Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Forget a good, solid team. Let's go for amazing.

Nighthawk

Nighthawk

Rookie
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.
 
Solid but dull, please.

You're making the assumption that our team will be composed of nothing but nobodies with no one special if we go the team route.
 
Nighthawk-

Although I share your desire of drafting VY I would trade anyone player for a Championship if the alternative meant no championship. Example: I'm cool with Hakeem Olajuwan cuz we eventually got a couple but if we were to never get one the Bulls win 8 straight (imagine if MJ never retired) then I would've been the first in line to say we made a mistake by passing on MJ when we had the chance to get him.

Same goes for this scenario. We have all players at our disposal for one pick (the #1 overall) and we deathly need to make the right decision. My opinion we need VY, others say Bush. My opinion is Bush is a Band-aid on a bad gash while VY is the the stitches needed to stop the bleeding permanently.
 
Nighthawk said:
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.
Click to expand...


The best post I have seen from you, very nice job.
Personally, I have been leaning towards a trade down scenario from day one, not that I don't think Bush and VY (and I really like VY) will be great players but that we have too many holes to plug. But you have done a great job of stating your case, and got me wondering. Some will say it is all about the Championships and the W's and with good reason. It is however a little unfair to compare the past accomplishments of Earl Campbell that have already been cemented in our memories to the possiblities of what Might will happen. That is why hindsight is 20/20 and the keyword is Might, and the same reason we can't close our minds to that possibility once more. Only time will tell and in the present it is not always that clear.
 
Okay you made some vaild points, but you made the most clear one!

We have to draft Vince, best fit! RB come a dime a dozen now days,

look at the top drafted backs last season, no big deals!!! Vince is a Talent

that comes around once every 12-15 years, a forsure hall-of-famer!

Sure Bush is great, but unproven.... I think D.Davis is good, and could do a

great job if healthy and an upgraded O.line! Think about it!!!!!! Carr has pretty

good trade value? (I think, he does dosn't he?) hell draft young, then Trade

Carr, #2, #3, #4 pick, and P.Buc for the #2 overall from NO, and get your

Bush!!! (now that would be something! God, I would be a great Pro GM!)

what do ya'll think about my post, please fill me in guys i've been outta of the

loop) !! CANT WAIT UNTIL: NEXT YEAR!!!!!
 
Nighthawk, I agree w/ most everything in your post. I would not take astonishing over a championship though. My desire to have VY is that he WILL lead us to a championship; not just to watch the exciting, unbelievable plays that he'll make. Those plays are just icing on the cake (just like his being from Houston), but it is these exciting, unbelievable plays that makes him special and will help lead the team to the SB.

I love what BigBTexan Fan said...."Bush is a Band-aid on a bad gash while VY is the the stitches needed to stop the bleeding permanently." That is exactly why I want VY. He'll solidify the team for the future IMO. I just can't envision Carr ever leading us to the SB...if we do make it to the SB w/ Carr as our QB, I feel like our defense will have to be like the 2000 Ravens and they'll be the ones leading us there.
 
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"
 
Thunder Well said.

Heart i belive is Key in the NFL, I would draft heart over speed, size, or
overall Talent! Im not saying take the "rudy" type player, but I belive
its a strong factor, and a rare factor! How many players have a chance
to play for there home squad? Vince loves the Texans, You can see it! It shines!
It would be such a huge mistake to pass on him! Has anyone seen the commerical of him, with the Texans hemlet in the background? Please Gary,
make the best, right, and sound choice- pick the HomeTown Hero- #10 V.Young!

Go Texans!!!! - ps- whats Carr's trade value? Thanks
 
You VY homers are incredible. He's the one with ONE good season under his belt. We have no DATA on how he will do pulling out from under center??? He's the QB in this draft with question marks. I see him as a taller MV so if he doesn't want to find out the hard way, he better hope that he is drafted by a team who has a veteran in place which could give him 18 to 24 months to adjust.
 
TEXANFAN23435 said:
You VY homers are incredible. He's the one with ONE good season under his belt. We have no DATA on how he will do pulling out from under center??? He's the QB in this draft with question marks. I see him as a taller MV so if he doesn't want to find out the hard way, he better hope that he is drafted by a team who has a veteran in place which could give him 18 to 24 months to adjust.
Click to expand...

You VY bashers are incredible.

While I understand that he will have to learn and adjust to playing under center as opposed to shotgun, I just don't seeing it being as big a problem as you do. I have come to realize that even if he did play under center, there would be some that would say, "what if he has to play in the shotgun sometime? Can he do it?" The kid is smart and talented...he can adjust.

I find it interesting that you see him as a taller MV. Why is that? Because MV is the only one that has running skills like VY? That must be your only basis for this comparison b/c if you review their stats, you'll see that VY is a MUCH better passer and QB than Vick was when he was coming out of college. The simple fact that you'd compare the two shows how little you know about VY and his abilities.

:superman:
 
TEXANFAN23435 said:
You VY homers are incredible. He's the one with ONE good season under his belt. We have no DATA on how he will do pulling out from under center???
Click to expand...
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.
 
Vinny said:
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

that link didnt so much work for me vinny...it tried to pull up in windows media player and then i got sound but no visual:brickwall
 
thunderkyss said:
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"
Click to expand...

Did you honestly call the 49er/Dallas teams of the 90's dull? I can name O Lineman from those teams. This all comes down to taste in how you like your football. If you like watching 7 step drops and deep bombs, then ya, go with the Rams. If you like watching perfectly executed running plays and He-Man blocks by the O-line, then you want the Cowboys. If you like precision passing, then you want the 49ers, it all comes down to preference...Personally, I would rather have a team that could steamroll any other on the ground and plays lockdown defense. When WRs get planted over the middle and QBs get chin-checked, THAT's excitement...

But yeah, it's (been) time for DC to Man Up...
 
Vinny said:
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

Good clip, not only because he looks just perfect taking the ball under center, but because he appears to look off his reciever, and check through at least one, maybe two other receivers before finding the one he ends up hitting. Something certain QBs who shall remain nameless seem to have trouble doing.
 
AustinJB said:
You VY bashers are incredible.

While I understand that he will have to learn and adjust to playing under center as opposed to shotgun, I just don't seeing it being as big a problem as you do. I have come to realize that even if he did play under center, there would be some that would say, "what if he has to play in the shotgun sometime? Can he do it?" The kid is smart and talented...he can adjust.

I find it interesting that you see him as a taller MV. Why is that? Because MV is the only one that has running skills like VY? That must be your only basis for this comparison b/c if you review their stats, you'll see that VY is a MUCH better passer and QB than Vick was when he was coming out of college. The simple fact that you'd compare the two shows how little you know about VY and his abilities.

:superman:
Click to expand...

This is one of the truest statements I have seen posted on this entire discussion. Young and Vick are the same in that they are Black, fast, and play QB, that's it. Why does no one compare Young as a more athletic Roethilisberger? They are much more alike in stature and Ben is very mobile for his size. Ben doesn't run all the time, but when he does, he gets positive yards; imagine that with a few extra 10-15 even 25yd chunks here and there. I suppose everyone's concern with Young being under center is making reads (of course), but what do we really think is going to happen? Is Young, a great athlete at QB not going to be able to keep his head up (making reads) and take steps backwards at the same time? The Option-read was used at TX to take advantage of his ability to run the option. In the pros, the threat of him being able to take off in man coverage almost forces zone and would be a nightmare to defend in short yardage situations. Every QB has a learning curve; Carr will have a learning curve with a new system this year; if you have the ability, then it is simply a matter of repitition...
 
AustinJB said:
You VY bashers are incredible.

While I understand that he will have to learn and adjust to playing under center as opposed to shotgun, I just don't seeing it being as big a problem as you do. I have come to realize that even if he did play under center, there would be some that would say, "what if he has to play in the shotgun sometime? Can he do it?" The kid is smart and talented...he can adjust.

I find it interesting that you see him as a taller MV. Why is that? Because MV is the only one that has running skills like VY? That must be your only basis for this comparison b/c if you review their stats, you'll see that VY is a MUCH better passer and QB than Vick was when he was coming out of college. The simple fact that you'd compare the two shows how little you know about VY and his abilities.

:superman:
Click to expand...


Better than McNabb, Culpepper, Favre, etc... to boot.

TreWardTxn said:
Did you honestly call the 49er/Dallas teams of the 90's dull? I can name O Lineman from those teams. This all comes down to taste in how you like your football. If you like watching 7 step drops and deep bombs, then ya, go with the Rams. If you like watching perfectly executed running plays and He-Man blocks by the O-line, then you want the Cowboys. If you like precision passing, then you want the 49ers, it all comes down to preference...Personally, I would rather have a team that could steamroll any other on the ground and plays lockdown defense. When WRs get planted over the middle and QBs get chin-checked, THAT's excitement...

But yeah, it's (been) time for DC to Man Up...
Click to expand...

It's all relative........ I'm saying the Rams were Amazing, which they were... those other two teams IMHO while exciting to watch, were solidly built teams on both sides of the Ball..... the Rams, were ranked like 29th in D.
 
Vinny said:
I think Young was 30-2 at Texas as a starter...not a bad, 'ONE good season'. He looks ok under center to me, but you actually watch him play to know this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...


Are you crazy?? He took like five steps back.... looked to his right, then his left, then back to his right.. Then, he started bouncing up in the pocket....

You are crazy if you think that kind of play will make it in the NFL.

:sarcasm:
 
thunderkyss said:
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"
Click to expand...

TK, that is the difference between a winner and a loser. A winner accepts responsibility and says what do I need to get it done.
 
Nighthawk said:
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.
Click to expand...

This is why you are not a football coach! Ask any coach and they would take a dull winning team over the astonishing team b/c the spectacular fades but good solid teams remain worth watching for years.

It should be noted that the teams in the Super Bowl today are the solid dull type. What happened to the astonishing team, the Colts, the last few seasons? It seems to me I would much rather the like the Patriots, Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks, or Panthers. These teams are solid football teams, I am sorry if they cannot entertain you.

Vince Young is a wonderful talent and I think he will eventually be a very good player in the NFL. However, I think everyone in Texas, myself included, has a severe set of beer-googles on when viewing his talents. You are mistaking the idea that having the overall best player makes for the overall best team. Vince Young may be great, but his value to the Texans would not exceed David Carr + Reggie Bush or D'Brickashaw Furguson. You have to consider what makes the best "team." Individual talents do not make the team, sure they may be "astonishing" and fun to watch, but football is about winning.

Do you go in business to have a great year once a decade, or to make money every year? I hope to make money every year or else you may have trouble putting food on the table. The same is true with football, you want to win and you want to win often. I do not care how you get it done, just getter done.

Kubiak is not about flash or gimmicks, he is a rock solid guy that is going to build the team and organization right. You are knocking the Broncos, but this is likely the second or third best organization in the NFL (behind the Patriots and possibily the Steelers). The team has been a consistent winner for 20 years. I would much rather take that then a couple of good years during the Love Ya Blue era and the Run-and-Shoot theatrics.
 
Nighthawk said:
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you would rather have a team in Houston with one big superstar that you can watch instead of having a championship team?
 
thunderkyss said:
Nighthawk.......


St Louis-> Amazing team-> 2 SuperBowls
Dallas/49ers->dull(relatively speaking)->5 rings.....



Honestly, I don't call myself an Oiler fan anymore.... if they don't want to be in Houston....... I gots nut'n fo'em...... I'm so glad they are gone.

I wanted a fresh start... I'd like a tradition of winning to come to our city.

Have you been watching BenRoth telling the NFL network guys how he felt soooo bad about loosing that one game last year, that he went to Bettis, apologized, and swore that if the Bus would come back, Ben said, "I will get you there".......? That's what I want out of our QB....... is it David's fault that we went 2-14?? no, but he should act like it is...... he should come into that locker room, and say, "Guys, I'm sorry I couldn't get you guys more wins last year. I'm sorry that people are calling you loosers, & I'm sorry that they do not respect you. I'm putting my name on this board... this means I'll be here @ 6:00a.m. watching film, and studying.... and I'll be on the field @ 5:00p.m., working on my game because I'm tired of being a loser. If you're tired of being losers, and want to become a champion, put your name on this board, and meet me here before practice, and on the field after practice, and I'll get you to the playoffs...... word is bond..... peace"
Click to expand...
Big Ben threw 3 picks in that game! Including one that was returned for a TD when they were only down by 10 and with the ball in scoring range. Hate to break it to you, but it was Big Ben's fault they lost that game. Look, if we draft VY, or any other QB for that matter, he will get pounded just like Carr. Until you get a mediocre O-line, we will not succeed on offense.
 
Seattle is a 'solid' team and look where its gotten them

Edit: ok a good few other people have basically made the same point so sorry just read the first 5 posts
 
The whole Bush/Bandaid and VY/Stitches analogy was hilarious.

Bush and Young are more like morphine shots. Gets you feeling good, but gets you nowhere. Maybe covered by Medicare.
 
Nighthawk said:
This is an essay more than a msg, but bear with me. I’m trying to sort out the Vince Young, David Carr, Reggie Bush thing, and what it comes down to for me (and I suspect some others) is that Vince Young looks like he might be a once in a lifetime player, a great player, not just an excellent player. Bush looks like he might be an excellent player (like all the running backs he’s been compared to, save Sayers). And Carr looks like he might be a pretty good player, once Kubiak coaches him up.

And that is what the talk is all about, the _possibility_ that Vince Young is the rare remarkable player like (but not in the same way as) Earl Campbell. But on that level.

When I think about Houston teams I cared about, it’s always the teams with standout players, players who are singular, not to be repeated or replaced, one of a kind guys. They just make the game interesting in a way it isn’t if all you’ve got is a really “good” team. I hesitate to say this now, with Kubiak in the fold, because he’s on record as favoring the team concept, and what that means, usually, is no superstar players. No heroes, no one of a kinds.

Look at Denver now. Sure, it’s a good team, but I’m not sure you can care too much about ‘em, win or lose. Now think back to the Oilers of Earl and Pastorini, and Burroughs and Renfro. Earl was the bigger than life guy, it did not matter what he did, every single time he touched the ball it was exciting. He made 5 yards the most exciting five yards in football, almost every time. You wanted Earl and the rest of those guys to win because Earl was special. To a lesser degree, lots of others on the team were special, and Earl made them more special. Without Earl I’m not sure we’d have cared so much. In his way Moon was like that, too. Great passing, an attack that for a while terrified everybody in the league, and might have gone further except for the Buffalo tragedy. Some bad PR you can't escape, and when the D went in the Dumpster, well that was it for the Run & Shoot. Football guys still say you can't run that offense in the pros. Don't tell Moon. 547 yards in that game--was it against Denver? I forget.

So this is why I think the Texans ought to draft Young, on the chance, and pretty fair chance at that, that he turns out to be that Earl Campbell kind of player, the one that sparks the rest of the team, the city, the whole world of professional football.

And that's what it comes down to for me. Would I rather win a superbowl with a solid but dull team or have an astonishing team that didn't quite get there? I'll take astonishing every time. Frankly, I don't care that the Oilers did not win a super bowl with Earl Campbell, and I would not trade the Earl Campbell years for a super bowl ring for the Oilers. Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?

Kubiak might build a good, solid team without Young. And Bush might be a quicker fix (though, frankly, that’s just speculation, no more or less likely than Vince Young coming in and burning up the league). But I don’t care about a quicker fix. I want to see astonishing and wonderful players who stand out from the crowd, who are NOT just excellent NFL players, but are the remarkable players. Players like Earl Campbell, who take your breath away. Players about whom you can say there hasn’t been a guy like him before or since.

Am I sure Vince is that guy? No. But he seems like our best shot at it.
Click to expand...

That's pathetic. Sorry, don't mean to offend, but I think that's absolutely pathetic . . . to place the need to "be entertained" over the value of team concept, and desire to see your team win. I imagine watching the New England Patriots win all those Super Bowls was really boring to you . . .watching all those "boring no-names" placing the value of "the team" above anything else.

"Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?"

I find it absolutely unconscionable that anyone in his right mind wouldn't.

"Winning isn't everything. It's the ONLY thing!"

The name of the person who said that, has his name inscribed on the trophy that will be awarded to the winning team today. And to think that someone would take the attitude that you have towards NFL football would make that man turn over in his grave.


________________________________
 
Maddict5 said:
Seattle is a 'solid' team and look where its gotten them

Edit: ok a good few other people have basically made the same point so sorry just read the first 5 posts
Click to expand...

You're about to find out what "solid" gets you in the Big Game...
 
TreWardTxn said:
You're about to find out what "solid" gets you in the Big Game...
Click to expand...

I agree...lol.

HynesWardTerribleTowel.jpg
 
bdiddy said:
This is why you are not a football coach! Ask any coach and they would take a dull winning team over the astonishing team b/c the spectacular fades but good solid teams remain worth watching for years.

It should be noted that the teams in the Super Bowl today are the solid dull type. What happened to the astonishing team, the Colts, the last few seasons? It seems to me I would much rather the like the Patriots, Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks, or Panthers. These teams are solid football teams, I am sorry if they cannot entertain you.

Vince Young is a wonderful talent and I think he will eventually be a very good player in the NFL. However, I think everyone in Texas, myself included, has a severe set of beer-googles on when viewing his talents. You are mistaking the idea that having the overall best player makes for the overall best team. Vince Young may be great, but his value to the Texans would not exceed David Carr + Reggie Bush or D'Brickashaw Furguson. You have to consider what makes the best "team." Individual talents do not make the team, sure they may be "astonishing" and fun to watch, but football is about winning.

Do you go in business to have a great year once a decade, or to make money every year? I hope to make money every year or else you may have trouble putting food on the table. The same is true with football, you want to win and you want to win often. I do not care how you get it done, just getter done.

Kubiak is not about flash or gimmicks, he is a rock solid guy that is going to build the team and organization right. You are knocking the Broncos, but this is likely the second or third best organization in the NFL (behind the Patriots and possibily the Steelers). The team has been a consistent winner for 20 years. I would much rather take that then a couple of good years during the Love Ya Blue era and the Run-and-Shoot theatrics.
Click to expand...

Any REAL coach will tell you that he wants the guy that makes the other guys around him lift their level of performance. This is not a myth, players like this actually do exists, people feed off their competitiveness and spirit. Barry Sanders himself (greatest running back talent, ever could not lift his team beyond mediocrity, and in his defense, that had a lot to do with poor management and personnel decisions. Everyone knows that Barry was not the kind of vocal leader every team needs, he let his play do the talking. What I'm saying is the team needs somebody that can mentally elevate them to that level...
 
bdiddy said:
Ask any coach and they would take a dull winning team over the astonishing team b/c the spectacular fades but good solid teams remain worth watching for years.
Click to expand...

Different strokes. Maybe you remember all the dull, solid teams. I remember Earl Campbell.

I'm afraid you're simply wrong. The spectacular does not fade.
 
texan279 said:
So you're saying you would rather have a team in Houston with one big superstar that you can watch instead of having a championship team?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying I would rather have a team with a touch of greatness. If it has that I can live without the silly championship. Greatness is indelible.
 
This may be a little off yhe line here but what about this scenario.We go ahead and take Bush,let Vy go to the Titans.4Years from now after Vince has had some grooming,if he is so adament about playing for the Texans,maybe we could trade for him or even pick him up off free agency.I'm sure we all agree that we are 2-3 years from a serious playoff run at best. By then we will know for sure if Carr is a flop or not.
 
Marcus said:
That's pathetic. Sorry, don't mean to offend, but I think that's absolutely pathetic . . . to place the need to "be entertained" over the value of team concept, and desire to see your team win. I imagine watching the New England Patriots win all those Super Bowls was really boring to you . . .watching all those "boring no-names" placing the value of "the team" above anything else.

"Ask yourselves if you would. Make it a simple exchange: give up Earl, win a super bowl. Would you?"

I find it absolutely unconscionable that anyone in his right mind wouldn't.

"Winning isn't everything. It's the ONLY thing!"

The name of the person who said that, has his name inscribed on the trophy that will be awarded to the winning team today. And to think that someone would take the attitude that you have towards NFL football would make that man turn over in his grave.
Click to expand...

No offense taken. But it's not entertainment, it's reaching the sublime, the transcendent. The point at which something (whatever it is) is done so brilliantly that it takes your breath away.

Lombardi was a fine coach but the dictum is just stupid. You ought to know that by now. Winning is just bar talk. Excellence fills up the heart and soul.
 
Nighthawk said:
No offense taken. But it's not entertainment, it's reaching the sublime, the transcendent. The point at which something (whatever it is) is done so brilliantly that it takes your breath away.

Lombardi was a fine coach but the dictum is just stupid. You ought to know that by now. Winning is just bar talk. Excellence fills up the heart and soul.
Click to expand...

Well . . . all I can say about that is . . if most of the posters on this board take your viewpoint about the game, then I can finally understand the obsession with Vince Young.

(sigh) I'm going to end up rooting against this team before it's all said and done. I can just see it coming.
 
Hardcore Texan said:
The best post I have seen from you, very nice job.
Personally, I have been leaning towards a trade down scenario from day one, not that I don't think Bush and VY (and I really like VY) will be great players but that we have too many holes to plug. But you have done a great job of stating your case, and got me wondering. Some will say it is all about the Championships and the W's and with good reason. It is however a little unfair to compare the past accomplishments of Earl Campbell that have already been cemented in our memories to the possiblities of what Might will happen. That is why hindsight is 20/20 and the keyword is Might, and the same reason we can't close our minds to that possibility once more. Only time will tell and in the present it is not always that clear.
Click to expand...

:homer: I think your right about trading to plug holes. Stick to your guns. What could be is not necessarily what will be. VY might be a great NFL player and then again he might not be. The same goes for Mr. Bush.We know that DC is middle of the pack right now. With a revamped Ol and a Head Coach that specializes in QB's I think we are looking pretty good. Remember they key word... Might!! Thats all a potential draft pick represents.
Whatever Earl Did is not material to any discussion about our current team.
 
David Carr has a great chance to be a really good Quarterback. I just dont think its in Houston with all the stuff hes gone through and the Texans players not sure if hes here to stay or what. I really think you guys should trade Carr for a 3rd round pick or whatever you can get for him and draft Vince Young. After that draft all defence. Then just go straight up for Edgerinn James since the Colts will release him. get some lineman that dont have to be state-of-the-art lineman, just ones you can give your quarterback a chance and open holes for Edgerinn.

Truthfully, i dont think Reggie Bush has the dicipline to run the Denver style of offence. Then the system that Kubiak might bring will pro-long edgerinn james career for 2 more extra years then what he would play anywhere else.
 
Nighthawk said:
No offense taken. But it's not entertainment, it's reaching the sublime, the transcendent. The point at which something (whatever it is) is done so brilliantly that it takes your breath away.

Lombardi was a fine coach but the dictum is just stupid. You ought to know that by now. Winning is just bar talk. Excellence fills up the heart and soul.
Click to expand...
Your view makes no sense. You can't reach excellence without winning a title. Excellence=Championship winning team, anything short of that is short of excellence.

Look at Marino, He has become a metaphor in the foot notes of football history, example when his brodcast partner Boomer who was sitting next to Dan called Peyton Manning, "The Dan Marino of our Era".

You say you have memories of Earl Campbell, but nobody outside of Houston has memories. Everybody around the league has memories of the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Patriots, and every other WINNING team.

The only thing that can take my breath away is watching a team being built and watching them grow and then watching them play brilliantly TOGETHER in a championship game.
 
Carr Bomb said:
Your view makes no sense. You can't reach excellence without winning a title. Excellence=Championship winning team, anything short of that is short of excellence.

Look at Marino, He has become a metaphor in the foot notes of football history, example when his brodcast partner Boomer who was sitting next to Dan called Peyton Manning, "The Dan Marino of our Era".

You say you have memories of Earl Campbell, but nobody outside of Houston has memories. Everybody around the league has memories of the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Patriots, and every other WINNING team.

The only thing that can take my breath away is watching a team being built and watching them grow and then watching them play brilliantly TOGETHER in a championship game.
Click to expand...


Everybody remembers Earl Campbell. Sure, it would have been sweeter if we'd won a super bowl with him, for him, for us. But as it played out, we got Earl and he us, and that's enough.

Did you watch today's "super" bowl? A joke. A couple of ordinary teams playing very ordinary football. Will be forgotten immediately, except by the football press whose job it is to make much of it. It was a dull game, period. Bill Cowher will remember it forever, probably, and some of the players, but otherwise it was as undistinguished a performance as could be imagined.

I want to win a championship as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of being a "competent" team. I want the Texans to be a brilliant team. Almost by definition that means no David Carr. That means no "serviceable" running backs. That means no run of the mill offensive linemen. That means no pretty good defensive backs.

But I'm realistic, too. You can't have everything. Maybe -- just maybe -- Vince Young is destined to have an NFL career just like his college career, just like his Rose Bowl performance. Wouldn't you want to be there for that if he does? Wouldn't you risk the loss of Bush for the possibility that our next QB might be the Michael Jordan of the NFL? Or another Earl Campbell? Or whatever superior sports figure you'd care to name?

I figure this: Vince Young only costs us Bush. We've already got Carr and Dominic Davis and a couple of other good RBs. And if they don't want to trade Carr now, why, that's fine--keep him as insurance. After a couple years trade Carr or Young, whichever you don't want.

What we do not want to do is miss the opportunity to have Vince Young as our QB if he turns out to be as spectacular as he's been so far.
 
Nighthawk, with that type of outlook, and with your priorities so screwed, you clearly don't deserve to have Vince Young on your football team.

Yesterday's Super bowl was a boring yawn. I'll admit that. But I'm not a Steelers fan, nor am I a Seahawks fan. If I were, then it wouldn't be boring. If both of those teams had an "Earl Campbell", it would make no difference.

You look at Vince Young as some kind of hedge to a bet. It's like, "Oh well, if the Texans win, fine, if the they lose, fine, but I'll still "be entertained".

That's the 'corporate' outlook, and it makes me gag.
 
Bobo said:
Games are won in the trenches. Last I heard, Young doesn't play in the OL.
Click to expand...


That's about the goofiest crap I've ever heard. Sure, this is a team sport, but having a dominant Offensive line means nothing, if you don't have the right QB, REcievers, RunningBacks, etc....

As an example of having the right QB, look at NE, the year Brady replaced Bledsoe. The Jags, the year Brunnel's was replaced by LeftWhich, NO, the year Brooks took over for Blake, ST Louis, the year Warner took over, Minnesota this year. In each of those examples, the starter went down, and never came back, because the alternate was moving the ball & the Starter wasn't. Same Oline, Same Recievers, Same RBs.......
 
thunderkyss said:
That's about the goofiest crap I've ever heard. Sure, this is a team sport, but having a dominant Offensive line means nothing, if you don't have the right QB, REcievers, RunningBacks, etc....

As an example of having the right QB, look at NE, the year Brady replaced Bledsoe. The Jags, the year Brunnel's was replaced by LeftWhich, NO, the year Brooks took over for Blake, ST Louis, the year Warner took over, Minnesota this year. In each of those examples, the starter went down, and never came back, because the alternate was moving the ball & the Starter wasn't. Same Oline, Same Recievers, Same RBs.......
Click to expand...


Brunell outperformed Lefty this season, Brooks is done in New Orleans, Warner plays in Arizona now, and Culpepper did not return this season because he was still rehabing his injury. And Culpepper will be the Viking's QB in the upcoming season unless he does not want to be.
 
texan279 said:
Brunell outperformed Lefty this season, Brooks is done in New Orleans, Warner plays in Arizona now, and Culpepper did not return this season because he was still rehabing his injury. And Culpepper will be the Viking's QB in the upcoming season unless he does not want to be.
Click to expand...

Great argument......... totally missing the point. I'm saying Bobo's "war in the trenches" argument is completly off-base, and wrong about the effectiveness of having the right QB.
 
thunderkyss said:
Great argument......... totally missing the point. I'm saying Bobo's "war in the trenches" argument is completly off-base, and wrong about the effectiveness of having the right QB.
Click to expand...

One reason these QB's can step in is because they have decent/above average/great OL to get behind. Without an OL, any QB looks average or poor. Look at Tom Brady when he is under a lot of repeated pressure in a game, or P.Manning, or (for running QB sake) Mike Vick. When a QB is pressured many times a game, he makes quick and often bad decisions. "The game is often won in the trenches" also means on the defensive side of the ball. If your DL can control the other teams OL, then you force their QB to make quick and often bad decisions. Again, those few QBs that you metioned stepped in behind pretty good OLs.
 
Texans86 said:
One reason these QB's can step in is because they have decent/above average/great OL to get behind. Without an OL, any QB looks average or poor. Look at Tom Brady when he is under a lot of repeated pressure in a game, or P.Manning, or (for running QB sake) Mike Vick. When a QB is pressured many times a game, he makes quick and often bad decisions. "The game is often won in the trenches" also means on the defensive side of the ball. If your DL can control the other teams OL, then you force their QB to make quick and often bad decisions. Again, those few QBs that you metioned stepped in behind pretty good OLs.
Click to expand...


Once again, the original post I was replying to seemed to minimize the effect of the quarterback...... I agree with you and did not intend to suggest that the lines are not important.

You have to have the right QB behind the right O-Line. I mentioned the QBs in particular situations, because the O-Line did not change in any of those instances. If they were in fact dominating Offensive lines, then they were dominating with Culpepper, Brunnel, Bledsoe, Maddox(I think), or whoever else was in the line up, but they weren't. As a matter of fact, each one of those QBs were sufferring from what appeared to be protection problems. Change the QB, and voila....... protection problems went away. Brunnel & Culpepper oddly enough are as mobile as Carr, and was replaced by a real gunslinger. Bledsoe is not a statue, and can get out of trouble... it's definitely not his strong suit. He was replaced by Brady, who is more or less pretty Bledsoe like. So I'm not saying it's a simple mobile vs immobile issue, but that changing the QB(ala YOung for Carr) may have more to do with winning, than what is going on in the trenches.
 
thunderkyss said:
Once again, the original post I was replying to seemed to minimize the effect of the quarterback...... I agree with you and did not intend to suggest that the lines are not important.

You have to have the right QB behind the right O-Line. I mentioned the QBs in particular situations, because the O-Line did not change in any of those instances. If they were in fact dominating Offensive lines, then they were dominating with Culpepper, Brunnel, Bledsoe, Maddox(I think), or whoever else was in the line up, but they weren't. As a matter of fact, each one of those QBs were sufferring from what appeared to be protection problems. Change the QB, and voila....... protection problems went away. Brunnel & Culpepper oddly enough are as mobile as Carr, and was replaced by a real gunslinger. Bledsoe is not a statue, and can get out of trouble... it's definitely not his strong suit. He was replaced by Brady, who is more or less pretty Bledsoe like. So I'm not saying it's a simple mobile vs immobile issue, but that changing the QB(ala YOung for Carr) may have more to do with winning, than what is going on in the trenches.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe you are comparng apples to oranges. First, Bledsoe and Brunnel are on the downside of their careers, so comparing them to young "gunslingers" is a little unfair. The entire Vikings organization was in chaos when Culpepper went down with an injury, when he was replaced by Johnson. Who knows where his head was. Brunnel did not fit the new coaches scheme, and is older, therefore, he was replaced and sent packing to Washington, where he has done fairly well. Bledsoe went down with an injury, therby forcing Brady into the line-up. In game two, where he got hurt, he had a 60.6% completion rate, and 400 yards. I would hardly call that struggling. Kurt Warner took over for Trent Green, who was injured in a preseason game. Green had come over from the Washington Redskins, where he threw for 3,441 yards, 23 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions. Green never got a chance in the Rams offense. Finally, we come to Aaron Brooks. If you consider Aaron Brooks an improvemnt over Carr, well, I think I just wasted 15 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top