NFL Draft Countdown Gives Texans Draft C-

[real]

Anyone. Mistyped. He won't have anyone to throw to. AJ double- and triple-teamed, and Walter and the rookie. I hear Green is a catching RB. So as long as Green can block, run, and catch, the Texans will do fine.

And I hope the line stays healthy and does well. But I don't think they will do either.

How about if the QB is good ? It's like you still fail to see the importance of having a QB that can play ball...

You talk about the line, the recievers, and the RB's but fail to even acknowledge that a good QB can make a difference....

It's like you're still stuck in the 'Carr mentality' of 'it's everyone else and the QB is just along for the ride'....

Just wait and see friend how different our offense looks this year...I'm not saying might, may, or probably....Our offense WILL be better this year simply because Schaub is behind center...

 

[Texans Horror]

How about if the QB is good ? It's like you still fail to see the importance of having a QB that can play ball...

You talk about the line, the recievers, and the RB's but fail to even acknowledge that a good QB can make a difference....

It's like you're still stuck in the 'Carr mentality' of 'it's everyone else and the QB is just along for the ride'....

Just wait and see friend how different our offense looks this year...I'm not saying might, may, or probably....Our offense WILL be better this year simply because Schaub is behind center...

From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I'm reminded of Troy Aikman's last years in Dallas when he would hit receivers in the numbers, but the guys couldn't catch the ball. Dallas stunk, and Troy's stats tanked.

I acknowledge that MS has impressed everyone and will do well, but I don't believe he can make Kevin or Jacoby catch a ball any more than I believe he can make Salaan and Flanagan hold the line. It does take more than one person to win a football game, especially in these new years of parity in the NFL. If the Texans succeed it will be because Kevin and Jacoby are catching their balls and Salaam and Flanagan are making their blocks as well as MS upgrading the QB position.

 

[infantrycak]

Have we forgotten how porous the line was last year?

Have we forgotten that 1 OLmen ended the year still playing from the opening day OL--two if you include 1 other switching positions?

Opening day 2006

Spencer-Pitts-Flanagan-McKinney-Wiegert

Last game 2006

Salaam-Pitts-McKinney-Weary-Winston

 

[real]

From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I'm reminded of Troy Aikman's last years in Dallas when he would hit receivers in the numbers, but the guys couldn't catch the ball. Dallas stunk, and Troy's stats tanked.

I acknowledge that MS has impressed everyone and will do well, but I don't believe he can make Kevin or Jacoby catch a ball any more than I believe he can make Salaan and Flanagan hold the line. It does take more than one person to win a football game, especially in these new years of parity in the NFL. If the Texans succeed it will be because Kevin and Jacoby are catching their balls and Salaam and Flanagan are making their blocks as well as MS upgrading the QB position.

If a QB can make an O-line look worse than what they are, is it not possible for one to make them look better ?

Assuming Matt Schaub is only a bit better than David Carr then he'd atleast have our line in the 17-20th ranked range....and that's only assuming he's a bit better...

We ended the season with one lineman who started in the same position since day one and three that were back-ups, and one that lost his job and started at another position.

yet we still weren't as bad as you try to make it sound..

 

[eriadoc]

I don't mean to jump on you, but I absolutely hate it when people say ignorant things like that. It's gotten the atlanta falcons nowhere??? Some fun facts for you. Vick came into the league in 2001. He has been a player in the nfl for 6 seasons, and a starter for 5. In that time period, it has been possible for 12 qb's (2 each year) to take their team to the nfc championship game. How many have done it? Well, Mcnabb did it 4 times, Delhomme did it twice, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Grossman, Brees, Brad Johnson, and Mike Vick have all taken their team to that game. 8 qbs have done what he did in the NFC. He knocked Favre out of the playoffs in Lambeau. Here are some quarterbacks who haven't taken their team as far as Vick has in the NFC in this timespan

Eli Manning, Brett Favre, Jon Kitna, Alex Smith, Matt Leinart, Joey Harrington, Jason Campbell, Mark Brunell, Tony Romo, etc. etc. Ad Nauseum. The point is, since the Falcons got Vick, going into the 2006 season, he had the 4th best WINNING percentage in the NFL. 3 teams won more with other qbs than mike vick. all he does is win games. Thats the point right? U play to win the game.

Vick is the 4th leading passer in yards in falcons history, and 3rd in qb wins. He's completely rewritten the record books on qb mobility, has done things nobody has ever done at his position, has 3 pro bowls, and people won't get off his back. To say that he has gotten atlanta nowhere is just insane

See, you lost me when you said Grossman took his team anywhere. Some QBs just benefit from having a good team around them. Vick has definitely benefitted from some very good defensive play, as well as some very good offensive line work (Alex Gibbs' ZBS is tops, even though Vick runs into sacks as much as Carr did). People blindly parrot the "QB takes his team" crap because they've heard it so often, I suppose. Grossman is not (yet) a good QB. Neither is Vick. Vick is a great runner, and an astounding athlete. He has a rocket arm. He misses receivers, throws way over their heads, and has no touch.

So OK, I'll back off my stance that Vick is a bad QB. But I remain firm in my stance that Vick is a very poor passer. If you don't deem passing to be an integral part of the QB's job, then that's your opinion.

 

[eriadoc]

From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I'm reminded of Troy Aikman's last years in Dallas when he would hit receivers in the numbers, but the guys couldn't catch the ball. Dallas stunk, and Troy's stats tanked.

I acknowledge that MS has impressed everyone and will do well, but I don't believe he can make Kevin or Jacoby catch a ball any more than I believe he can make Salaan and Flanagan hold the line. It does take more than one person to win a football game, especially in these new years of parity in the NFL. If the Texans succeed it will be because Kevin and Jacoby are catching their balls and Salaam and Flanagan are making their blocks as well as MS upgrading the QB position.

I tend to agree with your general premise, if not the specifics. However, to add to the Matt Schaub comments, and pursuant to my post above, Matt Schaub made the Atlanta receivers look much better than Vick did, in his few games.

 

[swtbound07]

See, you lost me when you said Grossman took his team anywhere. Some QBs just benefit from having a good team around them. Vick has definitely benefitted from some very good defensive play, as well as some very good offensive line work (Alex Gibbs' ZBS is tops, even though Vick runs into sacks as much as Carr did). People blindly parrot the "QB takes his team" crap because they've heard it so often, I suppose. Grossman is not (yet) a good QB. Neither is Vick. Vick is a great runner, and an astounding athlete. He has a rocket arm. He misses receivers, throws way over their heads, and has no touch.

So OK, I'll back off my stance that Vick is a bad QB. But I remain firm in my stance that Vick is a very poor passer. If you don't deem passing to be an integral part of the QB's job, then that's your opinion.

I'm not even debating the merits of vick good qb/ vs vick bad qb. You have to understand, im responding to the asinine statement that the falcons haven't gotten anywhere with vick. He's not a wonderfull passer. Whether the poster i was repsonding to likes it or not, the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him. If, as he says, all he cares about is wins, why is he ignoring vick's playoff wins and trip to the nfc championship game?

As to your Rex Grossman point. Agreed that quarterbacks can be beneficiaries of things like great defences (see Boller, Kyle) or fantastic running offenses. To the latter point in regards to vick i would say two things; 1) that potent rushing attack only worked in very large part because of the 1000 yards he put up rushing himself and 2) It takes a certain type of quarterback to be willing to take a reduced throwing role and hand off enough to make that rushing system work. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can't play in atlanta, because Manning could never be content not throwing the ball that much.

My whole point is not that Vick is God, just that Vick needs to be given a little bit of credit for the physical things that he has accomplished in his career. Has he won a superbowl? No, but who has in his career? In 6 seasons, 4 of the rings have gone to guys named Brady or Manning. The rest of the league isn't doing too swift by that standard either. And while I'm at it, calling the NFC Diluted to underscore what a qb who plays in the NFC accomplished is borderline idiotic.

 

[eriadoc]

I'm not even debating the merits of vick good qb/ vs vick bad qb. You have to understand, im responding to the asinine statement that the falcons haven't gotten anywhere with vick. He's not a wonderfull passer. Whether the poster i was repsonding to likes it or not, the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him. If, as he says, all he cares about is wins, why is he ignoring vick's playoff wins and trip to the nfc championship game?

As to your Rex Grossman point. Agreed that quarterbacks can be beneficiaries of things like great defences (see Boller, Kyle) or fantastic running offenses. To the latter point in regards to vick i would say two things; 1) that potent rushing attack only worked in very large part because of the 1000 yards he put up rushing himself and 2) It takes a certain type of quarterback to be willing to take a reduced throwing role and hand off enough to make that rushing system work. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can't play in atlanta, because Manning could never be content not throwing the ball that much.

My whole point is not that Vick is God, just that Vick needs to be given a little bit of credit for the physical things that he has accomplished in his career. Has he won a superbowl? No, but who has in his career? In 6 seasons, 4 of the rings have gone to guys named Brady or Manning. The rest of the league isn't doing too swift by that standard either. And while I'm at it, calling the NFC Diluted to underscore what a qb who plays in the NFC accomplished is borderline idiotic.

I guess the reason I responded at all is because I personally believe the Falcons would have bumped the Eagles at least one or two of those times if they would have had a more conventional passing game, with WCO-style QB mobility and crossing routes. Vick brings a lot of things to the table, but that team, as it was geared from about 2001 to 2005, would have been better off with a more conventional QB. Going forward, Petrino might be able to radically alter the offense to completely fit Vick's skill set, and that would be great for them. I just don't think it can be done. I think Vick is mis-cast in the role of QB.

But hey, good discussion

 

[The Pencil Neck]

From my POV, I don't understand why everybody fails to see the importance of the offensive line, running backs, and receivers. It's like Matt is a one-man football machine who is going to fix every offensive deficiency because he can step up in the pocket and read the defense better. He is going to avoid the sacks coming off the left tackle, find a way around the failing inside line, and put a football in the hands of people who haven't shown they can catch a football in the NFL and be a productive receiver.

I don't think that everyone is failing to see the importance of the offensive line, the running backs, and the receivers.

But there are two different ways to look at this. On one side, if you take a great QB and put him on a bad team, he's going to look worse (while possibly making some of the guys around him look better). On the other side, if you take a really bad QB and put him on a good team, the team is going to look worse (while the QB might actually look better than he is).

As far as I'm concerned, when you look the tape, we were in the second situation. There seems to be lots and lots of proof that Carr was making everyone else look worse.

When you look at the tape, you apparently see the first situation and that Carr was doing the best he could with no weapons. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

 

[eriadoc]

I don't think that everyone is failing to see the importance of the offensive line, the running backs, and the receivers.

But there are two different ways to look at this. On one side, if you take a great QB and put him on a bad team, he's going to look worse (while possibly making some of the guys around him look better). On the other side, if you take a really bad QB and put him on a good team, the team is going to look worse (while the QB might actually look better than he is).

As far as I'm concerned, when you look the tape, we were in the second situation. There seems to be lots and lots of proof that Carr was making everyone else look worse.

When you look at the tape, you apparently see the first situation and that Carr was doing the best he could with no weapons. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

I agree with you, for the most part. However, your take on this doesn't account for one major factor, and that is the effect of taking a developing QB and putting him on a bad team with an atrocious O-line. I think it's obvious that the team has improved its personnel over the years, even though we're still sub-par in a few areas. But those first two years were really bad. Not that many QBs are good in their rookie years, but they learn and develop. If you kill that development, I think Carr is what you're left with. I don't know that he'll ever develop into the QB he could have been, but I do feel confident saying that those two teams (2002 and 2003) largely shaped what he became.

 

[hollywood_texan]

And while I'm at it, calling the NFC Diluted to underscore what a qb who plays in the NFC accomplished is borderline idiotic.

In two postings you have referred to me as ignorant and idiotic. Is that really necessary? Is that how you communicate with someone that doesn't agree with you? I thought you were some open minded liberal?

Maybe you can work on your reading comphrension skills?

I am looking at Vick and his talents from a very different perspective than you. If you can't understand that without throwing those words out, what is there really to say to you?

I understand your perpsective and I would like to discuss this, but your comments really rub me the wrong and I really don't want this to get out of control.

What I don't understand is why you are making my very small comment about Vick regarding the bigger picture of Schuab and just blowing it way out of proportion.

There are a lot of question marks regarding Vick, hopefully you can at least recognize that?

Give it break or relax..

 

[swtbound07]

In two postings you have referred to me as ignorant and idiotic. Is that really necessary? Is that how you communicate with someone that doesn't agree with you? I though you were some open minded liberal?

Maybe you can work on your reading comphrension skills?

I am looking at Vick and his talents from a very different perspective than you. If you can't understand that without throwing those words out, what is there really to say to you?

I understand your perpsective and I would like to discuss this, but your comments really rub me the wrong and I really don't want this to get out of control.

What I don't understand why you are making my very small comment about Vick regarding the bigger picture of Schuab and just blowing it way out of proportion.

There are a lot of question marks regarding Vick, hopefully you can at least recognize that?

Give it break or relax..

Fair enough, I apologize for the tone. Rereading it, it sounds a lot more condescending and harsh then it does in my head. I type stream of consciousness, and i don't proofread. That part is a bit uncalled for. For reasons that would matter to nobody but myself I'm very defensive of Michael Vick. It angers me to see someone diminish his accomplishments. I'm not saying there aren't holes in his game, because their are, but the dude wins, and wins a lot, and got atlanta 2 deep playoff runs and within a sniff of the superbowl. I feel he takes a lot of heat because he doesn't fit into the shiny box most people have in their minds when they think quarterback. Maybe I should stay out of these things, but sometimes emotions get the better of actions. Again, my apologies, my intent wasn't to offend you personally.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I agree with you, for the most part. However, your take on this doesn't account for one major factor, and that is the effect of taking a developing QB and putting him on a bad team with an atrocious O-line. I think it's obvious that the team has improved its personnel over the years, even though we're still sub-par in a few areas. But those first two years were really bad. Not that many QBs are good in their rookie years, but they learn and develop. If you kill that development, I think Carr is what you're left with. I don't know that he'll ever develop into the QB he could have been, but I do feel confident saying that those two teams (2002 and 2003) largely shaped what he became.

I still think Carr had the talent and with the proper guidance at the right time, I think he could have been a good QB. I think that Carr was broken and I don't know if he is recoverable.

But this discussion was really just about the current situation. With our team as it existed at the end of last season and what we're looking forward to in the next one. If Carr was the bad QB on a decent team, then some of our perceived weaknesses are not as bad as they appeared. And I think that Smith/Kubiak's moves in the offseason were based off of what they saw on tape. Which players were making plays and which players weren't. I think that Kubiak isn't too worried about our WR#2 and our line because of what he saw on film.

Some people are looking at the moves being made and they're thinking that Smith and Kubiak must be stupid for not addressing these glaring needs.

But what if they're not needs. What if Smith and Kubiak actually know what they're doing? I know as a franchise we're not used to that... but...

 

[hollywood_texan]

Fair enough, I apologize for the tone. Rereading it, it sounds a lot more condescending and harsh then it does in my head. I type stream of consciousness, and i don't proofread. That part is a bit uncalled for. For reasons that would matter to nobody but myself I'm very defensive of Michael Vick. It angers me to see someone diminish his accomplishments. I'm not saying there aren't holes in his game, because their are, but the dude wins, and wins a lot, and got atlanta 2 deep playoff runs and within a sniff of the superbowl. I feel he takes a lot of heat because he doesn't fit into the shiny box most people have in their minds when they think quarterback. Maybe I should stay out of these things, but sometimes emotions get the better of actions. Again, my apologies, my intent wasn't to offend you personally.

Fair enough from this end as well.

Totally agree with you regarding Vick being an amazing talent.

But, I look at a QB and how he improves the team as a whole and winning the Super Bowl. I think Vick falls short in those two areas, but it's debatable as you have pointed out. More on point to what started this whole thing, a QB doesn't have to be great runner or scrambler to be successful. Which was the main reason I cited Vick in that example.

Previously, you mentioned Brady and Manning. Those are guys are the prototypical QBs if you want to win the Super Bowl and they have skills that Vick really needs to develop. Further, those guys are not great runners or scramblers, which is goes to my bigger point that started this whole thing regarding Schuab.

So, my initial point was in regards to Viclk's running abilities and that it isn't the be all end all of a successfull QB. As great as Vick is at that, it really will be him developing his passing game and using his brain in making good decisions that will get him and the Falcons a Super Bowl victory.

 

[infantrycak]

the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him.

Can't know that without knowing who is the replacement QB.

 

[HOU-TEX]

Fair enough from this end as well.

Totally agree with you regarding Vick being an amazing talent.

But, I look at a QB and how he improves the team as a whole and winning the Super Bowl. I think Vick falls short in those two areas, but it's debatable as you have pointed out. More on point to what started this whole thing, a QB doesn't have to be great runner or scrambler to be successful. Which was the main reason I cited Vick in that example.

Previously, you mentioned Brady and Manning. Those are guys are the prototypical QBs if you want to win the Super Bowl and they have skills that Vick really needs to develop. Further, those guys are not great runners or scramblers, which is goes to my bigger point that started this whole thing regarding Schuab.

So, my initial point was in regards to Viclk's running abilities and that it isn't the be all end all of a successfull QB. As great as Vick is at that, it really will be him developing his passing game and using his brain in making good decisions that will get him and the Falcons a Super Bowl victory.

I think both of y'all are making goods points. Nice discussion.

If Bobby P. runs the falcon offense like he did in Louisville this will be the year Vick will have his chance to become an elite QB. In BP's offense, I think it's a must to be a skilled passing QB. If Vick is unable to adapt, the falcons will fail miserably.

 

[Texans Horror]

I don't think that everyone is failing to see the importance of the offensive line, the running backs, and the receivers.

But there are two different ways to look at this. On one side, if you take a great QB and put him on a bad team, he's going to look worse (while possibly making some of the guys around him look better). On the other side, if you take a really bad QB and put him on a good team, the team is going to look worse (while the QB might actually look better than he is).

As far as I'm concerned, when you look the tape, we were in the second situation. There seems to be lots and lots of proof that Carr was making everyone else look worse.

When you look at the tape, you apparently see the first situation and that Carr was doing the best he could with no weapons. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

A little of both, actually. The Texans offense is not as deep as the Texans defense, so I think Carr and AJ had (have) a worse chance of looking good than Babin, TJ, and Dunta, and certainly Mario and Amobi have a better support system.

This is not to credit Carr as the greatest QB of all time. He made a lot of mistakes, through some doosies, and sacked himself way more than he ever should have.

However, I think where Carr had it easier than MS is that Carr had a legit #2 receiver in Moulds. It will take Kevin Walter or Jacoby Jones having Pro-Bowl years in order to alleviate the plague of attention that will be put on Matt's #1 receiver.

Matt is a great quarterback, but he needs help, and the Texans aren't offering him any.

 

[Lucky]

However, I think where Carr had it easier than MS is that Carr had a legit #2 receiver in Moulds. It will take Kevin Walter or Jacoby Jones having Pro-Bowl years in order to alleviate the plague of attention that will be put on Matt's #1 receiver.

If Kubiak thought Moulds was still a legit #2 WR, don't you think he'd still be on the team? Besides, I think too much is made of a #2 WR. Schaub comes from a system that places heavy emphasis on the TE. It just so happens that the Texans have an emerging talent at TE in Owen Daniels. Also, Ahman Green has been a very good receiver out of the backfield for much of his career. I think the Domanick-less Texans were hurt last season without a RB who was a pass receiving threat.

It would be great to get a another quality WR across from Andre, and maybe Walter or Jones will emerge. But who are the #2 WRs on the Bears or Chargers? They were 2 of the top 3 scoring teams in the league. I think the need for a #2 WR is overblown. What this team needs are more big plays downfield from their #1 WR.

 

[hollywood_texan]

I think both of y'all are making goods points. Nice discussion.

If Bobby P. runs the falcon offense like he did in Louisville this will be the year Vick will have his chance to become an elite QB. In BP's offense, I think it's a must to be a skilled passing QB. If Vick is unable to adapt, the falcons will fail miserably.

Yeah, I think SWT is really using stats and a couple of playoffs runs as his main analysis and support.

My perpspective is really looking at the bigger picture and what is the typical Super Bowl QB. My point is really more subjective.

So, the both of us are coming in at very different angles and expectations.

Like you said, Vick is going to have to make his passing and decision making skills top notch to get become that ELITE QB. Combine those skills with his physical talent, it would be very difficult to beat the Falcons.

But, to develop that requires a lot of time and a tireless work ethic. To a certain extent, physical talents are irrelevant in that area of developing his game.

 

[Texans Horror]

If Kubiak thought Moulds was still a legit #2 WR, don't you think he'd still be on the team? Besides, I think too much is made of a #2 WR. Schaub comes from a system that places heavy emphasis on the TE. It just so happens that the Texans have an emerging talent at TE in Owen Daniels. Also, Ahman Green has been a very good receiver out of the backfield for much of his career. I think the Domanick-less Texans were hurt last season without a RB who was a pass receiving threat.

It would be great to get a another quality WR across from Andre, and maybe Walter or Jones will emerge. But who are the #2 WRs on the Bears or Chargers? They were 2 of the top 3 scoring teams in the league. I think the need for a #2 WR is overblown. What this team needs are more big plays downfield from their #1 WR.

I remember the same reasoning in 2005. AJ just needed to make the big plays downfield. Hopefully he has found a way to thwart two and three-man coverages. The time he did play, nothing could get to him.

I'm going to switch gears now. Some positives out of this offseason:

1. Running Back. While I'm not confident Green and Dayne will last the entire year, this is still the strongest backfield in Texans history. For a run-first offense, it should do wonders.

These two guys are BYOB, which I love. I think that is the only way it can work this year. Eventually, this will start to wear them down, and I expect Lundy to pick up more carries as the season progresses to reduce the hits on these two powerful running backs. Very good pick-up.

2. Amobi Okoye. This is one of the best picks the Texans have ever made. I have been going off like a broken record since January on how much the Texans needed a DT to stop the run-game. Although the results won't be there for another year, I expect the Texans to become one of the best defenses in the league for at least the next four to five seasons.

Essentially, the Texans have answered the two most grueling questions - RB, and DT. I'm really ecstatic that they had the cojones to take these guys.

The reason the team gets a dink for draft purposes (at least in my book) is because I felt everything after Okoye was a bad pick. That's just one guy's opinion, though.

2.

 

[Runner]

I think your's and other's perception of our O-line is flat wrong.

I don't care what anyone says I think we have players capable of forming a top 15 Offensive line.

Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 his year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apparently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some plays in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.

 

[Runner]

Our offense WILL be better this year simply because Schaub is behind center...

I certainly wouldn't argue about this. I think that is a simple fact. However, my point, and maybe the point of some others, is that the offensive line still needs some serious upgrading for the Texans to be a serious play-off contender.

Will the team be better than last year with the same o-line? Yes.

Is that good enough? Not to me. I don't want a good QB behind a middling at best line. I want a good QB behind a good line for now. Then I want one or both of those goods developed into greats.

I think turning a blind eye to the line's problems is short-sighted. The coaches certainly aren't ignoring it, given the number of o-lineman they've drafted and picked up in free agency. They must not be as satisfied that Schaub is the final answer by himself as some of us are.

 

[Specnatz]

Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 is year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apprently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some play in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.

I think it lies somewhere in the middle. while some, myself included, think the line will be improved this year because of the changes that have been made, but negate everything is a fallacy. No one is saying the line will be the best in the league or just saying it should improve to where there are not 43 sacks given up, to maybe 28 to 35 and that would put the Texans right in the middle of the road, going by last years numbers. I know Vinny for one hates the Texans centers and think that is a major area that needs an upgrade (if memory serves).

We all have to remember that it was not a one year fix or even a two year fix when Kubiak took over and now with Smith on board and revamping the way information is compiled it will help to evaluate talent on the rost and across the NFL and collegiant players. The secondary still needs to improve as well as the line. It is addition by subtraction.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right.

I think there are definitely problems with the line. I think that we don't really know how bad or good it is. There were definitely times last year that the line was not handling some pretty simple stunts. Personally, Mr. Black doesn't fill me with any good feeling.

I've been trying to keep the Schaub-elation I feel from carrying me away. That's why I've been trying really hard not to predict more than 8 wins (even though I think we're going to). And it's the problems with the line that scare me.

But I don't think there's a problem with the receiving corp. I think ALL of our old problems with the receivers were QB issues.

 

[HOU-TEX]

Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 his year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apparently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some plays in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.

I'm curious as to who makes the calls along the Oline. Aren't there certain protection schemes called at the LOS? I don't want to seem like I'm instilling more blame to the former QB, but isn't the QB supposed to read whether the defense is blitzing, stunting, shifting, etc. at the LOS? I've always been a defensive minded person so I might be way off-base here. While watching other teams I always see the QB talking to the Oline, pointing at particular players on the defense. I don't know, but I think you bring up a very good point questioning the execution of the Oline scheme.

 

[Lucky]

I remember the same reasoning in 2005. AJ just needed to make the big plays downfield. Hopefully he has found a way to thwart two and three-man coverages. The time he did play, nothing could get to him.

Andre Johnson is this team's franchise offensive player. He has to be given the opportunities to make plays downfield. As opposed to running 4 yard slants. It's ridiculous to turn a player with Andre's physical gifts into a possession receiver. Who cares how many guys are covering Johnson? He's bigger, stronger, and faster than those guys. AJ has to be the man for this offense to succeed.

It's this coaching staff's responsibility to make that happen. They have to design plays to free Johnson deep. And they have to develop an offensive line to allow Andre to get downfield. Then, AJ has to deliver. I'm past the point of caring how it gets done. I don't care who the #2 WR is, or who the Texans didn't draft. No more excuses. Make plays, score points, and win football games.

 

[real]

Well some of us are knowledagble fans (as are you) and we still see problems with the line. As much as you are convinced we are in error, the same possibility exists that we are are right. Things I consider:

If Flanagan and Salaam remain starters, I hope no one is surprised when one of them gets hurt. Health is something that has to be considered when evaluating a player.

Black gave up 14 sacks last year on a better team without Carr at QB. Wand gave up 12 his year of starting with Carr at QB and he's considered a bust. Why is Black such a good option for us at LT? Because no one has watched him play before?

Last year the offense was reduced, apparently to match Carrs lack of ability. Whatever the reason, that still has to be considered when evaluating the line. Yes, they gave up fewer sacks, but how many deep drops did they attempt?

I don't count on Spencer solidifying things. I remember D. D.

I think the line had and still has problems of their own, independent of the QB who had his own major problems.

The games will either show us what the answer is, or more likely everything will remain open to interpretation.

===============================

You played o-line, honest question: Didn't you think some of the Texans protection schemes were either poorly designed or very poorly executed by the players? I've heard some pretty good analysis on specifc plays that indicate something was out of whack, either the scheme or the players ability to understand and execute it. Some plays in the Patriots game really stood out in this regard.

I think I'm pretty much the only person in the world that thinks when healthy our line is/can be good. I did see some bust out of them last year, but most of the year we basically had four back-ups playing. Last year was the first year for our guys in a new system, no cohesiveness (guys being shuffled because of a bad injury bug), and only one guy who started every game at the same position all year....

IMHO the talent we have up front is no worst than most teams in the leauge...I don't look at our line and see a lack of talent...I saw a QB that had the worst pocket presence and footwork I've ever seen from a pro in my lifetime, an injury bitten group in a new system, and no cohesiveness...I think Weary and Pitts are pretty good gaurds...I think Mckinney can play center at an effective level...I think Spencer is an absolute beast at LT...I think we have several guys that can play right...and I think if Spencer can't go right away I think Salaam can fill in and do an o.k job....My main problem with our line is that we've never had time to gel...We don't just lose one or two guys...We lose three or four guys a season....

Despite all that I think David made our line look terrible last year when in fact they were capable of being mediocre/good.....Offensive lines don't dominate in the running game and then turn horrible in the passing game...They may be better at one aspect than the other but not at those extremes.....

I know mostly everyone doesn't agree with me and that's fine, but it's my honest analysis..

 

[real]

I certainly wouldn't argue about this. I think that is a simple fact. However, my point, and maybe the point of some others, is that the offensive line still needs some serious upgrading for the Texans to be a serious play-off contender.

Will the team be better than last year with the same o-line? Yes.

Is that good enough? Not to me. I don't want a good QB behind a middling at best line. I want a good QB behind a good line for now. Then I want one or both of those goods developed into greats.

I think turning a blind eye to the line's problems is short-sighted. The coaches certainly aren't ignoring it, given the number of o-lineman they've drafted and picked up in free agency. They must not be as satisfied that Schaub is the final answer by himself as some of us are.

I say with a better QB behind center last year we win about two more games...I say with a healthy, cohesive unit we maybe win one more...By my count that puts us at 9-7 with a possible play-off berth...Add an improved, more experienced defense to the mix that played the first five like they played the last nine and I see a ten win season...

If the Texans don't make the play-offs this year it will be a dissapointment in my eyes...

 

[Double Barrel]

Why did they take Okoye instead ? We will probably never know the full inside story, just like we'll probably never know the full inside story for last years #1 pick.

Coach Kubiak said our defensive line (i.e. pass rusher) was our most pressing need going into the off-season. Okoye was the highest ranked defender on the Texans board. It all makes sense to me.

 

[Wolf]

I say having a priest holmes or larry Johnson (in discussion about Black),sure makes a line look good compared to ....

 

[Wolf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by swtbound07 View Post
the falcons are a lot closer to a championship under vick then they are without him.

Can't know that without knowing who is the replacement QB.

speaking of that, didn't the Falcons pickup Harrington?

 

[Second Honeymoon]

speaking of that, didn't the Falcons pickup Harrington?

Yes they did. They still have local hero DJ Shockley and Chris Redman too.

The question is, will they have Vick?