PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Countdown Gives Texans Draft C-


TexanAddict
05-24-2007, 12:08 PM
NFL Draft Countdown: (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/reviews/teams/houstontexans.html)

You can probably make the case that the Texans had a good draft but personally I would have done a lot of things differently which is why I am giving them such a poor grade. Okoye will be a major upgrade for them and the two defensive backs could make an impact but once again they failed to add a top left tackle and I just don't think Jacoby Jones will be able to make the kind of impact they need for him to make. After years of getting David Carr killed behind a terrible offensive line the Texans seem to be setting up an even less mobile Matt Schaub for the same fate and to compound matters he won't have many offensive weapons to work with. We will see how it all shakes out but I have a feeling that Houston will once again be choosing very early when the 2008 NFL Draft rolls around.

GRADE: C-
(Link contains further analysis of each pick)

Can't really agree with this since it seems based mostly off our not selecting an OT early in the draft. After the top two OTs were picked there didn't really seem to be any left that would have provided a significant upgrade to what we already have, so I am glad that we didn't reach for a OT that only had potential to be a backup. Also didn't give any credit for essentially getting Schuab in the 2nd. I personally thought we could have gone a different route with some of our picks, but am not disappointed with what we came out with. Thought this draft would warrant a C+ minimum.

(Not sure if this should be in the College Football/Draft Discussion, move if necessary)

Vinny
05-24-2007, 12:09 PM
yawn :panic:

badboy
05-24-2007, 12:14 PM
As stated by others on earlier threads, last season's draft did not cause most to celebrate late into the night; but that one turned out pretty well imo.

nunusguy
05-24-2007, 12:17 PM
NFL Draft Countdown: (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/reviews/teams/houstontexans.html)


Can't really agree with this since it seems based mostly off our not selecting an OT early in the draft. After the top two OTs were picked there didn't really seem to be any left that would have provided a significant upgrade to what we already have, so I am glad that we didn't reach for a OT that only had potential to be a backup.

Joe Staley was the obvious option the Texans had, but decided against.
I would make the argument that the Cards, in real need of a LT (RT for them with lefty Leinert), made a reach for L.Brown at #5 overall. Would taking Staley at #10 been more of a reach ? I dunno, but its debabeable.
And its very likely that the Texans could have traded back in the 1st, got another first day pick and still could have taken Staley, thereby permitting them to have their cake and eat it to IMO.
Why did they take Okoye instead ? We will probably never know the full inside story, just like we'll probably never know the full inside story for last years #1 pick.

Porky
05-24-2007, 12:34 PM
Yawn. Just more regurgitation of the same old stuff. If he had an independent thought of his own, it would probably be his first. :devilpig:

hollywood_texan
05-24-2007, 12:41 PM
So, the reason for this guy's grade is the Texans didn't draft a left tackle and reached on Jacoby Jones in the 3rd round.

Franchise LTs are not in abundant supply, and a majority of the league has issues with that position and stability. It seems to me a draft grade should be about what you did, not what you didn't do!

Every team is going to have holes on their roster, that's why your "Star Players" that make the most money that counts against your cap make up the difference and make those average players better.

IMO, if the Texans still continue to have the same problems on offense, it's probably more systematic of the entire offensive roster and coaching than just blaming the LT position. There are just too many moving parts in the offense to lay blame on just one person, with the exception of the QB and the person calling the plays/developing the game plan.

Having a great QB and offensive coordinator = success.

Having a great LT doesn't mean jack squat!

badboy
05-24-2007, 12:42 PM
Joe Staley was the obvious option the Texans had, but decided against.
I would make the argument that the Cards, in real need of a LT (RT for them with lefty Leinert), made a reach for L.Brown at #5 overall. Would taking Staley at #10 been more of a reach ? I dunno, but its debabeable.
And its very likely that the Texans could have traded back in the 1st, got another first day pick and still could have taken Staley, thereby permitting them to have their cake and eat it to IMO.
Why did they take Okoye instead ? We will probably never know the full inside story, just like we'll probably never know the full inside story for last years #1 pick.I understand that Okoye @ 10 was more valuable than Staley at a later pick in first round. Also, management may be happy with what we have at LT and the possiblity of Spencer coming back. Even if he makes it back by mid season it would be great. Salaam and Black should be able to hold it until then at least.

Vinny
05-24-2007, 12:45 PM
Why did they take Okoye instead ? We will probably never know the full inside story, just like we'll probably never know the full inside story for last years #1 pick.perhaps they think Staley isn't much better than Black, Salaam and Spencer as a rookie...and why have 4 LT's on the roster if Spencer will be back sometime this year? Salaam played pretty well last year in place of Spencer...most of our problems came from RT and center...and the RT position became more and more stable as the year progressed as Kubiak stated that Winston was the most improved lineman on the team from camp. Perhaps they didn't "reach for need" in the first round. I consider that a plus.

The Pencil Neck
05-24-2007, 12:47 PM
So, the reason for this guy's grade is the Texans didn't draft a left tackle and reached on Jacoby Jones in the 3rd round.

Doesn't he have Jacoby Jones in his top 100 players about 10 positions back from where we picked him? How is that a big reach? And didn't we get Bennet almost a full round past where he had him graded? At least he granted that was a possible steal.

At the end he says that people could argue that it was a good draft. He just expects us to keep sucking so we could have picked pretty much anyone (except doing EXACTLY what he would have done in our shoes) and he would have given us a bad grade.

TEXANSTAILGATER
05-24-2007, 12:50 PM
I was watching Floyd Reese before the draft. He said one of the mistakes he/his team had made in the past was reaching down and pulling a guy up in the draft to fill a need. He said that is a mistake. Glad the Texans see it that way too.

beerlover
05-24-2007, 12:53 PM
NFL Countdown is ok I guess for a free service & the novice person interested in draft fodder but they hold very little weight with me anymore. in fact they are the ones who would be lucky to get a C- :cool:

in regards to peoples evaluation of the left tackles thats completely open to debate. I happen to be a huge Levi Brown supporter for those who think otherwise, you my friend, are in for a rude awakening as I expect big improvement in Arizona this year.

another thing, trading down when you have the opportunity to add elite talent is plain stupid & will get you run like Casserly. AMOBI OKOYE is an awesome draft pick @ #10, add to that Schaub a franchise QB ready to start in the NFL is a more devastating one/two punch than Thomas/Quinn & all the hub-bub Cleveland got for those picks (I'm not going to even look up what those countdown guys grade is for them) all I know is that I would'nt trade what the Texans did for their draft anyday. so we still owe our 2nd next year to Atlanta they owe their #1 pick to Dallas, very nice :heart:

eriadoc
05-24-2007, 12:54 PM
Snippet from the article:

However, in my opinion I'm not so sure they wouldn't have been better off trading down a bit to recoup some of the picks they lost in the Matt Schaub deal (a potential trade with Denver had been rumored) and taking Joe Staley to address their long-standing problem at left tackle.

If this guy is basing his grade on this tenet, as it appears, then I can understand where he's coming from. That's a very defensible position. Taking Staley at #10 would have been a reach, for sure, but trading back to get him and another pick would certainly have been a valid move. Of course, you have to have a trade partner, but with Okoye there at #10, I find it hard to believe someone wouldn't have traded with us, especially with the amount of trading that occurred. Whether or not Staley is a prospect worth doing that for is another argument, and a lot more questionable. But I can understand the grade and the article, if that's where he's coming from. Many people here on this board were clamoring for a trade-down anyway.

TexanAddict
05-24-2007, 12:54 PM
perhaps they think Staley isn't much better than Black, Salaam and Spencer as a rookie...and why have 4 LT's on the roster if Spencer will be back sometime this year? Salaam played pretty well last year in place of Spencer...most of our problems came from RT and center...and the RT position became more and more stable as the year progressed as Kubiak stated that Winston was the most improved lineman on the team from camp. Perhaps they didn't "reach for need" in the first round. I consider that a plus.

These were my thougths as well. Agree 100%

Vinny
05-24-2007, 12:54 PM
Doesn't he have Jacoby Jones in his top 100 players about 10 positions back from where we picked him? How is that a big reach? And didn't we get Bennet almost a full round past where he had him graded? At least he granted that was a possible steal.

At the end he says that people could argue that it was a good draft. He just expects us to keep sucking so we could have picked pretty much anyone (except doing EXACTLY what he would have done in our shoes) and he would have given us a bad grade.There was a run of WR's in the draft and the highest graded WR at the time the Texans were up (according to the mocksperts) was Jason Hill from Washington state. 3 WR's were drafted before he was....so I guess my take on this is....the draftnick guys have an opinion...but apparently the teams graded the players different than the mockspurts.

9 73 Jacoby Jones Texans WR Lane
10 74 Yamon Figurs Ravens WR Kansas State
11 75 Laurent Robinson Falcons WR Illinois State
12 76 Jason Hill 49ers WR Washington State

nunusguy
05-24-2007, 12:56 PM
perhaps they think Staley isn't much better than Black, Salaam and Spencer as a rookie..
I dunno, but I also think that is definitely one of the most likely explanations for the Texans Draft Day behavior, but there are several others to be sure.
Dang, what would you give to see the Texans Draft Board, even after the fact ? I would really like to know how the Texans ranked the individuals in this Draft ?

Vinny
05-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Snippet from the article:



If this guy is basing his grade on this tenet, as it appears, then I can understand where he's coming from. That's a very defensible position. Taking Staley at #10 would have been a reach, for sure, but trading back to get him and another pick would certainly have been a valid move. Of course, you have to have a trade partner, but with Okoye there at #10, I find it hard to believe someone wouldn't have traded with us, especially with the amount of trading that occurred. Whether or not Staley is a prospect worth doing that for is another argument, and a lot more questionable. But I can understand the grade and the article, if that's where he's coming from. Many people here on this board were clamoring for a trade-down anyway.

anytime you trade back it better be for a group of guys you like and if you trade back for one specific guy, chances are someone will leapfrog you. Trading back in the draft with an eye on one guy isn't smart. Kinda like what the 49ers did to the Ravens (rumor was they wanted Staley).

eriadoc
05-24-2007, 01:00 PM
anytime you trade back it better be for a group of guys you like and if you trade back for one specific guy, chances are someone will leapfrog you. Trading back in the draft with an eye on one guy isn't smart. Kinda like what the 49ers did to the Ravens (rumor was they wanted Staley).

Agreed. And I like Okoye a LOT. I posted my top 5 prior to the draft, and I said I liked Okoye over Levi Brown, when I have said repeatedly that the O-line needs work. I don't know that Staley would have been the solution at LT anyway, and I don't know that they had enough other players they hoped to target in that range to justify a trade-down. I was just saying I can kind of see why he graded the way he did. None of these grades matter one whit anyway, once the hittin' starts.

LORK 88
05-24-2007, 01:00 PM
NFL Countdown is ok I guess for a free service & the novice person interested in draft fodder but they hold very little weight with me anymore. in fact they are the ones who would be lucky to get a C- :cool:
Same here, I check it out occasionally, but take it with a grain of salt. Has anyone else noticed that he puts the same problems for alot of players at similar positions? For example, just about every WR he wrote a profile on "needs to run better routes", or all the OL prospects "need to get stronger".

Lucky
05-24-2007, 01:04 PM
From the NFL Draft Countdown link above:

However, in my opinion I'm not so sure they wouldn't have been better off trading down a bit to recoup some of the picks they lost in the Matt Schaub deal (a potential trade with Denver had been rumored) and taking Joe Staley to address their long-standing problem at left tackle.How many opinions does this guy have? He has Okoye rated the 10th best player in the draft. That's where the Texans selected him. No offensive tackles available were close to that ranking. So he suggests the Texans make a trade down that did not exist to take a player who may not have been available.

Proof that you can criticize anything, if you are so inclined. Any other team brought home the Texans draft, and he'd be shouting hosannas. Until further notice (or a winning season), the Texans are the league's whipping boys. Get used to it.

badboy
05-24-2007, 01:29 PM
perhaps they think Staley isn't much better than Black, Salaam and Spencer as a rookie...and why have 4 LT's on the roster if Spencer will be back sometime this year? Salaam played pretty well last year in place of Spencer...most of our problems came from RT and center...and the RT position became more and more stable as the year progressed as Kubiak stated that Winston was the most improved lineman on the team from camp. Perhaps they didn't "reach for need" in the first round. I consider that a plus.My thoughts also. People keep saying correctly that Salaam is not the long time answer, yet he does not have to be. He did very well last year and now should get some quality relief that might help him play even better. IMO LT is his until he is beaten out by another. I am focusing more on center for now.

badboy
05-24-2007, 01:34 PM
Doesn't he have Jacoby Jones in his top 100 players about 10 positions back from where we picked him? How is that a big reach? And didn't we get Bennet almost a full round past where he had him graded? At least he granted that was a possible steal.

At the end he says that people could argue that it was a good draft. He just expects us to keep sucking so we could have picked pretty much anyone (except doing EXACTLY what he would have done in our shoes) and he would have given us a bad grade.I can't find the link and do not know how to add if I did, but in February I saw Jacoby listed at #90 of best 100 players. That is a third round selection and not a reach to me. I am hopeful Bennet is a steal cause we really need another top CB.

Texans Horror
05-24-2007, 01:40 PM
Without a left tackle, what the Texans have is a deep, deep hole. Filling the ranks of left tackle with dribble and fodder will not affect the outcome. It's still a house of sand. Even worse, the Texans have a new quarterback with less mobility.

The only way this offense works is Ahman Green. If he can help Salaam/Black/Frye/injured Spencer pick up most of their blocks, then Matt can get the passes off. If Ahman can bring his own blocker and get yardage, then the run-first offense will succeed. However, my instinct is telling me that the Texans are totally off balance without any semblence of a passing game.

Second Honeymoon
05-24-2007, 01:53 PM
Without a left tackle, what the Texans have is a deep, deep hole. Filling the ranks of left tackle with dribble and fodder will not affect the outcome. It's still a house of sand. Even worse, the Texans have a new quarterback with less mobility.

The only way this offense works is Ahman Green. If he can help Salaam/Black/Frye/injured Spencer pick up most of their blocks, then Matt can get the passes off. If Ahman can bring his own blocker and get yardage, then the run-first offense will succeed. However, my instinct is telling me that the Texans are totally off balance without any semblence of a passing game.

I don't buy the 'less mobility' argument. Carr may be faster than Schaub but without pocket presence, it doesnt matter. Schaub has shown the ability to move WITHIN the pocket and get his pass off. It's all about your footwork and a step or two in the pocket can help you avoid the rush, maintain vision downfield, and get your pass off.

Carr's problem was that he would go into the fetal position and couldnt really step up in the pocket because of his throwing trajectory. He would always scramble. Bad footwork, bad instincts, and bad throwing mechanics doomed Carr from the start. Ironically, most of these shortcomings were known PRE 2002 NFL draft but we had to have our 'face of the franchise'. :texflag:

Who knows if Schaub works out for us but David sure as hell wasn't going to. We both hope Schaub pans out. Early signs are positive.

Texans Horror
05-24-2007, 01:59 PM
I don't buy the 'less mobility' argument. Carr may be faster than Schaub but without pocket presence, it doesnt matter. Schaub has shown the ability to move WITHIN the pocket and get his pass off. It's all about your footwork and a step or two in the pocket can help you avoid the rush, maintain vision downfield, and get your pass off.

Carr's problem was that he would go into the fetal position and couldnt really step up in the pocket because of his throwing trajectory. He would always scramble. Bad footwork, bad instincts, and bad throwing mechanics doomed Carr from the start. Ironically, most of these shortcomings were known PRE 2002 NFL draft but we had to have our 'face of the franchise'. :texflag:

Who knows if Schaub works out for us but David sure as hell wasn't going to. We both hope Schaub pans out. Early signs are positive.

Personally, I foresee Schaub stepping up to avoid whatever defensive end is coming off of Salaam (the most likely starter at this point). Unfortunately, a defensive tackle who has, as always, pushed past the awful Texans centers then tackles him.

I like to criticize the Texans for not taking a left tackle, but equally internecine was not drafting a center.

The Pencil Neck
05-24-2007, 02:08 PM
Even worse, the Texans have a new quarterback with less mobility.

Define "mobility".

I've seen highlights of Schaub where he looked just as mobile as Carr (if not more). Especially on that play where he read the defense and knew he had an open field if he ran and broke it for 25 yards.

It always seemed to me that Carr was only genuinely mobile on called plays because of his bad pocket sense. So, even though Carr is athletic, his inability to dodge the rush made him almost as immobile as Bledsoe. That's why he always got sacked. Rob Johnson was the same way. Everyone considered him "mobile" because he was athletic and thought he'd be more successful than other guys behind a bad line but he couldn't dodge the rush and ended up getting sacked a lot. His "mobility" gained him nothing. Other less mobile but smarter QB's would get behind the same line as Rob Johnson and not get sacked as much.

So I don't think we're worse off from a mobility standpoint.

(I'm not going to go as far as Bill Walsh who considered guys like Namath and Marino mobile because of their ability to evade the rush within the pocket.)

nunusguy
05-24-2007, 02:12 PM
I like to criticize the Texans for not taking a left tackle, but equally internecine was not drafting a center.

Just to clarify, they did bring in 2 LTs from this years rookie crop, just no high Draft picks.
Same goes for center, where they took 2 rookies who can play at the
center/guard area. Alledgedly.

Second Honeymoon
05-24-2007, 02:16 PM
Personally, I foresee Schaub stepping up to avoid whatever defensive end is coming off of Salaam (the most likely starter at this point). Unfortunately, a defensive tackle who has, as always, pushed past the awful Texans centers then tackles him.

I like to criticize the Texans for not taking a left tackle, but equally internecine was not drafting a center.

That was my biggest problem with the draft. I would have rather tried to trade up for Kalil or Satele. They both nearly fell to our 3rd Round pick. I hope they tried to trade up and the price was prohibitive.

I think I am in the minority thinking Flanagan can get the job done but that is only IF, and its a big IF, he is healthy. We need help at Center. Maybe they think Studdard could develop into one? I love his toughness, edge, and competitive spirit but his footwork isn't amongst his strengths. I am no OL Coach but since we run a type of ZBS blocking scheme, footwork is inherently important.

Errant Hothy
05-24-2007, 02:18 PM
blah blah blah they didn't draft a top tackle, and it does not mater that the best 2 were already gone blah blah blah.

Havn't we heard this before?

Second Honeymoon
05-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Just to clarify, they did bring in 2 LTs from this years rookie crop, just no high Draft picks.
Same goes for center, where they took 2 rookies who can play at the
center/guard area. Alledgedly.

Yup, fact is they have used 2 of their 6th highest draft choices on LT prospects over the last two drafts.

Texans Horror
05-24-2007, 02:21 PM
Define "mobility".

I've seen highlights of Schaub where he looked just as mobile as Carr (if not more). Especially on that play where he read the defense and knew he had an open field if he ran and broke it for 25 yards.

It always seemed to me that Carr was only genuinely mobile on called plays because of his bad pocket sense. So, even though Carr is athletic, his inability to dodge the rush made him almost as immobile as Bledsoe. That's why he always got sacked. Rob Johnson was the same way. Everyone considered him "mobile" because he was athletic and thought he'd be more successful than other guys behind a bad line but he couldn't dodge the rush and ended up getting sacked a lot. His "mobility" gained him nothing. Other less mobile but smarter QB's would get behind the same line as Rob Johnson and not get sacked as much.

So I don't think we're worse off from a mobility standpoint.

(I'm not going to go as far as Bill Walsh who considered guys like Namath and Marino mobile because of their ability to evade the rush within the pocket.)

I'm defining mobility as the quarterback's ability to run. If Schaub can outrun the defensive ends while avoiding the sack coming from inside, then I'm all smiles. If he can't, the Texans are no better off than last year.

Texans Horror
05-24-2007, 02:25 PM
Just to clarify, they did bring in 2 LTs from this years rookie crop, just no high Draft picks.
Same goes for center, where they took 2 rookies who can play at the
center/guard area. Alledgedly.

As bad off as the line is, I hope the staff and players concentrate on their primary positions. Once the Texans have a credible line, then they should look at teaching back-up positions to these guys, but at their abilities, I hope they just concentrate on the job at hand.

Texans Horror
05-24-2007, 02:28 PM
blah blah blah they didn't draft a top tackle, and it does not mater that the best 2 were already gone blah blah blah.

Havn't we heard this before?

It has certainly been discussed, just like the low draft grade the Texans received, but I think they are intertwined. At least in the eyes of the NFL, you cannot talk about how well the Texans draft without talking about the glaring weakness at LT. Besides, it's May, and the topics are weak.

Texans_Chick
05-24-2007, 02:49 PM
anytime you trade back it better be for a group of guys you like and if you trade back for one specific guy, chances are someone will leapfrog you. Trading back in the draft with an eye on one guy isn't smart. Kinda like what the 49ers did to the Ravens (rumor was they wanted Staley).

True that. And allegedly Okoye was their #1 choice on the defensive side of the board.

IIRC, there was a rumor that Staley came to visit the Texans. So they may not have figured he was any better than what they had.

What's interesting to me as just sort of an aside to this is that when the Shrine game was in Houston, Carmine Pirone of the Texans happened to write an entire article about him:

Click the Road to the NFL link on Jacoby (http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05/24/candidates-for-texans-2-receiver/)

Texans_Chick
05-24-2007, 02:51 PM
To add to this, I think a lot of national writers do not understand that DT for the Texans was also a major area of need.

I still can't forget the moment during the game where I looked on the field and said to myself, "Self, who the * is Thomas Johnson?"

The Pencil Neck
05-24-2007, 03:17 PM
I'm defining mobility as the quarterback's ability to run. If Schaub can outrun the defensive ends while avoiding the sack coming from inside, then I'm all smiles. If he can't, the Texans are no better off than last year.

He doesn't have to outrun them, he just has to not be caught by them. That's why I don't think we've made a downgrade in QB mobility in the shift from Carr to Schaub. Carr might be faster than Schaub but he wasn't outrunning anyone and the only time he was making people miss was when he was on a designed run. (Still love that play where he broke that Saint's ankles.)

Ultimately, we've got to see it on the field. The proof will be in the pudding.

The Pencil Neck
05-24-2007, 03:18 PM
To add to this, I think a lot of national writers do not understand that DT for the Texans was also a major area of need.

I still can't forget the moment during the game where I looked on the field and said to myself, "Self, who the * is Thomas Johnson?"

I had the same moment. It was a kind of "who... huh... wha... is that... huh" sort of experience.

infantrycak
05-24-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm defining mobility as the quarterback's ability to run. If Schaub can outrun the defensive ends while avoiding the sack coming from inside, then I'm all smiles. If he can't, the Texans are no better off than last year.

So you already know that Schaub can't do anything else such as reading defenses, sliding in the pocket/sensing pressure, seeing the middle of the field, making pre-snap reads better than Carr? If he does those things better, the Texans are better off even if it he gets tackled on the way to the sideline instead of actually making it all the way to the sideline.

hollywood_texan
05-24-2007, 04:13 PM
I'm defining mobility as the quarterback's ability to run. If Schaub can outrun the defensive ends while avoiding the sack coming from inside, then I'm all smiles. If he can't, the Texans are no better off than last year.

The point of scrambling or evading the rush isn't to run for positive yards, it's to buy a small amount of time to throw downfield. We are talking milla seconds here that can mean the difference between a huge pass downfield or a sack.

If a QB is so good at outrunning the defensive line or the rush, he might as well be a running back.

Look at Vick, he probably has the best talent in outrunning a defensive line in the NFL, and that gets him and the Atlanta Falcons no where.

The primary reason for a QB is to throw the football and evading the rush to buy critical moments is what is important. A great QB doesn't have to outrun the defensive rush, he just needs to buy enough time to make a play work.

Watch Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, you can't tell me those can outrun defensive ends and they are pressured regularly.

real
05-24-2007, 04:13 PM
I'm defining mobility as the quarterback's ability to run. If Schaub can outrun the defensive ends while avoiding the sack coming from inside, then I'm all smiles. If he can't, the Texans are no better off than last year.


Signed,



The guy who has never seen Peyton Manning play

swtbound07
05-24-2007, 05:04 PM
The point of scrambling or evading the rush isn't to run for positive yards, it's to buy a small amount of time to throw downfield. We are talking milla seconds here that can mean the difference between a huge pass downfield or a sack.

If a QB is so good at outrunning the defensive line or the rush, he might as well be a running back.

Look at Vick, he probably has the best talent in outrunning a defensive line in the NFL, and that gets him and the Atlanta Falcons no where.

The primary reason for a QB is to throw the football and evading the rush to buy critical moments is what is important. A great QB doesn't have to outrun the defensive rush, he just needs to buy enough time to make a play work.

Watch Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, you can't tell me those can outrun defensive ends and they are pressured regularly.


I don't mean to jump on you, but I absolutely hate it when people say ignorant things like that. It's gotten the atlanta falcons nowhere??? Some fun facts for you. Vick came into the league in 2001. He has been a player in the nfl for 6 seasons, and a starter for 5. In that time period, it has been possible for 12 qb's (2 each year) to take their team to the nfc championship game. How many have done it? Well, Mcnabb did it 4 times, Delhomme did it twice, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Grossman, Brees, Brad Johnson, and Mike Vick have all taken their team to that game. 8 qbs have done what he did in the NFC. He knocked Favre out of the playoffs in Lambeau. Here are some quarterbacks who haven't taken their team as far as Vick has in the NFC in this timespan

Eli Manning, Brett Favre, Jon Kitna, Alex Smith, Matt Leinart, Joey Harrington, Jason Campbell, Mark Brunell, Tony Romo, etc. etc. Ad Nauseum. The point is, since the Falcons got Vick, going into the 2006 season, he had the 4th best WINNING percentage in the NFL. 3 teams won more with other qbs than mike vick. all he does is win games. Thats the point right? U play to win the game.

Vick is the 4th leading passer in yards in falcons history, and 3rd in qb wins. He's completely rewritten the record books on qb mobility, has done things nobody has ever done at his position, has 3 pro bowls, and people won't get off his back. To say that he has gotten atlanta nowhere is just insane

infantrycak
05-24-2007, 05:20 PM
Must resist urge to respond and turn this into a Vick thread. Aaarrgh.

Runner
05-24-2007, 05:55 PM
...and why have 4 LT's on the roster ...

Especially one that carried 9 o-lineman last year.

Runner
05-24-2007, 06:03 PM
I don't buy the 'less mobility' argument...may be faster ... but without pocket presence, it doesnt matter.

Yep.

As bad off as the line is, I hope the staff and players concentrate on their primary positions.

I don't want to hear the word "swing" every time any o-lneman is discussed this year, but I probably don't have much choice.

He doesn't have to outrun them, he just has to not be caught by them.

Yep again.

So you already know that Schaub can't do anything else such as reading defenses, sliding in the pocket/sensing pressure, seeing the middle of the field, making pre-snap reads better than Carr?

To be fair, there are a lot of people that know Schaub can do all this and more too. There must have been lots of people watching the Falcons last year, unless they are relying on say, ESPN and other media sources. Then again, hope is a wonderful thing. :shades:

infantrycak
05-24-2007, 06:16 PM
To be fair, there are a lot of people that know Schaub can do all this and more too. There must have been lots of people watching the Falcons last year, unless they are relying on say, ESPN and other media sources. Then again, hope is a wonderful thing. :shades:

Valid point, but when the bet is on stepping up to average, I'll bet on average every time.

Runner
05-24-2007, 06:34 PM
Valid point, but when the bet is on stepping up to average, I'll bet on average every time.

Agreed; it would be darn near impossible not to step up.

I'll believe they can run a full passing attack when I see it though. I've had too many expectations dashed in the past.

hollywood_texan
05-24-2007, 07:04 PM
I don't mean to jump on you, but I absolutely hate it when people say ignorant things like that. It's gotten the atlanta falcons nowhere??? Some fun facts for you. Vick came into the league in 2001. He has been a player in the nfl for 6 seasons, and a starter for 5. In that time period, it has been possible for 12 qb's (2 each year) to take their team to the nfc championship game. How many have done it? Well, Mcnabb did it 4 times, Delhomme did it twice, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Grossman, Brees, Brad Johnson, and Mike Vick have all taken their team to that game. 8 qbs have done what he did in the NFC. He knocked Favre out of the playoffs in Lambeau. Here are some quarterbacks who haven't taken their team as far as Vick has in the NFC in this timespan

Eli Manning, Brett Favre, Jon Kitna, Alex Smith, Matt Leinart, Joey Harrington, Jason Campbell, Mark Brunell, Tony Romo, etc. etc. Ad Nauseum. The point is, since the Falcons got Vick, going into the 2006 season, he had the 4th best WINNING percentage in the NFL. 3 teams won more with other qbs than mike vick. all he does is win games. Thats the point right? U play to win the game.

Vick is the 4th leading passer in yards in falcons history, and 3rd in qb wins. He's completely rewritten the record books on qb mobility, has done things nobody has ever done at his position, has 3 pro bowls, and people won't get off his back. To say that he has gotten atlanta nowhere is just insane

First, the NFC has been a weaker conference for many years in regards to your NFC championship game point.

Second, I was referring to Vick's running skills in particular.

Vick has amazing talent and has done some great things, but how do you parlay his running skills and his current passing skills into a Super Bowl victory? Or even into big time game wins?

So far, he hasn't even come close on a consistent basis to be a go to Franchise QB. Which was my point. I could care less about regular season stats. What I care about are wins! Also, Vick gets hurt all the time because of his style of running. So in essence, he becomes a bit of a liability because his team cannot rely on him consistently due to injuries.

Sometimes, having an amazing athelete gets you no closer to a championship than not having him at all. Which is my general opinion about Vick.

Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I am definitely not ignornant of this topic.

The best QBs have historically been guys that use their brains more than their physical talents. Which is probably why Schuab will be a better QB in Houston than what Carr did under the same general circumstances. Now extrapolate that into the Vick situation, and maybe you can see my point? Maybe Vick has too much talent for his own good with regard to winning a championship? Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing!

Also, I was in no way comparing Vick to Carr with regard to talent and/or their struggles on the field.

Texans Horror
05-25-2007, 08:34 AM
He doesn't have to outrun them, he just has to not be caught by them.

So you already know that Schaub can't do anything else such as reading defenses, sliding in the pocket/sensing pressure, seeing the middle of the field, making pre-snap reads better than Carr? If he does those things better, the Texans are better off even if it he gets tackled on the way to the sideline instead of actually making it all the way to the sideline.

The point of scrambling or evading the rush isn't to run for positive yards, it's to buy a small amount of time to throw downfield. We are talking milla seconds here that can mean the difference between a huge pass downfield or a sack.

If a QB is so good at outrunning the defensive line or the rush, he might as well be a running back.

Signed,
The guy who has never seen Peyton Manning play

Look, guys, I'm not trying to criticize the beloved new shiny penny. I think eventually MS will do fine. And I don't want to debate speed, pocket presence, and the "intangibles" of MS. Like PN said, I'll wait to see it on the field.

It's the line that bothers me. Have we forgotten how porous the line was last year? I am less than inspired at the prospect of a starting lineup that goes Salaam - Pitts - Flanagan - Weary - Winston. MS may be one of the greatest QBs ever, Tru, but he doesn't have the line that Peyton or Brady have. Sure, those QBs have had to do some evading, but they don't have the relentless onslaught that MS will have. DEs will bypass Black/Salaam. DTs will get through Flanagan. Unless someone can pick up those blocks (Green), MS is going to have immense pressure his first year.

When he does throw, he isn't going to have to throw to. So my problem is not MS. It's his supporting cast.

real
05-25-2007, 09:06 AM
Look, guys, I'm not trying to criticize the beloved new shiny penny. I think eventually MS will do fine. And I don't want to debate speed, pocket presence, and the "intangibles" of MS. Like PN said, I'll wait to see it on the field.

It's the line that bothers me. Have we forgotten how porous the line was last year? I am less than inspired at the prospect of a starting lineup that goes Salaam - Pitts - Flanagan - Weary - Winston. MS may be one of the greatest QBs ever, Tru, but he doesn't have the line that Peyton or Brady have. Sure, those QBs have had to do some evading, but they don't have the relentless onslaught that MS will have. DEs will bypass Black/Salaam. DTs will get through Flanagan. Unless someone can pick up those blocks (Green), MS is going to have immense pressure his first year.

When he does throw, he isn't going to have to throw to. So my problem is not MS. It's his supporting cast.

"When he does throw, he isn't going to have to throw." --wtf does that mean ?

The problem is that no one can see our line past David Carr. The Oakland Raiders game appeared to be our worst game pass protection wise. I said it at the time that the line wasn't all that bad in that game and David had a lot to do with some of the sacks he was taking. I think your's and other's perception of our O-line is flat wrong. Our O-line looked bad at times lat year, but I can point to just about every team and probably get the same amount of breakdowns. The differnce between how our line was/is percieved was David Carr. period.

The fact that you used the word relentless, and onslaught when describing our line is ridiculous. Look at some of the sack numbers from last year. We had a terrible QB that caused A LOT of sacks, but we weren't even the worst in the leauge. I don't care what anyone says I think we have players capable of forming a top 15 Offensive line. I think Matt Schaub is going to make you all realize how "good" our line actually is and how terrible our former number 8 was...I've been leaving this subject alone and haven't really been talking about the line, or Spencer much of late, but I think it's down right ridiculous with some of the criticism our O-line gets...No they haven't been the greatest unit throughout our brief history, but I think if they can stay healthy this year we'll do just fine.

The Pencil Neck
05-25-2007, 09:42 AM
Look, guys, I'm not trying to criticize the beloved new shiny penny. I think eventually MS will do fine. And I don't want to debate speed, pocket presence, and the "intangibles" of MS. Like PN said, I'll wait to see it on the field.

It's the line that bothers me. Have we forgotten how porous the line was last year? I am less than inspired at the prospect of a starting lineup that goes Salaam - Pitts - Flanagan - Weary - Winston. MS may be one of the greatest QBs ever, Tru, but he doesn't have the line that Peyton or Brady have. Sure, those QBs have had to do some evading, but they don't have the relentless onslaught that MS will have. DEs will bypass Black/Salaam. DTs will get through Flanagan. Unless someone can pick up those blocks (Green), MS is going to have immense pressure his first year.

When he does throw, he isn't going to have to throw to. So my problem is not MS. It's his supporting cast.

You're saying that whether MS is good or bad doesn't matter because we don't have anyone to block for him and we don't have anyone to catch for him. You're saying that MS is going to have to run for his life and he's going to have to be mobile. I get that. I just don't agree with that. That's not what I see when I look at the film.

Look at the film from the Raiders game that Baldinger showed. There was another feature similar to this that someone did (NFLN or possibly ESPN) where they showed EXACTLY the same problems with Carr in the Browns and Giants games.

Our line is NOT porous. It might not be the greatest line ever but it is, at worst, slightly below average. Our line did not allow a relentless onslaught on DC last year and it should be better this year. Our line looked bad last year because Carr was sacking himself. He was making bad reads. He wasn't throwing to open receivers. He was holding the ball when he should have been throwing the ball. And he was panicking and then running INTO the defensive linemen. He was locking onto AJ.

If Schaub doesn't share those traits, everyone else suddenly starts looking like all-pros. If he gets the ball out on time, less sacks. If he finds the open receivers and actually throws the ball to them, the pressure is off of AJ and suddenly our WR#2 situation doesn't look so bad. If he doesn't panic in the pocket, less sacks.

But, like you said, we have to see them do it on the field. At this point, this is just off-season hysteria.

Texans Horror
05-25-2007, 10:29 AM
"When he does throw, he isn't going to have to throw." --wtf does that mean ?

No they haven't been the greatest unit throughout our brief history, but I think if they can stay healthy this year we'll do just fine.

Anyone. Mistyped. He won't have anyone to throw to. AJ double- and triple-teamed, and Walter and the rookie. I hear Green is a catching RB. So as long as Green can block, run, and catch, the Texans will do fine.

And I hope the line stays healthy and does well. But I don't think they will do either.

real
05-25-2007, 10:42 AM
Anyone. Mistyped. He won't have anyone to throw to. AJ double- and triple-teamed, and Walter and the rookie. I hear Green is a catching RB. So as long as Green can block, run, and catch, the Texans will do fine.

And I hope the line stays healthy and does well. But I don't think they will do either.

How about if the QB is good ? It's like you still fail to see the importance of having a QB that can play ball...

You talk about the line, the recievers, and the RB's but fail to even acknowledge that a good QB can make a difference....

It's like you're still stuck in the 'Carr mentality' of 'it's everyone else and the QB is just along for the ride'....

Just wait and see friend how different our offense looks this year...I'm not saying might, may, or probably....Our offense WILL be better this year simply because Schaub is behind center...

Texans Horror
05-25-2007, 11:09 AM
How about if the QB is good ? It's like you still fail to see the importance of having a QB that can play ball...

You talk about the line, the recievers, and the RB's but fail to even acknowledge that a good QB can make a difference....

It's like you're still stuck in the 'Carr mentality' of 'it's everyone else and the QB is just along for the ride'....

Just wait and see friend how different our offense looks this year...I'm not saying might, may, or probably....Our offense WILL be better this year simply because Schaub is behind center...

From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I'm reminded of Troy Aikman's last years in Dallas when he would hit receivers in the numbers, but the guys couldn't catch the ball. Dallas stunk, and Troy's stats tanked.

I acknowledge that MS has impressed everyone and will do well, but I don't believe he can make Kevin or Jacoby catch a ball any more than I believe he can make Salaan and Flanagan hold the line. It does take more than one person to win a football game, especially in these new years of parity in the NFL. If the Texans succeed it will be because Kevin and Jacoby are catching their balls and Salaam and Flanagan are making their blocks as well as MS upgrading the QB position.

infantrycak
05-25-2007, 11:15 AM
Have we forgotten how porous the line was last year?

Have we forgotten that 1 OLmen ended the year still playing from the opening day OL--two if you include 1 other switching positions?

Opening day 2006

Spencer-Pitts-Flanagan-McKinney-Wiegert

Last game 2006

Salaam-Pitts-McKinney-Weary-Winston

real
05-25-2007, 11:17 AM
From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I'm reminded of Troy Aikman's last years in Dallas when he would hit receivers in the numbers, but the guys couldn't catch the ball. Dallas stunk, and Troy's stats tanked.

I acknowledge that MS has impressed everyone and will do well, but I don't believe he can make Kevin or Jacoby catch a ball any more than I believe he can make Salaan and Flanagan hold the line. It does take more than one person to win a football game, especially in these new years of parity in the NFL. If the Texans succeed it will be because Kevin and Jacoby are catching their balls and Salaam and Flanagan are making their blocks as well as MS upgrading the QB position.

If a QB can make an O-line look worse than what they are, is it not possible for one to make them look better ?

Assuming Matt Schaub is only a bit better than David Carr then he'd atleast have our line in the 17-20th ranked range....and that's only assuming he's a bit better...

We ended the season with one lineman who started in the same position since day one and three that were back-ups, and one that lost his job and started at another position.

yet we still weren't as bad as you try to make it sound..

eriadoc
05-25-2007, 11:44 AM
I don't mean to jump on you, but I absolutely hate it when people say ignorant things like that. It's gotten the atlanta falcons nowhere??? Some fun facts for you. Vick came into the league in 2001. He has been a player in the nfl for 6 seasons, and a starter for 5. In that time period, it has been possible for 12 qb's (2 each year) to take their team to the nfc championship game. How many have done it? Well, Mcnabb did it 4 times, Delhomme did it twice, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Grossman, Brees, Brad Johnson, and Mike Vick have all taken their team to that game. 8 qbs have done what he did in the NFC. He knocked Favre out of the playoffs in Lambeau. Here are some quarterbacks who haven't taken their team as far as Vick has in the NFC in this timespan

Eli Manning, Brett Favre, Jon Kitna, Alex Smith, Matt Leinart, Joey Harrington, Jason Campbell, Mark Brunell, Tony Romo, etc. etc. Ad Nauseum. The point is, since the Falcons got Vick, going into the 2006 season, he had the 4th best WINNING percentage in the NFL. 3 teams won more with other qbs than mike vick. all he does is win games. Thats the point right? U play to win the game.

Vick is the 4th leading passer in yards in falcons history, and 3rd in qb wins. He's completely rewritten the record books on qb mobility, has done things nobody has ever done at his position, has 3 pro bowls, and people won't get off his back. To say that he has gotten atlanta nowhere is just insane

See, you lost me when you said Grossman took his team anywhere. Some QBs just benefit from having a good team around them. Vick has definitely benefitted from some very good defensive play, as well as some very good offensive line work (Alex Gibbs' ZBS is tops, even though Vick runs into sacks as much as Carr did). People blindly parrot the "QB takes his team" crap because they've heard it so often, I suppose. Grossman is not (yet) a good QB. Neither is Vick. Vick is a great runner, and an astounding athlete. He has a rocket arm. He misses receivers, throws way over their heads, and has no touch.

So OK, I'll back off my stance that Vick is a bad QB. But I remain firm in my stance that Vick is a very poor passer. If you don't deem passing to be an integral part of the QB's job, then that's your opinion.

eriadoc
05-25-2007, 11:46 AM
From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I'm reminded of Troy Aikman's last years in Dallas when he would hit receivers in the numbers, but the guys couldn't catch the ball. Dallas stunk, and Troy's stats tanked.

I acknowledge that MS has impressed everyone and will do well, but I don't believe he can make Kevin or Jacoby catch a ball any more than I believe he can make Salaan and Flanagan hold the line. It does take more than one person to win a football game, especially in these new years of parity in the NFL. If the Texans succeed it will be because Kevin and Jacoby are catching their balls and Salaam and Flanagan are making their blocks as well as MS upgrading the QB position.

I tend to agree with your general premise, if not the specifics. However, to add to the Matt Schaub comments, and pursuant to my post above, Matt Schaub made the Atlanta receivers look much better than Vick did, in his few games.

swtbound07
05-25-2007, 11:53 AM
See, you lost me when you said Grossman took his team anywhere. Some QBs just benefit from having a good team around them. Vick has definitely benefitted from some very good defensive play, as well as some very good offensive line work (Alex Gibbs' ZBS is tops, even though Vick runs into sacks as much as Carr did). People blindly parrot the "QB takes his team" crap because they've heard it so often, I suppose. Grossman is not (yet) a good QB. Neither is Vick. Vick is a great runner, and an astounding athlete. He has a rocket arm. He misses receivers, throws way over their heads, and has no touch.

So OK, I'll back off my stance that Vick is a bad QB. But I remain firm in my stance that Vick is a very poor passer. If you don't deem passing to be an integral part of the QB's job, then that's your opinion.


I'm not even debating the merits of vick good qb/ vs vick bad qb. You have to understand, im responding to the asinine statement that the falcons haven't gotten anywhere with vick. He's not a wonderfull passer. Whether the poster i was repsonding to likes it or not, the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him. If, as he says, all he cares about is wins, why is he ignoring vick's playoff wins and trip to the nfc championship game?

As to your Rex Grossman point. Agreed that quarterbacks can be beneficiaries of things like great defences (see Boller, Kyle) or fantastic running offenses. To the latter point in regards to vick i would say two things; 1) that potent rushing attack only worked in very large part because of the 1000 yards he put up rushing himself and 2) It takes a certain type of quarterback to be willing to take a reduced throwing role and hand off enough to make that rushing system work. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can't play in atlanta, because Manning could never be content not throwing the ball that much.

My whole point is not that Vick is God, just that Vick needs to be given a little bit of credit for the physical things that he has accomplished in his career. Has he won a superbowl? No, but who has in his career? In 6 seasons, 4 of the rings have gone to guys named Brady or Manning. The rest of the league isn't doing too swift by that standard either. And while I'm at it, calling the NFC Diluted to underscore what a qb who plays in the NFC accomplished is borderline idiotic.

eriadoc
05-25-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm not even debating the merits of vick good qb/ vs vick bad qb. You have to understand, im responding to the asinine statement that the falcons haven't gotten anywhere with vick. He's not a wonderfull passer. Whether the poster i was repsonding to likes it or not, the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him. If, as he says, all he cares about is wins, why is he ignoring vick's playoff wins and trip to the nfc championship game?

As to your Rex Grossman point. Agreed that quarterbacks can be beneficiaries of things like great defences (see Boller, Kyle) or fantastic running offenses. To the latter point in regards to vick i would say two things; 1) that potent rushing attack only worked in very large part because of the 1000 yards he put up rushing himself and 2) It takes a certain type of quarterback to be willing to take a reduced throwing role and hand off enough to make that rushing system work. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can't play in atlanta, because Manning could never be content not throwing the ball that much.

My whole point is not that Vick is God, just that Vick needs to be given a little bit of credit for the physical things that he has accomplished in his career. Has he won a superbowl? No, but who has in his career? In 6 seasons, 4 of the rings have gone to guys named Brady or Manning. The rest of the league isn't doing too swift by that standard either. And while I'm at it, calling the NFC Diluted to underscore what a qb who plays in the NFC accomplished is borderline idiotic.

I guess the reason I responded at all is because I personally believe the Falcons would have bumped the Eagles at least one or two of those times if they would have had a more conventional passing game, with WCO-style QB mobility and crossing routes. Vick brings a lot of things to the table, but that team, as it was geared from about 2001 to 2005, would have been better off with a more conventional QB. Going forward, Petrino might be able to radically alter the offense to completely fit Vick's skill set, and that would be great for them. I just don't think it can be done. I think Vick is mis-cast in the role of QB.

But hey, good discussion :)

The Pencil Neck
05-25-2007, 12:13 PM
From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I don't think that everyone is failing to see the importance of the offensive line, the running backs, and the receivers.

But there are two different ways to look at this. On one side, if you take a great QB and put him on a bad team, he's going to look worse (while possibly making some of the guys around him look better). On the other side, if you take a really bad QB and put him on a good team, the team is going to look worse (while the QB might actually look better than he is).

As far as I'm concerned, when you look the tape, we were in the second situation. There seems to be lots and lots of proof that Carr was making everyone else look worse.

When you look at the tape, you apparently see the first situation and that Carr was doing the best he could with no weapons. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

eriadoc
05-25-2007, 12:21 PM
I don't think that everyone is failing to see the importance of the offensive line, the running backs, and the receivers.

But there are two different ways to look at this. On one side, if you take a great QB and put him on a bad team, he's going to look worse (while possibly making some of the guys around him look better). On the other side, if you take a really bad QB and put him on a good team, the team is going to look worse (while the QB might actually look better than he is).

As far as I'm concerned, when you look the tape, we were in the second situation. There seems to be lots and lots of proof that Carr was making everyone else look worse.

When you look at the tape, you apparently see the first situation and that Carr was doing the best he could with no weapons. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

I agree with you, for the most part. However, your take on this doesn't account for one major factor, and that is the effect of taking a developing QB and putting him on a bad team with an atrocious O-line. I think it's obvious that the team has improved its personnel over the years, even though we're still sub-par in a few areas. But those first two years were really bad. Not that many QBs are good in their rookie years, but they learn and develop. If you kill that development, I think Carr is what you're left with. I don't know that he'll ever develop into the QB he could have been, but I do feel confident saying that those two teams (2002 and 2003) largely shaped what he became.

hollywood_texan
05-25-2007, 12:28 PM
And while I'm at it, calling the NFC Diluted to underscore what a qb who plays in the NFC accomplished is borderline idiotic.

In two postings you have referred to me as ignorant and idiotic. Is that really necessary? Is that how you communicate with someone that doesn't agree with you? I thought you were some open minded liberal?

Maybe you can work on your reading comphrension skills?

I am looking at Vick and his talents from a very different perspective than you. If you can't understand that without throwing those words out, what is there really to say to you?

I understand your perpsective and I would like to discuss this, but your comments really rub me the wrong and I really don't want this to get out of control.

What I don't understand is why you are making my very small comment about Vick regarding the bigger picture of Schuab and just blowing it way out of proportion.

There are a lot of question marks regarding Vick, hopefully you can at least recognize that?

Give it break or relax..

swtbound07
05-25-2007, 12:34 PM
In two postings you have referred to me as ignorant and idiotic. Is that really necessary? Is that how you communicate with someone that doesn't agree with you? I though you were some open minded liberal?

Maybe you can work on your reading comphrension skills?

I am looking at Vick and his talents from a very different perspective than you. If you can't understand that without throwing those words out, what is there really to say to you?

I understand your perpsective and I would like to discuss this, but your comments really rub me the wrong and I really don't want this to get out of control.

What I don't understand why you are making my very small comment about Vick regarding the bigger picture of Schuab and just blowing it way out of proportion.

There are a lot of question marks regarding Vick, hopefully you can at least recognize that?

Give it break or relax..


Fair enough, I apologize for the tone. Rereading it, it sounds a lot more condescending and harsh then it does in my head. I type stream of consciousness, and i don't proofread. That part is a bit uncalled for. For reasons that would matter to nobody but myself I'm very defensive of Michael Vick. It angers me to see someone diminish his accomplishments. I'm not saying there aren't holes in his game, because their are, but the dude wins, and wins a lot, and got atlanta 2 deep playoff runs and within a sniff of the superbowl. I feel he takes a lot of heat because he doesn't fit into the shiny box most people have in their minds when they think quarterback. Maybe I should stay out of these things, but sometimes emotions get the better of actions. Again, my apologies, my intent wasn't to offend you personally.

The Pencil Neck
05-25-2007, 12:39 PM
I agree with you, for the most part. However, your take on this doesn't account for one major factor, and that is the effect of taking a developing QB and putting him on a bad team with an atrocious O-line. I think it's obvious that the team has improved its personnel over the years, even though we're still sub-par in a few areas. But those first two years were really bad. Not that many QBs are good in their rookie years, but they learn and develop. If you kill that development, I think Carr is what you're left with. I don't know that he'll ever develop into the QB he could have been, but I do feel confident saying that those two teams (2002 and 2003) largely shaped what he became.

I still think Carr had the talent and with the proper guidance at the right time, I think he could have been a good QB. I think that Carr was broken and I don't know if he is recoverable.

But this discussion was really just about the current situation. With our team as it existed at the end of last season and what we're looking forward to in the next one. If Carr was the bad QB on a decent team, then some of our perceived weaknesses are not as bad as they appeared. And I think that Smith/Kubiak's moves in the offseason were based off of what they saw on tape. Which players were making plays and which players weren't. I think that Kubiak isn't too worried about our WR#2 and our line because of what he saw on film.

Some people are looking at the moves being made and they're thinking that Smith and Kubiak must be stupid for not addressing these glaring needs.

But what if they're not needs. What if Smith and Kubiak actually know what they're doing? I know as a franchise we're not used to that... but...

hollywood_texan
05-25-2007, 12:47 PM
Fair enough, I apologize for the tone. Rereading it, it sounds a lot more condescending and harsh then it does in my head. I type stream of consciousness, and i don't proofread. That part is a bit uncalled for. For reasons that would matter to nobody but myself I'm very defensive of Michael Vick. It angers me to see someone diminish his accomplishments. I'm not saying there aren't holes in his game, because their are, but the dude wins, and wins a lot, and got atlanta 2 deep playoff runs and within a sniff of the superbowl. I feel he takes a lot of heat because he doesn't fit into the shiny box most people have in their minds when they think quarterback. Maybe I should stay out of these things, but sometimes emotions get the better of actions. Again, my apologies, my intent wasn't to offend you personally.

Fair enough from this end as well.

Totally agree with you regarding Vick being an amazing talent.

But, I look at a QB and how he improves the team as a whole and winning the Super Bowl. I think Vick falls short in those two areas, but it's debatable as you have pointed out. More on point to what started this whole thing, a QB doesn't have to be great runner or scrambler to be successful. Which was the main reason I cited Vick in that example.

Previously, you mentioned Brady and Manning. Those are guys are the prototypical QBs if you want to win the Super Bowl and they have skills that Vick really needs to develop. Further, those guys are not great runners or scramblers, which is goes to my bigger point that started this whole thing regarding Schuab.

So, my initial point was in regards to Viclk's running abilities and that it isn't the be all end all of a successfull QB. As great as Vick is at that, it really will be him developing his passing game and using his brain in making good decisions that will get him and the Falcons a Super Bowl victory.

infantrycak
05-25-2007, 12:50 PM
the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him.

Can't know that without knowing who is the replacement QB.

HOU-TEX
05-25-2007, 01:26 PM
Fair enough from this end as well.

Totally agree with you regarding Vick being an amazing talent.

But, I look at a QB and how he improves the team as a whole and winning the Super Bowl. I think Vick falls short in those two areas, but it's debatable as you have pointed out. More on point to what started this whole thing, a QB doesn't have to be great runner or scrambler to be successful. Which was the main reason I cited Vick in that example.

Previously, you mentioned Brady and Manning. Those are guys are the prototypical QBs if you want to win the Super Bowl and they have skills that Vick really needs to develop. Further, those guys are not great runners or scramblers, which is goes to my bigger point that started this whole thing regarding Schuab.

So, my initial point was in regards to Viclk's running abilities and that it isn't the be all end all of a successfull QB. As great as Vick is at that, it really will be him developing his passing game and using his brain in making good decisions that will get him and the Falcons a Super Bowl victory.

I think both of y'all are making goods points. Nice discussion.

If Bobby P. runs the falcon offense like he did in Louisville this will be the year Vick will have his chance to become an elite QB. In BP's offense, I think it's a must to be a skilled passing QB. If Vick is unable to adapt, the falcons will fail miserably.:cool:

Texans Horror
05-25-2007, 02:12 PM
I don't think that everyone is failing to see the importance of the offensive line, the running backs, and the receivers.

But there are two different ways to look at this. On one side, if you take a great QB and put him on a bad team, he's going to look worse (while possibly making some of the guys around him look better). On the other side, if you take a really bad QB and put him on a good team, the team is going to look worse (while the QB might actually look better than he is).

As far as I'm concerned, when you look the tape, we were in the second situation. There seems to be lots and lots of proof that Carr was making everyone else look worse.

When you look at the tape, you apparently see the first situation and that Carr was doing the best he could with no weapons. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

A little of both, actually. The Texans offense is not as deep as the Texans defense, so I think Carr and AJ had (have) a worse chance of looking good than Babin, TJ, and Dunta, and certainly Mario and Amobi have a better support system.

This is not to credit Carr as the greatest QB of all time. He made a lot of mistakes, through some doosies, and sacked himself way more than he ever should have.

However, I think where Carr had it easier than MS is that Carr had a legit #2 receiver in Moulds. It will take Kevin Walter or Jacoby Jones having Pro-Bowl years in order to alleviate the plague of attention that will be put on Matt's #1 receiver.

Matt is a great quarterback, but he needs help, and the Texans aren't offering him any.

Lucky
05-25-2007, 02:35 PM
However, I think where Carr had it easier than MS is that Carr had a legit #2 receiver in Moulds. It will take Kevin Walter or Jacoby Jones having Pro-Bowl years in order to alleviate the plague of attention that will be put on Matt's #1 receiver.
If Kubiak thought Moulds was still a legit #2 WR, don't you think he'd still be on the team? Besides, I think too much is made of a #2 WR. Schaub comes from a system that places heavy emphasis on the TE. It just so happens that the Texans have an emerging talent at TE in Owen Daniels. Also, Ahman Green has been a very good receiver out of the backfield for much of his career. I think the Domanick-less Texans were hurt last season without a RB who was a pass receiving threat.

It would be great to get a another quality WR across from Andre, and maybe Walter or Jones will emerge. But who are the #2 WRs on the Bears or Chargers? They were 2 of the top 3 scoring teams in the league. I think the need for a #2 WR is overblown. What this team needs are more big plays downfield from their #1 WR.

hollywood_texan
05-25-2007, 02:39 PM
I think both of y'all are making goods points. Nice discussion.

If Bobby P. runs the falcon offense like he did in Louisville this will be the year Vick will have his chance to become an elite QB. In BP's offense, I think it's a must to be a skilled passing QB. If Vick is unable to adapt, the falcons will fail miserably.:cool:


Yeah, I think SWT is really using stats and a couple of playoffs runs as his main analysis and support.

My perpspective is really looking at the bigger picture and what is the typical Super Bowl QB. My point is really more subjective.

So, the both of us are coming in at very different angles and expectations.

Like you said, Vick is going to have to make his passing and decision making skills top notch to get become that ELITE QB. Combine those skills with his physical talent, it would be very difficult to beat the Falcons.

But, to develop that requires a lot of time and a tireless work ethic. To a certain extent, physical talents are irrelevant in that area of developing his game.

Texans Horror
05-25-2007, 02:56 PM
If Kubiak thought Moulds was still a legit #2 WR, don't you think he'd still be on the team? Besides, I think too much is made of a #2 WR. Schaub comes from a system that places heavy emphasis on the TE. It just so happens that the Texans have an emerging talent at TE in Owen Daniels. Also, Ahman Green has been a very good receiver out of the backfield for much of his career. I think the Domanick-less Texans were hurt last season without a RB who was a pass receiving threat.

It would be great to get a another quality WR across from Andre, and maybe Walter or Jones will emerge. But who are the #2 WRs on the Bears or Chargers? They were 2 of the top 3 scoring teams in the league. I think the need for a #2 WR is overblown. What this team needs are more big plays downfield from their #1 WR.

I remember the same reasoning in 2005. AJ just needed to make the big plays downfield. Hopefully he has found a way to thwart two and three-man coverages. The time he did play, nothing could get to him.

I'm going to switch gears now. Some positives out of this offseason:

1. Running Back. While I'm not confident Green and Dayne will last the entire year, this is still the strongest backfield in Texans history. For a run-first offense, it should do wonders.

These two guys are BYOB, which I love. I think that is the only way it can work this year. Eventually, this will start to wear them down, and I expect Lundy to pick up more carries as the season progresses to reduce the hits on these two powerful running backs. Very good pick-up.

2. Amobi Okoye. This is one of the best picks the Texans have ever made. I have been going off like a broken record since January on how much the Texans needed a DT to stop the run-game. Although the results won't be there for another year, I expect the Texans to become one of the best defenses in the league for at least the next four to five seasons.

Essentially, the Texans have answered the two most grueling questions - RB, and DT. I'm really ecstatic that they had the cojones to take these guys.

The reason the team gets a dink for draft purposes (at least in my book) is because I felt everything after Okoye was a bad pick. That's just one guy's opinion, though.

2.

Runner
05-25-2007, 03:11 PM
I think your's and other's perception of our O-line is flat wrong.

I don't care what anyone says I think we have players capable of forming a top 15 Offensive line.

Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 his year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apparently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some plays in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.

Runner
05-25-2007, 03:20 PM
Our offense WILL be better this year simply because Schaub is behind center...

I certainly wouldn't argue about this. I think that is a simple fact. However, my point, and maybe the point of some others, is that the offensive line still needs some serious upgrading for the Texans to be a serious play-off contender.

Will the team be better than last year with the same o-line? Yes.

Is that good enough? Not to me. I don't want a good QB behind a middling at best line. I want a good QB behind a good line for now. Then I want one or both of those goods developed into greats.

I think turning a blind eye to the line's problems is short-sighted. The coaches certainly aren't ignoring it, given the number of o-lineman they've drafted and picked up in free agency. They must not be as satisfied that Schaub is the final answer by himself as some of us are.

Specnatz
05-25-2007, 03:25 PM
Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 is year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apprently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some play in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.


I think it lies somewhere in the middle. while some, myself included, think the line will be improved this year because of the changes that have been made, but negate everything is a fallacy. No one is saying the line will be the best in the league or just saying it should improve to where there are not 43 sacks given up, to maybe 28 to 35 and that would put the Texans right in the middle of the road, going by last years numbers. I know Vinny for one hates the Texans centers and think that is a major area that needs an upgrade (if memory serves).

We all have to remember that it was not a one year fix or even a two year fix when Kubiak took over and now with Smith on board and revamping the way information is compiled it will help to evaluate talent on the rost and across the NFL and collegiant players. The secondary still needs to improve as well as the line. It is addition by subtraction.

The Pencil Neck
05-25-2007, 03:51 PM
Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right.

I think there are definitely problems with the line. I think that we don't really know how bad or good it is. There were definitely times last year that the line was not handling some pretty simple stunts. Personally, Mr. Black doesn't fill me with any good feeling.

I've been trying to keep the Schaub-elation I feel from carrying me away. That's why I've been trying really hard not to predict more than 8 wins (even though I think we're going to). And it's the problems with the line that scare me.

But I don't think there's a problem with the receiving corp. I think ALL of our old problems with the receivers were QB issues.

HOU-TEX
05-25-2007, 03:54 PM
Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 his year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apparently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some plays in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.

I'm curious as to who makes the calls along the Oline. Aren't there certain protection schemes called at the LOS? I don't want to seem like I'm instilling more blame to the former QB, but isn't the QB supposed to read whether the defense is blitzing, stunting, shifting, etc. at the LOS? I've always been a defensive minded person so I might be way off-base here. While watching other teams I always see the QB talking to the Oline, pointing at particular players on the defense. I don't know, but I think you bring up a very good point questioning the execution of the Oline scheme.:d:

Lucky
05-25-2007, 06:11 PM
I remember the same reasoning in 2005. AJ just needed to make the big plays downfield. Hopefully he has found a way to thwart two and three-man coverages. The time he did play, nothing could get to him.

Andre Johnson is this team's franchise offensive player. He has to be given the opportunities to make plays downfield. As opposed to running 4 yard slants. It's ridiculous to turn a player with Andre's physical gifts into a possession receiver. Who cares how many guys are covering Johnson? He's bigger, stronger, and faster than those guys. AJ has to be the man for this offense to succeed.

It's this coaching staff's responsibility to make that happen. They have to design plays to free Johnson deep. And they have to develop an offensive line to allow Andre to get downfield. Then, AJ has to deliver. I'm past the point of caring how it gets done. I don't care who the #2 WR is, or who the Texans didn't draft. No more excuses. Make plays, score points, and win football games.

real
05-25-2007, 06:25 PM
Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 his year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apparently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some plays in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.


I think I'm pretty much the only person in the world that thinks when healthy our line is/can be good. I did see some bust out of them last year, but most of the year we basically had four back-ups playing. Last year was the first year for our guys in a new system, no cohesiveness (guys being shuffled because of a bad injury bug), and only one guy who started every game at the same position all year....

IMHO the talent we have up front is no worst than most teams in the leauge...I don't look at our line and see a lack of talent...I saw a QB that had the worst pocket presence and footwork I've ever seen from a pro in my lifetime, an injury bitten group in a new system, and no cohesiveness...I think Weary and Pitts are pretty good gaurds...I think Mckinney can play center at an effective level...I think Spencer is an absolute beast at LT...I think we have several guys that can play right...and I think if Spencer can't go right away I think Salaam can fill in and do an o.k job....My main problem with our line is that we've never had time to gel...We don't just lose one or two guys...We lose three or four guys a season....

Despite all that I think David made our line look terrible last year when in fact they were capable of being mediocre/good.....Offensive lines don't dominate in the running game and then turn horrible in the passing game...They may be better at one aspect than the other but not at those extremes.....

I know mostly everyone doesn't agree with me and that's fine, but it's my honest analysis..

real
05-25-2007, 06:30 PM
I certainly wouldn't argue about this. I think that is a simple fact. However, my point, and maybe the point of some others, is that the offensive line still needs some serious upgrading for the Texans to be a serious play-off contender.

Will the team be better than last year with the same o-line? Yes.

Is that good enough? Not to me. I don't want a good QB behind a middling at best line. I want a good QB behind a good line for now. Then I want one or both of those goods developed into greats.

I think turning a blind eye to the line's problems is short-sighted. The coaches certainly aren't ignoring it, given the number of o-lineman they've drafted and picked up in free agency. They must not be as satisfied that Schaub is the final answer by himself as some of us are.

I say with a better QB behind center last year we win about two more games...I say with a healthy, cohesive unit we maybe win one more...By my count that puts us at 9-7 with a possible play-off berth...Add an improved, more experienced defense to the mix that played the first five like they played the last nine and I see a ten win season...

If the Texans don't make the play-offs this year it will be a dissapointment in my eyes...

Double Barrel
05-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Why did they take Okoye instead ? We will probably never know the full inside story, just like we'll probably never know the full inside story for last years #1 pick.

Coach Kubiak said our defensive line (i.e. pass rusher) was our most pressing need going into the off-season. Okoye was the highest ranked defender on the Texans board. It all makes sense to me.

Wolf
05-25-2007, 07:12 PM
I say having a priest holmes or larry Johnson (in discussion about Black),sure makes a line look good compared to ....

Wolf
05-25-2007, 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swtbound07 View Post
the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him.

Can't know that without knowing who is the replacement QB.


speaking of that, didn't the Falcons pickup Harrington?

Second Honeymoon
05-25-2007, 08:46 PM
speaking of that, didn't the Falcons pickup Harrington?

Yes they did. They still have local hero DJ Shockley and Chris Redman too.

The question is, will they have Vick?