PDA

View Full Version : No Interest In Walker Or Wells?


cuppacoffee
05-29-2006, 09:41 AM
Just sitting here thinking about all the changes in our Texans roster.

Several of the released Texan players have found new homes.

M Brown, J Gaffney, D Ragone, T Walker, M Norris to name a few.

Why not G Walker or J Wells. I think that maybe Walker might be a mid-season pickup by someone, but Wells supposedly plays well on special teams and was a serviceable backup running back, or so I thought.

Also our previous second string QB T Banks has not been picked up either.

Kinda strange that multiple teams put in a claim for our third string QB when he was released but no interest has been shown in our second stringer.

Is this further proof of the ineptness of the previous coaching regime?

Seems like a really large turnover, with a lot of released players being picked up.

Good luck to them all.....except for when they return to play against us..:D

:coffee:

Kaiser Toro
05-29-2006, 09:49 AM
I am not surprised that those would be the three that are currently not on a roster at the moment and all for different reasons. Walker will find a team after June 1st. Banks is awful and Wells is a dime a dozen type player.

cj5776
05-29-2006, 10:04 AM
if Wells is a dime a dozen player, why are the Texans looking for similiar fb/rb tweener but have not found anybody? Maybe they have but are waiting until after June 1

Kaiser Toro
05-29-2006, 10:13 AM
if Wells is a dime a dozen player, why are the Texans looking for similiar fb/rb tweener but have not found anybody? Maybe they have but are waiting until after June 1

I am not sure what your question or statement has to do with Wells.

aj.
05-29-2006, 10:18 AM
Gary Walker was getting some interest from Jax and Miami back in April but there won't be many suitors for a guy with his penchant for injury - missed 19 games over the last three seasons. I wouldn't be surprised if he retired, unless he can snooker another million out of Capers and Saban.

Here's the full list of homeless (those who were on the team last season through present):

Tony Banks
Gary Walker
Jerry DeLoach
Zeke Moreno
Chris Doering
Todd Washington
Jonathan Wells
Frank Chamberlin

And those with new homes:

Marcus Coleman - Dallas
Junior Ioane - NYG
Jason Bell - NYG
Tyson Walter - Wash
Corey Bradford - Det
Moran Norris - SF
Milford Brown - AZ
JAbar Gaffney - Phil
Dave Ragone - Cincy
Tony Hollings - Chi
Marcellus Rivers - Oak

Chato
05-29-2006, 10:21 AM
Did anyone else hear Martz singing the praises of Corey bradford? Too funny. Oh yeah....big time receivier alright. LOL

cj5776
05-29-2006, 10:49 AM
sorry for not being more clear, I just felt like Wells should have been brought back. I understand the zone blocking scheme and how fullbacks have to be quck like rbs, but right now Q Hill, an undrafted rookie, is the 2nd fullback. I agree cutting a guy early is good for the player but why not keep him until you have real options?

Even if the Saints trade does through. Where do the Texans make room for Bennit? Would you have Cook and the other four, can any of them play FB?

Mailman04
05-29-2006, 11:03 AM
RBs like Wells are a dime a dozen that is why he is out of work. He isn't powerful for his size and he sure isn't fast by NFL RB standards.

carter08
05-29-2006, 05:51 PM
Usually, new coaches turn over the rosters.

I'm surprised Gaffney was signed

Keldar
05-29-2006, 06:16 PM
And those with new homes:

Marcus Coleman - Dallas
Junior Ioane - NYG
Jason Bell - NYG
Tyson Walter - Wash
Corey Bradford - Det
Moran Norris - SF
Milford Brown - AZ
JAbar Gaffney - Phil
Dave Ragone - Cincy
Tony Hollings - Chi
Marcellus Rivers - Oak
It's gonna be very interesting to see how many of these are still on the team after training camp.

TexanFan881
05-29-2006, 06:16 PM
I think Gary Walker had himself a few teams interested in him a few weeks ago...hopefully June 1st reignites the interest in him.

carter08
05-29-2006, 06:32 PM
I liked Rivers. Better than Bruener at TE

cj5776
05-29-2006, 07:13 PM
Actaully it looks like Rivers will try to make it as a tackle. The reall question is Halterman or Joppru. Peutzer, Daniels, and Bruener are locks. If they carry 4TEs, another blocking TE would make sense. Peutzier and Daniels are very weak blockers. If that is the case then the edge should go to Halterman. We will see.

aj.
05-29-2006, 07:24 PM
Rivers is a Raider.

I think you mean Murphy, who has very little chance of making the 53 as a tackle, and probably less as a TE considering the switch..

Hardcore Texan
05-29-2006, 07:34 PM
Actaully it looks like Rivers will try to make it as a tackle. The reall question is Halterman or Joppru. Peutzer, Daniels, and Bruener are locks. If they carry 4TEs, another blocking TE would make sense. Peutzier and Daniels are very weak blockers. If that is the case then the edge should go to Halterman. We will see.


Some of our TE's will probably play Fullback, I remember hearing something awhile back, when we drafted Daniels. I think it was a quote from Kubiak from one of the news stories, if memory serves.

Bobo
05-29-2006, 07:38 PM
Just sitting here thinking about all the changes in our Texans roster.

Several of the released Texan players have found new homes.

M Brown, J Gaffney, D Ragone, T Walker, M Norris to name a few.

Why not G Walker or J Wells. I think that maybe Walker might be a mid-season pickup by someone, but Wells supposedly plays well on special teams and was a serviceable backup running back, or so I thought.

Also our previous second string QB T Banks has not been picked up either.

Kinda strange that multiple teams put in a claim for our third string QB when he was released but no interest has been shown in our second stringer.

Is this further proof of the ineptness of the previous coaching regime?

Seems like a really large turnover, with a lot of released players being picked up.

Good luck to them all.....except for when they return to play against us..:D

:coffee:

Good grief! This just shows the rather strange manner folks continually want to blame a regime for one bad season, just because its second string QB wasn't picked up. Seems to me that perhaps you should start thinking about the fact that Dave Ragone was the team's second string QB and was gobbled up when released. Seems to me this shows the ineptitude of the current regime.

carter08
05-29-2006, 07:49 PM
Joppru has to be the biggest dissapointment in team history

beerlover
05-29-2006, 07:51 PM
Joppru has to be the biggest dissapointment in team history

check that, gotta be Tony Hollings :brickwall

carter08
05-29-2006, 08:05 PM
Tony Boselli never played

mexican_texan
05-29-2006, 10:13 PM
Tony Boselli never played
But Payne and Walker wouldn't be here without him. Or so I've heard.

DocBar
05-30-2006, 12:42 PM
I don't think too many of our cast-offs are gonna be on teams in Sept. Especially not high-priced ones. I at least want to give Joppru a chance to prove he can keep from having a freak accident. I think Charles Hill has to be one of the biggest disappointments so far. Hollings is running a close second.

Samer
05-30-2006, 12:59 PM
I like the fact that the team has released a good number of players who were a waste of a spot and brought in players who will be alot better.

wrestler4life
05-30-2006, 01:27 PM
It is sad that we actually took the field with this drivel

jerek
05-30-2006, 02:02 PM
FWIW I have heard that Wells (like Walker) was a negative locker room influence and that he often complained he wasn't receiving adequate PT. Either way his play made him a sufficient stopgap, but totally expendable IMO. As a blocker/ST he wasn't bad, but as a runner ... I've never seen a 250 lb'er try to dance that much.

I am surprised guys like Bradford and Coleman have found new homes. You would think their play speaks for itself.

Bobo
05-30-2006, 03:00 PM
FWIW I have heard that Wells (like Walker) was a negative locker room influence and that he often complained he wasn't receiving adequate PT. Either way his play made him a sufficient stopgap, but totally expendable IMO. As a blocker/ST he wasn't bad, but as a runner ... I've never seen a 250 lb'er try to dance that much.

I am surprised guys like Bradford and Coleman have found new homes. You would think their play speaks for itself.

A.) Bradford is currently the WR #2 on the Lions depth chart. B.) Dave Ragone was cut and the Bengals quickly picked him up -- with the Colts having also filed for him as well. C.) Wells ran for 88 yards, scored two TDs and added 33 reception yards in one of the two Texans wins last year. He also duplicated the yardage in his other start. Why they cut him, I'll never know. He knew he was a backup and I never heard about any gritching about playing time during his tenure. Of course, there is always a certain amount of dissatisfaction if you aren't playing. After all, if somebody was actually happy sitting on the bench all the time, would you really want him on your team?

Bobo
05-30-2006, 03:06 PM
I like the fact that the team has released a good number of players who were a waste of a spot and brought in players who will be alot better.

Yeah, right. Dave Ragone, Jonathan Wells and Jabbar Gaffney were all wastes of spots. Dave Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and when he was cut, there were teams in line waiting for him. Instead, Kubiak picked up ... Sage Rosenfels. Wonderful tradeoff. Jonathan Wells scored two TDs, gained 88 yards, and added 33 in reception yardage to help the Texans literally win half of their victories last year. Instead, they go out and pick up some first-round washout who has been on almost a different team every year. Then they let go of Jabbar Gaffney, a guy who finished fourth in 2004 in lowest dropped pass percentage in the entire league and instead, they go out and pay some old guy who has caught 10 TDs in three years and is decreasing in many #s a boatload of money. Yep, these players sound to me like they are going to be a lot better than the other ones they got rid of. Yep. Yep.

Bobo
05-30-2006, 03:08 PM
I don't think too many of our cast-offs are gonna be on teams in Sept. Especially not high-priced ones. I at least want to give Joppru a chance to prove he can keep from having a freak accident. I think Charles Hill has to be one of the biggest disappointments so far. Hollings is running a close second.

Um, who are the "high priced ones?'

Bobo
05-30-2006, 03:09 PM
Joppru has to be the biggest dissapointment in team history

Seeing that the guy hasn't played a down yet, how can you say that?

cj5776
06-01-2006, 03:21 PM
Bradford going to Detriot with the signing bonus he get surprised me also. The Martz system needs a lot of wideouts who are downfield threats and I guess they see him as a stopgap. Our former wr coach is the wr coach there, which helps. He was the guy that was a former Xfl coach. Which is odd that a coach connected to anything tough would want Bradford, ha ha.

jaayteetx
06-01-2006, 05:07 PM
When did Dave Ragone get cut?

Exascor
06-01-2006, 05:11 PM
When did Dave Ragone get cut?May 19th :)

CloakNNNdagger
06-01-2006, 05:39 PM
Bradford going to Detriot with the signing bonus he get surprised me also. The Martz system needs a lot of wideouts who are downfield threats and I guess they see him as a stopgap. Our former wr coach is the wr coach there, which helps. He was the guy that was a former Xfl coach. Which is odd that a coach connected to anything tough would want Bradford, ha ha.

The ball's up in the air...........Bradford's beat his man..............at the 20.....at the 15........at the 5........he's into the end zone...............TOUCHDO......................wa it..............WITHOUT THE BALL.:brickwall

cj5776
06-01-2006, 05:51 PM
He really got a sweet gig, he will be Carson Palmer's back up in Cinnci. I don't know how he is doing in his rehab, but he can not start opening week... the only competition Ragone will face will be from Anthony Wright. Kinda funny a former cowgirl and a former Texan are backing up Palmer.

rafterticket
06-02-2006, 11:28 AM
I am not surprised that those would be the three that are currently not on a roster at the moment and all for different reasons. Walker will find a team after June 1st. Banks is awful and Wells is a dime a dozen type player.

I wouldn't argue with your point, but I can't believe Hollings got a job before Wells.

I almost forgot Tony was on the team last year.

Vinny
06-02-2006, 12:40 PM
I wouldn't argue with your point, but I can't believe Hollings got a job before Wells. Hollings is still a bit of an unknown to other teams but Wells is on film enough to tag him sufficiently I think. Wells is really underwhelming as a back imo. I think Walker lands with someone if he can keep his weight down.

bigbrewster2000
06-02-2006, 02:21 PM
Yeah, right. Dave Ragone, Jonathan Wells and Jabbar Gaffney were all wastes of spots. Dave Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and when he was cut, there were teams in line waiting for him. Instead, Kubiak picked up ... Sage Rosenfels. Wonderful tradeoff. Jonathan Wells scored two TDs, gained 88 yards, and added 33 in reception yardage to help the Texans literally win half of their victories last year. Instead, they go out and pick up some first-round washout who has been on almost a different team every year. Then they let go of Jabbar Gaffney, a guy who finished fourth in 2004 in lowest dropped pass percentage in the entire league and instead, they go out and pay some old guy who has caught 10 TDs in three years and is decreasing in many #s a boatload of money. Yep, these players sound to me like they are going to be a lot better than the other ones they got rid of. Yep. Yep.

Bobo,
with those kind of comments I will assume that you are trying to come out of your retirement as a clown.

