PDA

View Full Version : Systems, Schemes, Drafting, Signing, and You.


Grid
12-22-2006, 12:58 AM
So there seems to be two camps here. The "Forget the scheme, get the talent" camp, and the "Get what you need to make it work" camp.

Im in the second camp, but let me tell you why.

Im of the opinion that scheme is what makes a team great. If talent was all it took to win championships, then there are alot of bad coaches that would be sporting fistfulls of rings.

I hate to use the Broncos for another comparison here, but they are the best example I can think of at the moment. Do you think that the Broncos Olinemen could start on any team? A bunch of undersized late round linemen, and undrafted free agents, that somehow manage to be one of the best run blocking lines in the league. Why is it, do you think, that these guys have so much success in Denver? They probably wouldnt even make the roster on some other teams. Scheme. Thats why. Denver runs a system that works with those linemen.. they arent your prototypical linemen, and its not just the chopblocking that makes them effective :D.. they work for what Denver wants to do.

Fact of the matter is that in this day and age you cannot have a playmaker at every position. The salary cap doesnt allow for it, even if you could somehow manage to amass the picks and moolah to get a star at every spot.

You need a scheme.. a set of guidelines that you follow that tells you what you need out of a player at every position for your team to be successful. You cant just say "I need a playmaker".. cause you cant always get one.. but if you need an OLB that can slide over and cover a WR when he isnt rushing the QB.. that you can find.. and it may be a 225 lb guy who cant be used to plug a hole when the offense runs the ball, but if you have Dlinemen that can do that.. then everyone is playing a part and making the scheme work.

Really, a player that fits your team's scheme perfectly is just as valuable, and just as rare, as a playmaker. Not only because they get the job done and help you win games, but because you can keep them on the roster for less money.. allowing you to afford some of those playmakers that will "put you over the top" and get you that superbowl ring.

This is why a team can bring over a quality free agent from another team, and then have the guy never play as well as he did for the other guys. He just doesnt fit your scheme. Look at the Denver running backs.. so many of them have left for other teams and been average or less than average on other teams.

So, keep that in mind before you say "forget the scheme, get the guy that makes plays".. because he may not make plays for us unless we change our scheme to fit his strengths.. and if we do that, then we may have to change out players at other positions because they may not fit the new scheme. Not to mention it could move us away from what Kubiak and this coaching staff does best, and we dont want to do that.

Thats why I dont want Brady Quinn and id rather have JaMarcus Russell.. Russell seems a bit more capable of rolling out than Quinn. The rollout is important to our scheme.. we need a guy that can not only sell the rollout, but throw accurately on the run as well. Peyton Manning would not be very successful if we had him run our offense the way Kubiak wants it run.

And thats another thing.. something to keep ya positive about where this team is going. Did Capers have a scheme? It didnt seem like it to me.. his scheme on offense seemed to be "run it up the gut till they let you pass it".. and im not simplifying it..that was about the entirety of his offense. His defense was equally unimaginative.. seeming to be some kind of ackward prevent 3-4 atrocity.

Kubiak seems to have a real scheme in mind.. he knows what he is trying to do and he is trying to bring in the players that allow him to do it. And dont mistake this for "trying to fit square pegs into round holes".. thats not what he is doing. There is room for flexibility within the scheme.. but ya cant just bring in ANYBODY... the better a fit they are, the more success we will have. But, the fact that Kubiak seems to have a real plan..and is working to make that plan work.. that gets me excited about where this team is going.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the whole "scheme thing".. since ive seen a number of posts that are "anti-scheme"

ATX
12-22-2006, 01:12 AM
I'm actually somewhere in the middle on this issue. Schemes work when you have what you need, but a coach has to do what he can with the players he has sometimes. I guess you could say fluid in their decisions, being able to win with what they have because like you said, Salary caps and free agents limit your scheme.

I believe a coach has to have a grand scheme if that's what you call it and try to build a team to fit your scheme, but most coaches don't even last 5 years if they can't win and if they need 6-7 years to complete the scheme, then they better be winning until that scheme is complete.

I would hope that Kubiak has some schemes that are different than Denver's. Take the good, leave out the bad, and improvise and innovate along the way.

blockhead83
12-22-2006, 09:23 AM
Good post Grid, I agree with most of that. I think Capers did have a scheme, and he did try to select players to fit the ideals of said scheme, a la Jason Babin, Charlie Anderson, Antwan Peek et al. The problem was 1. His scheme kinda sucked. 2. We didn't draft players who performed as well as Casserly and Co. projected (I would not put it outside the realm of possibility that Capers could be a winning coach if we had drafted the likes of Shawne Merriman or Demarcus Ware to play OLB instead of the Jason Babins', as well as getting better talent in other areas). and 3. Capers didn't concentrate as much as he should have on our D. Capers is a good defensive coach, if you put him in charge of a defense, he can make it very competitive. I think Kubiak is taking a more hands on approach with the offense, since that's his specialty, and a more hands off approach with the defense since that is not his specialty. I never heard Capers say that he left the offense to Chris Palmer and just asked him what he could do to help.

I think the coaching and the scheme is what allows teams like the Broncos, Patriots, and Steelers be successful for long periods of time. On the other hand, their boom years when they're competing for titles has just as much to do with talent as it does with the scheme, IMO. When you pair a good scheme, with a couple studs who perform very well in that framework, you get a title run... or multiple title runs.

I'm still very excited about where Kubiak is going to take this team, I have a lot of trust that he's only going to improve this team every year. At this point I think he needs more OLineman to allow him to do the things he wants to do on offense, and a QB who can improvise and take some pressure off of the system until it really gets humming.

Runner
12-22-2006, 09:41 AM
I have one point to make about building a team to meet a pre-determined scheme. The Texans are trying to emulate the Denver running scheme. It is a scheme that isn't used by other teams; its success in using small linemen and no-name running backs may make it much harder to duplicate than one that is more mainstream.

It might be harder to attain success following the route the Texans have chosen.

kastofsna
12-22-2006, 09:41 AM
ultimately you need a good coach to instill that scheme into the players you get, whether they fit the scheme perfectly...or not.

Texans_Chick
12-22-2006, 09:50 AM
When I was researching the details of the Denver offense, the thing that I kept coming across is that the reason why more teams don't do the Denver offense despite it being fairly successful is that it is hard to teach the offensive line blocking and to put that sort of line together.

The Texans currently looks like one that was Denver like in the passing at the beginning of the season but that the running game and line blocking looked nothing like Denver. You know, like the guy running the pass was from Denver and the guy running the line was not from Denver.

Which meant that it looked nothing like Denver. Denver is not a pass first offense, but sometimes the Texans offense looked like it was just an experiment to see if Carr could play and how many receptions they could get to Andre Johnson.

Once the line got more dinged up, and people realized the Texans weren't running, they could just feast on the pass.

I strongly believe that you need to commit to a philosophy and go with it. The question is going to be whether the Texans will be able to assemble an offensive line and running game that is Denver-like without the coaching personnel that is from that system that put those running games together. Or enough players that suit that system.

I am not convinced that getting linemen to drop weight while attending a hot training camp is the best way of getting agile linemen. They are going to have their work cut out for them finding "their" type of linemen when the guy coaching those linemen really hasn't been teaching Denver style stuff.

Even Denver this season has struggle with their run game with the injury to Lepsis. (http://broncos.aolsportsblog.com/2006/12/21/didnt-the-broncos-use-to-be-good-at-running/) (I am guessing it doesn't help them that Kubiak is gone and their QB play hasn't been as good as in previous years. Is Kubiak/Shanahan like a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup? That the chocolate and peanut butter are better together?).

edo783
12-22-2006, 10:31 AM
Is Kubiak/Shanahan like a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup? That the chocolate and peanut butter are better together?).

I have been wondering that myself.

Honoring Earl 34
12-22-2006, 10:33 AM
Does Mike Shanahan have GK on his calf ?

Ryan
12-22-2006, 10:35 AM
nice post, and i agree with alot of it.

Lucky
12-22-2006, 10:39 AM
So, keep that in mind before you say "forget the scheme, get the guy that makes plays".. because he may not make plays for us unless we change our scheme to fit his strengths.. and if we do that, then we may have to change out players at other positions because they may not fit the new scheme. Not to mention it could move us away from what Kubiak and this coaching staff does best, and we dont want to do that.
This is the same mentality that Dom Capers had. He couldn't find a way to fit a Julius Peppers or a Derrick Johnson into his system. But Jason Babin & Travis Johnson were good fits? A good coach, and a good system, incorporates a player's strengths and diminishes his weaknesses. Bill Belichick is such a coach. If a Dwight Freeney can't play in my system, then my system sucks.

On your Quinn/Russell observation, Quinn is easily mobile enough to play in the Texans system. So is Russell. But if I had to place money on who would win a footrace, I'd go with Quinn.

Vinny
12-22-2006, 11:20 AM
On your Quinn/Russell observation, Quinn is easily mobile enough to play in the Texans system. So is Russell. But if I had to place money on who would win a footrace, I'd go with Quinn.Carr is one of the fastest QB's in the league but that doesn't help curb his sacks. Russell is better in the pocket than Quinn and feels the rush better imo. I agree with your other points in the post above though Lucky...totally.

eriadoc
12-22-2006, 11:37 AM
Carr is one of the fastest QB's in the league but that doesn't help curb his sacks.

LOL, or maybe it does ..... scary thought, eh? Can you imagine Drew Bledsoe behind this line?

Sarg01
12-22-2006, 12:05 PM
I think coaches need some basic scheme so that they can keep the playbook reasonably consistent from year-to-year. That being said, I don't think a coach should be turning elite players away apart from completely inappropriate fits.

I'm OK with you passing on that 330 lb guy for your speed scheme. I get annoyed when you pass on the 300 lb elite guy for the 292 lb project three rounds later.

kastofsna
12-22-2006, 12:07 PM
vick is usually around the the top of the league in sacks, despite his athletic ability. manning is always dead last. sacks are much more a product of getting rid of the ball and making quick decisions than athletic ability.

but then again, you don't want a QB who gets rid of the ball TOO quickly. for example: joey harrington is the least sacked QB in NFL history (per game). why? because A) he played under jeff tedford, who taught a "2 reads and throw" offense, and he's clearly still stuck in that, and B) he's constantly forcing passes as soon as pressure is on him. so, you need a happy medium, clearly.

Grid
12-22-2006, 12:26 PM
This is the same mentality that Dom Capers had. He couldn't find a way to fit a Julius Peppers or a Derrick Johnson into his system. But Jason Babin & Travis Johnson were good fits? A good coach, and a good system, incorporates a player's strengths and diminishes his weaknesses. Bill Belichick is such a coach. If a Dwight Freeney can't play in my system, then my system sucks.

Well what if Freeney cant play in your system, but Meco can? A bad system is one where no one looks good.

And blaming scheme for our reluctance to draft those players is unfair imo. That was just bad coaches/front office. Kubiak drafted for scheme this past draft and it seemed to go pretty well.


As for Brady Quinn.. I really dont know a whole lot about him.. but from what ive heard, he is a more "classic" style of QB.. sit in the pocket and make the throw type. And id heard from one person or another that his arm strength was "eh" and he may have trouble throwing on the run.. I dunno how accurate that is though.. so anyone who is reading this, dont take it as fact.

vtech9
12-22-2006, 12:42 PM
I actually like the idea of Russell coming in. He is a big guy at 6'-6", so he should be able to see the field better, and not get as many passes knocked down at the line of scrimmage.

Kaiser Toro
12-22-2006, 12:47 PM
The system works only if you have scouts and personnel people who understand the system and the players they are evaluating for acquisition have the ability to fit, scale or be hidden.

Our problem is that we did not have much every down NFL talent for any scheme. Defensively our talent was better in the front seven this year, but we had a lot of changes going on. On the Offense we have a QB who is pretty much exposed by every defensive look outside of a prevent defense and a scripted drive.

There are players getting better, there are units starting to show incremental improvement and there are players that need to be cut since they do not fit, scale or can be hidden so that we can get this reformation project started in earnest with the right players and at the right price.

Runner
12-22-2006, 01:22 PM
If a Dwight Freeney can't play in my system, then my system sucks.


I'm pretty sure Freeney and his style would be a net negative for many teams as any every down end. He rushes up field with such speed and disregard for the run that he needs covered for. The Colts' defense got much better when they had linebackers/schemes that could cover that glaring defensive weakness against the run.

ArlingtonTexan
12-22-2006, 01:29 PM
If you gave me the option of having great talent versus a great scheme, give me the talent. a really good player makes the most of the situation and adjusts to the scheme. If you have the opprtunity to get elite talent, the coach needs to adjust his scheme. Passing on Julius Peppers or certain players in the 2006 draft because they don't fit is moronic. There is a problem with the scheme if you can't use that talent. The lesser the talent the more scheme matters. If trying to choose between two DLmen in the 4th round take the one who is the exact fit.

A scheme is a road map of how you would like to proceed. If certain types of players are not available or better players becomes available it may mean taking a route that you did not plan. Understanding how to mix having a plan/scheme and how to adjust that plan is vital to coaching.

Sarg01
12-22-2006, 01:57 PM
I'm pretty sure Freeney and his style would be a net negative for many teams as any every down end. He rushes up field with such speed and disregard for the run that he needs covered for. The Colts' defense got much better when they had linebackers/schemes that could cover that glaring defensive weakness against the run.

Not to disagree with your overall point, but since when can Indy defend the run? :secret:

Second Honeymoon
12-22-2006, 02:06 PM
If you gave me the option of having great talent versus a great scheme, give me the talent. a really good player makes the most of the situation and adjusts to the scheme. If you have the opprtunity to get elite talent, the coach needs to adjust his scheme. Passing on Julius Peppers or certain players in the 2006 draft because they don't fit is moronic. There is a problem with the scheme if you can't use that talent. The lesser the talent the more scheme matters. If trying to choose between two DLmen in the 4th round take the one who is the exact fit.

A scheme is a road map of how you would like to proceed. If certain types of players are not available or better players becomes available it may mean taking a route that you did not plan. Understanding how to mix having a plan/scheme and how to adjust that plan is vital to coaching.

quoted for truth

Runner
12-22-2006, 03:48 PM
Not to disagree with your overall point, but since when can Indy defend the run? :secret:

Ok. Instead of:

that could cover that glaring defensive weakness against the run

How about:

that could throw some dirt on their defensive weakness against the run to cut down the glare

eriadoc
12-22-2006, 03:52 PM
I think the Colts were actually pretty good against the run last year.

Grid
12-22-2006, 06:14 PM
If you gave me the option of having great talent versus a great scheme, give me the talent. a really good player makes the most of the situation and adjusts to the scheme. If you have the opprtunity to get elite talent, the coach needs to adjust his scheme. Passing on Julius Peppers or certain players in the 2006 draft because they don't fit is moronic. There is a problem with the scheme if you can't use that talent. The lesser the talent the more scheme matters. If trying to choose between two DLmen in the 4th round take the one who is the exact fit.

A scheme is a road map of how you would like to proceed. If certain types of players are not available or better players becomes available it may mean taking a route that you did not plan. Understanding how to mix having a plan/scheme and how to adjust that plan is vital to coaching.

While I agree that you should get talent whenever and wherever you can.. you cant just go outside of the box every time a potential star comes along.

Reggie Bush doesnt fit our running game. Drew Bledsoe doesnt fit our passing game. These are players that have talent (or did, in Bledsoe's case) but would require us to completely change the way we play the game.. one talented player is not worth a total restructuring of your team.

Additionally.. players like Julius peppers.. it only looks like a bad decision in hindsight. Think about it, if a perfect 3-4 Tweener was coming out this year, should we take them? I mean if he is really talented..should we go ahead and take a 255-265 lb linebacker? Should we try and convert him to an undersized DE that he doesnt have alot of experience at? Should we take him and switch to a 3-4?

Doesnt that seem a little extreme. You have an unknown prospect here and you are going to completely change your team around in the hopes that this guy will pan out and be a superstar. If he doesnt become a superstar, then you just screwed up your team for a couple years.

In the end, you have to draft according to your scheme. A player doesnt have to be a perfect fit, but they have to be at least close.

Russell probably doesnt have the elite mobility that you would like to run the Denver offense like Kubiak wants to.. but he is mobile enough to do an effective rollout, and his other strengths make up for it.

Mr teX
12-22-2006, 07:12 PM
I think that Kubes has proven that he knows what he's doing when he drafts so i won't question him in that regard, but in essence you're right the thing that seperates teams the most in this league is scheme but it's more of execution of that scheme more than just scheme alone.

And for that reason, i favor bringing in guys that fit your scheme over just drafting talent. IMO you should only bring talent in when it is extremely obvious that this person is an upgrade over what you already have & as we know, in the draft you can never be sure of that.

You can't tell me that those patriot teams were all highly rated talent wise when they were being drafted. Ditto for that 49ers dynasty & bills superbowl squads.

plus i've seen many teams draft just for talent without regard to scheme or identity & do absolutely nothing with all the talent they've amassed. ( Recent Detroit Lions, mid to late 90's Cincinati Bengals anyone?)

tsip
12-22-2006, 08:05 PM
There are some very good thoughts in this thread. Another poster pointed out the other day that modern day football has changed with the era of the salary cap. Players aren't around as long as they use to be, as teams are restricted by the salary cap--you can't keep the same 45 guys on the team every year as their pay increases.

A team has to have a blend of players--new, mid-range vets, high-end vets--whose combined compensation has to be tolerable with salary requirements. However, you need a group that can effectively play together to put W's on the board.

IMO-more than ever-flexibility is the key and that flexibility includes both players/coaches/schemes...everything. And,remember, all teams are in the 'same boat' with the same requirements,limitations,etc. What I'm saying here is what worked last year or even last week, may not work this week--but maybe it will work next week.

I believe the coaches that 'take it one game' at a time are the most effective, and -IMO-no one does this better than Belechick. He doesn't have to have 'certain' things in every game plan...instead, he and his coaches are finding ways to win that game. Brady throws for just at a 100yds and the Pats still win by 4 tds...whatever, however...

The whole purpose of game plans is to exploit a teams weakness, whether it be offense or defense-a key element,here, is not be predictable. The Texans are...We are not known as a team that uses all the 'eggs' in its basket, which makes it harder to defense against---instead, we are known for being 'vanilla,' by design. We've got new 2nd/3rd WR but seldom use them-#3 avgs 1 catch a game/with #2 it's a guessing game as 2wks in a row he caught 1 pass. Too, sometimes we may use our TE's and sometimes we may not. We talk about throwing on the run to open up passing lanes, buy rarely do it....

"We're not there yet--I've got to find ways to get us there..." Kubiak says this after every game.

I hope Gary finds what he is looking for and wished he coached more like Belechick and less like Capers....

DenverBorn
12-22-2006, 08:19 PM
If you gave me the option of having great talent versus a great scheme, give me the talent. a really good player makes the most of the situation and adjusts to the scheme. If you have the opprtunity to get elite talent, the coach needs to adjust his scheme. Passing on Julius Peppers or certain players in the 2006 draft because they don't fit is moronic. There is a problem with the scheme if you can't use that talent. The lesser the talent the more scheme matters. If trying to choose between two DLmen in the 4th round take the one who is the exact fit.

A scheme is a road map of how you would like to proceed. If certain types of players are not available or better players becomes available it may mean taking a route that you did not plan. Understanding how to mix having a plan/scheme and how to adjust that plan is vital to coaching.


I pretty much agree with this. What I might add - I believe that 80-90% of the players in the NFL are fungible, and for them, it's the scheme and the effort that matters most. But there are the other 10-20% who are the true difference makers and for them, a coach has to adjust the scheme to fit the talent.

So I think you use your top 2 picks to pick difference makers, almost without regard to position. Then you use picks in rounds 3-7 to fill the holes in your scheme. And occasionally you find a difference maker in those later rounds, and, unfortunately, sometimes you use the top 2 picks to pick a player where there was someone just about as good who was available in the 3rd or 4th round

Vince and Reggie have a shot at being difference makers. There are a lot of DE's available, throughout the draft, every year. Enough said

ArlingtonTexan
12-22-2006, 08:56 PM
While I agree that you should get talent whenever and wherever you can.. you cant just go outside of the box every time a potential star comes along.

Reggie Bush doesnt fit our running game. Drew Bledsoe doesnt fit our passing game. These are players that have talent (or did, in Bledsoe's case) but would require us to completely change the way we play the game.. one talented player is not worth a total restructuring of your team.

Additionally.. players like Julius peppers.. it only looks like a bad decision in hindsight. Think about it, if a perfect 3-4 Tweener was coming out this year, should we take them? I mean if he is really talented..should we go ahead and take a 255-265 lb linebacker? Should we try and convert him to an undersized DE that he doesnt have alot of experience at? Should we take him and switch to a 3-4?

Doesnt that seem a little extreme. You have an unknown prospect here and you are going to completely change your team around in the hopes that this guy will pan out and be a superstar. If he doesnt become a superstar, then you just screwed up your team for a couple years.

In the end, you have to draft according to your scheme. A player doesnt have to be a perfect fit, but they have to be at least close.

Russell probably doesnt have the elite mobility that you would like to run the Denver offense like Kubiak wants to.. but he is mobile enough to do an effective rollout, and his other strengths make up for it.

You spent a long post making my point. Reggie bush is not 23 times a game zone runner for the Saints either, but a guy you put into space to make game changing plays. When you can't get the idea of what a "running back" is supposed to do you are letting the system dictate taking infereior players.

The same goes with Peppers. Peppers., go figure, is just a pass rusher. I am going go out on limb and state that he could rush the passer from either the standing OLB in the 3-4 (heck Greg Ellis was doing in Dallas pre-injury) or from 4-3 DE. You have to understand the difference between exceptional talent that you adjust for and players who are just guys.

While he was overloaded as a rookie, the reason that the Texans took Mario Williams was not because he "fit the system," but because from a pure athletic standpoint he has the ability to play any position along the DL. Moving him around was not about the system but about a dynamic (hopefully) player that can do things others can't do, namely play all of the defensive line spots depending on down and distance. That is not normal or system defense.

You type of "he does fit our system?" works when taking about average or good players not excellent ones. Passing on exceptional talents for guys who fit the Texans system has played a big part into why the Texans are where they are at now.

Grid
12-23-2006, 02:43 AM
You type of "he does fit our system?" works when taking about average or good players not excellent ones. Passing on exceptional talents for guys who fit the Texans system has played a big part into why the Texans are where they are at now.

If they fit the system then I am all for taking them. We just disagree on the word "fit" and its meaning in this case.

threetoedpete
12-23-2006, 04:33 AM
I pretty much agree with this. What I might add - I believe that 80-90% of the players in the NFL are fungible, and for them, it's the scheme and the effort that matters most. But there are the other 10-20% who are the true difference makers and for them, a coach has to adjust the scheme to fit the talent.

So I think you use your top 2 picks to pick difference makers, almost without regard to position. Then you use picks in rounds 3-7 to fill the holes in your scheme. And occasionally you find a difference maker in those later rounds, and, unfortunately, sometimes you use the top 2 picks to pick a player where there was someone just about as good who was available in the 3rd or 4th round
Vince and Reggie have a shot at being difference makers. There are a lot of DE's available, throughout the draft, every year. Enough said

I agree with this. I wouldn't be stuned if they evaluate the the offensive line prospects/DBs and end up going DT/LB. If that is the value on the board , don't you have to pick that ? I mean if the three and four prospects at olt are going back to school...the DBs are a little low...why would you reach for a need ? Regaurdless of scheme or need ? On the same idea, why would a running back, regardless of how studly, help this group with out a significant up grade ? So we're kinda caught in this draft just like we were in '02. The value on the board is not where our needs lie. The only way to correct that is to over reach...up or down. Move up and take Thomas...Stay put take All Day or the Big DT...Move down and get one of the coners. Or...Leron.


