What if....?

[powda]

Morty is just claiming now that its narrowed down to two teams.

isnt there a distinct diffrence between sitting down with an agent to discuss a contract and someones intrest in a team vs. a casual call every team makes? teams inquire all the time. we've surley inquired about antonio bryant as have the rest of the league. does that make him great or the newest texan? and how many teams inquired about henson? how many teams showed up for his practice session? how many teams pursued him? its common practice to make a simple phone call.

well thats a nobrainer isnt it?

Mort NEVER claims that the were not interested in him at some point.

and mort never claims they were intrested at some point.

Sit back for a second , you're going to get pounded. Since Gildon has been in the league he's had 2 very similar seasons like he did last year, in 1999 and 1997. Was he past his prime in those years as well? Nope.

wow. thats a pounding im not sure i can endure. you said what? he had a great year in 99. 5 years ago? you said what? he had a great year in 97. 7 years ago? golly! what year was o.j. simpson at his finest? we should sign him to! really all you have to do is look at the stats o.j. put up.

well thats a nobrainer isnt it?

Gildon is going to 33. :

you arguing he's young enough to be productive?

He does have a limitted time table

but now hes old?





intresting to note how you've shy'ed away from the fact that bringing gildeon here prevents younger linebackers (with a career on a longer timetable and without diminshing skills) from having a chance to establish themselves.

i am so confused. perhaps i hit my head one to many times falling off my bike.

as for my job? if i can pull down peter king's salary for the propaganda he spews to make a buck...

well thats a nobrainer isnt it?

 

[SESupergenius]

Well I've given you 2 sources that said the Texans were interested, you given 1 were it says that it's now narrowed down to 2 teams. Narrowing it down to 2 teams doesn't equate to only 2 teams being interested in him.


Obviously you read the thread wrong again. how many times is that going to happen. Class in in session again. I said that Gildon has had 2 similar seasons like he did last year, once in 99 and once in 97. These were statisticaly down years for Gildon, but my point was that even though he had those down years he's had productive seasons after them. So follow along, He could have the same rebound effect he had following those seasons. And in actually they were not down seasons compared to most LB's in the league, he still had enough sacks to tie him for 7th in the league. Not bad for a washed up old man of 33 as you suggest. And you OJ comment just doesn't fit anywhere in there so I'll move over that like its your school girl hall pass on the floor.

I've already stated that brining Gildon in, a veteran Pro-Bowler that knows the 3-4 like the back of his hand, would not prevent the young linebackers, but would help them in their progress. Loads of players express how important it is to learn from veterans. And who's to say that Gildon could not to a better job than Wong. One of several scenarios would have Gildon start at LOLB, Babins at ROLB, Wong at BLB and Sharper at MLB. Odd man out is Foreman, one of the weakest links on our defense.....ah nevermind, all this is probably way over your head by now. But then again it's a nobrainer.

 

[texan279]

Yeah i guess Gildon just all of the sudden got old from last years 7th ranking of sacks to this off season.

Not trying to start trouble , but Jason Gildon was 35th last year in the NFL with 6 sacks.

 

[powda]

The Texans, Redskins, Packers, Ravens and Browns are believed to be interested in Gildon.

even your source dosent say they are. it says believed to be. believed to be? yeah thats reassuring especially comming from someone as renowned as alan robinson. and how old is that article? june 2. 1 day after the june 1 cuts? 6 weeks old? didnt the texans have an intrest in trotter to? real compeling stuff there. hmmm. once again, only an inquiry wich should be a given considering hes a linebacker from one of the few 3-4 teams in the league.

Well I've given you 2 sources that said the Texans were interested, you given 1 .

did you want another source wich mentions jason gildeon on the free agent market and makes no mention of the texans?

here ya go:

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/108771849153310.xml

stats.

