PDA

View Full Version : Traditional WR setup and why we dont need anyone else


Grid
03-15-2005, 09:24 PM
So, I do NOT support the drafting of another WR. Fact of the matter is that we are pretty much set at WR and do not need much, if any, more help there. We need help at DL, OL, and LB.

So.. traditionally.. and I use the term lightly.. a more fitting term would be "on average", WRs are set up like this.

#1 the all around talented player. He can run, he can catch, he can jump, he can run precise routes. This is your superstar.

Texans: A.J.

#2 Your possession receiver. This is a guy that isnt necessarily fast, but is physical and athletic. he makes the hard catches and knows how to get open.

Texans: Armstrong (hes a perfect fit)

#3 Your speedster. He doesnt have to be an especially gifted receiver.. he just needs to be the fastest guy on the field and has to catch the ball at least 75% of the time.

Texans: Starling (he fits)



this is how you will see alot of teams set up at WR.. and as you can see we already have the personel to do this. Now, maybe we run a different system.. maybe we want to stretch the field more and go for that big play more often..so we need another "total package" receiver at #2 to do that. But the fact of the matter is that we have all the peices we need to have an effective WR group.

I also realize that I didnt include Gaffney in this comparison. I love gaffney.. but im not so sure he will be effective in a system that uses a setup like this. IMO he is the kind of guy who knows how to exploit a defense that has been stretched thin.. not the kind of guy who will get open and make the catch regardless of what the situation is (like armstrong).

Also.. im not a member of the Texans coaching crew so I have no way of knowing if Armstrong is the kind of player I think he is.. or if Gaffney isnt a better possession receiver.. or if Starling is even ready to take the field in a real game. So, take this for what its worth.


Anyway. I dont see WR being high on our list of needs.. even when Casserly mentioned us going for a WR he said that we MIGHT be interested in grabbing a WR... meaning.. it is not a sure thing or a pressing need. With all of our needs in other places.. and all the positions which we NEED young talent at (our WRs are incredibly young and do not need more youth).. I just dont see us taking a WR unless it is the ABSOLUTE BPA, and the only chance I see of that happening is if Williams or Edwards falls to #13.. and if that happens I think we would be more likely to use it as leverage for a nice trade down.

my :twocents:

D-ReK
03-16-2005, 05:35 AM
I'm D-ReK, and I approve this message...

I think our WRs are set for next year unless Williams or Edwards falls or we take a speedster in the late rounds to take over for Moses...

Everyone seems to believe that we need a speedy #2 to take pressure off AJ, but I think that as he continues to develop as an all-around receiver, his improved route-running will allow him to get the separation he needs...

ATX
03-19-2005, 05:53 AM
We still need one more reciever. how long wil bradford be here? will he even be here in 2005? what if Gaffney or johnson get injured? are you comfortable with gaffney and armstrong starting? Starling has yet to do anything to be a #3 or #4 WR. We need a #2 WR that is somewhere inbetween AJ and gaffney/Armstrong. I think we'll take a WR in the second round if not the first round.

Texan in Japan
03-19-2005, 09:03 AM
I think if a WR is BPA in any round, we'll look hard at them. However, I tend agree that we have some good talent (add Sloan Thomas to mix), but it really hinges on how coaches feel that Starling and Thomas are progressing...to meet our need for speed.

edo783
03-19-2005, 10:53 AM
IMO, the only reason we should take another WR is if the coaching staff doesn't think any of the guys behind AJ can be a quality #2. I suspect that Starling can be one, but I don't know, they do. If we wind up taking one in the first or second, then that question is answerd. After those rounds, if we take one, we are just looking at a possible up grade for what we have ie. competition.

Holden135
03-19-2005, 11:33 AM
I also disagree with selecting a wr in the first round this year. I think the second round would be a good time to find another wr. Parish of Miami and Henry of WVU should still be available at this point and i think they would be solid picks. In my opinion solidifying the o-line or the d-line would be much more beneficial for the first round since you can't really expect to find a solid 2nd round lineman unless possibly Bass falls but from all the reports i am hearing it doesnt look like he would fall that far into the 2nd round

royce1054
03-19-2005, 02:37 PM
So,

#2 Your possession receiver. This is a guy that isnt necessarily fast, but is physical and athletic. he makes the hard catches and knows how to get open.

Texans: Armstrong (hes a perfect fit)

#3 Your speedster. He doesnt have to be an especially gifted receiver.. he just needs to be the fastest guy on the field and has to catch the ball at least 75% of the time.

Texans: Starling (he fits)


my :twocents:

wow hoooooooo.... your #2 is speed burner the one that stretches the field.. goes deep... the one who takes a Safety away from Johnson

a #3 goes over a middle and catches the hard passes. The ones that will hurt if your not careful.... Take a look at the colts.... They are doing right with their WR.

gg no re
03-19-2005, 02:46 PM
Colts are different setup I believe.... their TEs are their possession receivers while everyone else just burns the corners.

royce1054
03-19-2005, 02:48 PM
their TE got cut hes now a Lion... Pollard could of been like miller... i do agree we need to throw to out TE more

ThaShark316
03-19-2005, 02:49 PM
I'm starting to that even if we paid a great WR cheap money, Grid would blast the FO. :heh:


Look, if we don't get another WR in the draft, then we better have JG @ the #2, I can't live with Armstrong @ #2, slot WR...an emphatic YES!

I'm callin my shot now..

Texans will draft Chris Henry in the 2nd rd. :thumbup

royce1054
03-19-2005, 02:50 PM
Texans will draft Chris Henry in the 2nd rd. :thumbup

Henry has attitude Issues... i am not tottally sure if he matches what texans want to do.

ThaShark316
03-19-2005, 02:59 PM
Henry has attitude Issues... i am not tottally sure if he matches what texans want to do.


Attitude...like thats something the Texans have in the locker...we need a spark...

^^^^^best I could do to shoot down ur point :heh:


So what if he has an attitude, that might change in a NFL locker room...

royce1054
03-19-2005, 03:11 PM
Peek can do that by himself. The question is can he channel that onto the field.... and make his play their and not be like a MOSS or some one else who loses his composure. (sp**) If he can do that i have no problem with henry... henry is #8 on my board. I think is going to depend on if Roddy White slips to 2nd or not. If he does then i see us taking a Reggie Brown or Fred Gibson. To do that we would have to not draft williamson and draft Barron or Barnes who is climbing on my board. Barnes is turning out to be a riser. Keep an eye on him.. He played at Washington he has played against some NFL talent.

powda
03-19-2005, 04:05 PM
theres room on this team for a first day pick at wr...with the depth in free agency and the draft itself i think we'll see some good talent at wr slip...

i think williamson will be there at 13 and he may be the bpa on the board when we select...

i think based on cc's bpa tendencies the likelyhood of us selecting a rb,wr, or cb are the highest......theres just more talent and potential for them to be available at the high end of the first round.

and i do think theres a need for a wr on this team...bradford's gone. gaffney will not be a superstar but a role player instead. armstrong may have the best hands on the team ,but dosent have the speed or quickness to be a serious gamebreaker. as for starling....i know he has great tools but im lost as to why so many people in here forecast him as a superior player in the future. his production has been limited exclusivley to preseason.

Xman
03-19-2005, 04:12 PM
I think WR is still the way to go.

The arguments about what happened last year (that we didn't go to our #2 guy) are based on decisions the coaches made to utilize the talent they had (or didn't have).
AJ established himself as a stud. Next year, everyone will double cover him (CB close and a safety deep) - especially if he is our only threat at WR. So, we need another threat to lineup on the other side of the field - That will force the defenses to make a decision: either separate the safeties (leaving the middle open - which would open passing and running lanes) or leave single coverage on the other WR (which they can do with impunity now because noone can burn them - change it to a Williams who would abuse single coverage with his size or a burner and the defense has to change).

DD is solid - but he is not a dominant RB that can have success against a defense that puts 8 in the box. Add another good WR (forcing the safeties out of the middle) and his value increases because he could take it to the house when he slips the LBs on the short screen or even a dive.

Simply put, right now our offense does not have enough fire power. Defenses will double AJ and put single coverage on our other WR(or WRs), leaving 8 men in the box to shut down the run. Which leaves us looking at a lot of 3 and outs.

royce1054
03-19-2005, 04:43 PM
Your arguement about every one double covering Andre Johnson is actually the reason why we should. Having a #2 to catch the ball when they double Johnson is a great thing. Imagine how life would be to have 2 good WR that can catch and if you double team both you have a Jabar Gaffney or a Billy Miller to catch the ball when you do.

LikeABoss
03-19-2005, 05:19 PM
If the Rams can have Torry Holt and Issac Bruce, the Broncos can have Ashley Lelie and Rod Smith and still have success with their passing game with no egos coming from either player, then the Texans can have Andre Johnson and Troy Williamson on the same team as well :thumbup

Hell, Oakland just added Randy Moss to team with Jerry Porter :cool:

Grid
03-19-2005, 05:33 PM
not saying you cant have two similar WRs starting.. im saying its not necessary.

powda
03-19-2005, 06:27 PM
i hear ya grid.......and there are ample examples of good teams without superstar recieving cores....but the bottom line is......aside from aj we had no downfield threats last year. either carr has to get much better protection ,AND the running game has to become domminant OR carr needs to have another reciever defenses have to account for.

Grid
03-19-2005, 06:34 PM
well bradford was a down field threat.. just not a good one.

and my problem with getting another receiver is that we WANT better protection and a dominant running game.. that is the direction this team wants to move. Grabbing anothe receiver.. if he is any good, chances are we would either not resign him in a few years cause it would tie up to much money in the offense, or we would sign him and start to look like the Colts.

we want a power running game first and foremost.. so receiver to me just seems like an unnecessary pick. at least in the high rounds. Especially when we already have the peices to put together a good starting WR set.

Texan in Japan
03-19-2005, 06:47 PM
If team really wants a #2 WR, why didn't we look at any FAs? Maybe we felt they were too old, too expensive or not our kind of guy. I just find it curious, we're talking so much about #2 WR, but CC hasn't seemed to give position a lot of play in FA yet.

cadahnic
03-19-2005, 06:56 PM
We will go after gibson, brown, mathis, jackson, jones or possibly henry in the third. We will not go for a WR in the second because that would be a waste. We need to add OL depth or DL depth in the second round.

DoCt3rJ
03-19-2005, 11:23 PM
Sorry, but I really disagree with you. Armstrong and Darling are BIG projects, for both of them to pan out as our #2 and #3 would be a wish come true. We NEED to get a WR, or a TE, in this draft. In most WR schemes team's have, the #1 is their playmaker, #2 is the speedy burner guy, and #3 is the guy you throw to over the middle.

Grid
03-20-2005, 12:15 AM
Armstrong has been playing a while.. we got him from the Canadian league.

Starling is a project but he is fast.. and im thinking he could probably handle running deep routes in 3 and 4 WR sets.

royce1054
03-20-2005, 04:43 AM
well bradford was a down field threat.. just not a good one.

and my problem with getting another receiver is that we WANT better protection and a dominant running game.. that is the direction this team wants to move. Grabbing anothe receiver.. if he is any good, chances are we would either not resign him in a few years cause it would tie up to much money in the offense, or we would sign him and start to look like the Colts.

we want a power running game first and foremost.. so receiver to me just seems like an unnecessary pick. at least in the high rounds. Especially when we already have the peices to put together a good starting WR set.

I actually believe that Barron will be gone this is my top 5 on my board at 13.... He is #1 on my list... Williamson is #2... Kaliff Barnes is #3.. and Jamaal Brown #4 and Clayton #5 i dont see it getting to last 2 though.

royce1054
03-20-2005, 04:45 AM
We will go after gibson, brown, mathis, jackson, jones or possibly henry in the third. We will not go for a WR in the second because that would be a waste. We need to add OL depth or DL depth in the second round.

only problem 1 of those will be there in 3rd.... gibson and brown might not be there in 2nd round... mathis is late 2nd rounder... Jackson and Jones i havent heard much from in a 2rd mock from anyone.... Henry is middle of 2nd but has the attitude prob reason hes not the texans pick in 2nd. This depends on wheither we go OL or WR in 1st round. DE will be 1st pick in 3rd round. 6 DE will go in 1st round. only 1 in the 2nd. So we can get a 10 DE in the 3rd round.