PDA

View Full Version : Who doesn't want Bush now?


wrestler4life
04-03-2006, 11:36 AM
After running a 4.33, verting over 40" and benching 225- 24 times, what is he going to have to do for the Vince lovers to realize that Bush is the best thing for the Texans?
DRAFT BUSH NOW!!!!!!!!!:yahoo:

kbourda
04-03-2006, 11:39 AM
After running a 4.33, verting over 40" and benching 225- 24 times, what is he going to have to do for the Vince lovers to realize that Bush is the best thing for the Texans?
DRAFT BUSH NOW!!!!!!!!!:yahoo:

Its never been about not wanting Bush, it's more about not wanting David Carr (your other boy from California). At least from my perspective that is.

gtexan02
04-03-2006, 11:42 AM
His strength is a definite bonus. Oh and he officially weighed in at 202 pounds. I loved the quote that when he took off his shirt, some people thought he was wearing body armor. hahaha he'll just explode into defenders

chuckm
04-03-2006, 11:42 AM
Its never been about not wanting Bush, it's more about not wanting David Carr (your other boy from California). At least from my perspective that is.


and let's not forget it's also about wanting Vince Young (your boy from Houston) .... and as you and I both know, perspective is a very important thing ...

Tulip
04-03-2006, 12:08 PM
I'll say it - I'd still rather have Vince Young.

Given that Kubiak is bringing in (warning: oversimplification) a "plug and play" system for running backs, I'm just not going to put that high of a premium on a running back. I do, however, put a high premium on quarterbacks who are outstanding leaders. I don't want a quarterback who is skilled at not getting in the way of the rest of the team's success. I want one who leads in creating that success.

I don't share the oft-expressed feeling that the Texans just need 21 All Pros on the field to make David Carr successful. I realize that's an exaggeration, but I see opinions expressed here that just about reflect that level of non-realism.

I have nothing against Bush. He looks like a great prospect, and I'll cheer for him to make big plays when he's in a Texans jersey next fall.

I'd prefer Vince Young. It's not like this is the first time the Texans have picked someone other than who I wanted at a given spot.

It happens.

Caphorn
04-03-2006, 12:14 PM
These numbers are fairly irrelevant. I happen to be one of the few, apparently, that sees value in both picks. I do think the safer bet is to stick with Carr and draft Bush. But I also strongly believe that in the next 10 years Vince Young will lead an NFL team to at least one Super Bowl. I can't say the same for my confidence in Reggie, Matt Leinart or even David Carr. But if the goal is to improve this team immediately - you have to pick Bush.

kbourda
04-03-2006, 12:19 PM
I don't share the oft-expressed feeling that the Texans just need 21 All Pros on the field to make David Carr successful. I realize that's an exaggeration, but I see opinions expressed here that just about reflect that level of non-realism.

You must be reading my mind. One of the most brilliant posts made.

wrestler4life
04-03-2006, 12:30 PM
"These numbers are fairly irrelevant. I happen to be one of the few, apparently, that sees value in both picks. I do think the safer bet is to stick with Carr and draft Bush. But I also strongly believe that in the next 10 years Vince Young will lead an NFL team to at least one Super Bowl. I can't say the same for my confidence in Reggie, Matt Leinart or even David Carr. But if the goal is to improve this team immediately - you have to pick Bush."

true. everyone in the nfl and college has similar numbers:ok:

bckey
04-03-2006, 12:33 PM
I'll say it - I'd still rather have Vince Young.

Given that Kubiak is bringing in (warning: oversimplification) a "plug and play" system for running backs, I'm just not going to put that high of a premium on a running back. I do, however, put a high premium on quarterbacks who are outstanding leaders. I don't want a quarterback who is skilled at not getting in the way of the rest of the team's success. I want one who leads in creating that success.

I don't share the oft-expressed feeling that the Texans just need 21 All Pros on the field to make David Carr successful. I realize that's an exaggeration, but I see opinions expressed here that just about reflect that level of non-realism.

I have nothing against Bush. He looks like a great prospect, and I'll cheer for him to make big plays when he's in a Texans jersey next fall.

I'd prefer Vince Young. It's not like this is the first time the Texans have picked someone other than who I wanted at a given spot.

It happens.

Excellent post.

swtbound07
04-03-2006, 12:34 PM
Obviously this thread was made for me, so i'll bite.

I dont want reggie bush now. Didnt want him during the whole "bush bowl" fiasco, didnt want him pre rose bowl, dont want him post rosebowl. Reasonable men can agree to differ, and I want Vince. You don't know whats best for the Texans. Neither do i.You know why? Because you dont know ANYTHING that these prospects are going to do in the NFL. No clue. We can speculate, but here is my question to all of the people who think Vince Young would be such a horrible pick.

If Vince Young was really such a horrible player, and if he really was just a "homer" pick, then why do most mock drafts have him going anywhere from 1-10 in the nfl draft? Obviously people believe he can be successfull in the nfl. Also, people routinely say he will have to sit for 2-3 years. You dont know that...what if there is an injury to Carr and he is pressed into service immediately? More so than that, what if he has a rothlisberger-esque first season, and goes 14-0 as a starter? what then.....rookie QB's can suceed. Vince could suceed in Houston

My final point. We dont NEED reggie bush. Nobody can say that he is a need based pick. So saying we dont need vince young isnt a good counter arguement. We dont NEED either of them. Its a luxury pick. Then it comes down to who you think is better. Some think Vince, some think Bush. It doesnt matter which conviction you have, just dont bash others for having it.

thunderkyss
04-03-2006, 12:40 PM
I'll say it - I'd still rather have Vince Young.

Given that Kubiak is bringing in (warning: oversimplification) a "plug and play" system for running backs, I'm just not going to put that high of a premium on a running back. I do, however, put a high premium on quarterbacks who are outstanding leaders. I don't want a quarterback who is skilled at not getting in the way of the rest of the team's success. I want one who leads in creating that success.

I don't share the oft-expressed feeling that the Texans just need 21 All Pros on the field to make David Carr successful. I realize that's an exaggeration, but I see opinions expressed here that just about reflect that level of non-realism.

I have nothing against Bush. He looks like a great prospect, and I'll cheer for him to make big plays when he's in a Texans jersey next fall.

I'd prefer Vince Young. It's not like this is the first time the Texans have picked someone other than who I wanted at a given spot.

It happens.

I can't give you any more rep points...... says I've got to spread them around. But I believe this is a very good post.

This "hypocrisy" has been around long before Vince declared himself eligible for the draft. When a team goes 2-14, then get's all giddy about drafting a running back, when the running game is the only good thing you've got going for you...... they gripe & whine about our QB not getting enough time to do what he needs to do, so to help, they want to draft a running back. Then blame the F.O. for not doing what they promised to do.

Yet, talk about drafting a QB........ and it doesn't make sense. We already have a #1 pick at QB...

History shows running backs get hurt early in their careers...... Ours has put up some very nice stats despite the injuries...... but he's "injury prone"

The offensive line has been tweaked, rearranged, shuffled, and what not. we've added players, we've removed players. Every year, something is done to the offensive line.......... but just try to say that our QB is "sack prone"

but to answer your question...... I want Bush on our team. I think we'd have a real offensive powerhouse. But not at the expense of Vince Young. I'm in this for the long haul, and I think Vince will improve our team more, over the long term.

Matt........ He was probably the best QB in the draft before Vince declared. He may have been a legit #1 last year, or the year before..... most likely in 2002. But IMHO, anyone who drafts Matt while Vince is on the board may be looking for a job in the not to distant future. Yeah, thinking like that may be exactly why I'm not a pro NFL scout................. what's your excuse??

Edit:My rant about hypocrisy is in response to a few posts that do not appear to be here anymore.

gtexan02
04-03-2006, 12:45 PM
NO is looking to trade down.
All the press points to RB.
Whether or not I like it, thats what we're doing I'm almost positive.

Johnny Utah
04-03-2006, 12:47 PM
Bob Allen and John McClain have already said that the Texans WILL be drafting Reggie Bush. Unless some other team grossly overpays for the #1 pick I think this debate is over.

Tale Gator
04-03-2006, 12:49 PM
I think we are going to pick Bush and I will be happy with that -- he is an elite player. If the Texans decide to go with VY i'll be happy as well, because clearly the staff will have seen something that many are missing. More than likely drafting VY would indicate Carr is a bigger liability than the Texans have let on.

I won't be happy if we trade down -- the #1pick this year is a rare opportunity to have one of two elite players in the draft. I understand the logic of trading down, but the gambler in me wants to take a shot at one of the big names.

whiskeyrbl
04-03-2006, 12:57 PM
I can't give you any more rep points...... says I've got to spread them around. But I believe this is a very good post.

This "hypocrisy" has been around long before Vince declared himself eligible for the draft. When a team goes 2-14, then get's all giddy about drafting a running back, when the running game is the only good thing you've got going for you...... they gripe & whine about our QB not getting enough time to do what he needs to do, so to help, they want to draft a running back. Then blame the F.O. for not doing what they promised to do.

TK this is a straight forward response not a RB post. However it does involve him. At USC they ran a form of the Zone Blocking Scheme, which helps him in this offense,also it has been said that he is very good at picking up the blitz,and blocking them out. That has been a weakness in every running back that we have.I am a RB supporter but in no way would I be depressed if we got VY. I think in the running back department if the FO goes that way you get a potential gamebreaker with good blocking skills, and good hands that can only compliment DD's play. I believe they could be the best RB duo in the NFL this year as all around contributors. We will just have to wait and see.

Trapped
04-03-2006, 01:04 PM
word on the streets is that he needs to get bulkier legs. so im not fully convinced yet. sarcasm.

KSig44
04-03-2006, 01:06 PM
Fact: You can't play 2 QB's on the field at the same time (you can, but it makes no sense).
Fact: You can play 2 RB's on the field at the same time.
Fact: The Texans want to win now
Fact: Carr just signed a huge extention that will kill the cap if we cut or trade him
Fact: DD makes big $$, but see fact 2

Both picks are very athletic, but I am not sold on VY as a NFL QB. Bush's game correlates to the NFL and he was succesful in college in all the things he will be asked to do in the NFL, and has done them at a high level for the last 2-3 years. VY has not been very effective passing the ball until this year. Yes, he makes plays with his legs, but I don't think you can count on that in the NFL (see Michael Vick, see Cunningham). So it comes down to his arm which he has never sat in the pocket and beaten a good team with just his arm. That is what will have to happen in the NFL, opposing defenses will not be scared of his 4.57 scrambling ability. They have seen it before in a QB that can run a sub 4.4 (Vick). I feel for where they are right now in ability and what they can offer a team immediatly, Bush is the safer pick and the risk/reward ratio is a lot closer with him with the ceiling being just as high as with VY. I pick Bush easily.

Mr. White
04-03-2006, 01:07 PM
I just saw Bob Allen's report on YouTube where Reggie says he'll meet with the Texans on Thursday. I bet they start working on a contract...

**edit**
Just saw the other thread about it. Seems like a foregone conclusion now.

Dr. Toro
04-03-2006, 01:10 PM
Marginal utility folks. We're gonna pay 50+ million to improve our strongest position, where we've already got a ton of money commited. RB is a freak, but there are questions. Yes, he is multidimensional. Do we need him? Not really, and certainly not at that price. VY isn't a need pick, but we have a lot more issues at his position, where the play has not been adequate.

infantrycak
04-03-2006, 01:11 PM
If Vince Young was really such a horrible player, and if he really was just a "homer" pick, then why do most mock drafts have him going anywhere from 1-10 in the nfl draft?

There are only a couple of people saying VY is going to be a bust or that Bush will be a bust. The great majority of folks on either side of the VY/Bush debate see talent and potential in both but more in one or the other or like kbourda & Tulip cast there vote VY's way out of dislike for Carr. That said, there is an obvious homer quality to the debate or Leinart would be a favorite of at least a few people and he is never even discussed--as you say, the vast majority of mock drafts have Leinart as the top QB.

More so than that, what if he has a rothlisberger-esque first season, and goes 14-0 as a starter?

Big Ben didn't have a Big Ben-esque season--he had a very good season jumping into the QB spot on a Super Bowl quality team. In other words he had the 21 other guys around him that Tulip finds silly for Carr to need. But hey, I am sure Big Ben would have found a way to lift the 31st ranked D and make them contenders. It isn't about "giving Carr" 21 guys to succeed, it is about fielding a solid team--something the Texans did not do with the exception of a running game last year. Even the running game wasn't as solid as people act like it was. The Texans were 15th in total rushing yds, but 308 of those yds came from Carr--take those out and the Texans fall to the 24th spot.

MikeMc
04-03-2006, 01:14 PM
Well, the NFL proves that not only do you need a good #1 & #2 at QB, but also at RB.

I can see the thinking on the Texans part there.

Before FA started, I was in the DE or OL help......they addressed that during FA....even the WR dept.

What's left...CB? So either the Texans draft Bush, or they trade down and get a CB. Theory "A" seems to be the logical way to go.


BTW, Young led a bunch of college kids, not NFL pros. Different level with more distractions once he gets the $$$$ and buys his mom a house and has all of his boys in his pockets. He has already proven to be a punk by his actions towards the public....now his head is getting bigger, so he might be the next TO!

Lead a team to the SB at least once in his next 10 years?? LMAO! I'm sure they said that about Marino after his 2nd yr in the NFL.....and he was a better QB than Vince Young is an athlete!

He will need to be on a team that has a talented defense to overcome the numerous bone-head rookie mistakes he will make as a 6 yr vet (if he lasts that long)!! Next Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Heath Shuler, Jim Drunkenmiller, Joey Harrington...etc...etc...etc!

thunderkyss
04-03-2006, 01:16 PM
Can anyone name a good running back Duo that has lasted more than 3 years?? The only one I can think of is WD40, but that was actually supplemented with other halfbacks, while Tampa was trying to make up their mind what they were going to do.

My point is, no one has two franchise backs........ I think DD is ours, and it would be crappy of the Houston Texans as an organization to replace him. Yeah they can play together...... it just doesn't happen that way.

this man's given us 125%, it's wrong, IMHO, to even look at another back. How many running backs have we had so far?? How many of them have performed like DD has for us?? We've found our franchise RunningBack, let's start looking for the QB.

& before we go off on the we haven't been fair to David Carr........ let me first say, that I agree with you. We haven't given him a fair opportunity to win some games. We haven't protected him as well as we should. Yes, there were times when he didn't have a chance to take a three step drop... Still, IMHO, he could have played better.

Dr. Toro
04-03-2006, 01:27 PM
There are only a couple of people saying VY is going to be a bust or that Bush will be a bust. The great majority of folks on either side of the VY/Bush debate see talent and potential in both but more in one or the other or like kbourda & Tulip cast there vote VY's way out of dislike for Carr. That said, there is an obvious homer quality to the debate or Leinart would be a favorite of at least a few people and he is never even discussed--as you say, the vast majority of mock drafts have Leinart as the top QB.



Big Ben didn't have a Big Ben-esque season--he had a very good season jumping into the QB spot on a Super Bowl quality team. In other words he had the 21 other guys around him that Tulip finds silly for Carr to need. But hey, I am sure Big Ben would have found a way to lift the 31st ranked D and make them contenders. It isn't about "giving Carr" 21 guys to succeed, it is about fielding a solid team--something the Texans did not do with the exception of a running game last year. Even the running game wasn't as solid as people act like it was. The Texans were 15th in total rushing yds, but 308 of those yds came from Carr--take those out and the Texans fall to the 24th spot.

True about Big ben, but he did exhibit fantastic poise and playmaking abilities when called upon. VY could manage games and be a late game playmaker like Big Ben right off the bat. Concerning the rushing game, we trailed all season, so our output was impressive. We were 9th in yards per carry, with teams all .500 or above ahead of us. Carr did contribute to the rushing attack, but 68 sacks, 17 fumbles, and only 1 td kind of washes it out.

Bullpen Drew
04-03-2006, 01:35 PM
I am totally impressed by Bush...

Young wasn't as impressive as Bush or Leinart.

Tejaspro
04-03-2006, 01:46 PM
Marginal utility folks. We're gonna pay 50+ million to improve our strongest position, where we've already got a ton of money commited. RB is a freak, but there are questions. Yes, he is multidimensional. Do we need him? Not really, and certainly not at that price. VY isn't a need pick, but we have a lot more issues at his position, where the play has not been adequate.

I guess my basic problem with all the "get rid of Carr crowd" is simply this:

Kubiak, an ex quarterback, an ex quarteback coach, ex offensive coordinator, and now head coach, is basing the entire success of continuing in that capasity with the Texans on Carr. If he were not convinced that David Carr is the quarterback that can win with the Texans, why wouldn't he go another route. He could have his choice of any quarterback coming out this year at the #1 position. Plus, he would have an excuse if one of them did not prove to be a winner. After all, you never know for sure with a draft pick. Instead, he is placing his whole existance upon his belief that Carr can do the job. Let me ask you.... if it were your job, your career, would you "gamble" on Carr if you had any concerns? Or, would you take the safe route and pick a new guy, because even if the new guy fails, you've got an excuse. My brain and my knowledge of self survival points to Kubiak having confidence in Carr.
Am I missing the boat here?:confused:

infantrycak
04-03-2006, 01:48 PM
CWe were 9th in yards per carry, with teams all .500 or above ahead of us.

Not so fast. Carr was the rushing leader on ypc as well. Take his yards and attempts out and the ypa drops to 3.9 ypc which puts the Texans in a tie for 16th to 19th.

FYI--only Vick, Carr, Brooks and McNair started 10+ games and averaged more ypa than the regular rushing game.

Carr did contribute to the rushing attack, but 68 sacks, 17 fumbles, and only 1 td kind of washes it out.

All of this is irrelevant to the original point--the Texans' rushing game is not as strong as some would portray. QB rushing was unplanned for 90% of the time and shouldn't be included in consideration of how good was the Texans' planned rushing attack.

Sacks don't count in the rushing game--wrong discussion. 17 fumbles?--yeah, that doesn't look biased listing that rather than the 6 fumbles lost.

thunderkyss
04-03-2006, 01:59 PM
I guess my basic problem with all the "get rid of Carr crowd" is simply this:

Kubiak, an ex quarterback, an ex quarteback coach, ex offensive coordinator, and now head coach, is basing the entire success of continuing in that capasity with the Texans on Carr. If he were not convinced that David Carr is the quarterback that can win with the Texans, why wouldn't he go another route. He could have his choice of any quarterback coming out this year at the #1 position. Plus, he would have an excuse if one of them did not prove to be a winner. After all, you never know for sure with a draft pick. Instead, he is placing his whole existance upon his belief that Carr can do the job. Let me ask you.... if it were your job, your career, would you "gamble" on Carr if you had any concerns? Or, would you take the safe route and pick a new guy, because even if the new guy fails, you've got an excuse. My brain and my knowledge of self survival points to Kubiak having confidence in Carr.
Am I missing the boat here?:confused:


If that is the decision Kubiak makes...... we don't know yet. The decision to pick Bush, was made before GK left Denver......... now, for all we know he may just be following Party lines...... This team has done very well, to position itself for the draft, where we don't need anything(more or less) that #1 pick is a luxury pick, we can pick who we want, and not really hurt our team. The positions we need to fill, can be filled much lower with our existing picks......

Extending Carr's contract, and signing SageR..., makes it difficult to think we will do anything with that pick other than draft Reggie Bush.

But, if I were a QB coach, getting ready to paint my master piece, I'd want to start with a raw Vince Young, rather than a David Carr, that has to be broken down, and then rebuilt.

Dr. Toro
04-03-2006, 02:08 PM
Not so fast. Carr was the rushing leader on ypc as well. Take his yards and attempts out and the ypa drops to 3.9 ypc which puts the Texans in a tie for 16th to 19th.



All of this is irrelevant to the original point--the Texans' rushing game is not as strong as some would portray. QB rushing was an unplanned for 90% of the time and shouldn't be included in consideration of how good was the Texans' planned rushing attack.

Sacks don't count in the rushing game--wrong discussion. 17 fumbles?--yeah, that doesn't look biased listing that rather than the 6 fumbles lost.

I am biased, everything I have seen tells me Carr has been bad. Sacks are plays where the QB doesn't throw the ball, just like the scrambles. In Carr's case, all those unplanned plays accounted for -116 yards, there were 124 such plays. Vick is the only guy in his ballpark with respect to this. What i'm saying is the pocket presence is the big issue here, 124 out of 547 passing plays the ball didn't get thrown. Every 4.5 passing plays he runs or is sacked, that's not all line play. 15 total tds, 17 total turnovers.

*I'll add that the big knock on Carr coming out of Fresno was that he held the ball too long and took a disproportionate number of sacks. The numbers showed it then and do now.

Caphorn
04-03-2006, 03:01 PM
I am totally impressed by Bush...

Young wasn't as impressive as Bush or Leinart.

Other than Wonderlic scores, Leinart did measurably worse than Vince in his pro day. He didn't run the 40. Had a decent veritical (completely irrelevant) and threw many balls off the mark. He basically excused the poor performance as nervousness. Not sure, but I'm thinking cool under pressure would be an important trait of your top QBs. Vince is the walking definition of cool under pressure. His 40 time was slow (still fast for a QB), but it's not something he planned on even doing until he got goated into it by his teammates. Everyone knows he's fast.

Basically if you had to compare pro days, then Bush clearly wins. But Young was measurably better than Leinart in his accuracy and obviously has as much if not more arm strength (Lienart described as adequate arm strength vs. the superlatives that came out about Vince's arm strength after his pro day).

Not that it really matters - as I stated correctly before. These times/leaps/etc are a fairly small part of the ultimate evaluation. Individual private workouts are MUCH more important for these top guys. We have no idea how those are going.

TexanFan881
04-03-2006, 03:07 PM
Bush shined yesterday and why would anyone be mad if we got Bush? There's nobody better in the draft.

Tejaspro
04-03-2006, 03:12 PM
If that is the decision Kubiak makes...... we don't know yet. The decision to pick Bush, was made before GK left Denver......... now, for all we know he may just be following Party lines...... This team has done very well, to position itself for the draft, where we don't need anything(more or less) that #1 pick is a luxury pick, we can pick who we want, and not really hurt our team. The positions we need to fill, can be filled much lower with our existing picks......

Extending Carr's contract, and signing SageR..., makes it difficult to think we will do anything with that pick other than draft Reggie Bush.

But, if I were a QB coach, getting ready to paint my master piece, I'd want to start with a raw Vince Young, rather than a David Carr, that has to be broken down, and then rebuilt.

"The decision to pick Bush, was made before GK left Denver"??? How do you know this? Who made this decision? If I understand this logic correctly, you are saying that someone? (Either McNair, Casserly? McClain? Justice? Who?) went to Kubiak and said, "come here and coach but we are picking your players, and you will just have to not only live with it, but also lie about it to everyone that asks". Let me ask you.... would you take the job under those circumstances?

And just another little question.... how did Kubiak (and any of those that had already chosen Bush) know they were going to get all those players? They didn't know they were even getting Sherman (or, maybe they did, and had already got Sherman to lie about it too) who helped to get Flannagan. And what about all those other players that put us in this position? I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny, does it.

And, if "you were the QB coach, and wanted Vince Young", why would you take to job....just to set yourself up for disappointment and failure? Maybe I just don't understand your logic. Please feel free to enlighten me.:confused: :confused:

Big B Texan Fan
04-03-2006, 03:13 PM
He will need to be on a team that has a talented defense to overcome the numerous bone-head rookie mistakes he will make as a 6 yr vet (if he lasts that long)!! Next Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Heath Shuler, Jim Drunkenmiller, Joey Harrington...etc...etc...etc!
You left off David Carr.

BuffSoldier
04-03-2006, 04:41 PM
Still hold it down for D'Brickashaw Ferguson.

TheOgre
04-03-2006, 05:10 PM
Reasonable men can agree to differ, and I want Vince. You don't know whats best for the Texans. Neither do i.You know why? Because you dont know ANYTHING that these prospects are going to do in the NFL. No clue. We can speculate, but here is my question to all of the people who think Vince Young would be such a horrible pick.


This just seems funny because it seems like this paragraph could be taken straight out of a discussion about God with NFL jargon subbed in a few places.

:stirpot:

MasterC25
04-03-2006, 05:40 PM
I am biased, everything I have seen tells me Carr has been bad. Sacks are plays where the QB doesn't throw the ball, just like the scrambles. In Carr's case, all those unplanned plays accounted for -116 yards, there were 124 such plays. Vick is the only guy in his ballpark with respect to this. What i'm saying is the pocket presence is the big issue here, 124 out of 547 passing plays the ball didn't get thrown. Every 4.5 passing plays he runs or is sacked, that's not all line play. 15 total tds, 17 total turnovers.

*I'll add that the big knock on Carr coming out of Fresno was that he held the ball too long and took a disproportionate number of sacks. The numbers showed it then and do now.

For all this s*it being said about Carr's sacks. I rather him take 4 sacks in a row the make the dumb decisions young QB's make and throw 4 INTs in a row. Pointblank!

swtbound07
04-03-2006, 05:58 PM
For all this s*it being said about Carr's sacks. I rather him take 4 sacks in a row the make the dumb decisions young QB's make and throw 4 INTs in a row. Pointblank!

with davey, you get both both. Lucky you.

TexansLucky13
04-03-2006, 06:01 PM
with davey, you get both both. Lucky you.

Carr hasnt had a decent O-line since the inaugural season... even then is was nothing special. Capers overlooked the problem. I believe Carr will benefit in the future from having dealt with the negligence. But on the other hand, the experience that a rookie normally gains at QB was not fully experienced by Carr, since he ended up having nothing to work with. We have not seen the last of Carr.

infantrycak
04-03-2006, 06:27 PM
with davey, you get both both. Lucky you.

Nice hating with no basis in fact. Carr has had more TD's than INT's and over 60% completions each of the last two years.

El Amigo Invisible
04-03-2006, 06:38 PM
I almost broke my TV when I saw him running backwards. Poor Dave.

Honoring Earl 34
04-03-2006, 07:01 PM
If Bush were to fall to the Arizona Cardinals , they after signing E James and having Larry Fitzgerald would take him in a NY minute . DD is an OK back thats it , DC do not stay up late worrying about DD .

NederlandTexan
04-03-2006, 07:17 PM
If Vince Young was really such a horrible player, and if he really was just a "homer" pick, then why do most mock drafts have him going anywhere from 1-10 in the nfl draft? We dont NEED reggie bush. Nobody can say that he is a need based pick. So saying we dont need vince young isnt a good counter arguement. We dont NEED either of them. Its a luxury pick. Then it comes down to who you think is better. Some think Vince, some think Bush. It doesnt matter which conviction you have, just dont bash others for having it.
SWT, I love your conviction and passion for this team and VY. Every mock draft and ranking I have seen has Bush at number 1 and neither of us is suffering from any man-love syndromes, just different opinions. But you brought a lot of heat on yourself from the start with the Reggie Bust signature. Peace.

Bullpen Drew
04-03-2006, 08:05 PM
Still hold it down for D'Brickashaw Ferguson.

When is D'Brick going to visit Houston and meet with the Texans?

tulexan
04-03-2006, 08:07 PM
When is D'Brick going to visit Houston and meet with the Texans?


Is he even coming here?

Mario Williams
04-03-2006, 08:09 PM
Is he even coming here?

Great point, we ain't trading down as there have been no news of us working out with Mario, Ferguson.

tulexan
04-03-2006, 08:15 PM
The only visits that I have heard about are Reggie and Vince. And Reggie is coming here to meet with the staff, do contract negotiations, and look at houses.

MONARCH
04-03-2006, 08:59 PM
Know one wants the rb, unless you are a cardinal and mustard phantom......

US REAL TEXANS WOULD NEVER ! EVER! .....want the rib anywhere near our BURNT ORANGE STATE!
MONARCH

Frank_The_Tank
04-03-2006, 09:02 PM
Now that the pro day is finnished I say take Reggie Young, QRB for Univesity of Texas California

chuckm
04-03-2006, 09:06 PM
Know one wants the rb, unless you are a cardinal and mustard phantom......

US REAL TEXANS WOULD NEVER ! EVER! .....want the rib anywhere near our BURNT ORANGE STATE!
MONARCH


long day MONARCH? only 2 lines? c'mon buck up ....

kbourda
04-03-2006, 09:38 PM
The great majority of folks on either side of the VY/Bush debate see talent and potential in both but more in one or the other or like kbourda & Tulip cast there vote VY's way out of dislike for Carr.

Wait on sec. I never said I didn't like Carr. I just don't like his production at the QB position. I dislike the Cowboys!

TexanFan881
04-03-2006, 09:42 PM
I don't think Ferguson is worth the #1 pick and I think we are acting as if we aren't trading down. That's most likely why we don't have a meeting with him yet or we have yet to set one up yet.

TexansLucky13
04-03-2006, 09:44 PM
Wait on sec. I never said I didn't like Carr. I just don't like his production at the QB position. I dislike the Cowboys!

You don't like his production at QB? Maybe he should kick next season then. :rolleyes:

Carr has a big extension on his contract and he will play a large role in the "revival Texans" of '06-'07. Drafting VY would seal his fate. But personally, I have a little faith in the guy. It isn't "completely" his fault that he had little pass protection or pass blocking last season. Ask Todd Wade.

kbourda
04-03-2006, 09:44 PM
"The decision to pick Bush, was made before GK left Denver"??? How do you know this? Who made this decision? If I understand this logic correctly, you are saying that someone? (Either McNair, Casserly? McClain? Justice? Who?) went to Kubiak and said, "come here and coach but we are picking your players, and you will just have to not only live with it, but also lie about it to everyone that asks". Let me ask you.... would you take the job under those circumstances?

And just another little question.... how did Kubiak (and any of those that had already chosen Bush) know they were going to get all those players? They didn't know they were even getting Sherman (or, maybe they did, and had already got Sherman to lie about it too) who helped to get Flannagan. And what about all those other players that put us in this position? I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny, does it.

And, if "you were the QB coach, and wanted Vince Young", why would you take to job....just to set yourself up for disappointment and failure? Maybe I just don't understand your logic. Please feel free to enlighten me.:confused: :confused:

Well, well, well, look who's back. I was wondering how long it would take you to get back here with Bush coming on board. Hey, I happen to agree with Kyss. The brass are looking at VY as a "public service". We all know I stand a better chance of getting drafted by the Texans than VY does.

TexansLucky13
04-03-2006, 09:45 PM
We all know I stand a better chance of getting drafted by the Texans than VY does.

100% True.

Huge1
04-03-2006, 09:59 PM
Does anyone here have the NFL Network? I am watching Total Access as of this post and they covered the USC pro day extensively. After watching their resident analyst's (Mayock, Adam Scheffler(?) Rich Eisen, etc.) quotes along with those of Casserly and Kubiak.....If todays program does not put an end to who we are definetly drafting then nothing will. It is Reggie Bush by a landslide people. Casserly and Kubiak said they have NEVER seen an athlete with the kind of rare strength, speed, agility, etc. combination that he posseses. They said he WILL be an absolute nightmare for any linebacker or DB in the league. And (LISTEN TO THIS) they ALL agreed that he runs with MORE power than his teammate, White (who has rapidly fallen after his fat *** disappointed the scouts at pro day). Did not make this up...watch the comments for yourself.

Oh yeah, BTW.....The majority of scouts agreed that Lienert's pro day was just okay. They said (as I've stated many times) that he displayed a WEAK arm on the 18-20 yard routes. 18-20 yards? Some are now comparing him to Chris Simms. Mayock thinks he is a second round talent who (if the Titans are smart enough to pass on him) could fall out of the top 10 after his weak performance. It included many balls that hit the ground at his receiver's feet and threw few tight spirals. He has Jay Cutler and Vince Young as the top two QB prospects, as do I.

Edit: One more thing, according to this program RB did 25 reps not 24....

TexanFan881
04-03-2006, 10:05 PM
Does anyone here have the NFL Network? I am watching Total Access as of this post and they covered the USC pro day extensively. After watching their resident analyst's (Mayock, Adam Scheffler(?) Rich Eisen, etc.) quotes along with those of Casserly and Kubiak.....If todays program does not put an end to who were are definetly drafting then nothing will. It is Reggie Bush by a landslide people. Casserly and Kubiak said they have NEVER seen an athlete with the kind of rare strength, speed, agility, etc. combination that he posseses. They said he WILL be an absolute nightmare for any linebacker or DB in the league. And (LISTEN TO THIS) they ALL agreed that he runs with MORE power than his teammate, White (who has rapidly fallen after his fat *** disappointed the scouts at pro day). Did not make this up...watch the comments for yourself.

Oh yeah, BTW.....The majority of scouts agreed that Lienert's pro day was just okay. They said (as I've stated many times) that he displayed a WEAK arm on the 18-20 yard routes. 18-20 yards? Some are now comparing him to Chris Simms. Mayock thinks he is a second round talent who (if the Titans are smart enough to pass on him) could fall out of the top 10 after his weak performance. It included many balls that hit the ground at his receiver's feet and threw few tight spirals. He has Jay Cutler and Vince Young as the top two QB prospects, as do I.

Edit: One more thing, according to this program RB did 25 reps not 24....

I saw that just now too :)
What's funny is that when the staff gets asked questions they try and act like they're have no idea who their going to pick.

It seems like a lot of reporters ask the same questions and get the same answers. Basically, here's an outline of what's being said:

Reporter: Who are you going to pick with the 1st overall draft choice?

Kubiak/Casserly: I don't know.

It's gotten so obvious now it's almost like it's an inside joke :tv:

infantrycak
04-03-2006, 10:18 PM
Wait on sec. I never said I didn't like Carr. I just don't like his production at the QB position. I dislike the Cowboys!

To clarify, I didn't mean you don't like him as a person, just not as the Texans' QB of choice.

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 08:44 AM
IMHO, Lienart is the top QB in a week QB draft....... much like Carr. Only Carr's got a stronger arm, and is more mobile, so you are loosing quite a bit to go with Matt. If he was rated as high as Carson Palmer, I'd be surprised.


People seem to keep forgetting this, he is one of the more mobile QBs in the league and is capable of making some plays with his legs and escaping the pocket, not as well as Vince, but plenty well enough for Denver's offense.

When David Carr leaves the pocket, he needs to be thinking one of two things. First down, & Sideline...... If he can pick up the first, go get it. If he can make it to the sideline, go for it......... but get rid of the ball, or cross ahead of the L.O.S.
David isn't nearly as accurate as Jake Plummer, and his head isn't in the game as much as Vince's in while he is on the move....... watch the highlights, Vince is rarely looking at the guy in front of him, he's usually looking for his recievers as he moves, and using his periphial(sp) vision to identify and locate defenders close to him.....

Excellent work on this post. Elway was definitely a scrambler in his prime but by the time he won his two Super Bowls he was predominantly a pocket passer. You are right on about successful QBs being the ones that have the ability to stay in the pocket (move around in the pocket if they have to) and wait for plays to develop. Certainly the ability to make plays with your legs if you absolutely have to is a bonus, but Vince Young still gives up on plays and looks to run too early (from all the games I saw this year and the tapes I borrowed and re-watched) similar to Michael Vick. Both of them need to work on that and stay in the pocket longer if they want to preserve their careers longer and probably to have greater success.

I, and most people I know, sees Vince developing as we speak into a McNabb, Culpepper way........ pretty similar to Elway... Both are more mobile/athletic than Elway, and are well on thier way to becoming true pocket passers. Like McNair.... I for one, feel Vince is much closer to this than David Carr. Vince may give up on a play too early, and leave the pocket, but he's still looking for the play downfield, till he crosses the L.O.S.
Carr on the other hand, is either hitting the turf, running into a Defensive End, or trying to do the same thing Vince does so easily........ of course, it may/may not be so easy for Vince in the NFL...

But I tell you this. If there is any team in the NFL that is perfect for Vince Young right now, it's Denver. If I were Shanahan, I'd be itching to deal those two #1s for Vince....... heck, I'll give Houston Both #1s, and Ron Dayne. I can't see why Kubiak would look at it any differently.

Nice hating with no basis in fact. Carr has had more TD's than INT's and over 60% completions each of the last two years.

He's also had more sacks..... if he was getting rid of the ball, instead of eating it, both these numbers would mean something. As is, those sacks could've been the play's we were looking for. They could've led to more points... they could've given us a chance to win.

MikeMc
04-04-2006, 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big B Texan Fan
You left off David Carr.

I hate David Carr just write that from now on.

Big B, the difference is those QBs are no longer in the NFL (exception being Joey Harrington)..........so, no, I did not leave off David Carr...he is the Texans' starting QB.

Maddict5
04-04-2006, 11:36 AM
Can anyone name a good running back Duo that has lasted more than 3 years?? The only one I can think of is WD40, but that was actually supplemented with other halfbacks, while Tampa was trying to make up their mind what they were going to do.

My point is, no one has two franchise backs........ I think DD is ours, and it would be crappy of the Houston Texans as an organization to replace him. Yeah they can play together...... it just doesn't happen that way.


its not really a very relevant point because RB is the best receiving back in a long time but look around-teams are using 2 backs-KC have 2 elite players(and priest is injury-prone:spy: remind you of any1), dolphins have 2backs, TB has 2 backs with pittman a receiving rb(a beggars RB) and caddy their main rb, pittsburgh used 2 rb and will probably do so again this year, titans have 2 rbs(henry for when the injury-prone chris brown goes down:spy: remind you of any1), and of course denver uses the 2 back system aswell as the cowboys etc

the 2 back system is relatively new and therefore there havent been many long term tandems yet

infantrycak
04-04-2006, 11:56 AM
He's also had more sacks..... if he was getting rid of the ball, instead of eating it, both these numbers would mean something. As is, those sacks could've been the play's we were looking for. They could've led to more points... they could've given us a chance to win.

Nice jumping in with an off-topic Carr bash. I pointed out Carr has not thrown a bunch of INT's the last 2 years. Bringing up sacks is a BS response to that fact. What, you want him to have thrown the ball into ill advised INT's instead of take a sack?--brilliant.

BeReal
04-04-2006, 12:09 PM
But I tell you this. If there is any team in the NFL that is perfect for Vince Young right now, it's Denver. If I were Shanahan, I'd be itching to deal those two #1s for Vince....... heck, I'll give Houston Both #1s, and Ron Dayne. I can't see why Kubiak would look at it any differently.


He's also had more sacks..... if he was getting rid of the ball, instead of eating it, both these numbers would mean something. As is, those sacks could've been the play's we were looking for. They could've led to more points... they could've given us a chance to win.

LOL.... That's why we're all here on MB's rather then in NFL FO's. That would be a horrible move for Denver AND for Houston.

Denver would get VY, a player who's a top 10 player that might slip into the middle 1st. And Houston loses on a top elite prospect in turn for role players?? I'll say it again, You CAN'T leave this draft with out either Bush or M. Williams.

I'll admit Carr was responsible for a few sacks last year. However, the majority of them fall at the feet of the coaches and offensive scheme. I'm sure he wanted to get rid of the ball but if you don't have open receivers or if there's a guy in your face before you even make your first progression, you're going to do one of two things...

1) get sacked.
2) run for you life.

jerek
04-04-2006, 12:11 PM
Nice jumping in with an off-topic Carr bash. I pointed out Carr has not thrown a bunch of INT's the last 2 years. Bringing up sacks is a BS response to that fact. What, you want him to have thrown the ball into ill advised INT's instead of take a sack?--brilliant.

Any football coach will tell you turnovers are worse than lost yards.

If Carr throws too many INTs, he is careless. If he takes too many sacks, he doesn't have balls. If he does neither and throws the ball out of bounds to avoid the LB blitz that no one picked up for the fourth time that game, his long flowing hair blurred his vision. Better yet, he was too busy reciting Bible verses or wondering what the wife was cooking for dinner that night.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

It is sad how we can't go more than three posts on this board w/o blind praise/hatred for Carr/Young/Bush.

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 12:55 PM
its not really a very relevant point because RB is the best receiving back in a long time
My point is, even though people are saying we can have both Reggie & DD, I'm saying if Reggie succeeds, DD is on his way out. may not be next year, or the year after..... but three years from now, he won't be a Texan any more.
but look around-teams are using 2 backs-KC have 2 elite players(and priest is injury-prone:spy: remind you of any1) I maintain, that DD is not injury prone....... there are very few running backs that have started their first three years in the big boy league, playing more than 40 games........ wether they were starting, or coming off the bench.
DD has managed to do it starting for a very poor team, and has managed to rush for 1000 yards, 2 out of three seasons, missing the third, by 30 yards. We've had four other half backs come through Houston over the time that DD has been here. None have been able to match what DD puts on the field.
This Injury prone garbage, is a convenient argument Pro-Bush folks like to focus on........ much along the same vane as David Carr's fetus position, sacking himself, behind the L.O.S., can't throw on the run, etc.......
LJ will get his big contract when the get rid of Holmes.... He played like a feature back, but he wasn't getting paid like one. He was also not brought in to replace Holmes, he was brought into KC to fill in for Holmes & Blalock..he took the opportunity to try to win the starting job.

dolphins have 2backs, TB has 2 backs with pittman a receiving rb(a beggars RB) and caddy their main rb,
Caddy was brought in to replace Pittman... they haven't been together three years, and they won't be. Except, CW's already missed 2 games, and he's only a rookie...... they may keep Pittman around, because CW is injury prone...... maybe they'll draft another RB this year, since they obviously haven't solved thier Running back problem.
pittsburgh used 2 rb and will probably do so again this year, well, since the Bus is gone, they won't make three years. Pittsburgh has been looking to replace Bettis since they picked up Duece Staley....... Jerome all of a sudden started playing a little better.
titans have 2 rbs(henry for when the injury-prone chris brown goes down:spy: remind you of any1), and of course denver uses the 2 back system aswell as the cowboys etc
In your arguments, anyone with a back up is a two back system.....
the 2 back system is relatively new and therefore there havent been many long term tandems yet

No...... everyone is looking for that one back....... put DD in Denver's system, and he will be that one back....... Tatum Bell was brought into replace Mike Anderson, who was brought in to replace Olandis Gary..... who was the man after Clinton Portis was traded for something Denver desperately needed.

&, Tatum Bell may be the featured back in 2006, but he wasn't a franchise back in 2005.
Nice jumping in with an off-topic Carr bash. I pointed out Carr has not thrown a bunch of INT's the last 2 years. Bringing up sacks is a BS response to that fact. What, you want him to have thrown the ball into ill advised INT's instead of take a sack?--brilliant.

It's not getting off the subject at all....... look at your last sentence... if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints....... if we had another QB, maybe we can get both, less sacks, less ints, more FDs, more TDs.....

jerek
04-04-2006, 01:09 PM
It's not getting off the subject at all....... look at your last sentence... if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints....... if we had another QB, maybe we can get both, less sacks, less ints, more FDs, more TDs.....

If his sack numbers were down (you remember, the 40-some the OL was responsible for: was it 48?) we might have more TDs.

Your last sentence is the most imporant as it makes your true point: "another QB." Then again, I suppose Carr could have put up 40 TDs last year and we'd still have some people on here clamoring for Vince Young.

It is perfectly okay to make an argument for your favorite player without inventing things to be upset with Carr about. The best part about your spiel is that the inverse is far more readily applicable to VY ("if Young didn't have an all-world supporting cast, if he didn't play an O-for-dummies playbook, if he didn't do that against an unranked defense, if, if, if ...) I know we're all about hypotheticals on the MB but yours is a stretch I don't read often.

infantrycak
04-04-2006, 01:23 PM
if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints.......

This one has such non-merit it deserves standing on its own.

That one has to be in the running for most creative perversion of logic and fact to try to construct an argument against a player.

By the way, if you want a much better correlation try this one on for size--less sacks leads to less QB fumbles.

HJam72
04-04-2006, 01:25 PM
...less sacks leads to less QB fumbles.

Have the scientists had a chance to test this hypothesis yet? :wacko:

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 04:26 PM
It's not getting off the subject at all....... look at your last sentence... if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints....... if we had another QB, maybe we can get both, less sacks, less ints, more FDs, more TDs.....


If his sack numbers were down (you remember, the 40-some the OL was responsible for: was it 48?) we might have more TDs.

It is perfectly okay to make an argument for your favorite player without inventing things to be upset with Carr about.


This one has such non-merit it deserves standing on its own.

That one has to be in the running for most creative perversion of logic and fact to try to construct an argument against a player.

By the way, if you want a much better correlation try this one on for size--less sacks leads to less QB fumbles.

Ummm...... I'm not the one who correlated(made up) the relationship of sacks & Ints.......



Nice jumping in with an off-topic Carr bash. I pointed out Carr has not thrown a bunch of INT's the last 2 years. Bringing up sacks is a BS response to that fact. What, you want him to have thrown the ball into ill advised INT's instead of take a sack?--brilliant.

Any football coach will tell you turnovers are worse than lost yards.

If Carr throws too many INTs, he is careless. If he takes too many sacks, he doesn't have balls.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.


That was you two geniuses......

I said I want him to stop eating the ball.



He's also had more sacks..... if he was getting rid of the ball, instead of eating it, both these numbers would mean something. As is, those sacks could've been the play's we were looking for. They could've led to more points... they could've given us a chance to win.

infantrycak
04-04-2006, 04:42 PM
Ummm...... I'm not the one who correlated(made up) the relationship of sacks & Ints.......

Are you being intentionally obtuse or can you seriously not remember or even think to reread what transpired. Your cute little quotes are one step removed from telling the story.

Nice hating with no basis in fact. Carr has had more TD's than INT's and over 60% completions each of the last two years.

This was my original post. See anything in there about sacks?--nope.

This is your response--oh my god, look it mentions sacks:

He's also had more sacks..... if he was getting rid of the ball, instead of eating it, both these numbers would mean something. As is, those sacks could've been the play's we were looking for. They could've led to more points... they could've given us a chance to win.

Sorry, but you're bought and paid for the let me come up with a silly theory connecting less sacks with more INT's.

Oh look, here it is again:

.. if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints....

More sacks generally means more turnovers, not the other way around. Bottom line, this was another off-base reach to take a swipe at Carr.

TexansLucky13
04-04-2006, 04:50 PM
look at your last sentence... if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints....... if we had another QB, maybe we can get both, less sacks, less ints, more FDs, more TDs.....

I would advise you to look at your own last sentence. Unless you were birthed by the Virgin Mary... there is no way that you can support that statement. It is this typical anti-Carr sentiment that has fed the VY frenzy. Maybe UT has some unstated hatred for Fresno State, and that fuels it? Carr has shown that he is growing more patient, and dealing with the line from last year.... that was extremely impressive.

By the way.... We would never be replacing DD. He is useful for a handful of things that Reggie could never accomplish on his own. No, DD isnt injury "prone", but at least having another back on the field will reduce his wear, and give us more years with him.

Just give Carr this last season. If he can't make it work... then I will be here with you when we look for a QB next year. Give the guy some respect... he managed to keep his INT's below TD's, and his rating wasn't terrible enough to want to oust him.

TexansLucky13
04-04-2006, 04:53 PM
Also... are you aware that David has thrown for 10,000+ yards in 4 years? He stands beside John Elway in this. Hmm... what a coincidence. This may not sound too outstanding to you... but under Capers, David really didnt get much of a chance to throw like he did at Fresno. Elway started to gain his strength when Kubiak arrived.

Only time will tell if that may happen again.

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 04:57 PM
Are you being intentionally obtuse or can you seriously not remember or even think to reread what transpired. Your cute little quotes are one step removed from telling the story.



This was my original post. See anything in there about sacks?--nope.

This is your response--oh my god, look it mentions sacks:



Sorry, but you're bought and paid for the let me come up with a silly theory connecting less sacks with more INT's.

Oh look, here it is again:

Originally Posted by thunderkyss
.. if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints....

More sacks generally means more turnovers, not the other way around. Bottom line, this was another off-base reach to take a swipe at Carr.

Okay...... take a deep breath. read what I wrote... You mentioned he had more touchdowns than ints.... I said but he has more sacks, he should try to get rid of the ball more. Then you said, if the ball left his hand he would get intercepted. In the quote above, I was paraphrasing you..... my point was that those possible ints were also possible TDs, or first downs, or just incomplete passes(ok, I didn't say incomplete passes).

Maybe I should have put question marks in there, .. if his sack numbers were down, we'd have more ints??....
maybe that would help. But you said if the ball left David's hand, it would surely(or most likely) be intercepted, because it was an ill advised pass(I'm assuming you came up with that from what you've seen Carr do in those situations..... I don't know). Again, I'm paraphrasing.

Maybe that quote from David Carr about taking sacks instead of throwing ints is stuck in your head everytime you mention his TD/Int ratio.......

But don't be putting that on me.

You said he has a favorable TD/Int ratio... I said he also have more sacks.... if he didn't have those sacks, then the TD/Int ratio would be more meaningful to me.

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 04:58 PM
I would advise you to look at your own last sentence. Unless you were birthed by the Virgin Mary... there is no way that you can support that statement.


I don't have to support anything........ Maybe..... look it up.

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 05:02 PM
Also... are you aware that David has thrown for 10,000+ yards in 4 years? He stands beside John Elway in this. Hmm... what a coincidence. This may not sound too outstanding to you... but under Capers, David really didnt get much of a chance to throw like he did at Fresno. Elway started to gain his strength when Kubiak arrived.

Only time will tell if that may happen again.


So what you're saying, is that Joey Harrington is on his way to being the next Elway??

hmmm.

TexansLucky13
04-04-2006, 05:08 PM
So what you're saying, is that Joey Harrington is on his way to being the next Elway??

hmmm.

Huh? Harrington doesn't have Kubiak. Did I stutter? Haha, and Carr played better than him last year. Kinda pathetic.

infantrycak
04-04-2006, 05:17 PM
Then you said, if the ball left his hand he would get intercepted.

No then I questioned what seemed to be your position--hence the question mark you have quoted but ignored.

But you said if the ball left David's hand, it would surely(or most likely) be intercepted, because it was an ill advised pass(I'm assuming you came up with that from what you've seen Carr do in those situations..... I don't know). Again, I'm paraphrasing.

No you are making things up completely. Once again, see the question mark at the end of the question about what seemed to be your position.

You said he has a favorable TD/Int ratio... I said he also have more sacks.... if he didn't have those sacks, then the TD/Int ratio would be more meaningful to me.

The problem is this goes counter to conventional thinking. Generally speaking more pressure means more turnovers, not less. No not all the sacks or even a majority are Carr's fault so conventional wisdom still applies--less sacks on Carr should improve his TD/INT ratio if anything.

LikeABoss
04-04-2006, 05:47 PM
How many running backs have we had so far?? How many of them have performed like DD has for us??

There is not that many talented running backs on this roster to begin with. So Domanick outplaying all the other talentless running backs we've had on previous rosters is not speaking such huge volumes.

Marshall Faulk past his prime>>>Domanick Davis

:thumbdown @ people thinking 1,000 yard seasons is something to brag about:thumbdown

thunderkyss
04-04-2006, 07:00 PM
He's also had more sacks..... if he was getting rid of the ball, instead of eating it, both these numbers would mean something. As is, those sacks could've been the play's we were looking for. They could've led to more points... they could've given us a chance to win.

I said he could have thrown a touchdown, or made a play for us.

Nice jumping in with an off-topic Carr bash. I pointed out Carr has not thrown a bunch of INT's the last 2 years. Bringing up sacks is a BS response to that fact. What, you want him to have thrown the ball into ill advised INT's instead of take a sack?--brilliant.

You are stating here, it's a sack, or an INT......

even with the question mark. You're asking the question..... "would you rather David take a sack, or throw an INT?" Jerek's post affirms that......... he too thinks David is more likely to throw an int.........

I'm saying if Vinny Testeverdy(sp) would have held the ball a little more often, he would have a better TD/INT ratio.....

David's TD/INT ratio is meaningless, in light of the sacks...... that's the way I see it.