1st Round- DeAndre Hopkins WR Texans

[thunderkyss]

Oh and to state what should be ludicrously obvious - ANY WR BROUGHT IN WITH AJ WAS GOING TO BE THE #2 WR.

True.

It would be a problem if we didn't have Andre & Hopkins turned out to be bleh..... but we continue to build the defense, because Hopkins is "good enough"

Similar to we never would have got a true #1 CB had we not parted ways with Dunta. Dunta was "good enough"

 

[TexansSeminole]

It's funny how so many people cite statistics from last year when comparing Hopkins and Watkins. Y'all clearly did not watch, or follow Clemson for the past two seasons. Two or three people have already tried to compare the two player's statistics in 2012, while ignoring Watkins' injury and his play in 2011, as if that is the whole story.

Lesson learned, most people just look at statistics and repeat what they read from others. Any mild football fan that has watched Clemson play in the past two years can see that Watkins is more talented and a better prospect than Hopkins. It's clear as day.

I love Hopkins, but this deal where people compare the two based on 2012 statistics alone is a joke and shows how little they actually know about the situation.

Watkins got suspended for the first two games, he then injured his ankle in his third game back I believe it was. Not to mention, he wasn't even needed for his first game back. Dude barely even saw the field in the second half of that game. The injury continued to bother him until the bowl game against LSU in which he suffered a leg injury very early on. So, he essentially played in only 8.5 games, injured, and still had over 700 yards.

/rant

Sorry, had to get that out there.

 

[Fred]

What's with all of this we crap?

The Texans are BoB's team. He wants a certain type of player on his team and really could care less what the avg fan thinks, as long as those corporate $$$$ keep rolling in.

The NFL is strioctly a big business monopoly that puts what's good for the owners bank accounts 1st and foremost. If you dont see that look at the rules changes God'ell is forcing down the fans throats at the behest of the owners. God'ell could give 2 craps about saftey. But he does care about how much $$$$ the owners are going to have to pay out in the concussion lawsuits. Even if the rule changes will ruin the game that we all love.

End of rant

BTW, I wanted Short over Hopkins. Like most of this yrs draft picks Hopkins is a very good player (He wasn't even the best WR on his college team) but not a true differencemaker.

End of rant??? I doubt it. You hate the NFL, you hate the Texans, you hate McNair (WTF with the BoB anyway?), you hate Rick Smith, you hate Kubiak, you hate Schaub, you hate any Texans player who isn't a felon (because BoB likes non-felons). I have some suggestions for you: Titans, Cowboys, Bengals. More the type owner/player you like.

Whoa...... didn't say the guy wasn't any good, said there were questions. Just like there were questions about Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, Tony Romo, Arian Foster, etc..... There were less questions about Jj Watt.

I agree there are questions. I was just saying the "passed over by x teams" when you are picking at "x+1" is trite silly worn-out and self-defeating.

But anyways, I'm glad to learn that Hopkins is not a difference maker before he has even stepped out on the field. I mean he only had 82 rec, 1,405 (twice as many as the next WR on his team), and 18 TDs (15 more than the next WR on his team) Yep, he sucks and has no shot at making a difference here. What's even more depressing is that it's not just him.. "most of this yrs draft picks" don't have a shot at becoming difference makers. What a complete waste this year's draft was.

You do realize that all 82 catches were bubble screens and busted plays? That not a single one was a true "college level" reception?
(Does make me wonder how bad the receivers rated below Hopkins are...)

 

[Carr Bombed]

It's funny how so many people cite statistics from last year when comparing Hopkins and Watkins. Y'all clearly did not watch, or follow, Clemson for the past two seasons. Two or three people have already tried to compare the two player's statistics in 2012, while ignoring Watkins' injury and his play in 2011, as if that is the whole story.

Lesson learned, most people just look at statistics and repeat what they read from others. Any mild football fan that has watched Clemson play in the past two years can see that Watkins is more talented and a better prospect than Hopkins. It's clear as day.

I love Hopkins, but this deal where people compare the two based on 2012 statistics alone is a joke and shows how little they actually know about the situation.

/rant

Sorry, had to get that out there.

