15 minutes.

Bledsoe and Brunnel on the downside of their Carreer, Both of them have played well this last season, Bledsoe was in ProBowl form at the beggining of the season, Brunnel got his team into the playoffs, but it's okay for them to be replaced.

Blake got hurt...... his Offense line couldn't protect him..... Brooks came in, and they went on a win streak.... he actually did very well, his second year, and I think his third, when he signed his long-term deal..... Since then, his playing has gone down hill, really down hill. But nowhere, in anything I said, did i say that any of the QBs I mentioned were better or worse than David Carr.

If nothing else, everything you just said backs up what I'm saying. I don't know what was going on with any of the guys in my example(except Trent, like you said who never got a chance), as to why they couldn't perform behind the same line that took Brady to the SuperBowl, almost got the Vikings to the play-offs, won N.O their very first playoff game etc.... That's not the point of the discussion, but the fact that changing the QB changed the chemistry of the team.

Meloy
02-06-2006, 01:44 PM
My favorite player coming out of college is a sure fire guaranteed hall of famer. Your favorite player may or not be average. I have to be right because...er.. I want to be right. You are wrong because if you were right, then I'd be wrong and that just can't be right. Sheesh

Meloy
02-06-2006, 02:21 PM
Everybody remembers Earl Campbell. Sure, it would have been sweeter if we'd won a super bowl with him, for him, for us. But as it played out, we got Earl and he us, and that's enough.

Did you watch today's "super" bowl? A joke. A couple of ordinary teams playing very ordinary football. Will be forgotten immediately, except by the football press whose job it is to make much of it. It was a dull game, period. Bill Cowher will remember it forever, probably, and some of the players, but otherwise it was as undistinguished a performance as could be imagined.

I want to win a championship as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of being a "competent" team. I want the Texans to be a brilliant team. Almost by definition that means no David Carr. That means no "serviceable" running backs. That means no run of the mill offensive linemen. That means no pretty good defensive backs.

But I'm realistic, too. You can't have everything. Maybe -- just maybe -- Vince Young is destined to have an NFL career just like his college career, just like his Rose Bowl performance. Wouldn't you want to be there for that if he does? Wouldn't you risk the loss of Bush for the possibility that our next QB might be the Michael Jordan of the NFL? Or another Earl Campbell? Or whatever superior sports figure you'd care to name?

I figure this: Vince Young only costs us Bush. We've already got Carr and Dominic Davis and a couple of other good RBs. And if they don't want to trade Carr now, why, that's fine--keep him as insurance. After a couple years trade Carr or Young, whichever you don't want.

What we do not want to do is miss the opportunity to have Vince Young as our QB if he turns out to be as spectacular as he's been so far. I like your passion. However, it is just as possible that Bush could be an Emmett Smith, Tyler Rose,etc. Just as spectacular, exciting a player as Young might be. From listening to coaches and "people in the know" outside of Texas, Bush appears to be seen overwhelmingly as the better choice between Bush & Young. This makes me wonder if Young supporters are seeing past emotion. I've heard the radio boys say, wow, I would not want to be McNair if Young goes to Tenn & becomes a superstar. Well, true, but I would not want to be McNair if Young is a good Qb for Houston and Bush goes to Tenn and becomes a superstar. We can paint all kinds of scenarios to match what we want. I am just glad that if we had to be 2-14 we have these guys in our sights.

Nighthawk
02-06-2006, 04:42 PM
I like your passion. However, it is just as possible that Bush could be an Emmett Smith, Tyler Rose,etc. Just as spectacular, exciting a player as Young might be. From listening to coaches and "people in the know" outside of Texas, Bush appears to be seen overwhelmingly as the better choice between Bush & Young. This makes me wonder if Young supporters are seeing past emotion. I've heard the radio boys say, wow, I would not want to be McNair if Young goes to Tenn & becomes a superstar. Well, true, but I would not want to be McNair if Young is a good Qb for Houston and Bush goes to Tenn and becomes a superstar. We can paint all kinds of scenarios to match what we want. I am just glad that if we had to be 2-14 we have these guys in our sights.

Because Young touches the ball every play, and because he's shown an aptitude for leadership, and because he's succeeded at everything he's put his hand to, and because he's 6'5" and 240 lbs, and because he also runs a 4.4, and because he's grown substantially in the last couple of years, and because HE TOUCHES THE BALL ON EVERY PLAY, well, IF HE BECOMES GREAT it will have more impact than Bush will IF BUSH BECOMES GREAT.

And that is the logic behind selecting Vince Young.

TexanBacker93
02-06-2006, 06:16 PM
But I'm realistic, too. You can't have everything. Maybe -- just maybe -- Vince Young is destined to have an NFL career just like his college career, just like his Rose Bowl performance. Wouldn't you want to be there for that if he does? Wouldn't you risk the loss of Bush for the possibility that our next QB might be the Michael Jordan of the NFL? Or another Earl Campbell? Or whatever superior sports figure you'd care to name?
.

Bush could very well turn out to be the Michael Jordan to Vince Young's Hakeem Olajuwon. There may be no wrong answer. Ther could be no right answer. They both could have tremendous careers or be colossal flops.

Big78
02-06-2006, 07:44 PM
Okay you made some vaild points, but you made the most clear one!

We have to draft Vince, best fit! RB come a dime a dozen now days,

look at the top drafted backs last season, no big deals!!! Vince is a Talent

that comes around once every 12-15 years, a forsure hall-of-famer!

Sure Bush is great, but unproven.... I think D.Davis is good, and could do a

great job if healthy and an upgraded O.line! Think about it!!!!!! Carr has pretty

good trade value? (I think, he does dosn't he?) hell draft young, then Trade

Carr, #2, #3, #4 pick, and P.Buc for the #2 overall from NO, and get your

Bush!!! (now that would be something! God, I would be a great Pro GM!)

what do ya'll think about my post, please fill me in guys i've been outta of the

loop) !! CANT WAIT UNTIL: NEXT YEAR!!!!!
now THERE is an original idea. i would definitly do that. if we did that then put the line off for Free Agency or next year. Bush and Vince, now that would be a show to watch. and the deal would go down in history. Glory to the Texans, our messiah has come!!!!!

