Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Texans on ESPN right now talking about Bush
- Thread starter gtexan02
- Start date
Salisbury says we have to take Bush because by himself, he will take pressure off the QB and make the line look above average. Eric Allen is saying that we have to trade down and pick up a left tackle and a defensive player. Allen says that we don't know what Bush will be like in the NFL, and Salisbury says that Bush is top 5 talent in the NFL, with peyton manning, lt, etc. crazy, good discussion, i would try and listen to it if you can.
GP
Go Texans!
More scoop from Dan Patrick Show at 5:25 p.m. 12-13-05 (I'm a loser, I know) about the Texans and what they should do with draft position:
Dan plays tape of earlier comments from Sean Salisbury Steak: "The Houston Texans should take Reggie Bush. If they don't, they're stupid. He's a once-in-40-years type of player."
Dan brings on Eric Allen, live, and asks for Eric's take on the situation: "Dan, of course Sean is going to say that...he wants to see his USC guy go first no matter what (Eric giggles, and so does Dan). One player is not going to make this team win right now, and that's what they need to do: Win right now. They need to STOP somebody. Look at the Bears this year. Stopping people with great defense is what the Texans need to do. This isn't the 1980 era Lakers type of game where you go fast break and outscore people. The Texans need to slide down and get two good defensive players and then an offensive tackle."
Eric goes on to say why take Reggie when you basically have a suitable back like Domanick Davis who is gettig his yards, has a reasonable average per carry, can catch out of the backfield (basically what I and others have been saying).
Dan leans toward Sean's take and says that Reggie will make everybody better around him. Eric strongly disagrees and says the Texans need defensive help that can step onto the field immediately and make a difference.
Pretty nuts and bolts here, folks. You either want to gamble like the Lions have the past four years and bank roll an offensive fireworks show that can't even get the wick lit, or you make the ugly pick and stick to meat and potatoes like most clubs do (Steelers, Patriots, etc.) Those teams make the ugly pick that gets no headlines each year, and they just continue to field solid teams every year.
My two cents: STICK TO THE PLAN. Make the ugly picks, regardless of the hype.
Dan plays tape of earlier comments from Sean Salisbury Steak: "The Houston Texans should take Reggie Bush. If they don't, they're stupid. He's a once-in-40-years type of player."
Dan brings on Eric Allen, live, and asks for Eric's take on the situation: "Dan, of course Sean is going to say that...he wants to see his USC guy go first no matter what (Eric giggles, and so does Dan). One player is not going to make this team win right now, and that's what they need to do: Win right now. They need to STOP somebody. Look at the Bears this year. Stopping people with great defense is what the Texans need to do. This isn't the 1980 era Lakers type of game where you go fast break and outscore people. The Texans need to slide down and get two good defensive players and then an offensive tackle."
Eric goes on to say why take Reggie when you basically have a suitable back like Domanick Davis who is gettig his yards, has a reasonable average per carry, can catch out of the backfield (basically what I and others have been saying).
Dan leans toward Sean's take and says that Reggie will make everybody better around him. Eric strongly disagrees and says the Texans need defensive help that can step onto the field immediately and make a difference.
Pretty nuts and bolts here, folks. You either want to gamble like the Lions have the past four years and bank roll an offensive fireworks show that can't even get the wick lit, or you make the ugly pick and stick to meat and potatoes like most clubs do (Steelers, Patriots, etc.) Those teams make the ugly pick that gets no headlines each year, and they just continue to field solid teams every year.
My two cents: STICK TO THE PLAN. Make the ugly picks, regardless of the hype.
G
God of Wine
Guest
Nope I say pick Bush, see signature............
YoungTexanFan
All Pro
tiger06 said:
no such thing as bad publicity
YoungTexanFan
All Pro
gpshafer_1976 said:
we have never gone with the ugly pick. I dont quite know which plan you are following, but I agree with it. If only our front office did too.
texplayer2
Waterboy
gpshafer_1976 said:
Last years draft? Didn't we pick TJ and........Babin? Defensive Guys right? I have not seen many headlines on those guys, you are right. I think these guys will get better, but you have to go with good players and adapt your game to them. Sean is right.
G
God of Wine
Guest
Grid said:
Same can be said for Eric also.
Eric was a defensive player, Sean was a QB , so you know they are biased to their side of the ball.
awtysst
Draft Guru
If you watched the ESPN interview with Eric and Sean you will notice Sean did some SERIOUS backpeddling. At one point he called reggie bush an equal talent of non other then P. Manning. He then claimed that R. Bush was a top 5 player in terms of talent right now. Later when pressed he referred to Bush as a "top 10 back". So in a few minutes he went from top 5 to top 10 back. Nice job of backpeddling SS.
Big B Texan Fan
Veteran
Weren't the Portland Trailblazers content with Clyde Drexler when they passed on Michael "Freaking" Jordan so instead they go with Sam Bowie. The JailBlazers actually said that about Drexler leading up to the draft. Drexler is great, but Jordan is super-great. DD is great but Bush is __________________!!!!!!(fill in the blank)
Well I'm content with DD but...........This guy could be the next Jordan of RB's. I'm still confused because we do need the extra pix. I just wish we had this scenario last year, there was no Reggie or Leinert. It would've been a No-Brainer to trade down from #1 or #2 last year.
Although I'm at a crossroad with my feelings on this, I can say that I'm leaning more to the "Draft Reggie" side of the fence.
And to all of you Jordan Lovers out there that are thinkin' that I just compared Bush to Jordan, I comparing their pre-draft fanfare as they were coming out of college. I'm in no way saying that they are equals or anything like that.
Well I'm content with DD but...........This guy could be the next Jordan of RB's. I'm still confused because we do need the extra pix. I just wish we had this scenario last year, there was no Reggie or Leinert. It would've been a No-Brainer to trade down from #1 or #2 last year.
Although I'm at a crossroad with my feelings on this, I can say that I'm leaning more to the "Draft Reggie" side of the fence.
And to all of you Jordan Lovers out there that are thinkin' that I just compared Bush to Jordan, I comparing their pre-draft fanfare as they were coming out of college. I'm in no way saying that they are equals or anything like that.
gpshafer_1976 said:
I'm still undecided.
That being said, just to play devil's advocate here. I can toss you a different example of a team in a similar funk to the Lions. The Bengals took a Dlineman with the #4 pick in 2001. They took an OT with the #10 pick in 2002. The next year they had the #1 overall and the worst record in franchise history - those two ugly picks didn't seem to differentiate them much from the Lions. In fact, they were worse.
The Lions problem is two-fold. First, the administration is terrible. Second, despite the high-profile WR draft picks, they haven't had a decent passer nor a good running back. Since they can't get Charles Rogers on the field, teams can double Roy Williams all day long (sound familiar?). In short, they haven't put together a working offense. They've added enough sheer talent that heroic effort at times by individual players is sometimes enough to get them over the top. Most of the time though, they fall just short.
Their lines on both sides of the ball are solidly better than anything the Texans might hope to field next year. Oh, and 4 of their last 10 first day picks were on the defensive front 7, and we're talking high seconds type picks - the same sort that we can probably expect to get in trade-downs.
Big B Texan Fan
Veteran
Really........football ain't basketball. It's good thing you came. Everybody hear that, football ain't basketball, just in case you were confused like I was.Grid said:
As far as the "one really talented player" you refered to. If I remember correctly Jordan had a little help in the form of a perrinial All-Star and Gold medal winner Scottie Pippen. Maybe Bush and DD and AJ team up. Then Carr gets on board with a little tweakin' of the O-Line. The possibilities are endless.
Bball has 5 on the court at a time. Fball has 11 on the field. 5 divided by eleven is 2.2ish. Let us round down for arguments sake to 2. Jordan was one of the 5. Brady and Dillon are 2 of the 11 for the offense. Bruschi and Law were 2 of the 11 for the defense. Montana and Rice, Elway and Davis, Bradshaw and Swan, Aikman and Smith and Irving (those guys are there if you wanna round the 2.2 up). Ray Lewis and the rest of his D, Brooks and Lynch, and Barber.
mean mark8
Waterboy
How much of a difference did Earl Campbell make to the Oilers? If Bush will be an Earl Campbell type player in the NFL, the jury is still out. The scouts seem to think he may be. Of course they also thought Ryan Leaf and that OT the Packers drafted years back as can't miss prospects. This is a giant guessing game. I don't think you can pass on the type of talent Bush may be. If he's a bust, then he's a bust. We won't be the first one to have it happen. I wouldn't want to be the one to pass on the next Earl Campbell.
run-david-run
All Pro
How good were the Bulls before they got Jordan some help? Even with MJ they didnt win it all because one player can nor carry a team. Reggie might be the next coming of Barry Sanders, but just like the Lions back then, we wont win with just Barry/Reggie if we dont fix the major problems of this team (O-line, secondary)Big B Texan Fan said:
Big B Texan Fan
Veteran
Grid said:
Well if that's the case then lets just stop starting new threads, shut down the MB's, hell why not even just go ahead and run the team out of town to somewhere that rhymes with Schmennessee.
bottom line is we need playmakers on both sides...you can make the argument that having both davis and bush would greatly help this team...you can make the argument that trading down and picking up two defensive studs like mario williams and jimmy williams or aj hawk could greatly improve this team...in all likely hood though we won't get two 1st round draft picks this year...the only team with two 1st rounders is denver...who would they be willing to trade up for...bush? really why...they have too many freakin backs there already...if we trade down we're looking at getting a lower 1st rounder(something we really don't need) and some additional day one and two picks(something we really do need)...basically pick your poison...me personally all i can think about is this...pick reggie bush...this year then next year trade david carr for a 1st rounder and some other players...trade up if needed to get vince young...can you imagine an offense with young, bush, davis, andre johnson, and mathis all at the same time...who you gonna focus on?...sickest offense ever!!!!!
Big B Texan Fan
Veteran
So then which one do you first:run-david-run said:
Take some O-linemen along with some extra pix then grab next years Bush.
I'm cool with that but what if next years Bush isn't but 3/4 as good as this years Bush.
Logic says trade down, I'm OK with trading down a long as we trade down effectively.
Or, we can just do it backwards. Go Bush this year and O-line/extra pix next. If were gonna suck as bad as most you think if we draft Bush, then we'll have a high tradable pick next year.
Big B Texan Fan
Veteran
I'm sure it has but I don't have 12 weeks to read them all. I'm busy just like most of you guys and would love to catch up. I used to visit the MB's alot back in the day. I've just now started back on them.Grid said:
If we trade down just a few spots.. we could grab Dbrick, or Hawk.. and have two high second rounders to grab anyone who slides out of the first. If we trade down again from there to the middle of the first.. we could get Winston or Scott or Jimmy/Mario Williams.. and get a third second rounder.
No we wont be able to get 2 1st rounders.. but we could do quite well in the second round.
Our biggest need is Oline.. we NEED Olinemen..and we NEED to spend a first rounder on one of these elite tackle prospects... cause you dont get really good LTs outside the first round (usually). Now.. Pitts has been pretty good at LT for us.. but he could be good at RT for us too.. and honestly we just need more talent on the line no matter how you cut it.
Reggie Bush is a great talent.. I wouldnt MIND having him.. but with DD on this team, we really dont NEED Bush.. Bush is NOT going to jumpstart this team to anything. Anyone who thinks he is going to come in and shake the foundations of the earth is fooling themselves. It will be the same situation as LT and Barry Sanders.. Bush MAY come in and put up 2000 yards...yay for him.... without a good defense and a functioning Oline..we still arent gonna go anywhere.
but hey.. he is a great prospect right? so lets tie up 40 million bucks and toss the best player on our offense to the street to make room for him.
whatever.. im not gonna take part in this debate anymore. Until we know who our new coaching staff is.. and what our new identity is going to be.. we have nothing to base this debate on.
No we wont be able to get 2 1st rounders.. but we could do quite well in the second round.
Our biggest need is Oline.. we NEED Olinemen..and we NEED to spend a first rounder on one of these elite tackle prospects... cause you dont get really good LTs outside the first round (usually). Now.. Pitts has been pretty good at LT for us.. but he could be good at RT for us too.. and honestly we just need more talent on the line no matter how you cut it.
Reggie Bush is a great talent.. I wouldnt MIND having him.. but with DD on this team, we really dont NEED Bush.. Bush is NOT going to jumpstart this team to anything. Anyone who thinks he is going to come in and shake the foundations of the earth is fooling themselves. It will be the same situation as LT and Barry Sanders.. Bush MAY come in and put up 2000 yards...yay for him.... without a good defense and a functioning Oline..we still arent gonna go anywhere.
but hey.. he is a great prospect right? so lets tie up 40 million bucks and toss the best player on our offense to the street to make room for him.
whatever.. im not gonna take part in this debate anymore. Until we know who our new coaching staff is.. and what our new identity is going to be.. we have nothing to base this debate on.
Big B Texan Fan said:
last year there was no talent quite like reggie bush. this draft is setting up sorta like the mike vick-lt draft a few years back. and, if memory serves me correctly, the falcons traded up to #1 to get mike vick and gave up the #2 overall, the #2 in the second round, plus their first round pick the next year.
i'm not gonna lie, i'm in the draft reggie camp, but think of all the loot we could get it we traded down ...
Carr Bombed
Hall of Fame
Im begining to be drawn on the fence with this one. Although I'm am and have been leaning towards bush. As for the previous post about Campbell. I don't think there will be another E. Campbell. The game has changed so much since then. E Campbell was straight power and during a time of enormous difference of talent levels. Todays game is about straight speed and elusiveness and enough power to break a tackle. Earl just ran over people, you don't see that today. The only argument I have towards the trade down comunity is they automaticly believe if we trade down we'll hit on all our picks. As I've stated above in a game where talent levels are separated by a hair, it is wishful thinking that your automaticlly going to be able to trade down and be garanteed to pick out studs, especially with the way our FO is set up now. Some times a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (bush, thats kinda ironic j/k) To wrap it all up, Im glad I'm not the gm and I don't know what we're going to do.
dat_boy_yec
Rookie
Everyone says we need o-line but I'm of the opinion that the line simply wasnt coached well or handled well this yr. all these arguments dont take into account the coaching. If we have a decent line coach next yr. I know the line will be better. The TE wasnt utilized well at all. I think Rivers could really contribute to the team. If we had second pick which could happen then yeah it would be great to trade down or fill one of those needs, I take into consideration that the D-line improved with the backups and I wonder what else do we have we dont know about well I know that Bush is an upgrade for sure I mean passing on this guy would not be smart. Immidiate impact on this team is what he brings. Deal with o-line and D in later rounds and free agency I think.
I will be seriously dissapointed if the Texans draft Bush. Bush, to me, is a product of the system. Look at the holes that USC line makes! Effin huge. Not to mention Lienart keeps them honest with the passing game, so they never stack the box. USC schedule isnt even that great. Bush will never be able to wear down a defense because he is a scat back, not a pounder.
Texan should do the right thing and trade down. Get a few more first day picks and sign some FA's. Drafting Bush is NOT the answer.
And no im not saying this because im afraid of you guys picking him up.
Texan should do the right thing and trade down. Get a few more first day picks and sign some FA's. Drafting Bush is NOT the answer.
And no im not saying this because im afraid of you guys picking him up.
dalemurphy
Hall of Fame
Any team that wants to be successful in the NFL for the long haul needs to do two things: manage the draft and manage the cap well.
The simple truth is that, though Bush could be a great player, the value we get for that pick is too good to pass up. In addition, trading down is also more cap friendly. Bush could also blow out his knee as a rookie and never be heard from again. We can get 4-5 first day players for him and pay less for those 4 combined than we do for him.
If you want an applicable example of this kind of move look at SD. They traded the Vick pick away in order to move down 3 spots. In return, they drafted Tomlinson and Drew Brees in the 2nd round, in addition to collecting extra picks. Then 3 years later, they traded down again. It was a bad trade on one hand. However, it was still a net gain because they received extra picks that have been useful and they are less cap-strapped than they would have been if they'd taken someon at #1 overall.
The simple truth is that, though Bush could be a great player, the value we get for that pick is too good to pass up. In addition, trading down is also more cap friendly. Bush could also blow out his knee as a rookie and never be heard from again. We can get 4-5 first day players for him and pay less for those 4 combined than we do for him.
If you want an applicable example of this kind of move look at SD. They traded the Vick pick away in order to move down 3 spots. In return, they drafted Tomlinson and Drew Brees in the 2nd round, in addition to collecting extra picks. Then 3 years later, they traded down again. It was a bad trade on one hand. However, it was still a net gain because they received extra picks that have been useful and they are less cap-strapped than they would have been if they'd taken someon at #1 overall.
texplayer2
Waterboy
Carr Bomb said:
The faces on all the trade down talk is where I have a problem. Some of the trades I have seen proposed would take a gun pointed at another owner to be pulled off. Then if we do pull it off ( because being from Texas, Mcnair probably owns a gun or two) then we have to hope this guy falls that far or someone else doesn't jump in and get this guy before us. Why would we go that route and get half or less of what we want, instead of going with what we know we can get and following through on a plan. If we can get the farm at the time by all means get it, otherwise take what you get and stick to a plan. Don't go to the grocery store hungry.
Kaiser Toro
Native Mod
tulexan said:
that would be awful, but you are assuming that we get no player in return from the team that would be willing to trade with us
Kaiser Toro said:
Then you could keep trading down. The more picks the better for the Texans. For the Texans to be more productive faster, they need more first day picks than few. Tackle has alot of depth in this years draft. If you cant get DBrick, get Winston. If you cant get Winston, get Justice. Trading down will produce more first day picks. Reggie Bush alone though should get you plenty of picks.
tulexan
Hall of Fame
i guess i have a hard time seeing a team giving up draft picks and a good player that we could use. expecting a player like julian peterson is unrealistic because that is just another hole that the niners or whatever bad team that we are expecting to trade with is going to have to fill.
Kaiser Toro
Native Mod
tulexan said:
If that were the case then you are overvalueing Bush.
tulexan
Hall of Fame
I don't think so. I believe that he is very valuable, but I don't think that a team is going to give up a few draft picks and a potential pro bowler like Julian Peterson like some here are expecting. It's not like we are trading with teams that are perennial playoff teams that have a lot of depth and can afford to give up quality players and draft picks. We are talking about the Niners, Jets, Saints, Cardinals, Packers, and Titans. All of these teams are in a rebuilding phase right now and can't really afford to break the bank in order to get Reggie Bush.
Wouldn't that mean that I am undervalueing him?
Wouldn't that mean that I am undervalueing him?
Kaiser Toro
Native Mod
tulexan said:
Something is only valuable as the demand for that asset. If you do not believe other teams will give up something of substance to take this once in a generation back then is there tangible value for us to take him given our best asset is currently at RB?
tulexan
Hall of Fame
No I believe that teams would be willing to give something of substance up for him, but all of the teams that would trade up for him (Niners, Packers, and Jets) are in arguably as worse or even worse condition than the Texans. Just like us, they need to fill a lot of holes too. The difference between us taking him at #1 and trading up to get him at #1 is huge. That is asking them to ignore holes that they must fill so they can give us picks plus remove a quality player from their team who again they will have to replace. If we were not at #1 I would not want us to trade up to get him because I think that would be blowing up our team for one player, but we don't have to because he is going to fall in our lap.
Kaiser Toro
Native Mod
tulexan said:
So what you are saying is that roughly six teams (Niners, Jets, Saints, Cardinals, Packers, and Titans) would only have interest in a once in a generation back?
You seem to be blowing up your rationale of taking Bush. You love him, but would not trade up for him? Hardly seems like the once in a generation player, does it?
tulexan
Hall of Fame
I don't think so. If the Texans didn't have as many holes then I would be more than willing to trade up to get him, but we do not and a lot of the teams that are in the pick area (4-7) that we are looking at have just as many holes as we do. I thought the whole reason of trading down was to go down to that area and pick up one of the two elite LTs because that is our biggest need right now. If we trade down any farther then we might as well just keep the pick and pick up one of the second tier LTs with our second pick.
I do think he is a once in a generation back and am sure that we will have plenty of offers to trade down but I don't want to trade down just to trade down and not get equal value for the pick.
I do think he is a once in a generation back and am sure that we will have plenty of offers to trade down but I don't want to trade down just to trade down and not get equal value for the pick.