Watkins very well could go on to have a better career, but he was not the #1 option last season. Hopkins is older and probably matured his last season at Clemson.. reason why he had the better season. But PRODUCTION is a big piece to the pie and Hopkins was more productive than Watkins in every damn receiving area (catches, yards, yards per catch, and TDs... and no category was even remotely close) Now Watkins could have a higher ceiling and since he's now stepping into that role we'll now see how his season matches up to the one Hopkins had. Having said that, to try to throw what Hopkins accomplished to the side and act like he wasn't the top target on his team last season is just false.. completely false.

 

[thunderkyss]

Lets be real here. These are people doing these jobs. How do we even know the Viking had made up their mind about trading up when we were on the clock? There are 31 other teams out there constantly making and changing their minds.

After looking at what the Vikings did, I doubt they were interested in our pick.

Surely they knew Austin was out of their reach so they wanted to make sure they got Hopkins or Patterson. After we took Hopkins, they probably tried to get 28 from the Broncos before anyone else could. I think they pushed pretty hard & the Broncos didn't take.

That's the only way I can explain why they gave up so much for 29, because they pushed so hard for 28, didn't get it, so they threw the same offer to the Patriots to make sure no one else had a chance.

 

[TexansSeminole]

Watkins very well could go on to have a better career, but he was not the #1 option last season. Hopkins is older and probably matured his last season at Clemson.. reason why he had the better season. But PRODUCTION is a big piece to the pie and Hopkins was more productive than Watkins in every damn receiving area (catches, yards, yards per catch, and TDs... and no category was even remotely close) Now Watkins could have a higher ceiling and since he's now stepping into that role we'll now see how his season matches up to the one Hopkins had. Having said that, to try to throw what Hopkins accomplished to the side and act like he wasn't the top target on his team last season is just false.. completely false.

Oh, I am not at all taking anything away from Hopkins. I'm just giving some back to Watkins here. Hopkins was my guy for us just as the season ended, so your talking to a Hopkins fan here. I just think it's unfair to leave out so much about the situation and act like Hopkins surpassed Watkins based on pure level of play.

 

[76Texan]

There have been only three freshmen in the history of NCAA football that made the AP All America First Team.

Sammy Watkins was one of them.
That should be enough telling.

(Herschel Walker and Adrian Peterson were the other two.)

 

[infantrycak]

4th - Marshall Faulk.

Oddly Watkins got his 1st team All American with a season which did not match Hopkins 3rd team All American season.

 

[Fred]

After looking at what the Vikings did, I doubt they were interested in our pick.

Surely they knew Austin was out of their reach so they wanted to make sure they got Hopkins or Patterson. After we took Hopkins, they probably tried to get 28 from the Broncos before anyone else could. I think they pushed pretty hard & the Broncos didn't take.

That's the only way I can explain why they gave up so much for 29, because they pushed so hard for 28, didn't get it, so they threw the same offer to the Patriots to make sure no one else had a chance.

Exactly. They were probably sitting waiting until the first one went, then they would try to move up for the other one. Or maybe not, we don't know, which is kind of the point.

It's funny how so many people cite statistics from last year when comparing Hopkins and Watkins. Y'all clearly did not watch, or follow Clemson for the past two seasons. Two or three people have already tried to compare the two player's statistics in 2012, while ignoring Watkins' injury and his play in 2011, as if that is the whole story.

Lesson learned, most people just look at statistics and repeat what they read from others. Any mild football fan that has watched Clemson play in the past two years can see that Watkins is more talented and a better prospect than Hopkins. It's clear as day.

I love Hopkins, but this deal where people compare the two based on 2012 statistics alone is a joke and shows how little they actually know about the situation.

Watkins got suspended for the first two games, he then injured his ankle in his third game back I believe it was. Not to mention, he wasn't even needed for his first game back. Dude barely even saw the field in the second half of that game. The injury continued to bother him until the bowl game against LSU in which he suffered a leg injury very early on. So, he essentially played in only 8.5 games, injured, and still had over 700 yards.

/rant

Sorry, had to get that out there.

Err, OK. Watkins sounds great (if you want someone who is usually suspended or injured j/k sorta) but since he was not available in this draft I don't understand what he has to do with anything, unless the plan is the Texans should suspend operations for a year until he is available. Hopkins was the guy they thought was best at 27 this year. Interesting but not relevant that he is the 1st / 2nd / 12th best on his college team.

 

[76Texan]

4th - Marshall Faulk.

Oddly Watkins got his 1st team All American with a season which did not match Hopkins 3rd team All American season.

