PDA

View Full Version : Have we got too caught up in excitement?


Haams
04-11-2006, 05:13 PM
Honest question guys, 'cause I might be guilty. Is this #1 pick going to hurt us? Are we so excited about getting to choose an elite player that now all we want to debate is Bush and Young, even though during the season we were in pretty much complete agreement that O-Line was a must in the draft. Honestly, QB and RB are the funnest positions to fill, but not necessarilly our biggest weakness. Picking either of those two means throwing the line on the back burner. So the question is: does picking either of the elite players actually place us a year back on building an elite team? I've got my opinions but I want to hear what y'all have to say.

kbourda
04-11-2006, 05:15 PM
If you ask me I think the O-Line got better once they hired Kubiak. I really just didn't care for the last head coaching regime that was here.

Grid
04-11-2006, 05:19 PM
I dont think it sets us back. Sherman and Kubiak will be the biggest contriutors to a working Oline, and a working offense. And this draft is deep at Oline..we can still address it in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th rounds..and still get good quality prospects.

Maddict5
04-11-2006, 05:34 PM
if we didnt have 4 1st day picks...and especially if we hadn't filled so many of our holes during FA, id agree with you, but now we're headed into the draft in better shape than i could've imagined

thunderkyss
04-11-2006, 05:38 PM
Honest question guys, 'cause I might be guilty. Is this #1 pick going to hurt us? Are we so excited about getting to choose an elite player that now all we want to debate is Bush and Young, even though during the season we were in pretty much complete agreement that O-Line was a must in the draft. Honestly, QB and RB are the funnest positions to fill, but not necessarilly our biggest weakness. Picking either of those two means throwing the line on the back burner. So the question is: does picking either of the elite players actually place us a year back on building an elite team? I've got my opinions but I want to hear what y'all have to say.


I don't know. D'brick is the only OLineman I think is worthy of the #1. Our problem is interior line more than the ends(tackles) I don't know if he's the "can't pass up" kind of player though. Most of the help we could get for the Oline, is going to be there for us with our 2nds and 3rd.

So if we decide to pick Vince........... or Reggie, it won't really hurt our ability to draft the help we need. Trading down to pick up a Safet/Corner is still a viable option.

Talking football in the offseason about relevant info, with guys who know what they are talking about....... priceless.

All though we may be going a tad overboard. There's a faction that wants to make sure everyone knows how stupid it is to want to draft Vince..... I'm getting to the point that I may find it hard to root for Reggie.....

nothing against Reggie, but I don't want to hear all the I told you so's.

I try to point out I don't have anything against Reggie. I like watching football. I like big plays, and I like it when it's our team making those big plays.

I don't have any reason to think Reggie won't be a success....... that has never been an issue for me.

But we shal see.

Mike Kerns
04-11-2006, 06:01 PM
First off, I am NOT naming any names or referring to anyone in particular. But, does it seem like a lot of the Pro Vince posters have realized that we wont be taking him & out of spite they want to trade down instead of taking Reggie. You are going to sit here & tell me that this team has too many needs to fill to draft reggie, but then turn around and say Take Vince ? A position that is taken and has a large dollar ammount tied up in. OK, I'm done, I just don't get that logic.:rolleyes:

CoastalTexan
04-11-2006, 08:07 PM
Everything a certain poster posts is about a certain player. If that makes sense.

infantrycak
04-11-2006, 08:40 PM
Honestly, QB and RB are the funnest positions to fill, but not necessarilly our biggest weakness. Picking either of those two means throwing the line on the back burner. So the question is: does picking either of the elite players actually place us a year back on building an elite team?

I'd say if your opinion is not to trade no matter what then yes you are caught up in the hype. Entertaining trade offers has to be part of the equation. At the other end of the spectrum though, you cannot pass up great talent without reasonable compensation so it would be wrong to trade just to trade as well. IMO taking Ferguson at #1 would be forcing a need and weakening the team relative to taking a better player--without a trade it isn't about filling multiple holes it is putting the most talent on the team.

thunderkyss
04-11-2006, 09:46 PM
I'd say if your opinion is not to trade no matter what then yes you are caught up in the hype. Entertaining trade offers has to be part of the equation. At the other end of the spectrum though, you cannot pass up great talent without reasonable compensation so it would be wrong to trade just to trade as well. IMO taking Ferguson at #1 would be forcing a need and weakening the team relative to taking a better player--without a trade it isn't about filling multiple holes it is putting the most talent on the team.


