2013 Compensatory Picks ANNOUNCED tomorrow

[IDEXAN]

Originally Posted by Lucky

I think the Texans need to do whatever they must to get the offense back "on the right track". If that means getting a WR or RT or both, they should do that.

I think the situation at RT with Newt's not so minor surgery in just the last couple of months is the most under reported personnel issue the Texans have in this offseason. I'd definitely go so far as to say there's some chance the Texans use their top pick on an OT, and look for Syracuse's Justin Pugh to be a real "sleeper" for the Texans pick at tackle. And WR has been an obvious top need for sometime now, but it's so difficult to take a WR coming right out of college and then have him becoming a real contributor his rookie year, so I see the Texans looking for help in FA besides drafting a WR high.

[sandman]

Facts can be just as misrepresented as statistics.

Let me show you:

Since Kubiak and Smith have joined the organization and had control over the personnel (see: HWSNBN), there has been only one losing season and have an overall winning record during that tenure.

Outside of one fluke season - and it's a fluke based on what occurred the seasons before and after - the wins have consistently increased from 6 to 8 to 9 to 10 to 12.

They've had a Top 5 Offense, a Top 5 Defense, the top QB, the top WR and the top RB at some point over the last few years.

Two straight Divisional titles, going 22-10 including winning road records in both season, and winning two playoff games.

To quote "A Few Good Men": These are the facts, and the facts do not lie.

That being said, we ALL know that this does not accurately portray the complete state of this organization. Just like saying Rick Smith is a bad GM because he hasn't orchestrated a SB-winning squad during his tenure.

[powda]

Originally Posted by sandman

Facts can be just as misrepresented as statistics.

Let me show you:

Since Kubiak and Smith have joined the organization and had control over the personnel (see: HWSNBN), there has been only one losing season and have an overall winning record during that tenure.

Outside of one fluke season - and it's a fluke based on what occurred the seasons before and after - the wins have consistently increased from 6 to 8 to 9 to 10 to 12.

They've had a Top 5 Offense, a Top 5 Defense, the top QB, the top WR and the top RB at some point over the last few years.

Two straight Divisional titles, going 22-10 including winning road records in both season, and winning two playoff games.

To quote "A Few Good Men": These are the facts, and the facts do not lie.

That being said, we ALL know that this does not accurately portray the complete state of this organization. Just like saying Rick Smith is a bad GM because he hasn't orchestrated a SB-winning squad during his tenure.

All great and compelling details for anyone who believes the sky is falling. The other side of that coin is your team watched the Superbowl on TV just like the last place team in the NFL. Another consideration is your evaluating this team based on the end result...which is what really matters...but the devil is in the details when you consider the parts of that end result:

All older and their shelf life is diminishing quickly

Schaub
Foster
Johnson

Couple those parts of our success with our recent personell losses and our cap situation and the future picture looks a bit different then the one you paint.

[Allstar]

Just a reminder to those who forgot, comp picks cannot be traded.

[Thorn]

Originally Posted by sandman

Facts can be just as misrepresented as statistics.

Let me show you:

Since Kubiak and Smith have joined the organization and had control over the personnel (see: HWSNBN), there has been only one losing season and have an overall winning record during that tenure.

Outside of one fluke season - and it's a fluke based on what occurred the seasons before and after - the wins have consistently increased from 6 to 8 to 9 to 10 to 12.

They've had a Top 5 Offense, a Top 5 Defense, the top QB, the top WR and the top RB at some point over the last few years.

Two straight Divisional titles, going 22-10 including winning road records in both season, and winning two playoff games.

To quote "A Few Good Men": These are the facts, and the facts do not lie.

That being said, we ALL know that this does not accurately portray the complete state of this organization. Just like saying Rick Smith is a bad GM because he hasn't orchestrated a SB-winning squad during his tenure.

You are quite right in that "facts" can be twisted anyway you want to in order to fit a viewpoint.

Personally, I don't care what the facts say. My feelings are quite well known. Rick Smith is (mostly) fine and OK with me, it's keeping Kubiak that irratates the hell out of me.

[281]

So, uhh... When exactly are they gonna tell us what our comp picks are?

[beerlover]

Finally something to look forward to. Projection only here for those like me, tired of waiting with some factual guidelines for all to read up on - http://edraft.com/nfl/news/projected...ry-selections/

this is one detail that I was unaware of, just to pull one from text

* A team can receive up to four (4) compensatory selections in a given season.

[281]

Originally Posted by beerlover

Finally something to look forward to. Projection only here for those like me, tired of waiting with some factual guidelines for all to read up on - http://edraft.com/nfl/news/projected...ry-selections/

this is one detail that I was unaware of, just to pull one from text

This site is only predicting two? I figured we'd have at least 3...

[Dutchrudder]

I predict we get a 3,5,6,6 for comp picks, but I could be wrong. That Jason Allen pick is a real stickler. He got paid like a 5th, and played like a 7th, so I don't know how it will work out.

[CretorFrigg]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

I predict we get a 3,5,6,6 for comp picks, but I could be wrong. That Jason Allen pick is a real stickler. He got paid like a 5th, and played like a 7th, so I don't know how it will work out.

Are the comp picks based on the players we lost last season or this season?

[drs23]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

Nope understaffed at the moment and have had some minor health issues. Better, but it's time to get back to work.

You should run it, your great with people and very even keeled.
LOL

Touché

[Dutchrudder]

Originally Posted by CretorFrigg

Are the comp picks based on the players we lost last season or this season?

Last season. I made a whole big post about this stuff in the Mock section. LINK

This is what I'm looking at for our qualifying free agent losses and some comparables:

[CretorFrigg]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

Last season. I made a whole big post about this stuff in the Mock section. LINK

This is what I'm looking at for our qualifying free agent losses and some comparables:

Oh, okay. That makes sense.

Very informative post. MSR.

[powda]

Anybody know what time the picks will be announced? I'm assuming 12p est but I can't find that anywhere.

[sandman]

Originally Posted by powda

All great and compelling details for anyone who believes the sky is falling. The other side of that coin is your team watched the Superbowl on TV just like the last place team in the NFL. Another consideration is your evaluating this team based on the end result...which is what really matters...but the devil is in the details when you consider the parts of that end result:

All older and their shelf life is diminishing quickly

Schaub
Foster
Johnson

Couple those parts of our success with our recent personell losses and our cap situation and the future picture looks a bit different then the one you paint.

Well, parity is the NFL's version of the Law of Gravity. It's immutable. During Kubiak's tenure, there have been ELEVEN different teams go to the Super Bowl. There have been SIX different winners with only one team winning twice - NYG - and they miss the playoffs as much as they make Super Bowl runs. San Fran hadn't been to the Super Bowl in 18 years and got lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. Baltimore went 12 years between Super Bowls and then ravaged their team in the off season.

So exactly which team are we pointing to as the model for how the Texans should be doing it? Because I see a bunch of other good teams that don't seem to be capable of sustaining their success and sitting on their couches like Jacksonville and Kansas City.

[powda]

Originally Posted by sandman

Well, parity is the NFL's version of the Law of Gravity. It's immutable. During Kubiak's tenure, there have been ELEVEN different teams go to the Super Bowl. There have been SIX different winners with only one team winning twice - NYG - and they miss the playoffs as much as they make Super Bowl runs. San Fran hadn't been to the Super Bowl in 18 years and got lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. Baltimore went 12 years between Super Bowls and then ravaged their team in the off season.

So exactly which team are we pointing to as the model for how the Texans should be doing it? Because I see a bunch of other good teams that don't seem to be capable of sustaining their success and sitting on their couches like Jacksonville and Kansas City.

There are some good models out there like the steelers and pats. I guess the real question here is how long should a team go without a superbowl? What's a reasonable expectation for a fan base? 1 sb every 10 years? Mediocrity is not something i'll settle for as fan...not for a decade anyway. It shouldnt be a crime to ask for more then what we've gotten...

If higher expectations invite criticism try asking any player why they play the game. It's not to settle for 2nd place.

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by powda

Anybody know what time the picks will be announced? I'm assuming 12p est but I can't find that anywhere.

I have only seen the "afternnon."

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

Last season. I made a whole big post about this stuff in the Mock section. LINK

This is what I'm looking at for our qualifying free agent losses and some comparables:

Dutch, is there any quick way to look at the state of the other 31 teams?

[sandman]

Originally Posted by powda

There are some good models out there like the steelers and pats. I guess the real question here is how long should a team go without a superbowl? What's a reasonable expectation for a fan base? 1 sb every 10 years? Mediocrity is not something i'll settle for as fan...not for a decade anyway. It shouldnt be a crime to ask for more then what we've gotten...

If higher expectations invite criticism try asking any player why they play the game. It's not to settle for 2nd place.

Interesting thought about every 10 years. Ran some numbers going back 10/20/30 years from current year, and there are only three teams teams that have a Super Bowl appearance in each of the last three decades: San Fran, New England, NY Giants. And SF barely made it in, with getting on appearance in each of the last decades.

11 teams have made only one appearance in 30 years. 5 teams made two appearances in the 30 years. 7 teams did not make a single appearance during this time.

Also of note, outside of the '84-'93 decade when four separate teams made at least three appearances (Washington, San Fran, Denver, Buffalo) only two teams made at least three appearances in the '94-'03 or '04-'13 decades: New England and Pittsburgh both in this current decade.

So basically, unless you've been a Patriots or Giants fan for the last 30 years, your team is not meeting expectations.

[powda]

Originally Posted by sandman

Interesting thought about every 10 years. Ran some numbers going back 10/20/30 years from current year, and there are only three teams teams that have a Super Bowl appearance in each of the last three decades: San Fran, New England, NY Giants. And SF barely made it in, with getting on appearance in each of the last decades.

11 teams have made only one appearance in 30 years. 5 teams made two appearances in the 30 years. 7 teams did not make a single appearance during this time.

Also of note, outside of the '84-'93 decade when four separate teams made at least three appearances (Washington, San Fran, Denver, Buffalo) only two teams made at least three appearances in the '94-'03 or '04-'13 decades: New England and Pittsburgh both in this current decade.

So basically, unless you've been a Patriots or Giants fan for the last 30 years, your team is not meeting expectations.

Good stuff sand. Maybe i'll stop looking at this from a team pov and approach it from a city standpoint. We've been wandering in the desert for a long time if you include the oilers. Now thats not fair to anyone with the Texans...but goddamned this city is due.