I believe I had mentioned before that Watkins is used in multiple way like Patterson at Tennessee.

He returns punts and kicks.
He is used out of the backfield (as a RB) and on WR reverses.

The guy has a mitt for hands at 10-3/4
When he's healthy, he's the most dynamic player on the team.
He's dangerous every time he touches the ball.
If you don't have his Freshman game tapes, just read up on some scouting reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TQCRtp6Peo

Listen to the comment at the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdo9bKZ7q4o

 

[76Texan]

Exactly. They were probably sitting waiting until the first one went, then they would try to move up for the other one. Or maybe not, we don't know, which is kind of the point.



Err, OK. Watkins sounds great (if you want someone who is usually suspended or injured j/k sorta) but since he was not available in this draft I don't understand what he has to do with anything, unless the plan is the Texans should suspend operations for a year until he is available. Hopkins was the guy they thought was best at 27 this year. Interesting but not relevant that he is the 1st / 2nd / 12th best on his college team.

This is why I wanted for the Texans to trade for future draft picks so that they can move up next year to get one of the 3 guys: Watkins, Marquise Lee (USC) or Brandon Coleman (Rutgers - this guy is 6'5 and built like Megatron)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zhPTLZ3Tdc

All three will be Juniors just like Hopkins.

 

[greekdbag]

This is why I wanted for the Texans to trade for future draft picks so that they can move up next year to get one of the 3 guys: Watkins, Marquise Lee (USC) or Brandon Coleman (Rutgers - this guy is 6'5 and built like Megatron)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zhPTLZ3Tdc

All three will be Juniors just like Hopkins.

I understand your thinking and I agree with it to an extent, but I doubt the Texans were going to trade their first for future picks unless they were blown away by a deal. They certainly take the long-term status of the club into account, but they are also in win now mode as well. And I doubt many teams were breaking down the Texans' door with future firsts in order to get the 27th pick in a draft where there was great depth but not as many gamechangers as usual. The weak qb class didn't help.

 

[greekdbag]

The majority of people thought Duane Brown was a reach. The Texans got the guy they wanted then and got the guy they wanted now. Where they got him shouldn't matter if they believed it was a chance he wouldn't be there later. I don't mind you not agreeing with the pick. I actually wanted Robert Woods instead of Hopkins, but that's not who we have and Hopkins clearly was the guy we wanted in the 1st. Makes no difference to me then where they got him if that's the case.

Robert Woods was supposedly the Texans' second target at WR if they didn't get Hopkins. I like what Buffalo did to surround Manuel with talent. Now they have Stevie Johnson, Robert Woods, TJ Graham, Marquise Goodwin, Brad Smith, CJ Spiller, and Fred Jackson.

 

[greekdbag]

"BTW, I wanted Short over Hopkins. Like most of this yrs draft picks Hopkins is a very good player (He wasn't even the best WR on his college team) but not a true differencemaker."


Why did you like Short over Sylvester Williams, steelb? Did you like Datone? And that's kind of a backhanded compliment of Hopkins. That's like saying Roddy White is very good but he's not even the best wr on his team. Who cares? He's still a very good wr. The same could be said about Robert Woods and Marquise Lee, but that doesn't make Woods any less of a prospect either.

 

[76Texan]

I understand your thinking and I agree with it to an extent, but I doubt the Texans were going to trade their first for future picks unless they were blown away by a deal. They certainly take the long-term status of the club into account, but they are also in win now mode as well. And I doubt many teams were breaking down the Texans' door with future firsts in order to get the 27th pick in a draft where there was great depth but not as many gamechangers as usual. The weak qb class didn't help.

I don't know how they did it, but I was checking around for fun starting with 1999 in the draft history section from a couple of sites, and saw that there were four teams with at least two first round picks.

Then in 2000, there were three teams, including the Jets with three picks.

 

[greekdbag]

http://www.battleredblog.com/2013/4/26/4271248/the-film-room-breaking-down-deandre-hopkins

The Film Room: Breaking Down DeAndre Hopkins

 

[TexansSeminole]

Err, OK. Watkins sounds great (if you want someone who is usually suspended or injured j/k sorta) but since he was not available in this draft I don't understand what he has to do with anything, unless the plan is the Texans should suspend operations for a year until he is available. Hopkins was the guy they thought was best at 27 this year. Interesting but not relevant that he is the 1st / 2nd / 12th best on his college team.

Several people used Watkins' drop off in production in 2012, without properly explaining the situation, as a way of countering steelb's argument that Hopkins wasn't the best WR on his team. I was clearing up what the situation at Clemson was this year, because it was being misrepresented.

What don't you understand?

 

[Fred]

Several people used Watkins' drop off in production in 2012, without properly explaining the situation, as a way of countering steelb's argument that Hopkins wasn't the best WR on his team. I was clearing up what the situation at Clemson was this year, because it was being misrepresented.

What don't you understand?

Err, OK. Watkins sounds great (if you want someone who is usually suspended or injured j/k sorta) but since he was not available in this draft I don't understand what he has to do with anything, unless the plan is the Texans should suspend operations for a year until he is available. Hopkins was the guy they thought was best at 27 this year. Interesting but not relevant that he is the 1st / 2nd / 12th best on his college team.

I don't understand why the quality of a player not in this year's draft makes a difference in where / if players in this draft should be picked. I don't think picking Hopkins is a mistake because someone not in the draft is better. Unless, again, the Texans should suspend football operations until Watkins is available which seems to be where 76 is going:

This is why I wanted for the Texans to trade for future draft picks so that they can move up next year to get one of the 3 guys: Watkins, Marquise Lee (USC) or Brandon Coleman (Rutgers - this guy is 6'5 and built like Megatron)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zhPTLZ3Tdc

All three will be Juniors just like Hopkins.

 

[76Texan]

I don't know how they did it, but I was checking around for fun starting with 1999 in the draft history section from a couple of sites, and saw that there were four teams with at least two first round picks.

Then in 2000, there were three teams, including the Jets with three picks.

In 2001, there were two teams, with the Rams having 3 picks.

In 2002, there were two teams.

In 2003, there were four teams.

In 2004, there were five teams, including the Texans.

In 2005, there were four teams.

In 2006, there were three teams.

In 2007, there were two.

In 2008, there were an astounding number of five teams.

In 2009, there were four.

In 2010, there were another four.

In 2011, there were the Saints.

In 2012, there were four.

And in 2013, there were three, with the Vikings amassing 3 picks.

There were several with multiple first round picks in consecutive seasons, too.

 

[Playoffs]

http://www.battleredblog.com/2013/4/26/4271248/the-film-room-breaking-down-deandre-hopkins

The Film Room: Breaking Down DeAndre Hopkins

Deliciously smart.

 

[greekdbag]

In 2001, there were two teams, with the Rams having 3 picks.

In 2002, there were two teams.

In 2003, there were four teams.

In 2004, there were five teams, including the Texans.

In 2005, there were four teams.

In 2006, there were three teams.

In 2007, there were two.

In 2008, there were an astounding number of five teams.

In 2009, there were four.

In 2010, there were another four.

In 2011, there were the Saints.

In 2012, there were four.

And in 2013, there were three, with the Vikings amassing 3 picks.

There were several with multiple first round picks in consecutive seasons, too.

Some of these teams traded up to get another first rounder (like the Saints in 2011 and the Vikings in 2013) and some of these teams traded guys for the picks (Minnesota traded Harvin for Seattle's first rounder in 2013). I'm not sure how many traded prior year's first round picks for future firsts.

 

[76Texan]

Some of these teams traded up to get another first rounder (like the Saints in 2011 and the Vikings in 2013) and some of these teams traded guys for the picks (Minnesota traded Harvin for Seattle's first rounder in 2012). I'm not sure how many traded prior year's first round picks for future firsts.

I don't know either, but I know it has been done.
Or just accumulate two or three future picks (2nd and 3rd).
We should have some comp picks next year, may be as high as the third.
We've seen the Vikings use their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th to get a low first.
We can do something similar, adding our own first, to move up higher.

Or we can always trade Schaub for five first rounders, can't we?

 

[thunderkyss]

I would take a little less than what Belichik can pull off.
If that deal was there, the potential for a similar deal of slightly less value is not fantasy.

Who knows?

I think the Vikings were going to wait until Hopkins or Patterson was off the board. Once one of them was selected, then they were going to try to swoop in & get the other. Had we drafted another position, for instance, Minnesota wouldn't have been looking to trade with New England. Had New England selected Hopkins or Patterson, then Minnesota would have tried to get in to get the other.

 

[76Texan]

Who knows?

I think the Vikings were going to wait until Hopkins or Patterson was off the board. Once one of them was selected, then they were going to try to swoop in & get the other. Had we drafted another position, for instance, Minnesota wouldn't have been looking to trade with New England. Had New England selected Hopkins or Patterson, then Minnesota would have tried to get in to get the other.

Your post is a little confusing about the Vikings' intention.

It's beside the point though; all I was saying is that a trade was a possibility.
Whether they had time to consummate the trade or whether the timing wasn't right are different issues.

There was a team willing to trade up; it's a fact.

 

[thunderkyss]

Your post is a little confusing about the Vikings' intention.

It's beside the point though; all I was saying is that a trade was a possibility.
Whether they had time to consummate the trade or whether the timing wasn't right are different issues.

There was a team willing to trade up; it's a fact.

No, we have no idea. Had we not selected a WR, the Vikings may not have made the trade with the Patriots.

If the Patriots took one of the two, then the Vikings would be looking to get the other.

Had the Patriots not took one of the two (Hopkins, Patterson) the Vikings would have still been waiting.

The idea is that they wanted one of those two WRs, as long as they were both on the board, they were going to watch & let them fall. As soon as one came off, they were going to get the other.

Had the team ahead of us took Patterson, then I'm sure the Vikings would have been calling us for Hopkins. Or if Hopkins were off the board, the Vikings would have traded with us to get Patterson & we would have gladly taken a shoot at Woods later in the draft.

 

[76Texan]

No, we have no idea. Had we not selected a WR, the Vikings may not have made the trade with the Patriots.

If the Patriots took one of the two, then the Vikings would be looking to get the other.

Had the Patriots not took one of the two (Hopkins, Patterson) the Vikings would have still been waiting.

The idea is that they wanted one of those two WRs, as long as they were both on the board, they were going to watch & let them fall. As soon as one came off, they were going to get the other.

Had the team ahead of us took Patterson, then I'm sure the Vikings would have been calling us for Hopkins. Or if Hopkins were off the board, the Vikings would have traded with us to get Patterson & we would have gladly taken a shoot at Woods later in the draft.

What's with the thinking "we have identified our guy"?

Now it's "either/or".

Even with "either/or", wouldn't it be better for them to offer us the same deal so they can have their choice?

 

[76Texan]

Or should they sit there and pray that we don't take a receiver?

All the while, it's been clear that receiver is our biggest need.

 

[thunderkyss]

Or should they sit there and pray that we don't take a receiver?

All the while, it's been clear that receiver is our biggest need.

Why would that be so hard to believe?

You're suggesting that we pass on the bird in the hand & drop out of the first round all together. There were several teams that many thought would have taken a WR before us. Just from the little bit I saw & read, I was shocked Patterson was still there.

& like I said, if Patterson would have gone at 24, the Vikings would have used 25 to pick Hopkins & tried to trade back into the first for Xavier Rhodes later.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Listen.

The one thing that has to be painfully obvious is that every team has their own list of players. And they have those players graded for where they think they should go AND where they think they might go.

You look at this class of receivers and don't see a 1st round talent (and you define a 1st round as a receiver that will develop into a #1.) And that's fine. That's your opinion.

But it's not an opinion shared by the Texans, Rams, and Vikings.

According to your board and your analysis, we would have been better trading back, getting more picks, and then looking for a #1 receiver to replace AJ next season.

What I think you're doing, though, is you're slipping into a Mel Kiper mind-set. You're married to your board, your analysis, and your draft strategy to the point that you're not seeing that other approaches and other analyses and other boards are just as valid. You've spent a lot of time and energy looking at game film on these guys and you think they made a mistake.

That's what draft grades are for. Offering your opinion on how good or bad the team did based on what YOU perceive as the value of the picks and the holes in the team.

But. Ultimately. Just an opinion.

 

[76Texan]

Listen.

The one thing that has to be painfully obvious is that every team has their own list of players. And they have those players graded for where they think they should go AND where they think they might go.

You look at this class of receivers and don't see a 1st round talent (and you define a 1st round as a receiver that will develop into a #1.) And that's fine. That's your opinion.

But it's not an opinion shared by the Texans, Rams, and Vikings.

According to your board and your analysis, we would have been better trading back, getting more picks, and then looking for a #1 receiver to replace AJ next season.

