PDA

View Full Version : Peter King Article


BeReal
02-20-2006, 08:34 AM
Did you guys read the article? Here's the link if you have not......

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/19/mmqb/index.html

Very interesting to say the least from what I would consider a credible source. Bush still seems to be the front runner.

"And from what I hear, new coach Gary Kubiak is already quietly telling good friends like Mike Shanahan that the Texans will take Bush.)"

-- Peter King

edo783
02-20-2006, 08:48 AM
Take Bush or trade down......Mmmm...both seem like a winner for different reasons. No problem here either way....preffer the trade down, but it's all good.

Texans_Chick
02-20-2006, 09:00 AM
Thanks for the article.

Personally, I think King's estimate is not correct. IMO, the likelihood of things happening with the first pick is Bush, then the trade down, then Vince. I think getting Vince is the least likely scenario given at least the public statements about Carr and wanting to win immediately.

I think the Vince talk is: 1. Idle talk to convince people we might take QB so that if there are trade offers, they come to us; 2. Something to placate the Houston fanbase, to say that the Texans are seriously considering Vince, but we took Bush instead because after much consideration, we considered him BPA.

I think CC would be very interested in a trade down but I don't believe he will get enough value, and a high enough swap to justify getting out of the pick.

Dr. Toro
02-20-2006, 09:06 AM
Funny... I hope we can put the issue of whether durability is a question to rest? Casserly (not the most stout reference) and his scouts aren't sure if he can handle the load either. He could still be great as a 17touch guy like they say, however. He might be LT or Gale Sayers, he might not.

BeReal
02-20-2006, 09:10 AM
Thanks for the article.

Personally, I think King's estimate is not correct. IMO, the likelihood of things happening with the first pick is Bush, then the trade down, then Vince. I think getting Vince is the least likely scenario given at least the public statements about Carr and wanting to win immediately.



You're welcome.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't that what King said? He didn't go in order of what was most likely.

1) Trading the pick was only %5 chance of happening.

2) Bush %75 chance

3) Young %20

HoustonFrog
02-20-2006, 09:12 AM
I'm not a fan of King. Blowhard who always thinks he knows it all but doesn't. His Brick scenario isn't even the top trade down scenario from what I have heard. I think trading down for Mario has much more of a chance and from what I hear from the talking heads on some of the radio stations lately, D'Brick isn't something the Texans want to do. I think at this point it is all speculation.

Lucky
02-20-2006, 09:23 AM
You're welcome.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't that what King said? He didn't go in order of what was most likely.

1) Trading the pick was only %5 chance of happening.

2) Bush %75 chance

3) Young %20
Texans_Chick thinks that there's a greater chance of the Texans trading the pick than selecting Vince Young. I agree with her on this.

Peter King thinks the Texans are 4 times more likely to take Young than trade down. Of course, math and logic have never been King's strong points. Stick with the rumormongering, Petey.

Texans_Chick
02-20-2006, 09:27 AM
You're welcome.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't that what King said? He didn't go in order of what was most likely.

1) Trading the pick was only %5 chance of happening.

2) Bush %75 chance

3) Young %20

What you just said is correct about what King said. But what I think is likely to be the percentages if I were going that way is more like:

Bush 80%
Trade down about 18%
Vince 2%

20% Young is way too high. And given our needs and CC's wheelingdealing nature, I am thinking of the interest of trading the pick would be higher than 5%--that the biggest deterrent to it is probably a lack of value, but I really think the Texans would be open to it if they trading partner also had a high pick and offered a lot of value.

BeReal
02-20-2006, 09:34 AM
Oh, I argree. Trading down is much more likely than drafting Vince. I also believe trading down is the only way we would take Vince. IMO I can't see us taking him at #1, when in all likelyhood we could land him at #4.

But after reading the article, I'm just wondering what is Bush's target weight? 210? 215? And at what weight would not effect his speed negatively?

nunusguy
02-20-2006, 09:38 AM
I really think the Texans would be open to it if they trading partner also had a high pick and offered a lot of value.
I think the Texans preference is to trade the pick if they can get a reasonable offer. Of course what is reasonable is subject to debate to say
the least. But I don't think they would require a "godfather offer", one definition being an offer too good to pass on, even if the Texans preferred
not to trade the pick. Problem is, potential trading partners are falling by the
wayside. Latest example of this is news that Pennington is unwilling to negotiate with the Jets, a prime trade partner for the Texans, and they may therefor have to cut him and take a big cap hit in the neck. This leaves them in a weaker positon to do a deal with the #4 overall, let alone the #1.

BeReal
02-20-2006, 10:24 AM
Sorry, but this maybe a little off topic.

If a team cuts a guy, his salary still counts against the CAP. But does he still get paid the rest of his salary? I thought that when an NFL team cuts someone, they are not liable for the rest of the contract except the signing bonus.

tulexan
02-20-2006, 10:28 AM
that's right. teams are only responsible for the signing bonus when they cut or trade a player because they already paid it to them up front.

BeReal
02-20-2006, 10:35 AM
But the player's salary still counts against the CAP even though they don't have to pay it? I didn't know it worked that way, seems a little weird to me. So in essence, the salary CAP is not what a team actually paid out, but more of what it would have if it kept all of it's contracts?

Wharton
02-20-2006, 10:42 AM
I hope we can put the issue of whether durability is a question to rest?
Unfortunely, Bush's durability issues will not be put to rest until he suits up and takes some lumps from a 235+ lb. outside linebacker with a nasty disposition. And, make no mistake about it, allot of NFL outside linebackers will be able to run him down. I say outside linebackers because I doubt they will be running Bush between the tackles.
"He didn't do it in college, and you don't know if he can do it in the NFL. I guess here's what I would say: Is Randy Moss, ability-wise, worth the No. 1 pick in a draft? I think you'd have to say yes, based on ability and nothing else -- and he'll touch the ball eight or nine times in a game. Sometimes you have to look at how a guy can affect a game. When I came back from scouting him, I told [owner] Bob [McNair], 'The coach will have to go on the board and tell us how he's going to use him.' If he's a 17-touch-a-game guy [touching it 17 times rushing, receiving and returning combined, on average], is he worth it?''?
The difference is, we are not looking at a Randy Moss type player. Bush would be used more like Brian Westbrook is for the Eagles. Moss is setup on the outside and sent deep, were the chances of him taking a direct hit are slim. Until this year (groin), Moss has been injury free. Westbrook on the other hand lines up in the backfield or, sometimes, slotted and takes direct hits from outside linebacker and strong safeties on a regular basis. I am not sure about his duribility record but, I know that Westbrook (5'8", 203 Lb) has been injured in the past and finished last season on the IR. The question should be "Is Brian Westbrook a no. 1 pick?".

infantrycak
02-20-2006, 10:44 AM
But the player's salary still counts against the CAP even though they don't have to pay it? I didn't know it worked that way, seems a little weird to me. So in essence, the salary CAP is not what a team actually paid out, but more of what it would have if it kept all of it's contracts?

Not exactly. Any unprorated signing bonuses which have not been accounted for on the cap have to be accounted for. Any salaries which have not been paid are not paid to the player and do not go on the cap.

As an example--a player signs a 5 year contract with a $2 mil per year salary and $10 mil signing bonus. The team is allowed to prorate the signing bonus over the life of the contract so it counts $2 mil per year on the cap for accounting purposes even though it has all been paid--so if the player stays for the whole contract, his cap hit is $4 mil per year--$2 mil of salary plus $2 mil of prorated signing bonus. If the player is cut after the 1st year, none of the future salaries must be paid, but the unprorated signing bonus goes on the cap so after year 1--$8 mil, after year 2--$6 mil, after year 3--$4 mil and after year 4--$2 mil. That is why in some instances it is more expensive to cut a player than to keep him. From the example above, the player would count $4 mil on the cap to keep after year 1 and $8 mil to cut. This is the situation for Gary Walker right now.

