Mario movement rumors (MERGED) Signs with Buffalo $100 million

[Kaiser Toro]

If we could sign Mario to a 2 year $5 million deal, I would do it in a second. There is nothing illogical or hateful about believing it is irresponsible football business to give Mario a contract approaching $100 million.

If Brisiel was holding out for significant money I would be for cutting him loose, certainly. Though I believe Chris Myers is a key re-signing, if he holds out for elite center money, I think it is wise to move on from him as well. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it is sound logic.

Until I'Cak decided to say that I'm the prime example for poor football logic, I was finished with this thread. I'm waiting to hear what the poor logic is?

Dale, I like your passion, and fandom, but lately the scat you have been throwing at the wall is falling through your fingers and only sticking to you. Seriously, 2 year 5M deal for Mario? This is absurd.

Moreover, you continually say you know how contracts work, and I want to continue to believe you do. Consequently, why are you stuck on $100M, or any large number amount for a contract, when you know it is window dressing to stroke egos, and not the real value of the contract as it pertains to money in pocket, and cap implications?

 

[dalemurphy]

Dale, I like your passion, and fandom, but lately the scat you have been throwing at the wall is falling through your fingers and only sticking to you. Seriously, 2 year 5M deal for Mario? This is absurd.

Moreover, you continually say you know how contracts work, and I want to continue to believe you do. Consequently, why are you stuck on $100M, or any large number amount for a contract, when you know it is window dressing to stroke egos, and not the real value of the contract as it pertains to money in pocket, and cap implications?

I am assuming that the Mario deal will include a large signing bonus and other stipulations that will virtually guarantee he sees the majority of the contract and consequently, that contract will severely limit and obstruct the Texans in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, at least.

I think he will be offered a deal like this, at least:

6 yrs $84 million; $40 million guaranteed with a $25 million signing bonus. That kind of contract will cause problems for a number of years, IMO.

 

[dalemurphy]

Try reading back through. He made a specific argument about certain teams only paying top dollar for QB's and it isn't true. And I made no argument players don't get overpaid at times.

And dale you should know better than to suggest any player is a must sign at any cost player in my opinion. I have trumpeted for years that every team has to decide a top dollar amount and if the player won't take it let them walk no matter how good they are. But really you have gone over the top on this Mario thing and it is coming across as a vendetta. It's one thing to say "I don't think an OLB is worth more than $11 mil per year no matter what" and another to spend the time and volume of posts you have on trying to encourage other people who similarly have no control over the situation that Mario should be released. Everybody in the TT world got it and has heard the same arguments as of six months ago. It has become a broken record you inject into everything. "We could sign a better long snapper if only we would release Mario."

PS - if Mankins doesn't decline severely $7 mil will be considered a bargain rather than getting cut.

I never said anyone should be re-signed at any cost.

I never said Mario should get released. I don't think he should be re-signed.

By the way, I'm not arguing with myself. This thread is titled "What to do with Mario" and the arguments have continued both ways. I hadn't posted in it for a couple days until you drug my name up again. If you are tired of the arguments, perhaps you shouldn't read them or encourage them to continue. It's not as if everyone isn't also aware why fans want to keep Mario and why they think it could work. Yet, those arguments have continued as well. Why not chastise them to stop repeating themselves? ...Oh, because you agree with them.

 

[Mr teX]

They don't sign monster deals, period, apart from their franchise Quarterback. Still, let's look at your argument. What has Mario done in the last 3 years to indicate he is an ascending, not descending player? He is young. That's true. However, his best season was in 2007 and he has declined, markedly, every season since. While I will acknowledge that the decline is largely due to injury, isn't that exactly what causes formerly great players to rapidly decline?

Why would anyone think Mario's best years are ahead of him? His last good season has been followed by three unimpressive seasons, each one less impressive than the previous. Is that the kind of trend you reward with a huge contract? Where is the football logic in that?

Why?

b/c he's finally got a team around him worth a damn...
b/c he's still young
b/c he HAS produced at a high level
b/c of his start last year.
b/c he is an elite talent.
b/c he still led the team in sacks 5 weeks after he went down last year.
b/c noone who replaced him last year came close to his best year.
b/c im damn sure wade, gary and bob all want him back......to a point

and on..and on..

also stop being obtuse..any contract of any amount can cause problems down the road it's not just the "monster" 100 million dollar contracts you're talking about. see our quandry with demeco and daniels right now. Contracts are also relative to the position. Just b/c you don't sign a kicker to 100 million dollars doesn't mean that that kicker can't sign a contract that pays him elite money for his position. And that's the reason why those polamalu, Suggs and Mankins contracts ARE relavant to this discussion.

and yes it's true that injury forces guys to retire....more often than not though, it's b/c guys just can;t play anymore......see emmitt smith running in quicksand in arizona...see jerry rice unable to separate in seattle and denver.

i understand where you're coming from logic wise......you're just overploaying your hand.......as usual.

 

[HOU-TEX]

Until I'Cak decided to say that I'm the prime example for poor football logic, I was finished with this thread. I'm waiting to hear what the poor logic is?

I added that to I-Caks post.

 

[thunderkyss]

And, the franchise tag doesn't mortgage the future the way a monster contract can.

Signing Mario to a "fair" deal won't mortgage the future. Just like signing Jjo last year, Arian this year, Schaub, & Aj back in the day, didn't mortgage the future.

The salary cap will go up.

The teams you mentioned... as has been said does not prove your point. The Steelers are in cap hell now, & they are a fading team as is the Pats. When those teams were on top, it wasn't just Ben & Brady getting paid.

The numbers were more in line with salaries of the time. Now we are in a goofy situation where the cap has gone down & our stars are hitting their prime.

I don't know how "large" their contracts are, but Suggs, Ray Lewis, & Reed are among the highest paid players at their position. They're also going to sign Ray Rice, this year or next & if Torry Smith turns out to be what he looks like he's going to be, they're going to pay him as well.

People want to point at guys like Seymour & say, "See, they'll let a player like that go." But Seymour had just finished his 8th year & there were questions of his ability to play on the outside. He went to Oakland & they started off playing him inside at the much cheaper DT position.

Seymour has been very productive lately.... the Pats simply guessed wrong on that one.

 

[infantrycak]

I never said anyone should be re-signed at any cost.

Who said you did? Reading is fundamental. I was stating my opinion which is why the sentence ended in "in my opinion."

I never said Mario should get released. I don't think he should be re-signed.

LOL talk about distinctions without merit.

Why not chastise them to stop repeating themselves? ...Oh, because you agree with them.

For such a regular it would seem you would read instead of assume. A pretty new member of the MB asked a question about why some people didn't want to retain Mario. Without any judgement on your position I pointed out your posts as an example of the reasons not to keep Mario. You can feel mocked instead of respected in that regard - either way I don't care how far up your bum your panties are. We could have a poll for who is the leading "I don't want Mario" guy in the forum and you would get 90% of the votes. That's fine. Be comfortable being identified as such.

 

[ThaShark316]

2006 marches on.

 

[dalemurphy]

You can feel mocked instead of respected in that regard - either way I don't care how far up your bum your panties are. We could have a poll for who is the leading "I don't want Mario" guy in the forum and you would get 90% of the votes. That's fine. Be comfortable being identified as such.

I don't mind being mocked. I simply find it disingenuous to continue the argument or lure me back into it and then complain about the argument continuing. This is a message board. This is the appropriate thread to discuss it. If you are frustrated with my responses then you can simply not read them. Or, certainly, if you are tired of them, you could stop bringing them back up. I'm not sure what your predicament is?

 

[dalemurphy]

2006 marches on.

In what respect? I supported the Mario pick in 2006 and I still think it was good selection. We are six years beyond 2006. The current decision has nothing to do with that decision. It is time to assess him again, 6 years later, and place value on him moving forward. One has nothing to do with the other. We got two great years out of Mario and many more very good games. I just think, at his free agent value and the team's circumstances, it is time to move on.

 

[thunderkyss]

We could have a poll for who is the leading "I don't want Mario" guy in the forum and you would get 90% of the votes.

Where do I drop my ballot?

 

[gafftop]

Dale gets 90% huh? Do I get the other 10%?

 

[Carr Bombed]

Dale gets 90% huh? Do I get the other 10%?

We'll split it and take 5 each... But I'm sure Texecutioner would want his cut as well.


Face it folks, Mario is gonzo.

 

[Texecutioner]

We'll split it and take 5 each... But I'm sure Texecutioner would want his cut as well.


Face it folks, Mario is gonzo.

What exactly is the bet?

I will probably take it with confidence. Dale and I don't agree that regularly, but he has been very impressive on this issue for months taking a lot of abuse from people who believe Mario is way better than he is because he plays in Houston.

 

[badboy]

Hey, do any of you guys have an idea what to do with Mario?

 

[Dutchrudder]

Hey, do any of you guys have an idea what to do with Mario?

I'd say get him a Nascar team...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtUP-7_HtA

 

[Carr Bombed]

Hey, do any of you guys have an idea what to do with Mario?

I do... Tell him thanks and wish him the best of luck on his future endeavors.

 

[leebigeztx]

In what respect? I supported the Mario pick in 2006 and I still think it was good selection. We are six years beyond 2006. The current decision has nothing to do with that decision. It is time to assess him again, 6 years later, and place value on him moving forward. One has nothing to do with the other. We got two great years out of Mario and many more very good games. I just think, at his free agent value and the team's circumstances, it is time to move on.

Wrong! U were one of the people booing at the pick.

6yr 84m is not going to hurt the texans future. The new tv money is gonna jack the cap to 180+m. You will continue ur weak case and weak numbers. Just like barwin and taking a 8m bonus right now. Carry on with ur baseless agenda to show ur fan hood.

 

[marks01234]

Signing Mario to a "fair" deal won't mortgage the future. Just like signing Jjo last year, Arian this year, Schaub, & Aj back in the day, didn't mortgage the future.

The salary cap will go up.

The teams you mentioned... as has been said does not prove your point. The Steelers are in cap hell now, & they are a fading team as is the Pats. When those teams were on top, it wasn't just Ben & Brady getting paid.

The numbers were more in line with salaries of the time. Now we are in a goofy situation where the cap has gone down & our stars are hitting their prime.

I don't know how "large" their contracts are, but Suggs, Ray Lewis, & Reed are among the highest paid players at their position. They're also going to sign Ray Rice, this year or next & if Torry Smith turns out to be what he looks like he's going to be, they're going to pay him as well.

People want to point at guys like Seymour & say, "See, they'll let a player like that go." But Seymour had just finished his 8th year & there were questions of his ability to play on the outside. He went to Oakland & they started off playing him inside at the much cheaper DT position.

Seymour has been very productive lately.... the Pats simply guessed wrong on that one.

I agree with most everything here. Only thing I want to point out is that the Pats got value back from Seymour.

We won't get value back if Mario leaves.

BTW, Dalemurphy - DE's make more money than RB's and S's. That is just a fact of life in the NFL. DE's, LT's, QB's and WR's are going to make the most money because they are most important positions.

Mario Williams was pretty dominant this season too. Didn't look like a guy declining against Indy, Miami or Pittsburgh.

 

[Carr Bombed]

Wrong! U were one of the people booing at the pick.

6yr 84m is not going to hurt the texans future. The new tv money is gonna jack the cap to 180+m. You will continue ur weak case and weak numbers. Just like barwin and taking a 8m bonus right now. Carry on with ur baseless agenda to show ur fan hood.

Do you have a quote?... because I can not remember that far back. It would be interesting to see who supported the pick and who didn't.

 

[Texecutioner]

Wrong! U were one of the people booing at the pick.

6yr 84m is not going to hurt the texans future. The new tv money is gonna jack the cap to 180+m. You will continue ur weak case and weak numbers. Just like barwin and taking a 8m bonus right now. Carry on with ur baseless agenda to show ur fan hood.

I wasn't on this board back then, but I'm quite certain that Dale was very supportive and huge on Mario years ago. I don't know about the draft, but Dale is usually the guy who is extra high on unproven players from what I remember of the past. Dales constant critique of Mario Williams is actually inconsistent with his usual stances on Texans players. He has always been more on the "optimistic" side in arguments like these involving Texans players.

 

[dalemurphy]

Wrong! U were one of the people booing at the pick.

Why are you saying this? This is not true. Not even close to true. I never had a single criticism of the guy until late into 2009.

Here's something from December of 2006. Pardon the optimism: I liked Mario... 2nd to last paragraph: he's the "very promising DLman"... by the way, a lot of folks on these boards weren't to happy with him at the end of his rookie year: 5 sacks.

 

[gafftop]

Hey, do any of you guys have an idea what to do with Mario?

Simplified possible Mario outcomes next season:
1. Plays good when healthy but has some type of nagging injury as last two years
2. Does not adapt to 3-4.
3. Plays great in his contract year

In 1 we get probably nothing or do we get compensation because we do not sign as we did with Dunta. Last pick in draft. LOL

In 2 same as 1

In 3, do you want to give Mario say 20+ million for the next 5 years based on his last year of performance. Say the cap is 120 million. If you divide in half, half for offense and half for defense, do you really want to give Mario 33% of all money for defense? I sure don't. DO YOU?

In reality probably no player is worth that large of % of cap. Maybe Peyton or Brady etc QBs of that caliber may be the only position that warrants that and even then it is a crap shoot because of injury.

The above is why I think IF you can get a good deal in a trade this year you do it.

It is very likely that other teams view Mario in the same way and will give nothing for him this year. I don't know. But if there are teams out that that covet him I think it should seriously be considered by the Texans.

I don't think Aso is a good deal based on reasoning above.
Just my opinion.

Back in April almost a year ago I proposed the above because I thought the only outcome once the season was over was Mario would be gone. Nothing has changed.

At this point in time there is no more "What to do with Mario?" because we have no control/leverage. The question is "What is Mario going to do?"

Glad to see the Texans handled Foster much better.

 

[Lucky]

I just think, at his free agent value and the team's circumstances, it is time to move on.

Look, just be honest. You have posted multiple items on your blog and here that you believe Mario is a dog and the Texans would be better off without him. And that's fine. It's an opinion and you should stand behind it. Just don't crawdad and try to say that you think Mario is good, but just not a good value for the Texans. You wouldn't want Mario on the Texans if they had a boatload of cap room.

Dale gets 90% huh? Do I get the other 10%?

I don't think you're getting the credit you deserve. You created the thread(s) and have been politicking for Mario's exit for almost a year. Most of your posts are about Mario. I'm not sure if we're going to even hear from you again is/when Mario is gone.

This is the Mario situation, in a nutshell. Mario would like to come back. But he has a number that he and his agent need to see. The Texans would like Mario back. But, they have budget limitations (unknown to fans and media) that will restrict the amount they can offer Mario. They won't hamstring the franchise for any player. Is there some common ground where the Texans and Mario's numbers can meet happily? We don't know. I'm not even sure if they know that, yet. I think the Texans chances of winning a Super Bowl are enhanced with Mario. But, that doesn't mean they have no shot without him. Whatever happens, I'm not going to be upset with either side.

 

[dalemurphy]

I wasn't on this board back then, but I'm quite certain that Dale was very supportive and huge on Mario years ago. I don't know about the draft, but Dale is usually the guy who is extra high on unproven players from what I remember of the past. Dales constant critique of Mario Williams is actually inconsistent with his usual stances on Texans players. He has always been more on the "optimistic" side in arguments like these involving Texans players.

What are you talking about? Optimistic? I just found the date I gave up on David Carr: 12/18/2006 LOL!!

 

[badboy]

hee hee after 85 pages you guys thought I was asking a serious question?

 

[gafftop]

Look, just be honest. You have posted multiple items on your blog and here that you believe Mario is a dog and the Texans would be better off without him. And that's fine. It's an opinion and you should stand behind it. Just don't crawdad and try to say that you think Mario is good, but just not a good value for the Texans. You wouldn't want Mario on the Texans if they had a boatload of cap room.


I don't think you're getting the credit you deserve. You created the thread(s) and have been politicking for Mario's exit for almost a year. Most of your posts are about Mario. I'm not sure if we're going to even hear from you again is/when Mario is gone.

This is the Mario situation, in a nutshell. Mario would like to come back. But he has a number that he and his agent need to see. The Texans would like Mario back. But, they have budget limitations (unknown to fans and media) that will restrict the amount they can offer Mario. They won't hamstring the franchise for any player. Is there some common ground where the Texans and Mario's numbers can meet happily? We don't know. I'm not even sure if they know that, yet. I think the Texans chances of winning a Super Bowl are enhanced with Mario. But, that doesn't mean they have no shot without him. Whatever happens, I'm not going to be upset with either side.

Thank you.

I agree with your nutshell but it was going to end up that way one way or the other no matter what.

I am upset in that because of inaction last year we end up with NOTHING for Mario so the overall talent level goes down.

 

[dalemurphy]

Look, just be honest. You have posted multiple items on your blog and here that you believe Mario is a dog and the Texans would be better off without him. And that's fine. It's an opinion and you should stand behind it. Just don't crawdad and try to say that you think Mario is good, but just not a good value for the Texans. You wouldn't want Mario on the Texans if they had a boatload of cap room..

Not true that I wouldn't want Mario for a price. That being said, he has consistently slid further out of my favor since late in 2009. I promise that I wouldn't be nearly this critical if he was making a moderate salary the past few seasons.

I think Mario is a great talent... a good player... with a questionable and inconsistent motor... and a poor risk moving forward.

 

[Lucky]

I am upset in that because of inaction last year we end up with NOTHING for Mario so the overall talent level goes down.

That's overblown. First, the Texans were trying for their first playoff appearance ever. Jobs were on the line. Teams were just coming off the lockout and getting their bearings on the new CBA. Finally, Mario carried a huge cap number and there would have been no trade for anything of value unless he re-upped for a long term deal. In the armchair GM world, it looked like an easy decision. In the real world of the NFL, there were too many obstacles.

 

[leebigeztx]

If u follow dalemurphys lead, he thinks in real world dollars,not the cartoon money that is the nfl. When tambi hali gets 35m guaranteed,yet he doesn't think mario should get that much,its funny. Mario will never please guys who thinks he's not playing hard. Nether will peppers or coples,the de coming out. I don't give a rats ass if a play is ran awa and he chases the back 30 yds downfield. Eventhough I've seen him make those same plays like that down the field. He will never make guys like dalemurphy happy. He could lead the league in sacks,be 1st team all pro,defensive poy and dalemurphy will never think its enough. Last year,he came out of camp with a sports hernia,but he played almost the entire year with it until it was too much and he shut it down. Rookie year,he played with an injury,but never said a word, just kept playing. It will never be enough,but ask the guys lining up next to him and across amd they will tell you how much of a load he is.

 

[dalemurphy]

If u follow dalemurphys lead, he thinks in real world dollars,not the cartoon money that is the nfl. When tambi hali gets 35m guaranteed,yet he doesn't think mario should get that much,its funny.

Mario will never please guys who thinks he's not playing hard. He will never make guys like dalemurphy happy. He could lead the league in sacks,be 1st team all pro,defensive poy and dalemurphy will never think its enough.

Rookie year,he played with an injury,but never said a word, just kept playing. It will never be enough,but ask the guys lining up next to him and across amd they will tell you how much of a load he is.

1. I would prefer Tamba Hali. That is true. However, I don't want either player at the price they command in free agency.

2. Mario did please me in 2006, playing through the foot injury and learning to play in the NFL. I was thrilled with his play in 2007 and 2008. In 2009, I was a big fan of his until his performance and effort became less consistent (IMO) later in the year. It was 2010 when my opinion of him began to shift. After we began the year 4-2 and came out of the bye, he was awful. His effort and intensity was very poor. I was theorizing that he must be injured though the Texans had swept that all under the rug. When it went public that he did try and play through a sports hernia, I was cautiously optimistic that I would see a different player and better energy in 2011.

He was much better in September of 2011. From a sack and pressure standpoint, he was very productive and if he had stayed healthy would likely have approached his 2007 season in terms of sacks. However, I believe his motor was still inconsistent and it solidified what I began to believe in 2009 and 2010. Because of that perceived lack of intensity, I am not a fan of his anymore. However, my argument for not wanting him back is the productivity of the team without him.

For a player to be payed like one of the best players in the NFL, I believe it should be clear that the team needs him on the field. In the Texans 14 games without Mario, they clearly played the best defense in their 10 year NFL history. Given that, I think it very unwise to give him a significant chunk of the cap.

NFL players are always impressed with the greatest athletes. All the great wide receivers wanted to play for Atlanta when Vick was there also. They thought he was going to be the best QB in the history of the NFL.


** Please stop misrepresenting my position. I have never, and still do not, have any complaint/criticism of Mario Williams before the second half of 2009.

 

[thunderkyss]

Last year,he came out of camp with a sports hernia,but he played almost the entire year with it until it was too much and he shut it down. Rookie year,he played with an injury,but never said a word, just kept playing. It will never be enough,but ask the guys lining up next to him and across amd they will tell you how much of a load he is.

The thing about Mario, I think, that will make Kubiak push as hard as he can to sign him, is that Mario had no injury issues whatsoever in college. I believe, & I think Kubiak believes, Mario's injuries are more for the amount of snaps Mario plays. Had we had a Jj Watt or Brooks Reed, or Connor Barwin Mario's first year or two, he wouldn't have the issues he has now.

Put Mario on last year's #2 defense is going to help the Texans a number of ways. First, you'll have non-stop pressure on the QB. Rotating our three OLBs (Brooks, Connor, & Mario) & our three DEs (Jamison, Smith, & Watt) & a solid 4 man front (Barwin, Watt, Smith, Williams) on passing situations, the defense alone will be strong enough to win a Super Bowl ala the Dilfer led Ravens, or Johnson led Bucs.

 

[arb729]

Dale.. what if what we saw from Barwin this year was more fluke than anything? I understand he is fairly new to the DE position and then lost an entire year to injury.. but do you have more confidence that he'll be able to repeat last years performance (10+ sacks/40+ tackles) than Mario will be able to put up those numbers? Really just curious more than anything.. Not picking on you.

 

[arb729]

to clarify my point, I'm fairly confident in the ability of JJ and Brooks to be forces in this league for years to come. Just don't see the type of intensity and pure skill they bring to the table very often.

 

[dalemurphy]

Dale.. what if what we saw from Barwin this year was more fluke than anything? I understand he is fairly new to the DE position and then lost an entire year to injury.. but do you have more confidence that he'll be able to repeat last years performance (10+ sacks/40+ tackles) than Mario will be able to put up those numbers? Really just curious more than anything.. Not picking on you.

No problem:

1. That would suck!

2. I have a ton of confidence in Barwin. I predicted before the season that he would finish with 10+ sacks- that was before he beat out Reed for the job in the preseason: Here's the evidence

3. I think the team needs to address Mario's loss with a free agent. There are a number of guys that would be good depth/rotation for Reed and Barwin... and affordable.

4. I think OLB would be a position likely addressed in the first 3 or 4 rounds of the draft.

Letting Mario go is about improving depth, not limiting it. People make fun of me because I want the Texans to lock up guys like Glover Quin, Brice McCain, James Casey, Mike Brisiel... But, it's because I think they are very good value and I respect the importance of depth. I don't think there is any player, other than QB, that is worth what Mario Williams will likely command.

 

[TdotTexas2Step]

What some need to realize is that what made our defense great was that we had depth. Yeah, Brooks Reed's performance this year was amazing, and he made sure we didn't miss a beat.

But what happens if we lose one of Cushing/Barwin/Reed next year to an injury? A revolving door of those three with Mario ensures us we get constant pressure and the ability to overcome injuries.

We had Mario moving all over the place last season (OLB and on as an DE), we'll have the playing time for him to justify his contract.

 

[gafftop]

I am getting tired of hearing, "If Mario is on the team next year we will be great. Just think if Mario was on the team during the playoffs...We need depth... etc. " Mario was on the team last year and he got hurt. Mario was on the team the year before and in what would have been crunch time if the Texans were in the playoffs where was he, on the bench injured. The reason we needed depth last year was Mario was hurt again.

"Mario played through PF his rookie year, Mario played through a sports hernia, Mario played through a sore shoulder. Mario is so tough... " He may or may not be tough but one thing he is not is DURABLE. How can people just cast aside his durability as one fluke injury after another. We are starting to talk about hopefully making a playoff run which means more games. Sorry I don't see Mario staying healthy long enough to make a difference in crunch time. Just my opinion.

For the amount of money it will take to keep him even with a HUGE hometown discount I personally don't think he is worth the risk based on his past.

Just to save time what would I be happy signing him for???

$6 mill first year, $10 mill guarantee , no signing bonus, that is all you need to know. Is there a chance he signs for that?

I started this thread and I am getting tired of it.

Let's just leave it to the braintrust to decide who is wrong and who is right.

 

[Allstar]

I am getting tired of hearing, "If Mario is on the team next year we will be great. Just think if Mario was on the team during the playoffs...We need depth... etc. " Mario was on the team last year and he got hurt. Mario was on the team the year before and in what would have been crunch time if the Texans were in the playoffs where was he, on the bench injured. The reason we needed depth last year was Mario was hurt again.

I'm fairly certain he would've kept playing if there was something to play for.

 

[Vinny]

Dale.. what if what we saw from Barwin this year was more fluke than anything? I understand he is fairly new to the DE position and then lost an entire year to injury.. but do you have more confidence that he'll be able to repeat last years performance (10+ sacks/40+ tackles) than Mario will be able to put up those numbers? Really just curious more than anything.. Not picking on you.

mostly it depends on Reed...if he goes through a soph slump (quite possible now that he has so much game film at this level now), Barwin will draw a double all the time. Probably bad news for him.

 

[Mr teX]

mostly it depends on Reed...if he goes through a soph slump (quite possible now that he has so much game film at this level now), Barwin will draw a double all the time. Probably bad news for him.

looking at the numbers Barwin was the guy who was underperforming. He only had like 2-3 sacks when mario was active. He didn't really show up too much until we played Jax the 1st time where he got 4 sacks in a game but by then he'd been moved into Mario's position. Meanwhile, Reed moved to Barwin's spot & made an immediate impact, i believe he got 5 sacks in like 4-5 straight weeks before he tailed off for the rest of the season. that stretch there made him the leader in sacks by midseason........even though he wasn't a starter at the outset like Barwin and he wasn't moved into Mario's premium rush olb position like Barwin was. So technically, Reed came in & made more of an impact at Barwin's position than Barwin himself. & then in the playoffs Barwin wasn't really a factor whereas we know Reed was. So imo it's definitely not out of the posibility that Barwin takes a step back....in fact im counting on it from him; especially with the schedule stiffening up a bit.

 

[dalemurphy]

looking at the numbers Barwin was the guy who was underperforming. He only had like 2-3 sacks when mario was active. He didn't register another sack until we played Jax the 1st time where he got 4 in a game...that was a 6 week stretch in between sacks. Once Mario went down, Reed moved to Barwin's spot & made an immediate impact, i believe he got 5 sacks in like 4-5 straight weeks & then he tailed off for the rest of the season. So technically Reed came in & made more of an impact at Barwin's position than Barwin himself. So it's definitely not out of the posibility that 1 or both of these guys take a step back next year; especially with the schedule stiffening up a bit.

Your chronology is a little off. However, you are bringing up a great point that further illustrates my point.

Barwin was playing SOLB with Mario playing WOLB. During that time, Mario racked up 5 sacks to Barwin's 2 sacks. Following Mario's injury, for the next three weeks, Reed took over at WOLB for Mario and Barwin remained on the strong side. However, three weeks into Mario's absence, the coaching staff decided to flip Barwin to the WOLB and Reed to SOLB. From that point on, Barwin had 9.5 sacks. In the three weeks at WOLB, Reed had 2 sacks, I believe.

So, while Mario did make plays at WOLB: 5 sacks in 5 games... His position continued to produce at the same level once he was gone (Reed and Barwin combined for about 11.5 sacks in 11+ games at WOLB)

Because of Mario's credibility as a pass rusher and his skill set, this team has always attempted to put him in the best position to succeed. It says something that his replacements (being placed in the same position) produced at the same rate, statistically... not to mention the defense performed better without him than it ever has with him on the field. Perhaps it is all coincidence and circumstance. I happen to think not. I happen to think he has not been a consistently great player since early 2009.

p.s. Regarding Barwin underperforming in the first month- He had 2 sacks wiped out because of penalties, I believe (one on Ben Roth... which was a joke of a call). Also, I remember one of his sacks he beat Jake Long around the edge for a sack in the 1st quarter against Miami. When is the last time Mario beat a great tackle for a sack?

 

[Mr teX]

Your chronology is a little off. However, you are bringing up a great point that further illustrates my point.

Barwin was playing SOLB with Mario playing WOLB. During that time, Mario racked up 5 sacks to Barwin's 2 sacks. Following Mario's injury, for the next three weeks, Reed took over at WOLB for Mario and Barwin remained on the strong side. However, three weeks into Mario's absence, the coaching staff decided to flip Barwin to the WOLB and Reed to SOLB. From that point on, Barwin had 9.5 sacks. In the three weeks at WOLB, Reed had 2 sacks, I believe.

So, while Mario did make plays at WOLB: 5 sacks in 5 games... His position continued to produce at the same level once he was gone (Reed and Barwin combined for about 11.5 sacks in 11+ games at WOLB)

Because of Mario's credibility as a pass rusher and his skill set, this team has always attempted to put him in the best position to succeed. It says something that his replacements (being placed in the same position) produced at the same rate, statistically... not to mention the defense performed better without him than it ever has with him on the field. Perhaps it is all coincidence and circumstance. I happen to think not. I happen to think he has not been a consistently great player since early 2009.

p.s. Regarding Barwin underperforming in the first month- He had 2 sacks wiped out because of penalties, I believe (one on Ben Roth... which was a joke of a call). Also, I remember one of his sacks he beat Jake Long around the edge for a sack in the 1st quarter against Miami. When is the last time Mario beat a great tackle for a sack?

I was always under the impression that Barwin took over Mario's spot when Mario went down....however,
even if you factor in your strawman argument, it still does not change the fact that Reed came in & played Barwin's positon better than barwin himself as Reed registered 4 sacks to Barwin's 3 in the stretch. Reed was also far more disruptive than Barwin was at his position all the way into the playoffs. Barwin, not so much. You also have to factor in the schedule. Barwin & Reeds runs happened when our schedule was at its lightest...like 5 straight teams that will be picking inside the top 10 in the nfl draft light.

& lol, we're counting "should've been" sacks now? you're really stooping to a new low dale. I wonder what you'd say if i resorted to playing the same game regarding mario?

 

[cbs1507]

Your chronology is a little off. However, you are bringing up a great point that further illustrates my point.

Barwin was playing SOLB with Mario playing WOLB. During that time, Mario racked up 5 sacks to Barwin's 2 sacks. Following Mario's injury, for the next three weeks, Reed took over at WOLB for Mario and Barwin remained on the strong side. However, three weeks into Mario's absence, the coaching staff decided to flip Barwin to the WOLB and Reed to SOLB. From that point on, Barwin had 9.5 sacks. In the three weeks at WOLB, Reed had 2 sacks, I believe.

So, while Mario did make plays at WOLB: 5 sacks in 5 games... His position continued to produce at the same level once he was gone (Reed and Barwin combined for about 11.5 sacks in 11+ games at WOLB)

Because of Mario's credibility as a pass rusher and his skill set, this team has always attempted to put him in the best position to succeed. It says something that his replacements (being placed in the same position) produced at the same rate, statistically... not to mention the defense performed better without him than it ever has with him on the field. Perhaps it is all coincidence and circumstance. I happen to think not. I happen to think he has not been a consistently great player since early 2009.

p.s. Regarding Barwin underperforming in the first month- He had 2 sacks wiped out because of penalties, I believe (one on Ben Roth... which was a joke of a call). Also, I remember one of his sacks he beat Jake Long around the edge for a sack in the 1st quarter against Miami. When is the last time Mario beat a great tackle for a sack?

Let's just get the facts straight because your chronology is a little off (more so than tex).

Barwin started season opposite of Mario and had 2 sacks prior to Mario's injury. He had 2 sacks up to week 8 before he began to heat up and got 9.5 sacks from then on.

Barwin and Reed switched week 7 vs Tennessee. Reed had ZERO sacks at this time (not 2) but he was in the rotation when Mario was playing. He recorded 6 sacks from week 7-week 12. Then finished the season with 6 sacks (which means he had zero sacks after week 12), before heating up in the playoffs where he had 3.5 sacks. Barwin was non existent in the playoffs.

Neither one of these guys made anybody better. They just benefited from DT's thrown at Watt and Smith. It was more like a parasitic relationship than a mutual one. They let those 2 take up blocks and DT's and benefited from 1 on 1 without reciprocating it back to them. We had to send 5 or more just to allow Watt or Smith a pass rushing opportunity. As a matter of fact we had to blitz about half of the game and even higher than that on passing downs.

BTW We had 15 of our 44 total sacks with Mario in the lineup (mind you he went out in the 1st quarter of week 5) which is over a third of our sacks in just 5 weeks.

PS Everybody gets sacks taken away dale. It's part of the game. I know for a fact at least 2 sacks (nfl.com had video highlights of them) where Mario lost a sacks due to penalty in that span. And congrats to Barwin for beating 1on1 on his sack on hte same play where Mario got triple teamed. Of course I'm sure you just left that our on accident (honest mistake right).

 

[dalemurphy]

I wonder what you'd say if i resorted to playing the same game regarding mario?[/B]

I was responding to your claim that Barwin wasn't playing well during that time. I disagree. I thought he was playing well... not great, but well. You are welcome to illustrate games when Mario dominated but his sacks didn't indicate the domination... I'm thinking the the Texans victory vs. Indy in week one of 2010 would be a good example. He was great that game. Also, he was unbelievable in the second half of the Redskin game. I think he recorded two sacks but it could've been many more. I have no problem with that.

This idea that the schedule was a cake walk after week 4 is puzzling to me. The Texans played one good offensive line when Mario was healthy and Mario looked awful that game: New Orleans. The Texans played another 14 games beyond Mario's injury and the defense was consistently great. I don't see that scheduling was the primary reason for that.

 

[dalemurphy]

Let's just get the facts straight because your chronology is a little off (more so than tex).

Barwin started season opposite of Mario and had 2 sacks prior to Mario's injury. He had 2 sacks up to week 8 before he began to heat up.

Barwin and Reed switched week 7 vs Tennessee. Reed had ZERO sacks at this time. He recorded 6 sacks from week 7-week 12. Then finished the season with 6 sack, before heating up in the playoffs where he had 3.5 sacks. Barwin was non existent in the playoffs.

BTW We had 15 of our 44 total sacks with Mario in the lineup (mind you he went out in the 1st quarter of week 5) which is over a third of our sacks in just 5 weeks.

PS Everybody gets sacks taken away dale. It's part of the game. I know for a fact at least 2 sacks (nfl.com had video highlights of them) where Mario lost a sacks due to penalty in that span. And congrats to Barwin for beating 1on1 on his sack on hte same play where Mario got triple teamed. Of course I'm sure you just left that our on accident (honest mistake right).

Perhaps it was in week 7.. So, the switch was a great move. Barwin took over Mario's spot and recorded a sack a game through the rest of the season- the same pace Mario was on. And, Reed excelled on the opposite side as well, with six sacks in 10 games. Sounds great!

The fact that there was a slight reduction (very slight) in sacks per game after Mario left the lineup is more than made up for by the fact that the yards per game allowed dropped by 70. There are circumstances that account for both of those shifts:

** Once Schaub was injured, the Texans offense put less pressure on the opposing offense to throw the ball (smaller leads and less total points). Therefore, there were less opportunities for sacks. Also, since the Texans were scoring less and running the ball more, opposing teams were naturally going to gain less yards because they would be pushing the ball downfield out of necessity less often.

Given that both of those factors may have been at work, the point stands. The defense was very, very good (better by most standards) without Mario than with him. Also, not counting the playoffs, Barwin and Reed (according to your information) once Wade properly aligned them, tallied 15.5 sacks in a 9 or 10 game stretch to end the season. That impresses me. Not you?

 

[Mr teX]

I was responding to your claim that Barwin wasn't playing well during that time. I disagree. I thought he was playing well... not great, but well. You are welcome to illustrate games when Mario dominated but his sacks didn't indicate the domination... I'm thinking the the Texans victory vs. Indy in week one of 2010 would be a good example. He was great that game. Also, he was unbelievable in the second half of the Redskin game. I think he recorded two sacks but it could've been many more. I have no problem with that.

This idea that the schedule was a cake walk after week 4 is puzzling to me. The Texans played one good offensive line when Mario was healthy and Mario looked awful that game: New Orleans. The Texans played another 14 games beyond Mario's injury and the defense was consistently great. I don't see that scheduling was the primary reason for that.

Yeah, b/c barwin & reed got all their sacks against elite tackles right? Stay on topic & quit moving your argument every time we sucessfully counter it...you do a disservice to your stance.

Jax, Cle, TB and Ten are all atrocious offenses. That was a 5 game stretch we played at 1 point. My point here is that we could've put Nading & Braman in against them & those 2 along with the defense would've looked great. & while reed & barwin & the defense played well, your point about the defense playing great without mario has to be taken with a grain of salt b/c they played NOONE who could do anything against ANYONE. The games they faced teams who had competent offenses & elite playmakers, the defense wasn't all that.

 

[dalemurphy]

Yeah, b/c barwin & reed got all their sacks against elite tackles right? Stay on topic & quit moving your argument every time we sucessfully counter it...you do a disservice to your stance.

Jax, Cle, TB and Ten are all atrocious offenses. That was a 5 game stretch we played at 1 point. My point here is that we could've put Nading & Braman in against them & those 2 along with the defense would've looked great. & while reed & barwin & the defense played well, your point about the defense playing great without mario has to be taken with a grain of salt b/c they played NOONE who could do anything against ANYONE. The games they faced teams who had competent offenses & elite playmakers, the defense wasn't all that.

I never said they did get all their sacks against elite tackles. What are you talking about?

If you think Nading and Braman would've looked great then there is no point continuing this discussion. Braman, though I love him, is very raw and would be exposed by any NFL team if he played every snap. Nading doesn't belong in the NFL, other than the back end of a roster as a special teams' contributor.

Amazing to see that fans are so desperate to defend one player that they will diminish the success that the team had. This defense carried the Texans, with a 3rd string rookie QB, to the second round of the playoffs and were close to an AFC championship performance. But, hey, the important thing is that the guy that made $18 million sitting on the bench and watching it happen last year, gets the credit you think he deserves. It can't be that the Texans were great without him, it must be something else.

 

[Marcus]

I started this thread and I am getting tired of it.

Let's just leave it to the braintrust to decide who is wrong and who is right.

Well, since you are the one that started it, let me ask you a question.

After all this time, you've learned that some favor letting Mario walk, and you learned that some favor re-signing him.

So what do you think the ratio is? About 50/50? And can you think of one person whose mind was changed since you started it?

Yeah, I'd be tired of it, too.

 

[cbs1507]

Perhaps it was in week 7.. So, the switch was a great move. Barwin took over Mario's spot and recorded a sack a game through the rest of the season- the same pace Mario was on. And, Reed excelled on the opposite side as well, with six sacks in 10 games. Sounds great!

The fact that there was a slight reduction (very slight) in sacks per game after Mario left the lineup is more than made up for by the fact that the yards per game allowed dropped by 70. There are circumstances that account for both of those shifts:

** Once Schaub was injured, the Texans offense put less pressure on the opposing offense to throw the ball (smaller leads and less total points). Therefore, there were less opportunities for sacks. Also, since the Texans were scoring less and running the ball more, opposing teams were naturally going to gain less yards because they would be pushing the ball downfield out of necessity less often.

Given that both of those factors may have been at work, the point stands. The defense was very, very good (better by most standards) without Mario than with him. Also, not counting the playoffs, Barwin and Reed (according to your information) once Wade properly aligned them, tallied 15.5 sacks in a 9 or 10 game stretch to end the season. That impresses me. Not you?

I'm sure it sounds great in your diluted perception that you call reality. But you are ignoring the fact that Reed and Barwin made nobody on the team better. JJ Watt and Antonio Smith made them better however. They had a parasitic relationship with our DL instead of the mutual one we had with Mario in the lineup. They benefited from our DL occupying blocks and DT's which freed them up for 1 on 1 or better but our DL did not benefit from having them (DL just occupiers but never got opportunities to rush because they were too busy freeing up Reed and Barwin).

** You do know that your argument for why we got less sacks just put to bed your fallacious claim that we were better without Mario right? I'll show you how (with your own argument). You said that we got less sacks because with Schaub out our offensive production went down. The decrease in production allowed for other teams to not have to rely on the pass as much which diminished the amount of sack opportunities down the stretch. Which in turn contributed to the drop in yards per game.

Given both of these factors at work our defense appeared to play better without Mario (to delusional people such as yourself) because teams did not have to put up the production they once had to when we had Schaub at QB (your words). This in turned allowed weaker offenses to stay close without putting up monster production. That impresses me dale. How about you?

 

[Mr teX]

I never said they did get all their sacks against elite tackles. What are you talking about?

If you think Nading and Braman would've looked great then there is no point continuing this discussion. Braman, though I love him, is very raw and would be exposed by any NFL team if he played every snap. Nading doesn't belong in the NFL, other than the back end of a roster as a special teams' contributor.

Amazing to see that fans are so desperate to defend one player that they will diminish the success that the team had. This defense carried the Texans, with a 3rd string rookie QB, to the second round of the playoffs and were close to an AFC championship performance. But, hey, the important thing is that the guy that made $18 million sitting on the bench and watching it happen last year, gets the credit you think he deserves. It can't be that the Texans were great without him, it must be something else.

why else would bring up "when was the last time mario got a sack on an elite LT?" as if Barwin & Reed have being doing it.


Look, you're the only guy in here using blanket statements to prop up your weak argument; & in doing so you're doing your hardest to ignore every other factor involved. Yes the defense played great without mario, yes the defense as a whole gave up less yards playing without mario than with him......but if you're going to sit here and really try to get me or anyone else to believe that the schedule had next to nothing to do with that or that its as simple as you're trying to pawn it off to be......well i can't help you.

that is why your statements come off as being full of hate against the guy, that is why noone but you and a few others take your statements seriously. I'm to the point now in this thread that i want to see them resign mario at 14 per just to watch your head explode.