Relevance of Round 1 picks

[FSUBulldog]

This article strikes a cord with me:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jeffri_chadiha/04/26/later.rounds/1.html

Think of all of the time spent on the VY vs. RB vs. MW debate and compare that to the number of threads on this board that deal with what we might do in the latter rounds. Let's hope the boys in the FO have been doing their homework on rounds 2-7 instead of wasting all of their time on the 1st pick and related 1st pick trade scenarios....

 

[hollywood_texan]

The article is right on point.

I think this discussion of our second #1 pick in five years is really about philosophy and the state of Carr's progress.

The Texans really don't seem interested in focusing on the interior lines on either sides of the ball, even in later rounds. And when they do try something, it's a bust. Which is my philososphy point. It seems they want a team that can be be able score 30 points a game (at least on paper) and win a shootout against Indy (again, at least on paper). They lockup Carr, have Johnson, trade for Moulds, sign Putziner, and about to get President Bush, I am not sure what else to think.

Forget about the Weaver deal, and what has been done the defensive side of the ball?

It seems clear they are more concerned about scoring a lot points than developing a punishing running game and stout defense. Which I think is the proven model of winning a Super Bowl in the current state of the NFL.

Maybe they will address all those points in the draft. It will be interesting to see.

The teams that are successfull in the later rounds with their picks are the ones that go to the playoffs.