IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The NFL Draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-09-2014, 01:03 AM
Keith Keith is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Someone's bound to want to trade up to nab a QB before pick #33. Unless the Texans want Mallett, QB must be a strong consideration with their next pick.
Sonofabitch. So damn close to Teddy. Obviously, I must have liked him in this offense more than the Texans. For all I know, he'll bust with the Vikings, but I think he would have been a terrific fit here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck View Post
As for Mallett I'm with everyone who is suspicious of taking any quarterback that Belichick willingly parts with.
Not only that (Cassel), but consider too that Mallett has been groomed in their offense for a couple seasons, and Tom Brady at 37 isn't going to be around forever. So... letting him walk in a contract year for a 3rd? Hm.

Compared with the QB options remaining in the draft, I can't say though that Mallett would be that much worse in 2014 than anyone on the board. He'd be a vet, and he'd know the offense.

I'll say this... the Texans were successful in avoiding a repeat of the 2002 draft, a year in which Peppers should have been the pick but the team forced David Carr up their board. Clowney ought to be a playmaker in what should hopefully be decent defense this season.
__________________
Support ...IntheBullseye.com and follow us on Twitter
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-09-2014, 07:34 AM
nunusguy nunusguy is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post

Clowney ought to be a playmaker in what should hopefully be decent defense this season.
It looks to "potentially" be a stellar defense "on paper". Clowney, JJ, Cushing, Mercilus, Jonathon J., and Kareem are all first rounders. But that's on paper,
and it's gonna be challenging to fit all of those pieces together. And it's hard to see all of those guys on the field with either Cushing or Mercilus or both on the bench in some nickel/dime packages and that's not wise to have that first-round cap sitting on the bench.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-09-2014, 01:04 PM
Joe Joe Joe Joe is offline
Veteran Depth
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Sonofabitch. So damn close to Teddy. Obviously, I must have liked him in this offense more than the Texans. For all I know, he'll bust with the Vikings, but I think he would have been a terrific fit here.


Not only that (Cassel), but consider too that Mallett has been groomed in their offense for a couple seasons, and Tom Brady at 37 isn't going to be around forever. So... letting him walk in a contract year for a 3rd? Hm.

Compared with the QB options remaining in the draft, I can't say though that Mallett would be that much worse in 2014 than anyone on the board. He'd be a vet, and he'd know the offense.

I'll say this... the Texans were successful in avoiding a repeat of the 2002 draft, a year in which Peppers should have been the pick but the team forced David Carr up their board. Clowney ought to be a playmaker in what should hopefully be decent defense this season.
Basically my thoughts. I think Bridgewater will be a starting NFL QB, but surprised he dropped as low as he did.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-09-2014, 02:29 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy View Post
It looks to "potentially" be a stellar defense "on paper". Clowney, JJ, Cushing, Mercilus, Jonathon J., and Kareem are all first rounders. But that's on paper,
and it's gonna be challenging to fit all of those pieces together. And it's hard to see all of those guys on the field with either Cushing or Mercilus or both on the bench in some nickel/dime packages and that's not wise to have that first-round cap sitting on the bench.
We'll see how this goes. On paper, the defense looks good but there is no reason to be hopeful that we will get anything more than average QB play at best. So, even with a good D, I don't see this team doing much next year. And probably before we do get some decent QB play, several of these guys will be gone because we can't afford to keep them all. Feels like we're simply retracing Kubiak's footsteps. Wish I could be optimistic but I'm not.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-09-2014, 02:55 PM
Nconroe Nconroe is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lake Conroe
Posts: 2,897
Default

I'm taking optimistic approach for now, give the new coaches and players atleast 8 real games.

Salary cap has started to go up with new TV deals so hopefully can start to keep more of their own.

Some of the younger guys will start to be getting 3 years experience this year, including wide receivers and OL.

Still 10 more guys to draft and then more UDFA and FA and training camp and preseason and see where we are when games start in September.

if defense is really good, mostly pretty young, getting close to overall very good team then.

For sure this coaching staff has a way different approach and thinking from previous regime, from what see so far.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-09-2014, 05:59 PM
HPF Bob HPF Bob is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,149
Default

Maybe we'll have a coaching staff than can win a red-flag challenge...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-09-2014, 06:14 PM
popanot popanot is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,916
Default

EDIT: Posted in the wrong thread.

Last edited by popanot; 05-09-2014 at 06:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.