Managment should admit that we are starting over

[tulexan]

oh come on man.

#1 USC doesnt run a pro style offense. its a pac-10 basic WCO. Oregon, Cal, ASU...
#2 Leinart has 2 NFL caliber rb's, 2 nfl caliber receivers, an nfl caliber TE, and at least 3 nfl caliber linemen.

how could it possibly be easier for young to put up numbers in a run first offense with 2 sophmore and 1 fresman receiver, 2freshman rb's and 1 sophomore??

And Vince Young has the best OL in the country, a very good freshman RB, a good but not great versatile RB/WR, a NFL caliber TE, and a big WR.

He may not have the same weapons that USC does, but he doesn't have chopped liver surrounding him.

 

[JDizzle]

what does Carr's regression have to do with anything?

has Vince done anything but progress his 3 years? no? then what are you talking about with that consitency comment?

I was trying to point out that regression is possible even if you've shown improvement, and since Carr's name was originally brought up I used him as an example. If you're going to look at Carr's entire pro-carreer, at least look at every other guy's entire carreer who you'd like to replace him with, not just the only good season he's had.

 

[tulexan]

So he has one bad year after 2 years of improving and he has regressed? How do we know that it isn't just a bad year? Seems like everyone had a down year, does that mean we should get rid of all of them? Andre Johnson's yards, touchdowns, and YPC went down this year after showing improvement from year 1 to year 2. Does that mean that we should trade him and draft Santonio Holmes?

 

[JDizzle]

I'm not "taking up" for Carr here, I'm just trying to point out to a few people that there are more sides to the square.

 

[Wordem]

The Texans are the laughing stock of the NFL. Drafting VY changes that immediately. Drafting Bush does not. Young also brings more money to the Texans coffer. Bush will not sell nearly as much merchandise, especially outside of Houston.

 

[Nighthawk]

Even if you do believe that Vince is the answer at QB, we do not at any point in time state that we are starting over, and mean it. We need reasons to win, not excuses to lose.

What are you talking about? You're all about excuses. Every post you make is an excuse for David Carr. Everything is based on the idea that Carr, after four years, will suddenly become Brett Favre. It's nonsense. Sure, he might improve. No doubt. Will he be as good as Vince Young? Seems very unlikely, inasmuch as VY looks to be already as good as, if not better than, Carr. I mean, Carr has really pretty much stunk it up in his attempt to move to the next level. He doesn't seem to be a leader or a powerful presence on the field (the team seems to react more positively to Banks, for that matter). Why should we keep beating our heads against this wall (Carr)? I mean, if we were a year in, or two years in, I might agree that we had not had to to fully assess his talent and potential. But it's four years going on five. He's competent at the very best.

Young gives you the instant QB of the future for this team.

I ask you this: can you honestly even IMAGINE Carr in the Hall of Fame? Can you IMAGINE Vince Young in the Hall? If you answer NO to the first, and YES to the second, as I do, then you should be for drafting Vince Young in a couple months.

 

[JDizzle]

The Texans are the laughing stock of the NFL. Drafting VY changes that immediately. Drafting Bush does not. Young also brings more money to the Texans coffer. Bush will not sell nearly as much merchandise, especially outside of Houston.

That's one of the silliest comments I've ever read. Winning games earns you league-wide respect, not a draft pick, regardless of who it is. Both Bush AND Young are very, VERY marketable players. On one hand you have the Heisman winning, electrifying runner from USC, and on the other you have the hometown kid who just got over big time in the Rose Bowl. I'm not saying either will equate to wins, but both are very, very marketable in terms of merchandise and what-not.

 

[swtbound07]

So he has one bad year after 2 years of improving and he has regressed? How do we know that it isn't just a bad year? Seems like everyone had a down year, does that mean we should get rid of all of them? Andre Johnson's yards, touchdowns, and YPC went down this year after showing improvement from year 1 to year 2. Does that mean that we should trade him and draft Santonio Holmes?

7-9 to 2-14 isnt a bad year. Heck its not even regression..its atrocity.

 

[tulexan]

Look at the Dolphins.

2001: 11-5
2002: 9-7
2003: 10-6
2004: 4-12
2005: 9-7

When it starts to become a trend you can start worrying. We had 3 years of improvement and 1 down year.

 

[swtbound07]

Look at the Dolphins.

2001: 11-5
2002: 9-7
2003: 10-6
2004: 4-12
2005: 9-7

When it starts to become a trend you can start worrying. We had 3 years of improvement and 1 down year.

We did start at 4-12...and improved to 5-11....and improved to 7-9.....its not like we had a 3 year dynasty running and this is an abberration.....we've NEVER been .500. .500 wont even get you a playoff spot. We've never had a winning season. IT IS a trend.

 

[tulexan]

Yes and we are also an expansion team. Most draft picks take some time to develop.