The Colts run defense IS Paton Manning. They get you down by two scores, they can wreak havoc and let the dogs of war slip (loose) with their DEs.

threetoedpete
12-23-2006, 04:51 AM
If you gave me the option of having great talent versus a great scheme, give me the talent. a really good player makes the most of the situation and adjusts to the scheme. If you have the opprtunity to get elite talent, the coach needs to adjust his scheme. Passing on Julius Peppers or certain players in the 2006 draft because they don't fit is moronic. There is a problem with the scheme if you can't use that talent. The lesser the talent the more scheme matters. If trying to choose between two DLmen in the 4th round take the one who is the exact fit.

A scheme is a road map of how you would like to proceed. If certain types of players are not available or better players becomes available it may mean taking a route that you did not plan. Understanding how to mix having a plan/scheme and how to adjust that plan is vital to coaching.

I agree with that..but as mad as some of us are over Derick Johnson...the reason we didn't take him was at the time we were still running the 3-4. And unless you moved the guy to FS...we didn't really have a spot for him in that defense. Also...with Spencer, even though he is a large body...he dose fit the Denver scheme in the fact that he has/had oustanding foot speed. So even though Denver's line is light...that isn't the main priorty in this scheme. It's foot speed and quickness. Same with the QB..Elway was a large man. But he beat the Oilers twice with his feet. QB has to be able to run in this offense. Obviously, we didn't have quite enough depth or tallent to run it this year.

threetoedpete
12-23-2006, 05:31 AM
You spent a long post making my point. Reggie bush is not 23 times a game zone runner for the Saints either, but a guy you put into space to make game changing plays. When you can't get the idea of what a "running back" is supposed to do you are letting the system dictate taking infereior players.

The same goes with Peppers. Peppers., go figure, is just a pass rusher. I am going go out on limb and state that he could rush the passer from either the standing OLB in the 3-4 (heck Greg Ellis was doing in Dallas pre-injury) or from 4-3 DE. You have to understand the difference between exceptional talent that you adjust for and players who are just guys.

While he was overloaded as a rookie, the reason that the Texans took Mario Williams was not because he "fit the system," but because from a pure athletic standpoint he has the ability to play any position along the DL. Moving him around was not about the system but about a dynamic (hopefully) player that can do things others can't do, namely play all of the defensive line spots depending on down and distance. That is not normal or system defense.

You type of "he does fit our system?" works when taking about average or good players not excellent ones. Passing on exceptional talents for guys who fit the Texans system has played a big part into why the Texans are where they are at now.

So are you posting....even though both guys are tweeners and exceptional tallents...3-4 Sams , we should go against all the 4-3 trends and Draft Thomas Baker of TCU and McClelland of Marshal in the '08 draft ? Inquiring minds would like to know ? Or are you still pitching a fit over RB, VY ? The big part as to why we are where we are is our tallent evaluators couldn't evaluate free agent tallent. How many offensive tackles in how many years ?
After five years we're still not close to having eight guys on the squad who can hold down the fort. I mean the proof is in the pudding isn't it ? What's the sack count at now...268 or something...with
Freeny and Mathis coming in...against our two rookie fifth rounder, third rounder and the grey beard ? So are you posting...we should now throw away convention and go get Joe Thomas. The most outstanding prospect at the biggest need position on the team ? Prospect rated by everyone as a top three prospect on the board ? Prospect rated ahead of All Day, the corners, Leron and Branch ? Sure would make my day . I mean we're at six to four. Talking about a couple of hundred points. By your theory...we should because the studly player is worth more because he is by far the outstanding athlete on the board. That one guy who is worth more than a handfull of good players. So after nine years of this, we have nine elite players with what else on the squad ? However, we both know that is preposterous. You have to look at scheme. That is why Dockery, although a worthy free agent...will never be on this team. He doesn't fit. And neither did Reggie Bush. And neither dose VY. You can pitch a fit and roll on the floor untill you turn blue. But let it go. It's over . History will dictate wether it was a mistake or not. DC was the best QB prospect in the weak '02 draft class and we took him. There were very few of us at the time posting to by pass the franchise QB and go with the freak tallent at DE. Whomever disliked the boards picks last year. Let it go. Judging by the rant and rage over Mario, I'm not so certain that Peppers, without a QB on that team would of made enough of a difference to satisfy anyone on the board over the pick. Funny how history tends to repeat it self isn't it ? Linemen is on the board...we'll take the offensive skill guy or the DB.

ArlingtonTexan
12-23-2006, 08:37 AM
So are you posting....even though both guys are tweeners and exceptional tallents...3-4 Sams , we should go against all the 4-3 trends and Draft Thomas Baker of TCU and McClelland of Marshal in the '08 draft ? Inquiring minds would like to know ? Or are you still pitching a fit over RB, VY ? The big part as to why we are where we are is our tallent evaluators couldn't evaluate free agent tallent. How many offensive tackles in how many years ?
After five years we're still not close to having eight guys on the squad who can hold down the fort. I mean the proof is in the pudding isn't it ? What's the sack count at now...268 or something...with
Freeny and Mathis coming in...against our two rookie fifth rounder, third rounder and the grey beard ? So are you posting...we should now throw away convention and go get Joe Thomas. The most outstanding prospect at the biggest need position on the team ? Prospect rated by everyone as a top three prospect on the board ? Prospect rated ahead of All Day, the corners, Leron and Branch ? Sure would make my day . I mean we're at six to four. Talking about a couple of hundred points. By your theory...we should because the studly player is worth more because he is by far the outstanding athlete on the board. That one guy who is worth more than a handfull of good players. So after nine years of this, we have nine elite players with what else on the squad ? However, we both know that is preposterous. You have to look at scheme. That is why Dockery, although a worthy free agent...will never be on this team. He doesn't fit. And neither did Reggie Bush. And neither dose VY. You can pitch a fit and roll on the floor untill you turn blue. But let it go. It's over . History will dictate wether it was a mistake or not. DC was the best QB prospect in the weak '02 draft class and we took him. There were very few of us at the time posting to by pass the franchise QB and go with the freak tallent at DE. Whomever disliked the boards picks last year. Let it go. Judging by the rant and rage over Mario, I'm not so certain that Peppers, without a QB on that team would of made enough of a difference to satisfy anyone on the board over the pick. Funny how history tends to repeat it self isn't it ? Linemen is on the board...we'll take the offensive skill guy or the DB.

You want this to a another whining session about Young, bush, etc. I am speaking philosophically and used specific players who were selected or not partly because they did or did not fit an exact template of what a 3-4 player or a running back is "supposed" to be. From a pure football standpoint, the pick is a much better pick than from the marketing angle as Mario Williams physically is the same sort freak as the Bushes or Peppers of the world, although he did not have the same record of production as those other options.

The point of both my posts is that if you don't know how to fit the elite talents (players who physically can make plays that other can't) the Peppers, Bushes, Marios, and Youngs of the world in your "system" you need either to take some dynamite and blow-up your system or you might be a poor football coach.

beerlover
12-23-2006, 09:05 AM
Vince and Reggie have a shot at being difference makers. There are a lot of DE's available, throughout the draft, every year. Enough said

I'm not sold on the fact that Mario Williams will not be a difference maker himself but he needs probably more help, specificly on the interior of the defensive line & opposite edge. while "There are a lot of DE's available" very few if any are in a DT body with his package of skills, like Peppers, Bruce Smith & Reggie White. what would be unforgivable is to under utililize his talent & leave him there on the edge as if it where an island without any help. He is taking alot of abuse and punishment, now he is banged up, playing hurt. if he were a QB people would be saying stuff like they did about Carr 5 years ago (still today) "he needs line help" quick before its too late for him the Texans need to address this as a serious issue otherwise he could also fall by the wayside of wasted #1 overall talent. :twocents:

threetoedpete
12-23-2006, 02:43 PM
You want this to a another whining session about Young, bush, etc. I am speaking philosophically and used specific players who were selected or not partly because they did or did not fit an exact template of what a 3-4 player or a running back is "supposed" to be. From a pure football standpoint, the pick is a much better pick than from the marketing angle as Mario Williams physically is the same sort freak as the Bushes or Peppers of the world, although he did not have the same record of production as those other options.

The point of both my posts is that if you don't know how to fit the elite talents (players who physically can make plays that other can't) the Peppers, Bushes, Marios, and Youngs of the world in your "system" you need either to take some dynamite and blow-up your system or you might be a poor football coach.

Steaming bull dung in the feild...we both know what you're talking about.

ArlingtonTexan
12-23-2006, 05:17 PM
Steaming bull dung in the feild...we both know what you're talking about.

You take what I say at face value or can try to read something that is not there. That's on you.

West Texas Texan
12-23-2006, 05:40 PM
I remember when Art Rooney hired a 37 yr old "first-time" head coach. His name was Chuck Noll. Coach Noll understood that the Steeler organization had a history of losing (hadn't made the playoffs in 6 yrs), didn't have money to pay "high profile" players, didn't have a stadium (they played at Pitt stadium), had just came off a 2-12 season. (Does this sound familiar?)

Coach Noll came out and said that he was going to change the face of football. Quite a bold statement from a first time 37 yr old coach. His philosophy was simple: We will build our franchise with the most dominant defense, and a sound offense built on running the ball. We will take the best athlete available with each pick.

In 1969 their first pick was a "mean" DT named Joe Greene from an obscure school named North Texas State. He also drafted a DE named L.C. Greenwood that year. The fans and local media were brutal on him and the Rooney family for not taking a QB or RB that year....Oh, and by the way, the Steelers ended up 1-13 in 1969. (sound familiar???)

In 1970 he drafted a raw QB named Terry Bradshaw, but also Mel Blount (the new prototype CB). in 1970 Bradshaw threw more interceptions than TD's. (sound familiar). In 1971 Noll drafted Jam Ham, Mike Wagner, Ernie Holmes and Dwight White. The "steel curtain" was formed.

In 1972 the steelers drafted Franco Harris, a blocking fullback from Penn State, the first time they took a RB in the 1st two rounds. They didn't pick up Stallworth and Swann until 1974, along with Jack Lambert and C Mike Webster.

Philosophy was to find the best athlete in the draft, and tweek the scheme to fit the athletes on the team. Another BIG factor, was that there needed to understand the meaning of "team". There were no "superstars" on those teams. Like the Steelers last year. They won a superbowl as a "team".

Offense will win games , but defense and "team" win Superbowls.

I think Mr. McNair has a clue. I think Coach Kubiak is a student of the game.

I think history has a habit of repeating itself.

Grid
12-23-2006, 07:23 PM
I remember when Art Rooney hired a 37 yr old "first-time" head coach. His name was Chuck Noll. Coach Noll understood that the Steeler organization had a history of losing (hadn't made the playoffs in 6 yrs), didn't have money to pay "high profile" players, didn't have a stadium (they played at Pitt stadium), had just came off a 2-12 season. (Does this sound familiar?)

Coach Noll came out and said that he was going to change the face of football. Quite a bold statement from a first time 37 yr old coach. His philosophy was simple: We will build our franchise with the most dominant defense, and a sound offense built on running the ball. We will take the best athlete available with each pick.

In 1969 their first pick was a "mean" DT named Joe Greene from an obscure school named North Texas State. He also drafted a DE named L.C. Greenwood that year. The fans and local media were brutal on him and the Rooney family for not taking a QB or RB that year....Oh, and by the way, the Steelers ended up 1-13 in 1969. (sound familiar???)

In 1970 he drafted a raw QB named Terry Bradshaw, but also Mel Blount (the new prototype CB). in 1970 Bradshaw threw more interceptions than TD's. (sound familiar). In 1971 Noll drafted Jam Ham, Mike Wagner, Ernie Holmes and Dwight White. The "steel curtain" was formed.

In 1972 the steelers drafted Franco Harris, a blocking fullback from Penn State, the first time they took a RB in the 1st two rounds. They didn't pick up Stallworth and Swann until 1974, along with Jack Lambert and C Mike Webster.

Philosophy was to find the best athlete in the draft, and tweek the scheme to fit the athletes on the team. Another BIG factor, was that there needed to understand the meaning of "team". There were no "superstars" on those teams. Like the Steelers last year. They won a superbowl as a "team".

Offense will win games , but defense and "team" win Superbowls.

I think Mr. McNair has a clue. I think Coach Kubiak is a student of the game.

I think history has a habit of repeating itself.


I dont disagree with that philosophy necessarily (taking the best athlete).. just that it isnt always applicable.

For instance.. once they have that winning system in place.. why draft outside of the system? Why continue to change your teams strengths when you know what you are doing works? Kinda like how Kubiak knows what kind of offense works.

People make a big deal out of players we "missed out on".. but its all a crap shoot. When you are actually sitting there on draft day.. no one knows if Vince Young, Reggie Bush, or Mario Williams is gonna be the next star.. there are cases for each of them. People can say "oh well I knew..I watched him in college and I knew he would be big".. but over the years there are just as many cases of these "college superstars" being NFL busts.. so if you are sitting there looking at these 3 guys, why WOULDNT you take the one that fits your needs and your scheme? They are all risks, take the one that would be the most use to you if they turn into a star.

Anyway, this wasnt supposed to be about LAST YEARS draft, this is supposed to be about what we are going to do in the future.

I think we have a coach that knows how to make a winning offense..and he knows how to run that offense.. and he just needs the players that can do it. So lets get THOSE players..not the best athlete available, get the guys we need to make the system work. I dont want to see us taking someone cause they did great in college, then flipping our offense/defense on its head so that that guy can be useful to us.

Im repeating myself now. Let me reiterate though that my ideal offseason would be:

1) Trade Carr to Oakland for LaMont Jordan.
2) Sign Jake Plummer.
3) Draft JaMarcus Russell in the first.

vtech9
12-24-2006, 11:19 AM
Im repeating myself now. Let me reiterate though that my ideal offseason would be:

1) Trade Carr to Oakland for LaMont Jordan.
2) Sign Jake Plummer.
3) Draft JaMarcus Russell in the first.

let's see....

1) I agree with the trade Carr to Oakland part, but not for LaMont Jordan. My ideal trade would be for Huff, but I know that's not going to happen, so I would settle for a couple picks...maybe even the equivalent of what we traded them for P-Buc.

2) I'd rather have Garcia if we signed a FA, but I think Sage should get the nod until a young QB is ready to take over.

3) I like the Russell pick, but not in the 1st round as high as we would have to pick. Kolb in the 3rd would work for me. I really don't think there is a QB that is good enough for our 1st round pick unless Quinn falls that far.