New Fox sports article

[Texizgreat]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606

not a bad break down of the AFC south

[GP]

Nice find. Thanks for the article link.

[Texansbacker]

Real good read, thanks for the link Texi. The Texans have had an awesome offseason! Definitely filled some holes with solid veterans and up and comers. Hope it pans out!

[Scooter]

So, Bush it is. Comparisons to Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, and Gale Sayers seem to be coming from everywhere. Bush is a special talent, but those are some of the greatest players of all-time. The Texans cannot practically think that Bush offers more than those players.

As an interesting exercise, look at how those players' teams fared in their first five years after the NFL draft. Those three players were the second, third, and fourth overall selection of the draft, meaning they came to equally un-talented teams:

Faulk: 32-48
Sanders: 40-40
Sayers: 29-38-3

These numbers are somewhat shocking and should make Texans' fans keep their expectations in check. During these five-year periods, these three great backs made a combined 12 Pro Bowls, so their production was clearly not the problem. The simple truth is that a running back is only so valuable.

what many here have been saying ... especially when we've already got a good one

sorry, i couldnt resist.

[SAMURAITEXAN]

Oh man, this is good. thanks Texizgreat

[bdiddy]

This article is obviously written by someone that has only a limited knowledge of the Texans.

Cowart is an immediate upgrade as a 4-3 MLB.

Our receiving corp is MUCH improved. (Moulds and Walter vs. Gaffney and Bradford, this is not even close, no matter what the article says)

Flanangan is an immediate upgrade at center and allows McKinney to shift to his more natural position.

I found the article to be pretty negative, and conclusory.

Typical East Coast, Yankee view of the expansion Texans.

[GP]

Originally Posted by Scooter

what many here have been saying ... especially when we've already got a good one

sorry, i couldnt resist.

Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

IMO, we would statistically have a better shot at getting good (and being good for a longer period of time) by trading out and grabbing extra pick(s) and D'Brickashaw Ferguson. That's been my first love, but now I am growing more intrigued by the prospect of having a chance at a true game-breaker that other teams must account for every down he's on the field.

[Bobo]

Originally Posted by bdiddy

This article is obviously written by someone that has only a limited knowledge of the Texans.

Cowart is an immediate upgrade as a 4-3 MLB.

Our receiving corp is MUCH improved. (Moulds and Walter vs. Gaffney and Bradford, this is not even close, no matter what the article says)

Flanangan is an immediate upgrade at center and allows McKinney to shift to his more natural position.

I found the article to be pretty negative, and conclusory.

Typical East Coast, Yankee view of the expansion Texans.

How can you say that Walter is any good when he's only caught 30 passes in 3 years? If you look at the numbers, then Gaffney and Bradford ARE better since both of these guys have been more productive than Walter. Flanagan is old and beaten up. As for McKinney, he hasn't been all that great in his current position -- what makes you think he'll be better simply by switching places in the same offensive line? Meanwhile, Cowart has bounced around from team to team the last few years and his sack production as well as other numbers aren't very good either. I don't think the assessment was negative -- I see it as realistic and true. On the other hand, I see your assessment as unrealistic and painting an overly rosy picture.

[Bobo]

Originally Posted by gpshafer_1976

Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

IMO, we would statistically have a better shot at getting good (and being good for a longer period of time) by trading out and grabbing extra pick(s) and D'Brickashaw Ferguson. That's been my first love, but now I am growing more intrigued by the prospect of having a chance at a true game-breaker that other teams must account for every down he's on the field.

I don't see Bush as exemplifying any leadership whatsoever. I do see him, however, as a wasted pick. RBs are a dime a dozen (see the Colts and Edgerring James) and quite often flop bigtime once they get into the pros. I would hate to see the Texans waste a top pick like this on a RB especially when they already have a good one and have so many needs elsewhere. This is why I am losing my excitement for the Texans. They are acting like this is fantasy football and trying to draft the top ball handler around when everybody in the NFL knows the key to winning consistently in this league is line play on both ends. When I see obviously boneheaded moves like this being pulled on a consistent basis, it just shows me that this team just plain doesn't know what it's doing and can't even grasp the basics of the NFL.

[gtexan02]

Originally Posted by Bobo

I don't see Bush as exemplifying any leadership whatsoever. I do see him, however, as a wasted pick. RBs are a dime a dozen (see the Colts and Edgerring James) and quite often flop bigtime once they get into the pros. I would hate to see the Texans waste a top pick like this on a RB especially when they already have a good one and have so many needs elsewhere. This is why I am losing my excitement for the Texans. They are acting like this is fantasy football and trying to draft the top ball handler around when everybody in the NFL knows the key to winning consistently in this league is line play on both ends. When I see obviously boneheaded moves like this being pulled on a consistent basis, it just shows me that this team just plain doesn't know what it's doing and can't even grasp the basics of the NFL.

Right, thanks for that Bobo. Consisent line play on both ends is a proven commodity in the NFL, you're right. But why waste two 1st round picks in a row on DL? We drafted TJ last year, arguably the highest rated DT available, and signed Weaver and Kalu (plus we have Payne, Smith, Peek, and Babin). I'd say our DL is pretty much set. As for OL, I agree, this should be our first priority. But, as it has been posted time and time again on this board, Denver's zone blocking style doesnt require the prototypical OLman. For this reason, we can draft a 2nd or 3rd round guy and have him fit in much better than the top rated LT in the draft. As a result, to help our OL, the best thing we can do is draft someone who the defense will have to watch out for and thus blitz less often. RB is that guy, whether or not you want to believe it or not. I find it hard to believe that EVERY scout could be wrong about this one player, who has been rated as #1 for almost two years now.

Oh and another thing, RBs are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every team would have a strong running game. If they were so common, S. Alexander, LT, and Edge wouldn't be getting those HUGE contracts. Teams like the Cardinals would be able to run the ball, and RBs wouldn't be drafted so high (there were 3 RBs taken in the top 10 last year) Every player in the NFL is at least midly talented, I will agree, and with a truly awesome line, pretty much any NFL caliber athlete should be able to gain 1000 yards, but the truly elite RBs come around only so often

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by gpshafer_1976

Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

i've got a more coherant arguement for a later date, but to say kubiak's style involves multiple backs is extremely inaccurate, or atleast very premature. in a decade with denver, kubiak has only split carries between backs twice ... 2001, & 2005 (01 being their 2nd lowest rushing total of his tenure at just over 1500 total yards). last year was a fluke in denver because of their players, it is NOT their routine.

[Bobo]

Originally Posted by gtexan02

Right, thanks for that Bobo. Consisent line play on both ends is a proven commodity in the NFL, you're right. But why waste two 1st round picks in a row on DL? We drafted TJ last year, arguably the highest rated DT available, and signed Weaver and Kalu (plus we have Payne, Smith, Peek, and Babin). I'd say our DL is pretty much set. As for OL, I agree, this should be our first priority. But, as it has been posted time and time again on this board, Denver's zone blocking style doesnt require the prototypical OLman. For this reason, we can draft a 2nd or 3rd round guy and have him fit in much better than the top rated LT in the draft. As a result, to help our OL, the best thing we can do is draft someone who the defense will have to watch out for and thus blitz less often. RB is that guy, whether or not you want to believe it or not. I find it hard to believe that EVERY scout could be wrong about this one player, who has been rated as #1 for almost two years now.

A.) The DL failed miserably against the run last year. It also failed to get any kind of consistent pass rush going either. It still needs lots of help. B.) Weaver has a history of being injured and certainly doesn't pressure the QB. He isn't the answer. C.) The Texans were totally unable to even block three pass rushers, let alone four. Fact is, opposing Ds didn't have to blitz to put pressure on Carr. D.) As far as the scouts go, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in them. I am sure the scouts thought Akili Smith and Ryan Leaf were can't miss prospects, as I am sure was the case for Cedrick Benson, Archie Griffin, Lawrence Phillips and Curtis Enis. Fact is, we don't need a RB. We already have a good one. We don't need a QB either -- we've already got a good one. What the Texans do need is a heckuva lot of help on the OL and on defense. Until they get that together, they'd better throw their entire draft at those problem areas. Everytime they draft a guy who will even touch the ball, I will wince and shake my head in total and utter disbelief. It reminds me of a guy who already has a decent weedeater but goes out and buys a better one while his lawnmower sits in the garage, broken and unusable.

[Bobo]

Oh and another thing, RBs are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every team would have a strong running game. If they were so common, S. Alexander, LT, and Edge wouldn't be getting those HUGE contracts. Teams like the Cardinals would be able to run the ball, and RBs wouldn't be drafted so high (there were 3 RBs taken in the top 10 last year) Every player in the NFL is at least midly talented, I will agree, and with a truly awesome line, pretty much any NFL caliber athlete should be able to gain 1000 yards, but the truly elite RBs come around only so often

A.) If every team had a good offensive line, then every team would have a strong running game. The running game does not depend on the rusher, but on the OL. B.) If you will recall, Seattle was looking to trade Shaun Alexander a while back but couldn't get a good enough deal for him. That should tell you something about how little the NFL really values RBs. C.) The OL makes the "truly elite" RBs, not vice versa.

[MightyTExan]

Didn't Denver want to draft DD when came out of college? It's already been said, but I think DD will do better with Bush becasue he won't be overused. I know this isn't the draft forum, but Vernon Davis is my pick from this years draft and I thnk that's someone we need.

[nunusguy]

Good article from Foxsports website there Tex.
While some may be inclined to say its negative in some respects, hey, you
go 2-14 you are going to get some negative comments. For example, their
remarks about Cowart are probably true in that his best years are behine him.
But we didn't need an upgrade at MLB so much as we needed to fill a void, so
that was a necessary pickup if only stopgap for a year or two. And they were
balanced and fair about their remarks about Weaver in that they spoke of his
youth and upside. And Weaver may very well be like TJ, our #1 last year, in that both have a good chance to excel with the new 4-3.

[the wonger need food]

Originally Posted by Bobo

How can you say that Walter is any good when he's only caught 30 passes in 3 years?

The truth is, we don't really know. On the plus side he's played in a real NFL offense under legitimate NFL coaches... so he's got that going for him.

[GP]

Originally Posted by Scooter

i've got a more coherant arguement for a later date, but to say kubiak's style involves multiple backs is extremely inaccurate, or atleast very premature. in a decade with denver, kubiak has only split carries between backs twice ... 2001, & 2005 (01 being their 2nd lowest rushing total of his tenure at just over 1500 total yards). last year was a fluke in denver because of their players, it is NOT their routine.

It's not inaccurate. Denver carries at least three strong RBs at all times because they want to have the ability to wear down defenses with fresh legs throughout the latter stages of a game, as well as to have "change-of-pace" backs to confuse defensive players who are having to corral a shifty guy on a few plays, then chase down a speed guy on some plays, then gang tackle a power guy on some plays...it just works. That's not a rumor. It's a fact.

It's not as if they somehow wound up with three good RBs every season and then had a war amongst them that took all season to find out who their star RB would be...they purposefully flood their RB roster spots with guys that legitimately can start for other teams.

They key here is not total rushing yards...it's having the depth at RB so you can switch gears on a defense at any moment in a game...as well as to have the depth if one RB goes down.

[Kaiser Toro]

Originally Posted by gpshafer_1976

It's not inaccurate. Denver carries at least three strong RBs at all times because they want to have the ability to wear down defenses with fresh legs throughout the latter stages of a game, as well as to have "change-of-pace" backs to confuse defensive players who are having to corral a shifty guy on a few plays, then chase down a speed guy on some plays, then gang tackle a power guy on some plays...it just works. That's not a rumor. It's a fact.

It's not as if they somehow wound up with three good RBs every season and then had a war amongst them that took all season to find out who their star RB would be...they purposefully flood their RB roster spots with guys that legitimately can start for other teams.

They key here is not total rushing yards...it's having the depth at RB so you can switch gears on a defense at any moment in a game...as well as to have the depth if one RB goes down.

Can you define this fact through percentage of carries? Other than last year and 2001 there was one main back and in the second backs best year they had 19% of the total carries.

Denver has done a good job drafting value, bringing in perceived washed up vets and having a terrific O line. The numbers do not say that Kubiak is a two or three back system type guy.

If we take Bush we must move Davis in my opinion.

[GP]

Originally Posted by Kaiser Toro

Can you define this fact through percentage of carries? Other than last year and 2001 there was one main back and in the second backs best year they had 19% of the total carries.

Denver has done a good job drafting value, bringing in perceived washed up vets and having a terrific O line. The numbers do not say that Kubiak is a two or three back system type guy.

If we take Bush we must move Davis in my opinion.

If you listen to talk radio, or if you watch NFL TV shows, you will see all the analysts agree and discuss at length the FACT that Denver has established themselves in the past few years as a team dedicated to carrying more quality RBs than any other team has. Sorry I can't back that up with real proof because I can't for the life of me begin to point to which shows and on what dates and times those coments had been made...but I know I'm not making this up. Most times I do provide links and I even go out and research other posters' claims to see if their claims are factual, so give a little grace here and trust that I'm not making it up.

Secondly, we don't have to move Davis. For all of Capers' faults as an in-game coach, he did pretty well in the area of selecting players who are true team players and whom he knew would be solid in situations like this. Davis got his money AND his chance with us. I don't see hime demanding a trade, or demanding a contract re-negotiation with us. He's going to want to move to the next level: getting a ring and a trophy. And gives him a chance to do that. Davis is not like most star RBs...the guy is secure in his manhood (unlike Jammal Lewis or Travis Henry) and he wants to win a championship. So I doubt we're going to see WWIII from Davis if Bush is on our team. With Wells being allowed to shop around, it's just clear that we're drafting Bush. Otherwise, we'd have retained Wells because Morency is not capable yet of taking this team's RB spot if Davis gets hurt. And Davis has been prone to injury lately. Is that not a fact? You would be comfortable, am I correct, with us passing on a stud RB and then chancing our season on Davis staying healthy all season long....with Wells gone to Buffalo (potentially) and Morency the new go-to guy at RB? Not I.

I want a backfield of Davis/Cook/Norris/Bush so that we can sprint Bush out to WR and really create a headache for defensive coordinators.

But if we trade out and get "Brick and extra pick(s)...I'm certainly cool with that, as well. We better grab Wells or another decent backup for Davis, though, if that's the case.

[Texans_Chick]

Thanks for the article. This quote is interesting:

The first overall pick is sometimes considered a curse because of the massive bonus paid out to an unproven player. Recent history questions this assumption. From 1996-2004, all but one of the teams with the first overall pick have made the playoffs within four years. That one team, of course, is the Texans.