Koolbrz
02-06-2006, 09:23 PM
Because Young touches the ball every play, and because he's shown an aptitude for leadership, and because he's succeeded at everything he's put his hand to, and because he's 6'5" and 240 lbs, and because he also runs a 4.4, and because he's grown substantially in the last couple of years, and because HE TOUCHES THE BALL ON EVERY PLAY, well, IF HE BECOMES GREAT it will have more impact than Bush will IF BUSH BECOMES GREAT.

And that is the logic behind selecting Vince Young.


Only problem in drafting VY is that he does touch the ball all the time, he also needs to be in the shotgun form. 90% of the time, he will also look to run most of the time, Kubiak will not be able to run his offense , because he will have to run an offense that best suits VY, we have to wait another 3-4 yrs while we babysit VY so that he can learn how to be a NFL QB, then when he does take over the offense we have to change our offensive scheme so that we can run an offense that will best fit his style of play. He is a big guy and an inviting target. We will have to see if he can take the punishment he will recieve when he takes off with the ball. I don't care what anyone says his knees will have tagrets on them. Bush is multi-demensional, you can use him in many different ways. He has blazin speed, good hands, great vision, he is elusive and is just as much a threat to break a long run at anytime. I say we go Bush!!! :yahoo:

thunderkyss
02-06-2006, 09:35 PM
I like your passion. However, it is just as possible that Bush could be an Emmett Smith, Tyler Rose,etc. Just as spectacular, exciting a player as Young might be. From listening to coaches and "people in the know" outside of Texas, Bush appears to be seen overwhelmingly as the better choice between Bush & Young. This makes me wonder if Young supporters are seeing past emotion. I've heard the radio boys say, wow, I would not want to be McNair if Young goes to Tenn & becomes a superstar. Well, true, but I would not want to be McNair if Young is a good Qb for Houston and Bush goes to Tenn and becomes a superstar. We can paint all kinds of scenarios to match what we want. I am just glad that if we had to be 2-14 we have these guys in our sights.


It makes no sense to draft another running back. No sense at all. Just for a moment, let's just say that I agree with you, that Reggie Bush is the best player available in the draft. We've got 3 running backs, 1 was a rookie last year, meaning 12 months ago, or there abouts, we drafted a running back. Another is signed to our team for the next 4 years(??), and the third can probably start on another NFL team. We are bringing in a new coach. Not just any new coach, but one who appears to be a running game guru.... one who designed, & implemented the most copied Running system in the NFL. The one who wanted to draft our franchise RB three years ago. This is a new coach, who to the best of my memory has never split a running back out as a wide reciever.

Now........ playmakers, and recievers. We've got a two probowlers on our offense. Andre............ and Mathis.... Andre is money, Mathis will break out(I hope) then you've also got Jabar Gafney, Corey Dradford, and Derrick Armstrong........ all who can realize amazing benefits, and increased production with some new coaching, and leadership.

We are pretty stacked, on the offensive skill positions.

We don't have a problem with our running game, that we don't have answers for. We don't have a lack of talent at the Wide Reciever position....

Who could use a RB out of the teams with the top three picks?? N.O. They have Duece McCallister, but he's yet to start for 16 games a season....... not only that, but when he is gone, so is their running game, unlike Houston, who doesn't miss a beat. But, N.O. is saying they are looking for a QB........ Aaron Brooks, has completed 56.4% of his passes over his career. Carr, 57.8%. He's thrown for 19,156 yards over 6 years, 13,810 yards over the last 4 years. Carr, 10,624yards. Aaron has been sacked 131 times in the last three years. Carr has been sacked 132 times in the last three years. Aarons QB rating is 79.7 over 6 years, never rating below 70.0, David rates 73.7, over 4 years, including a 62.8, and a 69.5. But they need a QB, more than they need a RB?? A QB is a better fit for this team??

Tenessee, the third pick in the draft..... They've got Steve Mcnair, they'll more than likely Draft a QB... Makes sense, McNair is getting old. Even though Volek has been waiting for that job. They have absolutely no answer for a running game...... none, nada zip zero.... but they'll be looking at a QB?? Even though McNair will start next year?? We need another playmaker, Tennesee needs a QB??

I honestly don't see how Reggie is such a good fit for us, but these other teams will pass on Reggie if given the opportunity. VInce looks attractive to them. They'd all be satisfied if they drafted Vince, but not us, we won't.

jerek
02-06-2006, 10:06 PM
This is illuminating. If a guy like Vince is what excites you and you want an exciting guy over a winning team, then so be it.

I don't. Last I knew, the point of playing sports (team sports, no less) is to win. That is what I go to games for, because I want to see the Texans win. Still, if you watch sports to see an exciting player do exciting things, win if he can but if not oh well, then so be it.

That said, I find it ironic that a good half of your paragraph in which you gush over the "logic" of drafting Vince has to do with his winning. What, winning? Since when did this come into play?

Allow me a brief anecdote. Last year, I coached seventh grade basketball. We went 6-1 (that one loss still eats me up), and our kids had a fantastic time playing for us. Basically, we were great coaches (no real need to dance around that, is there?), they were good kids, and we had a lot of success in teaching them to play the game right, to play the game well. Incidentally, none of our players were extremely good or talented or exciting, but we did play teams that featured such players, and it was a great day when we smoked them.

That is just me. I prefer "routine, boring" W's to "exciting" L's. I prefer a good story to good special effects. Substance over style. Still, if you don't, I can understand your argument for Vince just a little more now. Too bad for you and thank God for the rest of us that the front office and most of the rest of the fans will not share your view.