Wells and Ragone no longer fit our offensive scheme. Wells is a North/South 3yds and a cloud of dust guy. We needed more cut and go RB's. Ragone is not mobile enough for the new offense and since has only seen action in 2 NFL games (a few years ago) no one would give up anything to get him, regardless of his talent. NFL Europe doesn't mean squat by the way. And finally Jabar Gaffney, who cares what he did in '04, in '05 he didn't seem to have enough concentration to run the right routes or turn around in time to not let a ball hit him on the side of the arm(twice). Pathetic. Moulds has more talent in his pinkey than Gaffney. Oh, one last thing, it is not saying much that Bradford is the #2 in Detroit, Mike Williams still didn't know the offense at the end of the season and Charles Rodgers can't stay out of trouble, plus neither one of those guys have been showing the effort that they should be in order to be a sucess in the NFL.

Get behind our team nay sayer

done88
06-02-2006, 02:57 PM
Seeing that the guy hasn't played a down yet, how can you say that?
If your not a Texan fan find a different site. Like it or not these are the players we have. Until they either perform or not we have to excited about the oppurtunity they might perform. They cannot do any worse then the old players. You are attacking al the new free agents in a different post. If you are a bitter depressed person find somewhere else to complain.

infantrycak
06-02-2006, 03:23 PM
If your not a Texan fan find a different site. Like it or not these are the players we have. Until they either perform or not we have to excited about the oppurtunity they might perform. They cannot do any worse then the old players. You are attacking al the new free agents in a different post. If you are a bitter depressed person find somewhere else to complain.

He isn't a Texans fan. He is a Titans fan who likes to stir things up here.

Runner
06-02-2006, 03:35 PM
Ragone no longer fit our offensive scheme. Ragone is not mobile enough for the new offense and since has only seen action in 2 NFL games (a few years ago) no one would give up anything to get him, regardless of his talent.

I wouldn't be too sure about all this. From what I've seen of Ragone he had very good pocket presence and was mobile enough inside the pocket to be a successful QB. I also wouldn't be surprised if he was mobile enough to run a controlled roll-out offense, even if he's not a "scrambler"

-----------------------------

As far as trades, how do we know someone didn't try to trade for him when the team was still intent on keeping him? Ragone's release may have been with mutual agreement where the team let him go to further his career. He could well be a #2 QB somewhere, and the Texans had him buried at #3 - again. If he asked, the team probably decided they'd rather let him go then have him unhappy at #3.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 08:13 PM
He isn't a Texans fan. He is a Titans fan who likes to stir things up here.

You can question my Texans allegiance. Fine. But to say I am a Titans fan is not true. Most people understand that it is possible for two people to choose the same name -- except those who do not want to understand.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 08:14 PM
If your not a Texan fan find a different site. Like it or not these are the players we have. Until they either perform or not we have to excited about the oppurtunity they might perform. They cannot do any worse then the old players. You are attacking al the new free agents in a different post. If you are a bitter depressed person find somewhere else to complain.

Hmm. Using this rationale, there was no reason for those who criticized Capers after just two games last season. After all, he was the coach the Texans had. Until he was given a chance then folks should have been excited about the opportunity the team might perform. Thus, since so many folks were criticizing Capers before he even barely started the season, it seems to me that this board is open for criticism of the team, no matter what the time period happens to be. My criticisms of this team are legitimate and I don't see you answering why I am not pleased with these players. Duly noted.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 08:37 PM
Bobo,
with those kind of comments I will assume that you are trying to come out of your retirement as a clown.

Wells and Ragone no longer fit our offensive scheme. Wells is a North/South 3yds and a cloud of dust guy. We needed more cut and go RB's. Ragone is not mobile enough for the new offense and since has only seen action in 2 NFL games (a few years ago) no one would give up anything to get him, regardless of his talent. NFL Europe doesn't mean squat by the way. And finally Jabar Gaffney, who cares what he did in '04, in '05 he didn't seem to have enough concentration to run the right routes or turn around in time to not let a ball hit him on the side of the arm(twice). Pathetic. Moulds has more talent in his pinkey than Gaffney. Oh, one last thing, it is not saying much that Bradford is the #2 in Detroit, Mike Williams still didn't know the offense at the end of the season and Charles Rodgers can't stay out of trouble, plus neither one of those guys have been showing the effort that they should be in order to be a sucess in the NFL.

Get behind our team nay sayer

A.) The comment about "retirement as a clown" is nonsensical and nothing but an attrempted insult. B.) The belief that Wells and Ragone "no longer fit the system" can be used as an excuse to cut anybody. Cut AJ? Well, he no longer fit our system. Cut Davis? He no longer fits the system. If NFL Europe doesn't mean anything, why do so many NFL teams take advantage of it by sending folks over there for seasoning? The fact that Ragone starred there is not something that should be ignored -- obviously that was proven by the Bengals. C.) As for Gaffney, the fact is he does NOT drop passes. If he wasn't dropping them in 2004, he wasn't dropping them in 05. I could not find stats regarding passes dropped pct., but I have to figure that concentration regarding passes won't change in a year. I would like to see the proof where Gaffney didn't have the concentration to run pass routes. After all, why continue to run routes when your QB has already been sacked? It's one thing to run out a ground ball, but it's another thing to continue running when you've already been declared out. D.) I would say the fact that Bradford is currently #2 WR in Detroit is indeed saying a whole lot when the team drafted WRs as #1 picks for three years in a row. E.) "Get behind our team?" Does that mean not criticizing it? Then why all the flack on Capers after just two games last year, both of which the Texans were not expected to win? Seems to me that this board is not just a place to wave the pom-poms. The criticism of this team is warranted.

Brandon420tx
06-02-2006, 08:43 PM
A.) The comment about "retirement as a clown" is nonsensical and nothing but an attrempted insult. B.) The belief that Wells and Ragone "no longer fit the system" can be used as an excuse to cut anybody. Cut AJ? Well, he no longer fit our system. Cut Davis? He no longer fits the system. C.) As for Gaffney, the fact is he does NOT drop passes. If he wasn't dropping them in 2004, he wasn't dropping them in 05. I could not find stats regarding passes dropped pct., but I have to figure that concentration regarding passes won't change in a year. I would like to see the proof where Gaffney didn't have the concentration to run pass routes. After all, why continue to run routes when your QB has already been sacked? It's one thing to run out a ground ball, but it's another thing to continue running when you've already been declared out. D.) If NFL Europe doesn't mean anything, why do so many NFL teams take advantage of it by sending folks over there for seasoning? The fact that Ragone starred there is not something that should be ignored -- obviously that was proven by the Bengals. E.) I would say the fact that Bradford is currently #2 WR in Detroit is indeed saying a whole lot when the team drafted WRs as #1 picks for three years in a row. F.) "Get behind our team?" Does that mean not criticizing it? Then why all the flack on Capers after just two games last year, both of which the Texans were not expected to win? Seems to me that this board is not just a place to wave the pom-poms. The criticism of this team is warranted.
I have to spread Bobo some rep here, I know I know, leave me alone, but he made good points, of course Point C). and E). are never going to be widely shared veiwpoints on this forums, The only good thing I can see about Bradford is that he maybe maybe may-be could knock some sense into the Lions WR (Kinda, don't let your career end up like mine talk) and I think the Eagles are really hurting at WR right now, the rest of the team looks good though... well the defense looks good to me... Good post tho Bobo.

mexican_texan
06-02-2006, 08:47 PM
You may not like Bobo, but he's one of my favorite posters here. He sees things from a different light, possibly a dim one. Some of us are waaay too optimistic, while he seems to see things more realistically. He's not a hater, he's an elevator, he brings us back down to Earth.

infantrycak
06-02-2006, 10:10 PM
You can question my Texans allegiance. Fine. But to say I am a Titans fan is not true. Most people understand that it is possible for two people to choose the same name -- except those who do not want to understand.

Cool, you not only have the same screen name you have the same IP address. No problem. Look, you seem like you have a better than average football knowledge, but come here and troll to stir up the pot and you'll get called out. Try not injecting stir the pot negativity into every thread and we welcome perspectives from other fans. For reference, see Huge, our resident Cowboys fan who is very well respected (and honest about his affiliation).

disaacks3
06-02-2006, 10:34 PM
Yeah, right. Dave Ragone, Jonathan Wells and Jabbar Gaffney were all wastes of spots. Dave Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and when he was cut, there were teams in line waiting for him. Instead, Kubiak picked up ... Sage Rosenfels. Wonderful tradeoff. Jonathan Wells scored two TDs, gained 88 yards, and added 33 in reception yardage to help the Texans literally win half of their victories last year. Instead, they go out and pick up some first-round washout who has been on almost a different team every year. Then they let go of Jabbar Gaffney, a guy who finished fourth in 2004 in lowest dropped pass percentage in the entire league and instead, they go out and pay some old guy who has caught 10 TDs in three years and is decreasing in many #s a boatload of money. Yep, these players sound to me like they are going to be a lot better than the other ones they got rid of. Yep. Yep. I'll take my stab at the good / bad in there...IMHO, of course!

1. To be honest, I'm not sold on Rosenfels either, but Ragone was still an unknown entity against NFL-caliber talent. For every Arena-league sensation like Kurt Warner, there are 30 failures. It was Kubiak's call on a guy he knows better, simple as that.

2. Jonathan Wells, even in an "RB-friendly, Denver-zone-blocking" offense wasn't good enough to keep. He was a decent 3rd-down back, but his speed is FAR from special.

3. Gaffney, I'm really torn about losing. I thought he was on the verge of being a really good Keyshawn Johnson-type who didn't have blinding speed, but was a good possession guy over the middle. I'll truly miss him.

MorKnolle
06-02-2006, 10:48 PM
A.) The comment about "retirement as a clown" is nonsensical and nothing but an attrempted insult. B.) The belief that Wells and Ragone "no longer fit the system" can be used as an excuse to cut anybody. Cut AJ? Well, he no longer fit our system. Cut Davis? He no longer fits the system. If NFL Europe doesn't mean anything, why do so many NFL teams take advantage of it by sending folks over there for seasoning? The fact that Ragone starred there is not something that should be ignored -- obviously that was proven by the Bengals. C.) As for Gaffney, the fact is he does NOT drop passes. If he wasn't dropping them in 2004, he wasn't dropping them in 05. I could not find stats regarding passes dropped pct., but I have to figure that concentration regarding passes won't change in a year. I would like to see the proof where Gaffney didn't have the concentration to run pass routes. After all, why continue to run routes when your QB has already been sacked? It's one thing to run out a ground ball, but it's another thing to continue running when you've already been declared out. D.) I would say the fact that Bradford is currently #2 WR in Detroit is indeed saying a whole lot when the team drafted WRs as #1 picks for three years in a row. E.) "Get behind our team?" Does that mean not criticizing it? Then why all the flack on Capers after just two games last year, both of which the Texans were not expected to win? Seems to me that this board is not just a place to wave the pom-poms. The criticism of this team is warranted.

B) The Bengals signed Ragone to a minimum contract to battle for backup duty during camp, and I'm not betting that he beats out Reggie McNeal, Doug Johnson, and Anthony Wright for that spot. Them signing him to their training camp squad hardly proves anything. Ragone is not a mobile QB, he definitely cannot throw the ball on the run, and he's just not that good, so why would we keep him? Kubiak has orchestrated the #1 overall scoring and yards offense in the NFL over the last 11 years, if he doesn't think a QB fits his system then I am fully ready to trust him on that.

D) The fact that Martz mentioned one time that as of right now he sees Bradford as the #2 WR means next to nothing. It either means that Martz simply hasn't seen enough of his guys yet or else the Lions were even dumber the last three drafts than everyone gave them credit for, it is hardly reason to criticize Kubiak for cutting him. If Martz is indeed sincere in that assessment, the rotation right now is not of much consequence come September, they still probably have a couple mini camps and all of training camp to go.

Yeah, right. Dave Ragone, Jonathan Wells and Jabbar Gaffney were all wastes of spots. Dave Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and when he was cut, there were teams in line waiting for him. Instead, Kubiak picked up ... Sage Rosenfels. Wonderful tradeoff. Jonathan Wells scored two TDs, gained 88 yards, and added 33 in reception yardage to help the Texans literally win half of their victories last year. Instead, they go out and pick up some first-round washout who has been on almost a different team every year. Then they let go of Jabbar Gaffney, a guy who finished fourth in 2004 in lowest dropped pass percentage in the entire league and instead, they go out and pay some old guy who has caught 10 TDs in three years and is decreasing in many #s a boatload of money. Yep, these players sound to me like they are going to be a lot better than the other ones they got rid of. Yep. Yep.

Dave Ragone was a questionable pick at the time who never developed into anything. Sure we had lousy coaching but our current staff (orchestator of the #1 offense in the NFL over the last 11 years and notorious for developing QBs) decided that Ragone did not fit what they were wanting to do and that he was not worth keeping around. Rosenfels is at least somewhat athletic.

Jonathan Wells gained 87 yards on 28 carries (3.1 average) and 2 TD, plus 1 catch for 11 yards against Arizona. He added 86 yards on 21 carries (4.1 average) and 33 receiving yards against Jacksonville, 56 yards on 13 carries (4.3 average) and 1 TD, plus 45 receiving yards in the other game against Jacksonville, and then 58 yards on 15 carries (3.9 average), 1 TD, plus 17 receiving yards against Indy. Those were his four starts on the year, not especially impressive to outweigh his lockerroom grumblings and him not fitting Kubiak's system. The fact that he's been on the open market for over a month without being signed by any of the other 31 teams should be evidence that he is not very good.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 10:48 PM
I'll take my stab at the good / bad in there...IMHO, of course!

1. To be honest, I'm not sold on Rosenfels either, but Ragone was still an unknown entity against NFL-caliber talent. For every Arena-league sensation like Kurt Warner, there are 30 failures. It was Kubiak's call on a guy he knows better, simple as that.

2. Jonathan Wells, even in an "RB-friendly, Denver-zone-blocking" offense wasn't good enough to keep. He was a decent 3rd-down back, but his speed is FAR from special.

3. Gaffney, I'm really torn about losing. I thought he was on the verge of being a really good Keyshawn Johnson-type who didn't have blinding speed, but was a good possession guy over the middle. I'll truly miss him.

A.) Choosing a guy you know better is simply nepotism, plain and simple. Seems to me that you must put that kind of stuff aside and go with the better player. Looking at Ragone's success, it seems that Kubiak did not make this decision based on pootential. BTW, Ragone was in NFL Europe, not the Arena League. For more info on NFL Europe: http://www.footballstories.com/articles/opinion.asp?ArtID=162
B.) Wells was an excellent backup and he proved that in the two games he started last year when Davis was out. Davis will be the starter, so now you have to look for a person who is successful as a backup. Wells met that need and there was no reason to get rid of him. He proved himself more than capable of filling in when necessary.
C.) You're right about Gaffney. The Texans should have kept him. The problem wasn't Gaffney, nor was it Armstrong or any Texans receiver. The problem was the fact that Carr never had enough time to deliver anybody the ball. Bringing in an old guy whose #s are declining as he ages and then pay him a ton of money instead of keeping a steady guy who would have gotten better if the real problem is dealt with was a mistake, plain and simple.

beerlover
06-02-2006, 10:59 PM
A.) Choosing a guy you know better is simply nepotism, plain and simple. Seems to me that you must put that kind of stuff aside and go with the better player. Looking at Ragone's success, it seems that Kubiak did not make this decision based on pootential. BTW, Ragone was in NFL Europe, not the Arena League. For more info on NFL Europe: http://www.footballstories.com/articles/opinion.asp?ArtID=162
B.) Wells was an excellent backup and he proved that in the two games he started last year when Davis was out. Davis will be the starter, so now you have to look for a person who is successful as a backup. Wells met that need and there was no reason to get rid of him. He proved himself more than capable of filling in when necessary.
C.) You're right about Gaffney. The Texans should have kept him. The problem wasn't Gaffney, nor was it Armstrong or any Texans receiver. The problem was the fact that Carr never had enough time to deliver anybody the ball. Bringing in an old guy whose #s are declining as he ages and then pay him a ton of money instead of keeping a steady guy who would have gotten better if the real problem is dealt with was a mistake, plain and simple.

nepotize this bobo- Ragone does not fit Kubiak's system. so here is what you do, wish him luck with another team and hope the best for both parties involved. end of discussion :ok:

Wells is a back-up, you said it yourself. seems to me like the Texans are loaded already in this area :rolleyes:

Gaffney, Smaffney I only miss the fact that the Texans could have drafted better with the 1st overall pick of the 2nd round in 2002. he had four years of productive yet un-inspiring numbers, to lump him in the same category with Moulds is your mistake :tease:

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:02 PM
B) The Bengals signed Ragone to a minimum contract to battle for backup duty during camp, and I'm not betting that he beats out Reggie McNeal, Doug Johnson, and Anthony Wright for that spot. Them signing him to their training camp squad hardly proves anything. Ragone is not a mobile QB, he definitely cannot throw the ball on the run, and he's just not that good, so why would we keep him? Kubiak has orchestrated the #1 overall scoring and yards offense in the NFL over the last 11 years, if he doesn't think a QB fits his system then I am fully ready to trust him on that.

D) The fact that Martz mentioned one time that as of right now he sees Bradford as the #2 WR means next to nothing. It either means that Martz simply hasn't seen enough of his guys yet or else the Lions were even dumber the last three drafts than everyone gave them credit for, it is hardly reason to criticize Kubiak for cutting him. If Martz is indeed sincere in that assessment, the rotation right now is not of much consequence come September, they still probably have a couple mini camps and all of training camp to go.

1.) Um, the fact that the Colts were waiting right behind the Bengals to grab him proves that Ragone was more than a toss away. Reggie McNeal, as I recall, is a WR now and both Johnson and Wright have not been all that successful. To think that Ragone won't be given a great chance of backing up Palmer is unrealistic. Besides, if the Bengals were really happy with what they had, they wouldn't have picked up Ragone. And if the Bengals didn't grab him, the Colts would have. To say that Ragone "isn't that good" is kind of silly, seeing that he had great success in NFL Europe and got very little experience when he was with the team. Ragone is a lot better than you are willing to give him credit for. Besides, Sage Rosenfels certainly is no Pro Bowler. It isn't wise to simply toss a good prospect aside simply because he supposedly doesn't fit your system. Under that reasoning, you could cut anybody. Heaven forbid if the Texans had Matt Linart on their squad! After all, he's a drop back passer as well. Guess he wouldn't make the cut, either.
2.) How many times does Martz have to mention the fact that Bradford is the #2 guy? In fact, I think he has mentioned it on more than one occasion. The fact is, he is the WR#2 at this moment, ahead of two first-round draft picks. I wouldn't say this "doesn't mean a thing." What it DOES mean is that he is the WR#2 guy right now and has to be beaten out for that position. 3.) It seems to me that you are kind of straining as you try to defend some of Kubiak's questionable personnel decisions. Most folks would admit that getting rid of a guy who starred in NFL Europe and showed some promise should be kept over a guy who hasn't done anything on the football field at all during his career and is just one injury away from taking over. And it really is a tough sell to say that a guy who your team cut and is now a WR#2 guy over two first-rounders "doesn't mean a thing." That seems to me to be the definition of "denial."

disaacks3
06-02-2006, 11:04 PM
A.) Choosing a guy you know better is simply nepotism, plain and simple. Seems to me that you must put that kind of stuff aside and go with the better player. Looking at Ragone's success, it seems that Kubiak did not make this decision based on pootential. BTW, Ragone was in NFL Europe, not the Arena League. For more info on NFL Europe: http://www.footballstories.com/articles/opinion.asp?ArtID=162 I'm well aware that NFLE isn't the Arena league, but it's not NFL-caliber competition either. (I'll save the sarcasm of replying w/ a link to the NFL homepage) I was also surprised that Ragone didn't get more of a "look" after his success w/ the Thunder, but both our old / new coaching staffs saw something that made them BOTH take a different choice. (Capers in regular season / Kubiak in off-season) Besides, for Kubiak's purposes / scheme, who says that Rosenfels isn't the better player?

Arguing that you don't get players who fit "your" scheme is disingenuous. If I'm Gary Kubiak, and it's MY career riding on these choices, I'm going to pick the best guys to ensure MY success...to hell w/ what the fans think the first off-season. Winning will deliver the throngs back to the stadium, no matter what the names on the backs of the jerseys are. :yahoo:

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:08 PM
nepotize this bobo- Ragone does not fit Kubiak's system. so here is what you do, wish him luck with another team and hope the best for both parties involved. end of discussion :ok:

Wells is a back-up, you said it yourself. seems to me like the Texans are loaded already in this area :rolleyes:

Gaffney, Smaffney I only miss the fact that the Texans could have drafted better with the 1st overall pick of the 2nd round in 2002. he had four years of productive yet un-inspiring numbers, to lump him in the same category with Moulds is your mistake :tease:

And what if Kubiak were to say that AJ "doesn't fit his system" either? Or what if he says the same about Davis? Or D-Rob? When are you going to start saying, "Hmm ... perhaps this kind of rationalization isn't all that wise?" And if the Texans are "loaded" at backup RB already, then why is Kubiak still out there trying out RBs? Seems to me that either he doesn't believe that or he's confused. As for Gaffney, ever wonder WHY he wasn't more productive? After all, he ranked near the top in percentage of passes dropped. I will agree with you here, though. To lump in a young guy who was a victim of poor pass protection in the same category as an old guy who is decreasing in effectiveness due to age and has bitten off a big section of the salary camp is indeed a mistake. But it isn't mine.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:18 PM
I'm well aware that NFLE isn't the Arena league, but it's not NFL-caliber competition either. (I'll save the sarcasm of replying w/ a link to the NFL homepage) I was also surprised that Ragone didn't get more of a "look" after his success w/ the Thunder, but both our old / new coaching staffs saw something that made them BOTH take a different choice. (Capers in regular season / Kubiak in off-season) Besides, for Kubiak's purposes / scheme, who says that Rosenfels isn't the better player?

Arguing that you don't get players who fit "your" scheme is disingenuous. If I'm Gary Kubiak, and it's MY career riding on these choices, I'm going to pick the best guys to ensure MY success...to hell w/ what the fans think the first off-season. Winning will deliver the throngs back to the stadium, no matter what the names on the backs of the jerseys are. :yahoo:

NFL Europe is where the NFL sends players to get seasoned for preparation in the NFL. If NFL Europe was meaningless, then why does the NFL send so many folks over there? As for why Ragone didn't get a shot last year, it was obvious that Capers was fighting for his job and wanted to put his best players in there. But Capers was wise enough to not cut him. Kubiak wasn't. The fact is that Rosenfels hasn't done a thing on any football field since going into the NFL. It really is a hard sell to prefer Rosenfels over Ragone and seems to me to be a desperate effort to defend a bad move by Kubiak. And like I said, the system argument holds no water. You can use that excuse to cut anybody, be it Davis or AJ or anybody. Would you accept that argument if Kubiak axed one of those guys? You take the best players with the most potential and the most talent. Ragone has exhibited more talent on the football field and much more potential than Rosenfels. I refuse to buy that "system" argument since it is nothing more than an excuse to make questionable player personnel decisions. You cannot tell me you feel better with Rosenfels as the backup than Ragone. As far as attendance at the games go, seems to me that true fans will be there, win or lose.

MorKnolle
06-02-2006, 11:19 PM
1.) Um, the fact that the Colts were waiting right behind the Bengals to grab him proves that Ragone was more than a toss away. Reggie McNeal, as I recall, is a WR now and both Johnson and Wright have not been all that successful. To think that Ragone won't be given a great chance of backing up Palmer is unrealistic. Besides, if the Bengals were really happy with what they had, they wouldn't have picked up Ragone. And if the Bengals didn't grab him, the Colts would have. To say that Ragone "isn't that good" is kind of silly, seeing that he had great success in NFL Europe and got very little experience when he was with the team. Ragone is a lot better than you are willing to give him credit for. Besides, Sage Rosenfels certainly is no Pro Bowler. It isn't wise to simply toss a good prospect aside simply because he supposedly doesn't fit your system. Under that reasoning, you could cut anybody. Heaven forbid if the Texans had Matt Linart on their squad! After all, he's a drop back passer as well. Guess he wouldn't make the cut, either.
2.) How many times does Martz have to mention the fact that Bradford is the #2 guy? In fact, I think he has mentioned it on more than one occasion. The fact is, he is the WR#2 at this moment, ahead of two first-round draft picks. I wouldn't say this "doesn't mean a thing." What it DOES mean is that he is the WR#2 guy right now and has to be beaten out for that position. 3.) It seems to me that you are kind of straining as you try to defend some of Kubiak's questionable personnel decisions. Most folks would admit that getting rid of a guy who starred in NFL Europe and showed some promise should be kept over a guy who hasn't done anything on the football field at all during his career and is just one injury away from taking over. And it really is a tough sell to say that a guy who your team cut and is now a WR#2 guy over two first-rounders "doesn't mean a thing." That seems to me to be the definition of "denial."

1) And what exactly has Ragone proven other than against NFLE competition that would get beat by any decent D1 school? You don't need a pro bowler as your backup QB, that would be stupid to waste a guy of that caliber on the bench, not to mention the money that goes along with it. You establish a system, then find people to fit that system, hence we would not have drafted Matt Leinart since he doesn't really fit out system. You don't just keep mediocre-at-best players around that don't fit your system when you can find other guys that are just as good talent-wise that fit your system better. Yes you can cut anybody, that is the prerogative of the GM and coaching staff. If they don't fit what you are trying to do then you try to trade them if you can get anything in return, and if no one is willing to give you any trade then you cut him.

2) Martz has only mentioned Cory Bradford once. How does anyone know that Martz is even serious about this and not blowing smoke to other teams or trying to motivate his underachieving rookies. There is no way Bradford has as much talent as Mike Williams or Charles Rogers, but they are both very young receivers that have not lived up to expectations so far, so of course you're not going to instantly give them a starting job, you want them to go out and earn it.

