PDA

View Full Version : The #2 Reciever Spot


TEXANS84
04-06-2005, 03:20 PM
So what do the Texans do with the void in the #2 reciever spot?

LikeABoss
04-06-2005, 03:34 PM
I think it's gonna be addressed in the later rounds through the draft.

dagr8whitehope
04-06-2005, 03:36 PM
i think bradford was a very serviceable number 2 receiver, but at times his speed was a liability as he would outrun balls or overrun some routes. Gaffney has shown good hands and decent speed and just needs more of an opportunity to get some throws his way. By moving gaffney to the number 2 slot, we can then put armstrong in the slot and have good speed at all spots on the field. overall, Gaffney is the best option the texans have to play the 2nd spot opposite johnson. More balls gaffney's way would lead to a decrease in double teams on andre and a better overall offensive attack.

texansalltheway
04-06-2005, 03:36 PM
I would still be interested in bringing in David Boston, Yeah I know he has off the field problems, the steriod thing and, being hurt, and I know the 49'ers want him, but he is still an athletic freak that could be a good compliment to AJ.

texasguy346
04-06-2005, 03:40 PM
Well I voted for getting a #2 WR in the draft, but the option I'd rather have is a #2 WR by committee. Basically we'd switch Gaffney/Armstrong/Starling and/or whatever WR we grab from the draft. They each bring a unique trait to the table, and depending upon the situation they'd each make a good #2 WR. In a 3rd and long scenario a #2 WR that can stretch the field would be best (Starling/"Williamson"). In a 2nd or 3rd and short Gaffney might be a better #2 WR since he's very good at run blocking and running short precise routes. Armstrong seems to have a good combination of great hands and good speed, and he might eventually be the true #2 WR. However, it may take him more time to develop into a consistant deep threat.

Fiddy
04-06-2005, 03:43 PM
So why isnt Gaffney an option????

TEXANS84
04-06-2005, 03:44 PM
The only thing that worries me about putting Gaffney at the #2 spot, is that he doesn't have lightning speed to spread an offense. Bradford was extremely fast, yet most of the defensive secondary's that we faced were still rolling their safteys to Johnson's side.
Whomever takes that #2 spot, needs to have excellent speed to where Johnson isn't getting double teamed all the time.

TEXANS84
04-06-2005, 03:45 PM
So why isnt Gaffney an option????

Gaffney would be assumed to roll into the #2 spot with Derick Armstrong starting. Thats why I didn't post him.

Fiddy
04-06-2005, 03:49 PM
Gaffney would be assumed to roll into the #2 spot with Derick Armstrong starting. Thats why I didn't post him.Oh ok.

The only thing that worries me about putting Gaffney at the #2 spot, is that he doesn't have lightning speed to spread an offense. Bradford was extremely fast, yet most of the defensive secondary's that we faced were still rolling their safteys to Johnson's side.
Whomever takes that #2 spot, needs to have excellent speed to where Johnson isn't getting double teamed all the time.Gaff, even without lighting speed, led the team last year in yards per catch (around 15) and had the longest play from scrimmage (vs. Bears, around 65 yards)

z0rpAn
04-06-2005, 03:58 PM
I say we use our #13 pick on a good quality WR, unless there are already 5 taken before us leaving us with just a bundle of players to pick from. It would be wise in which we wouldn't have to pay the player very much for the first season and that would be a nice advantage to have.

infantrycak
04-06-2005, 04:03 PM
I think it's gonna be addressed in the later rounds through the draft.

Quite the optimist. So a 2nd day guy is going to come in and beat Gaffney, Armstrong, Thomas and Starling out and perform better than Bradford so teams role coverage away from AJ? Somehow that doesn't seem real likely.

El Tejano
04-06-2005, 04:03 PM
Oh ok.

Gaff, even without lighting speed, led the team last year in yards per catch (around 15) and had the longest play from scrimmage (vs. Bears, around 65 yards)
I think that is why Gaff needs to stay a 3 because he worked very well in the slot. Whenever I think of Armstrong, I think of the game against Minn last year. That guy did stretch the field and many times our offense clicked when he was in our 4 WR set.

I still believe that better play from the TE position can do wonders for our offense and Andre.

ThaShark316
04-06-2005, 04:14 PM
I think that is why Gaff needs to stay a 3 because he worked very well in the slot. Whenever I think of Armstrong, I think of the game against Minn last year. That guy did stretch the field and many times our offense clicked when he was in our 4 WR set.

I still believe that better play from the TE position can do wonders for our offense and Andre.


I agree with that...if the TE position had better play (IE 2002 version of Billy Miller :heh:) the offense would be alot better than 'Dre would be even more dangerous.

Personally, I think we draft Williamson @ #13 (or where ever we're picking)

Hervoyel
04-06-2005, 04:19 PM
For now, I say you re-sign Corey Bradford at a very reasonable price to a 1 year deal. He's going to want to work in 2005 and "audition" for the payday he thought he was going to get this year. You give him and Armstrong the #2 spot to compete for and may the best man win.

I say this because frankly I think Armstrong can win that spot but Corey coming into the 4 wideout sets with something to prove is a scary thought for defenses and a real weapon for the Texans offense. I also say this because I'd like to see the Texans spend their first day picks working on the defense again for the most part.

The Texans are generally a patient bunch and I believe they'll give Armstrong all the opportunity in the world to win that 2 spot. If not Bradford is a very good backup plan. If you have to use that backup plan then you grab your #2 next year in the first round.

ledzeppelin229
04-06-2005, 04:25 PM
If we're moving towards more timing routes I think Gaffney can do fine in the #2 spot. And like what was said above, Starling or Thomas have a much better chance at moving into #2 than any 2nd day drafted player.

The argument that Gaffney can't do it because of his speed but Armstrong can doesn't really hold water since I don't think Armstrong's speed is any better than Gaffney's.

Grid
04-06-2005, 05:08 PM
I still think we can function with Armstrong at #2.

A #2 receiver doesnt have to stretch the field to keep Johnson from getting double teamed. If all he does is get open and make catches.. he will force defenses to consider him.. and not just Johnson. I think Bradford's inability to get open and make clutch catches hurt us alot more than his speed helped us.

And if there is one thing that Armstrong is good at.. its getting open and making the catch.

my 2 cents

vtech9
04-06-2005, 05:23 PM
I'm torn on this one...I think Armstrong should be in the game, either as the #2 or in the slot. I like Gaffney, but I like Armstrong more and think that Armstrong has more potential of the two. No matter which way the Texans go, I think the Texans will go after a WR in the 2nd or 3rd to compete.

TEXANS84
04-06-2005, 05:32 PM
I'm torn on this one...I think Armstrong should be in the game, either as the #2 or in the slot. I like Gaffney, but I like Armstrong more and think that Armstrong has more potential of the two. No matter which way the Texans go, I think the Texans will go after a WR in the 2nd or 3rd to compete.

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. But, does Armstrong pose the threat for a defense to spread coverage around...or do they continue to roll people over to Johnson's side?
That is the question the Texans need to adress. And if they believe Armstrong can do it, then I'm all for it. Gaffney to me is more of a slot reciever...and he's got good hands...but he can't spread a defense out.
I doubt the Texans will go after a reciever with the #13 pick, but if they did, Troy Williamson is the ideal fit.

BornOrange
04-06-2005, 05:34 PM
I agree with Grid that a #2 WR doesn't have to have blazing speed to take pressure off of Johnson, they just need to be able to get open and catch the ball. However, I think Gaffney could be that #2 guy because he does run good routes and has good hands. Whoever the #2 WR is, it won't matter if Carr doesn't have the patience and/or the time to make his progressions from primary WR to secondary WR on the various routes.

Also, forcing the defense to account for a TE would also help take pressure off Johnson.

YoungTexanFan
04-06-2005, 05:35 PM
im all for drafting matt jones in the second. the guy is bigger and faster than aj, and has better hands than aj when he came out. i am in NO WAY saing he is better than aj, just saying physicly he is a freak, compares to aj and antwan randel el. he is still a project but my perfect draft for the first few rounds would go like this:
trade down w/philly for their 31 and 35
31: david bass
35: matt jones
our second: antonio perkins
3a: kevin burnett
3b: Luis Castillo
4: Boomer Grigsby
bpa all the way from here.
back to the original question, i would prefer we draft a wr to compliment aj, and im all for matt jones. if you go to the draft part of this board there is a lot of stuff on matt jones. at his pro day we were one of only a few teams there including tenn. but we had our off. cordinator there.

Civil
04-06-2005, 05:45 PM
I voted for starting Armstrong cause we share the same birthday. :cool:

Long term I would like to see another physical WR (like Johnson) brought in via free agency or addressed in the draft. I also agree that the TE should be utilized alot more. Hopefully Joppru will be healthy. heh

UberDork
04-06-2005, 06:06 PM
3a: kevin burnett
3b: Luis Castillo


No way those guys are there. If they fell that far I would scream like a girl.

Back on topic, I would like us to get a burner who could cover kick return duties as well. Maybe in the 2nd or 3rd rounds.

THEFUTURE
04-06-2005, 06:39 PM
for a couple months i have pushed for Mike Williams, but now after reading about this kid, Troy Williamson out of South Carolina sounds like a very smart move, blazing speed with a 4.37 40, and is good in the red zone, i havent heard to many knocks on him

D-ReK
04-06-2005, 06:42 PM
The number 2 spot is Gaffney's to lose right now, IMO...

THEFUTURE
04-06-2005, 06:47 PM
i think gaffney is stuck as the 3 no matter what, its either armstrong or were picking up someone in the draft, gaffney is to good at picking apart zones, and struggles with man coverage

TEXANS84
04-06-2005, 06:54 PM
Troy Williamson out of South Carolina sounds like a very smart move, blazing speed with a 4.37 40

That can spread an offense....and after some research, Jabar ran a 4.5 40.

THEFUTURE
04-06-2005, 06:58 PM
good to know, its not like a 4.5 is bad, but williamson is faster and had a knack for making plays in the red zone, which we want from our 2 receiver

Fiddy
04-06-2005, 07:13 PM
Williamson ran a 4.37
Gaff ran a 4.5

So, theoretically, Williamson will be 45.7 yards downfield in 5 seconds (the best protection time possible) and Gaff will be 44.4 yards down the field. That's a big difference. :listening

CoachJim
04-06-2005, 07:29 PM
I gotta believe that DArmstrong, given the reps consistantly could turn out to be our 2. Exactly what is his "knock" anyhow? I've seen this kid make circus catch after circus catch. I know he played some CFL ball & was killin' folks up there & while the CFL is not the NFL, IMHFO he seems like he'd blossum into what we need. Also on the TE thing, I'm like a lot of other people here by thinking that a solid TE could take some of the focus off of 'Dre. I'd LOVE to see BJoppru make some sort of impact this season. Wasn't he like an early 2nd rounder? Oh & on the David Boston thing someone mentioned earlier in this thread, don't even get me started on this clown. He freakin laid off practices cuz he got his nipples pierced & they hurt. Jeez-Louise, what a candy-***.

outofhnd
04-06-2005, 09:13 PM
I say its Gaff unless Armstrong has just a phenominal camp this year.

I think either of them would be great.

We don't need a blazing speed demon to break double coverage on andre, we just need a #2 reciever that catches the ball and moves the chains. Sooner or later the coverage will have to roll to that side of the field.

Carr would do better because this would establish a rhythmn instead of trying to air it out to some speedster. Bradford and Carr didn't connect on the bomb route a single time.

