PDA

View Full Version : How do you view the Texan starters?


Panther5407
06-15-2004, 07:25 PM
This is how I think that the Texans D will work best in the upcoming season. Look forward to your thoughts.

Coleman McCree


Robinson Babin Wong Sharper Peek Glenn


Robario Smith Seth Payne Gary Walker


I would like to see Shantee Orr play more this season. He brought a lot of intensity. In my mind he could rotate with Peek or even Smith on the long pass situations.

Panther5407
06-15-2004, 07:31 PM
Didnt come out the way i planned, i had it to were the names would be in the same spots as postion. So back line is safties, then its cb/ol/in/in/ol/cb and then the d line, just thought i clear that one up.

infantrycak
06-15-2004, 08:55 PM
Absent injury or a lack of progress, the DL is set as you have it. For now the pencilled in LB's are Babin, Sharper, Foreman and Wong although Wong has been getting some work at ILB this week. Capers says that is preparing in case of injury--training camp will tell us if that is true or they think Peek is ready to start. There hasn't been a whisper of news about McCree working out at SS and given the reporting about Pitts' move to LG and Wong playing ILB some, doubt that McCree is getting tried out at SS.

Fiddy
06-15-2004, 10:17 PM
I would like to see Shantee Orr play more this season. He brought a lot of intensity. In my mind he could rotate with Peek or even Smith on the long pass situations.Smith is a DT tackle, he is not going to switch with Orr.

BuffSoldier
06-15-2004, 11:32 PM
Smith is a DT tackle, he is not going to switch with Orr.

Actually Smith is palying DE in the 3-4.

TEXANS84
06-16-2004, 01:18 PM
McCree will be playing backup...Brown will not surrender the SS job. And Casserly said at the draft party that Brown will be playing next to Coleman in the secondary.

Panther5407
06-16-2004, 02:00 PM
I just think that its odd that we bring in McCree to be an upgrade and now after half a season, hes going to be on the bench. You would think that he would be more active within the backfield of the Texans D.

Vinny
06-16-2004, 02:38 PM
I just think that its odd that we bring in McCree to be an upgrade and now after half a season, hes going to be on the bench. You would think that he would be more active within the backfield of the Texans D.Why is that odd? You bring in players that you think will be better players than what you have. McCree was a better player than Stevens but why stop there? Bottom line is we picked him up off waivers. That means he could not stick to another teams roster. We all saw what happens to teams that do not have quality depth last year. We ended up 30th in defense.

dalemurphy
06-16-2004, 03:54 PM
Also, regarding the secondary... I imagine McCree will play in many nickel situations with Coleman sliding to the outside and probably Robinson moving to the slot receiver... So, McCree has value for us, even without injury issues, as he helps us dramatically upgrade the nickel defense. It sounds like Faggins would round out the dime defense. That secondary (Robinson, Glenn, Coleman, Faggins, McCree, Brown) has the potential to be a team strength. Defenses use nickel and/or dime packages almost as much as they do their base defense... So, you'll see McCree on the field plenty!

BuffSoldier
06-16-2004, 04:53 PM
I can imagine McCree playing in the nickel packages but Marcus Brown will start at SS. Oh and about you starting LBs, I think Foreman will start this season out on the inside with Wong on the outside, though we might see Wong moveing inside and starting Peek later in the season.

infantrycak
06-16-2004, 07:41 PM
Peek is ready to displace Foreman.

Peek is an OLB. Foreman is an ILB. The only way Peek displaces Foreman is the domino theory--he bumps Wong to inside and Wong bumps Foreman to the bench.

clandestin
06-16-2004, 08:26 PM
http://users3.ev1.net/~bhoulton/team.jpg

dalemurphy
06-16-2004, 08:59 PM
http://users3.ev1.net/~bhoulton/team.jpg


I like it, but get a FB in there and get rid of a WR!, especially if you have Bruener in there. If Bruener is in the game, it should be I formation and pound it, with the occasional play-action pass.

J-Man
06-16-2004, 08:59 PM
I like the X's and O's look. Only thing I took real issue with was the TE spot, I see Miller still being the penciled in as the starter. How I expect that to translate is a "TE by committee" situation. Not sure that Wong will make the move to the inside quite yet...I would love it if that is the case because it would mean that Peek and Babin's skill progression is excellent.

clandestin
06-16-2004, 10:12 PM
We'll of course see plenty of formations on the offensive side of the ball, what I like in particular about his one is that it remains unpredictable, in terms of going run or pass. Replace Bruener w/ Miller and it's a sure fire passing formation, replace gaffney with Norris and you're showing run, in this case both options appear to be threatening--particularly in first down situations.

B.Diddy
06-17-2004, 12:27 AM
I see what your saying and i actully like the formation you could pass to AJ, Gaff, Or Corey also set up DD on a Draw play

Vinny
06-17-2004, 02:06 AM
Hey 'stin,

I like the basic thought but just a quick note. It appears you have eight on the LOS. Who would you have step back? Johnson, making Bruener eligible; Bruener, making him a wing or X-back. Or are you thinking "mind game" and stepping Wand back making him a wing or X-back; or Bradford, making Wand tackle eligible ?
....... hmmmm, on a pass play letting Wand step back could be interesting if we were playing against 3-4 defense.Teams must have at least 7 have to be on the line of scrimmage. You can have more than 7 but all players who are eligible to catch a pass cannot have another player on the LOS outside of them for that is an illegal formation. In Clandestine's formation the TE would be eligible once he is put into motion. If AJ steps back and goes into motion then the TE is eligible also since he is the end player on the LOS. These rules are where the terms "tight end" and "split end" come from. The player caping the Tackle is an end. Either "tight" or "split" (out).

Carr Bombed
06-17-2004, 02:28 AM
I thought 11 players had to be on the field first of all

Vinny
06-17-2004, 02:30 AM
He has 11. You just have to have at least 7 on the line of scrimmage.

Carr Bombed
06-17-2004, 02:50 AM
Oh! sorry didnt scroll over and see the other plar, Im drunk Excuse me

clandestin
06-17-2004, 04:54 AM
hmm they all look eligible to me--not sure what you two are on about idonno: :neener:

j/k good catch guys--good thing I'm not writing the play book :) Went ahead and pulled johnson off the line making bruener eligible, and fixed the right side.

Panther5407
06-17-2004, 10:50 AM
What I like about the that line up is Gaffney. He is more of a slot reciever than an outside it appears. That would help take pressure off of AJ to spread the ball more and be more preductive.

tex
06-21-2004, 02:11 PM
Why is that odd? You bring in players that you think will be better players than what you have. McCree was a better player than Stevens but why stop there? Bottom line is we picked him up off waivers. That means he could not stick to another teams roster. We all saw what happens to teams that do not have quality depth last year. We ended up 30th in defense.

Everytime I see something about McCree, the words "we picked him up off the waivers" is behind his name. This is true, but it was not because he could not play FS, it was because he got caught in the middle. Thanks to Ediddy 73s input on this subject last time this is some of the reasons McCree was put on waivers.
1. Coaching change Coughlin to Del Rio
2. Del Rio drafted Rashean Mathis
3. McCree got on Del Rio's bad side
4. Jax needed the money McCree was taking up to sign K. Johnson and Strokes.

McCree wasn't the Matt Stevens of the Jags
Don't forget he has the longest int return for a TD in the Texan short history so far.
Tex

Vinny
06-21-2004, 02:21 PM
I never said he couldn't play....or well, we wouldn't have picked him up, but the bottom line is he wasn't talented enough to stick on their roster. I'm not sure that is debatable. He sure wasn't carrying a large salary there.

Ediddy73
06-21-2004, 02:34 PM
If I was Palmer, I would have a serious hard-on if I saw that defensive formation. Is Peek going to walk out to cover Gaff, or is Coleman going to come up at the snap count? I'm going to throw a 4 yard out to Gaff after Bradford clears the CB with a slant!! TOUCHDOWN!!! LOL!

Hervoyel
06-21-2004, 04:53 PM
I never said he couldn't play....or well, we wouldn't have picked him up, but the bottom line is he wasn't talented enough to stick on their roster. I'm not sure that is debatable. He sure wasn't carrying a large salary there.


True, he can play. He was an upgrade over Stevens and I am still thinking it's possible that he might not be much worse (if at all) than Coleman ends up being. I seem to recall that Coleman was tried at Safety once before.

The only real question is are we smarter than the Jaguars coaches (by "we" I mean the Texans coaches/braintrust). Was he not talented enough to stick on their roster or did they make a mistake and let him go. Did their drafting of another safety mean that he wasn't getting the job done? From what I understand his previous season was pretty good. This we may never know but I think he's going to go into camp to try and beat Coleman out of the starting job.

I hope he gets a fair shot at it. I like Coleman and I like McCree and if McCree gets a fair chance to keep his position then to win it Coleman will have to be better than him which means that no matter what happens we're not starting Matt Stevens. I'm happy, what was the question again? :um: