PDA

View Full Version : Mc Clain's Monday report of Sports Radio 610


O.G.
03-20-2006, 10:13 AM
John McClain this morning on Sports Radio 610 talked about the TO aquisition for the first segment of the show as well as the Cowboys as a whole. He also touched on the fact of how many said the Redskins were going to cut so many players yet they only released 5 and were still able to sign key free agents. With concern with the Texans, he touched on the Walter's signing saying he's a very good special teams playing and a big receiver with decent speed. He will be the number 3 receiver. The texans with address the wide receiver problem with the either 1st pick in the 2 or 3rd round as well as Offensive Lineman. With the 4th pick, Linebacker will be addressed. As for the Free agents, he said TE Putzier is basically a done deal. Last, Ike Hilliard. McClain said he was in last night and have flown out to visit another team. He said Hilliard will either sign with the Texans or Tampa Bay. He didn't say anything about the other two free agents coming in, Sam Cowart and Paul Smith. McClain also noted that him and Justice will be at the UT Pro Day on Wednesday.

SheTexan
03-20-2006, 10:28 AM
:redtowel: :fans: :gotexans1 I have seen some film on this guy, he runs great routes and find the openings in a D, he gets up field quickly, and catches everything.

Does that mean our new coaching staff will let DC throw to him?? I hope he gets a better chance than Billy Miller. If all the Texans wanted was a RECEIVING TE, they should have kept Billy. JMO!

Kaiser Toro
03-20-2006, 10:36 AM
Billy Miller by all accounts on this board should be the first name to go up in the Bull Ring, if that is what we ultimatley call our "Hall of Fame." :rolleyes:

nunusguy
03-20-2006, 10:48 AM
I hope the Denver TE signing with us is a "done deal", because it would give
us more flexibility on Draft weekend. We wouldn't need to take a TE, but if
there was a value sitting on the Board that was too good to pass, we'd have that option. I'm reading the Denver guy is not a truly "complete" TE - he's an excellent receiver but only mediorce blocker at best. But with him and Breuner, we can get along awhile longer.

Runner
03-20-2006, 11:01 AM
I hope the Denver TE signing with us is a "done deal", because it would give
us more flexibility on Draft weekend. We wouldn't need to take a TE, but if
there was a value sitting on the Board that was too good to pass, we'd have that option. I'm reading the Denver guy is not a truly "complete" TE - he's an excellent receiver but only mediorce blocker at best. But with him and Breuner, we can get along awhile longer.

An excellent receiver/mediocre blocker combination is an upgrade for us. I'll take him!

Marcus
03-20-2006, 11:06 AM
And the difference between Putzier and Billy Miller is . . . . . . . .??

Kaiser Toro
03-20-2006, 11:08 AM
And the difference between Putzier and Billy Miller is . . . . . . . .??

You question the great Kubiak? How dare you! Please fall in line. :rolleyes:

TexanSam
03-20-2006, 11:13 AM
And the difference between Putzier and Billy Miller is . . . . . . . .??

Well Billy Miller was a WR that converted to TE wasn't he? He was also the only reciever "threat" we had that first year which is why he had as many catches as he did. I think Putzier has always been a TE. I also like that Putzier is young, only been in the league for 5 years. Hopefully he just gets better and better.

Runner
03-20-2006, 11:14 AM
And the difference between Putzier and Billy Miller is . . . . . . . .??

I think it is the average blocking.

PokerStar
03-20-2006, 11:26 AM
Runner I would like to add, better hands and smarter against coverage. Eventhough I might have to give red-zone effectiveness to Miller. Putz also has a good YPC average. He gets down the field and finds space in the zone well. He is a guy that works with his QB and will just get open when that safety valved is needed. Will be nice watching him get blasted in the Texans Battle Red.

David's Busted Carr
03-20-2006, 11:31 AM
No word on Nate Burleson? I was hoping to get him as our #2 WR. He was supposed to visit, but I haven't heard any new info. about it....

TexanSam
03-20-2006, 11:58 AM
No word on Nate Burleson? I was hoping to get him as our #2 WR. He was supposed to visit, but I haven't heard any new info. about it....

The vist was canceled.

O.G.
03-20-2006, 12:00 PM
No word on Nate Burleson? I was hoping to get him as our #2 WR. He was supposed to visit, but I haven't heard any new info. about it....

Stock is rising and in a virtual Tug of War with Seattle and his current team, the Vikings. My bet is either, Seattle will offer her outrageous money to get him or the vikings match whatever offer anyone else gives him.

Porky
03-20-2006, 12:01 PM
And the difference between Putzier and Billy Miller is . . . . . . . .??

How about one is a fairly highly sought after FA, and the other one is working at Mickey D's as a fry cook. :challenge

Bearfan Blue and Orange
03-20-2006, 12:07 PM
No word on Nate Burleson? I was hoping to get him as our #2 WR. He was supposed to visit, but I haven't heard any new info. about it....


The last I read this weekend was that Texans cancelled his visit once they had Walter from Cinci. and they were going to talk to other FAs

F-minus67
03-20-2006, 12:23 PM
So can Hilliard be our number 2 reciever? I saw him back when he played for the Giants, but he didn't do anything special.

bdiddy
03-20-2006, 12:26 PM
And the difference between Putzier and Billy Miller is . . . . . . . .??

Billy Miller was cut by the Broncos before signing with the Texans, thus, Kubiak must think more highly of Putzier.

uhcougar08
03-20-2006, 12:31 PM
Billy Miller was cut by the Broncos before signing with the Texans, thus, Kubiak must think more highly of Putzier.

DUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thunderkyss
03-20-2006, 12:39 PM
That is true, but if I had a choice to block for me it would be Jeb, I loved Billy it was sad to see him go, but he could not block or even get in the way of somebody. Somethings got to be wrong with Billy(play wise) he is not even on a team?
When I saw him he sold stretch runs very well, ran very nice routes, gets up field quickly and is hard to bring down with one guy.
Yea he will throw to him.:cool:

what ever happened to coaching??

I know these guys are supposed to be pros and all, but everybody has coaches right?? TE coaches.... WR coaches...... QB coaches?? what are these guys doing?? Billy Miller, I think was an excellent big play tight end...... he needed some help in blocking.... why wouldn't we keep this inexpensive talent, and teach him how to block?? Maybe he was thick headed, I don't know... but he was a good reciever, and a good guy...... it's a shame when you can't help people like that be successful.

I think it's a shame, when you've got this billion dollar business, and you shuffle through players like they were cards.... Granted, not everyone in the league is worth the time, but I think Billy was.

rafterticket
03-20-2006, 01:11 PM
Remember the coaching staff that let Billy go and did descide not to use him in the Offense are not here anymore. I liked Billy a lot,I wish he ws still here, I dont know why he never got the ball the last couple of years he was here. I dont know why he is not on a team right now.
And your right the guy that was coaching Billy here no longer has a job, lets also keep that in mind about every other position on the field.
Coaching is also the reason why I think our Defense was so bad last year, we got players and a bunch of good athletes the coaches were just to dang conservative, on both sides.
Remember that players have to do what coaches tell them, play what is called.

None of those guys have jobs, except for special teams and rb coaches. Does anyone else remember the coaches saying the players couldn't do the things they (the coaches) wanted to do on both sides of the ball?

That ticked me off. It's kind of funny that many of these players are still working and the coaches are out of work. It plays to all of my suspicions about last season.

Man, I can't wait for the fall.

Kaiser Toro
03-20-2006, 01:23 PM
Remember that players have to do what coaches tell them, play what is called.

You are correct.

Leaders on the other hand define the team. Our team has been leaderless in the last four years. Now that Kubiak is here he will most likely be the leader in year one. It is incumbent upon him to guide the potential leaders on this team to find their voice as a team does not truly become one until most of the leaders have grown organically through the organization.

O.G.
03-20-2006, 01:31 PM
Remeber the coaching staff that let Billy go and did descide not to use him in the Offense are not here anymore. I liked Billy a lot,I wish he ws still here, I dont know why he never got the ball the last couple of years he was here. I dont know why he is not on a team right now.
And your right the guy that was coaching Billy here no longer has a job, lets also keep that in mind about every other position on the field.
Coaching is also the reason why I think our Defense was so bad last year, we got players and a bunch of good athletes the coaches were just to dang conservative, on both sides.
Remember that players have to do what coaches tell them, play what is called.

Exactly, ask the offensive line that. Mc Clain also touched on a point I found to be very interesting. Carr gave up 20 sack alone with the new coaching staff accessment. The running backs and tight end gave up 9 sacks. How many of our offensive coaches are currently employed? One more point he made, the reason they are signing or looking at different fullback than what's on the roster is because in Denver's scheme, the fullback is actually a bigger running back. We might see Johnathan Wells in that spot if we retain him as well.

HJam72
03-20-2006, 01:36 PM
Well....I suppose I can live with Wells and Bush in the backfield. Honestly though, I have a hard time seeing that replacing Moran Norris would be an improvement to this team. I like Wells, I just don't see him replacing Norris of all people.

Runner
03-20-2006, 01:37 PM
Exactly, ask the offensive line that. Mc Clain also touched on a point I found to be very interesting. Carr gave up 20 sack alone with the new coaching staff accessment. The running backs and tight end gave up 9 sacks.

I wonder what the line/QB/RB splits look like for 2004. Would the sacks that (in 2004) we credited to poor line play go from 48 down to maybe 25 or so? Too bad we didn't keep using that line to start 2005.

Runner
03-20-2006, 01:38 PM
Well....I suppose I can live with Wells and Bush in the backfield. Honestly though, I have a hard time seeing that replacing Moran Norris would be an improvement to this team. I like Wells, I just don't see him replacing Norris of all people.

I don't think Wells is in their plan or they wouldn't be looking at these fullbacks. The fullback = big RB in the Kubiak system would seem to fit Wells - I guess the coaches don't think he "plays big".

aj.
03-20-2006, 01:41 PM
Putz is bigger than Miller and from what I've seen, he's much quicker to his spots than Miller was. He has great hands. Blocking is not Jeb's forte' either but Miller couldn't block a lick to it's a win win win re: the comparison to Miller. Carr just needs to develop the chemistry thing with JPutz.... actually he needs to get used to looking at multiple targets becuase that's going to be his biggest adjustment this year.

HJam72
03-20-2006, 01:44 PM
I don't think Wells is in their plan or they wouldn't be looking at these fullbacks. The fullback = big RB in the Kubiak system would seem to fit Wells - I guess the coaches don't think he "plays big".

Good point. He's not even our best short yardage runner, despite his size.

O.G.
03-20-2006, 01:56 PM
Good point. He's not even our best short yardage runner, despite his size.

That I do agree with you on. IMO, it seemed as if DD ran harder when with contact. He seemed to run thru opposing tackles better.

TexanAddict
03-20-2006, 03:37 PM
John McClain this morning on Sports Radio 610 talked about...The texans with address the wide receiver problem with the either 1st pick in the 2 or 3rd round as well as Offensive Lineman. With the 4th pick, Linebacker will be addressed.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this at all. This is a very weak class of WRs from everything I've seen and read. Why would we use a pick on a WR that in all likelyhood will not be any better than one we could simply sign right now in FA. Yes the WRs available may not blow anyone's socks off, but neither will those that will be there in even the second round. just don't see how WR has skyrocketed up our list of needs when there should be very good linemaen available when we pick in the second. Get a FA WR to serve as an adequate #2 (Hilliard, Price, Burleson, hell maybe even K. Johnson) for a year and solidify the line now. The blueprint to follow as I see it:

1st: Draft either Bush or Mario. I think the best idea would be to get Mario, but I will not cry if Bush is the pick.

2nd: Select the best O-lineman available out of Justice, McNeill, Winston, Mangold, or Jean-Gilles. Davin Joseph maybe a reach here, I'm not sure. The O-line must be addressed and can't wait any longer, at least one of these guys will probably be available, get an instant started here.

3rd: With the two picks we have here two positions of either MLB, FS, C, or TE should be addressed. I'm leaning toward Kai Parham at MLB and possibly Greg Enslinger at C, unless one of the top safeties or TEs is available.

I think we should look to DE with our 4th beyond that we should be looking toward depth.

A pick shouldn't go toward WR until the second day in my opinion.

If done properly this could be a very good draft for us. Let me know what you think.

PokerStar
03-20-2006, 03:53 PM
Honestly addict I like the first pick. I disagree with you about the draft it is not so much weak as it is not top heavy. Chad Jackson and Santonio Holmes could compete with any receiver taken in the last 3 yrs, but there is a definite drop off from these guys to the next tier with maybe only S. Moss as the inbetween guy.

Now back ot your blueprint. Like I said Mario is a beast, but Bush is not a bad pick either it is a win win here. The second unless Winston, Justice, or Mangold fall there is no one worthy of the 33 pick. We should take Jonathan Joseph or possibly one of the top guys that always falls for some weird reason. I know many people like McNeil, but everytime I see him I think of Winston at the Senior Bowl coaching him on technique because he was so sloppy. Ko Simpson or one of the top safeties is a possiblity here also. In the third unless Rocky McIntosh or Bobby Carpenter falls to us we dont take a LB we go with a top flight wideout and this is were we take our OL guy. The 4th I am hopeful that Brandon Marshal is there and we take him if not then we take BPA.

kiwitexansfan
03-20-2006, 04:40 PM
I can't believe McClain has us taking a receiver on the first day, or at all for that matter. I would be very dissappointed to see this. :brickwall

TexanAddict
03-20-2006, 06:26 PM
Honestly addict I like the first pick. I disagree with you about the draft it is not so much weak as it is not top heavy. Chad Jackson and Santonio Holmes could compete with any receiver taken in the last 3 yrs, but there is a definite drop off from these guys to the next tier with maybe only S. Moss as the inbetween guy.

Now back ot your blueprint. Like I said Mario is a beast, but Bush is not a bad pick either it is a win win here. The second unless Winston, Justice, or Mangold fall there is no one worthy of the 33 pick. We should take Jonathan Joseph or possibly one of the top guys that always falls for some weird reason. I know many people like McNeil, but everytime I see him I think of Winston at the Senior Bowl coaching him on technique because he was so sloppy. Ko Simpson or one of the top safeties is a possiblity here also. In the third unless Rocky McIntosh or Bobby Carpenter falls to us we dont take a LB we go with a top flight wideout and this is were we take our OL guy. The 4th I am hopeful that Brandon Marshal is there and we take him if not then we take BPA.

I have to disagree with much of what you stated here.

The most glaring thing is that you seem to agree with me that after the top 2 or maybe three WRs in the draft there is a distinct dropoff in talent. However, you somehow believe we will be able to land a "top flight" WR in the 3rd round. The only reason we would now select a WR is to play as our #2 and any receiver that we pick in the 3rd will most likely not be able to fill that role and I highly doubt they would be much better than what we currently have. However, if we were to select Kai Parham, MLB, or Greg Enslinger, C, they would not only be good value, they would most certainly have a good opportunity to start on this team in positions of greater need, not saying they will but there is a possibility that they could. Kai Parham is considered by some to be the 3rd best ILB in this draft and has great speed and quickness without being too undersized (we don't have a true MLB on our roster currently). Enslinger is considered to be the 2nd best Center (possibly our biggest weakness) and spent his entire college career in a zone blocking scheme.

I would also contend that both McNeill and Jean-Gilles would be worth our 2nd pick if they were available. McNeill is considered by some to be th 3rd best OT in this draft and has speed and quickness that would suit a zone blocking system if that is what we intend to implement. Also, Jean-Gilles is he best guard prospect in this draft, so there is definite value in drafting him here. Should the best FS prospect drop this far, I would consider taking them as well, but the line has been overlooked far too long to pass on franchise type linemen.:twocents: