Where is Wand?

[Ibar_Harry]

Well, you can wonder what Kubiak was thinking when he released Wand? Now, you have to wonder even more about his comments with respect to having Wand back. With the situations we have had with our line, Kubiak's statements about having Wand back have to be total BS......

[edo783]

Wand is on the Titans.

[Ibar_Harry]

Searched the Web and you are correct. ESPN doesn't show that as yet. Well, at least he's getting a shot somewhere. It will be interesting to see how he does. The Titans have line problems as well.

[JohnGalt]

http://www.titansradio.com/cgi-bin/b...urb=news653080

The Titans added depth along the offensive line, agreeing to terms with with former Texans tackle Seth Wand Monday.

The Tennessean reports the team placed wide receiver David Givens on injured reserve to make room for Wand.

The former third-round pick of the Texans worked out for the Titans last week after Daniel Loper went down with a spleen injury. Loper will miss the rest of the season.

Wand started 18 games for the Texans.

We missed the boat.

[HJam72]

We shouldn't have gotten off it in the first place.

[JohnGalt]

I only hope at this point that Kubiak realizes that he screwed up and he has learned from it.

Hopefully in 2007 things will be better. I sound like a Cubs fan.

[TheOgre]

While I don't like all of Kube's moves. I do like the fact that he is cleaning house and bringing in "his" guys. He might make a couple of mistakes along the way, but he seems to have made more wise ones (this draft class, Sage, passing on Bush and starting Weary ) than dumb ones (Putzier, Cowart and Wand).

[the wonger need food]

Originally Posted by TheOgre

He might make a couple of mistakes along the way, but he seems to have made more wise ones (this draft class, Sage, passing on Bush and starting Weary ) than dumb ones (Putzier, Cowart and Wand).

How was letting Wand go a bad move? He was unemployed until last week so there wasn't a whole lot of demand for the guy.

And the Putzier and Cowart signings were not bad at the time. Both simply got outplayed by very above average rookies. I would bet that Putzier has had a lot to do with Owens' quick maturation.

[Texans Horror]

Wasn't a whole lot of demand for any tackle until this week. Of course, if certain coaches had any foresight, they would have retained Wand and never been in this situation.

[the wonger need food]

Originally Posted by OSQ

Wasn't a whole lot of demand for any tackle until this week. Of course, if certain coaches had any foresight, they would have retained Wand and never been in this situation.

There are a finite number of roster spots and it came down to Wand and Salaam. Obviously Salaam outplayed him in training camp and brought a lot more leadership to the team. And Wand was not eligible for the practice team.

How would you have retained Wand?

[michaelm]

Originally Posted by OSQ

Wasn't a whole lot of demand for any tackle until this week. Of course, if certain coaches had any foresight, they would have retained Wand and never been in this situation.

There's always a demand for tackles if they're better than what you've got.
If 31 other teams thought they'd stick with their second and/or third stringers instead of bringing in Wand, that may indicate something about Wand...

[profan]

Originally Posted by Ibar_Harry

Well, you can wonder what Kubiak was thinking when he released Wand? Now, you have to wonder even more about his comments with respect to having Wand back. With the situations we have had with our line, Kubiak's statements about having Wand back have to be total BS......

I find it funny how you guys get upset when we release a member of one of the worst lines in NFL history. Ibar, Kubiak has already upgraded this team keeping subpar lineman on the roster will not make this team better. He's doing his best to protect your boy Carr. You should appreciate what he has done and layoff your constant bashing of the coach. He's doing a good job.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by the wonger need food

There are a finite number of roster spots and it came down to Wand and Salaam.
How would you have retained Wand?

Keeping Salaam instead of Wand was one thing, but choosing Bedell over Wand is something that many of us are still scratching our heads about ?

[Texans Horror]

Originally Posted by the wonger need food

He was unemployed until last week so there wasn't a whole lot of demand for the guy.

As opposed to Pearson, who posters are already getting giddy over? The guy was out almost two years.

Originally Posted by michaelm

There's always a demand for tackles if they're better than what you've got.

If 31 other teams thought they'd stick with their second and/or third stringers instead of bringing in Wand, that may indicate something about Wand...

Teams are loathe to replace o-lineman during the season. You don't see the roster turnover there that you see at other positions.

Originally Posted by the wonger need food

How would you have retained Wand?

Not carrying 4 tight ends or two full backs leaps to mind. Offensive line is a NEED on this team. These others were luxuries in comparison.

----------------------

Kubiak said on the radio earlier this week they were going to call Wand. Maybe the Texans were just too late at this point?

[Hervoyel]

Originally Posted by michaelm

There's always a demand for tackles if they're better than what you've got.
If 31 other teams thought they'd stick with their second and/or third stringers instead of bringing in Wand, that may indicate something about Wand...

Not really. Sure if they're far better than what you have then you make room for them when you can but nobody is sitting at home at this time of year who's head and shoulders above the guys who have jobs right not.

During the season the 53 man roster really limits the personnel moves you can make. Few if any teams can afford to bring someone in who can't contribute at all for a few weeks until he gets somewhat familiar with their offense. That's why you see teams bring back camp cuts over players who are sometimes a bit better when the injury bug strikes. Players cut in camp have worked in your system, they can be plugged in quicker than complete newcomers.

Remember in 2003 when we lost most of our defensive line? I think Jerry DeLoach was the only guy who made it through the season. We signed all those fat street free agents to fill the gaps and that's about all they did for most of that year. I used to call them the floppers because it seemed like they couldn't make it through a series without somebody coming out to get some oxygen or needing to be helped off the field. Man those guys were out of shape! They were just about useless until they got some time in our system and by the end of the year they were almost a "low to middle" NFL quality defensive line.

Wand will be fine. He should still be here IMO but there's nothing we can do about it now. I hope he gets a fair shot in Tennessee and I think I've got a player on the Titans that I am interested enough about to follow. That's a first.

[TheOgre]

Originally Posted by the wonger need food

How was letting Wand go a bad move?

I like Wand better than Salaam myself. Even if you like Salaam better, there is absolutely no way that you don't re-sign Wand instead of Bedell (just as nunusguy said). Wand is all-around better and already knows the system. That was a mistake IMO. Bedell was ripped out of the starting lineup faster than you can say, "Victor Riley".

[TheOgre]

Originally Posted by the wonger need food

And the Putzier and Cowart signings were not bad at the time. Both simply got outplayed by very above average rookies. I would bet that Putzier has had a lot to do with Owens' quick maturation.

Putzier has been a failure on the field as a FA pickup, and your "hunch" on his impact on Owen's is nothing more than conjecture from the sound of it. It was a bad signing.

Cowart has been truly bad for about 2-3 years. Imagine what this defense would be like with Cowart in there instead of Demeco.

I like the majority of Kubiak's moves. The net effect is definitely positive, but he hasn't been perfect. Take off the battle red glasses wonger.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by TheOgre

Putzier has been a failure on the field as a FA pickup, and your "hunch" on his impact on Owen's is nothing more than conjecture from the sound of it. It was a bad signing.

Cowart has been truly bad for about 2-3 years. Imagine what this defense would be like with Cowart in there instead of Demeco.

I like the majority of Kubiak's moves. The net effect is definitely positive, but he hasn't been perfect. Take off the battle red glasses wonger.

I don't think Putz was a bad signing...I just think our fans overvalued him. He wasn't all that in Denver. Cowart was a run down only linebacker before he came here and some people speculated that he wouldn't make the team since he had limited lateral movement. I don't think Cowart is in the league.

[thunderkyss]

Even on the field, what has he done to be considered a bad signing?? He hasn't dropped any balls that I recall..... he hasn't given up any sacks....

to me, it sounds like either the QB or the coach is not getting him involved. I've been pleased with what I saw, when he was in the game.

[hollywood_texan]

You always need to factor in the cap hit when understanding why a player was cut.

Look at it this way, it may be more beneficial to get less of a player with a much smaller cap hit than a player that is better but doesn't show value for the money paid when applying his cap charge.

Look at as getting the most bang for you buck as it compares to the cap.

I don't know if Wand had a big cap hit, but it would make sense that you cut a guy if he doesn't carry his weight in relation to the cap burden.

As for Wand sitting out there for awhile, there are 32 teams with about 10 roster spots for offensive line, so it was probably going to take a little time before something opened up for him.