What I think you're doing, though, is you're slipping into a Mel Kiper mind-set. You're married to your board, your analysis, and your draft strategy to the point that you're not seeing that other approaches and other analyses and other boards are just as valid. You've spent a lot of time and energy looking at game film on these guys and you think they made a mistake.

That's what draft grades are for. Offering your opinion on how good or bad the team did based on what YOU perceive as the value of the picks and the holes in the team.

But. Ultimately. Just an opinion.

I've already agreed to it all.
Actually, I've already agreed with it all even before I started posting in this thread.

 

[76Texan]

Why would that be so hard to believe?

You're suggesting that we pass on the bird in the hand & drop out of the first round all together. There were several teams that many thought would have taken a WR before us. Just from the little bit I saw & read, I was shocked Patterson was still there.

& like I said, if Patterson would have gone at 24, the Vikings would have used 25 to pick Hopkins & tried to trade back into the first for Xavier Rhodes later.

What it looks like is that the Vikings had Shariff Flloyd and Xavier Rhodes way ahead of any receiver left on board at the time they took their first pick.
That was why they took those two, right?

Then they traded up to grab a receiver (Patterson), that's a fact right?

Who do you think they have higher on their board?
Hopkins or Patterson?

Let's say they have Patterson (and Hopkins might be the third, the fourth or fifth receiver on their board, whatever.)

Aren't they concerned that the Texans may take Patterson?

 

[thunderkyss]

Aren't they concerned that the Texans may take Patterson?

I believe if the Vikings were concerned the Texans would take Patterson, they would have tried to trade ahead of the Texans & the Texans were most likely never looked at as a trade partner, which brings us back to the beginning....

Just because they traded for the 29th pick does not mean they were interested in the 27th pick.

 

[Playoffs]

Who do you think they have higher on their board?
Hopkins or Patterson?

I think they wanted one or the other.

 

[Fred]

What I think you're doing, though, is you're slipping into a Mel Kiper mind-set.

Hey!!! Whoa!!! Easy with insults! Let's keep it civil! I've seen some serious name calling on the internet, but never anything that harsh!

 

[TexansSeminole]

I don't understand why the quality of a player not in this year's draft makes a difference in where / if players in this draft should be picked. I don't think picking Hopkins is a mistake because someone not in the draft is better. Unless, again, the Texans should suspend football operations until Watkins is available which seems to be where 76 is going:

It doesn't matter at all for Hopkins, your right. I was just defending Watkins. Both are great players.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Hey!!! Whoa!!! Easy with insults! Let's keep it civil! I've seen some serious name calling on the internet, but never anything that harsh!

I said "slipping", not "slipped".

Kiper sometimes gets seriously pissed off when people don't draft the way he expected them to and when certain guys fall.

OTOH, I haven't watched him on draft day in a couple of years so maybe he's gotten better.

 

[AcresHomesTexan]

It doesn't matter at all for Hopkins, your right. I was just defending Watkins. Both are great players.

Conversely, when some of us were stating that Hopkins outperformed Watkins there was not hating of Watkins going on....just realization that a more "talented" Wr did not perform to his established standard and less a physically gifted WR made the most of his football skill in a particular season.

and yes whether or not Watkins is better than Hopkins really does not hae anything to do with Hopkins being a useful if not more Houston Texan.

 

[TexansSeminole]

Conversely, when some of us were stating that Hopkins outperformed Watkins there was not hating of Watkins going on....just realization that a more "talented" Wr did not perform to his established standard and less a physically gifted WR made the most of his football skill in a particular season

and yes whether or not Watkins is better than Hopkins really does not hae anything to do with Hopkins being a useful if not more Houston Texan.

100% agree, but I do feel there is more that contributed than was originally stated.

 

[leebigeztx]

I just think with the depth at wr in this draft, I feel like the texans should've really been trying to trade out and attack the 2,3,4 rds of the draft. Patton,Dobson,williams,hunter,and wheaton have equal talent to hopkins. All those guys, except hunter was availiable owith the texans 2nd rd pick. I think they could've come out of the draft with a more explosive wr than hopkins later.

