Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com

Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Texans Talk (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=56)
-   -   training camp preview (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=889)

rittenhouserobz 06-18-2004 01:28 AM

training camp preview
 
I found this in Yahoo Sports.

preview

I think that this preview more or less confirms many of the opinions I see on the board. Still its good to get a subjective view. I apologize in adavance if it has been posted already. :twocents:

Scooter 06-18-2004 05:13 AM

The only other significant addition to the offense is tight end Mark Bruener, a blocking specialist who left Pittsburgh to sign with the Texans as a free agent. He won't start, but the Texans' depth at the position could lead to plenty of two-tight end sets, especially in short-yardage situations.

that might answer an ongoing discussion on these boards

aj. 06-18-2004 06:30 AM

Who's John Tuvey and why should we believe him? Fanball usually has pretty good insight but I'm not down with this one.

If the Texans come out in anything but four wides for their first play from scrimmage against SD, Bruener will most likely be lined up to Wade's right. That's my feeling anyway.

El Tejano 06-18-2004 10:40 AM

I believe that is exactly why we brought Bruener in, to help Wade on that left side. It also leads me to believe we will be a running team more than a passing team.

wags 06-18-2004 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Tejano
I believe that is exactly why we brought Bruener in, to help Wade on that left side. It also leads me to believe we will be a running team more than a passing team.

Wade plays RT. Do you mean Wand, our LT.

El Tejano 06-18-2004 01:12 PM

Thanks wags. I do mean Wand, after all he is the second year guy and not Wade. Man that is going to be one thing we will all need to make ourselves clear on for a while, the names are so similar.

nunusguy 06-18-2004 01:36 PM

While I'm as pleased as anyone with last years improved running game and
especially the surprise in discovering D.Davis, he is only a 4th round pick.
Far and away our biggest investment in the draft has been our QB &
WRs from Florida. In other words, I don't think we're moving towards a ball control (running, possession receving) type offensive when
Mr. McNair has made the investment in the long range fire power he has,
even though the more conservative approach might be DCs prefered mode.

infantrycak 06-18-2004 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy
While I'm as pleased as anyone with last years improved running game and
especially the surprise in discovering D.Davis, he is only a 4th round pick.
Far and away our biggest investment in the draft has been our QB &
WRs from Florida. In other words, I don't think we're moving towards a ball control (running, possession receving) type offensive when
Mr. McNair has made the investment in the long range fire power he has,
even though the more conservative approach might be DCs prefered mode.

We aren't moving toward a ball controll offense--we have always been one--or a team that attempted to have one. Where the draft picks are spent is a function of value and where you have to spend them to get performance at that position. DD was available in the 4th so the package of talent of AJ in the 1st and DD in the 4th was better than a RB in the 1st and a WR in the 4th. If you recall the 2003 draft, the first RB taken was a gimp that couldn't play for a year at #23--McGahee. The Texans were at #3. AJ was worth #3, no RB was. Also, the Texans invested not only a 4th into the running game, but signed a free agent--Mack, and used a 2nd on Hollings. That is a lot of attention to the position in one year.

nunusguy 06-18-2004 02:21 PM

"Where the draft picks are spent is a function of value and where you have to spend them to get performance at that position."
If I understand what you are saying, the "function of value" refers to the
"best player available" concept and the rest of the statement refers to the
needs of the team ?
Sure there was no RB last year worth a 3, but how about Jordan Gross at LT -a very strategic position and I'm not so sure we made the right choice (don't
get me wrong - I'm a big AJ fan). I guess I'm saying taking a WR at 3 and not a LT, for example, kinda means you've made a commitment to throwing some passes.
As far as the RBs we took, Mack wasn't much of a cash investent and we only used a 4 on DD - if anybody had a clue 'bout DD he would have been gone way before 4. Cass (and the rest of us), just got lucky there.
And you are right 'bout Hollings - they wanted him real bad but I think it was a real reach. Cass does spend aggresively for the guys he wants. I'm still trying to understand the Babin pick - he was really expensive. Maybe he will be worth it ?

Vinny 06-18-2004 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy
Sure there was no RB last year worth a 3, but how about Jordan Gross at LT -a very strategic position and I'm not so sure we made the right choice (don't
get me wrong - I'm a big AJ fan).

The team had more confidence in Pitts than you obviously have and have developed Wand to man the LT spot. AJ at the 3 looks like an astute move to me. Having Jordan Gross and Taylor Jacobs (next WR taken in the second rd that year) is less appealing to me than taking a dominating physical speciman like AJ early. Gross wasn't worth the 3rd pick either.

It is very hard to find special players after the top 10 picks. Gross is a solid Tackle but he isn't any better than Pitts is or what Wand may become.

nunusguy 06-18-2004 03:46 PM

Scratch my remark 'bout taking Gross instead of AJ, my heart really wasn't
in that argument. AJ is a great talent and truly could become a super
star in the league. But I think Gross is quite a bit more than "solid", though
probably not in the category of the top tackles in the league - yet. I think he is definitely better than Pitts though - if we were
sold on Pitts as our LT(and apparently we're not since he'd stay put if we were), Wand would't be trying LT.

infantrycak 06-18-2004 04:21 PM

Quote:

if we were sold on Pitts as our LT(and apparently we're not since he'd stay put if we were), Wand would't be trying LT.
The Texans never were sold on Pitts at LT--they were forced into it. Pitts was drafted to play LG with Boselli at LT. Once Boselli was out Pitts had to play LT. Bringing in a good but not spectacular rookie LT last year would have been no better than Pitts so they left him there and obtained value by drafting a small school project to develop for 1-2 years into starting LT--Wand. Evidently they are pleased with his progress and are ready to throw him into the fire this year.

Quote:

I guess I'm saying taking a WR at 3 and not a LT, for example, kinda means you've made a commitment to throwing some passes.
Or as the facts bear out for the 2003 draft there was not a LT worth that pick. (Gross by the way did a very good job last year, but at RT, not LT.) In any event, I suspect if you polled people about what was more important to the passing game, one hot shot WR or a fantastic LT you would find a big group supporting the latter so I am not sure you can draw any committment to passing conclusions from the choice.

Fiddy 06-18-2004 04:23 PM

I have a question: Do you take McGahee if he doesnt have the injury or AJ??? (You dont know the future)

I still take AJ because his gives Carr a target and most backs havent been taken in the first round, like Portis

infantrycak 06-18-2004 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddy
I have a question: Do you take McGahee if he doesnt have the injury or AJ???

AJ in a heart beat for a couple reasons. First, WR's with his combination of size, speed, athleticism and very importantly character don't come along often--undeniably worth a #3 pick. Second, recent history seems to have shown better luck finding non-first round gems in RB's than WR's--teams seem to have recognized this and have been more hesitant to spend high first round draft picks on RB's.

2004 5 WR's taken before 1st RB
2003 3 WR's taken before 1st RB

wags 06-18-2004 04:36 PM

I like drafting RB's later in the draft, because of the punishment they take in the NFL. Your starting to see more GM's adopt this stance also. What was the first RB taken this year, like 24th or something?

Fiddy 06-18-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wags
What was the first RB taken this year, like 24th or something?

Yeah, Steven Jackson to the Rams

CoachJim 06-19-2004 09:20 AM

The longest 3 weeks of the year
 
This is the part of the year I hate the most ... The last 3 weeks leading up to training camp. All the mini-camps have just ended & there is virtually nothing going on in football land. My little league football team, the Pasadena Bears are in the midst of signups but the next one is not for a few weeks too so I guess I'll just sit here & watch the paint peel like everyone else.

beerlover 06-19-2004 11:07 AM

I would think adjustments will be made based upon this years performance of Dominack Davis (is he for real & will he stay healthy?) Tony Hollings (how he progresses after another year removed from acl surgery) and if any other player comes through and develops into solid back (Jammal Lord).

Certainly there is more cap room left in the RB position than any other skilled position currently in the Texans infrastructure. Which leads me to believe if there is a RB available in next years draft the Texans love when its their turn to pick, Casserly will select a RB with the first pick somewhere around #20.

Vinny 06-19-2004 11:18 AM

Lord is a Free Safety. I doubt we use him as a running back. Also, I think you will find most teams draft a RB every year or two. That is not uncommon. I cannot see a scenario outside of injury where we take a back that high (first round) unless some guy with a high grade drops.

beerlover 06-19-2004 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by __V__
Lord is a Free Safety. I doubt we use him as a running back. Also, I think you will find most teams draft a RB every year or two. That is not uncommon. I cannot see a scenario outside of injury where we take a back that high (first round) unless some guy with a high grade drops.

Sorry V_ just listed as you posted idonno:

Round 6
#175 - Jammal Lord - FS Nebraska
Position: Running Back
Drafted: Round 6, 175th Overall
Height: 6' 2"
Weight: 220
College: Nebraska
Birthdate: January 10, 1981
NFL Comparison: Eric Crouch

anyways, there is no telling what will happen just yet thats why I preface it with certain conditions coming into play, like adjustments during a game :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ad Management by RedTyger