Second Edition: badboy, beerlover, rmartin65 Texans Mock

[rmartin65]

Originally Posted by BigBull17

I want one!

Welcome to the dark side

[TexCanada]

The more I think about it the more I really like this draft. The only thing I might change would be Tate for Gerhart, but then again you guys know more about this stuff then I do.

By the way, thanks for putting all this together, you guys have really got me hooked on the draft now! I've learned a ton from you guys about all of the players (college ball gets no coverage up here).

[badboy]

Originally Posted by TexCanada

The more I think about it the more I really like this draft. The only thing I might change would be Tate for Gerhart, but then again you guys know more about this stuff then I do.

By the way, thanks for putting all this together, you guys have really got me hooked on the draft now! I've learned a ton from you guys about all of the players (college ball gets no coverage up here).

TC, I am basically a fan that is interested in Houston area sports with some exceptions. I rarely watch an NFL, NBA or baseball game if there is no impact on my team. The Super Bowl is only championship game I watch. After becoming a draft nut several years ago, I began watching a lot more college. That is not necessarily a good thing because I often am about to drop off to sleep and a player will pop into mind and I am up and back in the living room starting a new mock or working a trade.

Tate is a good back but I have actually watched Toby Gerhart after RMARTIN65 told me about him. He is not the typical "power back" of 230lbs like a Dixon. TG fits our scheme and is a "one cut & go" back although some disagree about this. He is very difficult to bring down and would have great value @ #81. AFter hours of discussing him we decided he probably will not be there and we moved him to our #51. We like Mathews more but would have to use a first. By selecting Thomas and Gerhart we fill two "priority" needs with what we think are the best players. Kyle WIlson CB was in the mix also at #20. Thanks for your comments.

[Rey]

I like this draft as a whole...But I do not know about two of the picks...

The 2nd RB and the late round QB...

I would take two more defensive players there...

I think if we want another RB then we can go the UFA route...

If we took another CB and a D-linemen I think that would make us a stronger team...Fred Bennet, Antwaun Molden, and Brice McCain need competition to make this roster...I would not be upset at all if we took 2 corners in this draft...

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Rey

I like this draft as a whole...But I do not know about two of the picks...

The 2nd RB and the late round QB...

I would take two more defensive players there...

I think if we want another RB then we can go the UFA route...

If we took another CB and a D-linemen I think that would make us a stronger team...Fred Bennet, Antwaun Molden, and Brice McCain need competition to make this roster...I would not be upset at all if we took 2 corners in this draft...

Actually during our hours of debate while creating this 2nd mock, I had suggested A Cb (Crezdon Butler) in 6th. However, the three of us agree that while we need another solid CB we have two starters in Quin and Reeves an McCain is doing very well and faster than the first two. RB is different as we do not have a starter or much else for certain. Even if Slaton return healthy and reverts to his rookie year, we want his role reduced to what he was drafted for. Moats? Earned his check as a back up but does not excite anyone. Foster? We have minimal history to judge him on. A team like Texans that the coach wants a heavy running game needs twol solid backs that can ground the ball down the field. Hopefully Foster and Gerhart will do it. Bell at this pick is truly a value selection.
QB? We discussed UDFA but by using a 7th you can get what you want at often a cheaper price than UDFA.

Also, I think you are wrong on Brice McCain needing competition. He is very solid.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by badboy

Also, I think you are wrong on Brice McCain needing competition. He is very solid.

I like his pass covg...he's decent in that area, but he shy's away from contact from what I've seen...

Also, Fred Bennet was thought to be solid after his rookie yr. as well...

I'm not sure why McCain is thought to be "very solid"...I can remember a few times last yr. where he looked opposite of "very solid"...Of course I chalked it up to rookie mistakes, but I am not ok with not bringing in competition for guys who are not penciled in starters and even some starters need some heat applied to their backsides...

[rmartin65]

The not drafting a second corner is my fault, I feel pretty confidant that the Texans can make it work with just one more upper round guy added.

badboy covered our thoughts on Bell and Smith perfectly, nicely done bro.

[beerlover]

Originally Posted by Rey

I like this draft as a whole...But I do not know about two of the picks...

The 2nd RB and the late round QB...

I would take two more defensive players there...

I think if we want another RB then we can go the UFA route...

If we took another CB and a D-linemen I think that would make us a stronger team...Fred Bennet, Antwaun Molden, and Brice McCain need competition to make this roster...I would not be upset at all if we took 2 corners in this draft...

the hardest thing about doing a mock draft is not including or having the ability to make trades.

trades are a big part of the draft day experience. it's still fun to debate who teams might pick but somewhat meaningless in the final anaylsis, just too many variables. trading down with San Diego so they could select Mathews was discussed behind closed doors weeks ago. I'm thinking even now the Texans could even trade back in the 2nd for addtional value then select Toby Gerhart, but reality is even though alot of Texans fans might not grade him this high he will be gone by the 81st pick, hence we took our shot, something the Texans needed to do last year (Shonn Greene). lesson learned, we hope!

according to the Texans & Rick Smith they feel pretty good @ CB so one premium pick may even be a little overboard.

so this was the best we could agree on given the circumanstances & parameters allowed.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by beerlover

the hardest thing about doing a mock draft is not including or having the ability to make trades.

trades are a big part of the draft day experience. it's still fun to debate who teams might pick but somewhat meaningless in the final anaylsis, just too many variables. trading down with San Diego so they could select Mathews was discussed behind closed doors weeks ago. I'm thinking even now the Texans could even trade back in the 2nd for addtional value then select Toby Gerhart, but reality is even though alot of Texans fans might not grade him this high he will be gone by the 81st pick, hence we took our shot, something the Texans needed to do last year (Shonn Greene). lesson learned, we hope!

according to the Texans & Rick Smith they feel pretty good @ CB so one premium pick may even be a little overboard.

so this was the best we could agree on given the circumanstances & parameters allowed.

I'm not knocking the draft...I think you guys did a really good job...

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by TexCanada

The more I think about it the more I really like this draft. The only thing I might change would be Tate for Gerhart, but then again you guys know more about this stuff then I do.

By the way, thanks for putting all this together, you guys have really got me hooked on the draft now! I've learned a ton from you guys about all of the players (college ball gets no coverage up here).

It's just their opinion. I like Gerhart and watched him play alot.

I like Tate better because IMHO he's a better all around RB. No previous knee injuries and he seems protect the ball better.(pointed out by Corrosion) But I can see what they see in Gerhart.

I would take Tate over my favorite Hardesty and their favorite Gerhart for the same reason. Tate has no injury history and Gerhart and Hardesty do. If the RB's are = you take the one with the least injury history. Or atleast I do.

With that said if the draft fell this way I would be thrilled.

[JB]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

It's just their opinion. I like Gerhart and watched him play alot.

I like Tate better because IMHO he's a better all around RB. No previous knee injuries and he seems protect the ball better.(pointed out by Corrosion) But I can see what they see in Gerhart.

I would take Tate over my favorite Hardesty and their favorite Gerhart for the same reason. Tate has no injury history and Gerhart and Hardesty do. If the RB's are = you take the one with the least injury history. Or atleast I do.

With that said if the draft fell this way I would be thrilled.

I really like Tate, because I think he is the best overall back for our system. I would love Mathews, but you know he is going in the 1st. I want no part of Dwyer. I like Gerhart and would be fine with that selection if Tate was off the board. I am scared of Hardesty, and believe that there is not much difference betwwen him and Foster. I prefer Arian. Just my opinion.

[rmartin65]

I think the thing with Tate is that it is his "turn" to be on the board. By that I mean that players go through phases on this board. A player gets the spotlight. First, guys decide if they are impressed or not. The amount of impressed people wanes as time goes on, it is a natural human phenomenon.

At one point, each of the top backs have had their "time". Spiller was all the rage, Gerhart, Mathews and Dwyer all had time as "the guy". Tate performed admirably on the post season/pre draft, it is natural that people are turning on to him.

That said, when I look on my notes from the season, I still like Gerhart over Tate. I know I am biased, but in Tate I saw a back with all the tools that has not put it together yet. Also, most of his big runs were to the outside. I want the guy who can break them up the gut. Oh, and dont show me a highlight clip with some runs up the middle. I said most of his big runs.

[Insideop]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

We are seeing a lot of mocks that have Thomas falling, so we are going with it. It makes sense too, some of the teams before us have more pressing needs than safety.

I think your hope of Thomas being there at #20 just flew out the window with his 4.37 at the Horns Pro Day. Some are speculating he will go in the top 10.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

I think the thing with Tate is that it is his "turn" to be on the board. By that I mean that players go through phases on this board. A player gets the spotlight. First, guys decide if they are impressed or not. The amount of impressed people wanes as time goes on, it is a natural human phenomenon.

At one point, each of the top backs have had their "time". Spiller was all the rage, Gerhart, Mathews and Dwyer all had time as "the guy". Tate performed admirably on the post season/pre draft, it is natural that people are turning on to him.

That said, when I look on my notes from the season, I still like Gerhart over Tate. I know I am biased, but in Tate I saw a back with all the tools that has not put it together yet. Also, most of his big runs were to the outside. I want the guy who can break them up the gut. Oh, and dont show me a highlight clip with some runs up the middle. I said most of his big runs.

I understand what your saying about the natural phenomenon. Like I said my guy was Hardesty. But when I found out about all of these RB's injury histories going with the RB with the most healthy injury history would seem like the most prudent thing to do. All things being =

Tate is a fine inside runner. It's just that Auburns interior OL stunk. Kinda like the Texans interior OL last season.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Rey

I like his pass covg...he's decent in that area, but he shy's away from contact from what I've seen...

Also, Fred Bennet was thought to be solid after his rookie yr. as well...

I'm not sure why McCain is thought to be "very solid"...I can remember a few times last yr. where he looked opposite of "very solid"...Of course I chalked it up to rookie mistakes, but I am not ok with not bringing in competition for guys who are not penciled in starters and even some starters need some heat applied to their backsides...

When I say solid I am speaking about what I want in a Cb and what our new defensive coaches seem to value. My corners have to have speed. It's to easy to guess wrong and have to quickly recover your position. I prefer a CB that will sometime take a chance a break on the ball. I was hoping former Texan P. Buchannan (sp?) would be our "cover CB". I want a guy that can do more than tackle a WR to stop a TD. You are right that McCain looked like a rookie sometimes but so did DR last season. Just saying for a 6th he brings more that 4.33 speed. Bennett had a great R. year. A poster said he had "something" not quite defined that messed him up emotionally involving a hospital and someone he knew if I remember correctly. He did not recover last season and needs to really step up to re-gain what he had.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Rey

I'm not knocking the draft...I think you guys did a really good job...

You're cool man. We can take questions, critiscisms or differing opinions. This is why RMARTIN65, BeerLover & I do these mocks. You would not believe the PMs that flash back & forth daily. You are going to laugh, but I just got another one.

[rmartin65]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

I understand what your saying about the natural phenomenon. Like I said my guy was Hardesty. But when I found out about all of these RB's injury histories going with the RB with the most healthy injury history would seem like the most prudent thing to do. All things being =

Tate is a fine inside runner. It's just that Auburns interior OL stunk. Kinda like the Texans interior OL last season.

I like where you are going, but I think you are taking it just a tad too far. Hardesty has had 3 serious knee injuries. I took him off the board for the Texans after that. He also has a history of toe problems, bad for running backs.

I think the only serious injury Gerhart encountered was a torn PCL. While serious, it is not terrible. Jerry Rice tore his PCL, and still played for 20 years I am not saying to expect that kind of career from Gerhart, I am just saying as far as knee injuries go, it sounds like a PCL is not too bad. At least, its not bad enough for me to negatively shift his ranking.

Actually, one of the people with medical knowledge, what should we expect from the torn PCL? How bad is it, career wise?

[beerlover]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

I like where you are going, but I think you are taking it just a tad too far. Hardesty has had 3 serious knee injuries. I took him off the board for the Texans after that. He also has a history of toe problems, bad for running backs.

I think the only serious injury Gerhart encountered was a torn PCL. While serious, it is not terrible. Jerry Rice tore his PCL, and still played for 20 years I am not saying to expect that kind of career from Gerhart, I am just saying as far as knee injuries go, it sounds like a PCL is not too bad. At least, its not bad enough for me to negatively shift his ranking.

Actually, one of the people with medical knowledge, what should we expect from the torn PCL? How bad is it, career wise?

sounds like a question for CloakNNNdagger

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by rmartin65

I like where you are going, but I think you are taking it just a tad too far. Hardesty has had 3 serious knee injuries. I took him off the board for the Texans after that. He also has a history of toe problems, bad for running backs.

I think the only serious injury Gerhart encountered was a torn PCL. While serious, it is not terrible. Jerry Rice tore his PCL, and still played for 20 years I am not saying to expect that kind of career from Gerhart, I am just saying as far as knee injuries go, it sounds like a PCL is not too bad. At least, its not bad enough for me to negatively shift his ranking.

Actually, one of the people with medical knowledge, what should we expect from the torn PCL? How bad is it, career wise?

You're probably right. I'm leery of RB's with injury histories and tend to overreact.

I thought Gerhart had 2 knee injuries. 1 ACL and 1 PCL. I think he missed 1 yr due to his knee. But dont know where to find that info.

C-N-D should be an authority on injuries.

I would like to know how C-N-D thinks OD is going to be able to come back from his 2nd ACL surgery?

[rmartin65]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

You're probably right. I'm leery of RB's with injury histories and tend to overreact.

I thought Gerhart had 2 knee injuries. 1 ACL and 1 PCL. I think he missed 1 yr due to his knee. But dont know where to find that info.

C-N-D should be an authority on injuries.

I would like to know how C-N-D thinks OD is going to be able to come back from his 2nd ACL surgery?

I think it is just one, but am reading conflicting reports. Some places say PCL, others say ACL. But it is definitely one injury, and he lost the 07 season because of it.

I am waiting for CND