 

[Maddict5]

fwiw i read peter kings article about the rams draft, the Texans are mentioned a few times...

apparently we offered to trade up to #22 with the rams for a 4th & 6th rder...but they accepted the falcons trade instead to trade down to #30 (for a 3rd and 7th)

later, the rams offered a 6th to move from #30 (after they had traded down from #22) to #27 which the Texans (obviously) rejected. rick wanted a 4th rder to do that trade

 

[76Texan]

I said "slipping", not "slipped".

Kiper sometimes gets seriously pissed off when people don't draft the way he expected them to and when certain guys fall.

OTOH, I haven't watched him on draft day in a couple of years so maybe he's gotten better.

Sometimes things are not what they seem to be.
A guy with ten posts is not neccessarily pissed off.
Conversely, a guy with a single post might be pissed off more than he let on.

 

[76Texan]

I believe if the Vikings were concerned the Texans would take Patterson, they would have tried to trade ahead of the Texans & the Texans were most likely never looked at as a trade partner, which brings us back to the beginning....

Just because they traded for the 29th pick does not mean they were interested in the 27th pick.

I think they wanted one or the other.

In respond to TK; it doesn't matter whether the Vikings were concerned about what the Texans may do, the fact remains they traded up to draft Patterson.

Does it matter to them if the trading partner is named Texans or Patriots?

The possibility of a trade is there; whether the Texans wanted to or not is a different matter.

 

[76Texan]

fwiw i read peter kings article about the rams draft, the Texans are mentioned a few times...

apparently we offered to trade up to #22 with the rams for a 4th & 6th rder...but they accepted the falcons trade instead to trade down to #30 (for a 3rd and 7th)

later, the rams offered a 6th to move from #30 (after they had traded down from #22) to #27 which the Texans (obviously) rejected. rick wanted a 4th rder to do that trade

If this is true than the Texans were open to trade down.
That would shoot down the saying about how "you take the guy you identified".

 

[Playoffs]

BTW, Mike Mayock, who may be the most reputable draft analyst out there, did not have Hopkins in the first round. Both CBS Sports and NFL Draft Scout also had him solidly in the second.

Mayock may be the most reputable t.v. draft analyst.

An actual scout like Dan Shonka --Eagles, Redskins, Chiefs -- had DeAndre as the second WR off the board at pick 23. No other WRs in the first round, either.

 

[ASidd_1990]

Mayock may be the most reputable t.v. draft analyst.

An actual scout like Dan Shonka --Eagles, Redskins, Chiefs -- had DeAndre as the second WR off the board at pick 23. No other WRs in the first round, either.

I read somewhere that Hopkins was the 2nd best WR behind Tavon Austin.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Sometimes things are not what they seem to be.
A guy with ten posts is not neccessarily pissed off.
Conversely, a guy with a single post might be pissed off more than he let on.

Like I said, "slipping" not "slipped".

Kiper gets pissed off. I didn't say you had.

You're just going to unnecessary lengths to convince people you're right. That doesn't mean you're pissed off about it.

 

[infantrycak]

If this is true than the Texans were open to trade down.
That would shoot down the saying about how "you take the guy you identified".

It doesn't shoot down anything. Only a fool would not pick up the phone and listen for a Ricky Williams offer. In the end they rejected what was offered and took their guy.

 

[76Texan]

Mayock may be the most reputable t.v. draft analyst.

An actual scout like Dan Shonka --Eagles, Redskins, Chiefs -- had DeAndre as the second WR off the board at pick 23. No other WRs in the first round, either.

There are a lot of ex-scouts out there, and there's no concensus, except that this class is no filled with top end talent, but there's a lot of depth.

When I started the wide receiver threat in the mock draft forum last July, I've already said that much. I also said that the 2013 class should rival the 2012 class in both quantity and quality.
As we went on, I even stated that if the underclassmen that are "expected" to come out early, this class should be even deeper than 2012.

I was correct in that regard as 28 players were drafted as compared to 22 last year.

 

[76Texan]

It doesn't shoot down anything. Only a fool would not pick up the phone and listen for a Ricky Williams offer. In the end they rejected what was offered and took their guy.

Thank you.

 

[76Texan]

Like I said, "slipping" not "slipped".

Kiper gets pissed off. I didn't say you had.

You're just going to unnecessary lengths to convince people you're right. That doesn't mean you're pissed off about it.

I merely responded to the "inquiries" and "comments".

The screen shots, for example, were in respond to Boyd/Hopkins; helping or hurting each other's cause.

Somebody said Boyd hurts Hopkins; I disagree!