PDA

View Full Version : Daniels and Putzier


kcwilson
11-29-2006, 11:59 PM
Granted you can never have too much depth, but do you think that Jeb Putzier is worth the money right now?

Breuner is a better blocker, and Daniels is the preferred receiving TE... is Putz going to be part of the larger game plan as a receiving threat or is he just insurance from now on.

I thought he should signs of a decent receiving threat, but obviously we are getting signs that Jeb is not he receiving TE of the future. Do we keep Breuner next year with Daniels and go 2 TE?

I like our three TE, but does Putz get overpriced soon if we keep taking high draft picks and have to sign them to big money?

Personally, I'd like to see Daniels and Putz involved in passing game at same time.

bah007
11-30-2006, 12:10 AM
Putz was intended to be our recieving TE but Daniels came around a lot faster than anyone anticipated.

We can keep him for depth right now but if we ever get close to max cap (unlikely for a while) then he will be one of the first to go.

kcwilson
11-30-2006, 12:16 AM
Putz was intended to be our recieving TE but Daniels came around a lot faster than anyone anticipated.

We can keep him for depth right now but if we ever get close to max cap (unlikely for a while) then he will be one of the first to go.

So if we aren't going to be close, should we try and get the best talent possible on the field? Isn't it a given on defense that they don't need to account for Breuner... wouldn't we be tougher for the defense to play against with two possible threats, prevents the defense from favoring one TE vs. the other in a two TE set.

run-david-run
11-30-2006, 12:28 AM
So if we aren't going to be close, should we try and get the best talent possible on the field? Isn't it a given on defense that they don't need to account for Breuner... wouldn't we be tougher for the defense to play against with two possible threats, prevents the defense from favoring one TE vs. the other in a two TE set.
That would mean exploiting match-ups in the passing game...we dont do that. :francis:

kcwilson
11-30-2006, 12:31 AM
That would mean exploiting match-ups in the passing game...we dont do that. :francis:

This is all I am saying. I am no football genius, but seems like a good idea to be 'unpredictable'. This ain't no hat rack on my shoulders.

bah007
11-30-2006, 12:34 AM
Bruener is not a threat reciever but he blocks as good as an 0-lineman and he will catch the ball when you throw it to him... he just cant run after the catch... or before the catch.

Most his routes during his career have been 3 yd outs or 5 yds curls.

kcwilson
11-30-2006, 12:42 AM
Bruener is not a threat reciever but he blocks as good as an 0-lineman and he will catch the ball when you throw it to him... he just cant run after the catch... or before the catch.

Most his routes during his career have been 3 yd outs or 5 yds curls.

So he is a slower Andre Johnson? SOrry couldn't resist.

ib4texans
11-30-2006, 01:01 AM
Bruener is not a threat reciever but he blocks as good as an 0-lineman and he will catch the ball when you throw it to him... he just cant run after the catch... or before the catch.

Most his routes during his career have been 3 yd outs or 5 yds curls.

So he is a good fit for our current paly calling scheme, Kubiak will not get of any of his ex Denver players. If he does I vote for the crippling Ron Dayne as the first to go.

HJam72
11-30-2006, 08:46 AM
This is the Texans. If you cut Putzier, OD will immediately have a career ending injury. :brickwall

Texans Horror
11-30-2006, 09:22 AM
Our Tight Ends are good. I say keep it as-is. I am sure Putzier's years in the Denver scheme and veteran maturity are a big help for Kubes.

nunusguy
11-30-2006, 09:37 AM
Owens, only a part-time starting player in college last year, has made rapid and surprising development his rookie year in the NFL and created the kind of problem that teams want to have.

Tayton
11-30-2006, 09:44 AM
I don't care who it is but I would like to see one of them splitting the middle to bust the cover 2 everyone is using on us.

tex
11-30-2006, 04:18 PM
I wish the Texans would have let Putzier go and kept Bennie.

sheldon1651
11-30-2006, 04:26 PM
I do to but remember Putz was one of kubiaks and Gm Smiths mistake and could not look bad now that the cats out of the bag it will happen next year. Another one of his Denver connection

HOU-TEX
11-30-2006, 04:36 PM
I do to but remember Putz was one of kubiaks and Gm Smiths mistake and could not look bad now that the cats out of the bag it will happen next year. Another one of his Denver connection

What? What makes BJ better than Jeb? He hasn't played a down in an NFL game yet. Even though Jeb got beat out, he's still much better than BJ. He brings experience,knowledge and depth at TE.

One more thing. Our GM Rick Smith wasn't even here when we brought in Jeb. Man, where do people come up with this stuff??

trublu
11-30-2006, 06:30 PM
Granted you can never have too much depth, but do you think that Jeb Putzier is worth the money right now?

Breuner is a better blocker, and Daniels is the preferred receiving TE... is Putz going to be part of the larger game plan as a receiving threat or is he just insurance from now on.

I thought he should signs of a decent receiving threat, but obviously we are getting signs that Jeb is not he receiving TE of the future. Do we keep Breuner next year with Daniels and go 2 TE?

I like our three TE, but does Putz get overpriced soon if we keep taking high draft picks and have to sign them to big money?

Personally, I'd like to see Daniels and Putz involved in passing game at same time.

Who knows? I bet the front office felt they were doing something smart by releasing Robaire Smith, and then everyone on the d-line started getting hurt. With our luck, we get rid of Putz, and then Daniels and Bruener get hurt in the same week or somthing.

tsip
11-30-2006, 07:43 PM
Our Tight Ends are good. I say keep it as-is. I am sure Putzier's years in the Denver scheme and veteran maturity are a big help for Kubes.

Exactly--look how many years this was a big 'concern' with us fans on the board and everywhere else---ain't broke, don't fix it.

There are enough players 'gone' that I bet Kubiak would like to have back, so let's leave the TE's alone.............

Erratic Assassin
11-30-2006, 08:40 PM
I wish the Texans would have let Putzier go and kept Bennie.

Why?

Specnatz
11-30-2006, 08:43 PM
Kubiak mentioned that it is because of having guys like Jeb here than Bruener and Daiels have learned the offense far quicker than they would have other wise. (do not ask for a link because radio shows do not creat links).

Nothing wrong with keeping all three it provides depth and the cost is not the significatn is it? Granted 1.5 is a lot for a rarely used player but he might sign for a lower amount next year.

tex
11-30-2006, 11:48 PM
Why?

Putzier was brought in to help teach Kubiak's system to speed things up with the TE's.Kubiak said himself he wanted BJ back but he wanted to sign with the Bears.Who could blame him when the Bears will be in the playoffs and maybe the superbowl.