PDA

View Full Version : Seth Wand


Cruuuuuuuz
10-06-2006, 12:53 AM
I mean...he wasnt THAT bad...and he was one of the last training camp cuts....
Saalam is fighting injury and we got O-Line rookie guys collapsing on the sideline during the game....:shocked
we gonna bring him back or what?

phan1
10-06-2006, 12:58 AM
I really don't know why we don't want him back right now. Is it a money issue? The coaches must really not be high on this guy and it maybe has something to do with the staff just not liking him as a player. Lots of speculation, but who the heck knows? It seems like there's always been lots of behind-the-scenes stuff with this guy. Salaam didn't get a single start all through minicamp and now he's a clear cut #2 guy over Wand. Who knows what's going on with him...

JohnGalt
10-06-2006, 05:54 AM
This one has been beat to death on other threads.

In short, there is nothing wrong with Wand, we could really use him.

Kubiak is just making himself look like an arrogent and stubborn a** on this one.

texflex513
10-06-2006, 05:57 AM
This one has been beat to death on other threads.

In short, there is nothing wrong with Wand, we could really use him.

Kubiak is just making himself look like an arrogent and stubborn a** on this one.
I had read somewhere that kub and sherman were in disagreement about wand. Wouldnt say it was a pissing contest but I sure would breath easier with seth back as a texan.

Texans Horror
10-06-2006, 09:08 AM
The only "tackle" transactions I'm seeing are coming out of Houston. Detroit did take a St. Louis tackle, but that is as much a surprise as Kubiak scrounging for released Denver players. So IMHO, it does not seem so much that Seth Wand hasn't been picked up as it does that linemen aren't being picked up in general. If only he had played for Denver instead of Houston, he'd probably have a job as our starting left tackle...

gtexan02
10-06-2006, 09:30 AM
My opinion is that a bridge was burned. Seth probably thought he was going to be a starter this season, and was unpleasantly surprised when he was cut. I'm guessing there was some exchanges in a non-positive fashion, and that Wand will not come back, nor will the team invite him back.

Talent doesn't indicate everything. If a player won't fit with the team, he shouldn't be there. Seth may have done and said some things that the coaches cannot tolerate

Texans Horror
10-06-2006, 09:36 AM
My opinion is that a bridge was burned. Seth probably thought he was going to be a starter this season, and was unpleasantly surprised when he was cut. I'm guessing there was some exchanges in a non-positive fashion, and that Wand will not come back, nor will the team invite him back.

Talent doesn't indicate everything. If a player won't fit with the team, he shouldn't be there. Seth may have done and said some things that the coaches cannot tolerate

That's where the story takes a sordid turn. From everything I've heard, the players want him back. He seemed to fit with the team, but he did not fit into Kube's system for two reasons:

1. He was not drafted by Kubiak.

2. He was not a Denver Bronco.

Ability to play has nothing to do with it. Like last year, the LT seems to be caught in a political battle. I only hope coach K will come to his senses before the bye-week is up.

Hervoyel
10-06-2006, 09:41 AM
If he could play, someone else would have picked him up

That's not necessarily true at this point in the season. If he could play then someone who needed help at LT might bring him in due to injury but how many starting LT's have gone down this year?

Most teams who lose a starting LT will elevate the backup becuase he knows the offense and was in camp with them. Wand going anywhere else would be stepping into a new offense so he'd be signed as depth. You can't put him on a practice squad to stash him until the end of the year. If you sign him he's got to be one of your 53.

I undertstand that the Chiefs would have signed him but since he wasn't in camp with them he wouldn't be able to help them anytime soon and someone who can't help you is just a dead spot on your roster during the season.

JohnGalt
10-06-2006, 09:47 AM
My opinion is that a bridge was burned. Seth probably thought he was going to be a starter this season, and was unpleasantly surprised when he was cut. I'm guessing there was some exchanges in a non-positive fashion, and that Wand will not come back, nor will the team invite him back.

Talent doesn't indicate everything. If a player won't fit with the team, he shouldn't be there. Seth may have done and said some things that the coaches cannot tolerate

I don't think anyone is picking up tackles for the same reason you don't see many QB pickups at this point. OL and QB are very system dependant positions and it takes a while to feel comfortable. I think that is why Kubiak is looking at Denver cast aways. Wand's experience is mostly zone blocking, which relatively rare in the NFL.

In Wand's shoes, I would have ripped into Kubiak and the organization when I was cut. But in Wand's case, I don't know if anything like that happened. The biggest knock on Wand is basically, he's too nice and not aggressive enough to be a good LT. That doesn't sound like a guy that would say the things that he deserved to say.

Porky
10-06-2006, 10:13 AM
Here are some quotes from Kubiak about Seth Wand:

During camp -
"If we went out and were trying to mold a left tackle in the draft, what we're looking for is a young man with that type of size and length that can run. He (Wand) would be a guy we would chisel out."

After he cut Wand:
"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

Link (http://texans.aolsportsblog.com/2006/09/04/texans-roster-cut-rumor-kubiak-overrules-sherman/)

Anyone else see the inconsistency between what he says and what he does?

edo783
10-06-2006, 10:24 AM
Here are some quotes from Kubiak about Seth Wand:

During camp -
"If we went out and were trying to mold a left tackle in the draft, what we're looking for is a young man with that type of size and length that can run. He (Wand) would be a guy we would chisel out."

After he cut Wand:
"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

Link (http://texans.aolsportsblog.com/2006/09/04/texans-roster-cut-rumor-kubiak-overrules-sherman/)

Anyone else see the inconsistency between what he says and what he does?


Mmm, yes and no. In the first statement he says he has the ideal build and speed, but in the second he says that he isn't ready and would need another offseason of teaching and (probably the most telling thing) strength training. My guess, Seth has the right build and stuff, but just isn't strong enough nor aggressive enough. If he doesn't come back during the season, I wouldn't be to surprised to see him back in the next camp.

Hervoyel
10-06-2006, 10:27 AM
It's hard to miss it Porky, that was a good observation. How many other things are happening right now where we're getting one story but the reality is very different.

When I see someone just flat out lie like this I begin to question other things they're saying. That's just my perspective on this but I just feel like this is stupid and unnecessary. The Texans didn't have to play it this way.

nunusguy
10-06-2006, 10:29 AM
Maybe Seth has just about had a gut full of the Texans. Lets face it, he's got
some very unpleasant memories here, to say the least.
Many on this Board have portrayed Wand personally as some kind of mental retard because of stories, innuendo whatever that have been spread about him. The truth is he did have some kind of learning disorder, but so did Richard Branson, the billionaire owner of Virgin Airlines.
Actually, Wand has a baccalaureate degree with a major in MIS.Maybe at this stage of his life he'd rather develope computer software than play football, even though there's a large diiference in the incomes of the 2.

texflex513
10-06-2006, 10:29 AM
Here are some quotes from Kubiak about Seth Wand:

During camp -
"If we went out and were trying to mold a left tackle in the draft, what we're looking for is a young man with that type of size and length that can run. He (Wand) would be a guy we would chisel out."

After he cut Wand:
"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

Link (http://texans.aolsportsblog.com/2006/09/04/texans-roster-cut-rumor-kubiak-overrules-sherman/)

Anyone else see the inconsistency between what he says and what he does? Kubiak basicly stated wand had the physical skills to be the type of player we needed but maybe its moreof the mental part that wand is not getting.:twocents: I take wand didnt pan out this year and he would give him a chance come next season to try and mold him out.

jerek
10-06-2006, 10:30 AM
Here are some quotes from Kubiak about Seth Wand:

During camp -
"If we went out and were trying to mold a left tackle in the draft, what we're looking for is a young man with that type of size and length that can run. He (Wand) would be a guy we would chisel out."

After he cut Wand:
"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

Link (http://texans.aolsportsblog.com/2006/09/04/texans-roster-cut-rumor-kubiak-overrules-sherman/)

Anyone else see the inconsistency between what he says and what he does?

He's a coach; I think he's allowed to reevaulate his position. Whether or not he made the right decision is a different question, but changing his mind is something he's allowed to do.

Hervoyel
10-06-2006, 10:35 AM
He's a coach; I think he's allowed to reevaulate his position. Whether or not he made the right decision is a different question, but changing his mind is something he's allowed to do.

And I'm very interested in seeing whether or not he does this. I just see it like bringing back Seth Wand is a no-brainer. Taking everything that was said into account there's no reason for the Texans to be fielding any less of a LT than Wand. That's assuming that what was said was true.

If it was then great, we have another option at LT. If it wasn't then I'd be happier if Kubiak would shoot a little straighter with the public than that.

Crazyhorse
10-06-2006, 10:39 AM
Sounds like the politically correct statement to make so that no one has a bruised ego. Bottom line if Wand was that good he would be on the roster.
Remember even Caper's and those coaches couldn't make it work with Wand so there must be something we are all missing when it comes to his ability.

jerek
10-06-2006, 10:43 AM
And I'm very interested in seeing whether or not he does this. I just see it like bringing back Seth Wand is a no-brainer. Taking everything that was said into account there's no reason for the Texans to be fielding any less of a LT than Wand. That's assuming that what was said was true.

If it was then great, we have another option at LT. If it wasn't then I'd be happier if Kubiak would shoot a little straighter with the public than that.

I would think now would be a great time to bring him in as well. Esp. if Sherman was "so high" on the guy in the first place, it's hard to imagine Kubiak insisting that we go with Bidell here.

At this point I'd be inclined to agree with you as well; bringing Seth back on seems an easy decision. Whether or not they do so or Seth is on board with it or not, I guess we won't know, unless his name goes back up on our roster.

Runner
10-06-2006, 10:54 AM
When I see someone just flat out lie like this I begin to question other things they're saying. That's just my perspective on this but I just feel like this is stupid and unnecessary. The Texans didn't have to play it this way.

I think the players notice this stuff too. They expected Wand back the day after Spencer broke his leg. It will be too bad if distrust becomes an issue, because the players trusted and believed in Kubiak from his first meeting. I think Kubiak is using up quite a bit of his goodwill capital with his players.

For instance, remember when they took Pitts out for a series and broke his "played every down for the Texans" streak? Kubiak said that he did it for some sort of rotational reason - a football reason. The problem is, that wasn't true. He hasn't had to make that same rotation since.

Pitts was proud of that streak, and he was taken out for that series for no other reason than to break it. The intended message - you aren't special. The other message - you can't trust the coaches.

jerek
10-06-2006, 11:07 AM
I think the players notice this stuff too. They expected Wand back the day after Spencer broke his leg. It will be too bad if distrust becomes an issue, because the players trusted and believed in Kubiak from his first meeting. I think Kubiak is using up quite a bit of his goodwill capital with his players.

For instance, remember when they took Pitts out for a series and broke his "played every down for the Texans" streak? Kubiak said that he did it for some sort of rotational reason - a football reason. The probelm was, that wasn't true. He hasn't had to make that same rotation since.

Pitts was proud of that streak, and he was taken out for that series for no other reason than to break it. The intended message - you aren't special. The other message - you can't trust the coaches.

Have you heard anything as to whether or not Wand has been contacted about coming back?

Interesting observation about Pitts. I tend to trust your takes but in this case I'm not sure I would draw that same conclusion, at least not from the info you've provided. Kubiak has tried out a number of rotations and it may be he either didn't know about Pitts' streak (not likely) or just didn't really care. I've played for coaches who were all about assimilation and being one and would come down hard just to prove that "you're not special" and all of that kind of thing, and IMO it produces mixed results. To a certain extent it has to be part of any team game, but I'm not sure what I'd think if Kubiak purely and simply did pull Pitts to break his streak. I can see reasons for and against it.

Texans_Chick
10-06-2006, 11:36 AM
If he could play, someone else would have picked him up

Wand, at the Texans' direction, lost a lot of weight at the Texans direction to make him better suited for their style blocking.

For him to be picked up by another team, for most teams he would have to gain a lot of that back.

And to be an ex-Texan player can't be something that opens a lot of doors.

Honoring Earl 34
10-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Wand is the proto-type on paper ... the problem is he does'nt play like it . If Wand and Pitts are not with the OL , would they be any worse than they've been the last three years .

thunderkyss
10-06-2006, 12:08 PM
Here are some quotes from Kubiak about Seth Wand:

During camp -
"If we went out and were trying to mold a left tackle in the draft, what we're looking for is a young man with that type of size and length that can run. He (Wand) would be a guy we would chisel out."

After he cut Wand:
"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

Link (http://texans.aolsportsblog.com/2006/09/04/texans-roster-cut-rumor-kubiak-overrules-sherman/)

Anyone else see the inconsistency between what he says and what he does?

I don't know. "Chisel Out" does that mean to refine, and develop?? or is he saying Seth would be part of the scrap that would hit the floor?? the part that was Chiseled away??

& in the second one, he says Seth needs another offseason to work out with the team, to learn what we are trying to do as a team, and work on his strength.

I don't know.

I thought Seth played well, and thought he should start... only because Spencer is a rookie. I don't see the point in trying to develop three Tackles, so going with Salaam seems like a no brainer (now, back then I didn't like the idea) Especially after watching Spencer play against D.Howard, & Freeney. Freeney beat him once, and it cost him(David), but I don't think Wand would have done much better if any at all.

What I found strange, was putting Bedelle in there when Salaam got hurt, and then pushing Salaam back out there when Bedelle wasn't working out..... I'd have thought he'd put Pitts in at LT, and Weary at Gaurd, just to finish the game....... but oh well.

Hulk75
10-06-2006, 12:11 PM
I mean...he wasnt THAT bad...and he was one of the last training camp cuts....
Saalam is fighting injury and we got O-Line rookie guys collapsing on the sideline during the game....:shocked
we gonna bring him back or what?

no........

wags
10-06-2006, 12:19 PM
and he was taken out for that series for no other reason than to break it. The intended message - you aren't special. The other message - you can't trust the coaches.

I refuse to believe that our coach has this kind of third grade mentality. Could it be that Kubiak wanted to see more of Weary during a game? Seems more logical and less childish.

Runner
10-06-2006, 12:22 PM
Wand is the proto-type on paper ... the problem is he does'nt play like it . If Wand and Pitts are not with the OL , would they be any worse than they've been the last three years .

Don't blame three years of o-line performance on Wand. He was only on the field for one.

Runner
10-06-2006, 12:23 PM
I refuse to believe that our coach has this kind of third grade mentality. Could it be that Kubiak wanted to see more of Weary during a game? Seems more logical and less childish.

It must of been a pretty intense evaluation, seeing as it was only three plays.

wags
10-06-2006, 12:25 PM
It must of been a pretty intense evaluation, seeing as it was only three plays.

Isn't that our typical offensive series?

Runner
10-06-2006, 12:43 PM
Isn't that our typical offensive series?

lol. It certainly seems that way sometimes.

That's why I would have expected to see Pitts on the bench a while longer while the coaches accomplished their goals. (Unless of course the goal was to have Pitts miss a play, then the goal was accomplished nicely in three plays).

Lucky
10-06-2006, 06:13 PM
For instance, remember when they took Pitts out for a series and broke his "played every down for the Texans" streak? Kubiak said that he did it for some sort of rotational reason - a football reason. The problem is, that wasn't true. He hasn't had to make that same rotation since.

Pitts was proud of that streak, and he was taken out for that series for no other reason than to break it. The intended message - you aren't special. The other message - you can't trust the coaches.
That is not correct. Kubiak had said prior to the season that he had 3 starters at guard and planned to play all of them. Weary replaced Pitts at LG for a series or two in the Colts game. But Pitts had to be placed back at LG, when Flanagan went down. McKinney had to switch from RG to C because Hodgdon was inactive. Weary moved from LG to RG.

There was nothing insidious about Pitts being rotated. He may be rotated again when Flanagan returns to the lineup. I love a good conspiracy theory, but the Kubiak hates Wand & Pitts conjecture is really out there. That it is being promoted by some of our elite posters is more bizarre. Here are the facts about Seth Wand that we know:

1) Wand was a restricted free agent this offseason, but no other team signed him to an offer sheet (it would have cost a 3rd round pick had the Texans not matched).
2) Wand was given every opportunity in mini-camp, training camp, and preseason to win a job on this team. He didn't.
3) After Wand was waived, he was not picked up by another NFL team.
4) Entering Week 5 of the NFL season, Wand hasn't been given a tryout by a NFL team.

That's what we know. How someone can look at these facts and believe that Gary Kubiak is single-handedly keeping Seth Wand out of the NFL is beyond me. Wand may have lost some weight, as Texans_Chick suggested, but there are plenty of teams in the NFL running zone blocking schemes that don't require oversized tackles. Denver, Green Bay, and Atlanta off the top of my head. If NFL teams thought Seth Wand could play (and if Seth Wand wanted to play in the NFL), someone, somewhere would have given him a look.

aj.
10-06-2006, 07:51 PM
...elite posters ...

lol:


fwiw, I think if Wand had what it took to be an NFL offensive tackle, he'd be an offensive tackle ... somewhere.

Blame it on Casserly, blame it on Pendry, blame it on Kubiak, blame it on genetics or attitude ... whatever... but I doubt there's some evil conspiracy afoot to keep Seth Wand out of the NFL. It's a cold, ruthless business and you have to make the most out of your opportunities. I think Seth had ample opportunity here. I really do.

psst...It doesn't make him a bad guy.

Maybe he'll get lucky and get another opportunity. He's certainly in his prime - only 27 years old with no major injury history. But the rest would be up to him.

HJam72
10-06-2006, 07:59 PM
I think Wand was our 2nd best LT (FOR NOW and not counting Pitts who's staying at LG) and that it was a mistake to let him go, but I don't see any conspiracy at all. I do see that Kubiak seems to pull the plug (including trading) really fast on guys he didn't put on this team himself, unless they really prove they are definitely needed (like Pitts) or maybe have great upside, like Joppru. Morency comes to mind.

I think a lot of people are still irritated that Morency and Wand are gone and feel (like me) that we could really use them right now, so conspiracy theories are going to come around. It's not like those guys would have us 3-1 right now or something, but we could use them. The running game just isn't working and I just knew the winner of the whole LT contest would get hurt early in the season. It's the Texans and it's just inevitable, which overrides the fact that Spencer is HUGE and you wouldn't think a locomotive could injure that guy. Hey, it's the Texans.

JohnGalt
10-06-2006, 07:59 PM
This isn't about a conspiracy to keep Wand out of the NFL. He'll be on a team somewhere next year for sure. This just feels to me like a case where Kubiak is being a little stubborn over what should be a easy decision to help the team in 2006.

You know his players have their opinions about this situation too. I wonder what they are thinking. Kubiak needs them believe in his decisions. I don't this helps.

HJam72
10-06-2006, 08:06 PM
Surely he can make it somewhere as a backup. :confused: Don't ya'll think so?

Honoring Earl 34
10-06-2006, 08:24 PM
You are arguing for a back up on a 2-14 team . This is like sentimental value and a quarter will get you a couple of pieces of bubble gum .

GP
10-06-2006, 08:58 PM
I think the players notice this stuff too. They expected Wand back the day after Spencer broke his leg. It will be too bad if distrust becomes an issue, because the players trusted and believed in Kubiak from his first meeting. I think Kubiak is using up quite a bit of his goodwill capital with his players.

For instance, remember when they took Pitts out for a series and broke his "played every down for the Texans" streak? Kubiak said that he did it for some sort of rotational reason - a football reason. The problem is, that wasn't true. He hasn't had to make that same rotation since.

Pitts was proud of that streak, and he was taken out for that series for no other reason than to break it. The intended message - you aren't special. The other message - you can't trust the coaches.

Document this statement. Prove it with your source(s).

I find it hard to believe that this would have happened for the reason you've stated. Is there any chance you're speculating, or your ears are tuned into someone close to a player or two on the team who might also be speculating or not fully aware of the reasoning for sitting out Pitts?

If Kubiak or any of the other coaches operated like this, we'd have seen (A)Carr not retained, or (B) Carr retained and then treated as poorly as you say Pitts had been (i.e. nonsensical decisions "just 'cuz I'm the coach and you're not") or (C) The team chemistry would not be as tight, nor would the players' overall satisfaction with the coaches be higher than any other team in our team's history--Training camp reports by ESPN said players were amazed at the level of competency of this coaching staff...you'd think the players would sniff out a bunch of phonies within about two days of camp based on what they'd been through prior to Kubiak.

For a coach to sit out a guy just to prove a "you're not special" point seems way below the mental and psychological capacity of Kubiak. I have always sensed that Kubiak breaks his own back for the team and I wouldn't think he would purposefulyl sit a guy out just to break a streak to prove a point.

Just cannot see it happening, IMO.

Wand, as any other former Texans player is missed by those who rooted for him to succeed. I think there's a lot of reluctance around here to come to grips with the idea that we really have been starting players, or even having them on our roster for that matter, who are either not even playing in the NFL anymore or who are squeaking by and not making any waves. Jonathan Wells comes to mind, as does Bradford and Gaffney. Nobody likes to think that we had been giving starring roles to guysthat no other team wants to even pick up for depth. I think sometimes we let it get to us, and we want a guy back to try and prove that he was even worthy of being on our team in the first place. Call it "pride," or whatever...but if Wand is not on a team right now...with the way injuries happen in the trenches every season...then you gotta' think that it was for a very real and sound reason and not just to be a horse's rear about something.

Runner
10-06-2006, 11:09 PM
First of all, I don't think there is a conspiracy to keep Wand out of the NFL. Sometimes players are a victim of their circumstances as much as anything - in his case having Pendry as a coach didn't help his development. Many players go through this. I've posted in the past that I think Carr would be a top notch QB by now had he gone to another team. Big Ben would have sucked had he been drafted by the Texans. Same type of thing. This "conspiracy" thing seems to have been set up as a strawman by someone who wanted to refute it.


If Kubiak or any of the other coaches operated like this, we'd have seen (A)Carr not retained, or (B) Carr retained and then treated as poorly as you say Pitts had been (i.e. nonsensical decisions "just 'cuz I'm the coach and you're not") or (C) The team chemistry would not be as tight, nor would the players' overall satisfaction with the coaches be higher than any other team in our team's history--Training camp reports by ESPN said players were amazed at the level of competency of this coaching staff...you'd think the players would sniff out a bunch of phonies within about two days of camp based on what they'd been through prior to Kubiak.


a) and b) Carr and Pitts are two different players under two different circumstances.

c) Is my answer. I don't think that team chemistry is as tight now as it was in camp. I have already posted this as my opinion. As you said yourself training camp reports said players were high on the coaches. I certainly don't refute this. Things do change though.

I find it hard to believe that this would have happened for the reason you've stated. Is there any chance you're speculating, or your ears are tuned into someone close to a player or two on the team who might also be speculating or not fully aware of the reasoning for sitting out Pitts?

For a coach to sit out a guy just to prove a "you're not special" point seems way below the mental and psychological capacity of Kubiak. I have always sensed that Kubiak breaks his own back for the team and I wouldn't think he would purposefulyl sit a guy out just to break a streak to prove a point.


There is a heck of a lot of speculation on this board. Some make sense, some don't. But you challenge my thoughts because you have always "sensed" something about Kubiak. My speculation is wrong and your sense is right? I understand you trust your own feelings, but you will have to come up with something better than that to change my mind. Kubiak is not perfect. He probably has some faults.


Wand, as any other former Texans player is missed by those who rooted for him to succeed. I think there's a lot of reluctance around here to come to grips with the idea that we really have been starting players, or even having them on our roster for that matter, who are either not even playing in the NFL anymore or who are squeaking by and not making any waves. Jonathan Wells comes to mind, as does Bradford and Gaffney. Nobody likes to think that we had been giving starring roles to guysthat no other team wants to even pick up for depth. I think sometimes we let it get to us, and we want a guy back to try and prove that he was even worthy of being on our team in the first place. Call it "pride," or whatever...but if Wand is not on a team right now...with the way injuries happen in the trenches every season...then you gotta' think that it was for a very real and sound reason and not just to be a horse's rear about something.

I think there is more to it than pride when our left tackle spot is on pace to give up 33% more sacks this year than Wand did in his year of starting AND our running game is completely ineffective. We have a better scheme and more help from tight ends and backs now. We should be better.

Do you really want Brad Bedell in there when Salaam goes down? Weigert hasn't had his yearly injury yet either. Maybe the people who want Wand back see a need, and the posters who have always been against Wand refuse to see the problem we are facing and the obvious solution.

Is there any chance you're speculating, or your ears are tuned into someone close to a player or two on the team who might also be speculating or not fully aware of the reasoning for sitting out Pitts?


This is an interesting statement to refute my points. If a player or two or five or seven or.... thought this, wouldn't that support my point that the locker room isn't as tight as it appears?

Runner
10-06-2006, 11:31 PM
I love a good conspiracy theory, but the Kubiak hates Wand & Pitts conjecture is really out there. That it is being promoted by some of our elite posters is more bizarre.

In case you are including me in that group (although I'm sure you meant Herv)...

I didn't say Kubiak hated Wand or Pitts. I said that Kubiak sent Pitts a message. Nor did I say it was insidious. It was very clear - you aren't special. I added that in my opinion the players on the team took that mesage in a couple of different ways.

I have also stated that Kubiak is not bringing Wand back for some reason other than on field performance. My main evidence is that to many he is better than Bedell at left tackle. I question the validity of the reason "Bedell can play guard too" as a deciding factor. We are very weak at tackle depth now. We don't need a guard. If we need depth at both positions, we should consider carrying 10 lineman. There are other extra players on our roster at positions less critical than LT. I attribute Kubiak's inflexibility to his stubborness (he might actually have some faults). Maybe some day someone will convince me of some other reason, but some version of "Kubiak can't make a mistake or have foibles" isn't it.

In the end, some opinions can be correct and not popular. If I'm right - well I got one right. If I'm wrong - well I got another one wrong. If I'm an "elite poster" maybe it is because sometimes I think things through and come to an unpalatable, but correct, conclusion.

GP
10-07-2006, 12:11 AM
In case you are including me in that group (although I'm sure you meant Herv)...

I didn't say Kubiak hated Wand or Pitts. I said that Kubiak sent Pitts a message. Nor did I say it was insidious. It was very clear - you aren't special. I added that in my opinion the players on the team took that mesage in a couple of different ways.

I have also stated that Kubiak is not bringing Wand back for some reason other than on field performance. My main evidence is that to many he is better than Bedell at left tackle. I question the validity of the reason "Bedell can play guard too" as a deciding factor. We are very weak at tackle depth now. We don't need a guard. If we need depth at both positions, we should consider carrying 10 lineman. There are other extra players on our roster at positions less critical than LT. I attribute Kubiak's inflexibility to his stubborness (he might actually have some faults). Maybe some day someone will convince me of some other reason, but some version of "Kubiak can't make a mistake or have foibles" isn't it.

In the end, some opinions can be correct and not popular. If I'm right - well I got one right. If I'm wrong - well I got another one wrong. If I'm an "elite poster" maybe it is because sometimes I think things through and come to an unpalatable, but correct, conclusion.

You are awfully combative in your replies for someone who is so sure of himself.

YOU made the accusations that Kubiak sat Pitts out for what you are claiming was a "lie" by Kubiak, so back it up with names, dates, transcripts of your recorded conversations with whomever on the team is clueing you in on Kubiak sitting Pitts out for no other reason than to be a turd to Pitts and send some macho-libre "message" to Pitts and the rest of the team. All you are going on is your assumption that the "rotation situation" hasn't happened again therfore we can connect all the little dots on the big chalkboard of "A Beautiful Mind" and come up with Kubiak being in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. If you have proof, share it. Otherwise don't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I think that's not asking too much.

Quit playing word games, bro, and back your speculation up with some real evidence. Otherwise, you're just a Kubiak hater fueled by PERHAPS what you consider to have been a bad decision to cut Wand loose.

Why is Joppru still here? The guy collected a paycheck for how long without actually proving his worth on the field? If Kubiak is this egocentric and maniacal leader who trips out whenever he thinks someone needs to be taught a "lesson," then why didn't he cut Joppru the day he was medically cleared...or even better, the day of the first real game experience he could have had? That would have been great--Kubiak: "Oh, you thought you were playing today? Sorry, Jopps...this team plays guys who don't weenie out with make-believe injuries every year. Pack your stuff in that cardboard box and get out." Or here's a better one that he could have pulled: "Mr. Marciano, thanks for your hard work last season on special teams. Technically, you outperformed other coaches last season despite their best efforts to sink this team...but I'm the new guy and I have to ask you to leave so I can give a job to my buddy I grew up with."

If you have theories, put some collateral (evidence) up so we can talk business. If not, then it's just your opinion about Kubiak. You have yours, and I have mine. And nobody has picked up Seth Wand. But I'm sure he'll be back on the field next training camp with us or someone else :hides:

Kubiak was nice and said the politically correct thing: "He's a great guy, and if he doesn't catch on somewhere...we'd be glad to have him back next spring." Rings hollow to me, too, but what was the alternative? "Wand stinks and couldn't block a cat door with an 18-wheeler. Next question?"

GP
10-07-2006, 12:16 AM
In case you are including me in that group (although I'm sure you meant Herv)...

I didn't say Kubiak hated Wand or Pitts. I said that Kubiak sent Pitts a message. Nor did I say it was insidious. It was very clear - you aren't special. I added that in my opinion the players on the team took that mesage in a couple of different ways.

I have also stated that Kubiak is not bringing Wand back for some reason other than on field performance. My main evidence is that to many he is better than Bedell at left tackle. I question the validity of the reason "Bedell can play guard too" as a deciding factor. We are very weak at tackle depth now. We don't need a guard. If we need depth at both positions, we should consider carrying 10 lineman. There are other extra players on our roster at positions less critical than LT. I attribute Kubiak's inflexibility to his stubborness (he might actually have some faults). Maybe some day someone will convince me of some other reason, but some version of "Kubiak can't make a mistake or have foibles" isn't it.

In the end, some opinions can be correct and not popular. If I'm right - well I got one right. If I'm wrong - well I got another one wrong. If I'm an "elite poster" maybe it is because sometimes I think things through and come to an unpalatable, but correct, conclusion.

Compared to us inferior non-moderators who can never become a moderator like you because of the caste system that relegates us to serfdom for all future generations of our kind.

Read your bolded ending statement one more time and ask yourself "What would most people think when they read what I wrote about how 'I think things through and come to the correct conclusion'?"

Wow. Well, if you think Kubiak has an ego problem...I guess you'd be the best person to diagnose it.

:stirpot:

Cruuuuuuuz
10-07-2006, 12:22 AM
Yeah. It seems something went on here behind close doors. It's pretty obvious that Wand should be on the team atleast as a backup at this point.
Did the Texans want him back and he refused or the Texans just never offered him another chance?

I like Kubes and most of the things he's done so far as coach but we gotta keep in mind that he is a rookie coach and has never had to make quotes and deal with fans and the media this much in the past....(expect mistakes..he's a rookie)
Here are some quotes from Kubiak about Seth Wand:

During camp -
"If we went out and were trying to mold a left tackle in the draft, what we're looking for is a young man with that type of size and length that can run. He (Wand) would be a guy we would chisel out."

After he cut Wand:
"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

Link (http://texans.aolsportsblog.com/2006/09/04/texans-roster-cut-rumor-kubiak-overrules-sherman/)


As Texan fans... shouldnt we hold the head coach and his staff to the same level of scrutiny and excellence as they aspire to have in OUR Texan players?
Just like our guys gotta get better out there on the field, Kubes and his staff gotta get better aswell...Fans gotta learn to be better too...
We're all working towards the same goal..... a SUPERBOWL, eventually....

To me honesty is a big thing...so I want to know why Seth Wand is not back on the Texans?

Runner
10-07-2006, 12:22 AM
I was being combative? Look at your own post. The only difference is I am talking about the team and you are talking about me. That is the classic ad hominem argument:

attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


I look at the information I have and post what I think. Just like you and anyone else.

I would have been interested in having a better discussion about my statements than this with you, because sometimes I have found your posts and angles interesting, other times not so much. It appears we have no middle ground on this one though.

Runner
10-07-2006, 12:27 AM
Read your bolded ending statement one more time and ask yourself "What would most people think when they read what I wrote about how 'I think things through and come to the correct conclusion'?"


I think they would think - "Hey! GP left the "sometimes" out to make his argument look better".

GP
10-07-2006, 12:30 AM
I was being combative? Look at your own post. The only difference is I am talking about the team and you are talking about me. That is the classic ad hominem argument:

attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


I look at the information I have and post what I think. Just like you and anyone else.

I would have been interested in having a better discussion about my statements than this with you, because sometimes I have found your posts and angles interesting, other times not so much. It appears we have no middle ground on this one though.

Don't attack me for what you say is "character assassination against you" when you are involved in an obvious attempt upon the character of our head coach with what is easily now being seen as nonevidentiary arguments.

I asked you a solid question: Tell us or show us how your theory or accusation is true. You can't. What's left to discuss?

Yeah, and I thought the same thing you thought about me...until this series of posts. Trust me, it was a shock to my system, as well, when I reviewed your posts over and over and over just trying to make sure I hadn't misunderstood you. And unfortunately, I guess I didn't misunderstand you. Your evidence is "feeling and intuition" and you clearly feel that Kubiak is a loose cannon.

It's one thing to speculate, but quite another to lead others into thinking that you have proof...but can't share it for some reason. Amateur hour, IMO.

Answer the solid question I have: Tell us or show us how your theory or accusation is true. Tell us who you've spoken to on the team that says things are not as cheery and chipper as they once were and blah-blah-blah...

Clear that up and I'll apologize for everything I have posted in this thread.

Runner
10-07-2006, 12:41 AM
I asked you a solid question: Tell us or show us how your theory or accusation is true. You can't. What's left to discuss?


I know you will consider this a word game, but honestly it is "I won't, not can't". Since this is equivalent to you and most others as no evidence at all, so be it. I am now pegged as a Kubiak hating liar.

Trust is hard to build up and easy to destroy. There is a lesson there that has been a recurring theme in this thread already.

What's left to discuss? Nothing. It's late; I'll see you on another less volatile thread. Maybe about Carr or Mario/Bush.

Cruuuuuuuz
10-07-2006, 12:52 AM
WOW!
gpshafer_1976 vs Runner

I feel like a fly on the wall listening to what the Houston Texans coaches talked about concerning Seth Wand.... behind close doors!!!!

I'm makin' bad jokes but i dont understand how this topic got so volatile!:dangit:

Ibar_Harry
10-07-2006, 03:03 AM
I too am in the camp that thinks Kubiak is stubborn and once he gets down on a person he will not let go. Why do I say this? Well, lets look at Morency. At the beginning of camp Kubiak didn't like him and that never changed even though it appeared that Morency was playing better and blocking better than Lundy. Morency tried to adapt to Kubiak's style and seemed to do a pretty good job of changing. Nothing seemed to matter to Kubiak, however, there was no way Morency was going to redeem himself in Kubiak's eyers.

Early on Kubiak was making comments on Pitts. Now, I happen to not like Pitts myself, but we are talking about him getting on Kubiak's bad side and he never let go. If you read and listen to Kubiak's interviews you will hear quite a few negative comments concerning Pitts. Again, he was highly touted by the previous staff.

Wand again happens to be another case in point. I remember when Spencer started and was having a terrible time. They brought Wand in to settle things down. After things settled down they brought Spencer back and not a word was said about the job Wand had done. Carr was absolutely being killed by the left side of the defensive line. Wand played as he always has. He played very steady, but not spectacular. Like AJ, Wand is not a big rah! rah! guy. I will also harkon back to the fact that Boselli thought he was going to make a good LT and apparently so did Sherman. I sort of wonder if we have the opposite of Capers. He never over ruled anyone. May be Kubiak doesn't know when to take sound advice.

I see the same mentality in the running game. We have no running game and we really have no RB's right now. That is a simple fact of life and its too bad. But Kubiak insists that we must run the ball 1st to set up the pass. Even though he was a part of the 49ers pass 1st - run 2nd offense - he seems to have blinders on and can't seem to see what we do best. We have an outstanding receiver core that can match any team in the league. Some times you have to adapt and overcome. If you want to be a running back, but the good lord hasn't given you the body to be one but he has given you the skills to be a great receiver, then acceept it for what it is. You have a great gift. Use it. Quit trying to be what you are not.

I know you have to run the ball, but ask Manning why they aren't until the other team isn't expecting it. Of course the answer is they have outstanding receivers. Even AJ in one of his interviews hinted at this obvious problem of there being more than one way to skin a cat. I think if you listen to the comments of the players there is a lot to be read between the lines. I don't think this team has the spirit they began the season with. I think people under stand what they are dealing with and they are smart enough not to generally rock the boat.

I had a lot of high hopes for Kubiak and many of the things he said. However, when push came to shove it turned out what he was saying was not what he was thinking. Yes, I would even add for some of you, Carr is still here because of Kubiak's stuborness. I guess we loose some and we win some. I find Kubiak not being much different that Capers.

Yes, we are doing better offensively, because we have some very skilled receivers and a QB who is looking better. Kubiak has the skill players on the side of the game he knows best. Our defense has been the pitts and I think we were lucky to win the last game. In fact I would dare say that we won the game because defensively they did what probably 90% of the posters on this Web SIte were saying to do.

Capers was a defensive coach who had no players and was lost on the field at game time. Kubiak has more game presense, but not much more. I'm going to find it very interesting to see how we play against the Cowboys.

Does he change and adapt to the team or does he force the team to try to adapt to him. If he does the latter the rest of the season will be downhill. I guess I really hope he does begin to think through his actions, because - as I said before - he said what I wanted to hear from a head coach. I though he was really headed for greatness. Now, I really think I have a lot of doubts.

In the beginning it looked like Capers was going to be good, but then the real Capers came forth and it was an unpleasant experience for the Texans and their fans. I hope we do not see the same thing from Kubiak.

Number19
10-07-2006, 06:49 AM
...but if Wand is not on a team right now...with the way injuries happen in the trenches every season...then you gotta' think that it was for a very real and sound reason and not just to be a horse's rear about something.The problem is that this position doesn't square with Kubiak's words. Call it positive spin - call it lying - but whatever, when Kubes answers a question, now, you can't take him for his word, ie : "..."like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work...".

infantrycak
10-07-2006, 08:19 AM
The problem is that this position doesn't square with Kubiak's words. Call it positive spin - call it lying - but whatever, when Kubes answers a question, now, you can't take him for his word, ie : "..."like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work...".

I really shouldn't be surprised but still am that folks are so twisted about this and 2nd guessing everything (well not Ibar since Oliver Stone has nothing on him for "reading between the lines") but seriously folks--aren't some of y'all making much ado about half of nothing?

"Like I told him, if something doesn't work out for him, he's a guy you welcome back in a heartbeat and love to go back to work with and take another offseason to teach him what you do and get stronger. He's a great kid. We just felt like the best thing to do for our team right now is use Ephraim as our swing guy."

All anyone is looking at is the we'd welcome him back part but then ignoring the 2nd half which has a distinct temporal qualifier on actually using him--take another offseason. Kubiak didn't hint or imply they would consider using Wand this year--only maybe next year. I was surprised and disappointed Wand was released but this is pretty silly to half quote someone over or character assassinate about.

thunderkyss
10-07-2006, 09:02 AM
All anyone is looking at is the we'd welcome him back part but then ignoring the 2nd half which has a distinct temporal qualifier on actually using him--take another offseason. Kubiak didn't hint or imply they would consider using Wand this year--only maybe next year. I was surprised and disappointed Wand was released but this is pretty silly to half quote someone over or character assassinate about.

Agreed.

I thought we should've kept Wand as Well. But I understood, I think, What Kubiak said. Wand will make a fine Left Tackle someday, it's not worth the roster spot to keep him here, when we've already got someone who'll make a fine(even better maybe) LT someday, Plus another swingman in training.....

Depending on how things go with Spencer's rehab, it may be possible that we'd pick up Wand in the next offseason, and get him on our roster next year.

Kaiser Toro
10-07-2006, 09:07 AM
The Wand situation is a crazy one to me. The more I stew over it it does seem to be something that was more personality/political driven than anything. In a league where big LT's that have good feet and a finite amount of teams use the zone blocking scheme we have decided to punt on bringing in depth that knows our personnel and playbook.

Wand has not been signed and not worked out by other NFL teams. Moreover, you do not hear publicly anyone calling for him to return. Was his 2004 campaign and his 2005 stint in the doghouse that bad where Carr, Pitts, McKinney and Wiegert are not going public? Did Sherman really like the kid? Has Kubiak decided not to bring Wand back to show Winston and Spencer that you they are our future bookends? Viable questions with no solid answers.

My take is that if he ain't back now, he ain't coming back and that is because of Kubiak. Kubiak has come to town and has turned a sad sack QB into the top rated passer in the league even with a maligned line. Wand maybe a nice guy with potential, but I do not recall those type of guys not to be picked up after being released, be in the dog house and not have his former mates (in a time of need) stay so quiet in a 18 month term. Something is up and it ain't Wand at the moment.

jerek
10-07-2006, 09:14 AM
I have to weigh in on this Wand argument. Are you people actually serious? I am not a Wand supporter, was a good guy, but did not play well. I assume the people that consider him solid either dont know much about technique or know absolutely nothing about it. He does not fit with what we are trying to do, he is not strong and he does not have the mentality to overcome under pressure. Durning TC Sherman pulled for Wand and gave him every opportunity to be the starter, what did Wand do? Well he got cut, obviously. Anyone who went to TC that did not have to sit in the stands got to hear the choice words every practice for Wand, because he just was not playing up to his ability.
You can say he played badly because of Pendry, too much pressure, or the fact that he was just not that good. Either way you slice it he is not the guy for us. Interesting that the Chiefs, Lions, and Raiders all have major injuries on their O-lines, but not one of them has brought him in. Hell the Chiefs have DT L.Dalton working at G, because both LTs are hurt.
Come on guys I understand the man love, like I said he is a good guy, but he is not a good player. Bedell is a swing guy so he has more value, Salaam is unspectacular, but Winston is coming along pretty well in practice and in several weeks will be getting some PT. I cannot go into technique, because I dont overly understand all of it, but Coach C. explained that Wand needs a good deal of work before he will make this team. Wand being cut had was not political or for some "flaw" in Kubes personality, it was because he could not get the job done Period Look for him in TC next year...

South Texan
10-07-2006, 09:48 AM
Final trades have to happen by what, week 6?

Since we are not in contention for the Super Bowl anyway, maybe Kubes and company are waiting for the final couple of days to see who's available, and may still pick him up if there are no better fits available.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it's not that they hate Wand, but with just one more game before the deadline they are just keeping their options open till the last minute.

Then what do I know, I ran out of coffee and am having Pepsi for breakfast.

tsip
10-07-2006, 10:04 AM
I don't know. "Chisel Out" does that mean to refine, and develop?? or is he saying Seth would be part of the scrap that would hit the floor?? the part that was Chiseled away??

& in the second one, he says Seth needs another offseason to work out with the team, to learn what we are trying to do as a team, and work on his strength.

I don't know.

I thought Seth played well, and thought he should start... only because Spencer is a rookie. I don't see the point in trying to develop three Tackles, so going with Salaam seems like a no brainer (now, back then I didn't like the idea) Especially after watching Spencer play against D.Howard, & Freeney. Freeney beat him once, and it cost him(David), but I don't think Wand would have done much better if any at all.

What I found strange, was putting Bedelle in there when Salaam got hurt, and then pushing Salaam back out there when Bedelle wasn't working out..... I'd have thought he'd put Pitts in at LT, and Weary at Gaurd, just to finish the game....... but oh well.

I think a lot of what Kubiak does/decisions he makes are based on 'saving face.' He comes across as that kind of person that does not like to admit he made the 'wrong' decision. He'll take the blame when it involves an entire 'median(like the play of the defense)' where a lot of people are involved in the decision making and he--by default-is the one ultimately held accountable...but-when the 'finger' can only point at him-he's not as culpable(sp).

I hope this is not the case, as Capers was the same way and even worse (nothing was ever his fault), but Kubiak's 'rhetoric' leaves a lot to be deired. IMO, Gary needs a PR person that can monitor what he is saying to the public vs what he is coaching on the field.:yahoo:

Erratic Assassin
10-07-2006, 10:50 AM
];462565']Everybody hates Wand, don't you know that. Think he is a hard worker, but a very slow learner. He must be .... ummm mentally challenged.

Is it just me or does anyone else remember Tony Boselli quoted as saying Seth Wand was one of the most intelligent players he's ever met?

nunusguy
10-07-2006, 11:18 AM
Kubiak and Sherman praised Wand, in the local media and one would assume
privately at that same time. The kids ego was going thru a major overhaul
after the humiliating treatment he received last year from the Capers crowd.
Then low and behold, the Kubiak crowd dropped Wand like he was a piece of hot dog dung. Didn't just demote him, but cut him from the team entirely.
IMO, this was a very ill advised stategy and the current regime burnt their bridges with Wand. Not to mention that it was an ethically lacking call.

thunderkyss
10-07-2006, 12:02 PM
Then low and behold, the Kubiak crowd dropped Wand like he was a piece of hot dog dung. Didn't just demote him, but cut him from the team entirely.
IMO, this was a very ill advised stategy and the current regime burnt their bridges with Wand. Not to mention that it was an ethically lacking call.

We've got a 53 man roster to fill. the rookies will be on it, that's not even a question. the choice was Wand or Salaam........ you think they should've cut the salty dog, and keep the 2nd year guy with little game time in the past 18 months??

I liked Wand too, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

JohnGalt
10-07-2006, 12:15 PM
We've got a 53 man roster to fill. the rookies will be on it, that's not even a question. the choice was Wand or Salaam........ you think they should've cut the salty dog, and keep the 2nd year guy with little game time in the past 18 months??

I liked Wand too, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Cutting him for the initial 53 man roster is one thing, but now that we clearly need a starter at left tackle is another. Salaam is a "swing" guy, not a starter.

thunderkyss
10-07-2006, 01:06 PM
Cutting him for the initial 53 man roster is one thing, but now that we clearly need a starter at left tackle is another. Salaam is a "swing" guy, not a starter.

My reply was concerning the 53 man roster.

I agree with you here.

GP
10-07-2006, 02:31 PM
Here's an easy way to settle this:

Kubiak is the coach. It was his decision. Not yours.

Concoct all the theories you want, it doesn't matter. Some claim that Kubiak is stubborn (especially for the Wand Situation) but it's HIS team and he'll make a decision and stand by it because HIS rear is on the line. I bet Kubiak really cherishes making goofy decisions "just for the heck of it" when the real thing that matters is fielding the best team possible so you can win. The guy was part of one of the longest winningest NFL teams (Broncos) and he's seen everything under the sun when it comes to who's got the stuff and who doesn't. But lately he's getting made out to be a goober. Simply amazing...

Too many times we all think that we could coach the team and make the tough decisions. Heck, if it were up to us around here...we'd still have Jonathan Wells, Tony Hollings, Jabar Gaffney, Billy Miller, Corey Bradford, JJ Moses, and a whole bunch of other guys that if I am not mistaken are not even IN THE LEAGUE. Wed' have them because there's just that certain "something" that says those guys can make it if we had better playcalling or better players around them, or a different scheme, etc. I marvel at how much this board gets pissy when a "good guy" gets cut. Maybe Texans fans are not as savvy as other NFL fans. I've been to some other NFL fan sites and you should see how rabid they are for the coaches to get rid of guys. You don't see this "boo hoo hoo, so-and-so was making so much progress...I wish he hadn't got cut!". They pretty much have no sympathy for the players if they get cut. They know that to win games, you gotta' send people home and continue to always foster an attitude of excellence, which means sending a few guys packing once and a while. That's what Kubiak is doing, and it was a welcome relief from the days of Capers when you could INK in the regular season roster before training camp had even STARTED.

It amazes me how much we sit around here and play "coach" when we'd be making sentimental, instinctual calls on personnel that guys like Capers had made over the past few years.

Capers this and Capers that. Blah blah blah.

Was only a matter of time that a few around here are taking their paper labels off their brand new bars of pink soap.

Spudlix
10-09-2006, 08:47 AM
Iím many years removed from Springfield, Missouri, but I still have affiliations there. I was looking at the Texanís team roster on the internet for Seth Wand. A fellow Springfield native, and was unable to find him listed there. What is the reason for that? Was he disabled, traded, or dropped?

gtexan02
10-09-2006, 08:49 AM
Seth Wand was named the starter going into training camp. He had an average camp, and Charles Spencer was named the starter in his place. He was then cut from the team, and never heard from again.

It was assumed that he lacked the "fire"needed by an OL, or that he did something to get into the coaches doghouse. Whatever the reason, he was removed from the team, and for the same reason, hasn't been asked back on the team after Charles Spencer was injurued for the season.

wags
10-09-2006, 08:50 AM
:backsout:

Frills
10-09-2006, 08:56 AM
last I heard he was in Washington

WildBlackBear32
10-09-2006, 09:04 AM
last I heard he was in Washington

That's Todd Wade.

Texans Horror
10-09-2006, 09:40 AM
You must have missed this discussion, from page 2:

http://forums.houstontexans.com/showthread.php?t=29326

Should give you an idea of what's up with Seth. You're not the only one wondering.

dat_boy_yec
10-09-2006, 09:00 PM
I dunno, this is the biggest thing that annoys me. When our LT went down we went out and signed a Guard. I remember a while back Kubiak had made the comment that you always wanted four tackles on your team. I find this rather hypocritical becaus now he's refusing to suit up more than two tackles. I mean had Salaam not come back in the Miami game I think we would have lost. Bedell had no business playing tackle. We got a solid guard rotation and if anything McKinney could handle C if anything had happened to Hodgdon. So why is it we still don't re-sign Wand? I mean it is simple logic, I don't care if Wand is the starter or the back-up point is if your not gonna suit up more than 2 tackles a game your setting yourself up for failure. We dodged the bullet @ Miami, but the schedule doesn't let up. I think not re-signing Wand or any other tackle for that matter is a mistake, one that we may end up regreting.

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2006, 12:15 AM
I dunno, this is the biggest thing that annoys me. When our LT went down we went out and signed a Guard. I remember a while back Kubiak had made the comment that you always wanted four tackles on your team. I find this rather hypocritical becaus now he's refusing to suit up more than two tackles. I mean had Salaam not come back in the Miami game I think we would have lost. Bedell had no business playing tackle. We got a solid guard rotation and if anything McKinney could handle C if anything had happened to Hodgdon. So why is it we still don't re-sign Wand? I mean it is simple logic, I don't care if Wand is the starter or the back-up point is if your not gonna suit up more than 2 tackles a game your setting yourself up for failure. We dodged the bullet @ Miami, but the schedule doesn't let up. I think not re-signing Wand or any other tackle for that matter is a mistake, one that we may end up regreting.


I have said much of the same. It was like 30 seconds over Tokyo. We were that close to an implosion. Yes, he continues to say he will only suit up 7 O-linemen, because we have too many problems elsewhere. I'm not certain he can find 7 O-linemen at the present time. As Parcells would say, I don't have to like you and you don't have to like me, all you have to do is play ball and we will get along.

Cruuuuuuuz
10-11-2006, 11:23 PM
I dunno, this is the biggest thing that annoys me. When our LT went down we went out and signed a Guard. I remember a while back Kubiak had made the comment that you always wanted four tackles on your team. I find this rather hypocritical becaus now he's refusing to suit up more than two tackles. I mean had Salaam not come back in the Miami game I think we would have lost. Bedell had no business playing tackle. We got a solid guard rotation and if anything McKinney could handle C if anything had happened to Hodgdon. So why is it we still don't re-sign Wand? I mean it is simple logic, I don't care if Wand is the starter or the back-up point is if your not gonna suit up more than 2 tackles a game your setting yourself up for failure. We dodged the bullet @ Miami, but the schedule doesn't let up. I think not re-signing Wand or any other tackle for that matter is a mistake, one that we may end up regreting.

I agree.
I like Kubes and am interested where he is leading our team but we cant have a coach sayin one thing and doing another. I mean we are Texan Fans...it's not like Kube's can hurt our feelings after the seasons we been through. He needs to not worry about being PC and just shoot straight with us.
Now if he woulda just said..."Seth Wand is below adequate at his postion, plus he called me a $%^&&* when we cut him...so you will never see him in a Texan uniform again."...
Then hey i can deal with that.

michaelm
10-11-2006, 11:55 PM
maybe they called Seth and he said he'd rather sell insurance than play for us...