2002 foreman had 105 tackles 0 sacks inside.

sharper had 95 tackles 5.5 sacks inside.

wong had 34 tackles 5.5 sacks on the strong side.

gildon had 67 tackles 9 sacks


2003 foreman had 135 tackles 2 sacks.

sharper had 164 tackles 4 sacks.

wong had 62 tackles 3 sacks on the strong side.

gildon had 61 tackles 6 sacks


did you notice a couple of trends? gildons numbers over the last 2 years( and really the last 5 years if you'd like me to post those stats) have dimisnished. wong played the strong side and foreman and sharper played inside...the sack numbers were ok considering they werent in a defense geared specifically to get them to the qb (weakside in the texans d) ,and their tackle numbers (productivity) blew gildon out of the water.thats not bad at all considering 2002 was an expansion year and 2003 we were playing 3rd string scrubs in the d-line. how long have the steelers been a franchise?


the bottom line is: look up the stats, gildon is on the downslope. even to you that should be obvious.

So follow along, He could have the same rebound effect he had following those seasons.

he could? history proves thats not the trend. babin on the otherhand has no history ,but he does have better physical tools, youth, and a high ceiling. he has a very good chance to do this year as well as gildon did in his first 4 years wich was by no means impressive. infact it wasnt remotely close to pro bowl status.

and once again you've shy'ed away from the fact that gildon on the field takes playing time away from people like peek or babin. evidently your not willing to concieve a 2 year stop gap such as gildon could impeed the progress of younger players. does that mean you consider the texans a superbowl contender this year or next? if not what your suggesting hurts the long term development of the defense and the team as a whole.

And who's to say that Gildon could not to a better job than Wong. One of several scenarios would have Gildon start at LOLB, Babins at ROLB, Wong at BLB and Sharper at MLB. Odd man out is Foreman, one of the weakest links on our defense....

what you've been comparing is linebackers to a pass rush specialist in an established defense vs an expansion defense. aside from sacks foreman's been more productive then gildon. and now you want the texans to make wholesale changes among their linebackers to accomadate a washed up pass rush specialist you've already admitted will only be productive in the league for another year or 2?

once again, the obvious choice is...

a no brainer.

 

[SESupergenius]

Yes it was believed to be, from a reputable source. I'll take that. It's no like he's doing a bit for the National Enquirer. There is no 'weapons of mass Gildon' First you think that Peter King works for the Boston Globe and is can not be believed, now you assume that AP's Alan Robinson who covers a lot of Steelers news isn't reputable. Nice. Um Let's see. Do I believe some guy on the internet name Powda or 2 guys (or more) that have established reputations covering the NFL as well as NFL Coaches Marvin Lewis and Mularkey. No Brainer.

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/inde...71849153310.xml

And who is Jason .Gildeon by the way. This writer from New Orleans (yea they sure would know who Gildon talked to) Jeff Duncan can't even Spell Gildon right. Nice job on the research. And here is the exact quote from the article

The Bengals are the favorites to sign free agent linebacker Jason Gildeon. The two-time Pro Bowler already has visited Green Bay and Buffalo and has received interest from Chicago.​

Once again it never says that at some point the Texans were not interested. Ever think that the Texans talked to Gildon's agent and afterwards felt that he wanted too much money or that he would rather play for a contender instead of a 5-11 team? Naw you never think of those things. TAll your article states is that on June 20th those were the teams left that had serious considerations for Gildon, oops sorry, GILDEON. But hey nice job on the research, maybe AP should give you a call to replace Robinson.

did you notice a couple of trends?

The only relevant trend I see is that Gildon has had very similar years in 2002, 2001, 1999, 1997, and 1996 just like he did last year. Your only making my point better. Sure he's had a decline in sack stats from a great season of over 13 sacks, but year after year he is still pumping out the stats like he's consistanly done throughout his career. In fact he's had worse seasons than last years so your total decline argument is blown out the water.

their tackle numbers (productivity) blew gildon out of the water.thats not bad at all considering 2002 was an expansion year and 2003

Sure the tackles numbers in productivity blow Gildons out of the water, BECAUSE THE TEXANS HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD LONGER! LOL In fact the Texans have almost a game and half more plays than the Steelers had last year. That happens when the defense is ranked 2nd to last. Man this is easy. Wongs 2003 numbers were about the same as Gildons, they both played the same position, yet Gildon played in a game and half less plays.

gildon on the field takes playing time away from people like peek or babin. evidently your not willing to concieve a 2 year stop gap such as gildon could impeed the progress of younger players

Like I gave in a previous post, which you did not respond to. Gildon could play LOLB, Babin ROLB, Wong BLB and Sharper MLB. Babin doesn't seem to lose any playing time there. Oh but I guess you missed that one. And don't even tell me Foreman is better player than Wong or Gildon. I'm laughing hard at you already, any more and you'll make me bust a tube. Besides, even if Gildon did come in a take Babins spot, its not so bad to let him come in on pass downs and bring him along slowlym letting him learn the ropes from seasoned veterans. Many great LB's in the 3-4 have done that, but maybe you didn't know that.

We can go round and round about this. Its obvious you are not going to see my point no matter how many facts I give you. So there you have it. That ends the little exchange we've had. Next time be more prepared, you might actually give a decent debate.

P.S. texans279, I should have stated that he was ranked tied 7th amongst linebackers, didn't mean to infer that he was ranked 7th overall. I posted that earlier but was taking the short route in these longs posts. So no trouble started.

 

[powda]

commercial break.

at least one of us isnt retired.

 

[TheOgre]

Um, he's clearly making fun of Ses calling Lucky "Son". Thats what that whole post was about.

That is what started the volleyball game, sure. Powda used Ses's take on Norris (being one of the top fullbacks in the league), though, to discredit his opinion. I was just throwing in my opinion on that statement.

If you are talking strictly about run blocking, I would agreed with Ses. In every other fullback duty, I think Norris is subpar.

Anyway, it really isn't that important. These guys are into a size contest. I really don't care which one is bigger.

 

[powda]

Do I believe some guy on the internet name Powda?

no, by all means ,but i brought 10 friends (now 12 total) you might find more trustworthy then me...

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/index.cfm?cont_id=246234

http://www.billsdaily.com/news/archives/2004/jun3.shtml

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Free+Agency/2004/FAnews062904.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04155/326288.stm

http://www.jsonline.com/packer/news/jun04/240086.asp

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/nfl/bills/rumors.html

http://bengals.enquirer.com/2004/06/19/ben1a.html

http://www.cincypost.com/bengals/2004/beng06-18-2004.html

http://www.billsdaily.com/news/archives/2004/jul1.shtml

http://www.profootballcentral.com/archives.htm



WOW! thats a lot of sources isnt it Soup Nazi? theres something oddly funny about all these articles: they all talk about gildon as a free agent and make no mention of the texans. by now, i know you'll say, "they dont say the texans arent intrested." ya know, your right they dont. they also dont say another 25-30 teams arent intrested. does that mean all those teams ARE after gildon? feel free to check the spelling and gramatical errors if it makes you feel better. the point is you have 2 sources wich say the texans COULD be pursuing gildon; you've been provided with 12 sources now who talk about gildon on the free agent market and dont speak of the texans as a team activley looking to sign him.

Sure the tackles numbers in productivity blow Gildons out of the water, BECAUSE THE TEXANS HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD LONGER! LOL In fact the Texans have almost a game and half more plays than the Steelers.

thats an intresting stat. i'd really enjoy a link that says just that. provide it or dont, i'll assume its legit. according to you the texans defense had an additional 6 quarters to gain their stats. in those 6 quarters sharper had 103 more tackles then gildon? but sharper isnt more productive then gildon? in those 6 quarters foreman ( who you've adamantly claimed is no comparision to gildon ) had 74 more tackles then gildon? but foreman isnt as productive as gildon? hmmmm...

when was the last time you saw a player make 103 tackles or even 74 tackles in a game and a half?

in addition to that what you've been comparing are inside and strongside linebackers to a weakside linebacker...so lets take a look at what kind of production the texans "other" linebackers had.

(they all shared time in a starting role)

shantee orr 4 tackles 2 sacks

antwan peek 25 tackles 1 sack

c clemons 26 tackles 1 sack

steve foley 31 tackles 1 sack

thats a total of 86 tackles and 5 sacks in comparision to gildon's 61 tackles and 6 sacks. now, some of those tackles are special teams tackles (as are some of gildon's tackles),but are you really going to sit there and tell me they had 25-30 tackles on special teams? no. they were all starters at one point during the season,and they've clearly been more productive then gildon despite playing on a team ravaged by injuries. peek and orr were also ROOKIES. as such, you might find it noteworthy they posted 16 tackles and 1 sack more then gildon did as a rookie...but you want them to sit the bench.

and for every politicaly correct player who claims "i learned a lot from the vetran starting ahead of me" ,you'll find another who says ,"theres no substitute for playing time". you'll also find a number of players who say they've learned a lot from their coaches. you'll even find players like antonio bryant who attack their coach because they're determined to get more playing time.

he's had a decline in sack stats

yes he has, despite being on the 9th best defense in a scheme specifically designed to get him to the quarterback. over recent years his sack numbers have DECLINED. over recent years his tackle numbers have DECLINED. but you wont say hes DECLINED because he COULD rebound? huh? my aunt COULD be my uncle if she had surgery.

gildon was good once (just as jerry rice, tim brown, emmitt smith, eddie george, and dozens others were),but he isnt the player he was. he was released in favor of a player the texans cut (clark haggans). what does that tell you? he was overpaid and hes done...and the steelers know it.

gramps, i just know theres a rerun of those HOT golden girls on right now. maybe you should take a break. ohhh, and try adding some fiber to your diet. throughout all of this you've been full of it.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

 

[SESupergenius]

ok lets get this thing back on track. I will graciously stick to arguing my points and do without the name calling and smartass comebacks and will respect you. So far we have good debate, lets not make it childish as Infantry pointed out, ok?

So far you have quoted 12 articles on-line that don't mention the Texans in them. I know for a fact that most of these papers pick up stories from wires and are owned by a few large companies. So you will come across the same stories with the same information. But back again to my argument, no where does it state that the Texans were never interested at some point, and yes there probably have been other teams interested in Gildon. When you quoted Mortenson that the Bills and Bengals were the teams interested in him, there was no mention of the Bears by him. But the
Chicago Tribune states The Bears were setting up a meeting as of June 5 with Gildon's agent and that he had already visited the Packers. Like I said, Mort was quoted as saying those were the team he's narrowed it down to at that time, and the same can be said about all those links you referenced. In fact even the Green Bay newspaper is quoted as saying the Texans were interested in Gildon. I think 3 seperate sources is good enough, I don't think I need to quote any more. I have 3 good resources that say the Texans were persuing him, you have none that say they haven't.


Gildon is a strong-side linebacker, same as Kailee Wong. Both had the same about of total tackles, yet Houston was on the field more. Gildon had 6 sacks yet Wong only had 3. So if you want to compare apples to apples, Gildon still comes out on top. No you want to compare Gildon to Sharper, that's is a little more tougher but Gildon did have more sacks than him and Sharper will always have more tackes statistically because that is what the ILB in the 3-4 produces most. (the Steelers ILB had total tackes of 141 and 99, more than Gildon) I think Sharper is the better ILB, which is why I said maybe Gildon is better depending on what postion you want to compare them at. As for Foreman, It's pretty much a consensus around here that he is the weakest link amoungst our linebackers, Since Gildon is better than Wong, that speaks for itself.

As far as your comment about players like antonio bryant who attack their coach because they're determined to get more playing time. I'm not sure what your point is but fighting with your head coach because a young guy like Bryant can't beat a 32 and 30-year old vets in KJ and Glenn makes my argument for Gildon look pretty good.

Gildon only decline is from is great season of 13.5 sacks, but last year he put up the similar numbers to 2002, 2001, 1999, 1997, and 1996. If he put up stats similar to 1996 and 1997, almost 8 years ago then he still has gas in the tank. If he had produced numbers well below that I could see that, but he clearly hasn't.

but he isnt the player he was. he was released in favor of a player the texans cut (clark haggans). what does that tell you?

No, Gildon isn't the player that got 13.5 sacks, but he is every bit as much the player in all those other years. And let me correct you again, the Texans never signed Haggans, so we couldn't have cut him. Just to let you know. I like Haggans, but its taken him at 27-years old to finally get a starting job in the NFL. There is a reason for that. The Steelers clearly cut Gildon because of his high salary, they'v done that many times to their stars in the past.

 

[powda]

ok lets get this thing back on track. I will graciously stick to arguing my points and do without the name calling and smartass comebacks and will respect you. So far we have good debate, lets not make it childish as Infantry pointed out, ok?

agreed.

in our attempts to determine the "alpha-male" here i think we've both managed to alienate ourselves from the rest of the room. thats a shame because inspite of our childish remarks, i think we've both made solid arrguments and presented some very good posts. i will try and refrain from that behavior because in case you hadnt noticed all my effort, i do respect you.

that dosent mean i'm obligated to agree with you...

at this point the question is: will the addition of gildon help or hinder the texans regardless of what any schmoe in maine or oregon says?

time permitting i will fully address your post tommorow. by now, you should have very little doubt about that.

the saga continues...

 

[powda]

I have 3 good resources that say the Texans were persuing him, you have none that say they haven't..

(your sources)
-The Texans, Redskins, Packers, Ravens and Browns are believed to be interested in Gildon.June 2, 2004 9:28 PM
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/66-06022004-310500.html

-"I've gotten a lot of calls -- Green Bay, Baltimore, Houston, Cleveland," Peter Schaffer said yesterday. Wednesday, June 02, 2004
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04154/325780.stm

-and ofcourse peter king (whom i cant seem to find a link to)



you have sources wich say the texans are believed to be after gildon and one that says they made a phone call sometime before june 2nd.

-firstly, all of your sources are dated early after the june 1st cuts (june 2nd) so the information is speculative to some degree and perhaps a bit outdated
the sources i gave you were dated at various times since june 1st.

-secondly, i would be upset if the texans hadnt at least made a phone call to the best 3-4 linebacker on the free agent market (one by the way who dom capers has personal experience with). do i need to rehash my point about the texans recieving calls from all but 4-5 teams with the henson soap opera?

-and finally, not one of your sources makes a refrence to the texans inviting gildon to houston to see the facilities or negotiate a contract. there are numerous sources throughout the net that say the bengals, bears, bills, and another team or so have done just that. those teams are actively seeking to sign gildon. houston (as have at least a dozen other teams) made a simple inquiry. thats part of the buisness.

i call it speculation - you call it fact

i call it an inquiry - you call it an active hunt to sign gildon

until you can provide me with a source that claims the texans invited gildon to houston or they've attempted to negotiate a contract with him, i'm not buying it.

this portion of our conversation is a stalemate.


so i'll move on to other bits of our debate.

Gildon is a strong-side linebacker, same as Kailee Wong. Both had the same about of total tackles, yet Houston was on the field more. Gildon had 6 sacks yet Wong only had 3. So if you want to compare apples to apples, Gildon still comes out on top. .

i didnt compare apples to apples because...

One of several scenarios would have Gildon start at LOLB, Babins at ROLB, Wong at BLB and Sharper at MLB. .

your not seeking to take wong out of a starting role. what your suggesting instead is to dismiss foreman who i will agree isnt our best starting linebacker. however, one of the reasons i was so willing to contrast the diffrence in their tackles (135 vs 61) was to illustrate hes not as bad as it would seem you've implied.

No you want to compare Gildon to Sharper, that's is a little more tougher .

yes, i did compare gildon to sharper because...

Gildon is better than Wong, Foreman, Babins, and possibly Sharper.

a. it was used to illustrate an extreme with refrence to the additional 6 quarters our defense got to gain their stats. 103 additonal tackles is a lot...and i think this displays how misguided your notion of an extra 6 quarters is.

b. you compared gildon to sharper.

As far as your comment about players like antonio bryant who attack their coach because they're determined to get more playing time. I'm not sure what your point is.

i mentioned it because players arent always so eager to sit the bench and "learn" for a few years behind a vetran player as you suggested.

Gildon only decline is from is great season of 13.5 sacks

that was a very nice season and a lot to live up to ,but his sack numbers have declined. as for his tackles? he's never been a player to put up great numbers in that category to begin with...but his tackles have decreased.

i'm not sold on this rebound effect you keep reffering to. he is 32 or 33 ,but he does have 11 years in the nfl...thats a LOT of mileage.

and i'm not sure i follow what you think the texans would do if we signed gildon. move wong inside to replace foreman as you suggested in your scenerio or compare "apples to apples" and have gildon ( a strong side linebacker ) replace babin ( a strong side linebacker )?

i do think its in their long term plans to move wong inside so i'm not in total disagreement with you on that topic ,but it would pose some serious question marks among our linebacking core we wouldnt have without gildon's addition...

a. sharper's fine no consideration here
b. babin a rookie (?)- already a question until we see how he plays
c. wong (?)- now hes not just flipped sides on the field but suddenly hes moved inside where hes never played before
d. gildon (?)-you suggested he move from strong side to weak side on a team hes never played with before

all of a sudden the linebacking core is in complete disarray specifically because of the addition of gildon

if you'd perfer the texans bench babin in favor of gildon, thats in direct contrast to what the texans have done in their brief history...

carr v banks
davis v mack
pitts v a veteran
johnson v a veteran
wand v a veteran
robinson v coleman
(i'm sure i've missed a few)

and now the texans have named babin a starter over any other veteran at that position. no doubt some of those decission were based on being an expansion team, but it also shows a reoccuring philosophy the texans have...until the texans are a contender for at least the playoffs they want to give their younger players every oppurtunity to learn on the field.

The Steelers clearly cut Gildon because of his high salary, they'v done that many times to their stars in the past.

1.The Steelers will count about $1.3 million against their 2004 cap for Gildon

2.Gildon knew his 10-year Steelers career was effectively over when they signed his former backup, Clark Haggans, to a $10.2 million, four-year contract on March 6. Haggans will slide into Gildon's starting position

(source)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1814557

i couldnt find the specifics of haggans' contract ,but looking at the numbers i'm not convinced gildon was cut only for financial reasons. it would seem haggans signed as heavy a contract (for this year anyway) as gildon had.

the bottom line is, do you think gildon can help the texans succeed? i don't. we have enough young talent on our roster who need an oppurtunity to develop while we're not contenders. whats the purpose in signing a starting linebacker who will only be productive for another year or so (if that) ,and causes a major shift in our linebacking core?

you see the 13.5 sacks he had in 2000

i see another charlie clemons

 

[clandestin]

I think you're both wrong!!! My guess is that he'll sign with the bills for a one-year deal worth around $1.25 million.......

........some time later........

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=1841489


Ha I knew I was right

 

[powda]

i never said he wouldnt sign with the bills...i implied he wouldnt be with the texans because we werent activley trying to sign him. ha!

does this mean that last nail has been hammered into the coffin on this post?

 

[cuppacoffee]

The 31-year-old Gildon will compete with Jeff Posey for the strongside linebacking job.

 

[Vinny]

I figured the Bills would not be totally happy with Posey. JP is a one-trick pony.

 

[flawedout]

Gildon is no where near as good as sharper, sharper has to be the most underrated linebacker in the league

 

[clandestin]

i never said he wouldnt sign with the bills...i implied he wouldnt be with the texans because we werent activley trying to sign him. ha!

does this mean that last nail has been hammered into the coffin on this post?

It will be as soon as you admit that I r teh winnar.

On another note:

I read in another post that mngmnt has shifted from the 5 year plan to a winNOW philosophy, and I think this is a good piece of evidence that winNOW is not the case. Would signing gildon have made us a better football team in 2004? YES. There is not a doubt in my mind that IN 2004 gildon would have been a better LOLB then babin will be. I'll go further and say that I believe that in 2004 I believe that marcus coleman would have made for a better CB than Robinson will make. And one more time...I think that in 2004 Pitts would have been a better LT then Wand will be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm optimistic about 2004, and I don't disagree with any of the aforementioned moves, but I think that come 2005 we'll be looking at the beginning of a winning franchise--not just a 'team that made the playoffs once.'

 

[jacquescas]

With Trotter going back to the eagles and Gildon going to the Bills each with 1 year deals. The best players left on the open market are gone.

 

[SESupergenius]

I think it's easy to see why the Bills got Gildon. Or that the Bengals, Bills and Texans had some interest in him....They all had coaches that were the Steelers, Gildons former team.

firstly, all of your sources are dated early after the june 1st cuts (june 2nd) so the information is speculative

I've seen it being reported that as far back as April Draft that Gildon was going to be cut June 1st, there were no talks with the Steelers and the date was just a formality. I doubt seriously that all the phone calls came in to his agent on June 1.

-secondly, i would be upset if the texans hadnt at least made a phone call to the best 3-4 linebacker on the free agent market (one by the way who dom capers has personal experience with). do i need to rehash my point about the texans recieving calls from all but 4-5 teams with the henson soap opera?

That seems to be an apple and oranges kind of take. Henson was a rookie and there was really not a lot of information about him and his status for some time. He was a rookie and people were curious about his skill level. You say the all of the teams in the league except for 4-5 had some sort of interest in him by phone. But did you know that 20 teams actually showed up for his workout? That's well over half the league that actually came out and saw him workout in addition to the casual inquiries by phone.

I never said that the Texans were on a die hard mission to get this guy, all I said was that they were interested in him. I'm sure the Texans were interested him and wanted to know his asking price. You don't need to work out a player and bring him to Texas for that.

i mentioned it because players arent always so eager to sit the bench and "learn" for a few years behind a vetran player as you suggested.

Well in this case I guess he is, because his is reporting back to the team. And here is a little snippet from Billy Miller with the signing of old-man Bruener, "I think it's great that they brought Bruener in," Miller said. "Mark has taught me some things that have helped me become a better tight end."

his tackles have decreased.

No, you are wrong. Last year he had 42 combined tackles. He had the same amount in 2001 and 1999 and better than 1997 and 1998. That is a fact. source=nfl.com

a. sharper's fine no consideration here
b. babin a rookie (?)- already a question until we see how he plays
c. wong (?)- now hes not just flipped sides on the field but suddenly hes moved inside where hes never played before
d. gildon (?)-you suggested he move from strong side to weak side on a team hes never played with before

all of a sudden the linebacking core is in complete disarray specifically because of the addition of gildon

I agree on Sharper and Babin. Wong used to be a middle linebacker with the Vikes. So its not that great of a switch as you suggest. I suggest gildon play on the strong side where he's always played. I don't think I've ever mentioned Gildon on the week side. But if the Texans feels Wong can do it, no reason to think Gildon couln't.

if you'd perfer the texans bench babin in favor of gildon, thats in direct contrast to what the texans have done in their brief history...

Absolutely, I disagree with most of "trial by fire" insertions that the Texans coaches have done. I'm a rebel that way. I've always liked a QB to sit for some time on the bench and learn a bit. Most teams have done it that way. Aside from HB and CB I think a rookie should be brought along slower at other positions. So yes I do disagree with that. How much did Carr learn while on his back? Ask Aikman if he thinks he should have sat early in his career.

You see Babin as a 10 sack guy his rookie year learning a new position in the nfl. I saw Gildon as just someone to help him along as most of the Steelers great LB's have done in the past. Rookies LB's just don't produce like vets do in the 3-4, this is a fact.

 

[powda]

lmao. wow. somehow now i feel complete...i've something to argue again.
tommorow...

and thank you.

still arguing the issue after its dead...stubborn. i like that.

 

[SESupergenius]

What better way to kill the time before training camp!

 

[powda]

I think it's easy to see why the Bills got Gildon. Or that the Bengals, Bills and Texans had some interest in him....They all had coaches that were the Steelers, Gildons former team.

your claiming the texans were after gildon because we have a coach that used to be with the steelers? how many teams have former steelers coaches on their staff that didnt pursue gildon? i'll wager its more. and either way does it really have any relevance to wether or not the texans were indeed after gildon? i think not.

I've seen it being reported that as far back as April Draft that Gildon was going to be cut June 1st, there were no talks with the Steelers and the date was just a formality. I doubt seriously that all the phone calls came in to his agent on June 1.

so all of my sources are worth doubting ,but yours should be etched in stone?
you have one source that says the texans made a phone call and even in the context of the quote it says they called him the previous day (june 1st). thats great and no surprise considering the texans are one of the few 3-4 teams. to some schmoe in b.f.e. it probably would make sense that the texans might be a contender for gildon so why not spotlight the texans as opposed to another 15 teams? but the bottom line is TEAMS CALL. why do you think pro teams send scouts to places like alcorn st? they dont want to miss out on a prospect because their not informed. once again, you do not have a source that says the texans ever attempted to negotiate a contract or even invited gildon to houston. i've provided you with numerous sources that say other teams did just that.

I never said that the Texans were on a die hard mission to get this guy, all I said was that they were interested in him.

vaguley, im reminded of a former president who so boldly asked, "what is is?"

will you at least agree with me theres a distinct diffrence between an inquiry (basic contract guidelines, and player intrest) versus an active attempt to sign a player (come visist buffalo, tour our facilities, meet the players and coaching staff, we'll give you an idea of how we invision you in our defense, and bring your agent because we're ready to talk about how much we want to pay you, and we want to put it on paper as a contract).

and henson may be an extreme example ,but it is still a look into how the buisness works...so no, i wouldnt call it apples to oranges.


(antonio bryant must be willing to sit the bench)

Well in this case I guess he is, because his is reporting back to the team.

he's eager to sit the bench because he hasnt retired or held out in demand of a trade? thats in direct contrast to attacking your coach. actions do speak louder then words.

Absolutely, I disagree with most of "trial by fire" insertions that the Texans coaches have done. I'm a rebel that way.

and i havent agreed with the texans drafting injured player after injured player ,but my opinion will have no effect on what the team does. they've dislayed a tendency in their short history to do the opposite of what you'd like to see them do. i think its unrealistic to expect them to change that now especially when it means they have to bench a first round pick in favor of a 2 year stop gap like gildon.

his tackles have decreased

No, you are wrong.

year. team. gm. (total tackles) tackles sacks
2002 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 67 45.0 9
2003 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 61 42.0 6
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3501

wow that same source shows just the opposite of what you claim. i see a decrease in tackles (as well as sacks). can we agree its deffinitley not an increase in tackles?

do i think gildon could probably help the team this year? yes. do i think he's a short term solution to a long term problem? yes. do i think gildon ripping away playing time from babin would hurt babin's development more then it would help him? uhhhhhhh, yes!

You see Babin as a 10 sack guy his rookie year learning a new position in the nfl.

i never suggested babin would put up any numbers in particular. what i did suggest was overall babin has a higher celing then gildon at this point in his career. gildon might very well put up much better numbers then babin this year ,but after that i think its no contest. gildon is comming into his 11th year! hes not a kicker or a punter or a quarterback or a mascot. hes a linebacker. i'll give him points for longevity ,but i dont see him performing at a productive level for much longer. can you say that about babin?