PDA

View Full Version : Why we shouldn't take Reggie #1


YoungnotBush
02-14-2006, 11:22 PM
If we just take Reggie with the #1 pick, when Reggie comes in, I have no doubt he could help this team win 6 or 7 games(anything more than 6 or 7 games would be a stretch), even with an upgraded line. How does that help this team though, if we don't make the playoffs? Reggie is the type of player that is more suited to add to an actually contending team. The Texans are not a viable playoff team, no matter who they take. So why not take something that can become the starter in 2 or 3 years max and play at least 10 more years? If we were just that close, I would say take Reggie hands down, but we are not.

Some people might try and argue the fact that we are not close to a playoff caliber team. Well I tell those people to look at what teams didn't make this year, namely the Chargers and Kansas City. Both those teams won 10 games and didn't make the playoffs. Also the fact that we play in the division of the Colts, that means that for at least the next 2 years, we are playing for a wildcard spot. That means we have to beat out teams like Kansas City, San Diego or Denver, also teams like Pitt. or Cincinnati. To tell you the truth we aren't better than the Bills or Miami or the Jets for that matter.

Carr may stay the starter for the next couple of years, but after that he will be worthless. The Texans are not going to the playoffs in the next 2 years and aren't going to solve the OL problems in the next 2 years either (although it will get better). Carr will be lucky if he isn't a vegetable in the next 2 or 3 years.

That means that we will be looking for a QB no matter what in 2 or 3 years when our OL can develop and WR's and our D and most importantly or coaching staff. Everyone seems to forget that we are probably going to get an overhaul on Defense. It will take a few years to get everything in place on the OL and the Defense, and that just happens to be about the time that Vince will be primed and ready to go.

Unless someone can tell me how the Texans can go from a 70 sack team to a 20 sack team, we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Vince is the future.

LikeABoss
02-14-2006, 11:40 PM
:sleep:

You should just let the thoughts of Vince being on this team go man.

ToroFan
02-14-2006, 11:47 PM
This is a new era in the NFL...Teams that are bad can ascend very quickly because there is so much parity...Cases in point: Chargers and Giants. It was just two years ago that the Chargers had the number one pick and the Giants the number 4 overall. They were two of the worst teams in the NFL. The chargers probably should have been in the playoffs (I think they had the toughest schedule of anyone), and the Giants made it this year.

I think if we draft well and pick up a few key contributors and pick up some key free agents we will be more competitive this year, and maybe possibly the following season make a run for a wild card spot.

That being said if we can't trade down and pick up defense, I want VY, because RB's aren't as rare commodities as they used to be.

Denver has been able to plug in whoever into their system and make it work. Green Bay used Samkon Gado pretty effectively after 3 of their starters went down. Philly, Pitt, and NE (prior to Corey Dillon) have used a stable of backs in the past to get far in the playoffs.

I don't think it is necessary to have that one stud back to win. It sure doesn't hurt, but for the most part a stud QB will always be needed (the exception being Dilfer for the Ravens, but I think he was underaprreciated in what he brought to that team, well at least in comparison to Boller)

There are so many good proven backs in free agency (Edge, Alexander, etc.) that if you are indeed a starting RB away from the super bowl you can pick one up. That is not the case with QBs. Look at Baltimore and Detroit, they pretty much had talent everywhere, except a QB to steer the ship. And both teams sank pretty badly.

My point is it is rarer to see teams just missing a running back from competing. Even if RB's do perform very well teams will just franchise them for a few years after their rookie contracts run out and then let them go because they know they can find a replacement pretty easily without breaking the bank.

Its a matter of if you want to get competitive faster (which is more likely in the NFL nowadays) or build for the long haul...It all depends on your perspective.

YoungnotBush
02-15-2006, 12:13 AM
[QUOTE=ToroFan]This is a new era in the NFL...Teams that are bad can ascend very quickly because there is so much parity...Cases in point: Chargers and Giants. It was just two years ago that the Chargers had the number one pick and the Giants the number 4 overall. They were two of the worst teams in the NFL. The chargers probably should have been in the playoffs (I think they had the toughest schedule of anyone), and the Giants made it this year.



Let me just address this part, considering I agree with everything else.

It seems that the 2 examples you used as teams that turned it around very quickly don't really hold merit to my point, considering that New York is in the NFC and San diego only improved 6 games in 2 years. If the texans improve 6 games in 2 years, then they will be 8-8 in 2007-2008 season. that still doesn't get us in the playoffs and that is 2 years worth of hits on Carr to get to 8-8. Even if they improved like the NYGiants, your other example, then they will be 9-7 in the 2007-2008 season, which at best would get us a road game, but most likely no game at all in the post-season.

MorKnolle
02-15-2006, 12:25 AM
This is a new era in the NFL...Teams that are bad can ascend very quickly because there is so much parity...Cases in point: Chargers and Giants. It was just two years ago that the Chargers had the number one pick and the Giants the number 4 overall. They were two of the worst teams in the NFL. The chargers probably should have been in the playoffs (I think they had the toughest schedule of anyone), and the Giants made it this year.



Let me just address this part, considering I agree with everything else.

It seems that the 2 examples you used as teams that turned it around very quickly don't really hold merit to my point, considering that New York is in the NFC and San diego only improved 6 games in 2 years. If the texans improve 6 games in 2 years, then they will be 8-8 in 2007-2008 season. that still doesn't get us in the playoffs and that is 2 years worth of hits on Carr to get to 8-8. Even if they improved like the NYGiants, your other example, then they will be 9-7 in the 2007-2008 season, which at best would get us a road game, but most likely no game at all in the post-season.

The Chargers went from 4-12 and the #1 pick in the draft to 12-4 and a division title in one year, then regressed a little this year with a much harder schedule. I'll take a one year 8-game turnaround any time.

beerlover
02-15-2006, 12:43 AM
What would the Texans be today if they had built a young outstanding defense starting with Julius Peppers? sure it would have been worse in the beginning but in the long run, like now inserting a offensive playmaker like Reggie Bush or Vince Young would have made all the sense in the world. :twocents:

Nighthawk
02-15-2006, 01:05 AM
Carr is holding the team back. QB is the biggest need for skill positions on O. Carr will improve under Kubiak, but is not a long term answer to any question you want to ask. That said, it appears we're going with him for at least the next 3 years.

We do need extra picks this year (and next) so trading down is a strong play once the front office has nailed our hands to the deck with Carr.

The best move would be to up Carr's trade value and then trade him for a couple picks (2nd and 3rd? 2nd this yr, 2nd next?) at the last minute before draft. I don't think the front office is that sophisticated, but that would leave you in a position to take VY, promote Ragone or Banks or a FA journeyman QB.