Texans Down 'N Dirty: Ricky Hatton Edition

by DreKeem on Jun 26, 2009 7:12 AM CDT in News Comment 14 comments

We've all seen this story before. Another analyst feels the need to point out how smart the Texans decision was to draft Mario Williams in place of Vince Young or Reggie Bush. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for ~~any~~ most national attention our team receives, but after reading the same story countless times with the only difference being the name of the author, it gets old quick.

This time around, John Lopez poses the question: Were the Texans smarter than everyone else or luckier? I can't tell if this is a serious question or not, especially considering Lopez went through the whole article detailing the process of evaluating Mario, Bush and Young. So we've already established that due diligence was taken in deciding that Williams was the best option, thanks to your outdated observations, so what exactly makes the Texans lucky? I guess you have to find something to separate your articles from other similar ones, though this attempt is quite dumbfounding. Say, didn't Lopez work for the Chronicle a couple years back?

Eric Winston is against a rookie wage scale. Winston lists the main arguments for and against the scale and gives his own input on each point. For those against, this will definitely be a reinforcement in your thoughts. For those for, it's an interesting perspective from an actual informed player, so be sure to check it out, whether you agree or not. The main argument Winston makes is that even if you do limit the amount of money unproven rookies can earn, that money won't necessarily translate to cash for veterans. It's certainly a valid point, one that I'd like to cover in the future.

Before you go on with your day, do yourself a favor and witness David Anderson do his best Ricky Hatton impersonation. The man is a God.

We end the daily links for the week on a happy note. The Texans were ranked 31st, besting only the Detroit Lions, in ESPN's list of best and worst teams of the decade. Why does that make me happy? More reason to kick ass in the upcoming season.

Days left until training camp opens: 36.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Dear Durga

I thank you for blessing us with David Anderson.

When I'm on the mic, I'm like global warming, you can't ignore me.

by tehGrindCrusher on Jun 26, 2009 8:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The worst part

About all the 2006 retrospectives is that Casserly sounds like some kind of misunderstood genius in each of them, and not the man who gave us such luminaries as Travis Johnson, Jason Babin, David Carr, et al.

by JimboTexan on Jun 26, 2009 9:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The thing about Casserly, he’s always been pretty good at evaluating draft talent and selecting players that fit his coach’s style of play. The problem is, alot of those players were drafted to play in a completely different system so it’s a little unfair to blame him that they don’t fit in Kubiak’s plans.

David Carr was a bust for sure, but he was a bust that pretty much everyone bought into. There weren’t many people at the time who didn’t think Carr was the best QB available that year and possibly the best available for several years. The guy had alot of talent, he was very accurate, had a pretty strong arm, wasn’t too slow in his release, and was more mobile than most NFL QBs at the time and was considered to be decent at throwing on the run as well. Unfortunately ability doesn’t always translate to production on the field, and Carr never developed into the QB most everyone thought he could.

Babin was the typical DE/LB tweener that gets missed on several times every year in the NFL. It seems like it’s about 50/50 when selecting a tweener whether he’s going to be an absolute terror on offenses or be stuck between positions being a step too slow for LB and about 20 lbs too light for DE. Over the years, i’m not sure a pattern has developed to even attempt to sort out which a player is going to become and there doesn’t seem to be much grey area where they’re concerned, they’re either a big hit or a huge bust.

That’s why i’m on the edge of my seat to see which Barwin will become. It’s easy to say “he’s no Babin”, and he’s not but at the same time there have been tweener DE/LBs of all types who have succeeded and failed, as much as I like the guy and want him to succeed there’s no real formula to predict the success for his drafted position. What I can predict though is that in 3 years we’re either going to be talking about how Barwin was one of the better picks the Texans have made ever or mentioning him as a 2nd round bust. There’s no middle ground where tweeners are concerned.

by Bryan72076 on Jun 26, 2009 10:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Those may be justifiable.

But Travis Johnson? Not so much. We traded down and missed out on an eventual pro-bowl left tackle to take a guy who really had no place in a 3-4 system to begin with. Aside from Carr, the TJ pick is the one that really makes Casserly look like an idiot. And while the Babin pick is debatable, trading up for him was pretty misguided too.

Anyways, my favorite part of that 2006 draft story is this tidbit:

Since his rookie season, Bush has played just 22 games and rushed for 985 yards and six touchdowns. That’s less than Texans’ 2008 third-round pick Steve Slaton (1,282-yards, nine TDs) had in 2008 alone.

Oh, how I love you, Stevie.

by Nashmeister on Jun 26, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well to be fair he was at the time considered a possible top ten pick at DT and at a listed 6’4 and 295 lbs he was considered to be in great shape and many thought he could put on an extra 15-20 lbs and not lose a step (he ran like a 4.8 or there abouts at 295 pounds). His last year in college he was dominant again the run and pass and had like 20 tackles for loss I believe which for a DT is just short of amazing. His speed and agility for his size was being compared to Warren Sapp, who put on weight in the NFL to play more of a NT position and didn’t lose a step. At the time the Texans needed an interior lineman and Johnson was by far considered the best available. I’m sure they thought that he could add weight and become a dominant NT in their system, and even had that failed his measurables were such that he’d appear to be able to drop 5-10 lbs and be a dominant run stuffing DE.