Almost Anybody
02-20-2006, 11:01 AM
Unfortunely, Bush's durability issues will not be put to rest until he suits up and takes some lumps from a 235+ lb. outside linebacker with a nasty disposition. And, make no mistake about it, allot of NFL outside linebackers will be able to run him down. I say outside linebackers because I doubt they will be running Bush between the tackles.

The difference is, we are not looking at a Randy Moss type player. Bush would be used more like Brian Westbrook is for the Eagles. Moss is setup on the outside and sent deep, were the chances of him taking a direct hit are slim. Until this year (groin), Moss has been injury free. Westbrook on the other hand lines up in the backfield or, sometimes, slotted and takes direct hits from outside linebacker and strong safeties on a regular basis. I am not sure about his duribility record but, I know that Westbrook (5'8", 203 Lb) has been injured in the past and finished last season on the IR. The question should be "Is Brian Westbrook a no. 1 pick?".

We could on all day with comparisons to other players . . . and it's a trap. If you don't like Bush, you're going to compare him to certain players to make your case. If you're pro-Bush, you're going to list other players to compare him to.

I think Reggie Bush plays like Reggie Bush, and Vince Young plays like Vince Young. I've compared Vince Young to Michael Vick before, and the response, for the most part was correct.

Htown34s
02-20-2006, 11:04 AM
I heard Casserly on a national radio show on Saturday. He sounded much more excited when asked about Bush. It sounded like what he would say to McNair about why we should take Bush.

I could see where Casserly wants Bush, Kubiak wants to trade down, and McNair wants VY (if for no other reason than to save face).

tulexan
02-20-2006, 11:08 AM
I could see where Casserly wants Bush, Kubiak wants to trade down, and McNair wants VY (if for no other reason than to save face).

Skip Bayless, is that you?


If McNair wanted Vince Young then Carr wouldn't have been extended.

BeReal
02-20-2006, 11:26 AM
We could on all day with comparisons to other players . . . and it's a trap. If you don't like Bush, you're going to compare him to certain players to make your case. If you're pro-Bush, you're going to list other players to compare him to.

I think Reggie Bush plays like Reggie Bush, and Vince Young plays like Vince Young. I've compared Vince Young to Michael Vick before, and the response, for the most part was correct.

I agree. If you were to compare Bush to lets say Barber and Dunn...

Barber 2005 Rushing Stats: 5'10" 200 lbs.
357 attempts in 16 games, giving him ~22 attempts per game.
YPC = 5.2
Total Yards = 1860

Dunn 2005 Rushing Stats: 5'9" 180 lbs.
280 att. in 16 games, giving him 17.5 att. per game.
YPC = 5.1
Total = 1416

Htown34s
02-20-2006, 11:36 AM
Skip Bayless, is that you?

If McNair wanted Vince Young then Carr wouldn't have been extended.

OK, thanks for straightening me out. I appreciate it. What the hell could I have been thinking?

Marcus
02-20-2006, 12:14 PM
OK, thanks for straightening me out. I appreciate it. What the hell could I have been thinking?

:BananaWav Hi John! . . . . . :neener:

Frills
02-20-2006, 12:29 PM
I personally don't want him as an everydown back.

It should be a RBBC. It serves a few purposes, takes some load off DD so he can stay healthy a full year. Lessens the wear on RB cause he's not going to be going up the middle often, use DD or the FB for that.

The Texans could run the "Bone"

Carr


Wells

Bush Davis


Bring back the Wishbone

Wharton
02-20-2006, 02:42 PM
I agree. If you were to compare Bush to lets say Barber and Dunn...

