PDA

View Full Version : now that we have flanagan...(no need to draft a center?)


Mightymike
03-23-2006, 09:36 PM
we don't draft a center and leave flanagan to groom hodgon for future?
helps our draft out alot, not to mention the team

el toro
03-23-2006, 09:44 PM
They could still draft a lineman prospect at #33.

The Dude Abides
03-23-2006, 09:46 PM
Some scouts have Winston projecting to be a RT. A possibility at 33.

Mightymike
03-23-2006, 09:46 PM
They could still draft a lineman prospect at #33.

hopefully not mangold at #33 or eslinger in the 4th

texman8
03-23-2006, 09:48 PM
Yeah, maybe This gives Texans more flexiblity....They could go after CB,FS,DE,or WR with 2nd round. Even better if we can get some extra picks.

el toro
03-23-2006, 09:51 PM
This signing provides even more reason to take Bush at #1.

big homey
03-23-2006, 09:53 PM
This signing provides even more reason to take Bush at #1.
Too true, and also we may not have to go O-line in the second. We just go with the best available need player, and look for Jonathan Scott or Daryn Colledge to fall.

Mightymike
03-23-2006, 09:58 PM
Too true, and also we may not have to go O-line in the second. We just go with the best available need player, and look for Jonathan Scott or Daryn Colledge to fall.


yea take winston if he's there, but if not we should take scott if he falls to round 3

TheRealJoker
03-24-2006, 12:04 AM
Eric Winston will be the best available player in the 2nd imo if he falls

TexanFanInCC
03-24-2006, 01:46 AM
what are the most pressing needs left?

my thoughts: assuming we already have reggie bush

1. CB
2. WR
3. MLB (if wong is not in this spot)
4. RT
5. safeties for depth

beerlover
03-24-2006, 02:21 AM
what are the most pressing needs left?

my thoughts: assuming we already have reggie bush

1. CB
2. WR
3. MLB (if wong is not in this spot)
4. RT
5. safeties for depth

have to consider the bpa with the 2nd pick between CB, WR, MLB, RT & Safeties as you accurately noted. with the signing of a Center, TE, WR, FB & QB it almost has to be defense, especially with Bush beign the consensous #1 pick.

CB Johnathan Joseph looks to be gone as does Eric Winston by the second rd. WR Sinorice Moss is a possibility, but defensively the Texans could use another pass rushing DE Kiwanuka if he falls, or ILB to fill the open MLB position like Abdul Hodge. there are still some attractive free agents on the market & they may still influence the direction the Texans will take...IMO

Scooter
03-24-2006, 03:13 AM
we still need an OT because wade isnt likely to do well especially with the new scheme (and i think he's better than weigert at the position). we'd need someone to start LT and move pitts to the right, or someone to come straight into the RT job. the 33rd's more of a guessing game because there's no telling who's going to fall. if a LB like carpenter falls i think we've gotta go that route, but i'm positive that we'll take a linemen on the first day.

whiskeyrbl
03-24-2006, 04:32 AM
If Joseph is gone do you think Cedric Griffen deserves a look?

Grid
03-24-2006, 04:59 AM
Cedric Griffen is a 3rd round pick for us. Maybe if we had a late second rounder.. but #33 is too high for him.

If I was gonna pick up a CB in the second, it would be either Youboty, or Marshall (who I wanted in the 3rd, but has been flying up draft boards)

Another Possibility if he falls is Donte Whitner... who could fill our need at FS. I was a big Ko Simpson supporter..but his wonderlic turned me off to him. FS is a thinking man's position.

Id REALLY like to see us address the secondary in the 2nd round. We need a strong secondary in our division, and we saw how great Robinson was when he had help from his FS and #2 CB. We have the SS position locked down, thankfully.

Anyway, if we didnt address the secondary, other possibilities are MLB Abdul Hodge, Sinorice Moss, Nick Mangold, Eric Winston, and Davin Joseph. Other than those 5.. I cant think of anyone else id be REALLY interested, outside of the DBs I mentioned.

Snapple
03-24-2006, 05:07 AM
I think our two biggest sore spots right now are WR and RT.

After that, CB, FS, and RG.

Of course, I'd rather get a proven WR right now, rather than waste a second round draft pick on a draft that's weak at the receiver, and try and force a rookie into the #2 receiving spot on our team.

But if we don't get a WR in FA, we MUST get a RT or WR with our second pick.

Grid
03-24-2006, 05:25 AM
I dont see RT as a sore spot. Wade Wand and Wiegert are all possible RTs. It would be nice to get a young tackle to groom.. and wouldnt MIND getting Winston in the 2nd, but we could address the problem with Colledge or Setterstrom in the 3rd. We arent gonna implode if we dont have a new RT next season.

As far as WR goes.. I see the need to get a legitimate #2..but do not see it as a game breaking need. I think we could make do with what we have if it was necessary. We may not have the greatest WR corp in the league, but it would be good enough to win games. Again, i wouldnt mind getting Moss, but we arent going to implode.

Looking at the team, I see holes at 2 positions. MLB and FS. These are the two places where we dont really have a sure starter. CB isnt necessarily a hole..but it is a weak spot for us. So if I was listing our needs..it would probably go like this.

1. FS
2. MLB
3. CB
4. WR
5. RT

For that reason.. im hoping for Donte Whitner, Richard Marshall, Ashton Youboty, or Abdul Hodge with the #33 pick. FS/CB are positions that are better addressed in the first 2 rounds. Olinemen can be addressed in the 3rd and later. WR is also a position that is best addressed in the first two rounds, imo....at least if you want a starter...but we dont have enough picks to address everything :)..I honestly think we will be ok next season with our current WRs.

Carr Bombed
03-24-2006, 06:08 AM
I still want to take a lineman at #33 and finish shoring up this line.

Mike Kerns
03-24-2006, 06:48 AM
I still want to take a lineman at #33 and finish shoring up this line.
I'm with you. David & Reggie will need some blockers.

BigBull17
03-24-2006, 07:16 AM
Dont mean to sound like a nay sayer, but do you have a link to the signing?

Blake
03-24-2006, 07:21 AM
I would still look for them to address the o-line with the 2nd round pick. We took care of our needs in the middle of the line by signing Mckinney to play guard, and Flanagan to center. Our TE problem looks less chaotic with the Putzier signing, and our DE need was filled by Weaver.

We still need a tackle, safety, or WR.

I think you have to go tackle with so many grade 1's this year. I dont know how you can pass on Scott. He will be a LT for some team for a long time. And I dont see as much support on this board as I would like.

Blake
03-24-2006, 07:22 AM
Dont mean to sound like a nay sayer, but do you have a link to the signing?

http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=20185

Mailman04
03-24-2006, 07:23 AM
You might add DE to that list, but otherwise that is pretty much on the mark. However, I guess they couild add Sam Cowart or Jamie Winborn at MLB out of FA. Also, I wish they hadn't canceled Nate Burleson because I don't think they can get that caliber WR with a third round pick ,but that is just my opinion.

BigBull17
03-24-2006, 07:24 AM
Thanks for the link. Its starting to look better.

beerlover
03-24-2006, 07:52 AM
I would still look for them to address the o-line with the 2nd round pick. We took care of our needs in the middle of the line by signing Mckinney to play guard, and Flanagan to center. Our TE problem looks less chaotic with the Putzier signing, and our DE need was filled by Weaver.

We still need a tackle, safety, or WR.

I think you have to go tackle with so many grade 1's this year. I dont know how you can pass on Scott. He will be a LT for some team for a long time. And I dont see as much support on this board as I would like.

I was surprised to find out that Scott was not a stronger tackle prospect (Scott (6-6, 322) has an arm length of 33 7/8 inches and a hand size of 10 inches. Did 17 bench presses). so he should slip to a mid 2nd to early 3rd. if he was still there in the 3rd I would take a look at him just not with the 2nd.

Safteys do not need to be taken that high, usually convert a db with size who lacks the hips & speed. again Griffin another Texas player should be there in the 3rd. from his workouts scouts thought he looked more like a safety than Huff (Griffin (6-0 3/8, 202) had a 35-inch vertical jump and a 3.97 short shuttle).

the WR position is a high level skill position where the premier talents go early, that is where the speedster playmakers like Moss sometimes slip from the 1st rd. due to the talent across the draft board (Moss worked out in position drills and he looked very good. He had a 42-inch vertical jump and a 10-foot-3 broad jump).

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 08:08 AM
have to consider the bpa with the 2nd pick between CB, WR, MLB, RT & Safeties as you accurately noted. with the signing of a Center, TE, WR, FB & QB it almost has to be defense, especially with Bush beign the consensous #1 pick.

CB Johnathan Joseph looks to be gone as does Eric Winston by the second rd. WR Sinorice Moss is a possibility, but defensively the Texans could use another pass rushing DE Kiwanuka if he falls, or ILB to fill the open MLB position like Abdul Hodge. there are still some attractive free agents on the market & they may still influence the direction the Texans will take...IMO

With us signing a backup QB, fullback, TE and C. Resigning a LG. Extending our QB. You still believe 100% that we will invest more money (top pick money) on another offensive player after retooling the offense that is supposedly loaded with utapped potential?

I agree with your assessment on our needs and even like the prospects you mentioned.

beerlover
03-24-2006, 08:33 AM
With us signing a backup QB, fullback, TE and C. Resigning a LG. Extending our QB. You still believe 100% that we will invest more money (top pick money) on another offensive player after retooling the offense that is supposedly loaded with utapped potential?

I agree with your assessment on our needs and even like the prospects you mentioned.

in relationship to the Flanagan signing the Texans do not need to draft Nick Mangold, thats the big news because before they addressed the Center positon, along with MLB this was the biggest need...IMO

now the target will be ILB Abdul Hodge or D'Qwell Jackson. one of the better corners in the draft like Jonathan Joseph would also be a plus but not as high of need. a true #2 like Moss if he does slip to the 2nd still would be tempting I like his quickness and game breaking ability. there is no way a another teams defense could ever play man to man and have enough quality db's to cover, former Hurricanes Andre Johnson and Sinorice Moss, throw in Bush who will have to be accounted for on every play and you have the makings of a dynamic offense. the Texans could also kill you with the running game if you try to drop into zone coverages.

el toro
03-24-2006, 08:52 AM
With us signing a backup QB, fullback, TE and C. Resigning a LG. Extending our QB. You still believe 100% that we will invest more money (top pick money) on another offensive player after retooling the offense that is supposedly loaded with utapped potential?


Absolutely. You don't draft Bush at the pro level unless you are ready to put him in a competent offense, one that can maximize his value. Otherwise he's just an expensive kick returner.

thunderkyss
03-24-2006, 09:02 AM
in relationship to the Flanagan signing the Texans do not need to draft Nick Mangold, thats the big news because before they addressed the Center positon, along with MLB this was the biggest need...IMO

now the target will be ILB Abdul Hodge or D'Qwell Jackson. one of the better corners in the draft like Jonathan Joseph would also be a plus but not as high of need. a true #2 like Moss if he does slip to the 2nd still would be tempting I like his quickness and game breaking ability. there is no way a another teams defense could ever play man to man and have enough quality db's to cover, former Hurricanes Andre Johnson and Sinorice Moss, throw in Bush who will have to be accounted for on every play and you have the makings of a dynamic offense. the Texans could also kill you with the running game if you try to drop into zone coverages.

Just out of curiousity, How'd you do in the 2004 draft?? did you get 7 out of 7 picks right?? 5 out 7 positions(LB, OL, RB) picked right?? 0 for 7??

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 09:11 AM
I think is shaping up that we are drafting Mario because of need and value. I think we take a CB/S in the second. In the third we go with BPA (MLB, WR, RT). The only pressing need in my opinion on offense is a WR2.

Before I thought we should stay mum on our intent. I would have no problem if it were leaked that we were taking Mario, this would surely have the phones ringing about our #1. If there are expectations Bush is going #1 I do not see why a team would trade up to #1. If he could fall to #2 or #3 then it is more likley that calls come in to take him at #1.

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 09:14 AM
Absolutely. You don't draft Bush at the pro level unless you are ready to put him in a competent offense, one that can maximize his value. Otherwise he's just an expensive kick returner.

I do not understand this logic. We drafted a QB with the #1 and we need to give him more weapons. We should not take another #1, this time a RB, until we have a competent offense. We obviously have a difference in expectations of what a number pick is.

thunderkyss
03-24-2006, 09:24 AM
I do not understand this logic. We drafted a QB with the #1 and we need to give him more weapons. We should not take another #1, this time a RB, until we have a competent offense. We obviously have a difference in expectations of what a number pick is.

Or the balance in value of a Running Back vs a Quarterback....

el toro
03-24-2006, 09:24 AM
I do not understand this logic. We drafted a QB with the #1 and we need to give him more weapons. We should not take another #1, this time a RB, until we have a competent offense. We obviously have a difference in expectations of what a number pick is.

If you don't have other options and a competent line then the value of taking Bush is less. That's why the moves they have made in free agency point to taking Bush. I think the NBA is the only league in which you can expect a top pick to turn around a team totally by himself. You have to make adjustments in order to make taking a pick worthwhile (relative to salary) in the NFL.

They drafted a QB at #1 but have struggled to put a cast around him that would allow him to be effective. No matter who the QB is, if they are spending half the game on the turf because of a weak line and the other half with limited options then they are not going to be effective. Given that the new coaching staff has a good offensive track record then the case for Bush is even more. This team is not going to be turned around overnight, but at least now your offense is on track to be above average soon.

They still may be able to pull out a decent LB out of free agency and they'll have 3 other picks in the 1st 3 rounds of the draft to add to the D. Next offseason they can devote more resources to improving the D as needed.

nunusguy
03-24-2006, 09:27 AM
They could still draft a lineman prospect at #33.
If we don't use our #1 on Ferguson (scenario where we trade our top pick),
I'd be willing to bet on it.
Speculating here: Sherman told McNair something along the lines of, if you want me to spend a year getting your OL headed in the right direction, you need to give me some tools to work with. So Sherman made a FA aquisition from his old team for center, now drafting a very good tackle is gonna be a top priority so Sherman can complete the revamp of the OL for his amusement while he waits for a HC position for the '07 season.
Not a problem, having him here for just a year if it gets the OL turned around
is a good move by McNair.

thunderkyss
03-24-2006, 09:46 AM
If you don't have other options and a competent line then the value of taking Bush is less. That's why the moves they have made in free agency point to taking Bush. I think the NBA is the only league in which you can expect a top pick to turn around a team totally by himself. You have to make adjustments in order to make taking a pick worthwhile (relative to salary) in the NFL. The value of the #1 pick stands on it's own, should have nothing to do with need. He is worth the #1 pick.... he is worth building your team around. wether your team is one player away from the superbowl, or has the worst record in the league.... the value of the #1 overall is the same.
All picks lead to bush, because all real needs have been addressed, that would otherwise be addressed by trading down, and aquiring more picks. I like FA better, because only a fool would go into a football season starting a bunch of rookies on both sides of the ball.
Trade down is also not likely, because most of our FA aquisitions are young promising players, with plenty of upside left.
Rosenfell(sp) takes away the only logical reason to draft Vince(what if David continues to screw up)...... we'll have a competent backup, who has shown the ability to come off the bench, and win games..... wether he is the kind of guy you build around has yet to be seen, but at this point and time, it isn't that important to have a backup to your backup.

They drafted a QB at #1 but have struggled to put a cast around him that would allow him to be effective. No matter who the QB is, if they are spending half the game on the turf because of a weak line and the other half with limited options then they are not going to be effective. Given that the new coaching staff has a good offensive track record then the case for Bush is even more. This team is not going to be turned around overnight, but at least now your offense is on track to be above average soon. I don't know about all that.... Seems to me, we've put more into the Offense so far, that we can say that the offense is in better shape than the deffense is right now. The only reason I don't think we will go with defense with the #1, is that we signed Weaver.... he sounds like he expects to play end, If we take Mario with the #1 overall, then Weaver has to move inside.... his contract even alludes to him being a big part of the inside line.... If Mario shows to bring everything we think he can, demanding a double team, then we didn't really need to sign Weaver. If we put Mario on the right side, then we've got 1 to many tweeners in Babin/Peek. Peek we've shown great interest in keeping, and Babin....... I like him, some folks think we have too much invested in him to let him go.

I don't believe anyone has identified a Corner worthy of the #1 overall. So if you want you can trade down for a starting corner, the value would be around the 10th pick....... I'm fine with that, but our draft experts here(I'm not one of them) want an arm and a leg to trade out of the top 5.

Now that I think about it, our best move come Draft day might be to select Mario, and hold him Ransom........

They still may be able to pull out a decent LB out of free agency and they'll have 3 other picks in the 1st 3 rounds of the draft to add to the D. Next offseason they can devote more resources to improving the D as needed.

Maybe....

Runner
03-24-2006, 09:47 AM
Looking at the team, I see holes at 2 positions. MLB and FS. These are the two places where we dont really have a sure starter. CB isnt necessarily a hole..but it is a weak spot for us. So if I was listing our needs..it would probably go like this.

1. FS
2. MLB
3. CB
4. WR
5. RT



I agree with this take. I think we are going to have the luxury of focusing on defense a little bit in the draft. There were many debates earlier if we could fix (or at least seriously upgrade) both sides of the ball in one year. This coaching staff seems to have a plan for pulling it off so far.

Honoring Earl 34
03-24-2006, 09:47 AM
You can't trade if you don't have a partner . The Saints are in the drivers seat for a trade because teams know we're not drafting a QB . Hey wait maybe thats why we sent everybody to Austin when we just signed a QB for three more years .

The best prospect on the board IMO is Mario Williams , Bush can change this at his pro day but right now its Williams . The problem is DEs don't sell tickets and the Texans just inked a DE .

On April 2 Reggie Bush will workout and run a 4.30 forty and show the great excelleration he's known in the cone drills , he'll have a 40 inch vertical and a 11.5 broad jump while lifting 225 lbs 20 times . Then he'll look like a WR in the pass catching drills and Kubiak's imagination will run wild and he'll be the first pick .

thunderkyss
03-24-2006, 09:58 AM
I agree with this take. I think we are going to have the luxury of focusing on defense a little bit in the draft. There were many debates earlier if we could fix (or at least seriously upgrade) both sides of the ball in one year. This coaching staff seems to have a plan for pulling it off so far.

Chris Canty...........

are their any steals to be had in the later rounds?? someone like Chris Canty?? a high draft pick that fell because of injuries, but is an immediate impact player??

Honoring Earl 34
03-24-2006, 10:06 AM
Lat year Vinny was really pushing for Canty in the 2nd rd. He came out of Virginia as DE on a team who ran a 3-4 defense . Then you know what happened ... PBuch took a 2nd and 3rd rd. pick and we drafted Morency instead and Canty went to freakin Dallas .

Speaking of Dallas , what if Dallas traded up to take Mario to go along with Canty , Ware , and Spears ? That would be scary .

tulexan
03-24-2006, 10:16 AM
I think is shaping up that we are drafting Mario because of need and value. I think we take a CB/S in the second. In the third we go with BPA (MLB, WR, RT). The only pressing need in my opinion on offense is a WR2.



You don't fill major needs through the draft. You fill them with veterans. If we didn't sign Weaver you would have a case, but we signed him to a pretty big contract and I don't see us drafting Mario Williams so that we can move Weaver to the inside, which will give us even more DTs, or have Weaver and Williams both as the DEs and having Peek and Babin sitting on the sidelines for most of the game.

You also can't fix both sides of the team in one season. I expect us to fix the offense this year and the defense next year.

Whether you like it or not, Bush is going to be our pick.

Runner
03-24-2006, 10:34 AM
You also can't fix both sides of the team in one season. I expect us to fix the offense this year and the defense next year.

Whether you like it or not, Bush is going to be our pick.

Fixing the the defense and drafting Bush aren't mutually exclusive. We can draft defense in the 2-4 rounds and possibly find a couple of players that would upgrade our weakest positions. It's much easier for rookies on defense to make an impact than on offense.

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 10:36 AM
You don't fill major needs through the draft. You fill them with veterans. If we didn't sign Weaver you would have a case, but we signed him to a pretty big contract and I don't see us drafting Mario Williams so that we can move Weaver to the inside, which will give us even more DTs, or have Weaver and Williams both as the DEs and having Peek and Babin sitting on the sidelines for most of the game.

You also can't fix both sides of the team in one season. I expect us to fix the offense this year and the defense next year.

Whether you like it or not, Bush is going to be our pick.

Whether you like it or not it is not a done deal that we are drafting Bush, any NFL bean counter can tell you that. As it stands right now our cap for the offense in 2006 will be $45,851,108. While our defense will be $35,747,332.

This does not include the Flanagan signing nor does it include Special Teams or dead cap. The numbers were taken off of HPF's cap estimate for the top 51player's contracts.
http://www.houstonprofootball.com/cap.html

We are top heavy on offense which will amount to a ~12 million delta. There is not much wiggle room (savings) with the contracts on the offensive side of the ball, that are expiring after the 2006 season, to get any credible goodness for cap implications. Yes Wade is there, signed through 2009, but has prorated bonus in 2006 of $1,673,387 and 2007. I can only assume that 2008 and 2009 will carry that proartion as well, which means if we cut him we would have $6,693,548 more in dead money. Surely a June cut would lessen the blow for accounting on the 2006 cap, but there is big pain already in 2007with Walker's dead cap of $5,499,999. I do not see us cutting Wade, unless we have a bunch of renegotiating going on with multiple players.

Back to the point at hand adding an RB with the #1 pick would make that delta jump to 20 million dollars and we will not be able to spend money on the worst defense in the league for years. We must address the defense!

TexanAddict
03-24-2006, 10:40 AM
we don't draft a center and leave flanagan to groom hodgon for future?
helps our draft out alot, not to mention the team

I thiink Enslinger would still be worth consideration in the 3rd. Flanagan can't play forever and has been injured. Enslinger is the 2nd best center in this draft, has 4 yrs experience in the zone blocking system, and is being compared to Nalen, whom most were hoping Kubiak would bring with him from Denver. He may not be worth a pick in the 3rd, depending on who else is available (FS or MLB), but if he's there in the 4th I don't think he could be passed on.

el toro
03-24-2006, 10:41 AM
Fixing the the defense and drafting Bush aren't mutually exclusive. We can draft defense in the 2-4 rounds and possibly find a couple of players that would upgrade our weakest positions. It's much easier for rookies on defense to make an impact than on offense.

True.

beerlover
03-24-2006, 10:41 AM
Just out of curiousity, How'd you do in the 2004 draft?? did you get 7 out of 7 picks right?? 5 out 7 positions(LB, OL, RB) picked right?? 0 for 7??

thanks for making me dig out my notes and re-hash that mess, don't you remember the Texans gave up the top pick in the 2nd rd. using it in the supplemental draft (Tony Hollings- I would never have traded that pick for a inexperienced rb coming off acl reconstructive surgery) then about three picks to trade up for Babin, yeah I guess you got me there... 0 for 13 :yahoo:

my Mock went something like this-

10 - Tommie Harris DT Oklahoma

33 - too late done deal with Hollings, would have loved to take Bob Sanders, SS Iowa

40 - Michael Bowlware OLB Florida State

71 - Matt Starks OT Florida

103 - Nathan Vasher CB Texas

122 - Johnnie Morant WR Syracuse

138- Nathaniel Adibi OLB Virgina Tech

170 - Cody Spencer ILB Texas

175 - Josh Sewell C Nebraska

200 - Tony Pape G Michigan

210 - Isaac Hilton DE Hampton

211 - Matt Mauck QB Louisiana State

248 - Carlos Joseph OT Miami

as oppossed to what the Texans actually ended up with, win some lose some-
http://www.houstontexans.com/history/history_links/alltime_draft.php
2004

Round 1: CB Dunta Robinson (South Carolina, 10); DE Jason Babin (Western Michigan, 27)

Round 2: Traded to Tennessee

Round 3: Traded to Tennessee

Round 4: SS Glenn Earl (Notre Dame, 122)

Round 6: CB Vontez Duff (Notre Dame, 170); FS Jammal Lord (Nebraska, 175); LB Charlie Anderson (Mississippi, 200)

Round 7: LB Raheem Orr (Rutgers, 210); WR Sloan Thomas (Texas, 211); QB B.J. Symons (Texas Tech, 248)

TexanAddict
03-24-2006, 10:49 AM
Cedric Griffen is a 3rd round pick for us. Maybe if we had a late second rounder.. but #33 is too high for him.

If I was gonna pick up a CB in the second, it would be either Youboty, or Marshall (who I wanted in the 3rd, but has been flying up draft boards)

Another Possibility if he falls is Donte Whitner... who could fill our need at FS. I was a big Ko Simpson supporter..but his wonderlic turned me off to him. FS is a thinking man's position.

Anyway, if we didnt address the secondary, other possibilities are MLB Abdul Hodge, Sinorice Moss, Nick Mangold, Eric Winston, and Davin Joseph. Other than those 5.. I cant think of anyone else id be REALLY interested, outside of the DBs I mentioned.

I agree with almost everything said here. I still think if one of the top OTs drops to us (Winston or Justice, maybe McNeill but he may not have the lateral movement required) we take them with our second. Otherwise,, I like going for FS or CB here, whichever has the best prospect available. I like Whitner and would take Cromartie if he falls here, although he had an awesome Pro Day and most likely will be gone.

chuckm
03-24-2006, 10:52 AM
Back to the point at hand adding an RB with the #1 pick would make that delta jump to 20 million dollars and we will not be able to spend money on the worst defense in the league for years. We must address the defense!

KT, I'm always amazed at your grasp of the financial side to this debate. However, (you knew it was coming) I think that in this case, finances will go out the window.

*The following is pure conjecture

Kubiak is an offensive-minded coach. He's coming into his first head coaching job after years of fielding offers and turning them down. This team's offensive last season was a freaking joke. He'll want to turn that around immediately. The only player that can provide that kind of instant gratification is Bush.

I'm not saying that Bush will be the Texans pick. What I am saying is that Bush will be the first player chosen in the draft. If the Texans trade down and go defense, I'd be a happy camper.

tulexan
03-24-2006, 10:53 AM
We must address the defense!

Did we not sign Anthony Weaver?

Did we not offer a contract to Sam Cowart?

Did we not change the defense to fit our players better?


We have addressed the defense. We are going to continue to add players through the draft and FA and it will get better. This reminds me of the talk before of how we have to draft D'Brick with the #1 overall pick because we have a terrible line. There are 7 rounds in the draft and we have 4 of the first 66 picks. If we are so desperate for a DE (which we aren't anymore after Weaver), we can might be able to get Mathias Kiwanuka or Tamba Hali in the 2nd round. Or we can take Darryl Tapp in the third. Maybe we can take Mario's counterpart Manny Lawson? If we need a DB we can go after Antonio Cromartie or Jonathan Joseph or Darnell Bing. How about D'Qwell Jackson? He could fill our MLB hole.

chuckm
03-24-2006, 10:56 AM
Did we not change the defense to fit our players better?


I'm not convinced this is the case .... but I'm glad we did ...

el toro
03-24-2006, 10:58 AM
Whether you like it or not it is not a done deal that we are drafting Bush, any NFL bean counter can tell you that. As it stands right now our cap for the offense in 2006 will be $45,851,108. While our defense will be $35,747,332.

This does not include the Flanagan signing nor does it include Special Teams or dead cap. The numbers were taken off of HPF's cap estimate for the top 51player's contracts.
http://www.houstonprofootball.com/cap.html

We are top heavy on offense which will amount to a ~12 million delta. There is not much wiggle room (savings) with the contracts on the offensive side of the ball, that are expiring after the 2006 season, to get any credible goodness for cap implications. Yes Wade is there, signed through 2009, but has prorated bonus in 2006 of $1,673,387 and 2007. I can only assume that 2008 and 2009 will carry that proartion as well, which means if we cut him we would have $6,693,548 more in dead money. Surely a June cut would lessen the blow for accounting on the 2006 cap, but there is big pain already in 2007with Walker's dead cap of $5,499,999. I do not see us cutting Wade, unless we have a bunch of renegotiating going on with multiple players.

Back to the point at hand adding an RB with the #1 pick would make that delta jump to 20 million dollars and we will not be able to spend money on the worst defense in the league for years. We must address the defense!


So you address the defense by taking a player at #1 who you'll have to move the DE you just signed to make room for? If redundancy is why you don't pick Bush then what's the case for Williams?

$ for $, Bush gives you a greater impact today.

jerek
03-24-2006, 11:00 AM
Would still love Mario Williams ... And remember, Peek/Babin might not be considered starting-caliber DEs in the coaching staff's minds. Do not get me wrong, I would not lose any sleep over us drafting Bush and I think he and Davis in tandem are really powerful ... but it is hard for me to pass on Super Mario.

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 11:01 AM
Did we not sign Anthony Weaver?

Did we not offer a contract to Sam Cowart?

Did we not change the defense to fit our players better?


We have addressed the defense. We are going to continue to add players through the draft and FA and it will get better. This reminds me of the talk before of how we have to draft D'Brick with the #1 overall pick because we have a terrible line. There are 7 rounds in the draft and we have 4 of the first 66 picks. If we are so desperate for a DE (which we aren't anymore after Weaver), we can might be able to get Mathias Kiwanuka or Tamba Hali in the 2nd round. Or we can take Darryl Tapp in the third. Maybe we can take Mario's counterpart Manny Lawson? If we need a DB we can go after Antonio Cromartie or Jonathan Joseph or Darnell Bing. How about D'Qwell Jackson? He could fill our MLB hole.

You know our current needs and you stated very good prospects, but this is simple forecasting. If we go Bush and no other needs are addressed via FA you have heavily invested in the offense until 2008 with no chance of signing any top Defensive FA's and hope that our defensive unit grows organically. A ~20 million dollar delta is huge, not just for next year, but possibly for the next three years with DC, AJ and a prospective Bush all signed through 2008.

In any business you cannot be that weighted from an investment standpoint in one of your two lines of business, as you will stymie incremental growth.

el toro
03-24-2006, 11:03 AM
Did we not sign Anthony Weaver?

Did we not offer a contract to Sam Cowart?

Did we not change the defense to fit our players better?


We have addressed the defense. We are going to continue to add players through the draft and FA and it will get better. This reminds me of the talk before of how we have to draft D'Brick with the #1 overall pick because we have a terrible line. There are 7 rounds in the draft and we have 4 of the first 66 picks. If we are so desperate for a DE (which we aren't anymore after Weaver), we can might be able to get Mathias Kiwanuka or Tamba Hali in the 2nd round. Or we can take Darryl Tapp in the third. Maybe we can take Mario's counterpart Manny Lawson? If we need a DB we can go after Antonio Cromartie or Jonathan Joseph or Darnell Bing. How about D'Qwell Jackson? He could fill our MLB hole.

Exactly. Now with the Flanagan signing and with Bush at #1 the rest of the draft can be used to address the D. Then you have '07 when you can also use that draft to address the D.

TexanAddict
03-24-2006, 11:08 AM
If we are so desperate for a DE (which we aren't anymore after Weaver), we can might be able to get Mathias Kiwanuka or Tamba Hali in the 2nd round. Or we can take Darryl Tapp in the third. Maybe we can take Mario's counterpart Manny Lawson? If we need a DB we can go after Antonio Cromartie or Jonathan Joseph or Darnell Bing. How about D'Qwell Jackson? He could fill our MLB hole.

This all sounds possible and OK, except for Darnell Bing. Bing would ost likely translate as a SS in the NFL, a position we already have adequate players at without addressing the more pressing need of a FS. I would also add Ray Edwards and Victor Adeyanju as DEs that should be available on day 2.

infantrycak
03-24-2006, 11:08 AM
You know our current needs and you stated very good prospects, but this is simple forecasting. If we go Bush and no other needs are addressed via FA you have heavily invested in the offense until 2008 with no chance of signing any top Defensive FA's and hope that our defensive unit grows organically. A ~20 million dollar delta is huge, not just for next year, but possibly for the next three years with DC, AJ and a prospective Bush all signed through 2008.

In any business you cannot be that weighted from an investment standpoint in one of your two lines of business, as you will stymie incremental growth.

Totally understand where you are coming from, BUT I don't think your conclusion is absolute. I'd bet the Colts are even more weighted to the O over the D. No they haven't won the SB but they have been in the hunt for years now.

tulexan
03-24-2006, 11:13 AM
Who said that you have to have an unbelievable defense? I believe with our current additions, current scheme change, most importantly our coaching change, and our draft picks, we can be a middle of the pack defense.

If you have a middle of the pack defense and an all world offense you can be very successful. The Seahawks were tied for the 16th best defense this year. Denver had the 15th best defense. Cincinnati had the 28th best defense. New England had the 26th best defense.

On offense. Seattle had the 2nd best, Indy had the 3rd best, Denver had the 5th best, Cincy had the 6th best, New England had the 7th best.

Now I know that there were top ranked defenses were in the playoffs and there were also bad offenses in the playoffs. But the idea that you have to have a great defense is wrong.

el toro
03-24-2006, 11:19 AM
Who said that you have to have an unbelievable defense? I believe with our current additions, current scheme change, most importantly our coaching change, and our draft picks, we can be a middle of the pack defense.

If you have a middle of the pack defense and an all world offense you can be very successful. The Seahawks were tied for the 16th best defense this year. Denver had the 15th best defense. Cincinnati had the 28th best defense. New England had the 26th best defense.

On offense. Seattle had the 2nd best, Indy had the 3rd best, Denver had the 5th best, Cincy had the 6th best, New England had the 7th best.

Now I know that there were top ranked defenses were in the playoffs and there were also bad offenses in the playoffs. But the idea that you have to have a great defense is wrong.


Yep. Having an offense that can chew up yards and the clock while putting points on the board is quite conducive to winning. The team has not ignored the D in free agency and I suspect they will not in this draft. Going with Bush, given the moves thusfar in the offseason, gives you the best opportunity to have one side of the ball that is well above average. Why clip its wings to achieve cap equivalence?

TheOgre
03-24-2006, 11:39 AM
I still think between now and the start of the season we MUST find a #2 WR and a starting MLB. We may even find stop-gap veterans for both positions then draft prospects for one or both. Other positions that should to be addressed this year or next are FS (sorry but CC Brown and Glenn Earl are NOT a dynamic duo), CB2, OT, and a DE prospect.

I would love to take Winston in the 2nd.

LT Pitts
LG McKinney
C Flanagan
RG Wiegert
RT Winston

Honoring Earl 34
03-24-2006, 12:00 PM
Is finding a #2 WR the same as finding another weapon on offense ? If this is so then Bush is on paper the most lethal offensive weapon in the draft . This is not a great WR draft as far as depth at the top goes so you can't get a number 2 WR easily .

beerlover
03-24-2006, 12:08 PM
seems universal on this board at least if Winston is available #33 the Texans take him. however I hope the Texans don't want him so bad they feel the need to trade up to get him. if he falls to us fine, if not look at the bpa.

threetoedpete
03-24-2006, 12:25 PM
They could still draft a lineman prospect at #33.


Agreed, but I think this signing puts Mangold in the luxuary catigory. I think there are enough RB's in the draft that someone will take a shot at Mangold
at the bottom of the first.

threetoedpete
03-24-2006, 12:41 PM
Did we not sign Anthony Weaver?

Did we not offer a contract to Sam Cowart?

Did we not change the defense to fit our players better?


We have addressed the defense. We are going to continue to add players through the draft and FA and it will get better. This reminds me of the talk before of how we have to draft D'Brick with the #1 overall pick because we have a terrible line. There are 7 rounds in the draft and we have 4 of the first 66 picks. If we are so desperate for a DE (which we aren't anymore after Weaver), we can might be able to get Mathias Kiwanuka or Tamba Hali in the 2nd round. Or we can take Darryl Tapp in the third. Maybe we can take Mario's counterpart Manny Lawson? If we need a DB we can go after Antonio Cromartie or Jonathan Joseph or Darnell Bing. How about D'Qwell Jackson? He could fill our MLB hole.


Like all of those choses except Bing. A corner at the top of the second wouldn't surprise me. Look at the two deep roster at RC. I shudder to think. Manny Lawson looks like a winner. Lot of good players at the top of the second. Maybe this year we'll hit 1. Personally, I'm hoping for one of the gaurds. Especailly if we get creative at the top of the draft. Be nice to have one player to hang our hats on. What MLB's do you like day two beerlover ? Leon Williams might make a switch ? Parnham @ the top of the second, but...I'd rather have the young right corner if we go defense.

tulexan
03-24-2006, 12:46 PM
The guy I really want in the second is Cromartie. If he is available I think there is no way we can pass on him. If he stayed in school he would have been a top 10 pick next year.

A 6'2 CB that runs a sub 4.4 40? How can you pass on that?

TexanAddict
03-24-2006, 12:57 PM
I hope the Texans don't want him so bad they feel the need to trade up to get him. if he falls to us fine, if not look at the bpa.

This is about the way I see it. If one of the top linemen is there you have to take him, but we have enough areas that require attention that a high quality player at one of those positions should be available and trading up should not be considered.

threetoedpete
03-24-2006, 01:00 PM
The guy I really want in the second is Cromartie. If he is available I think there is no way we can pass on him. If he stayed in school he would have been a top 10 pick next year.

A 6'2 CB that runs a sub 4.4 40? How can you pass on that?

I think that's another universal. If he busts at corner, make a heck of FS.
Visa versa, start him at FS in camp and if P-burnt and Faggins bust, we're not in the hole so bad. If they go db, wouldn't be surprised. Day two Blackmon & Maxey ?

el toro
03-24-2006, 02:06 PM
Because they just signed Weaver to a fat contract?

el toro
03-24-2006, 02:17 PM
A yardage gaining, chain moving, clock eating and point scoring offense wins championships.

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 02:18 PM
Totally understand where you are coming from, BUT I don't think your conclusion is absolute.

It is not. It is a take based purely on the finances of the team which is just one of the acquisition/attrition levers that are most often skipped over in the world of fandom. Moreover, I am quite aware that there is other data out there that fans are not privy to such as how each bonus is prorated.

tulexan
03-24-2006, 02:33 PM
In any business you cannot be that weighted from an investment standpoint in one of your two lines of business, as you will stymie incremental growth.



Actually, in business you take on a portfolio of investments that are weighted in such a way to maximize your revenue.

Most companies in all industries do not have equal budgets for each division.

If the philosophy of our team is not one of a balanced attack on both offense and defense, but rather one of a very strong offense and an average defense then it would make sense.

You make it sound like the Texans are the only team ever to have such a difference between the offense and defense on a salary standpoint. It is probably hard to find, but I'm sure that the Ravens defense in 2000 was making a lot more than the offense.

I would also imagine that since we are focusing so much on offense this season, that next season would be the defensive offseason to equal it out a bit.

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 03:32 PM
Actually, in business you take on a portfolio of investments that are weighted in such a way to maximize your revenue.

Most companies in all industries do not have equal budgets for each division.

If the philosophy of our team is not one of a balanced attack on both offense and defense, but rather one of a very strong offense and an average defense then it would make sense.

You make it sound like the Texans are the only team ever to have such a difference between the offense and defense on a salary standpoint. It is probably hard to find, but I'm sure that the Ravens defense in 2000 was making a lot more than the offense.

I would also imagine that since we are focusing so much on offense this season, that next season would be the defensive offseason to equal it out a bit.

I just use the biz terminology to help frame, it is not a failsafe comparision, but should illustrate my point.

I look at the Colts and I do not see how our defense is going to be able to help us twice a year. If VY or Leinart go to the Titans I do not see how our defense will help us. As Leftwich continues to improve we will need a better defense.

Our offense will do fine, as is, in my opinion against those defenses in our division. Defensively we could be behind the eight ball for a long time with an investment in Bush at #1.

el toro
03-24-2006, 03:43 PM
Most firms are successful by doing one thing well. I'm not sure that's easy to translate to the NFL.

Perhaps the way would be that you have to excel on one side of the ball and be average on the other + special teams?

Since the Texans appear to be determined to build their strength on the offensive side, then the appropriate goal would be to develop a capable D. Someone posted the rankings of the offenses and defenses of playoff teams. Those rankings seemed to fit that analogy...great on offense and average on defense.

I think the team can reach average on D given the constraints.

tulexan
03-24-2006, 03:54 PM
I just use the biz terminology to help frame, it is not a failsafe comparision, but should illustrate my point.

I look at the Colts and I do not see how our defense is going to be able to help us twice a year. If VY or Leinart go to the Titans I do not see how our defense will help us. As Leftwich continues to improve we will need a better defense.

Our offense will do fine, as is, in my opinion against those defenses in our division. Defensively we could be behind the eight ball for a long time with an investment in Bush at #1.


That's a good point, but don't you think some of the other teams could eventually say the same thing about us (assuming Bush lives up to the hype)?

Kaiser Toro
03-24-2006, 04:11 PM
That's a good point, but don't you think some of the other teams could eventually say the same thing about us (assuming Bush lives up to the hype)?

Reciprocity would not be a bad thing. I know Bush is a great prospect, I am not blind. You will get no debate from me on what he can potentially offer our offense.

Good stuff today Tulexan and El Toro, thanks for playing. :)

CITY CAT
03-24-2006, 06:03 PM
I really don't think the defense was that bad. I think they lost a lot of motivation with the departure of Glenn and Sharper, and they were put in bad situations. That I think killed their confidence.