PDA

View Full Version : Who would you have prefered this offseason?


TexanSam
06-06-2006, 03:51 PM
Since there's not too much actual football talk to discuss, I'll ask this question. Which WR would you rather have gotten this offseason?


We started out by trying to get David Givens, the guy Kubiak really wanted. He got #1 money at Tennessee, and we weren't willing to pay that much for a #2 WR. He was a good WR at New England, but not spectacular. Nonetheless, he is young and probably has not maxed out his potential.

Next there was Nate Burleson. All we got was a small note in the Chronicle that said Burleson was going to visit with the Texans. The one sentence in the Chronicle started a OMG! CAN IT BE TRUE?!!? thread. Of course, nothing came out of it. Coming off an injury, he still got a ridiculous amount of money with the Seahawks (I think).

Then there was Eric Moulds. It lasted about a week with the Texans and Bills working out a trade for a 5th round pick (I think). The Eagles were also apparently interested, but they may or may not have gotten very far in talks with Buffao. I don't know if the Moulds thread was the biggest in Texans message board history, but it had to be in the top 3.

For you dreamers, you can also choose Terell Owens, who the Texans probably never even thought about. Lots of talents. No maturity. Javon Walker was also mentioned on the boards, but there was no mention of him being a possibility by the Chronicle or any other news service.

If I had to choose, I still would have liked David Givens. He hasn't had the career that Moulds has, but Givens has room to grow. This will only be his 4th or 5th year and I think he and AJ would have been just as, or even better than Harrison and Reggie Wayne have been for the Colts. Although, if I see Eric Moulds, I'd tell him he was my first choice.

TexanFan881
06-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Eric Moulds is amazing but I'm with you, David Givens is a young up and coming WR who would have made a really nice tandem with AJ (not that Eric and AJ don't). Javon Walker and T.O. both have their attitude problems while Nate Burleson was unimpressive last year to say the least. I'm just extremely happy we got a real #2 WR to take the coverage off of AJ.

LORK 88
06-06-2006, 04:19 PM
I voted Givens, with Moulds in 2nd, and Burleson in 3rd. I didnt even consider TO or Walker, both wouldnt complain about touches and couldnt handle the #2 role (mentally at least). Givens may not be the greatest WR, but his age and potential would've gone well with AJ. Mould's age is his only downfall, while Burleson fell apart without Moss. He might be able to do well with AJ, but he's only got 1 good season under his belt.

hollywood_texan
06-06-2006, 04:39 PM
IMO, Philadelphia was about as interested in Moulds as Washington was for Buchannon the year before.

Philly normally doesn't give up drafts picks on trades and Moulds was going to be get cut regardless.

I like Moulds, we overpaid a little but I am sure Kubiak will find the value somewhere to make it work or pay off.

Bottom line on the Moulds deal, we did Buffalo a favor and hopefully we can cash that in later down the line.

The Dude Abides
06-06-2006, 05:20 PM
Reggie Wayne. :drool:

Texans>Colts
06-06-2006, 05:55 PM
who voted t.o?:challenge

Exascor
06-06-2006, 06:07 PM
I wanted Givens initially. But...if given the choice between Givens and Moulds though, I think Moulds is a better fit for what the Texans need. He's a true #1 WR that brings a solid verteran influence to a young set of WRs. AJ will benefit from him more than Givens. Carr has never had someone that can get open like him either. I believe that Givens will disappear in Tennessee.

TO would never have come here so no reason to even consider him.

Double Barrel
06-06-2006, 06:31 PM
I agree with Exascor. Moulds' experience will pay dividends with our young receiver corp. Plus, I think he's heckuva' WR, and I think DC will now have more than one sure-handed guy to throw to.

AFD1717
06-06-2006, 06:42 PM
I voted Givens, with Moulds in 2nd, and Burleson in 3rd. I didnt even consider TO or Walker, both wouldnt complain about touches and couldnt handle the #2 role (mentally at least). Givens may not be the greatest WR, but his age and potential would've gone well with AJ. Mould's age is his only downfall, while Burleson fell apart without Moss. He might be able to do well with AJ, but he's only got 1 good season under his belt.

Amen.

Texans_Chick
06-06-2006, 06:52 PM
I agree with Exascor. Moulds' experience will pay dividends with our young receiver corp. Plus, I think he's heckuva' WR, and I think DC will now have more than one sure-handed guy to throw to.

Put me on the agree list too.

Yeah, you want some youth on your team, but especially in retrospect, it was folly to build with a baby QB, baby line and baby wide receiver corps, no matter how talented any of the individual parts may have been or not.

Refs treat baby players like dirt (see Peek), and having experience on the team helps. Corey Bradford was our experienced wide receiver. Think about it.

Same works in the real world--no matter how good your boss is and no matter how many skills you have, you will do better if you have another good experienced employee who wants to be your mentor and shows you how things really work.

Hulk75
06-06-2006, 07:04 PM
If I had my choice............No contest Terrell Owens, nobody else can hang with that guy ON the field.

TexanFan881
06-06-2006, 07:11 PM
I see what a lot of you guys are saying, but a few years from now we have no #2 WR. I guess Eric Moulds is good for now but a couple years down the road David Givens would have been more valuable for us. We can get another 5 years out of Givens at the least, when Moulds gets old in a couple years.

Texans_Chick
06-06-2006, 07:19 PM
I see what a lot of you guys are saying, but a few years from now we have no #2 WR. I guess Eric Moulds is good for now but a couple years down the road David Givens would have been more valuable for us. We can get another 5 years out of Givens at the least, when Moulds gets old in a couple years.

Eventually AJ will be the experienced one and there will be some other guy we bring in.

It's hard to balance youth and experience. We've always had young young players and older players but few of the ones in the middle.

BTW, Moulds isn't totally ancient. He is 3 years younger than a productive Rod Smith. And appears to be in pretty ripped shape.

The fewest games in a season he has played since he was in the league is 13. He's had 7 years where he has played in 16 games.

HOOK'EM
06-06-2006, 07:43 PM
.......the Moulds/AJ combo should be great!:texflag:

Ibar_Harry
06-06-2006, 07:45 PM
If I had my choice............No contest Terrell Owens, nobody else can hang with that guy ON the field.

While I voted for Moulds for our team I still feel similarly about TO. On the field of play no one comes close. Its the other issues that lead to Moulds. Although, TO might be more responsible than some think. He hasn't been in the best of situations as of late and he's no dummy. I think Kubiak would have done wonders with TO. Kubiak is simply one of those kind of coaches. Kubiak knows where he stands and is not bothered by other EGO's.

Moulds is the best person for AJ and all the other receivers on this ball club. He may not be a TO, but he is awfully good. His desire to interact with the other receivers though is what makes him the best selection for the Texans.

TexanFan881
06-06-2006, 08:03 PM
I'm glad we got Moulds over T.O, that's for sure. We don't need a cancer on our team. Who knows though, maybe he's finally happy?

TEXANS84
06-06-2006, 08:33 PM
who voted t.o?:challenge

I did. Granted, he has his spells....but when he plays teams win.

TexanFan881
06-06-2006, 08:39 PM
I did. Granted, he has his spells....but when he plays teams win.

For the first year. Then everything falls apart. :francis:

Texas
06-06-2006, 08:41 PM
T.O so the texans could get more publicity! Im happy with moulds tho.

Texans_Chick
06-06-2006, 08:45 PM
While I voted for Moulds for our team I still feel similarly about TO. On the field of play no one comes close. Its the other issues that lead to Moulds. Although, TO might be more responsible than some think. He hasn't been in the best of situations as of late and he's no dummy. I think Kubiak would have done wonders with TO. Kubiak is simply one of those kind of coaches. Kubiak knows where he stands and is not bothered by other EGO's.

Moulds is the best person for AJ and all the other receivers on this ball club. He may not be a TO, but he is awfully good. His desire to interact with the other receivers though is what makes him the best selection for the Texans.


Dallas was one of the few situations that might work because of Parcells. And the Cowturds have enough stored good will to deal with more turds. IMO, a new head coach in a new city doesn't need the TO distraction, even if TO were a saint.

mapleleaf
06-06-2006, 08:49 PM
I think we should've picked Eric Moulds.Compared towards all the other choice, he seems to be the most better, and well matured player. You know without him the Bills would've been in the same slump as us (2-14), instead of 5-11.

TexanFan881
06-06-2006, 08:54 PM
I think we should've picked Eric Moulds.Compared towards all the other choice, he seems to be the most better, and well matured player. You know without him the Bills would've been in the same slump as us (2-14), instead of 5-11.

I don't know if I'd go that far (considering Evans did a great job too last year) but you are right in the fact that he did play a huge part in the offense. Without him they probably would have lost a couple more games too. But it doesn't really matter now except for the fact that they could have gotten a better pick :)

MorKnolle
06-06-2006, 09:54 PM
For this team Eric Moulds is definitely the best choice. We needed a proven guy that is a good route runner and has great hands that can take attention off of AJ, and in the process we got a former Pro Bowler that can still play very effectively and is experienced and can help mentor the rest of our receiving core, who are all young (none of our other WRs have played more than 3 years in the NFL).

I was never real fond of Givens and we would have had to really overpay him.

TO is a great talent but he is definitely not worth the risk. I would still call him the #1 WR in the NFL when he's healthy and happy, but keeping him happy has proven to be a major chore, and I don't think he would have wanted to come to our team to be part of this building process, I think he wants a team that can potentially win it all now.

Javon Walker appears to have some ego problems and was coming off a big injury.

Burleson got a ridiculously bad contract (clearly made just to spite the Vikings and the contract they gave Hutchinson).

Señor Stan
06-06-2006, 09:58 PM
Owens - Head Case
Walker - Too expensive (would have taken our 2nd rounder) coming off injury
Givens - Too expensive for a #2
Burleson - Waaay too expensive

Moulds...just right!

BuffSoldier
06-06-2006, 10:48 PM
If I could pick out of all 4 it would be Walker. Though some of you said he was a trouble maker, he just wanted to get paid for what he brought to the team and there is nothing wrong with that. I dont know one person that could honestly say that if they were a young Pro-bowl WR they wouldnt more than half a mil for the next year. I think that if we got him, we would have arguably the best WR duo in the league.

TK_Gamer
06-07-2006, 03:52 AM
Moulds, he fits the need, hes legitimate, hes capable, he's not TO, meaning no major ego or attitude problems, plus way cheaper. with the new tight ends this year and undoubtedly more play action. moulds doesnt even have to score a touchdown to be effective. he's secondary bait. but legitimate bonafide secondary bait. and... he knows how to run routes with the best of them, wich will help Dre and the other young guys in the long run.even if we only keep him 1 or 2 years. on the same note, I wish sharper could have stayed another year, could have really helped ryans and greenwood develop.

infantrycak
06-07-2006, 07:10 AM
I like Moulds, we overpaid a little but I am sure Kubiak will find the value somewhere to make it work or pay off.

Man that was all access on Saturday--you got to see his price tag and everything. I love how folks think they know the "true value" of a rare commodity like a football player. Burleson $7 mil per year, Givens $5 mil per year, Moulds $3.5 mil per year--not seeing where he was inordinately paid.

Under the other category, I wanted Plaxico Burress last year--$4.2 mil per year.

Exascor
06-07-2006, 08:31 AM
TO and the Texans would have been a horrible fit imo. TO is an amazing talent. Kubiak seems to believe in reinforcing self confidence a lot (see Wand). The first time TO had only 2 receptions at half time he'd have driven* Carr's confidence and leadership even further off the cliff. Imagine TO chewing out Carr on the sidelines. How long before someone says that Carr needs that? heh

*Pun intended

beerlover
06-07-2006, 08:41 AM
I like Givens alot, being local and all that but I wonder if he was not a product of the system up there in New England? Still young with hopefully a long career ahead of him (VY throwing to him) but he was one of those diamonds in the rough (7th rd. pick in 2002) the Texans passed on early in their building process, so no surprise they pass again. Moulds on the other hand was a 1st rd. pick 10 years ago by the Bills where he played until they opted not to retain his services :francis:

Vambo, the Marble Eye
06-07-2006, 09:00 AM
If I had my choice............No contest Terrell Owens, nobody else can hang with that guy ON the field.

About two years ago the Harvard Business Review wrote about hiring Superstar Salespeople and the impact they have on the new organization. The main points were;

a) Performance was not as "individual" as you would think... there were people that supported the superstar "to make the promises made become promises delivered."

b) Organizations fail to consider and appropriately measure the impact of hiring an "outside superstar” on existing staff... i.e., how is the existing or raining leader going to feel??? Will they leave? Will they perform when they no longer can grab the headlines when a new teammate gets more attention? (Hint: You can't get anymore "outsider" than T.O.)

c) Organizations rarely have the same product and competition... if you do not have the same competition, then what makes a superstar in one business setting may not make them a superstar in another setting. True Dallas and Philly are in the same division... so this point may be moot.


d) Values... if the superstar's values are not the same as the organizations- it is just not going to work!


So, when you think of the image of the Dallas Cowboys as an organization (as a business) the sales revenue and attendance may go up initially... but then in the long run do you think T.O. has ANY VALUES?

No. T.O. has no class, and your comments do not consider that winning is not EVERYTHING in the long run... the Dallas Cowboys are a "product of the NFL". T.O. WILL tarnish whatever image Dallas may be carrying because it is in his nature. In the end, I would make a $5 bet that by midseason- the Tuna is going to bench T.O.'s ass once this immature brat thinks he is better than the team.

Since I am obligated to dislike Dallas as a true Texan fan, I am extremely happy that T.O. is with Dallas... it just makes the TEXANS program that much more appealing to the rest of the state.

Hulk75
06-07-2006, 01:01 PM
About two years ago the Harvard Business Review wrote about hiring Superstar Salespeople and the impact they have on the new organization. The main points were;

a) Performance was not as "individual" as you would think... there were people that supported the superstar "to make the promises made become promises delivered."

b) Organizations fail to consider and appropriately measure the impact of hiring an "outside superstar” on existing staff... i.e., how is the existing or raining leader going to feel??? Will they leave? Will they perform when they no longer can grab the headlines when a new teammate gets more attention? (Hint: You can't get anymore "outsider" than T.O.)

c) Organizations rarely have the same product and competition... if you do not have the same competition, then what makes a superstar in one business setting may not make them a superstar in another setting. True Dallas and Philly are in the same division... so this point may be moot.


d) Values... if the superstar's values are not the same as the organizations- it is just not going to work!


So, when you think of the image of the Dallas Cowboys as an organization (as a business) the sales revenue and attendance may go up initially... but then in the long run do you think T.O. has ANY VALUES?

No. T.O. has no class, and your comments do not consider that winning is not EVERYTHING in the long run... the Dallas Cowboys are a "product of the NFL". T.O. WILL tarnish whatever image Dallas may be carrying because it is in his nature. In the end, I would make a $5 bet that by midseason- the Tuna is going to bench T.O.'s ass once this immature brat thinks he is better than the team.

Since I am obligated to dislike Dallas as a true Texan fan, I am extremely happy that T.O. is with Dallas... it just makes the TEXANS program that much more appealing to the rest of the state.
Does not change the fact that he is the best WR in football, the question was who would you have and I said ON THE FIELD T.O., no contest he is better then those guys...........BBBUUUTTT_____ALL around guy has to be Eric Moulds.

WWJD
06-07-2006, 04:54 PM
About two years ago the Harvard Business Review wrote about hiring Superstar Salespeople and the impact they have on the new organization. The main points were;

a) Performance was not as "individual" as you would think... there were people that supported the superstar "to make the promises made become promises delivered."

b) Organizations fail to consider and appropriately measure the impact of hiring an "outside superstar” on existing staff... i.e., how is the existing or raining leader going to feel??? Will they leave? Will they perform when they no longer can grab the headlines when a new teammate gets more attention? (Hint: You can't get anymore "outsider" than T.O.)

c) Organizations rarely have the same product and competition... if you do not have the same competition, then what makes a superstar in one business setting may not make them a superstar in another setting. True Dallas and Philly are in the same division... so this point may be moot.


d) Values... if the superstar's values are not the same as the organizations- it is just not going to work!


So, when you think of the image of the Dallas Cowboys as an organization (as a business) the sales revenue and attendance may go up initially... but then in the long run do you think T.O. has ANY VALUES?

No. T.O. has no class, and your comments do not consider that winning is not EVERYTHING in the long run... the Dallas Cowboys are a "product of the NFL". T.O. WILL tarnish whatever image Dallas may be carrying because it is in his nature. In the end, I would make a $5 bet that by midseason- the Tuna is going to bench T.O.'s ass once this immature brat thinks he is better than the team.

Since I am obligated to dislike Dallas as a true Texan fan, I am extremely happy that T.O. is with Dallas... it just makes the TEXANS program that much more appealing to the rest of the state.


Uh Vambo that little quote at the end of your post...if that is from "Tombstone" you have it wrong. He said "I'm your Huckleberry".....

Go check if you have the DVD.