Barber 2005 Rushing Stats: 5'10" 200 lbs.
357 attempts in 16 games, giving him ~22 attempts per game.
YPC = 5.2
Total Yards = 1860

Dunn 2005 Rushing Stats: 5'9" 180 lbs.
280 att. in 16 games, giving him 17.5 att. per game.
YPC = 5.1
Total = 1416

The only way to set a value on an asset is to compare it to its opportunity cost. In this case, we must compare it to the most similar asset. The players listed above are valid comparisons. Also, I don't have a problem comparing Vince Young to Michael Vick. The point of my post is at least make your comparisons logical. To compare Bush to Moss is not valid.

cap1
02-20-2006, 02:51 PM
The only way to set a value on an asset is to compare it to its opportunity cost. In this case, we must compare it to the most similar asset. The players listed above are valid comparisons. Also, I don't have a problem comparing Vince Young to Michael Vick. The point of my post is at least make your comparisons logical. To compare Bush to Moss is not valid.

Accountant? :stirpot:

Wharton
02-20-2006, 03:06 PM
Close, Real Estate Asset Manager

texansfaninla
02-21-2006, 12:51 PM
I have a few comments:

(1) I watched an NFL running back greats show yesterday on NFL.com, and I cannot tell you how much Reggie Bush reminds me of some of the all time greats. He just seems to have "it" and the more I think about it (and I've been on the fence like pretty much everyone else, though I have favored Bush over anything else), I am really - and I mean really - getting genuinely excited about Reggie Bush being in Houston.

(2) The fact that Bush is working with a personal chef and trainer to get himself stronger really shows to me that he is truly trying to make himself better for the next level. That's admirable. He's not relying on his past skills - he wants to be BETTER than he was, and that was averaging 9 yards a touch. Impressive.

(3) Would you take Reggie Bush, having worked hard to get better, and with a great offensive mind like Kubiak, touching the ball 17 times a game, or any other joe at 30 times a game? Sometimes you have to discount this whole "every down back" stuff and remember that he could be (and I think will be) one of the greatest talents at his position. I definitely could see him on one of those NFL network shows like I mentioned from yesterday. If 17 times a game means 120 yards and a score or two, hell - I'll take it any day.

texansfaninla
02-21-2006, 12:54 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts - something wrong with my comp I guess...

BeReal
02-21-2006, 02:02 PM
I agree. Even without a few extra touches, how many other times would he act as a "decoy." At the very least teams will need to dedicate a man or two to shadow him. I believe he adds a dynamic to the offense that cannot be quantified by touches or yards.

I know many people believe our O-line is our most pressing need, and I don't disagree. But in a broader sense, we are in sorley need of playmakers, period. Arguably AJ is our only one. I don't see Bush purely as a running back, I see him as a RB/FL.

As I watched the Texans last year I noticed when Carr dropped back, his only real target was AJ. Now as an opposing defense, you double him up and play man on everyone else. So now 1 of 3 things happen...

1) Carr checks down to DD in the flats for minimal/medium gain.
2) Carr takes off and runs with it.
3) Carr gets sacked.

As a result, you get the offense to be one-dimensional and ultimately much easier to defend AND attack. When you're being blitzed every down and are not able to make the defense pay, their going to do it all day long. That's why the Texans were forced into 3rd and long so often and consequently Carr being sacked a lot more than normal.

Now I know our pass blocking needs help, but our pass OFFENSE needs just as much help. IMO bringing in Ferguson gives Carr a little bit more time to throw, but with the same limited options I can see the same disastrous results.

tulexan
02-21-2006, 04:05 PM
The only way to set a value on an asset is to compare it to its opportunity cost. In this case, we must compare it to the most similar asset. The players listed above are valid comparisons. Also, I don't have a problem comparing Vince Young to Michael Vick. The point of my post is at least make your comparisons logical. To compare Bush to Moss is not valid.


I believe that he compared Reggie Bush to Randy Moss because both have unbelievable speed and are proven game breakers when they touch the ball. I'm not saying that I necessarily completely agree with that comparison, but it does have some validity.

Also, I don't know what you are trying to say with the opportunity cost argument because the opportunity cost of Reggie Bush is a trade down or Vince Young. That has nothing to do with comparing Reggie Bush to Randy Moss. And we really don't know what the similar asset of Reggie Bush is because we haven't seen anyone as explosive as him in decades. When was the last time that there was a running back who had serious carries who averaged almost 9 ypc and had 17 touchdowns that averaged to be 30 yards in length? If you can find one please tell me. Brian Westbrook didn't do that in college and neither did Tiki Barber or Warrick Dunn.

LikeABoss
02-21-2006, 08:59 PM
"When I came back from scouting him, I thought he was one of the better players I've scouted in my career. It's like some college coaches have told me: You look at the tape and he's really good, and then you see him in person and he's faster. His separation from linebackers is unique. He'll create a really difficult matchup problem for defenses out of the backfield or split out.''

LikeABoss agrees with Charlie Casserly's assessment:thumbup

Draft Reggie Bush please:)

awtysst
02-21-2006, 10:13 PM
I heard Casserly on a national radio show on Saturday. He sounded much more excited when asked about Bush. It sounded like what he would say to McNair about why we should take Bush.

I could see where Casserly wants Bush, Kubiak wants to trade down, and McNair wants VY (if for no other reason than to save face).

And if that happens: we take Young. This is Mr. McNair's frachise and HE will be making this pick IMO

Wharton
02-21-2006, 10:39 PM
I believe that he compared Reggie Bush to Randy Moss because both have unbelievable speed and are proven game breakers when they touch the ball. I'm not saying that I necessarily completely agree with that comparison, but it does have some validity.

Also, I don't know what you are trying to say with the opportunity cost argument because the opportunity cost of Reggie Bush is a trade down or Vince Young. That has nothing to do with comparing Reggie Bush to Randy Moss. And we really don't know what the similar asset of Reggie Bush is because we haven't seen anyone as explosive as him in decades. When was the last time that there was a running back who had serious carries who averaged almost 9 ypc and had 17 touchdowns that averaged to be 30 yards in length? If you can find one please tell me. Brian Westbrook didn't do that in college and neither did Tiki Barber or Warrick Dunn.
You are correct, the opportunity cost is the comparison between Bush, Young, or trade. First you value each of the assets by using a similar asset as a comparison. Reggie's like kind is Westbrook, Barber or Dunn. Vince's would be Vick and McNabb. The difference in the estimated valuation is the opportunity cost. Moss may be a like kind to a possible trade but that isn't the context in which Casserely used the comparison. Bottom line is you really can't compare Bush to Moss for valuation purposes. The assest aren't similar enough.

tulexan
02-22-2006, 12:33 AM
You are correct, the opportunity cost is the comparison between Bush, Young, or trade. First you value each of the assets by using a similar asset as a comparison. Reggie's like kind is Westbrook, Barber or Dunn. Vince's would be Vick and McNabb. The difference in the estimated valuation is the opportunity cost. Moss may be a like kind to a possible trade but that isn't the context in which Casserely used the comparison. Bottom line is you really can't compare Bush to Moss for valuation purposes. The assest aren't similar enough.


Why wouldn't you include Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson, Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, or any other running back? Why just Westbrook, Barber, or Dunn? It's easy for someone to say that they wouldn't pass up Michael Vick or Donovan McNabb for Tiki Barber, Warrick Dunn, or Brian Westbrook, but would you pass up Marshall Faulk or Barry Sanders for Vick or McNabb? Because by that logic I could say that Vince Young's comparable assets are Kordell Stewart and David Garrard and that there is no way that I would pass up Marshall Faulk for Kordell Stewart.

Again, Moss was used because of his game breaking ability and because Reggie Bush is also used as a WR. The point that Casserly was making was that Randy Moss is worth a #1 overall pick and he gets the ball 8 or 9 times a game. You don't have to pick a guy #1 who will get the ball 30 to 35 times a game, if the guy you are picking can potentially score a touchdown every time he touches the ball like a Randy Moss or Reggie Bush.

I think you are reading too much into what Casserly was saying, and are trying unsuccessfully to use financial comparisons to make your point.