PDA

View Full Version : i'm interested to know


Spoda
06-05-2006, 01:10 PM
the capers chagrined thread got me thinking..while we will never truly no if the chef (capers) was doing any, none, or all of the grocery shopping...one thing i do know is that the roster is being turned completely over from least year...the new staff clearly does not think much of last year's roster...we have had a LOT of additions..how many stick? who knows...do any of you stat-mongers have how we compare to the other teams on additions? i know it may be hard to tell who sticks..just wondering

thunderkyss
06-05-2006, 01:42 PM
hm...... let's see what we got come Sept 10th. When we'll see who will/won't start. Wand... Pitts...... (Flanagan)........ McKinney...... Weigart. 4 out of five starters from 2005.

DD, Carr, Andre.... 3 more starters from '05.

Peek/Babin, Robaire.. Dunta.... Wong..... PBuc...... GreenWood.... Orr.... Earl..... Brown......... we'll probably start 6 or 7 guys from last year on Defense.... out of 11, that ain't too bad..... not a total rebuild.

if we do end up starting less than 70% returning players..... (22x0.7=15 or 16) players.... then I'll concede, and believe like so many folks here, that we have no shot at the playoffs...... as it stands, I'm thinking they'll be trying to fit us with a glass sliper by week 15.

Meloy
06-05-2006, 01:54 PM
There was a recent thread about ESPN or somebody saying the Texans were in the top 5 or close to that in changes. Talked about the Cowboys,SKins and Packers, I think. Maybe I saw it at houstonprofootball.com

Double Barrel
06-05-2006, 02:08 PM
I doubt we'll ever truly know what the power structure was in the Capers/Casserly FO. NFL teams are very guarded about these secrets, and I would be surprised if Mr. McNair ever wanted his dirty laundry aired in public.

There has been some speculation - both ways - about who actually made those picks. Personally, I could care less, because both of them are gone. 2-14 after four years reflects on both Capers and Casserly, so it is splitting hairs about stuff that we should consider water under the bridge.

But the fact of the matter is that our owner is pro-active about making changes in the power structer of the FO. This is a good thing, because owners are just like anyone else: human and prone to mistakes.

I'm just glad the Capers/Casserly debacle is behind us, save for the players they picked that are left on the roster. Fortunately, it does appear that Coach Kubiak has no problem in getting rid of players that he doesn't want, so it is refreshing to see the new attitude.

It revives hope that we can someday have a winning football team in this city. :texflag:

the wonger need food
06-05-2006, 02:08 PM
The core really isn't being changed so I wouldn't consider this a total rebuild. What Kubiak is doing successfully (at least on paper) is bringing in quality depth, which was non-existent under Capers.

Ibar_Harry
06-05-2006, 02:46 PM
Kubiak is fixing what needs fixing and rebuilding what does not need fixing. For example, Bradford and Gaffny are gone and I keep saying there is good reason for that which will become apparent when the season starts. The O-line is being revamped with disgraced Wand and others being moved around to their correct positions. Why they felt the way they did about Wand still amazes me.

The sour grapes are starting to appear because its becoming very evident that Capers and his staff were not what people thought. Yes, he is a nice man, but as many have stated he is not head coaching material. Nothing wrong with that because most of us are not. The HC requires a special person who is able to lead people. So far there are very few of us who don't like Kubiak.

Kubiak seems to be gentle, but strong. He has an infectious enthusiasm for the game of football. You can tell he has fun doing it and the players are relishing his enthusiasm. From what I have seen I don't think much gets by him. I think he is one of those guys that fits into a rare class of coaches that simply do not come along very often. I'm the 1st to admit I didn't think he was going to be that at 1st, but he quickly won me over. Simply stated the man knows what he's doing and don't be surprised by anything he does.

Texans_Chick
06-05-2006, 03:29 PM
the capers chagrined thread got me thinking..while we will never truly no if the chef (capers) was doing any, none, or all of the grocery shopping...one thing i do know is that the roster is being turned completely over from least year...the new staff clearly does not think much of last year's roster...we have had a LOT of additions..how many stick? who knows...do any of you stat-mongers have how we compare to the other teams on additions? i know it may be hard to tell who sticks..just wondering


A couple of thoughts:

1. Kubiak said that the things he wanted to increase this year were depth at every position and competition during camp. You get the sense that he very much values veterans throughout the team to be leaders.

2. You get the guys to fit your system. You switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3, that is gonna mean some big changes in personnel. Ragone becomes expendable when you do so much play action. Getting rid of players doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad--it might just be a bad fit.

Bobo
06-05-2006, 03:39 PM
Kubiak is fixing what needs fixing and rebuilding what does not need fixing. For example, Bradford and Gaffny are gone and I keep saying there is good reason for that which will become apparent when the season starts.

100% wrong. The WRs were just fine. You could make an argument for getting rid of Bradford, but the WRs weren't the problem. As I've said before, the only thing that really needed changes in the offense was the OL. If you do that, then the WRs, QBs and RBs ALL get better. And they SURE as heck didn't need to bring an old WR from Buffalo whose #s are declining, who was suspended by his team for conduct detrimental to the team and pay him a boatload of money in the process.

Texans_Chick
06-05-2006, 03:53 PM
100% wrong. The WRs were just fine. You could make an argument for getting rid of Bradford, but the WRs weren't the problem. As I've said before, the only thing that really needed changes in the offense was the OL. If you do that, then the WRs, QBs and RBs ALL get better. And they SURE as heck didn't need to bring an old WR from Buffalo whose #s are declining, who was suspended by his team for conduct detrimental to the team and pay him a boatload of money in the process.

Maybe the only thing they had to fix under the old system was the OL. Who knows. Under the new system, you need WR who are smart route runners and are quick on the breaks, a specific type of RB, QB, TE, and OL.

Moulds looked good at the OTAs. Huge. Caught some tough passes. BTW, Rod Smith is three years older than Moulds.

Bobo
06-05-2006, 03:59 PM
Maybe the only thing they had to fix under the old system was the OL.

Maybe. Probably -- since Carr spent most of his time either on his back or on the run.

Texans_Chick
06-05-2006, 04:05 PM
Maybe. Probably -- since Carr spent most of his time either on his back or on the run.


What

ever.

We fired Capers. We have a new system. So c'mon bubba, it's time to move on and get over it.

Ibar_Harry
06-05-2006, 04:24 PM
100% wrong. The WRs were just fine. You could make an argument for getting rid of Bradford, but the WRs weren't the problem. As I've said before, the only thing that really needed changes in the offense was the OL. If you do that, then the WRs, QBs and RBs ALL get better. And they SURE as heck didn't need to bring an old WR from Buffalo whose #s are declining, who was suspended by his team for conduct detrimental to the team and pay him a boatload of money in the process.

The only thing I guess I can point to and say your wrong is that the receivers are no longer here and new ones have taken their place. They weren't exactly given an option to stay either. Its something I have consistantly said and I truely believe. Sorry, but Capers and his receivers coaches had no idea what they were doing.

Ibar_Harry
06-05-2006, 04:31 PM
Oh, my word, Bobo you missed this thread. It should be merged into here so you could see for yourself.

http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=23871

ESPN is starting to take note of our receiver core. HOW SWEET IT IS. That certainly hasn't been the case in the past. I wonder why that was. Was it perhapes because the only person you had to worry about was AJ. DD wasn't going to hurt you for the long one. So it was Cover, Cover, Cover AJ at all cost and let Carr throw to anyone else. End of story for this session, but I'm certain there will be others....................

LORK 88
06-05-2006, 04:59 PM
100% wrong. The WRs were just fine. You could make an argument for getting rid of Bradford, but the WRs weren't the problem. As I've said before, the only thing that really needed changes in the offense was the OL. If you do that, then the WRs, QBs and RBs ALL get better. And they SURE as heck didn't need to bring an old WR from Buffalo whose #s are declining, who was suspended by his team for conduct detrimental to the team and pay him a boatload of money in the process.

How is 816 yards and 4 TDs with a horrid QB situation in Buffalo a serious decline as you imply? Give me an aging WR who was a pro bowler over 2 WRs (Gaffney and Bradford) who wont ever sniff the pro bowl in their entire career. Hell, the only 7 letter word Bradford knows is 'dropped' . . .