I like Armstrong more than Gaff potential wise but i havent seen enough of him to put him in the #2 at this point.

But gaff makes the catches & runs excellent routes. We have no real underneath recieving threat unless the TE position just explodes with Joppru or some Rookie this year.

LBblitz
04-06-2005, 09:30 PM
I am with YoungTexanFan with Matt Jones at #2 and gaf vs. armstrong for the slot postion. i personnaly like armstrong at the slot. :twocents:

Fiddy
04-06-2005, 09:38 PM
So, you are going to give Matt Jones the WR job??? The guy that didnt play a down at WR during his college career. And you are going to give Armstrong the slot while Gaff had a better season then him last year??? Makes perfect sense to me. :crazy:

D-ReK
04-06-2005, 09:56 PM
I just saw Bradford on Fox 26 and he said that he probably won't sign anywhere until after the draft and the Texans, Lions, and Titans have all showed interest...I think if we don't get a guy in the draft, Bradford will get a 1 year deal to do what he does, which is, "To take a 5 yard pass and turn it into an 80 yard touchdown" to quote him directly...

TexansTrueFan
04-06-2005, 10:06 PM
personally i think Armstrong could make a good #2 guy for us, i mean he may not have GREAT speed but runs very good routes and always seems to get open, he also has very good hands. And defenses will take notice of that amd even though he may not be able to out run the ball down the field, his ability to get open will/should take some of the pressure off of Johnnson ! And i dont consider Gaffney because he is such a great slot reciever, and always comes through for us on 3rd downs !

outofhnd
04-06-2005, 10:14 PM
How many times has that happened? 3 times over the time spent here?

Well if Gaff moves in to the #2 why not put armstrong at slot im curious to see what the guy can do full-time. If he plays outstanding, then consider him as the number 2 guy.

Armstrong has some real good intangibles like field awareness, When he catches the ball its like he knows where the 1st down marker is and make sure he stretches or touches his feet on the sideline past the marker. I would like to see us give him a shot, It would suck if we didn't give him a full time job release him and he shines with Jacksonville or another division foe.

Id hate for us to bring back Bradford, he seems inept if the pass play doesnt involve him outrunning the coverage. Otherwise we would have thrown the hitch route his way as well as AJ's, I don't think we resign him unless we feel that Gaff and Armstong would have a hard time at that spot.

And just because Gaff is a great slot reciever don't doom him to play there the rest of his career, What if he does better at the #2 than he did in the slot? I say give to gaffney first, hes earned the shot at that position. then let Armstrong or whoever challenge him for it

HoustonLionsFan
04-06-2005, 10:16 PM
I just saw Bradford on Fox 26 and he said that he probably won't sign anywhere until after the draft and the Texans, Lions, and Titans have all showed interest...

Sorry I'm off topic, but that is just crazy. His value goes down after the draft. Crazy I tell ya...


I'm not sure what WILL happen, or even what would be best, but I think the Texans look at Troy in the draft (assuming Williams is gone, and knowing Edwards will be gone), since the rumor of developing the Oline already in house has been put out there.

LikeABoss
04-06-2005, 10:19 PM
Quite the optimist. So a 2nd day guy is going to come in and beat Gaffney, Armstrong, Thomas and Starling out and perform better than Bradford so teams role coverage away from AJ? Somehow that doesn't seem real likely.

Hell, I don't know :shrug:

I still think the F.O. will draft a WR in the later rounds though.

And we will never know if a rookie WR can come in and make an immediate impact to this team because it will be completely up to that player.

We are only spectators, but some people tend to forget that sometimes :rolleyes:

TexansTrueFan
04-06-2005, 10:19 PM
How many times has that happened? 3 times over the time spent here?

Well if Gaff moves in to the #2 why not put armstrong at slot im curious to see what the guy can do full-time. If he plays outstanding, then consider him as the number 2 guy.

Armstrong has some real good intangibles like field awareness, When he catches the ball its like he knows where the 1st down marker is and make sure he stretches or touches his feet on the sideline past the marker. I would like to see us give him a shot, It would suck if we didn't give him a full time job release him and he shines with Jacksonville or another division foe.

Id hate for us to bring back Bradford, he seems inept if the pass play doesnt involve him outrunning the coverage. Otherwise we would have thrown the hitch route his way as well as AJ's, I don't think we resign him unless we feel that Gaff and Armstong would have a hard time at that spot.

And just because Gaff is a great slot reciever don't doom him to play there the rest of his career, What if he does better at the #2 than he did in the slot? I say give to gaffney first, hes earned the shot at that position. then let Armstrong or whoever challenge him for it


only thing i'll miss about bradford is his speed, but its not like our o-line ever really gives carr enough time to let bradford beat the secondary so we can get him the long ball, because them type of AIR IT OUT PLAYS take more than a 3 step drop and carr dont have the privledge of having the kinda time needed to give bradford the long ball !

D-ReK
04-06-2005, 10:23 PM
I just saw Bradford on Fox 26 and he said that he probably won't sign anywhere until after the draft and the Texans, Lions, and Titans have all showed interest...

Wow, I just realized how horrible my verbage was here...My apologies, guys...Anyway, I think what's going on (pure speculation alert) is that the offers he has received were all in the same ballpark, so he wants to see which teams take a receiver high in the draft, that way he'll be able to go where he gets the most PT...Either that or there aren't any offers on the table :hmmm: ...

outofhnd
04-06-2005, 10:28 PM
I would say it is the latter option with a lot of WR available in the draft alot if teams have not really looked at FA WR. business will pick up after the Draft.

michaelm
04-06-2005, 11:17 PM
I still believe that better play from the TE position can do wonders for our offense and Andre.

DITTO

I mentioned the same thing in an earlier post and got not a single response to it, like it was considered too silly of a notion or something. I am on the verge of thinking that TE play could be the area that provides the biggest improvement to our offense as a whole. It seems to be one of the areas where the largest improvement by position could be realized.

TexansTrueFan
04-06-2005, 11:20 PM
DITTO

I mentioned the same thing in an earlier post and got not a single response to it, like it was considered too silly of a notion or something. I am on the verge of thinking that TE play could be the area that provides the biggest improvement to our offense as a whole. It seems to be one of the areas where the largest improvement by position could be realized.


its not like billy miller cant get the job done catching the ball as a TE. It just seems to me that TE in our passing game were not existent, maybe the coaches game calling our maybe it was Carrs lack of finding them in the passing gmae, but Miller showed he could get the job done in 2002. BUT he is not to good at blocking and thats what we need is a TE who can block and catch !

D-ReK
04-06-2005, 11:27 PM
The reason we didn't see Miller on the field much last year is becuase he's one-dimensional and evertime he's in the game, the opposing team knows a pass is coming, and can adjust their defense accordingly...

TEXANS84
04-06-2005, 11:30 PM
Williamson ran a 4.37
Gaff ran a 4.5

So, theoretically, Williamson will be 45.7 yards downfield in 5 seconds (the best protection time possible) and Gaff will be 44.4 yards down the field. That's a big difference. :listening

Yes, over 3 feet is a big difference.

scourge
04-06-2005, 11:39 PM
Yes, over 3 feet is a big difference.
agreed... remember, football is a game of inches and someone who can give you 36 inches more than Gaffney on a given play is worth it.

And I too also think that Matt Jones would make an immediate impact on our team, whether he started off @ #2 or the slot. :twocents:

BornOrange
04-07-2005, 12:01 AM
Very few rookie WR's, even ones taken in the first round, have an immediate impact.

TexansTrueFan
04-07-2005, 12:05 AM
A boldin, A. Johnson, Gaffney, Roy Willams, C. Rogers (except injuries), T. Ownes,

D-ReK
04-07-2005, 12:11 AM
TO only had 35 catches his rookie year and Gaffney only had 41 (his career high), and for every Anquan Boldin, there is a guy like Reggie Williams, Josh Reed, or even Pro Bowler Javon Walker who struggle through their rookie season...

TexansTrueFan
04-07-2005, 12:19 AM
TO only had 35 catches his rookie year and Gaffney only had 41 (his career high), and for every Anquan Boldin, there is a guy like Reggie Williams, Josh Reed, or even Pro Bowler Javon Walker who struggle through their rookie season...


well you can still hardly say that most rookie WR dont come in and make an impact,,,i mean sure some do more than others, but a majority of first round players taken make an impact (or atleast start) thats usually why the sorry teams (teams wih needs) get them cause they have a need or weakness at the position !

BornOrange
04-07-2005, 12:31 AM
Gaffney will have a better year than all but one or two WR's taken in the first round this year.

TexansTrueFan
04-07-2005, 12:35 AM
Gaffney will have a better year than all but one or two WR's taken in the first round this year.


yes he may, but that still doesnt mean that other (rookie) wr dont have a productive year just because they dont have better numbers than gaffney, if a rookie WR can come in and go for 400-500 yrds and a few tds i consider that a productive rookie season. and those 500 yrd makes an impact on a team believe it or not !

BornOrange
04-07-2005, 12:57 AM
2004 Texan #3 WR
Jabar Gaffney 41-632 2 TD's

2004 Rookie First Rounders
#3 Larry Fitzgerald 58-780 8
#7 Roy Williams 54-817 8
#9 Reggie Williams 27-268 1
#13 Lee Evans 48-843 9
#15 Michael Clayton 80-1193 7
#29 Michael Jenkins 7-119 0
#31 Rashaun Woods 7-160 1

2003 Rookie First Rounders
#2 Charles Rogers 22-243 3
#3 Andre Johnson 66-976 4
#17 Bryant Johnson 35-438 1

2002 Rookie First Rounders
#13 Donte Stallworth 42-594 8
#19 Ashley Lelie 35-525 2
#20 Javon Walker 23-319 1

aj.
04-07-2005, 01:15 AM
Some people have different definitions of immediate impact, but off your list I'd say Roy W, Fitzgerald, and even Stallworth with their 8 TDs apiece had immediate impact, along with Clayton and AJ. Throw Boldin in the group and there's 6 rookie WRs that made immediate impact in the last three years.

Then go back a little further and throw in Moss, Keyshawn, Terry Glenn, Joey Galloway, Marvin Harrison, Eddie Kennison and Torry Holt and you can see that over time, there's usually 1 or 2 rookie WRs per season that make an immediate impact.

Too many people carry the "it takes 3 years" mantra just because, and automatically dismiss the possibility of a rookie WR making a difference when even though success doesn't happen immediately with the majority of WRs (what position does?) it happens almost every year with one or more WRs making it not such a crazy idea to entertain IMO.

outofhnd
04-07-2005, 03:01 AM
Statistically they make an impact yes.

But if im blowing out the Arizona Cardinals and Boldin has 14 catches for 200 yards and a TD or 2,

He made statistical impact but not game changing impact. Now if Arizona is down by 3 with a minute left and he hauls in a TD Pass to win the ballgame that is an impact and a player that does that consistently is an impact player to me.

Players like Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, Emmitt Smith, Terrell Owens, Donovan McNabb, Ben Rothlisberger, Jeremy Shockey....

Those are impact players to me the ones that if they are playing they have the potential of taking the game over.

michaelm
04-07-2005, 01:36 PM
the biggest impact a new #2 might make, rookie or otherwise, could be forcing opposing defenses to be more honest and quit cheating over on AJ.
IMO, the same could be said for a better TE. One that doesn't tip off the D that the play will be run or pass. The stats are nice to consider, but having more potential options helps open up more space downfield for AJ, keeps 8 or more defenders out of the box(at least not as frequently), and also reduces the comfort level of the opposing defensive coordinator when he feels like blitzing...
And don't forget, we can add a #2 AND keep Gaff on the field at the same time in a 3 wide set. That may limit the stats that each WR gets, but not neccesarily...
in the 80's(maybe early 90s) the Deadskins had 3 WRs with over 1,000 in a single season (Monk, Clark, Sanders). I'm not saying that it's likely, just pointing out the possibilty

El Tejano
04-07-2005, 02:02 PM
I noticed most QBs in college that turned WR in the NFL had some pretty productive careers. I don't know all the names but here are 3 I know of right off the bat.

The kid in Pittsburgh, The kid that played at Rice and played for the Falcons, Bennett from Tenn. I think that kid Matt Jones has a real chance like they did.

THEFUTURE
04-07-2005, 04:19 PM
gaffney and armstrong are both slot receivers, they both run very good routes and can pick apart defenses, but they lack the ability to break away from defenders and that extra burst after the catch. bradford had speed but was inconsistent, he would make one great play and disappear from the game, we need a player that can create space between him and his defender .... check this website out http://www.pmvfx.com/video/DEC-sports/T_williamson.wmv agents highlight reel for troy williamson

Lucky
04-07-2005, 04:32 PM
...in the 80's(maybe early 90s) the Deadskins had 3 WRs with over 1,000 in a single season (Monk, Clark, Sanders). I'm not saying that it's likely, just pointing out the possibilty
If the Texans had the type of pass blocking the Hogs provided Joe Theismann, Doug Williams, & Mark Rypien, picking up another WR in the 1st round would be a great idea. As it stands, it's a complete waste. Cart = Skill Positions. Horse = Offensive Line. This organization has to start putting the horse in front of the cart if they intend to win.

El Tejano
04-07-2005, 04:59 PM
I have to say the best game the WR looked awesome and gave a glimpse of their potential as a core was the Raider game.

michaelm
04-07-2005, 08:05 PM
If the Texans had the type of pass blocking the Hogs provided Joe Theismann, Doug Williams, & Mark Rypien, picking up another WR in the 1st round would be a great idea. As it stands, it's a complete waste. Cart = Skill Positions. Horse = Offensive Line. This organization has to start putting the horse in front of the cart if they intend to win.

I am not neccesarily advocating a first round reciever. It's obvious (to me) that we could use an upgrade @ #2. Yes, I believe that Gaff, or Armstong could hold that position, but they are not dynamic enough to have an effect on the defense that benifits the other skill positions.
As far as the cart and horse analogy, I am with you all the way. But it looks like we will go with what we currently have as far as OL starters headed into the season. I think that having a little stability in the line will pay decent dividends this year. Look at Denver's OL... they are consistently called undersized and haven't had a whole lot of studs that I can recall (although I stand to be corrected on this), but are noted for their technical abilities and mobility. I don't go as far as to compare, but use them as an example of what can be achieved with a little unit level cooperation.
I think Wand will improve enough that we won't be having a witch hunt after the 2005 season, and the unit as a whole will improve to at least average and maybe a little better (just a little). If we can find a consistent #2 WR (rookie or otherwise), a TE who is able to perform average in both the running and passing attacks (and help out with blocking), we will be fine. It's all a matter of cohesiveness. All 5 Ol and the TE need to just be consistent and good things will happen.
I don't know why it's not commented on more around here, but for the early part of the 2004 season, the Texans were near the top in offensive prodution for at least a few weeks.
I remember seeing glimpses of what looked like being a pretty good passing attack. I think a few key moves (not spectacular ones) and you will see it again this year, but for an extended time.
I will go on record right now predicting that the Texans will open up the passing game more than anyone expects this year. And also on record to say that the line, status quo, will have a marked improvement as well.
I say, show me one consistant threat in the #2 spot, and a well rounded TE and you will see 3,800+ yds and 23+ tds for Carr. He was #12 in pass yds last year, and that would put him in the top ten (or maybe eight) most likely...
ok, I'm losing steam now... :woot

Trapped
04-07-2005, 09:12 PM
Mark Clayton alongside Dre' Johnson would be like

Burress/Ward, Muhammed/Smith, Peanut Butter/Jelly.

Trade down to like 22, say the Ravens want Troy Williamson really bad at 13 because they know the Panthers will immediately pick him at 14 the Ravens trade up, then we draft Mark Clayton at 22 and pick up a late 3rd(84). PLZ.

That, or draft Courtney Roby with one of our 3rd round pick. Roby looks like Torry Holt pt.2.

EDIT: i also wouldn't be mad at pick troy williamson at 13 either. If u guys watched that highlight tape put by his agent, i really like him as a pro. If anything we have an insight on how good he is by just asking Dunta Robinson how tough was he to defend in practice.

edo783
04-07-2005, 09:51 PM
I don't know why it's not commented on more around here, but for the early part of the 2004 season, the Texans were near the top in offensive prodution for at least a few weeks.


Yes they were. In fact, the rather dramatic drop in production in the passing game from the first half of the season to the second half prompted speculation that David had suffered some sort of shoulder injury, hence his passing was off. This was denied by the FO, but regardless, there was a marked difference. If they can maintain that sort of output and DD run well, not fumble and do it for the season, this team will be a seriouse offensive unit. We will need a THREAT at the two spot to take pressure off of AJ. I like the idea of another big burner type, but what is really needed is a playmaker that gets open and catches the ball. Could that be Armstrong or Starling???? Could be, but I suspect that the coaching staff would have used them in the 2 role at least some last year to do a test drive on them if they thought they would work out. I think we draft a WR for the 2 spot, but what is unclear to me, is where in the draft.

Gilly
04-08-2005, 11:10 AM
IMO this was the absolute worst FA year the Texans have had yet. the delima that we have placed ourselfs in going into draft day is terrible. We are in desprite need of a #2 WR and HALF an O-line. I dont think our FA moves improved the team at all. Granted its not any worse but it is not the point of the off season to simply maintane.

Hears the big delima; 1) If we Take a WR at the #13 spot then as usuall DC spends 50% of his time on the feild on his back not having time to throw the ball to our flashy new player at the #2 spot. This could be the reason Bradford was never that productive. no one is going to make an impact with the peice of swiss cheese we call a line.

2)If we draft a O- lineman at #13 DC still only has one proven WR to throw the ball to. All the other team will have to do is Double or even Triple AJ and put the game on the shoulders of DD, which is not all that bad of a plan. Gafeny wont cut it, Armstrong showed good promise and would be like a Ricki Prowl at the #3 spot. But we would still lack that one guy to complement AJ's game.

sorry about the negativity,just calling what I see.
As it stands now I think we go 6-10 next year, but I would love to be proved wrong and make the playoffs.

infantrycak
04-08-2005, 11:38 AM
Gilly, the biggest problem I see with that is it assumes zero improvement by Wand/Pitts at positions they played for the 1st time last year and assumes Weigert and Wade (who has historically been very durable) will be hamstrung by niggling injuries most of next season again, and that working together as a unit in the won't pay any benefits either in pass protection or from a their 1st year of experience zone blocking. Seems unrealistic IMO. Will they turn into the KC Chiefs OL?--not friggin likely, but they should improve.

Sarg01
04-08-2005, 11:39 AM
To draft a WR or not ... well, it depends on who's there. If Williamson is off the board and we're still picking #13, I have a hard time seeing us grab Clayton there. I can't see us trading up for Williamson either. So the only way we get a receiver in the first is to trade WAY up for Edwards or Mike Williams, trade down, or hope Williamson makes it past San Diego at #12.

To the guy talking about needing immediate O-Line help, do you actually think Barron (or Barnes for that matter) would actually be better than Wand THIS year? I don't see that.

Gilly
04-08-2005, 12:22 PM
Infantrycak, I hope you are right and than I am wrong. I just frustrates me to watch a 3 or 4 man rush man handle our O-line like it did last year. As soon as we get behind and have to pass it just every thing would fall apart. I simply feel that at least one of these areas should have been filled through FA, then the other through the draft then we should be set to make a playoff run.

TheOgre
04-08-2005, 12:28 PM
The Texans actually have a more talented O-line than a team like San Diego. The Chargers, though, went into more "max protect mode". I think we need to adjust our pass-protection some.

canadiantexan
04-08-2005, 01:07 PM
if we had released sharper/foreman earlier could we have made a play for mushin mohhomed(no idea how to spell his name) .I know its in the past but the guy could have helped us

TexansTrueFan
04-08-2005, 01:12 PM
if we had released sharper/foreman earlier could we have made a play for mushin mohhomed(no idea how to spell his name) .I know its in the past but the guy could have helped us


yeah but he is in his 10th season, and this organization dont seem to like to bring in older players, we are a more build through the draft kinda team. plus he woulda wanted a good $dollar$ if we would have gotten him.

canadiantexan
04-08-2005, 01:15 PM
You make a good point about the age and money just thought i'd throw it out there, actually I like Williamsonin the first or maybe matt jones in the second.

Only fan in canada (that I know of)

TexansTrueFan
04-08-2005, 01:26 PM
You make a good point about the age and money just thought i'd throw it out there, actually I like Williamsonin the first or maybe matt jones in the second.

Only fan in canada (that I know of)


haha we have a few more fans on the board from canada, only because the texans have gotten some players from the canadian league, i think parsons and a few other guys, so they try to follow those guys. and about M.M i wouldnt mind havinf him he's a good reciever, but our front office has never seemd big on signing to many older vets !

Grid
04-08-2005, 05:47 PM
Parsons
Derrick Armstrong
Tim Cheatwood

to name a few.

D-ReK
04-08-2005, 06:18 PM
Parsons
Derrick Armstrong
Tim Cheatwood

to name a few.

You forgot Garrick Jones...There may be a couple more who I'm not thinking of right now...

Grizzled
04-09-2005, 12:14 AM
Charlie Clemons was a CFLer too. Whatís Parsonís first name? I donít recognize that name off the top of my head. There are roughly 40 ex-CFLers currently in the NFL, which is quite a few considering the CFL is a 9 team league with a lot of veteran players who are in their late 20's and early 30's and probably too old to be of interest to the NFL.

Itís good to see Armstrong doing well for the Texans. I knew he would and Iím happy for him, but it was hard to see him go too. I am happy for him though. I think heís from a pretty humble background and he was pretty raw and seemed a bit like a deer in headlights when he first came to us, but heís a hard worker and steadily improved his game his whole time with us. If he keeps that up Iím sure he will be a solid starter for you. My guess is that his speed is in the 4.5 range, but he is also a big, fluid, athlete with a good vertical who can go up for the ball with a DB and be the one to come down with it.

mean mark8
04-09-2005, 12:18 AM
I don't think we need an early round WR with incredible speed to take pressure off of AJ. As I recall, Jerry Rice's 40 time at the combine was ~4.6 and Steve Largent was definitely a 4.6 (or maybe a bit slower in later years) wide receiver. I think we would kill to have either of them in their prime on our team. Of course, Largent was released by the Cowboys early in his career, if I'm not mistaken. I think we need to give Armstrong and Gaffney a chance to step up this year. Whoever shows the play-making ability gets the job. Let's face it, if Carr gets pressure like he has the 1st 3 yrs, he's only going to look to AJ then DD anyway.

Grizzled
04-09-2005, 12:23 AM
Also, Michael Jenkins and Albert Johnson were CFLers. They were signed by the Texans but I donít think either one of them made your team. Jenkins came back to the CFL (Toronto) but it was discovered that he developed serious arthritis in his ankle and he was cut. He has signed with Montreal this year so weíll see if heís got that problem worked out somehow. Johnson hasnít been back. He was a very good player but heís small and was somewhat injury prone even in the big field CFL game, so he was never a great NFL prospect for size and durability reasons.

edit: RE: Jenkins. I think his problem was arthritis but Iím not sure of that. It was an ankle injury anyway.
http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/news_story.asp?Id=115376

THEFUTURE
04-09-2005, 01:19 AM
I don't think we need an early round WR with incredible speed to take pressure off of AJ. As I recall, Jerry Rice's 40 time at the combine was ~4.6 and Steve Largent was definitely a 4.6 (or maybe a bit slower in later years) wide receiver. I think we would kill to have either of them in their prime on our team. Of course, Largent was released by the Cowboys early in his career, if I'm not mistaken. I think we need to give Armstrong and Gaffney a chance to step up this year. Whoever shows the play-making ability gets the job. Let's face it, if Carr gets pressure like he has the 1st 3 yrs, he's only going to look to AJ then DD anyway.

but Jerry and Largent were primary receivers for most of their careers, and had speedsters opposite of them, and say we dont draft a WR high and leave it up to Armstrong and Gaff and whoever is best can have the number 2 spot (i dont agree with it) then we will just have the better out of the two, but maybe not a receiver that should be playing the 2 spot, meaning that just because one does better than the other, doesnt mean either of them have the capability to be a #2 receiver. let em compete sure, but they most likely will compete with eachother for the slot position.... and ya he throws a lot to AJ and DD, they are the only two constants, and AJ has a tough time getting open when he is getting tripled cuz teams dont respect bradford, gaffney, or armstrong. carr cant wait for a receiver to get open, the line isnt the greatest, so by the time he checks down his receivers, if they are not open he cant wait for them to creat anything, cuz the second he does he is adding to his sack total, so he has to dump it off to DD

outofhnd
04-09-2005, 02:11 AM
but Jerry and Largent were primary receivers for most of their careers, and had speedsters opposite of them, and say we dont draft a WR high and leave it up to Armstrong and Gaff and whoever is best can have the number 2 spot (i dont agree with it) then we will just have the better out of the two, but maybe not a receiver that should be playing the 2 spot, meaning that just because one does better than the other, doesnt mean either of them have the capability to be a #2 receiver. let em compete sure, but they most likely will compete with eachother for the slot position.... and ya he throws a lot to AJ and DD, they are the only two constants, and AJ has a tough time getting open when he is getting tripled cuz teams dont respect bradford, gaffney, or armstrong. carr cant wait for a receiver to get open, the line isnt the greatest, so by the time he checks down his receivers, if they are not open he cant wait for them to creat anything, cuz the second he does he is adding to his sack total, so he has to dump it off to DD
So if Carr doesnt have the time was it a speedster in the draft goin to do that Bradford didnt do last year? We dont have the time to wait for a speedster to get open on a hail mary route. The reason i like gaffney and armstrong is they run good routes they find holes in the zone and catch the ball. We dont need another Homerun threat here.

What we need is a guy that makes 1st downs. We need recievers that run good underneath routes and can find holes in the zone and move the chains. AJ is our Reciever but they can't double him forever if Gaffney or Armstrong keep moving the chains. Those recievers know the playbook Gaffney even more so. I think he will do fine. I just think until we get great protection and a productive tight end, We need a 10 yard out reciever in our #2 slot.

Unless we land Matt Jones, Then we can give the defense tons of different looks with Jones in the lineup he can line up at TE, WR, or a RB in a full house backfield. A tight end will help a lot becuae that is a huge key for the defense. I bet we get better protection when the defense does not know what the play call is. That could be a reason our O line looks so terrible too. They know when Breuner is on the field to just hold the line of scrimmage. When Miller is out there pass rush.

A TE will make this offense work more than a 1st round #2 WR. Utilize what we have here already at WR, and hope that Joppru this year can actually play on the field. or that we draft a good TE in this years draft, which is easier said than done.

Trapped
04-09-2005, 08:48 AM
Mark Clayton in my opinion is still the ideal player to play alongside dre.
1. U want a guy who can stretch the feild, his 4.4 speed can.
2. U want a guy who can run great short routes, he can.
3. U want a guy who can catch through traffic, he can.

Granted Troy Williamson will probably be a Javon Walker, or Chad Johnson because he is very raw,(those two also didn't start off their careers as very productive wr's, but look at them now) and can really improve to be a true number 1. I don't think he will fit well with a number 2 role with the Texans.

Even though i think Troy Williamson is a better pro prospect than Clayton, i think Clayton can provide us with his talents now. He complements Dre, and the duo can be very effective for alot of years to come.

Of course i would only want Mark Clayton in a trade down with the Cowboys, whom i think really wants Troy Williamson.

THEFUTURE
04-09-2005, 04:00 PM
So if Carr doesnt have the time was it a speedster in the draft goin to do that Bradford didnt do last year? We dont have the time to wait for a speedster to get open on a hail mary route. The reason i like gaffney and armstrong is they run good routes they find holes in the zone and catch the ball. We dont need another Homerun threat here.

What we need is a guy that makes 1st downs. We need recievers that run good underneath routes and can find holes in the zone and move the chains. AJ is our Reciever but they can't double him forever if Gaffney or Armstrong keep moving the chains. Those recievers know the playbook Gaffney even more so. I think he will do fine. I just think until we get great protection and a productive tight end, We need a 10 yard out reciever in our #2 slot.

Unless we land Matt Jones, Then we can give the defense tons of different looks with Jones in the lineup he can line up at TE, WR, or a RB in a full house backfield. A tight end will help a lot becuae that is a huge key for the defense. I bet we get better protection when the defense does not know what the play call is. That could be a reason our O line looks so terrible too. They know when Breuner is on the field to just hold the line of scrimmage. When Miller is out there pass rush.

A TE will make this offense work more than a 1st round #2 WR. Utilize what we have here already at WR, and hope that Joppru this year can actually play on the field. or that we draft a good TE in this years draft, which is easier said than done.

Matt Jones is a very good athlete, he hasnt even played one down as a receiver in a real college game, so lets not get to hyped on him, he will take a few seasons before he could become a WR or TE, if he does at all.

And the slot receiver which armstrong and gaffney both play now, serves the purpose of getting under defenses and disecting them.; not the #2 spot. the number 2 needs to be a homerun threat, to stretch the field, which allows our number 1 and 3 receivers better chances underneath if the defense does get stretched, and if not then we have a deep WR that carr can hit deep.

Joppru is our TE, if he will be healthy, and we definatly are not drafting a TE number at 13.

wags
04-09-2005, 04:56 PM
, but they should improve.

I don't think there's any way they could do worse. Improvement on a bad performance is pretty easy. They gave up 36 sacks in '03 and 49 in '04. If they can't protect better than they did 2 years ago, something is wrong.

Grid
04-09-2005, 09:49 PM
"rookie" starting LT and a whole new blocking scheme.. on top of that.. two years ago we had Carr doing 3 step drops 75% of the time because he had broke the single season sack record the year before. last year we didnt have him doing as many 3 step drops.

Im not at all surprised that we had more sacks last year than the year before.. and I expect a good deal of improvement this coming season.

TexansTrueFan
04-09-2005, 09:57 PM
"rookie" starting LT and a whole new blocking scheme.. on top of that.. two years ago we had Carr doing 3 step drops 75% of the time because he had broke the single season sack record the year before. last year we didnt have him doing as many 3 step drops.

Im not at all surprised that we had more sacks last year than the year before.. and I expect a good deal of improvement this coming season.


if theres is no noticable improvment after next season than changes need to be made, but i say we give them 2005 to prove what they are worth !

THEFUTURE
04-09-2005, 11:51 PM
i think the Line will stay as it is for this year, we might draft a tackle and a center in later rounds in the draft, so if we do make changes in the next couple years we might have some sort of talent to step in to take over

TexansTrueFan
04-09-2005, 11:52 PM
we do need to get some young guys to start molding them into what we want so we will have quality starters to step in whenever needed !

THEFUTURE
04-10-2005, 12:02 AM
thats definatly one thing you will start seeing through the next few years, the quality of depth will increase drastically, thank god. i hated the first season watching mostly some castoffs from other teams and then the maybe 1/5 of talent we had were to freaking expensive

Bobo
04-10-2005, 02:15 AM
Leave the WR#2 situation as is. All three (Armstrong, Bradford and Jabbar) will be fine if Carr ever gets the time he needs to throw. They should spend all of their draft choices on obvious needs -- OL and pass rushers -- and hope that some of them will do the job. Leave the skill positions as is.

vtech9
04-10-2005, 11:59 AM
thats definatly one thing you will start seeing through the next few years, the quality of depth will increase drastically, thank god. i hated the first season watching mostly some castoffs from other teams and then the maybe 1/5 of talent we had were too freaking expensive
A lot of people are upset about how much we have paid free-agents like Greenwood and others, but I really don't see that changing until we become a playoff team. The Texans have to pay more for these people than other teams do. Most of these players are looking for a chance to go to the super bowl, and right now we don't give them that chance, so we have to pay more.

THEFUTURE
04-10-2005, 05:12 PM
oh definatly, and thas a given, just ask the niners who way overpaid for jonas jennings, bad teams have to do it.... but i was more directing it towards during the expansion draft we took on a few players that hit the cap pretty badly, like sharper and glenn, and other talented vets. especially since we got them near the end of most of their contracts, so we were giving up a lot more money. since most teams now backload contracts and such.

TEXANS84
04-12-2005, 06:40 PM
Congrats to the 11 people (9.57%) that guessed it correctly.

OzzO
04-12-2005, 09:57 PM
Ah, but whos' to say #'s 2 and 3 also don't happen? :hmmm:

D-ReK
04-12-2005, 10:47 PM
Bradford starting is in no way a lock right now...Re-signing Bradford was more of an insurance policy in case we don't get a guy in the draft or we don't feel Armstrong/Gaffney is ready for the job...

outofhnd
04-12-2005, 10:51 PM
I agree we have all preseason long to have armstrong or Gaffney step up and unseat bradford from the #2 role.

We can sign as many FA we want as long as we are under the cap. Alot of these players are going to be here for camp but be released before the season.

Vinny
04-12-2005, 10:52 PM
Gaff and Armstrong will be in the slot and Bradford will be on the edge again. I see Starling being a darkhorse for the #2 spot as the season goes on. Gaffney and Armstrong will stay in the slot regardless of what happens at Bradford's spot I would guess.

outofhnd
04-12-2005, 10:58 PM
I dunno Armstrong showed something last year, And seemed to be the #2 option for Carr after AJ when he was out there. I wouldnt be surprised if we try armstrong just to see if he can consistently make plays like he does as our 4th reciever.

D-ReK
04-12-2005, 11:04 PM
I was looking at Armstrong's stats from last season and noticed that Derick was inactive for two games last year (Chicago and Indy)...Was this due to an injury or what?

wags
04-12-2005, 11:15 PM
What about Sloan Thomas? Is he fast enough to challenge as a deep threat?

D-ReK
04-12-2005, 11:20 PM
Sloan ran a 4.55 at the combine, so I don't think he'll end up being much of a deep threat here...He seems like he'd be best utilized in the slot...

outofhnd
04-13-2005, 01:09 AM
Hmm not an injury just didnt play. Maybe personal reasons i mean it was 2 weeks in a row. That or we were not going to go with a 4 WR set against those 2 teams.