Right. Kubes & Cass has done a great job getting some pretty sweet talent on our team. On Offense in 2006, we can put 4 Probowlers on the field at any time, and will have three ProBowlers on most plays...... AJ, Mathis, Flanagan, & Molds... not bad, not bad at all........

Is the Offensive Line fixed?? I don't know...... but there's been quite a bit of activity on the OL......... Brown, gone. Weary signed...... early in Kubes tenor. McKinney paid, Pitts moved back to LT, and Flanagan signed...... and a TE....

And it's not just Kubiak, who has experience with Offensive line talent. he's got Mike Sherman putting in on all these decisions...... And I'm sure Dan Reeves helped in a few of these decisions also.

We've got a team....... on paper, a great team. We should be able to sit on the #1 pick, and expect top dollar........... but how do we define top dollar??

New Orleans might take D'Brick....... they might take Mario....... they might take a QB..... Lienart?? to bolster their QB situation..... Brees is only garunteed(sp) one year.
Tenessee is looking at Vince, and so is GreenBay(so I hear).....

NewYork will probably taking Reggie Bush if given the opportunity.... but could take Mario to replace Abraham, or D'Brick to protect Chad or whoever might be back there.

Nobody really knows what anyone is going to do with their picks....... if you want to gaurantee that you get the player you want...... you're going to need the #1.

Eyeguy
04-11-2006, 09:50 PM
Bush will make the OL better.

kastofsna
04-11-2006, 10:00 PM
no matter who you draft this year you won't be an elite team. so drafting a player simply on need and nothing else at #1 just isn't that smart.

Haams
04-12-2006, 09:00 AM
I'd say if your opinion is not to trade no matter what then yes you are caught up in the hype. Entertaining trade offers has to be part of the equation. At the other end of the spectrum though, you cannot pass up great talent without reasonable compensation so it would be wrong to trade just to trade as well. IMO taking Ferguson at #1 would be forcing a need and weakening the team relative to taking a better player--without a trade it isn't about filling multiple holes it is putting the most talent on the team.

I agree. I guess my question is have we done enough for the o-line already? and; if we have who is going to benefit more from it - Carr or Davis, or both? With a fixed o-line are running back or qb a need for us?

TreWardTxn
04-12-2006, 09:15 AM
Isn't the logic that there will be other productive/high-caliber DEs and LTs, but we don't expect to see another Bush (or Young) for another 15-20 years? You don't pass that up unless the offers you get are beyond sick...

Hopefully the changes made will appear to make Carr a much better player. If Davis runs for 1100 and Bush another 1300 (all purpose) there is no way Carr couldn't look better...

infantrycak
04-12-2006, 09:17 AM
With a fixed o-line are running back or qb a need for us?

Debateable, but there are certainly arguments either is upgradeable. The real issue with the #1 pick is not so much where the need is, but where the greatest talent lies in the draft. We could have no WR's on the roster and it wouldn't make sense to take the top WR at #1 to fill a need because the talent level isn't there this year. Forcing Ferguson into #1 and passing on Bush/Young would just be a lessor version of the same thing.

thunderkyss
04-12-2006, 09:17 AM
I agree. I guess my question is have we done enough for the o-line already? and; if we have who is going to benefit more from it - Carr or Davis, or both? With a fixed o-line are running back or qb a need for us?


It doesn't matter if we've done enough or not. We're not going to draft more than 2 OL if that many in 2006. We've already got the picks to do that, and have taken care of so many other needs, we really don't need a plethora of draft picks....

We're in prime position to sit and wait for a grandfather deal. before FA, other teams(GMs) new that we were hurting, and darn near desperate for more picks..... that is not true anymore. We're holding all the cards now.

Runner
04-12-2006, 09:35 AM
Is the Offensive Line fixed?? I don't know...... but there's been quite a bit of activity on the OL......... Brown, gone. Weary signed...... early in Kubes tenor. McKinney paid, Pitts moved back to LT, and Flanagan signed...... and a TE....

And it's not just Kubiak, who has experience with Offensive line talent. he's got Mike Sherman putting in on all these decisions...... And I'm sure Dan Reeves helped in a few of these decisions also.


I hope everyone feels the same way about Sherman's o-line competence when the starters are announced if/when they don't fit into the Pitts/McKinney/Flanagan/Weigert/X formula.

jerek
04-12-2006, 09:35 AM
Debateable, but there are certainly arguments either is upgradeable. The real issue with the #1 pick is not so much where the need is, but where the greatest talent lies in the draft. We could have no WR's on the roster and it wouldn't make sense to take the top WR at #1 to fill a need because the talent level isn't there this year. Forcing Ferguson into #1 and passing on Bush/Young would just be a lessor version of the same thing.

Agreed. I think Ferguson will be a good LT in this league and possibly even great depending on the coaching he receives and how much he can improve his game, but IMO at this time he is an incomplete package and has been overhyped. Wonderful physical gifts to be sure, but if you watch any substantial amount of his tape, he was used at the Senior Bowl and he gets easily beaten by inside moves, almost so repeatedly you would think he was intending the guy to get by. He has a lot of room for improvement but IMO at this time he is not a #1 caliber pickup. So if that Godfather trade does come along and we drop right into a spot where picking up Ferguson would be appropriate, then it becomes a different ballgame. But I do not think we will get that deal and will instead take Bush, though I wish we would take Williams.

Besides, I will go on record as saying that between Sherman and Kubiak and picking up Flanagan (plus later round O-line possibilites) ... our line is already substantially better than it was last year, and might prove to be downright decent. Hell, even pretty good. Look for us to draft O-line or possibly acquire more after the June 1 cuts, but we have already made big strides. So far our offseason is looking quite productive -- the first time I have felt good about our offseason since Day 1 -- and I hope this is a tradition that Kubiak and Co. are setting for the future.

thunderkyss
04-12-2006, 11:42 AM
I hope everyone feels the same way about Sherman's o-line competence when the starters are announced if/when they don't fit into the Pitts/McKinney/Flanagan/Weigert/X formula.


I think right now, we're thinking:

Pitts/McKinney/Flanagan/Weary/ Weigart(or X)

Frank_The_Tank
04-12-2006, 11:51 AM
History also shows that the great OL are usually not taken in the first round. Look at the past three years, Alex Barron, Robert Gallery. I think Bass fell to the second or third last yeasr and he was awsome. Of course you have guys like Ogdon, and Pace who were top picks but there have ben alot of first round bust in the OL. All in all its a gamble. You look at all of the sure hit draft picks who have flopped and it proves that no one is a guarentee. I think we need help in the CB, S, and OL. Ty Law is still out there but he asking for huge money. Brad Hopkins is still out there? The draft can be for fun so go for the risky gambles, the only way we can address the problems we have is to bring in some vetran help. Just my 2 cent's We have done a very good job of bringing in those vets this offseason

Texas
04-12-2006, 11:55 AM
I think we take bush...2nd round and 3rd round we can adress O-line needs and S-FS needs.

Trenches
04-12-2006, 12:33 PM
I guess the safest thing to say is that having a HIGH FIRST ROUND PICK is a big gamble. Be it RB, QB or OL its a huge investment with a lot of pressure and expectations.

I will be fine with Bush. He does have amazing ability. Lets just hope that this group does a better job drafting overall.

Meskin
04-12-2006, 12:41 PM
First off, I am NOT naming any names or referring to anyone in particular. But, does it seem like a lot of the Pro Vince posters have realized that we wont be taking him & out of spite they want to trade down instead of taking Reggie. You are going to sit here & tell me that this team has too many needs to fill to draft reggie, but then turn around and say Take Vince ? A position that is taken and has a large dollar ammount tied up in. OK, I'm done, I just don't get that logic.:rolleyes:



out of the million replies you've posted, i think you've made your point.
everyone here knows you worship reggie, and you think that peolpe who like vince are idiots. we get it, let it go already. does it really matter who's right? every reply of yours that i've seen sounds a little like you may be falling for reggie. I'M JUST SAYING

Runner
04-12-2006, 01:06 PM
I think right now, we're thinking:

Pitts/McKinney/Flanagan/Weary/ Weigart(or X)

That is a good summary of the current belief system.


We could do this like a game show! {clock ticking in the background}

You have two positions correct - what would you like to change?


Why does everyone assume McKinney is the LG - because he played a couple of games on that side last year during the injury reshuffles? Why couldn't he be the RG?

MorKnolle
04-12-2006, 10:06 PM
That is a good summary of the current belief system.


We could do this like a game show! {clock ticking in the background}

You have two positions correct - what would you like to change?


Why does everyone assume McKinney is the LG - because he played a couple of games on that side last year during the injury reshuffles? Why couldn't he be the RG?

I personally would prefer McKinney at RG, I think he's a much better run blocker than pass blocker, and generally you want your better pass blockers on your QB's blind side (LG in this case) and your stronger run blockers on the other side.

kcwilson
04-12-2006, 10:12 PM
The biggest problem with the #1 pick is not a problem the Texans have, but that the fans have. Basically, since the Texans can choose anyone, they are only going to get second guessed upon two years from now if Mario Williams is fantastic and our d still sucks.

I think Bush will be good, but when you consider the other talent we passed up, that will provide fodder for the message boards. It is a good problem to have if you are the Texans.

Bush is the smart, less risky choice. We have been starving for an offense and if we can put that together this year, then next year will be about defense (with many 1 year contracts expiring). Realistically playoffs are in 2007. If our offense is high octance, then that will qwell the appetities for the fans since we have never had a great offense. TD's cure booing.

Mike Kerns
04-12-2006, 11:03 PM
out of the million replies you've posted, i think you've made your point.
everyone here knows you worship reggie, and you think that peolpe who like vince are idiots. we get it, let it go already. does it really matter who's right? every reply of yours that i've seen sounds a little like you may be falling for reggie. I'M JUST SAYING
Take your 14 posts and go back into lurktirement.

thunderkyss
04-13-2006, 10:09 AM
I personally would prefer McKinney at RG, I think he's a much better run blocker than pass blocker, and generally you want your better pass blockers on your QB's blind side (LG in this case) and your stronger run blockers on the other side.

Because, I believe, McKinney was drafted as a LG, and Weary was signed as RG.

Runner
04-13-2006, 10:20 AM
Because, I believe, McKinney was drafted as a LG, and Weary was signed as RG.

Well, I'm sure the coaches have enough flexibility of thought to switch them if that seems appropriate.

sangien
04-13-2006, 12:08 PM
You huys are short sighted, Bush this , Young that. The rubber meets the road in the trenches. All of you riding Bushes Jock will see that if the line does not improve. Running Back is not our weak spot!! You are blinded by the glitz and glamor but are missing the meaning of TEAM!

Meskin
04-13-2006, 12:30 PM
Take your 14 posts and go back into lurktirement.

i would but i have no idea what lurktirement means. but i will stop talking about reggie because i think i struck a nerve.

#15 :redtowel:

hollywood_texan
04-13-2006, 05:16 PM
You huys are short sighted, Bush this , Young that. The rubber meets the road in the trenches. All of you riding Bushes Jock will see that if the line does not improve. Running Back is not our weak spot!! You are blinded by the glitz and glamor but are missing the meaning of TEAM!

Exactly. Very well put.

I would just add that great coaching/schemes and play calling are most important, which means having a system and drafting players to fit the system, not the other way around. The talent level is so close in the NFL that a great coach with a good defensive talent can shut down a high-octane offense. For example, the Colts against Pittsburgh in the playoffs.

More focus on the coach and the system is what is needed and I think Kubiak will do that.