Jaques Reeves

[Bigtinylittle]

If Smith and Kubiak are as good at judging talent as I am thinking and hoping they are, then signings like Reeves will probably become rarer. But remember this: They took over a team two years ago that was almost completely depleted of talent, especially good second-team talent. It's rally amazing how far Casserly ran the Texans into the ground.

So you have to see the Reeves deal for what it is. Kubes/Smith can only build up the roster so much at a time. After the first five draft picks each year, a team is probably operating on luck more than anything. Sixth and seventh round picks usually don't contribute much in the NFL, even as backups.

So Kubes and Smith only have 5 draftees a year to add. Significantly, almost every one of those choices has contributed so far. That's what makes me so optimistic about the Texans. If the guys running the organization are astute judges of talent, then a consistent winning program is almost inevitable.

The key is, it is probably going to take some time. We still have a lot of holes to fill. And losing players like Spencer and possibly Robinson doesn't make it any easier.

If we don't need or want Reeves next year, the dead money after one year for his contract, as I understand it, is only 3 million or so. That is cheap considering he is a cornerback.

In evaluating whether it was a bad deal, the only thing to consider is whether we could have gotten Reeves for a lot less, or whether we could have gotten a better deal by going with another cornerback. Whether Reeves is being overpaid for the production he will give us is really irrelevant to the situation. The only thing worth considering is what were the alternatives. We were very thin at CB without Dunta, and Smith/Kubiak did something about it.

At this point, I'm thinking CB probably won't be one of our very weakest positions. Considering that it is one of the most critical positions on the field, that makes me happy with the deal.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by Bigtinylittle

If Smith and Kubiak are as good at judging talent as I am thinking and hoping they are, then signings like Reeves will probably become rarer.

it's about 1 a year for them. it's not terrible but it's not like the "meh" contracts are non-existant.

So you have to see the Reeves deal for what it is.

i think you should probably look at what we are saying before you go on another 7 paragraph schtick. i don't think anyone here is out-of-the-know on this. reeves was plan b in case plan a fell through. maybe it was "insurance", maybe it was a little bit of overplanning.

If we don't need or want Reeves next year, the dead money after one year for his contract, as I understand it, is only 3 million or so. That is cheap considering he is a cornerback.

In evaluating whether it was a bad deal, the only thing to consider is whether we could have gotten Reeves for a lot less, or whether we could have gotten a better deal by going with another cornerback. Whether Reeves is being overpaid for the production he will give us is really irrelevant to the situation. The only thing worth considering is what were the alternatives. We were very thin at CB without Dunta, and Smith/Kubiak did something about it.

how is contract not a factor in this? because there were alternatives to reeves? wouldn't alternatives make variables like contract terms more relevant? if reeves was considered by a majority of people to be a below average corner in the wrong system who has some workable skills, am i misrepresenting him with that statement? we gave him a deal for an average starting corner...because he deserved it? because that's what they needed him to be? or because the better corners wanted more money? i'm guessing it was the latter. smithiak knew it was taking a corner, upper round of the draft too. my guess is they were down to charles godfrey or molden, regardless they knew the hole was going to be covered with a decent prospect. so why overpay for a guy you expect to be a spot starter/dime corner (if molden turns out well and dunta returns on time)? filling the 4th hole down isn't near as important or pressing as filling one of the two starting holes.

At this point, I'm thinking CB probably won't be one of our very weakest positions. Considering that it is one of the most critical positions on the field, that makes me happy with the deal.

man why don't me and you just have a big disagreeing session? haha...

considering our best CB won't be around for a while, our 2nd best CB has a ton of potential to prove, our 3rd CB is widely known as a piece of toast, and our 4th is a rookie who also has potential the only other group i would put lower on the totem pole is RB.

[Bigtinylittle]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. You seem to think Kubiak made the wrong move. Do you think we should have gotten an elite corner? You say getting Reeves might be overplanning. What is it exactly that you would have done?

[NBT]

From what I have been able to gather about Reeves, he is fast with good hip turn, it is just that he likes to free lance too much and doesn't stay within the defense called. That may not be exact, but that is the inference I get from all the Dallas negativism. Of course I think our defensive secondary coaches are better than those of Dallas, so I think they will be able to get Reeves to buy in to the plan better than Dallas did. Having said that, I am going to be a little nervous about Reeves until he seems to prove himself in our system. It is good that we have a youngster like Moulden waiting in the wings.

[Joshua]

I didn't watch the Cowboys enough last year to give a learned opinion on Reeves (not sure that's even possible from watching a TV broadcast, even if I had the expertise/inclination). However, one point which might bear considering is the fact that Reeves was the obvious #2 corner across from Newman. Thus, teams are likely going to go at him more often. Throw in Roy Williams as your over-the-top help (and the fact that the rules and officiating favors the offensive player) and he was made to look bad simply by the volume of plays he was in.

I guess what I'm saying is that, because of the rules currently in place, I think most corners (with the exception of the truly elite) can look pretty bad if teams target them. If you have one corner who is generally considered to be good and teams shy away from him, the other corner is almost always going to get burned from time to time, unless he's truly special. It's one of those cases where preception becomes reality. I think most corners in the league could be exposed if teams made a concerted effort to go after them. Thus, playing with a good corner who teams avoid can make you look worse than you are (in comparison to other corners) for no other reason than you're the one in the cross-hairs.

[Bigtinylittle]

Joshua; I agree 100% with what you are saying. It's probably best to keep a bit of an open mind about Reeves. We should be able to tell how good he is after the first few games. If he's no better than Faggins, then the Texans made a big mistake and will probably throw in Molden right away.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by Bigtinylittle

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. You seem to think Kubiak made the wrong move. Do you think we should have gotten an elite corner? You say getting Reeves might be overplanning. What is it exactly that you would have done?

nah, i won't call it a wrong move but i do think it was overplanning. we basically went after a mid to low level cb, gave him a pretty decent contract (that is fair for both sides, i didn't realize before this thread how favorable the texans made it for themselves) when we all knew that CB or LT was going to be one of the 1st 2 picks in the draft. and look, we got a guy i'm positive they had a huge target on with our 2nd pick and he's turning a few heads already.

so, what would i have done? maybe go after a guy who immediately starts without question (probably spend a little extra to get it) and target someone else with the 3rd round pick spent on molden? maybe a DE or a Safety? i don't know, i'm not upset or anything about reeves but if he proves to be unnecessary or just plain bad then keith will have part of an answer to his question of months past: what exactly has smith done as GM? not given out stupid contracts, for one.

i still think the CB group is among the worst on our team though. dunta's return will help, an actual defensive system will help, new coaches will help, better and more consistent pass rush will help but i'm not going to count on them to change games much. that way i won't be disappointed in mediocrity and will be pleasantly surprised with any break-out performances cough::fred::cough

[papabear]

Originally Posted by KJ3

nah, i won't call it a wrong move but i do think it was overplanning. we basically went after a mid to low level cb, gave him a pretty decent contract (that is fair for both sides, i didn't realize before this thread how favorable the texans made it for themselves) when we all knew that CB or LT was going to be one of the 1st 2 picks in the draft.

That's my major problem with your logic. We all thought the Texans were going LT or CB in the first (the Texans probably were planning on it too) but you can't ever count on anything in the draft. Even if you get the player you want there's no guarantee that he will work out. Taking that a step further and assuming that a player or players will be there when your pick comes up is a crap shoot at best.

I think the Texans treated it perfectly. They set themselves up so that they didn't HAVE to take any position on draft day. All the holes might not have been filled the way we would like, but there wasn't any position that was a must in terms of finding an opening day starter. Waiting until draft day to find a starter is how you end up giving up too much to trade up for a player like Jason Babin.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by papabear

That's my major problem with your logic. We all thought the Texans were going LT or CB in the first (the Texans probably were planning on it too) but you can't ever count on anything in the draft. Even if you get the player you want there's no guarantee that he will work out. Taking that a step further and assuming that a player or players will be there when your pick comes up is a crap shoot at best.

if we all, including the texans, thought along those lines then you have a problem with my, the texans, and your own logic.

molden may have been on the short list, maybe he works out maybe he doesn't we don't know-the draft is a crapshoot-yadayada-i get that...but how can you say that knowing that reeves has a pretty not-so glimmering history to rewrite? how is he to be more counted on as a known, sub-par quantity than a guy who hasn't had a chance to prove anything good or bad?

I think the Texans treated it perfectly. They set themselves up so that they didn't HAVE to take any position on draft day. All the holes might not have been filled the way we would like, but there wasn't any position that was a must in terms of finding an opening day starter. Waiting until draft day to find a starter is how you end up giving up too much to trade up for a player like Jason Babin.

i can't say anything to that, it's a great point. like i said, i'm not upset about having reeves especially after realizing the texans ability to get out from under the big number on the contract but he's got a few things to prove just to be useful to our team. that doesn't exactly spell confidence to me, for a guy who is most likely starting in pittsburgh.

hell, if nothing else he gets petey out of the mix...not quite worth 3 mil but it's a start.