PDA

View Full Version : Texans sign safety Nick Ferguson


TexanSam
03-25-2008, 02:20 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5646876.html

The Texans are bringing in free agent safety Nick Ferguson for a visit today.

Ferguson, 33, started seven games for the Denver Broncos last season.

The Texans are looking to add another veteran safety to go with C.C. Brown, Will Demps and Glenn Earl.

jaayteetx
03-25-2008, 02:22 PM
another former bronco...

Hardcore Texan
03-25-2008, 02:25 PM
another former bronco...

Exactly, consider him signed.

drewmar74
03-25-2008, 02:30 PM
another former bronco...

Personally, I don't care where he's from. If we can get above-average safety play with some depth by hiring nothing but rodeo clowns I'm all for it.

Additionally if we can get some decent safety depth and then target other areas in the draft I'm all for that, too.

TigerV1
03-25-2008, 02:38 PM
Smokescreen for the draft?

Ole Miss Texan
03-25-2008, 02:49 PM
another former bronco...

and another STRONG safety...


in all seriousness though, I don't think it can hurt. We do have CC Brown and Glenn Earl that I think are more than sufficient at SS. I'm fine with bringing in Ferguson is he's paid to be the backup he will be.

I'm interested to see how some of the young guys like Brandon Harrisson are developing. I havn't really seen him play (practice or at Stanford). For those that have, will he be in the SS mix or is he a viable option as a FS for us down the road?

beerlover
03-25-2008, 03:03 PM
I could see this signing happening with opening day roster of CC Brown & Harrison @ SS Demps & Ferguson @ FS.

Glenn Earl is an unrestricted free agent next season, think his status is on shaky ground, not sure how much dead money or cap savings if released outright?

CloakNNNdagger
03-25-2008, 03:07 PM
Ferguson's play showed a down turn in 2007 after having suffered an 2006 season ending knee injury which required surgery. The Broncos have taken the direction of essentially youthening their safety position. It's interesting to note that he was nicknamed "train wreck" while in NFLE when he mowed over one of his own team mates on his way to a tackle................sort of gives me flash backs of Spencer........

Errant Hothy
03-25-2008, 03:16 PM
and another STRONG safety...

I think we all need to reevluate the safety position for this team.

I'm not sold on the fact that Kubiak and Co. feel the need for one safety to be the designated in the box guy and the other to be the centerfielder type. I think they are looking for a pair of safeties capable of playing both roles equally well.

Now is this the right idea? I have no idea, but from looking over the past signings and draftings of safeties I'm starting to think that we the fans do not have the good of a grasp on what the coaches want from the SS and the FS.

bigbrewster2000
03-25-2008, 03:22 PM
I think we all need to reevluate the safety position for this team.

I'm not sold on the fact that Kubiak and Co. fell the need for one safety to be the designated in the box guy and the other to be the centerfielder type. I think they are looking for a pair of safeties capable of playing both roles equally well.

Now is this the right idea? I have no idea, but from looking over the past signings and draftings of safeties I'm starting to think that we the fans do not have the good of a grasp on what the coaches want from the SS and the FS.

You are right for the most part. There are a handful on this sight that understand that the Texans are running a combo safety package where effectively the safties play both positions. So there isnt neccesarily a designation of FS or SS in this system that is why Brandon Harrison was a smart pick since that is the system he ran in college. And also why there is no chance(IMO) the Texans take Kenny Philips in the draft.

CloakNNNdagger
03-25-2008, 03:28 PM
I think we all need to reevluate the safety position for this team.

I'm not sold on the fact that Kubiak and Co. fell the need for one safety to be the designated in the box guy and the other to be the centerfielder type. I think they are looking for a pair of safeties capable of playing both roles equally well.

Now is this the right idea? I have no idea, but from looking over the past signings and draftings of safeties I'm starting to think that we the fans do not have the good of a grasp on what the coaches want from the SS and the FS.

Up to last year, our safety play has been relatively poor, especially the free safety play. There has not seemed to have been a priority to fixing that position ( we had so many other holes ). But if you look at how Smithiak is approaching things, they're always looking for 2-fers............ie., versatility.
I see this as no exception, if they are out there to be gotten.

drewmar74
03-25-2008, 03:32 PM
I think we all need to reevluate the safety position for this team.

I'm not sold on the fact that Kubiak and Co. fell the need for one safety to be the designated in the box guy and the other to be the centerfielder type. I think they are looking for a pair of safeties capable of playing both roles equally well.

Now is this the right idea? I have no idea, but from looking over the past signings and draftings of safeties I'm starting to think that we the fans do not have the good of a grasp on what the coaches want from the SS and the FS.

Interesting theory and reason number 459 why I love this board: Intelligent people with intelligent thought processes.

RipTraxx
03-25-2008, 03:32 PM
Up to last year, our safety play has been relatively poor, especially the free safety play. There has not seemed to have been a priority to fixing that position ( we had so many other holes ). But if you look at how Smithiak is approaching things, they're always looking for 2-fers............ie., versatility.
I see this as no exception, if they are out there to be gotten.

Anyone ever get the feeling that our D Coord. sucks?

bigbrewster2000
03-25-2008, 03:37 PM
Anyone ever get the feeling that our D Coord. sucks?

Apparently you do. What did that have to do with the post you quoted. This is not the first time you have popped a 1 liner in a tread like this. Sub par safety play thru the first part of last season and the previous 5 had alot more to do with talent level than it did the DC employed by this franchise.

Ole Miss Texan
03-25-2008, 03:48 PM
I think we all need to reevluate the safety position for this team.

I'm not sold on the fact that Kubiak and Co. fell the need for one safety to be the designated in the box guy and the other to be the centerfielder type. I think they are looking for a pair of safeties capable of playing both roles equally well.

Now is this the right idea? I have no idea, but from looking over the past signings and draftings of safeties I'm starting to think that we the fans do not have the good of a grasp on what the coaches want from the SS and the FS.

I'll definitely agree with pretty much all of this-nice post. I'm still wanting a ballhawking FS that can either deflect the ball in the air or intercept it instead of what we have now, but am slowly realizing that's not going to happen. Demps, imo has been a big improvement. I constantly saw him get to the WR as the guy was catching the ball. It'd be a catch if Demps didn't hit him... but i'm still wanting a guy that can get there before the WR even touches it- outlook is doubtful.

I was big on LaRon Landry last year over Reggie Nelson for the fact Landry was excellent in run support and tackling, where I was not fond of Nelson. This is when I thought the staff really valued the tackling issue over pure ballskills- in both safety and corner play. Moot point since Landry was selected before us and we got Amobi :) This is also why I think Mike Jenkins would not be a good fit for our team- he's one of the worst tackling CB's in the draft (or at least of the 1st round talent).

I also think that the coaching staff doesn't place a lot of value in the safety play. By that I mean investing a high draft pick in one. I think Phillips actually fits into what this staff likes in a safety. I think Phillips would probably have better cover skills than most on our team. Supposedly he's suited more for SS on most teams but for a team like ours he could be on the field because of the guys we're trying to go for. I'm not trying to say I want Phillips to be the pick at #18, but just saying he ties more into the kind of safety we're actually looking for than a pure cover safety, imo.

Nawzer
03-25-2008, 03:52 PM
This means Jason Simmons is not coming back? I liked J.Simmons, he could play multiple positions.

RipTraxx
03-25-2008, 03:56 PM
This means Jason Simmons is not coming back? I liked J.Simmons, he could play multiple positions.

So did I. Same with Hutchins which is why i wondered why they let him go. But Rick knows what he's doin....

Goldensilence
03-25-2008, 04:10 PM
So did I. Same with Hutchins which is why i wondered why they let him go. But Rick knows what he's doin....

I think guys like Simmons and Hutchins are nice for a building team; far as versatility is concerned.

Moving forward I expect to see less of guys like that around.

badboy
03-25-2008, 04:29 PM
Anyone interested in this guy in round 4 if we end up with a 2nd round? Note that as a CB he is also projected as FS/KR as alternate position. Has size and speed. With LT, RB and CB in rounds 1,2 & 3 I can lean towards T.B. as a backup FS and CB.http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=32938

Polo
03-25-2008, 04:44 PM
Maybe I understood wrong, but I disagree with our defensive scheme being built around our safeties being interchangeable...

Maybe the type of guys they want in those positions is not what most fans envision, but I think our FS and SS have defined roles...

Anything less would be uncivilized.

ArlingtonTexan
03-25-2008, 04:52 PM
Maybe I understood wrong, but I disagree with our defensive scheme being built around our safeties being interchangeable...

Maybe the type of guys they want in those positions is not what most fans envision, but I think our FS and SS have defined roles...

Anything less would be uncivilized.

From everything I understand, they are probably closer to left saftey and right saftey than true SS and FS. That said, offense line-up string to the defenses left side more than its right, our LS will have more SS characteristics than FS. I would have to see coaches tape or concentrate at a live game in order to confirm that the Texans don't do much flipping side with the safeties.

badboy
03-25-2008, 04:54 PM
Maybe I understood wrong, but I disagree with our defensive scheme being built around our safeties being interchangeable...

Maybe the type of guys they want in those positions is not what most fans envision, but I think our FS and SS have defined roles...

Anything less would be uncivilized.You might want to look at the guys who are on team for those two positions.

Polo
03-25-2008, 04:56 PM
You might want to look at the guys who are on team for those two positions.

What does that have to do with their roles ? They could have Travis Johnson back there, but that wouldn't mean that the responsibilities of the position have changed...

Hardcore Texan
03-25-2008, 04:57 PM
This means Jason Simmons is not coming back? I liked J.Simmons, he could play multiple positions.

Boulware's replacement? Or did we really want MB to play OLB, I don't think so.

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 05:02 PM
What does that have to do with their roles ? They could have Travis Johnson back there, but that wouldn't mean that the responsibilities of the position have changed...

The difference in a LS and RS system (such as the system Harrison came from at Stanford) is they stay on one side of the field and are expected to play either traditional or SS or FS role on their assigned side of the field depending on how the O lines up instead of flipping sides with the O to keep the SS on the strong side.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:02 PM
From everything I understand, they are probably closer to left saftey and right saftey than true SS and FS. That said, offense line-up string to the defenses left side more than its right, our LS will have more SS characteristics than FS. I would have to see coaches tape or concentrate at a live game in order to confirm that the Texans don't do much flipping side with the safeties.


I don't recall too many times CC and demps were in the game together where CC was actually the deep man while Demps came up into the box to play off the TE...

That'd be pretty nutty IMHO...Seems like it'd cause a little confusion on our end not to mention it make it hella-easy for teams to exploit mis-matches...

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 05:04 PM
That'd be pretty nutty IMHO...Seems like it'd cause a little confusion on our end not to mention it make it hella-easy for teams to exploit mis-matches...

Fans say this every year about playing LCB and RCB instead of playing #1 CB on #1 WR, etc. Teams don't always agree with what fans consider nutty or easy to exploit.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:05 PM
The difference in a LS and RS system (such as the system Harrison came from at Stanford) is they stay on one side of the field and are expected to play either traditional or SS or FS role on their assigned side of the field depending on how the O lines up instead of flipping sides with the O to keep the SS on the strong side.

I understand that...

That makes sense...@least for college and highschool....

But what does the personnel (that the Texans prefer) have to do with the actual responsibilities of the positions? How can you look at "who" is back there and make a determination about responsibilities and roles ?

HJam72
03-25-2008, 05:05 PM
If that's how it's going to be, I'd like to see our "hybrid" safeties be a little more like FSs than they have in the past. Hard hits and good run support are fine, but I don't like watching safeties chase WRs from behind.

Just my :twocents:

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:09 PM
Fans say this every year about playing LCB and RCB instead of playing #1 CB on #1 WR, etc. Teams don't always agree with what fans consider nutty or easy to exploit.

That's why I said IMO..

But SS and FS have two vastly different roles, vs a LCB and RCB...

You don't want a FS (normally a cover guy) playing down in the box all game and you don't want your SS (normally an in the box guy) playing deep all game because of how the offense is lining up...

LCB vs RCB is not really that big of a difference in the responsibilities...both are primarily going to be covereing recievers all game...

I'd prefer to have a corner capable of following a #1, but maybe the Texans just don't feel we have those kind of guys on our roster....Dunta's good, but he's not what I'd consider to be an elite cover guy...

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 05:10 PM
But what does the personnel (that the Texans prefer) have to do with the actual responsibilities of the positions? How can you look at "who" is back there and make a determination about responsibilities and roles ?

Well at least to some degree you can look at the skill sets. Some safeties excel in the box but suck in coverage. You don't see the Texans pursuing those guys so far (caveat here--I am not totally convinced this is their ultimate goal so much as dealing with the personnel they have). At the other end is the almost CB FS who can't hold up in run support. Instead, the Texans keep getting guys with better coverage skills than most SS but not as good as most FS but who can play run support as well.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:17 PM
Well at least to some degree you can look at the skill sets. Some safeties excel in the box but suck in coverage. You don't see the Texans pursuing those guys so far (caveat here--I am not totally convinced this is their ultimate goal so much as dealing with the personnel they have). At the other end is the almost CB FS who can't hold up in run support. Instead, the Texans keep getting guys with better coverage skills than most SS but not as good as most FS but who can play run support as well.

The same thing can be said for most of the players they aquire...

It's no secret that they like guys who can play multiple roles...Especially...O-line and defensive players...

But what does their choice in personnel have to do with actual player roles within the scheme ?

This same logic could be applied to the O-line...They like guys who can play different positions...ok...

That doesn't mean that on one play our LT is going to play RG and then go back to playing LT the next....it just means that "IF" something happens they like to have guys that can switch around...

ArlingtonTexan
03-25-2008, 05:18 PM
I don't recall too many times CC and demps were in the game together where CC was actually the deep man while Demps came up into the box to play off the TE...

That'd be pretty nutty IMHO...Seems like it'd cause a little confusion on our end not to mention it make it hella-easy for teams to exploit mis-matches...

Teams that don't flip the safeties are trying minimize having offenses exploit the guy in the box who can't cover and the range guys who can't hit. by having players who in theory do both well enough, a team is supposed to tip its hand less not more.

Someone who sees games live more can confirm (televsion angles are horrible for safety play), but the texans SS does not play often in the box either...i.e. both safeties play somewhat deep. Hince why the Texans have (and target) guys with the similiar skill sets who are pretty interchangeable.

ArlingtonTexan
03-25-2008, 05:23 PM
The same thing can be said for most of the players they aquire...

It's no secret that they like guys who can play multiple roles...Especially...O-line and defensive players...

But what does their choice in personnel have to do with actual player roles within the scheme ?
This same logic could be applied to the O-line...They like guys who can play different positions...ok...

That doesn't mean that on one play our LT is going to play RG and then go back to playing LT the next....it just means that "IF" something happens they like to have guys that can switch around...

Choice of personnel and how they are used in the scheme have everything to do with each other. Overall, what we are saying is that the Texans don't use SS and FS in the stereotypical way in which you are trying apply the terms.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:24 PM
Teams that don't flip the safeties are trying minimize having offenses exploit the guy in the box who can't cover and the range guys who can't hit. by having players who in theory do both well enough, a team is supposed to tip its hand less not more.

Someone who sees games live more can confirm (televsion angles are horrible for safety play), but the texans SS does not play often in the box either...i.e. both safeties play somewhat deep. Hince why the Texans have (and target) guys with the similiar skill sets who are pretty interchangeable.

I understand what everyone is saying about the personnel...

The Texans like guys who can play diff. postions and minimize the chances of explotation...

My point is: That doesn't neccessarily mean that our safeties are actually switching roles during a game.

Someone who sees games live more can confirm (televsion angles are horrible for safety play), but the texans SS does not play often in the box either

I tend to see Demps back deep more, and I tend to see CC up in run support more...But I do agree that watching the games live is the best way to tell

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:24 PM
Choice of personnel and how they are used in the scheme have everything to do with each other.

Ok, and that's where we disagree...

Overall, what we are saying is that the Texans don't use SS and FS in the stereotypical way in which you are trying apply the terms.

Personally I think they do, but that's a pretty bold statement to make seeing that you just said the only way to tell would be to actually study the scheme...


Also, This is the same organization that has two LDE's on the field IMHO...They wised up towards the end of the year when they started moving Mario over in passing situations...

What can you tell me about their D-Line scheme based on what they put out there ?

IMHO, nothing...Seems like they kinda feel things out as they go...as they should..

My whole point is that you cannot look at the personnel and make determinations about the kind of scheme we're playing...

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:36 PM
Another example: Travis Johnson and Amobi

Are you guys telling me that because we have two DT's of the same skill set on the field that these guys are switching between who's playing the 1-gap and whose playing the 3-gap ?

If so I disagree again.

ArlingtonTexan
03-25-2008, 05:37 PM
Ok, and that's where we disagree...



Personally I think they do, but that's a pretty bold statement to make seeing that you just said the only way to tell would be to actually study the scheme...


Also, This is the same organization that has two LDE's on the field IMHO...They wised up towards the end of the year when they started moving Mario over in passing situations...

What can you tell me about their D-Line scheme based on what they put out there ?

IMHO, nothing...Seems like they kinda feel things out as they go...as they should..

My whole point is that you cannot look at the personnel and make determinations about the kind of scheme we're playing...

I am not just making these determiniation blindly on personnel. There have been quotes from the team and coaching staff that claim that the responsibilites are similar. I want to say this was discussed heavily around time earl and simmons getting hurt last year.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:39 PM
I am not just making these determiniation blindly on personnel. There have been quotes from the team and coaching staff that claim that the responsibilites are similar. I want to say this was discussed heavily around time earl and simmons getting hurt last year.

Really...That's strange cuz I don't remember that...

But I'm not even disagreeing with you guys...really I'm not...

I'm just expressing my opinion that the choice of personnel doesn't mean our guys don't have defined roles thus they are somewhat interchanging during the game...I disagree with that assertion...that's all...

The Pencil Neck
03-25-2008, 05:43 PM
Personally I think they do, but that's a pretty bold statement to make seeing that you just said the only way to tell would be to actually study the scheme...


Well, it's not a bold statement since the coaches have been saying this for the past couple of years. One of the Brandons we drafted last year even said that he had been in a similar system in Stanford (two interchangeable safeties) and that was why he expected to fit in quickly even though he had to miss a lot of the training camp because of Stanford's late graduation date.

The Pencil Neck
03-25-2008, 05:44 PM
I am not just making these determiniation blindly on personnel. There have been quotes from the team and coaching staff that claim that the responsibilites are similar. I want to say this was discussed heavily around time earl and simmons getting hurt last year.


Oops. I posted a response before I saw yours.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:44 PM
Well, it's not a bold statement since the coaches have been saying this for the past couple of years. One of the Brandons we drafted last year even said that he had been in a similar system in Stanford (two interchangeable safeties) and that was why he expected to fit in quickly even though he had to miss a lot of the training camp because of Stanford's late graduation date.


????

Keep up, yo'....

A guy being able to play multiple positions has what to do with the scheme the Texans use ?

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:46 PM
Seriously, I've yet to see something from the Texans saying that our safeties are switching roles during the game....

I'm not saying that they don't...

I just haven't seen it and I really don't have a reason to believe it...

The Pencil Neck
03-25-2008, 05:48 PM
????

Keep up, yo'....

A guy being able to play multiple positions has what to do with the scheme the Texans use ?

I wash my hands of you.

Polo
03-25-2008, 05:55 PM
I wash my hands of you.

You're right...my bad...

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 06:22 PM
The same thing can be said for most of the players they aquire...

It's no secret that they like guys who can play multiple roles...Especially...O-line and defensive players...

But what does their choice in personnel have to do with actual player roles within the scheme ?

This same logic could be applied to the O-line...They like guys who can play different positions...ok...

The two scenarios are not analogous. Traditionally, the SS could be weaker in pass protection because he was going to consistently float to the side the O picked as the strong side for that play. The Texans have not been having their safeties switch sides. That means if they swap the strong side to Demps side of the field, he now has to take on more of the traditional SS responsibilities. In short hand, there are two safeties on the field who depending on how the O lines up shift the emphasis of their responsibilities instead of shifting their side of the field and maintaining the same responsibilities in order to always have the same responsibilities. That isn't anything like saying, well if Dunta or CC Brown went down, we could have Simmons come in for either.

Lucky
03-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Ferguson was a pretty good safety for the Broncos, a couple of years ago. Not so good, recently. I think fans tend to think that just because a player is signed, he's a lock to make the team. I don't think that's the case here.

b0ng
03-25-2008, 08:24 PM
Ferguson was a pretty good safety for the Broncos, a couple of years ago. Not so good, recently. I think fans tend to think that just because a player is signed, he's a lock to make the team. I don't think that's the case here.

It feels like when we signed Keenan McCardell last off season. He's going to push the other safeties during camp and probably get cut.

Also, Polo, the Texans are probably designing their scheme to fit the players. So pretty much, the players, their skill sets and traits are what make up the Texans schemes. This is why most people are trying to tell you that the Texans are running a 2 safety scheme rather than a FS/SS scheme.

Ole Miss Texan
03-25-2008, 08:29 PM
It feels like when we signed Keenan McCardell last off season. He's going to push the other safeties during camp and probably get cut.


I think that's a perfect analogy!

You never know when a player is going to stick that you weren't really expecting (Andre Davis)... but for every Davis there are 10 McCardells. I think bringing Ferguson (McCardell) in only helps our competition but I don't see him making any sort of big impact when all's said and done.

Rex King
03-25-2008, 10:01 PM
The two scenarios are not analogous. Traditionally, the SS could be weaker in pass protection because he was going to consistently float to the side the O picked as the strong side for that play. The Texans have not been having their safeties switch sides. That means if they swap the strong side to Demps side of the field, he now has to take on more of the traditional SS responsibilities. In short hand, there are two safeties on the field who depending on how the O lines up shift the emphasis of their responsibilities instead of shifting their side of the field and maintaining the same responsibilities in order to always have the same responsibilities. That isn't anything like saying, well if Dunta or CC Brown went down, we could have Simmons come in for either.

None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC. However, I think I remember Demps making a couple plays in the run game on the left side (o-line's right). I'd have to go back to see where he lined up to start the play.

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 10:40 PM
None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC.

Did I imply 50/50% somewhere? Teams still line up more traditional strong side and still run more to their strong side than not so the safety playing on the traditional strong side will still end up closer more often. The point is when the TE flips sides, the safeties don't flip sides.

TK_Gamer
03-25-2008, 10:41 PM
None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC. However, I think I remember Demps making a couple plays in the run game on the left side (o-line's right). I'd have to go back to see where he lined up to start the play.

Exactly, the problem with all this right and left thing is it means very little as far as assignments go. With the semi-zone, and disguised coverages, it matters very little where a safety lines up. Personally I think as someone else mentioned , the Front office disigned a system here based on the skill sets of the personnel. Since our coverage skill across the board has almost always been weaker, they went more towards the cover 2 idea with the idea of keeping all the action in front of the secondary, so they could still make the tackles and limit the damage, without giving up as many big plays. I think we are still seeing that now and will continue to see it for quite some time. We would virtually have to revamp the entire secondary to switch to a more coverage type system. They may however look for the cover minded prospects in later rounds of the draft to slowly shore up this weakness. Until then they depend on the front seven to create enough pressure to cause turnovers/checkdowns and limit the passing game that way. just my oppinion.

CloakNNNdagger
03-25-2008, 10:52 PM
It's difficult enough to find a SS and FS that perform their respective positions well. What you don't want is to have hybrid safeties that do their respective jobs equally poorly...........except for "flashes," we've had a tendency thus far to the latter.

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 10:54 PM
Exactly, the problem with all this right and left thing is it means very little as far as assignments go.

No that is exactly what it means in a true left right system (like AT said, it is hard without game tape or purposefully watching that one issue in person to tell if the Texans are consistent in their system). The LS will more often be on the traditional strong side with run and TE coverage responsibilities. But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilities. Obviously the group of safeties is overall carrying out the same assignments but as opposed to a traditional system with a consistent division of assignments, the responsibilities shift around.

TK_Gamer
03-25-2008, 10:57 PM
It's difficult enough to find a SS and FS that perform their respective positions well. What you don't want is to have hybrid safeties that do their respective jobs equally poorly...........except for "flashes," we've had a tendency thus far to the latter.

yeah, it's like a damage control thing where the safeties just add another tackler. I really think we had so many holes on the team, to really develop a top notch secondary we just didnt have the prospects nor the money to upgrade. Maybe they were afraid to commit to the learning curve required, I don't know.

The Pencil Neck
03-25-2008, 10:58 PM
None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC. However, I think I remember Demps making a couple plays in the run game on the left side (o-line's right). I'd have to go back to see where he lined up to start the play.

Well, if you have the Denver game recorded, take a look at that. IIRC, Demps was always lined up on the defense's right side. I'll go back and take a look later tonight.

People are always wondering why we aren't going after "real" free safeties and why we seem to get strong safeties and put two strong safeties on the field at the same time. It has nothing to do with the personnel available. It's a conscious decision about the personnel that they go after and sign. They are consciously going after "tweeners", guys that are between a strong and free safety.

Last pre-season, people on the board were talking about CC being a better SS than Earl and when Earl went down, were surprised that they left CC on his side and then moved Simmons up into Earl's spot. They did that because Simmons and CC were the two best safeties.

They do the same things with the cornerbacks. They put Dunta on his side and whoever else on the other side. They don't put Dunta on a man and have him follow him over the field.

I'm not saying this is the best approach or anything. It's just the way they've been doing it.

TK_Gamer
03-25-2008, 11:00 PM
No that is exactly what it means in a true left right system (like AT said, it is hard without game tape or purposefully watching that one issue in person to tell if the Texans are consistent in their system). The LS will more often be on the traditional strong side with run and TE coverage responsibilities. But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilities. Obviously the group of safeties is overall carrying out the same assignments but as opposed to a traditional system with a consistent division of assignments, the responsibilities shift around.

I said assignments, my mistake, I meant responsibilities, more what they do rather than who they do it to. But considering over 75% of the time safeties are in zone coverage, it could mean both.

ObsiWan
03-25-2008, 11:22 PM
I don't get why the didn't try harder to keep Boulware if they wanted flexibility.

infantrycak
03-25-2008, 11:31 PM
I don't get why the didn't try harder to keep Boulware if they wanted flexibility.

Well, as a follow through on the discussion above, what the Texans appear to be looking for is tweeners between SS and FS, not tweeners between LB and SS. Kind of telling that Rhodes was on the staff and no attempt (at least reported) was made to re-sign Boulware.

mussop
03-26-2008, 01:36 AM
It's interesting to note that he was nicknamed "train wreck" while in NFLE when he mowed over one of his own team mates on his way to a tackle................sort of gives me flash backs of Spencer........


Reminds me of Cochran running down Dunta Robinson.

beerlover
03-26-2008, 02:15 AM
Boulware was a coverage nightmare, always trailing play, had stiff hips, could not flip & go with very marginal make-up speed. he should stick with LB & special teams.

Polo
03-26-2008, 11:54 AM
No that is exactly what it means in a true left right system (like AT said, it is hard without game tape or purposefully watching that one issue in person to tell if the Texans are consistent in their system). The LS will more often be on the traditional strong side with run and TE coverage responsibilities. But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilities. Obviously the group of safeties is overall carrying out the same assignments but as opposed to a traditional system with a consistent division of assignments, the responsibilities shift around.
http://www.texansbullpen.com/07photogallery/Season/2007-09-09-Chiefs-Texans/1stQuarter/DSC_0143.JPG

http://www.texansbullpen.com/07photogallery/Season/2007-09-09-Chiefs-Texans/1stQuarter/DSC_0175.JPG

Same hashmark, but CC is shaded to different areas...

but the one thing that has stayed consistent is that he is the deep guy...AKA his role hasn't changed...

Polo
03-26-2008, 12:32 PM
No that is exactly what it means in a true left right system (like AT said, it is hard without game tape or purposefully watching that one issue in person to tell if the Texans are consistent in their system). The LS will more often be on the traditional strong side with run and TE coverage responsibilities. But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilities. Obviously the group of safeties is overall carrying out the same assignments but as opposed to a traditional system with a consistent division of assignments, the responsibilities shift around.

Please go back and find one post where I said that our safeties followed TE's or switched sides according to how the offense was lined up...

I think the term I used was roles and responsibilities...

But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilitie.


Wrong.


If CC was the FS then CC was the free safety...He may have shaded to the middle or shaded to the far right, but you can go back and look at the games or photos and tell that our safeties are not switching "roles" or "responsibilities"...

The SS (regardless or what side he's on) is taking on the same responsibilities of a SS...and the FS regardless of where he's lined up is taking on the traditional role of a FS...They are not the same, and our safeties are not alternating roles because the offense lined up differently...

I don't think I've said anything about them "switching sides"...y'all said that...not me...

Our "FS" for the most part is going to be the deep guy and our "SS" is going to be the guy that comes down into the box a lot...

Otherwise when Von Hutchins was playing teams would have just lined up so that Von Hutchins (A freakin corner) took on the "SS role" and just pounded him to death...It make no sense to have Von Hutchins putting on the hat of a SS when he is not built for that...

It'd be dumb on the Texans part to make their defense that easy to exploit..

Polo
03-26-2008, 12:39 PM
http://www.texansbullpen.com/07photogallery/Season/2007-09-09-Chiefs-Texans/2007-09-09-Chiefs-Texans.htm

Go back and look at the photos of the game and you will see that CC (when he ws playing FS) was always the deep guy no matter where he was lined up at...

The only time he came down into the box was when Von Hutchins came into the game...

Von Hutchins was always the safety responsible for the Deep stuff regardless of how the offense was lined up or where he was at on the field...He was always one of the last ones to come into the picture because he was ALWAYS the safety responsible for deep stuff...(unless of course it was a blitz or something)...

Instead of switching the safeties to the Strongside the Texans probably compensated by changing how the front seven lined up...

But whatever...

Insideop
03-26-2008, 01:06 PM
It's difficult enough to find a SS and FS that perform their respective positions well. What you don't want is to have hybrid safeties that do their respective jobs equally poorly...........except for "flashes," we've had a tendency thus far to the latter.

This sounds like the old "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy. Is that what they want? I hope not! It just leads to mediocrity. :gun: JMHO!

badboy
03-26-2008, 01:25 PM
http://www.texansbullpen.com/07photogallery/Season/2007-09-09-Chiefs-Texans/1stQuarter/DSC_0143.JPG

http://www.texansbullpen.com/07photogallery/Season/2007-09-09-Chiefs-Texans/1stQuarter/DSC_0175.JPG

Same hashmark, but CC is shaded to different areas...

but the one thing that has stayed consistent is that he is the deep guy...AKA his role hasn't changed...Go to second picture and see the guy standing with 1 on his jersey? That was our deep guy.

ArlingtonTexan
03-26-2008, 01:47 PM
I appreciate you trying to prove an argument with facts,but those are two pictures of 800-900 defensive plays. Neither actually show the entire offensive or defensive sets...i.e. where the TE is or where's the other safety. Pretty inconclusive. I have no problem being wrong, but there not enough in those photos to do so.

Polo
03-26-2008, 02:19 PM
Our SS and FS are not "changing roles"...

The FS is not going to all of a sudden start jamming TE's and coming up into the box playing agressively against the run...

It doesn't matter where they are "lined up" at...

When the strength switches the Texans probably compensate for it with the front seven and not the safeties....But at the end of the day their "roles" have stayed the same...

But anyways...y'all can believe what you want to believe...

If y'all think that they asked Von Hutchins to play the "SS role" when the strength rolled to his side....Be my guest....

:heart:

AustinJB
03-26-2008, 02:50 PM
Our SS and FS are not "changing roles"...

The FS is not going to all of a sudden start jamming TE's and coming up into the box playing agressively against the run...

It doesn't matter where they are "lined up" at...

When the strength switches the Texans probably compensate for it with the front seven and not the safeties....But at the end of the day their "roles" have stayed the same...

But anyways...y'all can believe what you want to believe...

If y'all think that they asked Von Hutchins to play the "SS role" when the strength rolled to his side....Be my guest....

:heart:

Well....maybe they didn't ask Von Hutchins to play the SS role when he was in the game. Perhaps that is the reason they let him go...b/c they want Safeties that can switch roles depending on the set of the offense.

I'm just sayin....just b/c they didn't practice a certain philosophy when Hutchins was in the game doesn't really prove anything. This is precisely what a few of the other posters were tyring to say when they said you can look at our roster and see what type of safety play the team desires.

Von Hutchins, more of a cover guy than enforcer....the team let him go. They've had the chance in the past to draft a protypical "cover" FS...passed it up.

Now look at our safeties...all seem to be guys that can cover (this is definitely debatable w/ CC) but don't excel in coverage and they are decent tacklers but don't excel in stopping the run......hence the theory that this is the type of safety that our team wants; interchangeable parts. And it definitely seems that every time we target a new safety, they posses the same qualities.

Lucky
03-26-2008, 02:54 PM
..i.e. where the TE is or where's the other safety. Pretty inconclusive.
Be a skeptic. But if you look closely in the upper right corner of State's evidence known as pic #2, you can see the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll.

I rest my case.

infantrycak
03-26-2008, 02:56 PM
It doesn't matter where they are "lined up" at...

Yeah, I am sure the coaching staff just tells Demps to ignore the TE when he lines up on Demps' side of the field.

A left safety and a right safety are called such when a team keeps its safeties on specific sides of the field. The left safety would always play on the left side of the field, which is generally going to be the strong side. He will generally be the better run defender and the more physical of the two. The right safety will generally play on the weak side of the formation. He would more often have more freedom to run, would have to cover more ground and would not have to be as physical as the left safety.

Link (http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives/features_2000/football101_053100.asp)

More often would be translated as except when the O lines up with the strong side on their left and the D's right.

Rex King
03-26-2008, 04:51 PM
Did I imply 50/50% somewhere? Teams still line up more traditional strong side and still run more to their strong side than not so the safety playing on the traditional strong side will still end up closer more often. The point is when the TE flips sides, the safeties don't flip sides.

I think we got our wires crossed. That's the point I was trying to make - that Polo was seeing the FS deep because the TE or strong side was most often to the defense's left. To wit, in the exhibits submitted, 77 is the LT. The strong side appears to be to the defense's left. CC appears to be the right safety, and thus is playing deep. I'm confused as to how these pictures are supposed to support the argument.

The Pencil Neck
03-26-2008, 05:48 PM
Go watch the tape of the Denver game. I just skimmed through part of the first quarter and the beginning of the second.

With CC and Demps on the field, sometimes CC played back and Demps played up and sometimes CC played up and Demps played back. And it wasn't always strictly dictated by the alignment of the TE. But every time I see them line up, Demps is on the defense's right side and CC is on the defense's left side. Sometimes they'll man up on someone. There was a play where Demps was lined up outside of the corner.

Now, whether it's wise to play like this because it's easy to exploit is a whole different argument. And we've all expressed concern about it over the past season. But the fact is, they do play that way. Coaches have said it in several interviews. Players have said it in several interviews. I don't feel like digging back through all the interviews because it's not worth that much to me to 'prove' it to you because I don't think it's going to make any difference to you.

If you don't want to believe it, fine.

Rex King
03-26-2008, 06:29 PM
Huh? Are you referring to me? If so, you must have misunderstood the post immediately above yours. I remember the issue of them playing right and left safety first coming up around the time Harrison was drafted.

TBH, I wasn't sure if they stuck with it with all of the injuries and subsequent change in defensive scheme.

infantrycak
03-26-2008, 06:41 PM
I think we got our wires crossed. That's the point I was trying to make - that Polo was seeing the FS deep because the TE or strong side was most often to the defense's left. To wit, in the exhibits submitted, 77 is the LT. The strong side appears to be to the defense's left. CC appears to be the right safety, and thus is playing deep. I'm confused as to how these pictures are supposed to support the argument.

Huh? Are you referring to me? If so, you must have misunderstood the post immediately above yours. I remember the issue of them playing right and left safety first coming up around the time Harrison was drafted.

TBH, I wasn't sure if they stuck with it with all of the injuries and subsequent change in defensive scheme.

Now I understand where you are coming from. I think the post above your last one was in response to Polo--the somehow the safeties don't switch sides but have no different responsibilities no matter who lines up across them advocate. How the heck is that supposed to work we don't know.

The Pencil Neck
03-26-2008, 06:58 PM
Huh? Are you referring to me?

No.

TEXANRED
03-26-2008, 07:59 PM
Chron is reporting they are expecting him to sign.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/5651344.html

BSofA04
03-26-2008, 08:37 PM
Chron is reporting they are expecting him to sign.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/5651344.html

Great signing for depth. I'm still very intrested to see what our 2007 safety draft picks Brandon Mitchell and Brandon Harrison look like on the field. So I guess this is a sign that neither one of them are quite ready to be declared the next backup.

Bubbajwp
03-26-2008, 09:15 PM
It doesnt even look like there is a TE in the game in the first picture.

Brando
03-26-2008, 10:01 PM
We signed him.

Ferguson signed a one-year contract Wednesday with the Houston Texans

Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_8707309)

Kaiser Toro
03-26-2008, 10:08 PM
Nick Ferguson was at a point in life where he needed his old friends.

Rick Smith and Gary Kubiak were there for him. A starting strong safety for most of the previous five seasons with the Broncos, Ferguson signed a one-year contract Wednesday with the Houston Texans, whose administrative hierarchy is stacked with former Broncos' Smith and Kubiak.

"Nick's healthy and excited to be working again for coach Kubiak and for Rick Smith," said Jack Reale, Ferguson's agent.



http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_8707309

TEXANRED
03-26-2008, 10:12 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_8707309

That was quick.

Brandon420tx
03-26-2008, 10:13 PM
No one can say the Texans haven't been active this offseason.

b0ng
03-26-2008, 10:38 PM
No one can say the Texans haven't been active this offseason.

Texans fans know no such thing as logic. I'm sure there's somebody out there (probably about to call into 610) that thinks this offseason was a horrific failure because we didn't nab Turner.

Wolf
03-26-2008, 10:49 PM
With all the moves the Texans have done this offseason, I can't tell if they are great moves (talentwise compared to the NFL) or if the old regime really dumbed me down with their process of drafting and overpaying players that we were made to believe that were talented

so far I love what has been done

beerlover
03-26-2008, 10:55 PM
Smith strikes again, does the man sleep :whip:

drewmar74
03-26-2008, 11:03 PM
Depth at safety perhaps equals targeting BPA at OT or CB when we get to #18?

bigbrewster2000
03-27-2008, 09:27 AM
Depth at safety perhaps equals targeting BPA at OT or CB when we get to #18?

Did you not already believe that is what they were going to target in the 1st rd? I guess not since you asked. I am assuming you are a Kenny Philips proponent? There is something about that guy that I dont like. Maybe its just that he isnt 1st round talent and I dont want our team to over draft a guy that I think is going to bust in the NFL.

drewmar74
03-27-2008, 09:34 AM
Did you not already believe that is what they were going to target in the 1st rd? I guess not since you asked. I am assuming you are a Kenny Philips proponent? There is something about that guy that I dont like. Maybe its just that he isnt 1st round talent and I dont want our team to over draft a guy that I think is going to bust in the NFL.

Actually, I'm a "draft BPA at CB or OT" at #18 proponent so this signing suits me just fine.

bigbrewster2000
03-27-2008, 10:28 AM
Actually, I'm a "draft BPA at CB or OT" at #18 proponent so this signing suits me just fine.

Good, I am glad that I wasted my typing fingers:specnatz:

TK_Gamer
03-27-2008, 11:45 AM
I would say I'm a proponent of drafting BPA at whatever we pick at, whether it be a HB, CB, LB, DE, LT, or whatever. I think we would be wrong to assume we knew the overal plans of this front office. I think we have so adequately added depth at every single need position that absolutely ANYTHING is possible. Should be interesting....

badboy
03-27-2008, 11:48 AM
I would say I'm a proponent of drafting BPA at whatever we pick at, whether it be a HB, CB, LB, DE, LT, or whatever. I think we would be wrong to assume we knew the overal plans of this front office. I think we have so adequately added depth at every single need position that absolutely ANYTHING is possible. Should be interesting....
Ah but what position have we not addressed? The one where when we think of back up we say "who?"

TK_Gamer
03-27-2008, 11:56 AM
Im not alluding to any specific positions, the opposite , I'm saying they will take the BPA period, whoever that may be.

Texans34Life
03-27-2008, 12:54 PM
No one can say the Texans haven't been active this offseason.

Under the radar active.

badboy
03-27-2008, 01:00 PM
Im not alluding to any specific positions, the opposite , I'm saying they will take the BPA period, whoever that may be.You said depth had been added to all needed positions. I was hinting that is not true of LT and Jordan Black is the who?

drewmar74
03-27-2008, 01:08 PM
You said depth had been added to all needed positions. I was hinting that is not true of LT and Jordan Black is the who?

Agreed that depth has been added everywhere with the exception of CB and OT where I still think we need help. Which is why I think all of the Chris Brown / Nick Ferguson type moves that we are seeing are geared to pust uus in the best position to address those two positions in the draft.

badboy
03-27-2008, 01:10 PM
Agreed that depth has been added everywhere with the exception of CB and OT where I still think we need help. Which is why I think all of the Chris Brown / Nick Ferguson type moves that we are seeing are geared to pust uus in the best position to address those two positions in the draft.My thought too but Jacques Reeves was signed to play CB. There are a few CBs available after first round that I am starting to focus on.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 01:40 PM
We have a lot to choose from either OT or CB. Theres about 4 at each position that are first round worthy. I guess you could say RB too but w/ Jonathon Stewart having surgery...plus im not sure felix jones is 1st round worthy.

badboy
03-27-2008, 01:48 PM
We have a lot to choose from either OT or CB. Theres about 4 at each position that are first round worthy. I guess you could say RB too but w/ Jonathon Stewart having surgery...plus im not sure felix jones is 1st round worthy.I was hot on STewart until toe surgery but all I read says he should miss at most two games. He did run 4.4 at combine with that injury. I really want Williams LT if he slides but I would not put $ on that. Recent mocks have Stewart going to Dallas. If Williams not there #18 and no earth shattering trade is offered, I am leaning again towards Stewart. Forte my alternate will be gone by our third imo. If we had a 2nd to get Forte that would really open of the draft.

TheRealJoker
03-27-2008, 01:54 PM
Ferguson is a good depth signing. I think he was in Denver while Rhodes was DC and I think we'll run similar schemes to what Rhodes usually runs so its good to have a vet that can show the younger players what they're doing wrong while in training camp.

In the end however I think he's competing with Brandon Harrison/Glenn Earl for 1 roster spot and I think he's this Training Camp's Keenan Mccardell. Basically brought in as a player/coach for TC.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 01:57 PM
I was hot on STewart until toe surgery but all I read says he should miss at most two games. He did run 4.4 at combine with that injury. I really want Williams LT if he slides but I would not put $ on that. Recent mocks have Stewart going to Dallas. If Williams not there #18 and no earth shattering trade is offered, I am leaning again towards Stewart. Forte my alternate will be gone by our third imo. If we had a 2nd to get Forte that would really open of the draft.

Dont get me wrong i think stewart is the truth. Just with all our needs, the new ZBS system and the fact that the Oline has holes in it i just dont feel its likely. I'd love the pic too.

Williams will prolly be gone. Leaving CB's that are worthy of the 18 pick. Talib from Kansas, Justin King Penn State, Brandon Flowers Vtech, MAYBE Cason or Mike Smith may fall but i doubt it. If we go with a corner i like Talib. Seems like a slighty more polished ( and slightly bigger) Bennett.

badboy
03-27-2008, 02:09 PM
Dont get me wrong i think stewart is the truth. Just with all our needs, the new ZBS system and the fact that the Oline has holes in it i just dont feel its likely. I'd love the pic too.

Williams will prolly be gone. Leaving CB's that are worthy of the 18 pick. Talib from Kansas, Justin King Penn State, Brandon Flowers Vtech, MAYBE Cason or Mike Smith may fall but i doubt it. If we go with a corner i like Talib. Seems like a slighty more polished ( and slightly bigger) Bennett.All the CBs you list are a reach at #18 for me. Talib lower and King is moving up but I project him very low first to high second. Kid has killer speed though. I could see a scenario in which the team drafts three corners.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 02:12 PM
All the CBs you list are a reach at #18 for me. Talib lower and King is moving up but I project him very low first to high second. Kid has killer speed though. I could see a scenario in which the team drafts three corners.

well in that case give me Cason. Interesting secenario...which ones would we pick in that case?

Specnatz
03-27-2008, 02:55 PM
Dont get me wrong i think stewart is the truth. Just with all our needs, the new ZBS system and the fact that the Oline has holes in it i just dont feel its likely. I'd love the pic too.

Williams will prolly be gone. Leaving CB's that are worthy of the 18 pick. Talib from Kansas, Justin King Penn State, Brandon Flowers Vtech, MAYBE Cason or Mike Smith may fall but i doubt it. If we go with a corner i like Talib. Seems like a slighty more polished ( and slightly bigger) Bennett.

All the CBs you list are a reach at #18 for me. Talib lower and King is moving up but I project him very low first to high second. Kid has killer speed though. I could see a scenario in which the team drafts three corners.

When you say it is a reach are you talking about more than 5 slots? Because I think when you look at a board sometimes you may reach just a bit on a player because of the position.

El Tejano
03-27-2008, 03:11 PM
I was hot on STewart until toe surgery but all I read says he should miss at most two games. He did run 4.4 at combine with that injury. I really want Williams LT if he slides but I would not put $ on that. Recent mocks have Stewart going to Dallas. If Williams not there #18 and no earth shattering trade is offered, I am leaning again towards Stewart. Forte my alternate will be gone by our third imo. If we had a 2nd to get Forte that would really open of the draft.

Something tells me this is who we want and who we really are going to try and get. I'm not sure if he goes in the 2nd, I think he falls because of the national attention guys like Felix Jones, Allen Patrick, Steve Slayton have.

TK_Gamer
03-27-2008, 03:13 PM
I could see us taking 2 corners in the draft(one high, one low) but not 3, maybe a udfa pickup later, but it's not like we have no corners. we added another vetran safety, but I think we will be adding a 2nd day saftety also to groom.I really have a sneaking suspicion that RB, LB and DE could be higher on Smith/Kubiak's board than we think though.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 03:17 PM
I could see us taking 2 corners in the draft(one high, one low) but not 3, maybe a udfa pickup later, but it's not like we have no corners. we added another vetran safety, but I think we will be adding a 2nd day saftety also to groom.I really have a sneaking suspicion that RB, LB and DE could be higher on Smith/Kubiak's board than we think though.

Yeah they're some nice LB's. Keith Rivers is good...like Patrick Willis good but he'll be gone.IMO

Allstar
03-27-2008, 03:17 PM
The draft never goes how I expect it to. I think we should go BPA in the first of CB, LT, RB, S, DE, OLB, or whatever. I have faith in our staff.

Edit: This is hilarious, I clicked "last page" and I totally forgot what thread I was in because it was all about draft talk. The offseason has many different exciting aspects about it. It's too easy to be sidetracked this time of the year.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 03:19 PM
The draft never goes how I expect it to. I think we should go BPA in the first of CB, LT, RB, S, DE, OLB, or whatever. I have faith in our staff.

Edit: This is hilarious, I clicked "last page" and I totally forgot what thread I was in because it was all about draft talk. The offseason has many different exciting aspects about it. It's too easy to be sidetracked this time of the year.

Very true. I didnt see us picking Amobi. I love the pick but i was leaning towards Willis considering he went right after to SF.

GP
03-27-2008, 03:36 PM
When you say it is a reach are you talking about more than 5 slots? Because I think when you look at a board sometimes you may reach just a bit on a player because of the position.

Especially when you don't have a 2nd rounder to utilize...it's a loooong time before we get our second pick, so you gotta' see what's there and say "We need this position, and there's not a guy who'll be available in the third who can do what we need to be done...."

Reaching is not bad, as long as you know the guy fits your system. I never felt comfy with what Capers and Casserly were consistently trying to build. One of the worst "reaches" was Jason Babin, but I can see a lot of improvement with our drafting and free agency acquisitions (especially in terms of the contracts) with Kubiak and Smith.

Drafting 10th last year was cool because you knew we'd land a Top 10 player, but waiting to see what we'll do further down in the first round is going to be very interesting! Might be more fun than when Amobi's name was called.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 03:40 PM
Especially when you don't have a 2nd rounder to utilize...it's a loooong time before we get our second pick, so you gotta' see what's there and say "We need this position, and there's not a guy who'll be available in the third who can do what we need to be done...."

Reaching is not bad, as long as you know the guy fits your system. I never felt comfy with what Capers and Casserly were consistently trying to build. One of the worst "reaches" was Jason Babin, but I can see a lot of improvement with our drafting and free agency acquisitions (especially in terms of the contracts) with Kubiak and Smith.

Drafting 10th last year was cool because you knew we'd land a Top 10 player, but waiting to see what we'll do further down in the first round is going to be very interesting! Might be more fun than when Amobi's name was called.


Im either way when it comes to reaching. I do have a question though...with the talk of reaching. If we had not picked Mario #1 do you think he would've fallen 5 slots?

badboy
03-27-2008, 03:47 PM
well in that case give me Cason. Interesting secenario...which ones would we pick in that case?Ok, Williams and Stewart are gone and the only other player that interests me at #18 that might slip is Mendenhall is gone also.

I'd trade down desperately hoping I could do a deal for Atlanta's twos.

2a Sam Baker or Anthony Collins for your LT
b Forte for your RB who will prolly be gone by our pick in 3rd.Jamaal Charles if there would get some consideration.

c My gut says we do get this for Sage and I go with Justin King or Tracy Porter Cb/FS/KR http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=33075

3rd: Charles Godfrey Cb/FS http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=33090

or Chevis Jackson Cb/KR http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=33164

4th: Tyvon Branch Cb/FS/KR with kick butt speed. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=32938

5th: part of trade down for Atlanta's twos
6th: Chris Myers trade
7th:BPA and hope Smith can do a Zach DIles again.

This gives you very solid players & probable starters in second round. Very possible CB starter in 3rd regardless of which you draft and in 4th a very strong back up in 4th. This could shake up defense and really strengthen DBs and yet address needs at LT and RB. I do not see any other "need spot" to be filled this season.

badboy
03-27-2008, 03:49 PM
When you say it is a reach are you talking about more than 5 slots? Because I think when you look at a board sometimes you may reach just a bit on a player because of the position.I would not select a player at #18 that would prolly be there at 23 if that answers your question. With maybe an exception like Stewart.

RipTraxx
03-27-2008, 03:52 PM
I would not select a player at #18 that would prolly be there at 23 if that answers your question. With maybe an exception like Stewart.

You think mario would've fallen 5 slots?

badboy
03-27-2008, 03:52 PM
Something tells me this is who we want and who we really are going to try and get. I'm not sure if he goes in the 2nd, I think he falls because of the national attention guys like Felix Jones, Allen Patrick, Steve Slayton have.From what LZ said Forte has climbed from 3rd to 2nd potentially. Jones may go in first but Patrick and Slayton are different type runners. Hoever Jamaal Charles reall intrigues me if there in 2nd for the ZBS. I think he'd be great in that scheme.

badboy
03-27-2008, 04:12 PM
You think mario would've fallen 5 slots?

You mean five additional spots? He was not expected to fall to us.

NOTE** I must apologise, In my hurry to respond to different posts I read Okoye and just realized you said Mario. Not sure on Mario, but I doubt 5 spots.

infantrycak
03-27-2008, 04:15 PM
I would not select a player at #18 that would prolly be there at 23 if that answers your question. With maybe an exception like Stewart.

Slotting is not nearly as precise as you are making it out to be.

You think mario would've fallen 5 slots?

No, but maybe. The first reports after the draft were 7 teams had Mario at #1 on their boards and the remainder had him at #2. There was one conflicting report later that New Orleans would have taken AJ Hawk.

badboy
03-27-2008, 04:19 PM
I could see us taking 2 corners in the draft(one high, one low) but not 3, maybe a udfa pickup later, but it's not like we have no corners. we added another vetran safety, but I think we will be adding a 2nd day saftety also to groom.I really have a sneaking suspicion that RB, LB and DE could be higher on Smith/Kubiak's board than we think though.We have one for sure starter at Cb in Bennett. It is quite possible Dunte may never play Cb again. Reeves will compete but many have labeled him as a back up. I want two solid starters even if one is rookie like F.B. was last season. At least one solid Cb that could step up to start if required and could play nickle. Faggins & Fletcher were often ridiculed last year. Note in my post above most Cb's could play FS. We have plenty of SS an Brandon Mitchell and Brandon Harrison can play SS.

Specnatz
03-27-2008, 04:19 PM
I would not select a player at #18 that would prolly be there at 23 if that answers your question. With maybe an exception like Stewart.

That is just your draft board, that is why every team has a different one. But 5 slots to me is not a reach at all .. That is why you see a guy Like Chris Williams going anywhere from 11 to 20. Every year there is one player that drops and it is a shock to everyone.

badboy
03-27-2008, 04:20 PM
Slotting is not nearly as precise as you are making it out to be.



No, but maybe. The first reports after the draft were 7 teams had Mario at #1 on their boards and the remainder had him at #2. There was one conflicting report later that New Orleans would have taken AJ Hawk.
I have no idea what you are talking about?

Texan_Bill
03-27-2008, 04:21 PM
That is just your draft board, that is why every team has a different one. But 5 slots to me is not a reach at all .. That is why you see a guy Like Chris Williams going anywhere from 11 to 20. Every year there is one player that drops and it is a shock to everyone.

Notre Dame fan can attest to that with Brady Quinn....


:jk:



Had to Spec...

ChampionTexan
03-27-2008, 04:28 PM
You mean five additional spots? He was not expected to fall to us.


Huh?

badboy
03-27-2008, 04:36 PM
That is just your draft board, that is why every team has a different one. But 5 slots to me is not a reach at all .. That is why you see a guy Like Chris Williams going anywhere from 11 to 20. Every year there is one player that drops and it is a shock to everyone.You seem to be twisting my words. I did not say a player could not move up or down the board but I would not use #18 for a player that I thought would be available 5 spots lower. Does that clarify? Example, you need a corner and on your board you have Cason at #23. All CBs you rated higher are gone. You might reach for Cason but I probably would not. I would try to trade down to 21 or 22 or 23. If you think you can't do that and you absolutely have to have your guy and there is no satisfactory player in later round that can approach your guy, then pull the trigger. IMO that is not the case with RB, LT or CB this draft.:thinking:

badboy
03-27-2008, 04:38 PM
Huh?See my edit on post #116.

GP
03-27-2008, 04:55 PM
Im either way when it comes to reaching. I do have a question though...with the talk of reaching. If we had not picked Mario #1 do you think he would've fallen 5 slots?

I think the guys who go Top 10 are not going to slide much--I think the mock boards get it pretty right in terms of who's going Top 10. You might have a Brady Quinn or Leinart who just plummets...but then again, that's the media analysts who had those types of guys (usually QBs) rated wayyyy to highly IMO.

To answer your question: I don't think Mario would have slid any further than the 3rd, or possibly 4th pick. New Orleans went BPA and, well...ya' know the rest. Either they really loved Reggie Bush, or they faked it really well. I don't think they wanted Mario as badly as they wanted Reggie Bush. And THAT'S a BPA mentality if there ever was one.

Let me ask a question of everyone: Would we have picked up Travis Johnson in the first round if we had possessed a fairly good defensive line at the time? He seems like a 2nd, maybe even a 3rd rounder now that you look back on it. TJ was a BIG reach, and I think it was due to needing more beef on the line. Our guys were aging (Gary Walker/Seth Payne) and getting injured (Gary Walker and Seth Payne) or gassed; we needed new blood on the line. TJ was what they thought they needed.

badboy
03-27-2008, 04:59 PM
I think the guys who go Top 10 are not going to slide much--I think the mock boards get it pretty right in terms of who's going Top 10. You might have a Brady Quinn or Leinart who just plummets...but then again, that's the media analysts who had those types of guys (usually QBs) rated wayyyy to highly IMO.

To answer your question: I don't think Mario would have slid any further than the 3rd, or possibly 4th pick. New Orleans went BPA and, well...ya' know the rest. Either they really loved Reggie Bush, or they faked it really well. I don't think they wanted Mario as badly as they wanted Reggie Bush. And THAT'S a BPA mentality if there ever was one.

Let me ask a question of everyone: Would we have picked up Travis Johnson in the first round if we had possessed a fairly good defensive line at the time? He seems like a 2nd, maybe even a 3rd rounder now that you look back on it. TJ was a BIG reach, and I think it was due to needing more beef on the line. Our guys were aging (Gary Walker/Seth Payne) and getting injured (Gary Walker and Seth Payne) or gassed; we needed new blood on the line. TJ was what they thought they needed.To this minute I do not know why we picked TJ. I just include him in my bedtime prayers that he keeps getting better.

Specnatz
03-27-2008, 05:09 PM
Notre Dame fan can attest to that with Brady Quinn....


:jk:



Had to Spec...

What was the running back who sat in the green room until the second round? You know the one from A&M.


EDIT: Leeland McElroy

GP
03-27-2008, 05:09 PM
To this minute I do not know why we picked TJ. I just include him in my bedtime prayers that he keeps getting better.

I felt it was out of the idea that FSU defensive players were still the cream of the crop. You can remember the days when WRs came out of Miami and DBs and LBs/DLs came out of FSU...they had a crazy defense back in the day.

I think Capers saw a big guy in a program that had trended toward producing great defensive players, players with grit, and it "looked" good.

Drafting in the middle of the first round is so iffy, IMO. You got guys that are probably not Top 10'ers...but then they might also really be late 1st or early 2nd rounders. You might be really over paying in the mid-1st round (see Travis Johnson, for an example). I'd rather draft Top 10 or at the end of the 1st round. Just seems you have a lot more clarity than right in the middle of the 1st round. But that's just my feelings on it.

That's why I am amazed that we have spotted DeMeco, Winston, Spencer and grabbed them where we did. I actually think that we had those guys eyeballed...and we knew that other teams would pass on them, but that we could spend higher picks and STILL get guys like DeMeco/Spencer/Winston.

Like I said: It will be very interesting to see what we fish for at 18. I'm beginning to be more of a fan of the drama of the draft than anything else...until preseason starts, and then I'm transformed out of the cocoon and into a butterfly.

NFL is the best sport to follow: They operate like a great TV show (24, for example) that keeps you hanging on at all the right spots and for just the right amount of time during each phase of the year!

Specnatz
03-27-2008, 05:13 PM
You seem to be twisting my words. I did not say a player could not move up or down the board but I would not use #18 for a player that I thought would be available 5 spots lower. Does that clarify? Example, you need a corner and on your board you have Cason at #23. All CBs you rated higher are gone. You might reach for Cason but I probably would not. I would try to trade down to 21 or 22 or 23. If you think you can't do that and you absolutely have to have your guy and there is no satisfactory player in later round that can approach your guy, then pull the trigger. IMO that is not the case with RB, LT or CB this draft.:thinking:

That is the thing I am saying, 5 spots is not that much, but your not drafting 5 spots lower you drafting now, so you would just say screw it and not take a guy over 5 spots? That does not make anysense to me at all.

Ole Miss Texan
03-27-2008, 05:20 PM
What was the running back who sat in the green room until the second round? You know the one from A&M.


EDIT: Leeland McElroy

Leeland McElroy was one of my favorite college players growing up! It seemed like every time he caught a punt or kick off he returned it for a touchdown. Where did he end up playing? I thought he may have been with the Cardinals but not sure how long he made it in the NFL.

Nevermind- this is way off course of the subject: safety nick ferguson... I'll just look it up later. :)

badboy
03-27-2008, 05:22 PM
That is the thing I am saying, 5 spots is not that much, but your not drafting 5 spots lower you drafting now, so you would just say screw it and not take a guy over 5 spots? That does not make anysense to me at all.Sorry. I just don't think I can splain my self any better.

Specnatz
03-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Sorry. I just don't think I can splain my self any better.

I understand what you are saying and I just do not agree.

infantrycak
03-27-2008, 05:45 PM
Let me ask a question of everyone: Would we have picked up Travis Johnson in the first round if we had possessed a fairly good defensive line at the time? He seems like a 2nd, maybe even a 3rd rounder now that you look back on it. TJ was a BIG reach, and I think it was due to needing more beef on the line.

TJ was the top ranked DT in his class and was expected to go in the 1st round.

Hardcore Texan
03-27-2008, 05:52 PM
I think we saw this coming.

http://texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=873822&postcount=3

Originally Posted by jaayteetx
another former bronco...

Originally Posted by Hardcore Texan
Exactly, consider him signed.

GP
03-27-2008, 06:10 PM
TJ was the top ranked DT in his class and was expected to go in the 1st round.

Looking at the first two rounds, it was a very weak draft for defensive tackles. 64 picks in rounds 1 & 2...and 5 of the 64 picks were DTs, with TJ being the first DT taken at slot 16 in the first round.

TJ might have been the top ranked DT, but that's not saying much. It's not as if there was overwhelming DT talent laying around.

Maybe TJ turns the corner. I'm indifferent at this stage. He caught a bad break by coming into the great 2-14 season, and yet it's not like he's nailing down his spot or really solidifying himself.

Kinda' funny that we traded down with New Orleans to their No. 16 in the first round, and they jumped up to our original spot at No. 13 and picked up Jammal Brown (later becoming a Pro Bowl offensive tackle).

It's always easy to say "Look what we missed...why'd we do that?" but that's the way it goes!

infantrycak
03-27-2008, 06:26 PM
Looking at the first two rounds, it was a very weak draft for defensive tackles. 64 picks in rounds 1 & 2...and 5 of the 64 picks were DTs, with TJ being the first DT taken at slot 16 in the first round.

TJ might have been the top ranked DT, but that's not saying much. It's not as if there was overwhelming DT talent laying around.

And that is why he was taken where he was rather than top 10 like a lot of the top rated DT's have been taken. You want to see a bad DT year, look at 1998--none taken until the 4th round.

Kinda' funny that we traded down with New Orleans to their No. 16 in the first round, and they jumped up to our original spot at No. 13 and picked up Jammal Brown (later becoming a Pro Bowl offensive tackle).

It's always easy to say "Look what we missed...why'd we do that?" but that's the way it goes!

The lesson I get from that one is to tune out 90% of what draftniks say since 90% of them said Brown would have to be a RT in the NFL.

ATXtexanfan
03-27-2008, 07:14 PM
what ever happened to frank okam?

AnthonyE
03-27-2008, 09:32 PM
Leeland McElroy was one of my favorite college players growing up! It seemed like every time he caught a punt or kick off he returned it for a touchdown. Where did he end up playing? I thought he may have been with the Cardinals but not sure how long he made it in the NFL.

Nevermind- this is way off course of the subject: safety nick ferguson... I'll just look it up later. :)

As player:
1996-1997
1998
1999
1999 Arizona Cardinals
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Denver Broncos
Indianapolis Colts

what ever happened to frank okam?

I don't really know what to look for in a DT prospect, but his 40 time seems a bit low, like 5.3, and scouts say he's inconsistent. He "often looks disinterested at times." Meh. :o I don't really know where he'll go.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=33733
___

But on the topic of Nick Ferguson, welcome to Houston!

b0ng
03-27-2008, 09:43 PM
what ever happened to frank okam?

He's a big boy, but he doesn't move that fast. He's expected to be a tree stump in the NFL and probably go in the 3rd or 4th round. I'd say that there are plenty of DT's ranked ahead of him including Red Bryant from TAMU.

EDIT: When I told my buddies that we were picking up a fairly old safety from Denver, everybody said "Lynch?"

I don't know how I would feel about that, probably okay.

ccdude730
03-28-2008, 04:45 AM
contract numbers...

As expected, the Texans signed free agent safety Nick Ferguson on Thursday.

Ferguson, 33, received one-year deal for the $730,000 minimum for a player entering his ninth season. Ferguson, 5-11, 201, played the last five seasons for Denver.Link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/5655007.html)

Polo
03-28-2008, 09:17 AM
I'm liking these contracts...

badboy
03-28-2008, 10:04 AM
Looking at the first two rounds, it was a very weak draft for defensive tackles. 64 picks in rounds 1 & 2...and 5 of the 64 picks were DTs, with TJ being the first DT taken at slot 16 in the first round.

TJ might have been the top ranked DT, but that's not saying much. It's not as if there was overwhelming DT talent laying around.

Maybe TJ turns the corner. I'm indifferent at this stage. He caught a bad break by coming into the great 2-14 season, and yet it's not like he's nailing down his spot or really solidifying himself.

Kinda' funny that we traded down with New Orleans to their No. 16 in the first round, and they jumped up to our original spot at No. 13 and picked up Jammal Brown (later becoming a Pro Bowl offensive tackle).

It's always easy to say "Look what we missed...why'd we do that?" but that's the way it goes!I compare the TJ situation similar to how I see Phillips FS this year. Best at his position but not what we needed at that pick. I also think Phillips on our team would have similar results as TJ. We have a better team now so Phillips might actually do better or at least not be as exposed.