Nighthawk
02-07-2006, 12:39 AM
I prefer a good story to good special effects. Substance over style. Still, if you don't, I can understand your argument for Vince just a little more now. Too bad for you and thank God for the rest of us that the front office and most of the rest of the fans will not share your view.

Sorry, but Young is the story and not the special effects. Young is substance (or might be substance) in a way that we can only begin to imagine. If you think Bush is Gale Sayers or Earl Campbell, well, more power to you. I think Vince Young has a higher probablility of doing great things for this team and this organization than anyone else in the draft now, or in the immediate future. Sure, he could turn out a bust. So could Bush. So could anybody. But if Young is as good in the pros as he was in college, then (as I said before) he'll have a more profound impact on the team than Bush or anyone else. Period.

I guess the point is I want to draft for the upside. If you assume both Young and Bush will excell at the next level, which one do you choose? I don't think there's a lot of argument about this.

TheOgre
02-07-2006, 12:55 AM
You VY fans are really trying, aren't you? Sheesh how many more of these kinds of threads?

They will be even more prevalent right before the draft. Get used to it. It was Sean Taylor in 2004 and DJ Johnson in 2005.

TheOgre
02-07-2006, 01:13 AM
That's about the goofiest crap I've ever heard. Sure, this is a team sport, but having a dominant Offensive line means nothing, if you don't have the right QB, REcievers, RunningBacks, etc....

The Steelers are a perfect example of a team that wins in the trenches. Their front seven on defense and their offensive line are the foundation of the team. They have a second year QB that is still feeling his way through the league. They have a Swiss Army knife backfield with no superstars at this time (yes Bettis WAS a superstar, but he is not one right now). In fact, Hines Ward is the only great skill position player they have. Heck Troy P. is really the only above average or greater player (he is great for the record) they have in their secondary. That team is built up front.

thunderkyss
02-07-2006, 06:52 AM
The Steelers are a perfect example of a team that wins in the trenches. Their front seven on defense and their offensive line are the foundation of the team. They have a second year QB that is still feeling his way through the league. They have a Swiss Army knife backfield with no superstars at this time (yes Bettis WAS a superstar, but he is not one right now). In fact, Hines Ward is the only great skill position player they have. Heck Troy P. is really the only above average or greater player (he is great for the record) they have in their secondary. That team is built up front.


So you agree with me right?? That offensive line was dominating before Rothlisberger.. that they had the wrong QB back there, and just that one change, changed their season. I couldn't agree more, I don't see how anyone could, since nothing changed on the O-Line, between Maddox and Rothlisberger. it's the same 5 guys, doing the same things they were doing before. Maddox needed more protection than the front five were able to give, Ben didn't... he's a playmaker, he's a big time player, and he is a leader.

Now if we can get the other guys to see this, you & I will be square.

Jack Bauer
02-07-2006, 07:00 AM
So you agree with me right?? That offensive line was dominating before Rothlisberger.. that they had the wrong QB back there, and just that one change, changed their season. I couldn't agree more, I don't see how anyone could, since nothing changed on the O-Line, between Maddox and Rothlisberger. it's the same 5 guys, doing the same things they were doing before. Maddox needed more protection than the front five were able to give, Ben didn't... he's a playmaker, he's a big time player, and he is a leader.

Now if we can get the other guys to see this, you & I will be square.

How did Maddox need more protection than the front five were able to give? The sack numbers between Maddox in 2003 and Roethlisberger in 2004 or 2005 is not any different, between 35 and 40. The difference is that BOTH QBs received good protection, but Big Ben sees the field better. We don't have the answer for Carr to this point because he has NOT received the protection needed to look at more than one option consistently.

thunderkyss
02-07-2006, 07:19 AM
How did Maddox need more protection than the front five were able to give? The sack numbers between Maddox in 2003 and Roethlisberger in 2004 or 2005 is not any different, between 35 and 40. The difference is that BOTH QBs received good protection, but Big Ben sees the field better. We don't have the answer for Carr to this point because he has NOT received the protection needed to look at more than one option consistently.


That's my point, I'm not saying the protection got any better between the two. Ben was able to accomplish more for the reasons you posted with the same protection.

so you agree with me.

And this has nothing to do with Car. It's about how dominate an offensive line has to be for a team to be succesful. With out Ben, this team wouldn't have made the Superbowl, they wouldn't have been in the playoffs.

But since you want to talk about Carr, this illustrates that it is possible for another QB to have been more successful behind our line, than Carr, for the same reasons Ben performed better behind the same line as Tommy.

Jack Bauer
02-07-2006, 07:42 AM
That's my point, I'm not saying the protection got any better between the two. Ben was able to accomplish more for the reasons you posted with the same protection.

so you agree with me.

And this has nothing to do with Car. It's about how dominate an offensive line has to be for a team to be succesful. With out Ben, this team wouldn't have made the Superbowl, they wouldn't have been in the playoffs.

But since you want to talk about Carr, this illustrates that it is possible for another QB to have been more successful behind our line, than Carr, for the same reasons Ben performed better behind the same line as Tommy.

This is what brought my response:

Tommy needed more protection

This statement says that Tommy could have done more with more protection. Maybe you didn't say what you meant, but this is what I see.

The argument that Pittsburgh got better when they changed QBs has nothing to do with the offensive line and it has everything to do with the QBs.

Would Ben do better behind our offensive line than Tommy? Yes, of course. We've seen them both play behind a very good offensive line. The OL variable has been taken out of the equation. In Houston, there is the question about the QB AND the offensive line. There are too many variables to be able to make an assertion. No one can say that Ben would play better than Carr behind the Texans' offensive line.

kingh99
02-07-2006, 09:31 AM
I hope I'm wrong but it looks like the same stupid mistakes re the Texans.

Kubiak is viewed nationally up to this point as a dim bulb who has landed in Houston with an audible thud. His assistant and scouting staff picks have been weak. He's a Carr fan.

I'm thinking it's time to pack it in. The name of the team was forced and that should have been all the indication I needed that this cat McNair is over his head.

thunderkyss
02-07-2006, 10:08 AM
This is what brought my response:



This statement says that Tommy could have done more with more protection. Maybe you didn't say what you meant, but this is what I see.

The argument that Pittsburgh got better when they changed QBs has nothing to do with the offensive line and it has everything to do with the QBs.

Would Ben do better behind our offensive line than Tommy? Yes, of course. We've seen them both play behind a very good offensive line. The OL variable has been taken out of the equation. In Houston, there is the question about the QB AND the offensive line. There are too many variables to be able to make an assertion. No one can say that Ben would play better than Carr behind the Texans' offensive line.


You said Tommy was sacked 30 some odd times in 2003, & that Ben was sacked 30 some odd times in 2004....... The Steelers were a better team in 2004, than they were in 2003, even though they gave up 30 some odd sacks both years..... not all sacks are the same, they played different teams, but the better QB play made a better W-L record, therefore a better season.

I believe it is safe to assume, that if both these QBs were to be sacked 70 times a season behind the same offensive line, with the same offensive weapons, Ben still would have performed better than Maddox, so Ben's team(even though it is the same team) would be better than Maddox's.

So, can we honestly say that no QB would have done better than David Carr in 2005 behind the Texans Offensive line?? Judging by what happened in Pittsburgh, I believe the answer is yes. I don't know who that QB would be, but I believe it is possible. The Situations I mentioned before, Byron/Brunnell, Bledsoe/Brady, Brooks/Blake, Johnson/Culpepper, even Fitzpatrick/Martin from this years StLouis game suggest that another QB might have resulted in a season better than 2-14.

But no, I am not saying that Ben would have done better than Carr in 2005, you are correct, there is no way of knowing, and I never meant to imply different.

Jack Bauer
02-07-2006, 10:19 AM
I believe it is safe to assume, that if both these QBs were to be sacked 70 times a season behind the same offensive line, with the same offensive weapons, Ben still would have performed better than Maddox, so Ben's team(even though it is the same team) would be better than Maddox's.


You don't get my point. You are comparing two QBs that played behind the SAME offensive line, but Carr played behind a DIFFERENT offensive line. You can't assume that Ben would have performed just as well behind our offensive line.

If you think he could have, :hairpull: :sos:

So, can we honestly say that no QB would have done better than David Carr in 2005 behind the Texans Offensive line?? Judging by what happened in Pittsburgh, I believe the answer is yes. I don't know who that QB would be, but I believe it is possible. The Situations I mentioned before, Byron/Brunnell, Bledsoe/Brady, Brooks/Blake, Johnson/Culpepper, even Fitzpatrick/Martin from this years StLouis game suggest that another QB might have resulted in a season better than 2-14.

For each of the situations you mentioned, the pair played behind the same offensive line. The situations you mentioned have nothing to do with our situation in Houston.

thunderkyss
02-07-2006, 10:43 AM
You missed my last statement. I'm not saying that Ben would have done better than David in Houston. I'm saying that another QB could've done better. Maybe Ragone, I don't know. But just because David wasn't succesful, doesn't many no one else could've.

Jack Bauer
02-07-2006, 10:47 AM
You missed my last statement. I'm not saying that Ben would have done better than David in Houston. I'm saying that another QB could've done better. Maybe Ragone, I don't know. But just because David wasn't succesful, doesn't many no one else could've.

I understand that. What I am saying is that we don't know that. You can't judge by what happened in Pittsburgh. That is what I am saying. You have to take out one of the variables in Houston. You have to change the QB or change the line to be able to answer the question. All I have to go on this year is the half game against SF for Banks. I didn't see anything that would make me think he would do better full-time. The only regular-season work I have seen from Ragone was not all that impressive either. Ragone is also a young guy and could have improved since his last start.

thunderkyss
02-07-2006, 11:32 AM
I understand that. What I am saying is that we don't know that. You can't judge by what happened in Pittsburgh. That is what I am saying. You have to take out one of the variables in Houston. You have to change the QB or change the line to be able to answer the question. All I have to go on this year is the half game against SF for Banks. I didn't see anything that would make me think he would do better full-time. The only regular-season work I have seen from Ragone was not all that impressive either. Ragone is also a young guy and could have improved since his last start.

Ok, if anyone is going to do better than Carr in Houston 2005, it won't be tony banks. I honestly don't know what he is doing on the team.

Ragone, I don't know either, but that is not the point.

All those teams fared better just by changing the QB. With Bledsoe & Brunnels, they were saying the same thing we are saying in Houston. "you've got to protect the QB better" The coaches may have done something, but the players didn't change. New Englands line was all of a sudden respectable, and even used as an example of a good offensive line, even thought they couldn't protect Drew. We can look back now, and say look at how good that line is, but if Bledsoe was still there, we'd be saying........ they need to fix their offensive line.

I'm not saying that a particular QB would have done better than David, only that it is wrong to say "no one could have done better than David."

Jack Bauer
02-07-2006, 11:38 AM
Ok, if anyone is going to do better than Carr in Houston 2005, it won't be tony banks. I honestly don't know what he is doing on the team.

Ragone, I don't know either, but that is not the point.

All those teams fared better just by changing the QB. With Bledsoe & Brunnels, they were saying the same thing we are saying in Houston. "you've got to protect the QB better" The coaches may have done something, but the players didn't change. New Englands line was all of a sudden respectable, and even used as an example of a good offensive line, even thought they couldn't protect Drew. We can look back now, and say look at how good that line is, but if Bledsoe was still there, we'd be saying........ they need to fix their offensive line.

I'm not saying that a particular QB would have done better than David, only that it is wrong to say "no one could have done better than David."


Agreed.

But some of your examples don't jive. For example, obviously Brady is going to get sacked less than Bledsoe. Bledsoe is a statue in the pocket. If people were complaining about the line with Bledsoe at QB, they were not justified. I do not recall this opinion being accepted as fact.

Apoch
02-07-2006, 11:31 PM
This whole argument will never be answered because it is based on a paradigm shift. People see a winning team and they try to copycat in some way. This team did it with defense. This team has a gunslinger QB who has no fear. This team is the greatest show on turf. This team is the next coming of the '85 bears. This team is a solid organization who drafts solid players. This team just added the few pieces they need to the puzzle. This team dominates the trenches. This team's coach is innovative and daring.

Folks, in the end all of this analysis says one thing... Just do what you do well!

There are a ton of different ways you can be successful as a football team. Some are a flash in the pan, some are built for slow success, some take years to reach a climax, but they all do what they do well.

The Broncos of the late 90s were built very much on FAs (at least on defense), pioneered an innovative blocking scheme that revived a figure-piece QB to his glory years. People say defense wins championships, but it was really Denver's offense, the likes of which the NFL had never seen, that made them unstoppable. Every game they would do what they did with utmost perfection. You knew they would beat lesser teams because they were solid. You had to match them in skill and talent to win.

The same can be said of the Patriots of the last few years. They, however, were built in the trenches. Thier offensive and defensive lines just simply don't get enough credit for how good they are. You know they will bring their A game, and if they get the lead on you, their D-line will pass rush you into oblivion.

Guys, I can give you examples of how other teams did it all night, but I'm sure you get the point. It isn't so much what you do, but how you do it. Look at the Raiders who (by Al Davis's command) so desperately want to run a vertical offense. They want to air it out all the time, but their coaching situation is pathetic, their draft days are filled with head scratching, and they try to build the "black hole" image only to get some bad eggs.

What we need is a solid plan on which to build a team. If McNair and co. decide to build a heavily offensive team with Bush, Carr, and Johnson has the 3 amigos then great. They just better do it well. Do you want the Dallas trio or the Indy trio? That pretty much sums up the possibilities. With Bush we could have the beginnings of a new great NFL offense. It could be the next great thing since the Rams of '00, the Colts of '04, or the Broncos of '98. That's what McNair seems to want right? He said he wanted Kubiak because he thinks he can build an effective offense. Well if that is their plan then lets do it.

Or what if they decide Carr isn't good enough and go with Young. Then you better make sure it will work with him too. Get him some good coaching and training to fix that awful throwing motion. Acquire some offensive talent at TE (which is always helpful to the development of a young QB). Give him everything he needs to succeed. I personally don't like this idea, but I know it can work if the entire organization actually executes it well.

What about trading down? Get Ferguson? Fantastic! Great OTs transform teams too. Look at Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Art Shell and even Gary Zimmerman. You want to go for the "several solid starters" plan great, but make sure you make 'hits' with every one of those draft picks. No matter how you look at it a team is limited by the success of its draft picks. However many picks we acquire in the trade, they all need to end up as starters.

You see folks, all three options are good. It really is a win, win, win deal. Sadly, however, if we play it poorly all three options can be bad too. With the proper failures (yes that was oxymoronic) it can be a lose, lose, lose deal too.

I am for the Bush option first and trading down second. It isn't that I think Vince Young isn't a good choice (as stated above I think he can be), but rather that I simply like the other options better. There are many reasons why, but in this post I'll say this...


Back in '01 when the Chargers needed a QB badly they had a shot at Vick and didn't take him. Instead they opted for Tomlinson, and it is easy to look back now and point fingers, but in reality both teams did well. Atlanta took Vick, gave him a offense very much like the one we will be running (same Denver blocking system), a good TE, a year to learn, and have since given him some good talent at WR.

The Chargers gave Tomlinson one of the best blocking FBs in the NFL, they gave him the rock in any way they could (including through the air over 100 times in one season), they got him a TE that would open up their offense (no 8 in the box), and they built a great young defense with all the extra picks.

Neither team has won the Superbowl, but both teams have won their respective divisions and gone to the playoffs. While Tomlinson has proven to be the better pick, both have worked out well for their teams. I would like to state, however, that both players also fit their teams well. Vick is perfect in an offense based on speed and misdirection. Tomlinson is perfect in the smashmouth, yet explosive, Supercharger offense. Both are great, both are 100% important to their teams, and we can learn something from both.

Once again, looking at the Texans, Kubiak and his system, the weapons we have, where we seem to be headed on defense, and the division we are in... I say Bush is better than Young. Trading down would be just fine with me too, but I'd rather have a superstar for this team's future, and in my opinion Bush is the guy. :texflag:

AustinJB
02-07-2006, 11:55 PM
This whole argument will never be answered because it is based on a paradigm shift. People see a winning team and they try to copycat in some way. This team did it with defense. This team has a gunslinger QB who has no fear. This team is the greatest show on turf. This team is the next coming of the '85 bears. This team is a solid organization who drafts solid players. This team just added the few pieces they need to the puzzle. This team dominates the trenches. This team's coach is innovative and daring.

Folks, in the end all of this analysis says one thing... Just do what you do well!

There are a ton of different ways you can be successful as a football team. Some are a flash in the pan, some are built for slow success, some take years to reach a climax, but they all do what they do well.

The Broncos of the late 90s were built very much on FAs (at least on defense), pioneered an innovative blocking scheme that revived a figure-piece QB to his glory years. People say defense wins championships, but it was really Denver's offense, the likes of which the NFL had never seen, that made them unstoppable. Every game they would do what they did with utmost perfection. You knew they would beat lesser teams because they were solid. You had to match them in skill and talent to win.

The same can be said of the Patriots of the last few years. They, however, were built in the trenches. Thier offensive and defensive lines just simply don't get enough credit for how good they are. You know they will bring their A game, and if they get the lead on you, their D-line will pass rush you into oblivion.

Guys, I can give you examples of how other teams did it all night, but I'm sure you get the point. It isn't so much what you do, but how you do it. Look at the Raiders who (by Al Davis's command) so desperately want to run a vertical offense. They want to air it out all the time, but their coaching situation is pathetic, their draft days are filled with head scratching, and they try to build the "black hole" image only to get some bad eggs.

What we need is a solid plan on which to build a team. If McNair and co. decide to build a heavily offensive team with Bush, Carr, and Johnson has the 3 amigos then great. They just better do it well. Do you want the Dallas trio or the Indy trio? That pretty much sums up the possibilities. With Bush we could have the beginnings of a new great NFL offense. It could be the next great thing since the Rams of '00, the Colts of '04, or the Broncos of '98. That's what McNair seems to want right? He said he wanted Kubiak because he thinks he can build an effective offense. Well if that is their plan then lets do it.

Or what if they decide Carr isn't good enough and go with Young. Then you better make sure it will work with him too. Get him some good coaching and training to fix that awful throwing motion. Acquire some offensive talent at TE (which is always helpful to the development of a young QB). Give him everything he needs to succeed. I personally don't like this idea, but I know it can work if the entire organization actually executes it well.

What about trading down? Get Ferguson? Fantastic! Great OTs transform teams too. Look at Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Art Shell and even Gary Zimmerman. You want to go for the "several solid starters" plan great, but make sure you make 'hits' with every one of those draft picks. No matter how you look at it a team is limited by the success of its draft picks. However many picks we acquire in the trade, they all need to end up as starters.

You see folks, all three options are good. It really is a win, win, win deal. Sadly, however, if we play it poorly all three options can be bad too. With the proper failures (yes that was oxymoronic) it can be a lose, lose, lose deal too.

I am for the Bush option first and trading down second. It isn't that I think Vince Young isn't a good choice (as stated above I think he can be), but rather that I simply like the other options better. There are many reasons why, but in this post I'll say this...


Back in '01 when the Chargers needed a QB badly they had a shot at Vick and didn't take him. Instead they opted for Tomlinson, and it is easy to look back now and point fingers, but in reality both teams did well. Atlanta took Vick, gave him a offense very much like the one we will be running (same Denver blocking system), a good TE, a year to learn, and have since given him some good talent at WR.

The Chargers gave Tomlinson one of the best blocking FBs in the NFL, they gave him the rock in any way they could (including through the air over 100 times in one season), they got him a TE that would open up their offense (no 8 in the box), and they built a great young defense with all the extra picks.

Neither team has won the Superbowl, but both teams have won their respective divisions and gone to the playoffs. While Tomlinson has proven to be the better pick, both have worked out well for their teams. I would like to state, however, that both players also fit their teams well. Vick is perfect in an offense based on speed and misdirection. Tomlinson is perfect in the smashmouth, yet explosive, Supercharger offense. Both are great, both are 100% important to their teams, and we can learn something from both.

Once again, looking at the Texans, Kubiak and his system, the weapons we have, where we seem to be headed on defense, and the division we are in... I say Bush is better than Young. Trading down would be just fine with me too, but I'd rather have a superstar for this team's future, and in my opinion Bush is the guy. :texflag:

Great post!

IMO, I would rather have VY than Bush, but I get your point. Well stated.:)

Nighthawk
02-08-2006, 12:46 AM
I understand that. What I am saying is that we don't know that. You can't judge by what happened in Pittsburgh. That is what I am saying. You have to take out one of the variables in Houston. You have to change the QB or change the line to be able to answer the question. All I have to go on this year is the half game against SF for Banks. I didn't see anything that would make me think he would do better full-time. The only regular-season work I have seen from Ragone was not all that impressive either. Ragone is also a young guy and could have improved since his last start.

One of the points made continually after about the 6th game of the season was that Capers and Friends should have given extensive playing time to our other QBs. But Capers was, I expect, among other things, afraid to risk Carr's delicate ego, or Casserly's, or somebody's, and thus steadfastly refused to give either Banks or Ragone a decent shot. A start or two each would have been the smart coach's play. Alas, we had a sack of . . . cement.

thunderkyss
02-08-2006, 06:32 AM
Back in '01 when the Chargers needed a QB badly they had a shot at Vick and didn't take him. Instead they opted for Tomlinson, and it is easy to look back now and point fingers, but in reality both teams did well. Atlanta took Vick, gave him a offense very much like the one we will be running (same Denver blocking system), a good TE, a year to learn, and have since given him some good talent at WR.

The Chargers gave Tomlinson one of the best blocking FBs in the NFL, they gave him the rock in any way they could (including through the air over 100 times in one season), they got him a TE that would open up their offense (no 8 in the box), and they built a great young defense with all the extra picks.

Neither team has won the Superbowl, but both teams have won their respective divisions and gone to the playoffs. While Tomlinson has proven to be the better pick, both have worked out well for their teams. I would like to state, however, that both players also fit their teams well. Vick is perfect in an offense based on speed and misdirection. Tomlinson is perfect in the smashmouth, yet explosive, Supercharger offense. Both are great, both are 100% important to their teams, and we can learn something from both.
:texflag:

How can anyone say that LT has proven to be the better pick?? Sure Vick doesn't play like most NFL quarterbacks, but he gets wins for his team. in 2004, he got his team one game away from the SuperBowl....... LT has never done that.. & yes you can give me the blah,blah,blah about being a team game, but if you can't see the Falcons were in that NFC championship game because of Michael Vick, then I don't know what to say. On top of that, when Michael Vick is out of the game, their chances of winning drops quite a bit.

Didn't SanDiego take Drew Brees in '01?? Weren't both LT & Brees Rookies that same yeas??

Marcus
02-08-2006, 07:51 AM
How can anyone say that LT has proven to be the better pick?? Sure Vick doesn't play like most NFL quarterbacks, but he gets wins for his team. in 2004, he got his team one game away from the SuperBowl....... LT has never done that.. & yes you can give me the blah,blah,blah about being a team game, but if you can't see the Falcons were in that NFC championship game because of Michael Vick, then I don't know what to say. On top of that, when Michael Vick is out of the game, their chances of winning drops quite a bit.

You're not going to make a case for Vince Young if you're going to use Michael Vick as a standard. I use Michael Vick as the reason why we shouldn't draft VY. Sure, the Falcons made the playoffs, but they didn't get there because MV "put the team on his back". They got there as a team. But do you really want to talk about MV's performances in playoff games, and use VY's "big game" performances in college ball as a reference?

Another thing that seems be constantly ignored in this 'great debate' . . . is that Michael Vick is injury prone. That is without dispute. Now, did he all of a sudden get frail bones when he went into the NFL? No. His 'running back' style of play, is what makes him injury prone.

thunderkyss
02-08-2006, 07:58 AM
You're not going to make a case for Vince Young if you're going to use Michael Vick as a standard. I use Michael Vick as the reason why we shouldn't draft VY. Sure, the Falcons made the playoffs, but they didn't get there because MV "put the team on his back". They got there as a team. But do you really want to talk about MV's performances in playoff games, and use VY's "big game" performances in college ball as a reference?

Another thing that seems be constantly ignored in this 'great debate' . . . is that Michael Vick is injury prone. That is without dispute. Now, did he all of a sudden get frail bones when he went into the NFL? No. His 'running back' style of play, is what makes him injury prone.

This argument is about who was the better pick, LT/Vick. Carr/Vince/Bush.... weren't mentioned.

I never use Vick as an example when I argue for Vince, when people use Vick to argue against Vince, I usually ignore those post..... those people don't know anything about evaluating players, if they put Vick and Vince in the same category.

I don't think a QB should ever break the line of scrimmage. If he's got wheels, he should use them to get to the sidelines....... unlike Carr, they should attempt to get rid of the ball before they reach said sideline. There is a lot of football to be played between the pocket & the sideline..... my argument is that Vince plays that game better than Carr.

Big B Texan Fan
02-08-2006, 08:28 AM
One of the points made continually after about the 6th game of the season was that Capers and Friends should have given extensive playing time to our other QBs. But Capers was, I expect, among other things, afraid to risk Carr's delicate ego, or Casserly's, or somebody's, and thus steadfastly refused to give either Banks or Ragone a decent shot. A start or two each would have been the smart coach's play. Alas, we had a sack of . . . cement.
The powers that be are afraid of a QB controversy obviously.

infantrycak
02-08-2006, 08:45 AM
The powers that be are afraid of a QB controversy obviously.

Or they consistantly believed Carr gave them the best chance of winning.

Apoch
02-08-2006, 04:26 PM
This argument is about who was the better pick, LT/Vick. Carr/Vince/Bush.... weren't mentioned.

I never use Vick as an example when I argue for Vince, when people use Vick to argue against Vince, I usually ignore those post..... those people don't know anything about evaluating players, if they put Vick and Vince in the same category.

I don't think a QB should ever break the line of scrimmage. If he's got wheels, he should use them to get to the sidelines....... unlike Carr, they should attempt to get rid of the ball before they reach said sideline. There is a lot of football to be played between the pocket & the sideline..... my argument is that Vince plays that game better than Carr.

I didn't compare Vick to Vince either. I was making a comparison that in '01 there were two great offensive players coming out of college (a QB and a RB) just like this year. Both were amazing talents, and each team built around its respective pick. I'm saying the same could happen this year. If the Texans took Bush and the Titans took Young for example... if they both succeeded who wins? Well it would make a great topic of conversation twice a year on NFL Live, but it is hard to tell.

As for your rebutal, I say Tomlinson is the better player and I don't think I'm alone on this. You say...

How can anyone say that LT has proven to be the better pick?? Sure Vick doesn't play like most NFL quarterbacks, but he gets wins for his team. in 2004, he got his team one game away from the SuperBowl....... LT has never done that.. & yes you can give me the blah,blah,blah about being a team game, but if you can't see the Falcons were in that NFC championship game because of Michael Vick, then I don't know what to say. On top of that, when Michael Vick is out of the game, their chances of winning drops quite a bit.

I guess I better make a comparison because - if nothing else - everyone else should see the truth:

LaDanian Tomlinson is a complete player. He runs with power, speed, and agility (he isn't a one dimensional runner). He is the best receiving RB in the NFL, and has even set a record for most receptions by a running back in a season. He doesn't have fumbling issues, is not at all injury prone (despite his workload), and is a very hard worker. His pass protection is superb as well. He is a class act person on and off the field who visibly thanks and congradulates his entire offensive line after every big game. LT has shown suprising maturity in all the interviews he takes, and has been very open about his faith in God and the importance of moral character. He has put up amazing numbers in his short career, and has taken over games when necessary (as all good players do). Tomlinson is the highest paid RB in the NFL. ...and just for comic relief he is rated higher than Vick in Madden.

Michael Vick is a "next generation" QB who has put up amazing rushing stats, but has never found consistency in his passing game. He runs a 4.28 40, but misses wide open receivers. He has the support of the #1 rushing offense in the NFL (2 years straight), but still cannot consistently hit a 5 yard drag. He is turnover prone, injury prone (VERY), and has made poor off-the-field decisions. While he doesn't lack confidence, he has never been known for dedicated training. Vick has shown a lack of self-control because of incidents last off-season where he was using an alias; Ron Mexico. He has never shown any major participation or support for community service, and his social life has shown a lack of basic morality. Vick has a 10 year, 100 mil contract, but is not the highest paid QB in the NFL.

Yes, both teams have been successful, but the question of which player has proven to be better is not really a question at all. This doesn't mean Vick = Young or Bush = Tomlinson. It means Tomlinson > Vick.

TexasDiehard
02-08-2006, 04:29 PM
The argument that it's Carr/Bush vs Young/Davis is complete crap. If the Carr lovers really believe he can take a team to the Super Bowl and the whole league agrees with them, then he should bring at least a high first round pick in trade that could be used on Ferguson. Young will be a top 3 pick and a Davis trade has no chance to get a first round pick. Young/Davis/Ferguson is a hell of a lot better scenario than Carr/Bush. If Carr can't draw a high first round pick, then there could be no stronger evidence that the Carr lovers are off the mark on his potential.

The truth about Carr is he's the last guy to arrive at practice and the first to leave and he has no concept of how to lead by example and elevate the play of his teammates to the highest level. On the contrary, his style has the opposite effect. Even boring championship teams have strong leaders and the Texans have no leaders and that was a huge factor in 2-14. Reggie Bush is not known for his leadership qualities, and no offensive lineman ever lead a team to the Super Bowl and even the best take a couple of years to reach difference maker status. Vince offers the strongest leadership and difference maker qualities among all of the potential candidates and any view to the contrary is grounded in mindless myopia or resentments that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

In reality, all of these posts about Vince Young are academic. As ridiculous as it is, Bob McNair has said on numerous occasions in countless public and private venues that he is not ready to give up on Carr. The truth is that Bob McNair is just being consistent. He has botched every major personnel decision since the Texan's inception and he will screw up the first pick as well. I never believed it was possible, but we have a worse owner than Bud Adams.

SESupergenius
02-08-2006, 04:46 PM
The truth about Carr is he's the last guy to arrive at practice and the first to leave and he has no concept of how to lead by example and elevate the play of his teammates to the highest level. How is this truth? If you could provide me solid evidence that Carr is not a leader because of what you say, then I'll make you a great "Carr hater" avatar. Please show me and the rest of the board your evidence to make you claim substantiated. If not, then it's just you wild opinion.

jerek
02-08-2006, 05:04 PM
The argument that it's Carr/Bush vs Young/Davis is complete crap. If the Carr lovers really believe he can take a team to the Super Bowl and the whole league agrees with them, then he should bring at least a high first round pick in trade that could be used on Ferguson. Young will be a top 3 pick and a Davis trade has no chance to get a first round pick. Young/Davis/Ferguson is a hell of a lot better scenario than Carr/Bush. If Carr can't draw a high first round pick, then there could be no stronger evidence that the Carr lovers are off the mark on his potential.

The truth about Carr is he's the last guy to arrive at practice and the first to leave and he has no concept of how to lead by example and elevate the play of his teammates to the highest level. On the contrary, his style has the opposite effect. Even boring championship teams have strong leaders and the Texans have no leaders and that was a huge factor in 2-14. Reggie Bush is not known for his leadership qualities, and no offensive lineman ever lead a team to the Super Bowl and even the best take a couple of years to reach difference maker status. Vince offers the strongest leadership and difference maker qualities among all of the potential candidates and any view to the contrary is grounded in mindless myopia or resentments that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

In reality, all of these posts about Vince Young are academic. As ridiculous as it is, Bob McNair has said on numerous occasions in countless public and private venues that he is not ready to give up on Carr. The truth is that Bob McNair is just being consistent. He has botched every major personnel decision since the Texan's inception and he will screw up the first pick as well. I never believed it was possible, but we have a worse owner than Bud Adams.

Feel better now that you've gotten that out?

I would love for something - anything really, even a Chronicle writer saying that they heard it from someone else - to show that David Carr is any of these things you have just said him to be.

You can watch gametape of Carr and see him miss a route and say, "there, he's a bad quarterback." But I would dearly love to know what omniscient source you have that warrants the rest of this spew of a rant.

Koolbrz
02-08-2006, 07:09 PM
The argument that it's Carr/Bush vs Young/Davis is complete crap. If the Carr lovers really believe he can take a team to the Super Bowl and the whole league agrees with them, then he should bring at least a high first round pick in trade that could be used on Ferguson. Young will be a top 3 pick and a Davis trade has no chance to get a first round pick. Young/Davis/Ferguson is a hell of a lot better scenario than Carr/Bush. If Carr can't draw a high first round pick, then there could be no stronger evidence that the Carr lovers are off the mark on his potential.

The truth about Carr is he's the last guy to arrive at practice and the first to leave and he has no concept of how to lead by example and elevate the play of his teammates to the highest level. On the contrary, his style has the opposite effect. Even boring championship teams have strong leaders and the Texans have no leaders and that was a huge factor in 2-14. Reggie Bush is not known for his leadership qualities, and no offensive lineman ever lead a team to the Super Bowl and even the best take a couple of years to reach difference maker status. Vince offers the strongest leadership and difference maker qualities among all of the potential candidates and any view to the contrary is grounded in mindless myopia or resentments that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

In reality, all of these posts about Vince Young are academic. As ridiculous as it is, Bob McNair has said on numerous occasions in countless public and private venues that he is not ready to give up on Carr. The truth is that Bob McNair is just being consistent. He has botched every major personnel decision since the Texan's inception and he will screw up the first pick as well. I never believed it was possible, but we have a worse owner than Bud Adams.


Man, you must know his schedule from the moment he wakes up to the time he goes to bed. I mean you know what time he gets to practice and the time he leaves. You must be watching him at all times.:wacko:

Texans_Chick
02-08-2006, 08:18 PM
We have four possible categories (and if you want them you can put it into four boxes):

.....................WINNING...................... .......LOSING

AMAZING ......Amazing Winner.................Amazing Loser






BORING........Boring Winner .......................Boring Loser



Most teams aren't completely amazing or boring, but fall somewhere on a continuum. It is a team game and it is hard to find a playmaker that changes a game drastically (Mathis was that way for us last year).

And you can intend to emulate a particular style to win, but winning isn't always the result. And you can try to draft a particular player to help with amazingness or playmaking, but there are no guarantees.

McNair has clearly stated that the coaching change is meant to spice up our offense and make it more entertaining to watch. Of course, given last season's injuries, early season schedule, Oline shuffle, etc, the bar is not set very high if you are trying to improve the excitement of our offense.