Johnson’s failings are pretty much all on Johnson. He came into the league with all the ability in the world to become a very good NT/DT for us, he’s just been a constant underperformer. You can’t really blame scouts or other talent evaluaters for that, all they can do is judge talent. Johnsons problems are all mental, there’s no way to scout that really except to flip a coin and guess. No matter how good the scout is, he’s not a psychologist so it’s unrealistic to expect him to accurately determine a player’s desire for the game and generalized state of mind. If Casserly’s biggest failing as a talent evaluater was his inability to read prospect’s minds or see into the future to see if they were going to play up to their ability, i’d say it’s come down to just throwing stones.

by Bryan72076 on Jun 26, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sapp at NT?

He was always a 4-3 UT as far as I can remember. He ran a 4.7 or so (versus TJ’s 5+), so he was drafted specifically as a pass-rusher, whereas TJ was supposed to be a run-stuffer. Yet I don’t think Johnson was ever projected to really be able to play nose tackle in a 3-4, even if he bulked up. His only prayer was, as you mentioned, dropping some weight and playing five-technique DE. But for some reason, despite his failure at NT, they never even tried that.

I understand why he never made it in our 4-3, but I still think we drafted a guy who wasn’t a natural fit for our team when there was a franchise left tackle right in front of us.

by Nashmeister on Jun 26, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Johnson ran a 4.8 not 5+ 40, so yes running 4.8 at near 300 lbs is compareable to another 300lber running 4.7 right? Sapp has played both tackle positions in a 4-3 in his career, and was his day’s version of Haynesworth in the middle of the line, being disruptive against the run and a world beater rushing the passer. Yes, he played some UT, but he played all over the DL in his career as the Bucs and then Raiders would move him around some to create mismatches and make it harder for the OL to keep assignments in order. He had a rare combination for speed and power, and alot of people saw the same things in Johnson. He was a somewhat slim 295 and had better 40 times than quite a few DEs, so it was well within reason that he could carry extra weight to man the middle and maintain his speed and explosiveness to rush the passer. In a perfect world they would have drafted a big space eating 330 lb monster at NT, but sadly Johnson was the biggest and baddest projected that high. In hindsight they certainly should have picked LT, but they’re football guys not fortune tellers. If Johnson had turned into the player he was projected to, we would be talking about what a great pick it was. In college he was awesome agains the run, beating double teams with ease and swallowing up the ball carrier at or behind the line. There weren’t alot of people at that time who would have predicted we’d be here now and Johnson still wouldn’t have done squat in the NFL so if Casserly were wrong, so was just about everyone else. I don’t remember many people saying that Johnson was immature and occasionally would have pouting fits and consistently not work hard during the offseason to improve. Instead people were saying "wow look how good he looks at 300lbs, in 3-4 years he could probably be 320-330 and is as fast as most DEs now. That’s why he was projected as a possible top 10 pick, because alot of scouts felt that he was probably one of the 10 best talents in that draft. The question then I guess is, was his ability overhyped or is Johnson responsible for his own lack of success in the NFL? Personally, I believe it’s the latter more than the former.

by Bryan72076 on Jun 26, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bryan72076

E-mail me, please: battleredblog@gmail.com. I’m rather interested in your fairly rational take on Travis Johnson, about whom I cannot speak rationally.

Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...

by Tim on Jun 27, 2009 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair to Bush.

He an above average RB when Brees dumps it to him off the screen and also a dynamic returner.

However, I still like Super Mario much better.

"I am from one of the top 15 cities in the world. Buffalo, New York." - TrentEdwardsHoF2018

by Artest4Prez on Jun 26, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wage scale

Of course Winston is against a rookie wage scale, and the reason is simple. By not having a cap on rookies, the ridiculous money UNPROVEN rookies get each year will continue to spiral up. This will allow established players to say, “see how much joe blow is getting, and he can’t ever carry my jock”. It bumps up the average salary of everyone. If you can keep rookie salaries reasonable, it will somewhat slow the inflation of established players salaries. Hard to justify paying an “all pro” the same money as some unproven rookie.

meaningful football games in '08...MAKE THAT 09

by do on Jun 26, 2009 1:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it will lower salaries of the top tier guys at all really, it might even raise them slightly. What it would do is make rookies a bargain like in the NBA. Older players who are still better than the younger will find themselves out on the street and unable to get a contract for anything but the league minimum because teams can get “pretty good” players out of the draft and pay them peanuts for 4-5 years. What it’ll do is create a situation where top veterans will be making gobs of money, probably even more than they are now, while 2nd and 3rd tier veterans will find themselves on the outside looking in and very little leverage for a decent contract from other teams simply because it’d be cheaper to pay rookies than veterans and there’s always going to be pressure to play the young guy with more upside than the cagey veteran anyways. A rookie payscale would kick that up several notches to where some quality players will find themselves either out of work or working for the min. salary.

It’s just one of those things that sounds like a great idea but is very tough to get right, and if it’s a hair off any way from right the results are even worse than what you were trying to work against. I think it’s that, and the fact that this more than likely will take far more money from rookies coming in than it gives back to even the top veterans, so it’s really not in the best interests of the players as a union. It’s hard as fans to accept all the bickering over dollars and labor contracts that comes as part of the business, but the NFL is raking in TONS of money its players should get the lion’s share of that, it’s just hard to swallow sometimes when it’s players arguing over whether they should get paid 8 or 8.5 million per year. The natural reaction is “Why are you being a baby crying over $500,000 when you’re making 8 million anyway?”, but just because it’s alot of money doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given a fair slice of the pie.

by Bryan72076 on Jun 26, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Under the current CBA

The players get 63% of the revenues. I’d say that’s a pretty fair slice of the pie.

Winston may be against a rookie salary cap, but who cares? His expertise is in playing football. Mike Golic is on that morning radio show because he’s a player, and he’s not even as smart as Peter King.

If there is a rookie salary cap, you’ll find that first round picks get paid less. The cost/performance value of any given draft pick would change. Currently the best value spots in the draft are in the late first through middle of the third round because the top ten or so picks are astronomically priced. If those picks are suddenly cheaper, the curve flattens out a bit. This reduces the edge of teams like the Pats that always draft late but are very savvy at finding value.

Teams will likely take more risks with the top picks because the financial downsides to failure aren’t nearly as severe. There will be more trades involving high draft picks for the same reasons. There will probably be a spike in veteran salaries because this, but I’m not entirely convinced that there will be a lot more Haynesworth-type contracts out there. The teams with smart GMs (I grant you, that’s not very many) will likely lock up more veterans at reasonable prices.

Some veterans who performed very well during their capped rookie years will suddenly find themselves earning a shitload more money than their first contracts because they were clearly better than their first contracts. I could imagine Owen Daniels in this situation. But some veterans would not. Neither David Carr nor Vince Young would get a big payday once their capped contracts expire.

If you’re a Vince Young fan (which I am not) you should like a rookie cap. Vince’s ballooning salary means that he’s likely to get cut by the Tits after this year. If you believe that he just needs some more time to develop (which I don’t) then this is not a good thing. But if he were coming off of a capped contract, he would be in a situation where the Tits could afford to keep him around and groom him to be the replacement for Vodka. Of course it doesn’t matter because Vince is not going to be a good quarterback ever in his career, but you get the point.

When I'm on the mic, I'm like global warming, you can't ignore me.

by tehGrindCrusher on Jun 26, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

TJ stats may be a bit of a stretch

My research showed that he had an official time of 5.1 as of draft day 2005 and his playing weight at FSU was 278. Correct me if I’m wrong. And, he didn’t run at the Combine. All he did was lift and he had a very-average 25 reps.

It will happen

by Rip Jersey on Jun 28, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He tipped the scales at like 293 at the combine I believe and was a pretty fit 293 at that. I just looked it up, he was listed at 6’5 286 lbs just after his junior year, so knowing that he went from 286 his junior year to about 295 at the combine it would seem likely he was was around 290+ his senior year maybe even heavier as most linemen seem to lose weight to test higher for scouts. It seems unlikely that he played 15-16 lbs lighter just a few months before. I’ve even seen a couple of pre-draft pages that had him listed as much as 305lbs, player weight will vary from site to site but it’s usually not more than 10 lbs or so from highest to lowest. More than likely you’ve seen his playing weight listed earlier in his career at Florida state. I’ve seen several sources listing his 40 time leading up to the draft, none of them had him running out of the 4.8 range, so I dunno. Most predraft workups of Travis that i’ve seen describe him as being fast, explosive, and agile for his position as well, no one mentioned he was fat, overweight, and slow… I don’t have any doubts that he probably runs around a 5 second 40 now, but he didn’t when he was a draft prospect coming into the league.

The point is that Travis had alot of potential and so far has not played up to it. I know alot of people are down on him, but it’s the fact that he was such an excellent prospect coming in that makes him a walking tragedy on the football field today. If he had poor talent or physical ability, would it really be his fault he’s only playing up to that ability? If he couldn’t do any better, what reason would we have to be upset with him? I’m disappointed in Johnson not because he’s a terrible player with 0 ability, but because he had all the tools to be a great player and hasn’t made many improvements if any since joining the Texans. I get the feeling that he just skates by, playing to not make mistakes that sends him to Kubiak’s dog house rather than playing to make plays. That’s why i’d rather see another DT take his place, because I would rather see a less talented player like a Robinson or even an undersized Bulman get in there and give it 150% effort on the field and failr rather than watching Johnson do just enough not to be benched. You see more passion and exertion from Johnson after and between plays than you do during, that’s not the kind of football I want to see.

by Bryan72076 on Jun 28, 2009 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs