View Single Post
Old 06-18-2004   #12
infantrycak
Lead Moderator
 
infantrycak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 49,278
Rep Power: 413804 infantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respectedinfantrycak is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

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.
__________________
The Art of War
infantrycak is offline   Reply With Quote