PDA

View Full Version : Starters Who Weren't In Training Camp?


cuppacoffee
12-14-2006, 01:37 PM
In this mornings Chronic. Megan Manfull mentions that Leach and Dayne were both unemployed at the beginning of the season.

I believe that Salaam fits that same description.

Do any of the posters here have a list of free agents we picked up during the year.

All things considered it seems to me that we are playing pretty good, (well make that passable), ball with a lot of players we weren't counting on starting the year.

Example...Salaam and Hogdon (sp) are starting on the O line now and our RB's are free agent pickups.

I guess I am just attempting to justify what has happened to our team this year and cut Kubiak and our players a little slack...texanpride

New coachs, new schemes on both sides of the ball, a pretty darn good draft class this year.

Lots of experience being gained by players who will probably be our backups/depth next year.

We have been in some of the games we lost right to the finish.

We beat those sorry arse Jags twice.

A lot of negative things going around here right now and I would like to find a few positives we can discuss.

What's past is past and all the anguish in the world isn't going to change it.

I couldn't find an olive branch smilie, so this is for all the posters I have been arguing with about our team..you know who you are.:flowers:

Lets talk optimism for a change...:fans:

:coffee:

HOU-TEX
12-14-2006, 01:43 PM
I hear ya. I've been most impressed by our Dline. Picking up Dalton and Maddux was very nice. I'm willing to bet they'll be around next year.

Salaam has been a band-aid. He might be around for veteran leadership and depth next year.:)

eriadoc
12-14-2006, 01:46 PM
McCleon, Wynn are two more that come to mind. Edell Shepherd played a role for a while, but wasn't in TC. He got cut a few weeks ago, however.

El Tejano
12-14-2006, 01:59 PM
I'll say Wynn before Mcleon. However, I think Faggins still counts because he went the whole preseason without being with the team. Since his return our defense has created more TOs.

eriadoc
12-14-2006, 02:02 PM
To expand on this, four of the five positions on the O-line are currently manned by players who were not projected as starters. Spencer went down, so Salaam plays. Flanagan went down, so Hodgdon is starting. McKinney was the projected starter, but between injuries and just being beat out, he hasn't taken the job from Weary. Winston didn't progress as nicely as Spencer and I'm not really sure he would have actually beaten out Wand, but he's starting now due to an injury to Wiegert (that was inevitable).

Owen Daniels probably wasn't the projected starter, but at least he's playing because he actually beat someone out for a job. The RB position has been a mess all season. As mentioned, Leach seems to have taken over for Cook.

On defense, the two DT positions have been patchwork for quite some time. Dalton and Maddox have made a few good plays, at least. Babin and Peek aren't seeing the field nearly as much as many people expected. Mario's been dinged for much of the season. Faggins/McCleon/Sanders has been an adventure at the #2 and #3 CB spots for most of the year.

Kick return has been a nightmare all year until the last two games with Mathis back. Our kicker was the projected starter and has played every game, although many of us wish he hadn't. Same with punter, really.

Overall, the staff has had quite a few injury situations to deal with. Coupled with the lack of talent at some positions, this team really has shown improvement over last year.

HOU-TEX
12-14-2006, 03:03 PM
BUMP!

I just want to keep a thread that has a little something positive going on top of the board.

I've been quite impressed with Leach as well. IIRC, he even had a pancake or two in the two previous games.:yes:

Runner
12-14-2006, 03:28 PM
It's not all positive. The coaching staff was counting on two injury prone players - Wiegert and Flanagan to start. In addition their key back-up of both tackle positions was Salaam, also susceptible to injury.

While it can be debated they did an adequate job building the starting line, the coaches did not do much to provide depth.


The weakness in depth was made apparent in week two when Spencer got hurt. With 14 games to go both ends and the center of our o-line were manned by players who were unlikely to finish the season healthy. The coaches continued to make questionable roster decisions - 9 lineman on the roster, reliance on swing players - and that led directly to the problems we have today.

Specific injuries are not foreseeable, but it was unlikely the o-line would remain intact for 16 games. The coaches built the roster like o-line health wasn't a concern. The coaches' decisions impacted the line as much as the injuries did.

The positive I see in this is that maybe the coaches have learned a lesson for next year.

HOU-TEX
12-14-2006, 03:38 PM
It's not all positive. The coaching staff was counting on two injury prone players - Wiegert and Flanagan to start. In addition their key back-up of both tackle positions was Salaam, also susceptible to injury.

While it can be debated they did an adequate job building the starting line, the coaches did not do much to provide depth.


The weakness in depth was made apparent in week two when Spencer got hurt. With 14 games to go both ends and the center of our o-line were manned by players who were unlikely to finish the season healthy. The coaches continued to make questionable roster decisions - 9 lineman on the roster, reliance on swing players - and that led directly to the problems we have today.

Specific injuries are not foreseeable, but it was unlikely the o-line would remain intact for 16 games. The coaches built the roster like o-line health wasn't a concern. The coaches' decisions impacted the line as much as the injuries did.

The positive I see in this is that maybe the coaches have learned a lesson for next year.

The positive is the fact they're trying to fight through all the injuries. Who's to say the Oline was better with the starters? The sack stats don't show it (not that it matters). We're running the ball better now than the first 1/4 of the season. The way the Dline appears to be playing now is better than earlier in the year. To me there's really only one position that has regressed this season and it's shown throughout the MB.
I'm willing to give the coaching staff more than an offseason to aquire the kind of depth we need. So yeah, to me, there is some positivity to think about there. :shades:

Runner
12-14-2006, 03:45 PM
Who's to say the Oline was better with the starters? The sack stats don't show it (not that it matters). We're running the ball better now than the first 1/4 of the season.

If

Salaam Pitts Hodgdon Weary Winston

is better than

Spencer Pitts Flanagan Weary Wiegert

then the coaches messed up even more than I thought to start the season. They didn't even identify the best starters.

HOU-TEX
12-14-2006, 03:52 PM
If

Salaam Pitts Hodgdon Weary Winston

is better than

Spencer Pitts Flanagan Weary Wiegert

then the coaches messed up even more than I thought to start the season. They didn't even identify the best starters.

IMO, other than Spencer being in Salaams spot. It doesn't look much different considering the talent/depth we had to start with. Like I said, I'm willing to give our new staff more than one offseson to build some depth.:shades:

Insideop
12-14-2006, 04:47 PM
It's not all positive. The coaching staff was counting on two injury prone players - Wiegert and Flanagan to start. In addition their key back-up of both tackle positions was Salaam, also susceptible to injury.

While it can be debated they did an adequate job building the starting line, the coaches did not do much to provide depth.

The weakness in depth was made apparent in week two when Spencer got hurt. With 14 games to go both ends and the center of our o-line were manned by players who were unlikely to finish the season healthy. The coaches continued to make questionable roster decisions - 9 lineman on the roster, reliance on swing players - and that led directly to the problems we have today.

Specific injuries are not foreseeable, but it was unlikely the o-line would remain intact for 16 games. The coaches built the roster like o-line health wasn't a concern. The coaches' decisions impacted the line as much as the injuries did.
The positive I see in this is that maybe the coaches have learned a lesson for next year.

Runner, I think Kubes and staff did the best they could with what they had. They picked up the FA's they thought would help them (in their system) knowing that they are going to be a stop-gap until they can draft what they need. Then they got 2 O-linemen in the draft to start filling those holes, but with so many holes to fill (on both sides of the ball) they can only do so much with 1 draft. I think they knew it was a crap shoot with the injuries, but thought they had enough to cover it. This is why I think, and hope, Kubes will pick O-line with the 1st pick (really hope Thomas) so he can start filling more of those holes! JMHO!

cuppacoffee
12-14-2006, 05:49 PM
Runner, I think Kubes and staff did the best they could with what they had. They picked up the FA's they thought would help them (in their system) knowing that they are going to be a stop-gap until they can draft what they need. Then they got 2 O-linemen in the draft to start filling those holes, but with so many holes to fill (on both sides of the ball) they can only do so much with 1 draft. I think they knew it was a crap shoot with the injuries, but thought they had enough to cover it. This is why I think, and hope, Kubes will pick O-line with the 1st pick (really hope Thomas) so he can start filling more of those holes! JMHO!

I guess it could be possible that Kubes was keeping the BP'sA that they picked up, regardless of position, knowing that we would draft more O linemen this coming draft? :idea:.. idonno:

:coffee: