View Single Post
Old 03-07-2013   #97
tru80texan
Veteran
 
tru80texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Close enough to get to Reliant
Posts: 486
Rep Power: 3503 tru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respectedtru80texan is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: What I am looking at, feedback appreciated

Quote:
Originally Posted by mussop View Post
Cody has been nothing but average. Still he is better than Mitchell. Weade has "decided" not to have other options? How do you know what options Wade has had to choose from? I can only see three.

1.) Cody is a FA and injured. So Wade can go into next season starting a guy who couldn't beat out a very average Cody with hope we pick up a decent rotation player later in the draft or a cheap one in FA. We don't have the money to get a quality one.

2.) Or we can draft a good DT in a deep draft for DT's that can push Mitchell early and get significant minutes and eventually (hopefully sooner than later), take over the starting job and put Mitchell back to second string where he belongs.

3.) See if we can talk a really good veteran (Seymour) to come in and play for cheap for a chance at a championship.

If Wade chooses number one we are going to be taking a step backwards.
Here are some stats from 2012 to ponder:
Mitchell. Cody
Tackles- 31. Tackles- 17
Passes defended-3. Passes defended-2
Forced Fumbles-1. Forced fumbles-0
Games Started- 3. Games Started- 12

Let's see...now which player looks better of the 2.

I think it's pretty obvious Mitchell was the better player despite starting 9 less games. Just because one player isn't starting because they so-called couldn't beat "a very average player" doesn't necessarily mean the best player was on the field IMO. I think Walter is a good example of that as well, so it's not unheard of that a lesser player is named a starter when there are other options who could possibly be better but not necessarily given the opportunity. Cody obviously did less w/ more opportunity & Cody is by far anything, but "average". I think you are using that term very loosely in describing Cody's play. "Mediocre" would probably be a better term for Cody as his backup outperformed him.

How you can claim Cody was better then Mitchell based on the stats is beyond me & quite laughable to be honest. Mitchell is still very young & has shown improvement & yet some how you feel the Texans could be better equipped w/ Cody manning the middle & act as if the Texans are doomed if it's Mitchell ,because he nothing but a backup by your assessment, in the middle despite him outproducing Cody. How can you honestly say a position is taking a step back by finally inserting the player that actually produced more is a bit backwards in the thought process IMO, but to each their own.


I personally feel better w/ Mitchell in the middle, but I will miss Cody's "On the Nose" episodes.
tru80texan is offline   Reply With Quote