3) I don't have to defend Kubiak's personnel decisions. Running the #1 offense over the last 11 years and winning 3 Super Bowls is enough of a track record for me to trust him and his decisions.

I have complete faith in his system, and if we have players left over from a 2-14 season that he doesn't think fit his system then I am perfectly fine with him getting rid of them. If for some reason he didn't think Andre Johnson fit his system then I'd be fine with him letting Andre go, although he could at least get a nice trade package for Andre, unlike Ragone, Wells, Walker, and any of the other refuse he has cut loose thusfar. I'm amazed that you are so infatuated with Ragone just because he had good success in NFL Europe. Any decent school from a BCS conference would be able to beat any NFL Europe team, so succeeding over there means very little, and Sage Rosenfels has accomplished more during his actual NFL career than Ragone has.

Bottom line, if Gary Kubiak can watch a bunch of tape on Dave Ragone and personally observe him in practice for two weeks and decides he isn't a guy for his system then I am all for releasing him. That is much more exposure to Ragone than you and 99% of the other people in this world have seen of him, so I'd say Kubiak is in much better of a position to judge Ragone than any of us, not to mention his coaching experience gives him a definite advantage over us too.

Using Cory Bradford is not much of an argument either, it speaks more of the stupidity of draft decision of the Lions than it does for us releasing him. You yourself said you were not happy with Bradford, and I don't know of a single person on this message board that can honestly say they wished he was still here for next season, so we are suddenly supposed to feel bad that he is named the #2 WR on a different team?? We'll see once the season rolls around, if Bradford is still their #2 WR and actually puts up a decent season and outperforms Moulds and Walters then I guess we can maybe feel some kind of remorse for Kubiak's decision, but until then let's not criticize Kubiak for something so silly.

Bradford did nothing to draw attention away from Andre last year, even commentators during the game said defenses didn't need to bother guarding Bradford because he guarded himself by dropping so many passes. Now we have a Pro Bowler as our #2 WR that will definitely draw some attention away from Andre, or else put up 90 catches for 1400 yards if teams refuse to respect him. I'm not at all questioning that decision. I would not have minded seeing Gaffney stick around but I guess he didn't particularly want to stay and they didn't want to pay much money for him to stay, and I believe we have a significant upgrade over him right now so I'm not particularly hurt by his departure either.

hellojohnnyboi
06-02-2006, 11:28 PM
2. Jonathan Wells, even in an "RB-friendly, Denver-zone-blocking" offense wasn't good enough to keep. He was a decent 3rd-down back, but his speed is FAR from special.

Yea, umm buddy, not trying to be too critical, but until last year Ron Dayne was a decent 3rd down back, picked up by the broncos due to injuries in the RB depth and also to do a little bit of blocking... Dayne then single handidly tore up the COWBOYS :yahoo: and ran for 98 yards on them...slow old Ron Dayne, gaining yards (and pounds) in the Kubiak system......

ANYONE CAN RUN IN DENVERS SYSTEM.....THATS WHY IT IS SO GREAT....THATS WHY WE PASSED ON REGGIE BUSH....BECAUSE IN THE DENVER RUNNING/ZONE BLOCKING SCHEME, YOU COULD STICK A GUY LIKE JONATHON WELLS BACK THERE AND HE IS ABLE TO POTENTIALLY HAVE A CAREER GAME ANY NIGHT!

disaacks3
06-02-2006, 11:41 PM
Yea, umm buddy, not trying to be too critical, but until last year Ron Dayne was a decent 3rd down back, picked up by the broncos due to injuries in the RB depth and also to do a little bit of blocking... Dayne then single handidly tore up the COWBOYS :yahoo: and ran for 98 yards on them...slow old Ron Dayne, gaining yards (and pounds) in the Kubiak system...... What IS it w/ you "he was great in 1-2 games guys? Both Dayne & Wells had their shot at #1 RB and they both whiffed.

I'm more interested in the other 172 yards that Dayne had last year over 9 other games.

Geez guys, Lendale White had a great game against Texas, but look where HIS stock went.

It's Kubiak's team to construct - I'm pretty sure that he can't do worse than last year's squad.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:42 PM
1) And what exactly has Ragone proven other than against NFLE competition that would get beat by any decent D1 school? You don't need a pro bowler as your backup QB, that would be stupid to waste a guy of that caliber on the bench, not to mention the money that goes along with it. You establish a system, then find people to fit that system, hence we would not have drafted Matt Leinart since he doesn't really fit out system. You don't just keep mediocre-at-best players around that don't fit your system when you can find other guys that are just as good talent-wise that fit your system better. Yes you can cut anybody, that is the prerogative of the GM and coaching staff. If they don't fit what you are trying to do then you try to trade them if you can get anything in return, and if no one is willing to give you any trade then you cut him.

2) Martz has only mentioned Cory Bradford once. How does anyone know that Martz is even serious about this and not blowing smoke to other teams or trying to motivate his underachieving rookies. There is no way Bradford has as much talent as Mike Williams or Charles Rogers, but they are both very young receivers that have not lived up to expectations so far, so of course you're not going to instantly give them a starting job, you want them to go out and earn it.

3) I don't have to defend Kubiak's personnel decisions. Running the #1 offense over the last 11 years and winning 3 Super Bowls is enough of a track record for me to trust him and his decisions.

I have complete faith in his system, and if we have players left over from a 2-14 season that he doesn't think fit his system then I am perfectly fine with him getting rid of them. If for some reason he didn't think Andre Johnson fit his system then I'd be fine with him letting Andre go, although he could at least get a nice trade package for Andre, unlike Ragone, Wells, Walker, and any of the other refuse he has cut loose thusfar. I'm amazed that you are so infatuated with Ragone just because he had good success in NFL Europe. Any decent school from a BCS conference would be able to beat any NFL Europe team, so succeeding over there means very little, and Sage Rosenfels has accomplished more during his actual NFL career than Ragone has.

Bottom line, if Gary Kubiak can watch a bunch of tape on Dave Ragone and personally observe him in practice for two weeks and decides he isn't a guy for his system then I am all for releasing him. That is much more exposure to Ragone than you and 99% of the other people in this world have seen of him, so I'd say Kubiak is in much better of a position to judge Ragone than any of us, not to mention his coaching experience gives him a definite advantage over us too.

Using Cory Bradford is not much of an argument either, it speaks more of the stupidity of draft decision of the Lions than it does for us releasing him. You yourself said you were not happy with Bradford, and I don't know of a single person on this message board that can honestly say they wished he was still here for next season, so we are suddenly supposed to feel bad that he is named the #2 WR on a different team?? We'll see once the season rolls around, if Bradford is still their #2 WR and actually puts up a decent season and outperforms Moulds and Walters then I guess we can maybe feel some kind of remorse for Kubiak's decision, but until then let's not criticize Kubiak for something so silly.

Bradford did nothing to draw attention away from Andre last year, even commentators during the game said defenses didn't need to bother guarding Bradford because he guarded himself by dropping so many passes. Now we have a Pro Bowler as our #2 WR that will definitely draw some attention away from Andre, or else put up 90 catches for 1400 yards if teams refuse to respect him. I'm not at all questioning that decision. I would not have minded seeing Gaffney stick around but I guess he didn't particularly want to stay and they didn't want to pay much money for him to stay, and I believe we have a significant upgrade over him right now so I'm not particularly hurt by his departure either.

1.) Again, you are struggling to defend an obviously bad move by Kubiak. To agree with that "he doesn't fit my system" argument is to excuse any and all bad personnel decisions the current staff makes. I'm not going to buy into that folly. To say you'd approve of the axing of AJ simply because Kubiak says he doesn't fit the system is akin to drinking Kubiak Kool-Aid. This guy has done absolutely nothing as a head coach to deserve that kind of trust. It makes me think that you might be a relative of his or something. 2.) Nobody says NFL Europe is the NFL. But that is where the NFL sends their players for seasoning. There are a lot of NFL players who go over there, thus the competition is amongst NFLers. 3.) Like I said, how many times does Martz have to mention Bradford as the WR#2 guy? I find it kind of interesting that you think Martz might be "blowing smoke." Sounds like you're into conspiracy theories. 4.) Umm, making first-round draft choices immediate starters happens all the time. Remember that guy named Roy Williams? And how about that guy named Randy Moss? That argument just doesn't fly. The facts are this: Bradford is currently higher on the depth chart than two previous first-round draft choices. 5.) If you don't have to defend Kubiak, why are you doing it? Kubiak has never been a head coach of anything, so I wouldn't run around giving him a lot of credit for Shanahan's achievement. Kubiak is the head coach now, not the OC. And I notice nobody seems to mention his years with Brian Griese and his team's many humiliations in the playoffs.

infantrycak
06-02-2006, 11:46 PM
Bobo, I will give you this--you are the best troll we have. Articulate, good football knowledge--all the worst things you could want in someone just stirring the pot. All it really comes down to is every time the scale comes down for balance, you stick your finger on it to be a downer to stir things up. But hey, small pleasures I guess--I'd rather be on the MB for a team I wanted to win.

MorKnolle
06-02-2006, 11:48 PM
1.) Again, you are struggling to defend an obviously bad move by Kubiak. To agree with that "he doesn't fit my system" argument is to excuse any and all bad personnel decisions the current staff makes. I'm not going to buy into that folly. To say you'd approve of the axing of AJ simply because Kubiak says he doesn't fit the system is akin to drinking Kubiak Kool-Aid. This guy has done absolutely nothing as a head coach to deserve that kind of trust. It makes me think that you might be a relative of his or something. 2.) Nobody says NFL Europe is the NFL. But that is where the NFL sends their players for seasoning. There are a lot of NFL players who go over there, thus the competition is amongst NFLers. 3.) Like I said, how many times does Martz have to mention Bradford as the WR#2 guy? I find it kind of interesting that you think Martz might be "blowing smoke." Sounds like you're into conspiracy theories. 4.) Umm, making first-round draft choices immediate starters happens all the time. Remember that guy named Roy Williams? And how about that guy named Randy Moss? That argument just doesn't fly. The facts are this: Bradford is currently higher on the depth chart than two previous first-round draft choices. 5.) If you don't have to defend Kubiak, why are you doing it? Kubiak has never been a head coach of anything, so I wouldn't run around giving him a lot of credit for Shanahan's achievement. Kubiak is the head coach now, not the OC. And I notice nobody seems to mention his years with Bob Griese and his team's many humiliations in the playoffs.

I have grown tired of trying to argue with such nonsensical points that are consistently being made. If you distrust Kubiak so much for getting rid of a few poor players that don't fit the system that he has established as a very good offensive system for over a decade then obviously you need to go into coaching yourself because you must know better than all of us including Gary Kubiak and Mike Sherman.

BTW, Bob Griese played in the late 1960's and 1970's.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:48 PM
Bobo, I will give you this--you are the best troll we have. Articulate, good football knowledge--all the worst things you could want in someone just stirring the pot. All it really comes down to is every time the scale comes down for balance, you stick your finger on it to be a downer to stir things up. But hey, small pleasures I guess--I'd rather be on the MB for a team I wanted to win.

Not a troll -- just a dose of reality.

infantrycak
06-02-2006, 11:51 PM
Not a troll -- just a dose of reality.

The day you admit your true allegiance, you can be an opposing fan injecting a dose of reality. Until then, you are trolling under a guise. But like I said, a high quality troll.

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:53 PM
I have grown tired of trying to argue with such nonsensical points that are consistently being made. If you distrust Kubiak so much for getting rid of a few poor players that don't fit the system that he has established as a very good offensive system for over a decade then obviously you need to go into coaching yourself because you must know better than all of us including Gary Kubiak and Mike Sherman.

BTW, Bob Griese played in the late 1960's and 1970's.

1.) Ragone, Bradford, and Gaffney were NOT "poor" players, at least according to the Bengals/Colts, Lions and Eagles. 2.) I notice you once again didn't mention the humiliations in the playoffs, his 6-10 record in 1999, and his 8-8 record in 2001. He certainly wasn't Midas. 3.) What was Mike Sherman's record in GB last year again?

Bobo
06-02-2006, 11:54 PM
The day you admit your true allegiance, you can be an opposing fan injecting a dose of reality. Until then, you are trolling under a guise. But like I said, a high quality troll.

I am a Texans season ticket holder, and have been for the last four years. I have stated my allegiance before. For four years I was a Texans fan but now I am just an NFL fan. I have no allegiance to any team -- I just enjoy watching NFL football. Of course, I have said that on several occasions. Criticism is not equivalent to trolling. If that were the case, then this board had a slew of trolls after the second game of the season last year.

infantrycak
06-03-2006, 12:01 AM
I am a Texans season ticket holder, and have been for the last four years. I have stated my allegiance before. For four years I was a Texans fan but now I am just an NFL fan. I have no allegiance to any team -- I just enjoy watching NFL football. Of course, I have said that on several occasions.

Yeah, you have said that several times. Of course you have never explained sharing an IP address with a long term Titans fan of the same screen name. Funny how that all seems to fit together. But hey, maybe it isn't your internet DNA that just happens to fit with the motive, opportunity and crime. We'll just all trust your Capers is god, all was well with the Texans point of view as entirely honest.

MorKnolle
06-03-2006, 12:09 AM
1.) Ragone, Bradford, and Gaffney were NOT "poor" players, at least according to the Bengals/Colts, Lions and Eagles. 2.) I notice you once again didn't mention the humiliations in the playoffs, his 6-10 record in 1999, and his 8-8 record in 2001. He certainly wasn't Midas. 3.) What was Mike Sherman's record in GB last year again?

1) Just because one team picked them up doesn't mean they are suddenly awesome players. Is there a single person on this message board, in the Texans organization, or any Texans fan in general that appreciated Cory Bradford's production over the last four years and wishes that we had kept him around? Where would he be on our current roster? #4 WR at best. So why should we suddenly be torn up over his departure because some other team decided to scoop him up and their new OC said one time that as of right now he sees him above two underachieving WRs that they drafted in the 1st round recently? Why should we be upset that Dave Ragone was cut when we have seen 0 production out of him in three years in the NFL and that two different coaching staffs have not trusted him enough to play him? The previous staff 1) is in the NFL unlike yourself, so they must understand football better than you do, 2) saw Ragone every single day in practice for 3 years and apparently saw nothing in him that provoked them to play him. Kubiak has undoubtedly watched several tapes on him from previous practices and saw him in person for two weeks of practices this year. If Kubiak did not like what he saw from Ragone in all of those then why should we be upset after he gets cut? Just because one other team signed him along with three other rejects to compete for their backup position? What kind of reasoning is that to mistrust our coaching staff? And you say my arguments are struggling?

2) Let's see, during Kubiak's 11 years there the Broncos went 114-62, made the playoffs 7 times, won 2 Super Bowls, and were ranked the #1 overall offense in terms of yards gained and points scored over those 11 years. Damn, that is a crappy resume for an offensive coach, I wish you were our coach so you could make personnel decisions and guide our team. Their 6-10 record was the year after one of the most prolific QBs in NFL history retired, and they still managed the 13th ranked offense.

3) Holy ****, Mike Sherman's record over six years in Green Bay is only 57-39 (including last year's 4-12 in which half of their starters missed significant time with injuries, so he was 53-27 before last season) with four playoff appearances and three division titles, he must be a crappy coach that we should all distrust.

This is possibly the most ridiculous argument I've seen on this MB among the long laundry list of past ineptitudes.

cuppacoffee
06-03-2006, 12:41 AM
NFL Europe is where the NFL sends players to get seasoned for preparation in the NFL. If NFL Europe was meaningless, then why does the NFL send so many folks over there?


Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe the NFL isn't sending players to NFLE to get 'seasoned'.

Maybe they are seasoning new fans in Europe hoping to build a fan base there with an eye to expanding into Europe.

Why is the NFL playing regular season games in Mexico? Its all about the fans, not the players.


Just maybe?

:coffee:

beerlover
06-03-2006, 04:35 AM
great another indifferent fan in the seats (or not @ Relient) :spy: throw some cold coffee on this poor soul, his illusionary conspiracy theory of the Texans demise because of losing players such as Ragone, Bradford, Gaffney & Walker for Sage Rosenfels (who has looked very good in OTA) Eric Moulds, Jeb Putzier & Anthony Weaver has promted this user, for the first time to apply the ignore feature of this board because this is absoulte nonsense :whistle:

Jwwillis
06-03-2006, 06:26 AM
Joppru has to be the biggest dissapointment in team history

Nope....Tony Boselli

Bobo
06-03-2006, 11:41 AM
Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe the NFL isn't sending players to NFLE to get 'seasoned'.

Maybe they are seasoning new fans in Europe hoping to build a fan base there with an eye to expanding into Europe.

Why is the NFL playing regular season games in Mexico? Its all about the fans, not the players.


Just maybe?

:coffee:

More than 200 NFL players were on NFL Europe rosters last season. Sounds like more than just a little cannon fodder to me.

http://www.nfl.com/nfleurope

Bobo
06-03-2006, 11:43 AM
great another indifferent fan in the seats (or not @ Relient) :spy: throw some cold coffee on this poor soul, his illusionary conspiracy theory of the Texans demise because of losing players such as Ragone, Bradford, Gaffney & Walker for Sage Rosenfels (who has looked very good in OTA) Eric Moulds, Jeb Putzier & Anthony Weaver has promted this user, for the first time to apply the ignore feature of this board because this is absoulte nonsense :whistle:

So good ole Sage has looked good in OTAs? Great! Give him a bonus and sign him up for an additional five years! When that's the best you can say about a player who's been in the NFL for a number of years now, then you are really stretching it. Oh, BTW. You might try to use the spell check before the ignore feature.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 12:03 PM
1) Just because one team picked them up doesn't mean they are suddenly awesome players. Is there a single person on this message board, in the Texans organization, or any Texans fan in general that appreciated Cory Bradford's production over the last four years and wishes that we had kept him around? Where would he be on our current roster? #4 WR at best. So why should we suddenly be torn up over his departure because some other team decided to scoop him up and their new OC said one time that as of right now he sees him above two underachieving WRs that they drafted in the 1st round recently? Why should we be upset that Dave Ragone was cut when we have seen 0 production out of him in three years in the NFL and that two different coaching staffs have not trusted him enough to play him? The previous staff 1) is in the NFL unlike yourself, so they must understand football better than you do, 2) saw Ragone every single day in practice for 3 years and apparently saw nothing in him that provoked them to play him. Kubiak has undoubtedly watched several tapes on him from previous practices and saw him in person for two weeks of practices this year. If Kubiak did not like what he saw from Ragone in all of those then why should we be upset after he gets cut? Just because one other team signed him along with three other rejects to compete for their backup position? What kind of reasoning is that to mistrust our coaching staff? And you say my arguments are struggling?

2) Let's see, during Kubiak's 11 years there the Broncos went 114-62, made the playoffs 7 times, won 2 Super Bowls, and were ranked the #1 overall offense in terms of yards gained and points scored over those 11 years. Damn, that is a crappy resume for an offensive coach, I wish you were our coach so you could make personnel decisions and guide our team. Their 6-10 record was the year after one of the most prolific QBs in NFL history retired, and they still managed the 13th ranked offense.

3) Holy ****, Mike Sherman's record over six years in Green Bay is only 57-39 (including last year's 4-12 in which half of their starters missed significant time with injuries, so he was 53-27 before last season) with four playoff appearances and three division titles, he must be a crappy coach that we should all distrust.

This is possibly the most ridiculous argument I've seen on this MB among the long laundry list of past ineptitudes.

1.) Whoa! Wait a minute now! I read all these posts on this board about how losing Wells was nothing much because nobody picked him up, then you say it doesn't mean anything if other teams picked these players up? Which is it? If Martz, who knows just a little bit about offense himself, grabs Bradford and sticks him in as a starting WR ahead of two first-round picks, doncha think it's possible that he might know something that our "illustrious" staff may have missed? And since when does it matter what fans think about a player? As I recall, someone on this board said they'd trade Davis for Bennett and a second rounder. 2.) Ragone was a star in NFL Europe and showed he has potential against other NFL players. A total of 200 NFL players last year were on NFL Europe rosters. To say that Ragone was a smart cut is ludicrous. He has a lot more potential than Sage as he proved against other NFL players. You can't tell me you feel better with Sage as the backup to Carr than Ragone. 3.) A first-year head coach with absolutely no head coaching experience in any capacity should be looked at very closely, and to just back all his questionable moves without any criticism whatsoever is just asking for another Arizona Cards franchise in Houston. 4.) Sherman was run out of GB because he didn't cut it last year. He was only two games better than Capers -- someone I am sure you probably wanted out of Houston -- and he had a lot more horses than did the Texans. 5.) I notice you didn't mention the constant drubbings Denver experienced with Kubiak at the helm in the playoffs. And pardon me if I don't get too excited about SB appearances when he had one of the best QBs ever on his team. I think just about anybody would have had a great offense with John Elway at the helm. Without Elway, as you freely admit, Kubiak wasn't all that great.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 12:05 PM
Yeah, you have said that several times. Of course you have never explained sharing an IP address with a long term Titans fan of the same screen name. Funny how that all seems to fit together. But hey, maybe it isn't your internet DNA that just happens to fit with the motive, opportunity and crime. We'll just all trust your Capers is god, all was well with the Texans point of view as entirely honest.

Check your facts. I don't share an IP address with a long-term Titans fan. I know you wish I did, but unfortunately it doesn't "fit together" too well.

bigbrewster2000
06-03-2006, 12:42 PM
A.) The comment about "retirement as a clown" is nonsensical and nothing but an attrempted insult. B.) The belief that Wells and Ragone "no longer fit the system" can be used as an excuse to cut anybody. Cut AJ? Well, he no longer fit our system. Cut Davis? He no longer fits the system. If NFL Europe doesn't mean anything, why do so many NFL teams take advantage of it by sending folks over there for seasoning? The fact that Ragone starred there is not something that should be ignored -- obviously that was proven by the Bengals. C.) As for Gaffney, the fact is he does NOT drop passes. If he wasn't dropping them in 2004, he wasn't dropping them in 05. I could not find stats regarding passes dropped pct., but I have to figure that concentration regarding passes won't change in a year. I would like to see the proof where Gaffney didn't have the concentration to run pass routes. After all, why continue to run routes when your QB has already been sacked? It's one thing to run out a ground ball, but it's another thing to continue running when you've already been declared out. D.) I would say the fact that Bradford is currently #2 WR in Detroit is indeed saying a whole lot when the team drafted WRs as #1 picks for three years in a row. E.) "Get behind our team?" Does that mean not criticizing it? Then why all the flack on Capers after just two games last year, both of which the Texans were not expected to win? Seems to me that this board is not just a place to wave the pom-poms. The criticism of this team is warranted.


You mention 3 of the best players on our team in AJ, DD, And DR. Those guys are not going anywhere. They are far above the talent of the guys that we released. You are complaining like we dropped 4 super stars on their rears. And I gave you actual facts when I stated that Gaffney let more than 1 pass(2) hit him on the shoulder last year without turning around. I am sure that you can get a hold of some game tape. If not, I will try to find it. Eric Moulds has had a few years of declining numbers but also had a first year starter throwing to him last year and if yo look at his numbers after Holcomb started they greatly increased. If you remeber last year we released Bradford and no one wanted him period so we gratefully took him back. And what did he do for us? He dropped pass after pass that would have been a Touchdown or first down. Personally I liked Wells, but if the coach doesn't want him then he doesn't want him. We also have some young players that should do fine in this system (just like every other RB that has been in it.)Sage Rosenfels did start last last year and in his albiet limited experience led the team to a few wins. He has played in more games than Ragone. Kubiak needs a QB that can throw on the run and for Ragone that is not a stregth but a major weakness. And Ragone was not a top 10 pick like Leinart(who can throw on the run BTW) he was a 3rd rounder, so he's a bit easier to let go. Look it stinks to see some of our original guys go but that is the way of the NFL. None of those guys were above better than average players and the guys we have to replace them are at least better than average, and one is a PRO BOWLER who will take tons of pressure off of our other PRO BOWLER.

cuppacoffee
06-03-2006, 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppacoffee
Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe the NFL isn't sending players to NFLE to get 'seasoned'.

Maybe they are seasoning new fans in Europe hoping to build a fan base there with an eye to expanding into Europe.

Why is the NFL playing regular season games in Mexico? Its all about the fans, not the players.


Just maybe? __________________________________________________ ______________

More than 200 NFL players were on NFL Europe rosters last season. Sounds like more than just a little cannon fodder to me.

http://www.nfl.com/nfleurope

Read my post again, apply a little comprehension to your reading, and then show me where I referred to anyone as cannon fodder.

I think that 'swooooosh' we heard was my post going over your head.

I'll reiterate my theory for you. The NFLE is all about building/developing fans for American football as opposed to European football (soccer to you).

Do you think it would be that difficult for the NFL to organize a minor league system here in the states to season their players? Fans appetites for football is year round. Minor league teams in cities without an NFL team would recieve as much support as NFLE is right now.

It's all about gaining fans. ($)

BTW Attacking beerlovers spelling really aided your argument. :rolleyes:

OTOH. How are your Titan rookies doing?


:coffee:

Bobo
06-03-2006, 12:56 PM
You mention 3 of the best players on our team in AJ, DD, And DR. Those guys are not going anywhere. They are far above the talent of the guys that we released. You are complaining like we dropped 4 super stars on their rears. And I gave you actual facts when I stated that Gaffney let more than 1 pass(2) hit him on the shoulder last year without turning around. I am sure that you can get a hold of some game tape. If not, I will try to find it. Eric Moulds has had a few years of declining numbers but also had a first year starter throwing to him last year and if yo look at his numbers after Holcomb started they greatly increased. If you remeber last year we released Bradford and no one wanted him period so we gratefully took him back. And what did he do for us? He dropped pass after pass that would have been a Touchdown or first down. Personally I liked Wells, but if the coach doesn't want him then he doesn't want him. We also have some young players that should do fine in this system (just like every other RB that has been in it.)Sage Rosenfels did start last last year and in his albiet limited experience led the team to a few wins. He has played in more games than Ragone. Kubiak needs a QB that can throw on the run and for Ragone that is not a stregth but a major weakness. And Ragone was not a top 10 pick like Leinart(who can throw on the run BTW) he was a 3rd rounder, so he's a bit easier to let go. Look it stinks to see some of our original guys go but that is the way of the NFL. None of those guys were above better than average players and the guys we have to replace them are at least better than average, and one is a PRO BOWLER who will take tons of pressure off of our other PRO BOWLER.

1.) Umm, the point is that you can justify any ridiculous player move with the caveat "he didn't fit into the system." I think you realize this. 2.) I don't know what the stats for 2005 were for dropped pass percentage but I do know that in 2004, Gaffney was rated fourth best. Everybody drops a pass, even AJ. But Gaffney drops fewer than most NFL players. And if given a better chance to catch passes without Carr being dumped on the ground, he could do just as well if not better than Moulds -- and for a whole lot less money. BTW, Moulds was a Pro Bowler in 2002. That was back there when the Houston Texans first began play. That was a long time ago. 3.) You seem to be forgetting that Ragone starred in NFL Europe -- a place where 200 players on NFL rosters last year also participated. NFL Europe may not be the NFL, but it certainly isn't chopped liver. You seem to be missing the point that if Houston had Matt Leinart, who was a dropback passer, then using Kubiak's logic he would have been cut as well because he "didn't fit into his system." That is a very dangerous caveat to swallow all the time. You could lose a ton of quality football players if you swallow this Kubiak Kool-Aid.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppacoffee
Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe the NFL isn't sending players to NFLE to get 'seasoned'.

Maybe they are seasoning new fans in Europe hoping to build a fan base there with an eye to expanding into Europe.

Why is the NFL playing regular season games in Mexico? Its all about the fans, not the players.


Just maybe? __________________________________________________ ______________



Read my post again, apply a little comprehension to your reading, and then show me where I referred to anyone as cannon fodder.

I think that 'swooooosh' we heard was my post going over your head.

I'll reiterate my theory for you. The NFLE is all about building/developing fans for American football as opposed to European football (soccer to you).

Do you think it would be that difficult for the NFL to organize a minor league system here in the states to season their players? Fans appetites for football is year round. Minor league teams in cities without an NFL team would recieve as much support as NFLE is right now.

It's all about gaining fans. ($)

BTW Attacking beerlovers spelling really aided your argument. :rolleyes:

OTOH. How are your Titan rookies doing?


:coffee:

1.) Oh, I understood your post very clearly. By saying the only reason NFL Europe exists is to build up a fan base in Europe is to say that the NFL teams sending players over there are willing to risk losing more than 200 of their players simply for the heck of it and that it has nothing to do with seasoning whatsoever. I doubt anyone in the NFL believes that. 2.) Well, I find it highly amusing that the guy knows how to operate the ignore button but not the spell check. Spelling does mean something today, you know. And when the guy can't even spell "Reliant," well, that leaves a great deal to be desired.

bigbrewster2000
06-03-2006, 01:19 PM
1.) Umm, the point is that you can justify any ridiculous player move with the caveat "he didn't fit into the system." I think you realize this. 2.) I don't know what the stats for 2005 were for dropped pass percentage but I do know that in 2004, Gaffney was rated fourth best. Everybody drops a pass, even AJ. But Gaffney drops fewer than most NFL players. And if given a better chance to catch passes without Carr being dumped on the ground, he could do just as well if not better than Moulds -- and for a whole lot less money. BTW, Moulds was a Pro Bowler in 2002. That was back there when the Houston Texans first began play. That was a long time ago. 3.) You seem to be forgetting that Ragone starred in NFL Europe -- a place where 200 players on NFL rosters last year also participated. NFL Europe may not be the NFL, but it certainly isn't chopped liver. You seem to be missing the point that if Houston had Matt Leinart, who was a dropback passer, then using Kubiak's logic he would have been cut as well because he "didn't fit into his system." That is a very dangerous caveat to swallow all the time. You could lose a ton of quality football players if you swallow this Kubiak Kool-Aid.

NOOOOO!!!!!!!

You are choosing to read what you want and discard the rest!!! Leinart, UNLIKE RAGONE can throw on the run, and while Leinart is not mobile in the true sense he can move in the pocket AND THROW ON THE RUN unlike Ragone. I have watched some of the Texans practices in years past(not this year obviously) and Ragone does not throw the ball well when he comes out on a bootleg. That will be alot of our offense this year. I am not forgetting anything. Plus Ragone WAS NOT A 1st ROUNDER. I am giving you facts to backup what I am saying and you are choosing to ignore it. Fine, Moulds has not been in the Pro Bowl since '02 but his production has not dipped dramatically like you say. '03 was down for him because he missed 3 games and he has caught over 80 passes the last 2 seasons. I will happily take that from the #2 on my team. Even in '04 Gaffney and Bradford didn't add up to that many receptions combined. I have given the reasons why these guys don't fit in our system. Do you have any new info to bring to the table or are you going to once again, regurgitate the same post over and over again?

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:32 PM
NOOOOO!!!!!!!

You are choosing to read what you want and discard the rest!!! Leinart, UNLIKE RAGONE can throw on the run, and while Leinart is not mobile in the true sense he can move in the pocket AND THROW ON THE RUN unlike Ragone. I have watched some of the Texans practices in years past(not this year obviously) and Ragone does not throw the ball well when he comes out on a bootleg. That will be alot of our offense this year. I am not forgetting anything. Plus Ragone WAS NOT A 1st ROUNDER. I am giving you facts to backup what I am saying and you are choosing to ignore it. Fine, Moulds has not been in the Pro Bowl since '02 but his production has not dipped dramatically like you say. '03 was down for him because he missed 3 games and he has caught over 80 passes the last 2 seasons. I will happily take that from the #2 on my team. Even in '04 Gaffney and Bradford didn't add up to that many receptions combined. I have given the reasons why these guys don't fit in our system. Do you have any new info to bring to the table or are you going to once again, regurgitate the same post over and over again?

You, again, are missing the point. The fact is that this caveat "he doesn't fit in my system" can be used to justify ANY bad player move, be it cutting Ragone or cutting somebody like Leinart by saying he "can't pass on the run." If the facts you are talking about are Leinart being a first rounder, of course that's true but irrelevant when looking at the reasons why Kubiak is cutting good, quality NFL potential. As for Moulds, his yards per catch has dropped significantly and he has only caught 10 TDPs in the last three years. Yeah, he caught a lot of passes in Buffalo as the #1 WR, but his QB was playing behind a totally different line than was Gaffney. Given the same opportunities, I am sure Gaffney would approach the same kind of #s Moulds as the #2 guy in Houston would get and for a whole lot less money. Oh, as far as my repetitiveness goes, I don't believe in doing that -- unless it seems clear to me that a poster hasn't either seen the take or hasn't comprehended it. After all, this is pretty simple to fathom.

bigbrewster2000
06-03-2006, 01:44 PM
You, again, are missing the point. The fact is that this caveat "he doesn't fit in my system" can be used to justify ANY bad player move, be it cutting Ragone or cutting somebody like Leinart by saying he "can't pass on the run." If the facts you are talking about are Leinart being a first rounder, of course that's true but irrelevant when looking at the reasons why Kubiak is cutting good, quality NFL potential. As for Moulds, his yards per catch has dropped significantly and he has only caught 10 TDPs in the last three years. Yeah, he caught a lot of passes in Buffalo as the #1 WR, but his QB was playing behind a totally different line than was Gaffney. Given the same opportunities, I am sure Gaffney would approach the same kind of #s Moulds as the #2 guy in Houston would get and for a whole lot less money. Oh, as far as my repetitiveness goes, I don't believe in doing that -- unless it seems clear to me that a poster hasn't either seen the take or hasn't comprehended it. After all, this is pretty simple to fathom.

Um I am tired of your banter. You still don't get it. They(the Bills) had a first year starter last year. Look at all of my posts not just my last one.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 01:55 PM
Um I am tired of your banter. You still don't get it. They(the Bills) had a first year starter last year. Look at all of my posts not just my last one.

The fact that the Bills had a first-year starter last year only hurts your argument even more.

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 02:10 PM
1.) Umm, the point is that you can justify any ridiculous player move with the caveat "he didn't fit into the system." I think you realize this. 2.) I don't know what the stats for 2005 were for dropped pass percentage but I do know that in 2004, Gaffney was rated fourth best. Everybody drops a pass, even AJ. But Gaffney drops fewer than most NFL players. And if given a better chance to catch passes without Carr being dumped on the ground, he could do just as well if not better than Moulds -- and for a whole lot less money. BTW, Moulds was a Pro Bowler in 2002. That was back there when the Houston Texans first began play. That was a long time ago. 3.) You seem to be forgetting that Ragone starred in NFL Europe -- a place where 200 players on NFL rosters last year also participated. NFL Europe may not be the NFL, but it certainly isn't chopped liver. You seem to be missing the point that if Houston had Matt Leinart, who was a dropback passer, then using Kubiak's logic he would have been cut as well because he "didn't fit into his system." That is a very dangerous caveat to swallow all the time. You could lose a ton of quality football players if you swallow this Kubiak Kool-Aid.

Maybe that's why Matt Leinart wasn't even considered for the first pick? What I'm getting from your arguments is that it wasn't the players, it wasn't the coaching, so what went wrong last season. The fact is we started off with an expansion team and had subpar talent at A LOT of postitions. Your going to find that as the team grows and gains more players that some others are going to get replaced(that's called an upgrade). See what happens before you label everything this new coaching staff does as a bad decision. I'm not saying everything they are doing is right because I haven't seen the puzzle put together, but I'm having fun watching all the peices being laid out so far.

Beer and Metal
06-03-2006, 02:14 PM
So good ole Sage has looked good in OTAs? Great! Give him a bonus and sign him up for an additional five years! When that's the best you can say about a player who's been in the NFL for a number of years now, then you are really stretching it. Oh, BTW. You might try to use the spell check before the ignore feature.


I find it humorously ironic when someone criticizes the spelling of another when they are oblivious to their own errors.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 02:43 PM
Maybe that's why Matt Leinart wasn't even considered for the first pick? What I'm getting from your arguments is that it wasn't the players, it wasn't the coaching, so what went wrong last season. The fact is we started off with an expansion team and had subpar talent at A LOT of postitions. Your going to find that as the team grows and gains more players that some others are going to get replaced(that's called an upgrade). See what happens before you label everything this new coaching staff does as a bad decision. I'm not saying everything they are doing is right because I haven't seen the puzzle put together, but I'm having fun watching all the peices being laid out so far.

Oh, I'm not saying everything they did has been bad. Just the majority. They did correctly keep Carr and draft Mario Williams, but I see those moves as no-brainers that any child with any trace of football knowledge could have made. And yes, I know teams make changes. But exchanging old players like Moulds who chomped out a big part of the salary cap for a guy who rated #4 in dropped passes percentage as well as cutting a backup QB with great potential and a backup RB who proved on the field he could be just fine in a backup role are not the kind of changes you'd classify as smart. To simply sit back and "see what happens" is to give an inexperienced first-year coach free reign to gut the team's future that someone else might very well have to come in and clean up four years from now. No coach is above criticism in regards to player decisions and that especially goes for head coaches with no game experience in that position.

tsip
06-03-2006, 03:05 PM
:brickwall There is no doubt that we are hearing the phrase 'fit the system' over and over again from the Kubiak camp, virtually every team has one-as did Capers. However, unlike Capers, Kubiaks system is based upon a match between each position and the players filling those positions. Capers was a proponent of the 'round hole/square peg' theory, putting players in a position to fail or have minimum success.

However, as the Patriots have shown over the years with their success, a key element is 'flexibility' in the system. The 'brick wall' concept of doing the same thing over and over again every week (ala Capers) will not work. We don't know yet how effective Kub's game plans will be or how well he and his coaches make 'game time' changes to them, which IMO will determine the success or failure of Kubiak's system. Certainly, there is an element of time here to establish the 'foundation' of the system, but flexibity in building the system for repeated success should be a constant- nothing stays the same forever or even week to week in the NFL.:yahoo:

cuppacoffee
06-03-2006, 03:47 PM
1.) Oh, I understood your post very clearly. By saying the only reason NFL Europe exists is to build up a fan base in Europe is to say that the NFL teams sending players over there are willing to risk losing more than 200 of their players simply for the heck of it and that it has nothing to do with seasoning whatsoever. I doubt anyone in the NFL believes that. 2.) Well, I find it highly amusing that the guy knows how to operate the ignore button but not the spell check. Spelling does mean something today, you know. And when the guy can't even spell "Reliant," well, that leaves a great deal to be desired.

Swooooooooooooooooosh. Duck!

Risk losing 200 players? Afraid you are going to be kidnapped?
Alien abductions?..Wow

"Simply for the heck of it". Uh..no, its for the purpose of generating interest in American football. Read the post, I never said just for the heck of it.

Sending the regular season starters to Mexico seems a greater risk to me than sending marginal players to Europe.

Your reply only validates my point, you not only didn't understand it very clearly...you didn't understand it at all.

How relevant is spelling on a message board? :hmmm:

No very relevant to me. Why does not spelling Reliant correctly on a message board leave a great deal to be desired?

I'd rather exchange posts' with someone who gets 'it' but might misspell a word or two. But thats just me.

I've tried recently to follow a policy of not getting into exchanges with trolls from other teams, I see now that I should have stuck to that policy.

I think infantrycak is right about you.


:coffee:

tsip
06-03-2006, 04:20 PM
"No coach is above criticism in regards to player decisions and that especially goes for head coaches with no game experience in that position."

Credibilty is not a requirement to post on these boards, but it would help if your post made sense. First, though Capers failed here (and Carolina) miserably, you defend him to the 'hilt.' And,yes, Kubiak has no 'game experience.' Saying this, you know what Capers did with the Texans did not work in 4 years, and have even defended that he should have had a 5th year (why????????????) but are not even willing to give Kubiak one game. What kind of rationale is that? Capers is a 'given.' Kubiak, for now, is an 'unknown' and -even you- can not change that fact.:whoohoo:

Bobo
06-03-2006, 04:28 PM
"No coach is above criticism in regards to player decisions and that especially goes for head coaches with no game experience in that position."

Credibilty is not a requirement to post on these boards, but it would help if your post made sense. First, though Capers failed here (and Carolina) miserably, you defend him to the 'hilt.' And,yes, Kubiak has no 'game experience.' Saying this, you know what Capers did with the Texans did not work in 4 years, and have even defended that he should have had a 5th year (why????????????) but are not even willing to give Kubiak one game. What kind of rationale is that? Capers is a 'given.' Kubiak, for now, is an 'unknown' and -even you- can not change that fact.:whoohoo:

Yep, I agree with your credibility statement -- especially when someone claims a coach who took a team three years from its infancy to the cusp of a .500 season failed "miserably." Yes, you are right. That strains the limits and bounds of credibility. And then that credibility turns into incredulity when that same person says what Capers did "didn't work in four years" -- even though the won-lost record shows improvement steady improvement until last year. Yeah, talk to me about those last two road games in 2004 when the Texans gave up a total of five points. Yeah, whatever Capers did certainly didn't work then. Yeah, right. Yes, Capers is a given. He showed three years of success with a team built from scratch. Kubiak is a neophyte who is doing his best to change what doesn't need to be changed.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 04:29 PM
Swooooooooooooooooosh. Duck!

Risk losing 200 players? Afraid you are going to be kidnapped?
Alien abductions?..Wow

"Simply for the heck of it". Uh..no, its for the purpose of generating interest in American football. Read the post, I never said just for the heck of it.

Sending the regular season starters to Mexico seems a greater risk to me than sending marginal players to Europe.

Your reply only validates my point, you not only didn't understand it very clearly...you didn't understand it at all.

How relevant is spelling on a message board? :hmmm:

No very relevant to me. Why does not spelling Reliant correctly on a message board leave a great deal to be desired?

I'd rather exchange posts' with someone who gets 'it' but might misspell a word or two. But thats just me.

I've tried recently to follow a policy of not getting into exchanges with trolls from other teams, I see now that I should have stuck to that policy.

I think infantrycak is right about you.


:coffee:

By implying you didn't know what it means to risk losing 200 players in NFL Europe, I think it's clear who is confused in this regard.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 04:32 PM
:brickwall There is no doubt that we are hearing the phrase 'fit the system' over and over again from the Kubiak camp, virtually every team has one-as did Capers. However, unlike Capers, Kubiaks system is based upon a match between each position and the players filling those positions. Capers was a proponent of the 'round hole/square peg' theory, putting players in a position to fail or have minimum success.

However, as the Patriots have shown over the years with their success, a key element is 'flexibility' in the system. The 'brick wall' concept of doing the same thing over and over again every week (ala Capers) will not work. We don't know yet how effective Kub's game plans will be or how well he and his coaches make 'game time' changes to them, which IMO will determine the success or failure of Kubiak's system. Certainly, there is an element of time here to establish the 'foundation' of the system, but flexibity in building the system for repeated success should be a constant- nothing stays the same forever or even week to week in the NFL.:yahoo:

Whoa, Stonehead! How can you talk about Capers putting square pegs in round holes when he stuck with his players for several years -- which is just what folks are criticizing him about? Then when he started moving folks around on the line, folks criticized him for that! I am amazed at the lack of consistency when it comes to criticizing Capers and backing Kubiak. Folks can criticize and support all they want, but it is remarkable to me when their basis of support is contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever.

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 04:34 PM
Doing his best to change what doesn't need to be changed???

So you would have been happy with no moves from last season to this season. I already know you are not a fan of replacing Capers, but you were content with the players on the team? You wanted to go through another season with the same lineup we had last year.

You're loyalty is blind

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 04:36 PM
Capers was such a successful coach that upon his realease he was quickly snatched up by how many of the other 8 teams that needed a head coach??? Oh that's right, he's not even a defensive coordinator which is what he's known for.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 04:41 PM
Whoa, Stonehead! How can you talk about Capers putting square pegs in round holes when he stuck with his players for several years -- which is just what folks are criticizing him about? Then when he started moving folks around on the line, folks criticized him for that! I am amazed at the lack of consistency when it comes to criticizing Capers and backing Kubiak. Folks can criticize and support all they want, but it is remarkable to me when their basis of support is contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever.

Whoa! look, he's comparing :carrot s to :pepper: s again, The square pegs into round holes comment was reffered to the acquisitions of Babin and Peek, *I'm sure there are a few more* the tweeners and taking them out of their natural element and seeing how things work out... Not the O-line which you used in your example. Tweeners :carrot and O-Line:pepper:
The criticism is about him keeping an O-line that was performing less then spectacular and just trying them at different spots... oh wait now I think I see where your trying to get the apples and oranges thing from, because he had gaurds playing tackle *and center* and tackles playing gaurds, which was a coaches decision. But an O-lineman is an O-lineman, they are all round pegs that go into round holes some are just more cylindrical than others.

Note: we need an apples and oranges smiley...

Bobo
06-03-2006, 04:42 PM
Capers was such a successful coach that upon his realease he was quickly snatched up by how many of the other 8 teams that needed a head coach??? Oh that's right, he's not even a defensive coordinator which is what he's known for.

Wait a minute, Small Timer! Are you saying it's fair to judge someone based on whether they are picked up by another team or not? Be careful how you answer here! Besides, I do believe Capers was up for the Lions job and their were rumors he was the guy for awhile.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 04:44 PM
Wait a minute, Small Timer! Are you saying it's fair to judge someone based on whether they are picked up by another team or not? Be careful how you answer here! Besides, I do believe Capers was up for the Lions job and their were rumors he was the guy for awhile.
Isn't that what you were saying about Gaffney, Ragone and Bradford?

Bobo
06-03-2006, 04:45 PM
Doing his best to change what doesn't need to be changed???

So you would have been happy with no moves from last season to this season. I already know you are not a fan of replacing Capers, but you were content with the players on the team? You wanted to go through another season with the same lineup we had last year.

You're loyalty is blind

Umm, I do believe I have made myself clear regarding this. The only problem on the Texans was the OL and defense. You make the OL better and everybody else gets better -- Carr, Gaffney, Davis, AJ -- everybody. There was no need to make many of the changes Kubiak made -- especially Moulds when he cost a boatload of money and is a proven quitter.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 04:47 PM
Isn't that what you were saying about Gaffney, Ragone and Bradford?

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Be consistent. Folks around here approve of the Wells move because nobody picks him up, then turn around and say that it doesn't matter if a team picks up another player your team cuts and puts them in a prominent position. Which is it?

Wolf
06-03-2006, 04:48 PM
Isn't that what you were saying about Gaffney, Ragone and Bradford?


exactly, saved me from typing that ...
Capers was part of our "best 53"

Wolf
06-03-2006, 04:51 PM
Umm, I do believe I have made myself clear regarding this. The only problem on the Texans was the OL and defense. You make the OL better and everybody else gets better -- Carr, Gaffney, Davis, AJ -- everybody. There was no need to make many of the changes Kubiak made -- especially Moulds when he cost a boatload of money and is a proven quitter.


you make the changes to fit your philosophy.. Capers is a 3 yards and a cloud of dust guy, yet what did we do ..we draft #1 overall a QB and #3 overall a WR ...that doesn't fit the Capers philosophy, if it did he would have drafted OL or defense (capers speciality as a DC not HC) and went with a veteran Qb

*edit* I am not bashing our picks, it is just the way we drafted and the way Capers wanted to play doesn't add up)

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 04:51 PM
That's exactly what I'm getting at. Be consistent. Folks around here approve of the Wells move because nobody picks him up, then turn around and say that it doesn't matter if a team picks up another player your team cuts and puts them in a prominent position. Which is it?
No, folks around here approve of the Wells move because they think they are better off at RB currently, many have been looking for him to sign for another team and are wondering why he hasn't. You've been saying it doesn't matter if someone doesn't pick up someone, but then you go around saying we should take notice how other teams quickly took Ragone because that must matter. If we had cut Ragone before FA started how many teams would have bid on him? Alot in my opinion, he was a quality player we cut, and another team took him quickly, thats great for him. Is it fruit day? I'm seeing lots of apples and oranges lately.

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 04:52 PM
Small Timer?
I'll I'm saying if he was such a great head coach then why was he not sought after more heavily??? Are you using Capers was almost the guy for the Lions as an argument? That's stretching it a little bit

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 04:58 PM
Umm, I do believe I have made myself clear regarding this. The only problem on the Texans was the OL and defense. You make the OL better and everybody else gets better -- Carr, Gaffney, Davis, AJ -- everybody. There was no need to make many of the changes Kubiak made -- especially Moulds when he cost a boatload of money and is a proven quitter.

Which again is why Capers is not here anymore. He couldn't get the O-Line together and the defense fell off the face of the earth

cuppacoffee
06-03-2006, 05:32 PM
By implying you didn't know what it means to risk losing 200 players in NFL Europe, I think it's clear who is confused in this regard.

Lame response....:crutch:


:coffee:

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:35 PM
Lame response....:crutch:


:coffee:

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Brandon420tx
06-03-2006, 05:36 PM
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

I fear for you then... and my Pre-cal teacher.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:37 PM
Which again is why Capers is not here anymore. He couldn't get the O-Line together and the defense fell off the face of the earth

I've been over this before. One bad year, three good ones with a team from scratch. Good reason for Capers to be dismissed? Good reason for Cowher to be dismissed? Good reason for Paul Brown to be dismissed? Good reason for Holmgren to be dismissed? I think not.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 05:43 PM
giving up over 3 sacks a game is why a coach gets fired. Getting blown out on national TV gets you fired .. going 2-14 in a season gets you fired. when you don't win within your division gets you fired.


after 4 seasons, the team regressed.. offfensively and defensively, the players didn't buy into the system that Capers was selling.. (this is noted by quotes by the players and not my opinion) ... when when some players say something (coleman,Walker)... well they got deactivated


And I like Capers. I think he is a good DC just not a HC

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:52 PM
giving up over 3 sacks a game is why a coach gets fired. Getting blown out on national TV gets you fired .. going 2-14 in a season gets you fired. when you don't win within your division gets you fired.


after 4 seasons, the team regressed.. offfensively and defensively, the players didn't buy into the system that Capers was selling.. (this is noted by quotes by the players and not my opinion) ... when when some players say something (coleman,Walker)... well they got deactivated


And I like Capers. I think he is a good DC just not a HC

If getting blown out on national TV gets you fired, then why do Andy Reid and Mike Shanahan still have jobs? Does going 7-9 in a team's third year of existence while giving up just five points total in road games to the Bears and Jax get you fired too? And as far as regression goes, let's talk about how Cowher's team went from 13-3 to 6-10 in two years. Now THAT'S regression. But why didn't they fire Cowher? And forgive me for being amused but I kind of have to laugh when folks selectively take these little bones of dissension and use them for their own benefit. For example, folks defend the release of Gaffney and Wells because they apparently had gripes. Heck, after all, we don't want gripers on OUR team. Then they turn around and defend one of the biggest gripers of them all, Moulds. Then Coleman and Walker gripe, but it's OK because it's Capers, not Kubiak. Pardon me, but I see a heckuva lot of disingenousness when it comes to the Texans and their followers. Inconsistent logic, revisionist history and blind obedience seem to be par for the course and good reason for back slapping and attaboys.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 05:56 PM
If getting blown out on national TV gets you fired, then why do Andy Reid and Mike Shanahan still have jobs? Does going 7-9 in a team's third year of existence while giving up just five points in road games to the Bears and Jax get you fired too? And as far as regression goes, let's talk about how Cowher's team went from 13-3 to 6-10 in two years. Now THAT'S regression. But why didn't they fire Cowher? And forgive me for being amused but I kind of have to laugh when folks selectively take these little bones of dissension and use them for their own benefit. For example, folks defend the release of Gaffney and Wells because they apparently had gripes. Heck, after all, we don't want gripers on OUR team. Then they turn around and defend one of the biggest gripers of them all, Moulds. Then Coleman and Walker gripe, but it's OK because it's Capers, not Kubiak. Pardon me, but I see a heckuva lot of disingenousness when it comes to the Texans and their followers. Inconsistent logic, revisionist history and blind obedience seem to be par for the course and good reason for back slapping and attaboys.

pot calling kettle black?

go into windows go to control panel and install the english version on language support..

you take all that put in and that gets you fired not, 1 of the lists or 2 ..but all of it compounded together..that gets you fired. ..McNair gave a 4 year grace period for the coaching staff.. we were to compete for playoffs, not rebuild and pick # overall in the draft again

not protecting David Carr gets you fired..(like it or not he is the face of the franchise).

I don't think the Texans are as ruthless when it comes to coaches as say UT or TAMU.. but not beating your rivals gets your fired.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 05:59 PM
pot calling kettle black?

go into windows go to control panel and install the english version on language support..

you take all that put in and that gets you fired not, 1 of the lists or 2 ..but all of it compounded together..that gets you fired. ..McNair gave a 4 year grace period for the coaching staff.. we were to compete for playoffs, not rebuild and pick # overall in the draft again

not protecting David Carr gets you fired..(like it or not he is the face of the franchise).

I don't think the Texans are as ruthless when it comes to coaches as say UT or TAMU.. but not beating your rivals gets your fired.

Failure to respond to my post duly noted.

tsip
06-03-2006, 06:00 PM
If getting blown out on national TV gets you fired, then why do Andy Reid and Mike Shanahan still have jobs? Does going 7-9 in a team's third year of existence while giving up just five points total in road games to the Bears and Jax get you fired too? And as far as regression goes, let's talk about how Cowher's team went from 13-3 to 6-10 in two years. Now THAT'S regression. But why didn't they fire Cowher? And forgive me for being amused but I kind of have to laugh when folks selectively take these little bones of dissension and use them for their own benefit. For example, folks defend the release of Gaffney and Wells because they apparently had gripes. Heck, after all, we don't want gripers on OUR team. Then they turn around and defend one of the biggest gripers of them all, Moulds. Then Coleman and Walker gripe, but it's OK because it's Capers, not Kubiak. Pardon me, but I see a heckuva lot of disingenousness when it comes to the Texans and their followers. Inconsistent logic, revisionist history and blind obedience seem to be par for the course and good reason for back slapping and attaboys.


...so what kind of year would we have had in the Texans 5th year if Capers had stayed? It's been mentioned many many times that the difference between Capers and these other coaches you compare his situation to, is that they were proven winners--Capers is a proven loser.

Finally, after a horrendous 5th year and an expired 'lame duck' contract, what would you do with Dom?

swtbound07
06-03-2006, 06:01 PM
i was trying to stay out of this bobo...but come on.

to the CUSP of a .500 season? He almost sniffed mediocrity during his 4 year tenure? and stop trying to ignore year 4. It happened. You can do better than this.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:04 PM
about what? Bill Cowher? Jeff Fisher? those guys have track records of winning so part of the NFL life they get some slack cut.. Capers didn't have that option ..he had 4 years to put a team to challenge for the Super Bowl not the Bush bowl

I liked Gaffney at the slot.. I wish we could have kept him .. I liked Well's his stats were comparable to DD.. and he played ST. With his size he should have been a bruiser (size close to Eddie George) ....but isn't ..

is that what you wanted?

tsip
06-03-2006, 06:04 PM
"Failure to respond to my post duly noted."


IMO. no one does this more than you. When you run out of lame excuses that no one buys into (does anyone ever agree with you), you disappear from the board for awhile...

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:05 PM
i was trying to stay out of this bobo...but come on.

to the CUSP of a .500 season? He almost sniffed mediocrity during his 4 year tenure? and stop trying to ignore year 4. It happened. You can do better than this.

Excuse me, but don't you know the difference between taking on an established team and starting a team from SCRATCH? I know year four happened, but I also know that the year 2003 happened to the Steelers following years of 13-3, then 10-5-1. Excuse me, but you can do better than this.

swtbound07
06-03-2006, 06:06 PM
he started from scratch. 4 years was enough time. We've moved on, as has dom and has lousy cast of players...gaffney, bradford, etc.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:10 PM
"Failure to respond to my post duly noted."


IMO. no one does this more than you. When you run out of lame excuses that no one buys into (does anyone ever agree with you), you disappear from the board for awhile...

"Lame excuses?" Umm, sorry, but that isn't me. You know, there is so much that appears on this board that amuses me in terms of contradictions. The "Wells cut was OK because nobody picked him up but it's not right to judge a personnel move based on if another team picks up a player" is pretty priceless. Also the "Capers was wrong to move players around and then when he moved players around, he was wrong" argument is kind of funny as well. But another one that gets me is the "you spend all your time posting on this site and then you disappear from the board for awhile." Yeah, I like that one, too. :excited:

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 06:11 PM
I've been over this before. One bad year, three good ones with a team from scratch. Good reason for Capers to be dismissed? Good reason for Cowher to be dismissed? Good reason for Paul Brown to be dismissed? Good reason for Holmgren to be dismissed? I think not.
You are completely ignoring what I'm saying. In those four years, we have never had a stable line. He was unable to shore up the offensive line in those four years and Carr had to take the beating. McNair sees this and maybe he doesn't like his #1 quarterback getting hammered every play. He couldn't fix it so he was replaced with someone who might be able to.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:13 PM
he started from scratch. 4 years was enough time. We've moved on, as has dom and has lousy cast of players...gaffney, bradford, etc.

Seeing that he had three good years and just one bad one, and seeing that Gaffney was far from a lousy player as the stats have proven, and seeing that Bradford is now a starting WR over two former first-rounders -- well, looks like yer wrong! :bananasplit:

cuppacoffee
06-03-2006, 06:17 PM
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Congratulations...You can spell and can quote scripture too.

I guess you are more informed than the NFL commissioner.

"I see the Canadian Football League as very important to the NFL, and the future development of our form of football," Tagliabue said. "In time, I see a Canadian and a Mexican and a European league in a round-robin championship series. Of course, some people think that's a good indication that I should be retiring . . .

"In the next 10 years we may see more change than we have in the past 40 years," he said.

I have bolded the key points that I have been trying unsuccessfully to bring to your attention.

I realize you have a reading comprehension problem, so after reading that quote I am confident that all you will surmise is the commissioner thinks he should retire.

Anyway.... I've added a link for you to mis-interpret.

Or..just stay uninformed, it suits you well.

Point And Click Here BoBo (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060603.NFLCOMMISH03/TPStory/TPSports/Football/)


:coffee:

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 06:17 PM
Seeing that he had three good years and just one bad one, and seeing that Gaffney was far from a lousy player as the stats have proven, and seeing that Bradford is now a starting WR over two former first-rounders -- well, looks like yer wrong! :bananasplit:
You keep saying this. If 4-12, 5-11, and 7-9 are good years then you should be stoked about the future of the Texans.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:18 PM
Seeing that he had three good years and just one bad one, and seeing that Gaffney was far from a lousy player as the stats have proven, and seeing that Bradford is now a starting WR over two former first-rounders -- well, looks like yer wrong! :bananasplit:


hmm that says more about Charles Rogers and Mike Williams busting than it does about Bradford..

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:21 PM
You are completely ignoring what I'm saying. In those four years, we have never had a stable line. He was unable to shore up the offensive line in those four years and Carr had to take the beating. McNair sees this and maybe he doesn't like his #1 quarterback getting hammered every play. He couldn't fix it so he was replaced with someone who might be able to.

The line was a problem since 2002. It takes a long, long time to put something like that together. Some teams never do it. Look at the Saints. It took them 20 years before they had a winning team, let alone a playoff team. But during those years where the line was admittedly bad for the Texans, there was never any call for Capers demise until last year. Carr got sacked a lot in the first three years, but that didn't seem to bother anybody. Why? Because the Texans were improving. The records went from 4-12 to 5-11 and then 7-9. Yet, Carr was still getting sacked to the hilt. And going into year four, even though Carr was still getting sacked all over the place, folks all over -- including those on this board -- were predicting exactly what they are this year, playoffs. Why was that, even though the sack problem was still evident? Because the team was still improving. I submit to you the following: The sack problem was not why Capers got fired. He was fired for one reason and that was the 2-14 record. Was that reason to fire him, though, and not give him the chance to right the ship? As I have argued before, I would submit to you this response: No, it was not -- just as it was not the right time to sack Cowher, Holmgren, and Brown after they had a bad year. They were given the chance to right the ship and they succeeded. Capers was never given that chance and that wasn't right because he earned that shot.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:23 PM
hmm that says more about Charles Rogers and Mike Williams busting than it does about Bradford..

I say the fact that Bradford is now currently ahead of two former first-round draft choices speaks for itself.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 06:26 PM
You keep saying this. If 4-12, 5-11, and 7-9 are good years then you should be stoked about the future of the Texans.

Good years for a team that's only been in existence for three years with no kind of infrastructure in place. Kubiak is now benefiting from what Capers created. He's got Carr, Davis, Robinson, AJ, an entire infrastructure in place and guys with experience under their belts. There is nothing that can equate to what a coach does in the first few years of a team's existence. There is no tougher job around in NFL coaching.

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 06:27 PM
Don't think for minute that people were ignoring the sack problem even though the team was improving. The team was improving in spite of the line. People were also predicting good fortunes contingent on the offensive line woes being taken care of. When it was apparent that they weren't combined with the horrible defense and the miserable losses then Capers fate was sealed.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 06:30 PM
I say the fact that Bradford is now currently ahead of two former first-round draft choices speaks for itself.

if he starts over Roy Williams (non-injury) then i'll be impressed.

Bradford is one that takes your breath away.. it is either he makes the incredible catch or the incredible drop..


ony thing he couldn't do was draw that double team off of AJ

BigTimeTexanFan
06-03-2006, 06:32 PM
I know Capers had a rough job bringing up a franchise from it infancy, there was not enough effort being shown to fix problems such as the o-line and the defense and CONITINUE progress. There were many factors that went into Capers not being here anymore not just the sacks.

swtbound07
06-03-2006, 06:41 PM
4 win and 5 win seasons are NOT good years. I dont care if you are an expansion team or not. Those are not good years. By your logic 2-14 is a good year because we are still a young team. Our fans wont settle for sub-sub mediocrity and have you tell us its gravy. The 7-9 season was CLOSE to a good year.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:09 PM
4 win and 5 win seasons are NOT good years. I dont care if you are an expansion team or not. Those are not good years. By your logic 2-14 is a good year because we are still a young team. Our fans wont settle for sub-sub mediocrity and have you tell us its gravy. The 7-9 season was CLOSE to a good year.

Um, for a team in its first and second year of existence with no infrastructure behind them and no experience whatsoever, they are VERY strong seasons. I think you understand this because I can't believe you would know so little about the difficulties of putting a team together from scratch.

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:11 PM
if he starts over Roy Williams (non-injury) then i'll be impressed.


That's where he currently is on the depth chart and Martz said he expects Bradford to start during the season.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 07:12 PM
That's where he currently is on the depth chart and Martz said he expects Bradford to start during the season.


I am talking about Roy Williams not Mike Williams

Bobo
06-03-2006, 07:14 PM
I am talking about Roy Williams not Mike Williams

Um, nobody said Bradford was over Roy Williams.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 07:17 PM
re-read the last few posts

infantrycak
06-03-2006, 07:33 PM
there was never any call for Capers demise until last year.

Wrong. It got much, much stronger last year, but it was present previously.

Carr got sacked a lot in the first three years, but that didn't seem to bother anybody.

100% wrong. Of course you might know that (as with your above comment) if you were around here since 2002 instead of just since January 2005. Every year there have been folks here wanting 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks predominately spent on OL including Jordan Gross, trading up for Gallery, etc.

Wolf
06-03-2006, 07:48 PM
true infantry

I guess Bobo forgets the infamous ESPN draft commercial for 2003 draft

bigbrewster2000
06-04-2006, 08:16 AM
The fact that the Bills had a first-year starter last year only hurts your argument even more.

How does the Bills having a first year starter at QB hurt my "argument" with Moulds not truly declining in numbers? It greatly increases it.

Jwwillis
06-04-2006, 10:54 AM
"Carr was still getting sacked to the hilt. And going into year four, even though Carr was still getting sacked all over the place, folks all over -- including those on this board -- were predicting exactly what they are this year, playoffs. Why was that.."

Because we are Houston Texans fans. Is any other reason really needed?

cuppacoffee
06-04-2006, 11:17 AM
"Failure to respond to my post duly noted."

Post #119


:coffee: