View Full Version : [790am] Texans to release Eric Moulds
rikesh316
02-28-2007, 01:41 PM
790 the Sports Animal just reported the Texans will cut WR Eric Moulds. What a bad trade last year. It looked like a steal but now I know why the Texans were the only team interested in him. Also, David Dalatti said Seth Payne was cut and that Dominack Williams and others will be cut if they don't take a paycut.
The Real Shady
02-28-2007, 01:46 PM
He was picked up as a free agent.
rikesh316
02-28-2007, 01:47 PM
He was picked up as a free agent.
No he was traded for a 5th round pick.
updawg
02-28-2007, 01:57 PM
too bad, I liked him
texanskan
02-28-2007, 02:04 PM
Add WR to the list of needs.
WR, S, OLB, DT, RB, P, OT
Lil Francis
02-28-2007, 02:07 PM
Teddy Ginn???????
rikesh316
02-28-2007, 02:10 PM
Teddy Ginn???????
No thank you. This draft is full of WR and you can find one in the 2nd or 3rd round.
rezdawg
02-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Seth Payne getting cut = Alan Branch with our first rounder.
Lil Francis
02-28-2007, 02:14 PM
No thank you. This draft is full of WR and you can find one in the 2nd or 3rd round.Never know. The tools are there for him to be a star and Kubiak said this offseason they need a wideout that can stretch the defense, make big plays and he might be the biggest play making wideout in the draft other than C.J. Slim chance right now but as it gets closer to the draft it wouldnt shock me if they considered him.
ryan17wagner
02-28-2007, 02:17 PM
The Texans should draft Houston WR Vincent Marshall!
No Worries
02-28-2007, 02:18 PM
Wasn't Eric Moulds the Texans's second best receiver? WTF. 3rd and 4th best receivers must be sweating bullets.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 02:19 PM
Wasn't Eric Moulds the Texans's second best receiver? WTF. 3rd and 4th best receivers must be sweating bullets.
:D
congratulations. kevin walter is now your #2. :)
pgabriel
02-28-2007, 02:23 PM
Wasn't Eric Moulds the Texans's second best receiver? WTF. 3rd and 4th best receivers must be sweating bullets.
its a cap move
brentdapmp
02-28-2007, 02:34 PM
Unless they have a free agent like Stallworth ready to sign on friday this was a bad move. Moulds was not great last year, but you CAN'T go into next season with Kevin Walter as your #2. If we do then the offense will be even more inept next year.
leroy420
02-28-2007, 02:38 PM
its a cap move
Maybe...It's still a $500,000 cap hit, unless they designate him the June 1st cut, in which it would apparently only be a $300,000 hit. Apparently, Moulds said on 790 just after that they told him they were going with youth.
Is it possible they think Jerome Mathis is ready? I know they were hoping to use him more to stretch defenses before the injury.
Unless they have a free agent like Stallworth ready to sign on friday this was a bad move. Moulds was not great last year, but you CAN'T go into next season with Kevin Walter as your #2. If we do then the offense will be even more inept next year.
i didn't realize it was already september... what? it's still only february? no way.
re: moulds - he'll catch on somewhere else where they have a good quarterback. this was all carr's fault.
leroy420
02-28-2007, 02:48 PM
i didn't realize it was already september... what? it's still only february? no way.
re: moulds - he'll catch on somewhere else where they have a good quarterback. this was all carr's fault.
Getting ahead of the game, are we?
He was ok this season. He wasn't really given a true chance, IMO. I'm not necessarily blaming Carr, but you can't dismiss that he locks in on AJ and the ball is going there regardless of the situation. I wonder if AJ isn't too happy about this.
I am with you on the time of year, though. There is no way to tell who is going to be available through cuts, etc. until training camp begins. Stallworth isn't a bad idea, though.
The Cat
02-28-2007, 02:48 PM
Guys, it doesn't matter who the #2 receiver is until the quarterback (whoever it may be) has time to go through his progressions and to let routes develop downfield. I support the move because this team needs to learn from its earlier mistakes. Use the cap money and draft picks to fix the offensive line, and worry about secondary options when they're capable of being used.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 02:56 PM
Guys, it doesn't matter who the #2 receiver is until the quarterback (whoever it may be) has time to go through his progressions and to let routes develop downfield. I support the move because this team needs to learn from its earlier mistakes. Use the cap money and draft picks to fix the offensive line, and worry about secondary options when they're capable of being used.
let's stop pretending this QB NEVER has time to go through progressions. even when he does have the time, he locks in. that may be as a result of the fact he's never been adequately protected (a la David Klingler)...but it still is what it is.
swilkins
02-28-2007, 03:00 PM
Seth Payne getting cut = Alan Branch with our first rounder.
Amobi Okoye
The Cat
02-28-2007, 03:01 PM
let's stop pretending this QB NEVER has time to go through progressions. even when he does have the time, he locks in. that may be as a result of the fact he's never been adequately protected (a la David Klingler)...but it still is what it is.
I didn't mean to imply he never has time — clearly, even the worst offensive lines will protect here and there during a game — but on average, the time isn't there, imo. And, on the occasions it is, I believe Carr's mental clock (in terms of the time he thinks he has in the pocket) is definitely out of sorts.
Don't take this as an endorsement of Carr or a thread dealing with that — I think he's gone. But, imo, the bad habits of not going through progressions that Carr developed would also be developed by whoever we bring in, imo, until the protection is significantly upgraded. As a result, I think the Texans would definitely be better suited to use Moulds' money on legit offensive linemen, if that's the plan.
I'm not necessarily blaming Carr, but you can't dismiss that he locks in on AJ and the ball is going there regardless of the situation. I wonder if AJ isn't too happy about this.
my god, the anti-carr crowd reminds of the jfk conspiracists - if they bump into a wall of sound, rational thinking, they just expand their net of hysteria. so now carr locking in on our undeniably best offensive player is considered a bad thing.....?
ryan17wagner
02-28-2007, 03:06 PM
Bye bye Seth Payne and Zach Wiegart...
pgabriel
02-28-2007, 03:11 PM
my god, the anti-carr crowd reminds of the jfk conspiracists - if they bump into a wall of sound, rational thinking, they just expand their net of hysteria. so now carr locking in on our undeniably best offensive player is considered a bad thing.....?
you were the first person to mention carr in this thread and then you get upset when someone replies? talk about rational
leroy420
02-28-2007, 03:22 PM
my god, the anti-carr crowd reminds of the jfk conspiracists - if they bump into a wall of sound, rational thinking, they just expand their net of hysteria. so now carr locking in on our undeniably best offensive player is considered a bad thing.....?
Yes, when it leads to passes into triple and quadruple coverage.
Major
02-28-2007, 03:28 PM
so now carr locking in on our undeniably best offensive player is considered a bad thing.....?
Has a QB locking onto a single receiver, let alone the same receiver all the time, ever been considered a good thing? :confused: That's one of the absolute worst things a QB can do, no matter how good the receiver might be.
Has a QB locking onto a single receiver, let alone the same receiver all the time, ever been considered a good thing
when plans b-f are rookie owen daniels and then eric moulds, kevin walter, ron dayne, edell shepard, jeb putzier, uhm... i mean, last year, he didn't get andre johnson the ball enough; this year, he locked in on him too much...
when plans b-f are rookie owen daniels and then eric moulds, kevin walter, ron dayne, edell shepard, jeb putzier, uhm... i mean, last year, he didn't get andre johnson the ball enough; this year, he locked in on him too much...
While the anti-Carr crowd is certainly guilty of such disingenuous arguments, I can't see how anyone can argue that Carr was good at reading defenses and going through his progressions.
Summer Song Giver
02-28-2007, 04:07 PM
I ahve faith that one the Texans are going to be a good franchise, keeping/cutting Moulds isn't going to affect that one way or another. He seemed a good guy so I hope he catches on somewhere where winning the SB is the first goal but the fact is the Texans are miles from the playoffs let alone SB at this point.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 04:09 PM
I didn't mean to imply he never has time — clearly, even the worst offensive lines will protect here and there during a game — but on average, the time isn't there, imo. And, on the occasions it is, I believe Carr's mental clock (in terms of the time he thinks he has in the pocket) is definitely out of sorts.
Don't take this as an endorsement of Carr or a thread dealing with that — I think he's gone. But, imo, the bad habits of not going through progressions that Carr developed would also be developed by whoever we bring in, imo, until the protection is significantly upgraded. As a result, I think the Texans would definitely be better suited to use Moulds' money on legit offensive linemen, if that's the plan.
i hear ya. i've just heard it said so many times that if carr had more time it would be different. even when carr has time, it's not very different. in fact, he makes the same mistakes. by now, you should have seen more. that may very well be the OL's fault at the origin...but we're so far passed that now, it's hardly worth mentioning if you're considering the future.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 04:10 PM
I ahve faith that one the Texans are going to be a good franchise, keeping/cutting Moulds isn't going to affect that one way or another. He seemed a good guy so I hope he catches on somewhere where winning the SB is the first goal but the fact is the Texans are miles from the playoffs let alone SB at this point.
how long are we gonna keep saying this, though? we can make this excuse to keep from upgrading anything...or maintaining anything positive at all. "well, we won't win the super bowl next year, so it doesn't matter if we improve at (insert position here)."
While the anti-Carr crowd is certainly guilty of such disingenuous arguments, I can't see how anyone can argue that Carr was good at reading defenses and going through his progressions.
how in the world could any of us have enough insight to make such a judgement? he may very well suck at it; or, he may be very good at it, and his teammates are incapable of carrying out their assignments. i mean, who knows? we certainly don't. did linemen pick up the proper read? did WRs run to the proper spot? did RBs pick up the blitz?
i mean, there're dozens of things that could go wrong on any given play - we all just assume carr's mostly responsible and i don't believe its ever that easy.
btw, slightly shifting gears - this was posted on our board - supposedly [grain of salt time] the push to get carr out of town is actually coming from.... carr, or so his brother is strongly suggesting on the official boards.
the sentiment is that he wants to go to a team with more talent; that he has yet to fill the texans have provided him enough... it certainly puts an interesting spin on things...
DonnyMost
02-28-2007, 04:19 PM
this baffles me.
moulds was a great compliment to AJ.
our 2nd reciever is KEVIN WALTER!?
god be with whoever our QB is next year, he is SCREWED.
Summer Song Giver
02-28-2007, 04:22 PM
how long are we gonna keep saying this, though? we can make this excuse to keep from upgrading anything...or maintaining anything positive at all. "well, we won't win the super bowl next year, so it doesn't matter if we improve at (insert position here)."
I wish it wasn't so but the foundation of this team was garbage from the get go, until that is repaired with resasonably young and gifted talent you could have the entire rosters filled with used to be talented players and the team still won't win.
It will take two, three years of good drafting before adding players like Eric Moulds should be considered a good thing. Personally were I Texans management when looking at potential F.A. signings 26 maybe 27 would be the cutoff age for players I would consider dumping big money on. Of course managment can't do this because they have to look like they are trying to win now. But until the nucleus of the team has been developed free agency should be avoided unless there is a young player who is already good enough to be considered without question a guy who can lock down his position for years to come.
Right now, I would say we have, tops, five players who could be considered building blocks for the future, that needs to be expanded big time. I wish there was some magic formula that would make us contendors next season but unfortunately, that will only come from years of good decisions a nail on the head drafting.
how in the world could any of us have enough insight to make such a judgement? he may very well suck at it; or, he may be very good at it, and his teammates are incapable of carrying out their assignments. i mean, who knows? we certainly don't. did linemen pick up the proper read? did WRs run to the proper spot? did RBs pick up the blitz?
i mean, there're dozens of things that could go wrong on any given play - we all just assume carr's mostly responsible and i don't believe its ever that easy.
I certainly don't have enough insight. I've read it and heard it, however, for five years and from multitudinous sources. In those five years, there has been almost 100% turnover among OL, WR, and TE. There are two common denominators: poor response to defense, and David Carr.
updawg
02-28-2007, 04:33 PM
btw, slightly shifting gears - this was posted on our board - supposedly [grain of salt time] the push to get carr out of town is actually coming from.... carr, or so his brother is strongly suggesting on the official boards.
the sentiment is that he wants to go to a team with more talent; that he has yet to fill the texans have provided him enough... it certainly puts an interesting spin on things...
Lol,
Adios Mofo
updawg
02-28-2007, 04:37 PM
this baffles me.
moulds was a great compliment to AJ.
our 2nd reciever is KEVIN WALTER!?
god be with whoever our QB is next year, he is SCREWED.
If its Carr, it will be another excuse to use for him.
Unless it was for financial (cap) reasons I don't understand getting rid of Moulds.
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 04:42 PM
i hear ya. i've just heard it said so many times that if carr had more time it would be different. even when carr has time, it's not very different. in fact, he makes the same mistakes. by now, you should have seen more. that may very well be the OL's fault at the origin...but we're so far passed that now, it's hardly worth mentioning if you're considering the future.
I'm not saying I want Carr to come back, but it's quite a lot to expect him to morph into some great and productive QB on the rare times he actually has time to throw. I think Carr is done here in Houston, but let's not act like it wouldn't have happened to 95% of the QBs out there had they played behind the same OLs that Carr has.
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 04:42 PM
this baffles me.
moulds was a great compliment to AJ.
our 2nd reciever is KEVIN WALTER!?
god be with whoever our QB is next year, he is SCREWED.
Like Ric asked earlier, when did the calendar change to September? :confused:
moestavern19
02-28-2007, 04:47 PM
How about Randy moss?
anybody?
2nd round pick?
3rd?
4th?
anyone?
please?
In those five years, there has been almost 100% turnover among OL, WR, and TE.
by my count, 4 (johnson, pitts, weary and wiegert) of the 8 opening day starting WRs, OLmen and TEs have been with the team at least 4 years. besides, wouldn't significant turnover likely mean an increase in missed assignments, a lakc of chemsitry and/or communication, etc., and therefore somewhat excuse carr?
imo, the inability to read defenses, et al, is a component of the team being mediocre; not just a single player.
Major
02-28-2007, 04:53 PM
when plans b-f are rookie owen daniels and then eric moulds, kevin walter, ron dayne, edell shepard, jeb putzier, uhm... i mean, last year, he didn't get andre johnson the ball enough; this year, he locked in on him too much...
At the beginning of the year, everyone was talking about how it was great to finally have legit receivers, and how Carr finally had no excuses, yadayadayada. What happened to that line of thinking? Now suddenly all these receivers that had a solid track record (Mould and Putz - or Daniels if he beat out Putz) are crap again and Carr had no one worthy of throwing to?
This is why people are tired of hearing the excuses for Carr. They sound so disingenous because they change to whatever is necessary to defend Carr.
geeimsobored
02-28-2007, 04:56 PM
DAMN IT, Wiegart got cut.
Well there goes my source for Texans tickets. I realize he's always injured and on the older side now but he's really nice and was nice enough to offer us free tickets every now and then. I'll take free lower bowl 50 yard line seats anyday.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Now suddenly all these receivers that had a solid track record (Mould and Putz - or Daniels if he beat out Putz) are crap again and Carr had no one worthy of throwing to?
they just released moulds, major. and putzier was beaten out by a rookie taken on day 2 of the draft.
it seems we might have overrated them a bit, no? that's not viable? blaming carr for their lack of production is better?
MadMax
02-28-2007, 05:07 PM
I'm not saying I want Carr to come back, but it's quite a lot to expect him to morph into some great and productive QB on the rare times he actually has time to throw. I think Carr is done here in Houston, but let's not act like it wouldn't have happened to 95% of the QBs out there had they played behind the same OLs that Carr has.
i don't know if i agree with that or not. but at this point, it's hardly even relevant. who cares whose fault it was at this point?
MadMax
02-28-2007, 05:10 PM
Like Ric asked earlier, when did the calendar change to September? :confused:
it would just be nice to have some sense of continuity. i'm hearing from some it would be better to keep carr so you didn't have to waste cap space and/or a draft pick on a QB. why isn't the same so for a 2nd receiver? was moulds really not good enough to qualify as a 2nd receiver for the Houston Texans?
pgabriel
02-28-2007, 05:11 PM
carr's also the only qb that has to play in a retractable roof stadium.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 05:12 PM
carr's also the only qb that has to play in a retractable roof stadium.
matt leinart. :)
JayZ750
02-28-2007, 05:26 PM
they just released moulds, major. and putzier was beaten out by a rookie taken on day 2 of the draft.
it seems we might have overrated them a bit, no? that's not viable? blaming carr for their lack of production is better?
Seems viable to me so long as if the time comes when Carr is either released and/or on the bench, it also makes sense that the problem was him and not lack of things around him.
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 05:27 PM
i don't know if i agree with that or not. but at this point, it's hardly even relevant. who cares whose fault it was at this point?
Because I would hope that even though we all agree that Carr should move on, that just bringing in any viable replacement that will be on the market really isn't going to matter if other parts of our team don't improve. If we continue to ignore the OL, we'll be having this same discussion next offseaon regardless of who the Texans QB is in 2007.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Because I would hope that even though we all agree that Carr should move on, that just bringing in any viable replacement that will be on the market really isn't going to matter if other parts of our team don't improve. If we continue to ignore the OL, we'll be having this same discussion next offseaon regardless of who the Texans QB is in 2007.
i think the OL has already improved. not enough to be satisfied with..but enough to see better play out of the QB spot.
and it's not fair to say they've "continued to ignore the OL"..they spent 2 high draft picks on the OL and brought in Flannigan last offseason.
and it's not fair to say they've "continued to ignore the OL"..they spent 2 high draft picks on the OL and brought in Flannigan last offseason.
Up until last offseason, it was fair and bafflingly true. Offseason after the 7-9 season, when they dismantled a very good defense and ignored the oline, I was utterly baffled.
Now, last offseason, when they drafted some OL and brought in Flanagan, I was excited b/c I thought that, along with the TE improvements and the addition of Moulds, David Carr would finally begin to play like a franchise QB. I really thought he would.
I was wrong.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 05:35 PM
Up until last offseason, it was fair and bafflingly true. Offseason after the 7-9 season, when they dismantled a very good defense and ignored the oline, I was utterly baffled.
Now, last offseason, when they drafted some OL and brought in Flanagan, I was excited b/c I thought that, along with the TE improvements and the addition of Moulds, David Carr would finally begin to play like a franchise QB. I really thought he would.
I was wrong.
i'm with you. but this "regime" didn't ignore the OL last offseason. not even a little bit. they put weapons around carr that they thought would work out...because they did not want to be stuck with this problem all over again. that's why some of us said, going into last season, "he's running out of excuses." they're putting enough around him. yeah, we didn't draft reggie bush..but the running game got progressively better. in the horrible games that Carr had down the stretch, it wasn't for a lack of running game.
it will be interesting to see if moulds makes any comments about carr in the aftermath of all this.
it will be interesting to see if moulds makes any comments about carr in the aftermath of all this.
Indeed it will.
The Cat
02-28-2007, 05:41 PM
i'm with you. but this "regime" didn't ignore the OL last offseason. not even a little bit.
I'm not sure I agree with this. A third round choice isn't terrible, but it's not all that high, and it's not the kind of position where you can expect to grab a decent starter. The Texans blueprint last offseason for the OL was very similar. Grab a mediocre veteran (Flanagan, see Todd Wade), draft a developmental tackle in the third round (see Seth Wand), and try to patch it together during training camp.
Other than Chester Pitts, this team has yet to commit a single elite draft pick (top two rounds) or spend the money it takes to acquire a significantly above average tackle or guard in free agency. imo, for this OL to really improve, they need to acquire at least one linemen of elite talent... whether it be through free agency or through a pick in the first two rounds.
MadMax
02-28-2007, 05:45 PM
I'm not sure I agree with this. A third round choice isn't terrible, but it's not all that high, and it's not the kind of position where you can expect to grab a decent starter. The Texans blueprint last offseason for the OL was very similar. Grab a mediocre veteran (Flanagan, see Todd Wade), draft a developmental tackle in the third round (see Seth Wand), and try to patch it together during training camp.
Other than Chester Pitts, this team has yet to commit a single elite draft pick (top two rounds) or spend the money it takes to acquire a significantly above average tackle or guard in free agency. imo, for this OL to really improve, they need to acquire at least one linemen of elite talent... whether it be through free agency or through a pick in the first two rounds.
they spent 2 third-round picks on OL, right? you should be able to get quality OL in the first day. they felt like winston was a huge gift dropped in their laps. they brought in Flanagan, hoping to find some depth. they couldn't remake the line completely in a year, Cat.
then they added moulds and putzier.
Major
02-28-2007, 05:45 PM
they just released moulds, major. and putzier was beaten out by a rookie taken on day 2 of the draft.
it seems we might have overrated them a bit, no? that's not viable? blaming carr for their lack of production is better?
We overrated them a bit? They had a track record - a very solid one. That's the point. It's not like we had no idea what we were getting.
This is the Carr-excuse problem. No matter what, there is an excuse brought up for Carr. Andre Johnson, Eric Moulds, Jeb Putzier ALL have a track record far superior to David Carr. Going into the season, Carr was supposedly out of excuses. Now, you just decide "oh, those proven receivers must have been overrated and Carr is fine". You could put freaking Torry Holt and Marvin Harrison around him, and if they don't catch the ball because Carr sucks, you could just say "they didn't have good seasons - it looks like they are overrated."
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 06:24 PM
MM,
I think there's potential for improvement with the OL and I was probably too harsh in saying they ignored it, but let's not act like the guy had tons of time last season. He didn't.
Dubious
02-28-2007, 06:31 PM
Yes, Carr sucks (I've been watching pro football for 45 years, I can see when a QB doesn't have the ability to find an open receiver, check down his options or look off a safety) BUT, sadly, he may be the best option available to the Texans for the 07/08 season.
Always know your options BEFORE you burn your bridges.
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 06:33 PM
We overrated them a bit? They had a track record - a very solid one. That's the point. It's not like we had no idea what we were getting.
This is the Carr-excuse problem. No matter what, there is an excuse brought up for Carr. Andre Johnson, Eric Moulds, Jeb Putzier ALL have a track record far superior to David Carr. Going into the season, Carr was supposedly out of excuses. Now, you just decide "oh, those proven receivers must have been overrated and Carr is fine". You could put freaking Torry Holt and Marvin Harrison around him, and if they don't catch the ball because Carr sucks, you could just say "they didn't have good seasons - it looks like they are overrated."
I don't think anyone said Carr is fine. Andre Johnson has caught the vast majority of his balls from David Carr, so I'm not I'd use him to bash Carr. Putzier was a mixture of probably not being as talented as we thought and Daniels emerging. Moulds was definitely a disappointment that you can place on the offense and Carr, IMO.
I think a lot of the disappointment in Carr this year had to do with the running game. Had our rushing attack been as good as it was the last couple of seasons, I think we'd have seen a different season from Carr. But the fact is our rushing offense was extremely terrible until later in the season when the damage was already done.
Honestly, do any of you really believe that had over 95% of the QBs in the league had played in Houston the last five seasons that they wouldn't have nearly exactly the same five-year span as David Carr has? Once again, I'm not saying he should be our QB next season (there are a very tiny group of people arguing that), but it is what it is. The guy's played behind the worst collective OL in history. That's not making excuses for the guy when you want him gone as well.
updawg
02-28-2007, 06:43 PM
it will be interesting to see if moulds makes any comments about carr in the aftermath of all this.
I heard Dunta and Moulds said some things about Carr today. don't have links but I'm sure there will be stuff to find soon enough.
Supposedly Dunta saying it might be best for Carr to move on since he wasn't a leader etc. He was on cold pizza this morning.
And Moulds on some radio show down there in houston today after he was let go.
Just something I've heard, no links. take it for what its worth.
Lil Francis
02-28-2007, 06:48 PM
I heard Dunta and Moulds said some things about Carr today. don't have links but I'm sure there will be stuff to find soon enough.
Supposedly Dunta saying it might be best for Carr to move on since he wasn't a leader etc. He was on cold pizza this morning.
And Moulds on some radio show down there in houston today after he was let go.
Just something I've heard, no links. take it for what its worth.Yea I saw Dunta on cold pizza too. He sound as if he was ready to drive David Carr to the airport himself :D
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 06:48 PM
I heard Dunta and Moulds said some things about Carr today. don't have links but I'm sure there will be stuff to find soon enough.
Supposedly Dunta saying it might be best for Carr to move on since he wasn't a leader etc. He was on cold pizza this morning.
And Moulds on some radio show down there in houston today after he was let go.
Just something I've heard, no links. take it for what its worth.
Not calling you a liar, but I'd be surprised/disappointed if Dunta said it in those words. When the guy's still a teammate and there's a chance he might be one next season, that **** needs to be kept in-house.
The Cat
02-28-2007, 06:50 PM
Supposedly Dunta saying it might be best for Carr to move on since he wasn't a leader etc. He was on cold pizza this morning.
If he had said anything close to that on a show televised on ESPN several hours go, I'd think it would be all over the Internet.
notafaker1997
02-28-2007, 06:59 PM
Im really wondering about this team becuase the moves they are making now sounds like the same thing the team did after year 3. Wasn't Moulds a team captain just something to think about.
Lil Francis
02-28-2007, 07:14 PM
If he had said anything close to that on a show televised on ESPN several hours go, I'd think it would be all over the Internet.
He said Carr didnt get the job done this season and they asked him what did he think about Carr being dealt and he said "Maybe a change could be good for him.... who knows" I caught that last part of his interview.
pgabriel
02-28-2007, 07:20 PM
If he had said anything close to that on a show televised on ESPN several hours go, I'd think it would be all over the Internet.
the internet's not going to blow up over david carr.
anyway, moulds said something like the line was an issue but carr has to take some responsibility also.
Honestly, do any of you really believe that had over 95% of the QBs in the league had played in Houston the last five seasons that they wouldn't have nearly exactly the same five-year span as David Carr has?
Yes. Yes, I do.
The running game *did* improve the 2nd half of the season. The receivers, TE, and the o-line were better in varying degrees all year long. (The o-line wasn't top ten in the league, but even after injuries they were certainly better than last year.)
So, yes, I believe had any other QB been in this system the results would be different. I'm not saying said QB would be Peyton Freaking Manning or that the Texans would have already made the playoffs (to attempt to shoot down the hyperbole-trumpeters before they even start)--only that a different QB would have performed differently in the same set of circumstances.
And, that's a pretty reasonable conclusion, really. A worse QB than Carr would have looked even worse, and a better QB would have been better.
I believe five years from now the reasonable conclusion will be that David was never really better than a mediocre NFL QB (of course there will still be those making excuses and blaming the early Texans experience).
I was all over Max this time last year for calling my defense of David "excuses". But, David's performance this year has proven that that is exactly what they were: excuses.
The guy is not an above average quarterback. He may not even be an average quarterback.
---I present all of this rambling opinion still hoping that the guy rises up and proves me wrong. I'm still a big fan of his and wish him the best. I really like the guy, I just think he peaked in college and is a mediocre to below-average NFL quarterback.
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 11:29 PM
And, that's a pretty reasonable conclusion, really. A worse QB than Carr would have looked even worse, and a better QB would have been better.
Well, duh.
Well, duh.
:p
If that's so obvious, and we take it alongside your statment earlier...
"Honestly, do any of you really believe that had over 95% of the QBs in the league had played in Houston the last five seasons that they wouldn't have nearly exactly the same five-year span as David Carr has?"
...to its logical end, are you saying that DC is as good as or better than 95% of the QBs in the league? (well, duh) :p
Groogrux
02-28-2007, 11:49 PM
:p
If that's so obvious, and we take it alongside your statment earlier...
"Honestly, do any of you really believe that had over 95% of the QBs in the league had played in Houston the last five seasons that they wouldn't have nearly exactly the same five-year span as David Carr has?"
...to its logical end, are you saying that DC is as good as or better than 95% of the QBs in the league? (well, duh) :p
Well, honestly, yes. I really can't think of a QB that is so talented that they'd be able to overcome the things that David Carr has gone through the past five years. Do you disagree that he's played behind the collectively worst OL in his first five seasons of the league? It's not unreasonable to believe that the vast majority of QBs would fold under the same kind of pressure. Even guys like Manning and Brady I'm not convinced would've done much better had they started as rookies on a team like the Texans.
Well, honestly, yes.
I know in the context of our conversation this statement isn't really unreasonable, but taken by itself it's a real head-turner!
I really can't think of a QB that is so talented that they'd be able to overcome the things that David Carr has gone through the past five years.
That's fair for the first four years. Last year everything got better and David did not.
Do you disagree that he's played behind the collectively worst OL in his first five seasons of the league?
No, in fact I was one of the loudest voicing that fact last year this time.
It's not unreasonable to believe that the vast majority of QBs would fold under the same kind of pressure.
But how badly would they fold? That's my point. It's all surmise and conjecture at this point, but I have a hard time believing guys like Manning and Brady would crater this badly. They wouldn't be where they are, but I don't believe they'd be David Carr. I think there are other QB's that would have fared better (again, not pro-bowl or playoffs, just better). But, it's all surmise and conjecture.
hatemavs4life
03-01-2007, 12:03 AM
Yea I saw Dunta on cold pizza too. He sound as if he was ready to drive David Carr to the airport himself :D
See MM, I wasn't on crack in my analysis of locker room environment! DC's presence is bringing the clubhouse DOWN! The barometric pressure for the Texans with DC is catapulting to an ear-popping L-L-LOW!
The Brass had better solve this conundrum soon or you may as well say bye to AJ and Dunta IMO after this season perhaps, sooner-could request a trade.
They DON'T want to put up with another **** season with DC at the helm.
Sorry Ric, but IMO this is NOT the best option.
Staying pat in a poker game may work sometimes when you're trying to call an opponents bluff but, the Texans staying pat with the signal caller would spell almost certain disaster for this season.
Would you like DC to against the likes of B-More and SD? God, those games have burial written ALL over IT!
Hell, at least give us a fighting chance with DC in these games we have NO chance!
No change at QB range: 4-12 to 7-9; depending upon FA and draft replenishment and improvement.
Even with the Snake: at worst, 7-9 perhaps 9-7. Laugh all you want but Carr is NOT out best option.
Problem right now the Texans brass are in a 32 team poker tournament. Right now, they are trying to bluff other teams into taking Carr and getting a high draft pick in return vice, having the other teams call their bluff and with them holding pocket deuces having to decide to fold-cut Carr and get no compensation or go "ALL IN"-force the other franchises hand and get into a bidding war. Man, what a position to be in. Good luck, Smitty! I don't envy your job in this case.
rhino17
03-01-2007, 12:13 AM
I liked Moulds, I thought he was a nice contribution last year.
SwoLy-D
03-01-2007, 12:37 AM
MM,
I think there's potential for improvement with the OL and I was probably too harsh in saying they ignored it, but let's not act like the guy had tons of time last season. He didn't.Exactly. :cool: That's what I have been saying all along.
updawg, thanks for bringing that up. I hope someone YouTubed that Dunta interview.
Dave2000
03-01-2007, 01:55 AM
thats it, i give up on buying NFL jerseys
i got a
Eagles Owens (gone)
Dolphs Ricky Williams (gone)
Michael Vick (might as well be gone)
David Carr (see above)
Andre Johnson (he's not going anywhere)
and
Moulds, i just bought the sob last week, i really didnt think he'd be cut after one season, almost as bad as owning a Petitte jersey... :p
kaleidosky
03-01-2007, 04:59 AM
i had a dream last night that for some reason we waived Domanick Williams, and then he signed on with the Saints as their starter. He figured he's go back to Louisiana and be awesome. Another one of our guys signed there in my dream, too. It was worse than it sounds.
MadMax
03-01-2007, 08:44 AM
MM,
I think there's potential for improvement with the OL and I was probably too harsh in saying they ignored it, but let's not act like the guy had tons of time last season. He didn't.
there were games he had more time than others. and his mistakes down the stretch last season weren't because of continual pressure. at least that's not what i saw.
Major
03-01-2007, 08:53 AM
Well, honestly, yes. I really can't think of a QB that is so talented that they'd be able to overcome the things that David Carr has gone through the past five years.
You think Carr is in the top 5% of QB's in the league (given that there are 30 starters, you're saying he's one of the 2 best QB's, or if you include backups, you think he's one of the 4 best QBs in the NFL), and then people say no one makes excuses for Carr?
The running game *did* improve the 2nd half of the season.
it did, and guess what? the team did, as well. i repeat these numbers over and over, but they're so telling, imo: 3-3 when the team's leading rusher topped 63 yards, with 2 of the losses against buffalo and tennessee (both on the final play of the game).
if this team had gone 8-8 and been competive in 13 of their 16 games... we'd all be blowing happy sunshine out of our asses. but rather than focus on what worked, and trying to find a way to make it work more often, we all want to focus on carr, even though he was the QB in all 6 of those games.
that is the root, foundation, crux of my stance - you can win with david carr. you may not win because of david carr, but then, no team wins because of the QB. i'd rather keep him where he is and beef up the OL and find a game-changing back who can do far more often than not what ron dayne did against the colts.
[QUOTE=msn](The o-line wasn't top ten in the league, but even after injuries they were certainly better than last year.)[QUOTE=msn]
sorry; "better" than last year? for the final 7 games of the year, the starting OL was salaam (out of football when the texans brought him in to be a back-up); pitts; hogdon/mckinney; weary; winston (a rookie 3rd round draft choice they never expected to have to play last year). that line was "better" than last year's line, which featured 3/5 of the same players, plus any combination of a healthy zach wiegert, todd wade and/or milford brown?
i think "better" is stretching it. equally inept and undermanned is far more appropriate.
[QUOTE=msn]Last year everything got better and David did not.[QUOTE=msn]
"everything"? let's see, the running game was worse, statistically. from 1,815 yards (4.2/carry) in '05 (with DD leading the way with 976 yards) to 1,685 yards (3.9/carry) in '06 (with RD leading the way with 612 yards); our #2 WR, a team-designated "need" this offseason, was just waived for non-salary cap reasons and our OL contained 3/5 of last year's starters plus a street FA and a project rookie they didn't even dress for the first four games and had no plan to play this year.
now, yes, daniels and putzier were better than any other TE combo they've ever had, but you want to talk about damning with faint praise.... frankly, the only thing that got decidedly "better" was the coaching staff, but they were handed such a mess from the previous regime... coaching can only overcome so much.
Going into the season, Carr was supposedly out of excuses. Now, you just decide "oh, those proven receivers must have been overrated and Carr is fine". You could put freaking Torry Holt and Marvin Harrison around him, and if they don't catch the ball because Carr sucks, you could just say "they didn't have good seasons - it looks like they are overrated."
do you honestly believe jeb putzier was unable to beat out a rookie TE because of david carr? do you also think eric moulds was released for non salary cap reasons because of david carr? the rest of your statement is silly hyperbole.
Major
03-01-2007, 09:11 AM
that is the root, foundation, crux of my stance - you can win with david carr. you may not win because of david carr, but then, no team wins because of the QB. i'd rather keep him where he is and beef up the OL and find a game-changing back who can do far more often than not what ron dayne did against the colts.
You don't think Indy wins because of Manning? Or the Patriots don't win because of Brady? By this standard, we could just put anyone at QB. Why not then just cut Carr and save $12 million in cap room the next two years?
You can win with Sage or Quincy Carter or Tim Couch or any number of other failures of QB's. And they don't cost $8MM a year.
Major
03-01-2007, 09:14 AM
do you honestly believe jeb putzier was unable to beat out a rookie TE because of david carr? do you also think eric moulds was released for non salary cap reasons because of david carr? the rest of your statement is silly hyperbole.
I think Owen Daniels beat our Putz because he was pretty good. And I have no idea why Moulds was released, except that possibly the organization is still stupid and linked to Carr. Given that Moulds has now publically criticized Carr, maybe friction there had something to do with it. Who really knows. What I know is that you need to quit blaming everyone for Carr sucking. Now in addition to the former GM, former coaches, O-Line, running game, and former receivers, you've added this year's receivers. I wonder who will be next.
Apparently, that "irresponsible speculation" that many of us called "common sense" was, well, common sense and is now public.
You don't think Indy wins because of Manning? Or the Patriots don't win because of Brady?
no team wins because of an individual. the colts start five former first round picks (plus manning); manning's WRs, LT, C, offensive coordinator and head coach have all been together since 2002 (i believe that's right; perhaps 2001 - i can't remember when dungy was brought in).
brady plays for, with very little debate, the best coach in all of football who has devised a system that maximizes the team's strengths and covers up its weaknesses, which is why, when patriots fly the coup, they very often fail.
no individual is bigger than the team.
leroy420
03-01-2007, 09:26 AM
it did, and guess what? the team did, as well. i repeat these numbers over and over, but they're so telling, imo: 3-3 when the team's leading rusher topped 63 yards, with 2 of the losses against buffalo and tennessee (both on the final play of the game).
if this team had gone 8-8 and been competive in 13 of their 16 games... we'd all be blowing happy sunshine out of our asses. but rather than focus on what worked, and trying to find a way to make it work more often, we all want to focus on carr, even though he was the QB in all 6 of those games.
that is the root, foundation, crux of my stance - you can win with david carr. you may not win because of david carr, but then, no team wins because of the QB. i'd rather keep him where he is and beef up the OL and find a game-changing back who can do far more often than not what ron dayne did against the colts.
Gotta disagree with you here. 8-8 would have been nice but it wouldn't have silenced anyone about Carr. Some of those 6 wins were in spite of David Carr. It might have gotten louder than it is..."With X we could have won 9 or 10 games."
Major
03-01-2007, 09:26 AM
no individual is bigger than the team.
The team is a composite of the individuals. If the Colts don't have Manning this year, they don't win the Superbowl. Same with the Patriots and Brady the last few years. Of course you need OTHER players too, but you put Quincy Carter on the Colts, and they will suck.
I love this new excuse for Carr. Now, we can win with a great defense, great running game, great O-Line, so why upgrade the QB?
I think Owen Daniels beat our Putz because he was pretty good.
so putzier apparently wasn't "pretty good."
And I have no idea why Moulds was released, except that possibly the organization is still stupid and linked to Carr.
then grab a paper. from today's chronicle:
"The cap was a big issue with Zach and Seth, but it wasn't with Eric. That was a football decision on my part."
...
"That was a tough decision on Eric, but I really think a lot of Kevin (Walter). He's got the ability to be a starter. He's got what I like. He's tough. He's got a great work ethic. He's willing to do anything you ask of him."
now, you wanna talk about reading between the lines...
Given that Moulds has now publically criticized Carr, maybe friction there had something to do with it.
quote, please, in which he criticizes carr, which, even if true, would be truly groundbreaking. usually when players are released for performance issues, they go out quietly with a pocketful of warm memories...
Major
03-01-2007, 09:31 AM
quote, please, in which he criticizes carr, which, even if true, would be truly groundbreaking. usually when players are released for performance issues, they go out quietly with a pocketful of warm memories...
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2771987#post2771987
Robinson:
<I>Texans cornerback Dunta Robinson said Wednesday night that he believes it is time for quarterback David Carr to be traded.
"It's just my opinion, but I think it's that time," Robinson said. "We haven't won. I'm not saying it's David's fault, and I'm not saying he can't be a great quarterback with another team. But he's been here for five years, and the best we've been able to do is 7-9. I just think it's time for us to make some moves that'll help the Texans become a winning team."
</I>
Moulds:
<I>Moulds said it was Carr who hindered the team's chances, saying that at some point "the quarterback has to show that he can carry (the team)."</I>
Gotta disagree with you here. 8-8 would have been nice but it wouldn't have silenced anyone about Carr. Some of those 6 wins were in spite of David Carr. It might have gotten louder than it is..."With X we could have won 9 or 10 games."
what about the games they lost in which carr played well enough for the team to win? the giants, bills and second titan game jump out.
believe me, 8-8 and competitive in 80+% of the games would have silenced a lot of people. sure, he had bad games. but there were days when the team around him was god-awful (like the 11 yards rushing the managed against the jets).
I love this new excuse for Carr. Now, we can win with a great defense, great running game, great O-Line, so why upgrade the QB?
hows about we focus on getting those units up to average before we start dispensing useless hyperbole.
Major
03-01-2007, 09:33 AM
hows about we focus on getting those units up to average before we start dispensing useless hyperbole.
Why not focus on getting the QB unit up to average?
updawg
03-01-2007, 09:35 AM
So is moulds just a disgruntled ex employee. is that what we are supposed to think.
Groogrux
03-01-2007, 09:35 AM
Because I feel that 95% of QBs in the league would play similar to Carr if they had been in the same situation means that I think he's one of the top 2 QBs in the league, right now? Wow. Way to twist my words around.
What I mean (and I thought would be pretty clear) is had Jake Delhomme was the Texans QB since 2002, his level of success on the Texans would be similar to Carr's. Same with guys like Jake Plummer, Tony Romo, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Byron Leftwich, Rex Grossman, Brad Johnson, Chris Simms, Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Alex Smith, Trent Green, Jon Kitna, J.P. Losman, Mark Brunell, should I keep going? Just because these guys have had some sort of success on teams that didn't sport the worst OL in history doesn't mean they would've had success on the Texans. That doesn't mean I think that Carr is currently better than any one of those guys I just mentioned. It only means that I think he could've been had he been on a different team from 2002 on. I'm completely dumbfounded that some of you don't get this. Some of you act like playing behind the worst OL in history isn't a big part of why David Carr played the way he has.
Once again, for the 8,000th time, I want Carr gone. I think the chances of him succeeding in Houston are somewhere between slim and none. I think he has somewhat of a chance to become a successful QB in this league if he's put in the right situation (i.e. not behind the worst OL in history for four straight seasons).
And msn, the running game took a major step backwards for a big part of last season.
Major
03-01-2007, 09:37 AM
Because I feel that 95% of QBs in the league would play similar to Carr if they had been in the same situation means that I think he's one of the top 2 QBs in the league, right now? Wow. Way to twist my words around.
Twisting words? You said EXACTLY that:
msn: ...to its logical end, are you saying that DC is as good as or better than 95% of the QBs in the league?
you: Well, honestly, yes.
??
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2771987#post2771987
thanks for linking to a 23-page thread; i'll jump in and take a look next time i have a few 12 hours to kill... did moulds actually make the comment to an actual media source? there was no quote from oulds in this morning piece about his release.
as for robinson, i saw his comments this morning, and, frankly, he needs to focus on his play, which has been in steady decline since his rookie season. what's interesting is that i'd argue a significant reason for that decline is that the team around him has gotten worse - the secondary is awful, the pass rush non-existent and he's suffering for it. but, of course, those are "excuses" - he really just sucks.
Groogrux
03-01-2007, 09:41 AM
Twisting words? You said EXACTLY that:
msn: ...to its logical end, are you saying that DC is as good as or better than 95% of the QBs in the league?
you: Well, honestly, yes.
??
Had you read the rest of that post, or any other post in this thread, you'd know exactly what I meant. Either I misread his question or misworded my response. I certainly don't believe that he's better than 95% of the QBs in the league. I think he's similarly talented and think he would be just as successful as 95% of them had their situations been reversed.
updawg
03-01-2007, 09:41 AM
Lopez, in the chronicle....
In a parting shot, Moulds spoke Wednesday about what he felt limited this team's chances to succeed last season. The Texans won six games in 2006. Two more wins would have had the club on the brink of the playoffs.
Moulds said it was Carr who hindered the team's chances, saying that at some point "the quarterback has to show that he can carry (the team)."
Those kinds of words should speak volumes to Kubiak and Smith.
-------------------
Was moulds acquired for a 5th before or after kubiak came?
Major
03-01-2007, 09:41 AM
thanks for linking to a 23-page thread; i'll jump in and take a look next time i have a few 12 hours to kill... did moulds actually make the comment to an actual media source? there was no quote from oulds in this morning piece about his release.
Halfway down Page 23.
as for robinson, i saw his comments this morning, and, frankly, he needs to focus on his play, which has been in steady decline since his rookie season. what's interesting is that i'd argue a significant reason for that decline is that the team around him has gotten worse - the secondary is awful, the pass rush non-existent and he's suffering for it. but, of course, those are "excuses" - he really just sucks.
LOL. So, after claiming for pages and pages of a thread that Carr hadn't lost the team and that it was totally irresponsible to argue that players might
think badly of Carr, when two players publically come out against Carr, you shoot the messenger, saying he's not very good and should just shut up. Awesome.
Teflon-Carr.
If the Colts don't have Manning this year, they don't win the Superbowl.
additionally, if they have manning but ron dayne and wali lundy instead of joseph addai and domanic rhodes, andre johnson and eric moulds instead of marvin harrison and reggie wayne, owen daniels instead of dallas clark, the texans' OL instead of the colts' OL, they don't win the super bowl.
manning is certainly a big part of the team's success; but far from the only part. he's currently playing with hall-of-fame (harrison and saturday) and/or all-pro (wayne, clark, glenn) level talent.
Major
03-01-2007, 09:44 AM
I think he's similarly talented and think he would be just as successful as 95% of them had their situations been reversed.
OK, here's the newest quote. You think he's similarly talented to 95% of the QBs. Am I reading that correctly? So that would mean there are only 2 QB's more talented than Carr in the league? Let's say they are Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. You don't think McNabb, Brees, or anyone else is any more talented than Carr? Wow.
I certainly think there are more than 2 QBs in the league that could have performed better than Carr on the Texans this year.
Groogrux
03-01-2007, 09:47 AM
OK, here's the newest quote. You think he's similarly talented to 95% of the QBs. Am I reading that correctly? So that would mean there are only 2 QB's more talented than Carr in the league? Let's say they are Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. You don't think McNabb, Brees, or anyone else is any more talented than Carr? Wow.
I think they're probably a little more talented than Carr, but not far and away. It's not like this guy was some special ed student at Fresno State that the Texans' took as a deal with the Make a Wish people. There's a reason why he was the #1 pick and at the time, there wasn't a lot of talk that he didn't deserve to be.
And last I checked, Carr hasn't thrown up in the middle of a game before. :p
Major
03-01-2007, 09:47 AM
additionally, if they have manning but ron dayne and wali lundy instead of joseph addai and domanic rhodes, andre johnson and eric moulds instead of marvin harrison and reggie wayne, owen daniels instead of dallas clark, the texans' OL instead of the colts' OL, they don't win the super bowl.
Yes, I addressed this in the very next sentence:
<I>Of course you need OTHER players too, but you put Quincy Carter on the Colts, and they will suck.
</I>
What is your point? If you exchange any ONE player on that team, the Colts would still be damn good, unless it was the QB. Not coincidentally, that's the case on most good teams (though not all). One great QB can have the same effect as multiple other great players because he's not "just another player", the QB has more impact on the game than anyone else - by far.
So why settle for mediocrity at QB? Why not try to upgrade that AND upgrade elsewhere?
Major
03-01-2007, 09:50 AM
I think they're probably a little more talented than Carr, but not far and away. It's not like this guy was some special ed student at Fresno State that the Texans' took as a deal with the Make a Wish people. There's a reason why he was the #1 pick and at the time, there wasn't a lot of talk that he didn't deserve to be.
So was Tim Couch and and any number of other #1 pick busts. He also played for a terrible team. Does he get the same benefit of the doubt? If Carr was on any other team, would you feel that he was this ultra-talented guy, apparently near the level of MVP-caliber players like McNabb and Brees?
What exactly would it take for you to believe the Carr wasn't good? Can you name other QBs that sucked ass for 5 years but had a ton of talent and was suddenly really good? The only one I can think of is Jake Plummer. Out of hundreds and hundreds of QB's in the NFL over the past dozen years.
hatemavs4life
03-01-2007, 09:52 AM
no team wins because of an individual. the colts start five former first round picks (plus manning); manning's WRs, LT, C, offensive coordinator and head coach have all been together since 2002 (i believe that's right; perhaps 2001 - i can't remember when dungy was brought in).
brady plays for, with very little debate, the best coach in all of football who has devised a system that maximizes the team's strengths and covers up its weaknesses, which is why, when patriots fly the coup, they very often fail.
no individual is bigger than the team.
Hmmm ... really? Yes, schemes and plans as well as good even great, superstar players help to compliment a QB. Yes, but to assert that Manning does not make a difference, or Brady or even Joe Montana is ridiculous. I guess when defensive coordinators are having sleepless nights trying to figure out how to stop them that is all just smoke and mirrors, right?
Yes agree, that no player is greater than the sum of its parts in this case the team, BUT a player with great talent, great heart and high intellect can and DOES make a difference time after time, over and over again. They have an unquenchable desire to compete and to win. It's about everyone doing their job to help accomplish the mission, but you need that special QB or RB that when it's crunch time his eyes light up and is able to inspire his team to elevate the whole teams play and get the victory. That's why certain teams win and certain teams don't. Obviously, the more talented your team is, the more consistently you can duplicate this formula. Do you dispute this, Ric?
Example, Brady had not one superstar, or even arguably highly talented WR at his disposal yet, he consistently found a way to get the ball in the hands of 5, 6 or even at least 7 different receivers. Yes, Brady has a better line to work with than does DC but why is it over and over and over again that DC rarely ever got more than 3 receivers involved in the game? It's not ALL the O-Lines fault.
Reasons why DC is NOT a good QB: DC does not recognize and adjust to pass coverages well, or he does not make the decisions quick enough to take advantage of potential mismatches or he does not hit the receivers in stride consistently maximizing their YAC potential. Lastly, when DC starts having bad plays or turnovers, he largely cannot right the ship and rally the troops and pull victory from the jaws of defeat. He goes into a shell and panics under pressure.
Like the old saying goes ... some people thrive under pressure and some wilt under it. Care to guess which category DC is in?
Bottom line, there have been many multi-talented players that excelled in college and then, fell on their collective faces in the NFL for whatever reason. That's why largely the draft is a 'crapshoot' you think you know how someone is going to turn out but sometimes it just doesn't work out. You just hope you are better than 50% good on your draft picks. For the first 4 years, the Texans were maybe 5% good (AJ, Dunta, DW). That's why this team is largely sh*t!
We have starters that should either be on special teams or even out of the league and we have backups and special teamers that should be stocking shelves at Kroger's.
Groogrux
03-01-2007, 09:53 AM
So was Tim Couch and and any number of other #1 pick busts. He also played for a terrible team. Does he get the same benefit of the doubt? If Carr was on any other team, would you feel that he was this ultra-talented guy, apparently near the level of MVP-caliber players like McNabb and Brees?
What exactly would it take for you to believe the Carr wasn't good? Can you name other QBs that sucked ass for 5 years but had a ton of talent and was suddenly really good? The only one I can think of is Jake Plummer. Out of hundreds and hundreds of QB's in the NFL over the past dozen years.
I can only think of one QB who's played behind the worst line in history as well as on an expansion team that's typically ****ty all the way around to begin with.
The fact that a 6 win season is used as evidence that he was finally behind a good team should say enough. It's certainly not enough to convince me that he would've never been a successful QB regardless of the talent level around him.
And yes, I believe had Tim Couch started on a more talented team and not an expansion team, there's a good chance his career would've gone a lot differently.
In a parting shot, Moulds spoke Wednesday about what he felt limited this team's chances to succeed last season. The Texans won six games in 2006. Two more wins would have had the club on the brink of the playoffs.
Moulds said it was Carr who hindered the team's chances, saying that at some point "the quarterback has to show that he can carry (the team)."
Those kinds of words should speak volumes to Kubiak and Smith.
first of all, moulds isn't saying naything here that kubiak didn't say all year. but notice how lopez frames the quote with his own opinion to make it appear moulds is pointing a finger at carr. if they'd just won two more games... and now here's a rather benign, no **** quote from eric moulds...
btw, john - the texans lost twice on the game's final play with carr, moulds and every other offensive player on the sidelines... there're your two wins right there. but yeah, it's carr's fault - moulds says as much!
LOL. So, after claiming for pages and pages of a thread that Carr hadn't lost the team and that it was totally irresponsible to argue that players might think badly of Carr, when two players publically come out against Carr, you shoot the messenger, saying he's not very good and should just shut up. Awesome.
first of all, as stated above, i think moulds' quote was fairly benign. kubiak said that often last year. re: dunta, he made similiar comments after the patriot game and then went back on them a week later after the colt game. he seems to be a bit of a loose cannon who pops off whenever the wind changes.
if, however, he reflects a growing, or even established sector of the locker room, then yeah, it definitely raises the stakes in the carr situation. no doubt.
updawg
03-01-2007, 09:58 AM
Does anyone know if the trade for moulds (a 5th?) was made before or after kubiak came?
<I>Of course you need OTHER players too, but you put Quincy Carter on the Colts, and they will suck.
</I>
yes; i know - it's more useless hyperbole. pick arguably the worst starting quarterback of this decade...
but what if the colts had... jake delhomme? or jake plummer? or some other average passer? do they still win 11-12 games every year with the teams they've had?
What is your point? If you exchange any ONE player on that team, the Colts would still be damn good, unless it was the QB.
no, that's your point. mine is that the colts are a terrific football team, top to bottom (certainly on offense) and that no one player is responsible for that.
One great QB can have the same effect as multiple other great players because he's not "just another player", the QB has more impact on the game than anyone else - by far.
and yet, every year, we see average to mediocre QBs win big, like... oh, i don't know - rex grossman. ben rothlisberger. brad johnson. rich gannon. trent dilfer.
So why settle for mediocrity at QB? Why not try to upgrade that AND upgrade elsewhere?
if i thought a significant upgrade was available, i'd be all over it. my evaluation of carr, almost literally from day one, has been he'll play up to the level of the team around him. if the team is good; he'll be good. over the last 3 years, that has been almost universally true. they've won 15 games and been competitive in several more, and carr has played well in the majority of those games.
And yes, I believe had Tim Couch started on a more talented team and not an expansion team, there's a good chance his career would've gone a lot differently.
and what, besides being the first pick of an expansion franchise did couch and carr share? chris palmer. but probably just a coincidence...
leroy420
03-01-2007, 10:04 AM
what about the games they lost in which carr played well enough for the team to win? the giants, bills and second titan game jump out.
believe me, 8-8 and competitive in 80+% of the games would have silenced a lot of people. sure, he had bad games. but there were days when the team around him was god-awful (like the 11 yards rushing the managed against the jets).
That's a bit simplistic. IIRC, the Jets loaded the box because there was no threat that Carr was going to throw down field. A little more than half of his passing yards (162 of 321) were on the last 2 drives. There wasn't a completion over 14 yards until the td drive late in the 4th. I'm not saying the running game wasn't terrible, but the Jets knew there was no threat of going long so they could easily keep 8 in the box.
Yes agree, that no player is greater than the sum of its parts in this case the team, BUT a player with great talent, great heart and high intellect can and DOES make a difference time after time, over and over again.
i'm not arguing they're not great QBs; they are. but is that standard we're using for david carr? peyton manning and tom brady? 99.9% of the QBs in this league are going to fall short of those guys.
That's a bit simplistic. IIRC, the Jets loaded the box because there was no threat that Carr was going to throw down field. A little more than half of his passing yards (162 of 321) were on the last 2 drives. There wasn't a completion over 14 yards until the td drive late in the 4th. I'm not saying the running game wasn't terrible, but the Jets knew there was no threat of going long so they could easily keep 8 in the box.
what does 8 in the box also allow defenses to do? especially when there's little to no threat of your RB breaking through your 8-man front?
That Moulds quote is far from "benign". Sad, really.
Re: two pages ago, you guys got me on the RB front. I admit the RB situation deteriorated this year.
But to say the TE and WR were not markedly better is so much BS spin. The defense was also better. The coaching was better. The scheme was better. The offensive line--even after the injuries--was better. Ric listed the personnel well a couple pages ago, but he didn't mention the performance of said personnel (due largely to scheme and coaching). If anyone thinks the o-line last season performed better than this season, he either wasn't watching or is into blind David Carr apologetics.
I agree--completely agree--with Ric that it's insane to pin this all on David Carr. I also think the Lopez (or whoever it was) article that names Carr "the face of failure" is over-the-top and generally stupid (in line with most Chronicle writing).
However, it doesn't have to be "all David's fault" for us to know he's not the right man for the job. Hyperbole, though effective at illustrating a point at times, can be so disingenuous at other times. If I had to blame someone for the Texans' corporate history of tragedy and mockery, it'd be Capers and Casserly, not David Carr.
But the fact that "it wasn't David's fault" doesn't mean he is competent to do the job. I do not believe he is. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, especially if he is the quarterback for the Houston Texans in 2007.
That Moulds quote is far from "benign". Sad, really.
believe me, kubiak said far worse prior to, during and after the season. only lopez's finger-pointing context gives moulds' quote any bite.
But to say the TE and WR were not markedly better is so much BS spin.
last year's team was the worst in football; they had the worst starting TE in football; the worst OL in football; and one of the worst receiving corps in football, hampered further by AJ being nicked for portions of the season.
so, yes, they "improved;" from awful to just bad. the biggest addition was kubiak and the new staff, but even they struggled. some personnel decisions were highly questionable; the team was routinely beaten, and beaten soundly, in the 3rd quarter, and he failed to find a way to put johnson in space and maximize his skills, in addition to failing to consistently develop even a decent running game.
this is still a bad football team. i mean, we could probably shut this place down discussing which of the 5-6 needs for this team is most important this offseason. so let's not live in a vaccum and assume "improved" means good.
But the fact that "it wasn't David's fault" doesn't mean he is competent to do the job. I do not believe he is. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, especially if he is the quarterback for the Houston Texans in 2007.
if you look at their 15 wins these past 3 years, as well as the handful of games in which they were genuinely competitive (such as buffalo and tennessee this year), you'll see, far more often than not, more than competent numbers from carr in those games.
sure, he absolutely has an oakland every now and then (in relation to the team winning or performing well), but so does every other qb. again, carr's not going to get in the way of winning. and he's not the reason they're losing. so unless you can definitively upgrade the position significantly, why waste $$ and/or draft picks on marginal, if that, upgrades? because he's the "face of failure"? blah.
sorry; quick clarification:
last year's team was the worst in football; they had the worst starting TE in football; the worst OL in football; and one of the worst receiving corps in football, hampered further by AJ being nicked for portions of the season.
by "last year's team," i mean the 2005 version.
...
Your post in general is very reasonable.
last year's team was the worst in football;
Oakland says, "Hi."
they had the worst starting TE in football; the worst OL in football; and one of the worst receiving corps in football, hampered further by AJ being nicked for portions of the season.
...all improved from the "worst in football" in 2005. BTW, Oakland's offensive line sends its greetings; they were far worse than Houston's.
so, yes, they "improved;" from awful to just bad.
...and David didn't improve at all. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to suggest that the whole team became pro-bowlers, and I admit my tone probably overplayed the improvements in these areas. But, regardless of the degree there was improvement.
this is still a bad football team.
Agreed.
so let's not live in a vaccum and assume "improved" means good.
I never said that--so let's bring the conversation back away from this strawman. The context of my argument was Carr's lack of improvement amidst improvement in the positions surrounding him.
so unless you can definitively upgrade the position significantly, why waste $$ and/or draft picks on marginal, if that, upgrades? because he's the "face of failure"? blah.
Let us see what the Texans organization can come up with.
But the fact that "it wasn't David's fault" doesn't mean he is competent to do the job. I do not believe he is. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, especially if he is the quarterback for the Houston Texans in 2007.
ok, since 2004, they've been in 27 competitive games, competitive being either a win or a loss by 7 or fewer points. and while i know QB rating is not by any means definitive, i didn't really want to delve too deeply into this, or spend too much time on it, so...:
carr posted an 82.6, or better, QB rating in 17 of those 27 games. (82.6 was the average of the top 32 QBs last year). in just the wins (15), he posted an 82.6 or better 9 times. [two quick notes - first, in one of the games, he posted an 80.9 rating; a win against the chiefs in '04. i included it among the "below average," but it was by no means a below average game (13/25, 233 yards, 1/1). second, i threw out the SF game that (mercilessly) ended the '05 season because he got hurt.]
overall, in the 27 competitive games, he threw 23 TDs and 15 INTs. in the 15 wins, 18 TDs and 8 INTs. FYI, in the other 14 games that weren't competitive, he was 18/22.
not by any means the be-all, end-all - i spent, like, 10 minutes looking this up. but it does show he more often than not (63-66% of the time) plays better when the team plays better.
I never said that--so let's bring the conversation back away from this strawman. The context of my argument was Carr's lack of improvement amidst improvement in the positions surrounding him.
but "improvement" is a relative term, msn. you may lose 100 pounds, but if you're still tipping the scales at 350, then you're still overweight and a health risk, know what i mean?
besides, i would argue more stringently, and you have agreed with me, that the running game was not among the units that improved. now i ask you - what is the single most important element driving the success of this denver system...........?
leroy420
03-01-2007, 05:49 PM
believe me, kubiak said far worse prior to, during and after the season. only lopez's finger-pointing context gives moulds' quote any bite.
last year's team was the worst in football; they had the worst starting TE in football; the worst OL in football; and one of the worst receiving corps in football, hampered further by AJ being nicked for portions of the season.
so, yes, they "improved;" from awful to just bad. the biggest addition was kubiak and the new staff, but even they struggled. some personnel decisions were highly questionable; the team was routinely beaten, and beaten soundly, in the 3rd quarter, and he failed to find a way to put johnson in space and maximize his skills, in addition to failing to consistently develop even a decent running game.
this is still a bad football team. i mean, we could probably shut this place down discussing which of the 5-6 needs for this team is most important this offseason. so let's not live in a vaccum and assume "improved" means good.
But Carr hasn't improved at all. He looks almost exactly the same as the qb who played in 2002.
if you look at their 15 wins these past 3 years, as well as the handful of games in which they were genuinely competitive (such as buffalo and tennessee this year), you'll see, far more often than not, more than competent numbers from carr in those games.
sure, he absolutely has an oakland every now and then (in relation to the team winning or performing well), but so does every other qb. again, carr's not going to get in the way of winning. and he's not the reason they're losing. so unless you can definitively upgrade the position significantly, why waste $$ and/or draft picks on marginal, if that, upgrades? because he's the "face of failure"? blah.
Like you've said a few times...it's only March 1. Who's to say what will come available in the coming days or months. With baseball and basketball, you know years in advance who will be available for a given offseason. With the NFL, you don't know who might get released 5 minutes from now. I think if they can improve at the position, they should, period.
Major
03-01-2007, 05:51 PM
not by any means the be-all, end-all - i spent, like, 10 minutes looking this up. but it does show he more often than not (63-66% of the time) plays better when the team plays better.
But this is a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Did he play better because the team played better? Or was the team more competitive because he played decent? If the latter, that would imply that if you got a QB that was decent more often, you'd be competitive and/or win more.
Major
03-01-2007, 05:57 PM
besides, i would argue more stringently, and you have agreed with me, that the running game was not among the units that improved. now i ask you - what is the single most important element driving the success of this denver system...........?
I know you're mentioning the running game under a Denver system right now, but the running game has simply not been as terrible as people make it out to be. In 2005, we were 15th in the league in rushing, yet the offense sucked. In 2004, we were 12th, yet the offense was blah. In 2006, we were 21st, and the offense sucked. We've been all over the map with the running game.
Immediately ranked above the Texans in rushing were the Colts, Saints, and Jets at 18th, 19th, and 20th. Down at 25th and 26th were the Ravens and Bengals.
I don't think the level of the running game is the best correlation with quality of offense in the current NFL, simply because much of the "running game" is now combined with short swing passes and things like that for so many teams.
leebigez
03-01-2007, 07:02 PM
I think ashlie lelie find his way to the texans for the vertical stretch guy and a reasonable price tag. I also think one of those guys like Mike Meyers will find his way here for depth. Clements would be nice, but a cheaper guy would be Hood.I also think a guy like Lewis for the right price would be good for about 270 carries in a season with Taylor and Lundy getting the other. If the Texans came out of the offseason with Plummer,Lewis,Lelie,Johnson,and Daniels at the skill spots on offense along with say Hood,and Lewis as secondary upgrades, that would drastically upgrade the squad.
Lil Francis
03-01-2007, 07:35 PM
Joey Porter anyone???? I know its not going to happen but it would be nice to see him and Ryans on the field. Ryans the sure tackler and Porter the big playmaking linebacker that the franchise has never had.
SLrocket
03-01-2007, 09:37 PM
didnt cory dillon get cut? try to get him if i was GM
hatemavs4life
03-01-2007, 11:52 PM
didnt cory dillon get cut? try to get him if i was GM
I thought I heard that he was retiring? Not a bad thought though if the case is otherwise.
I know you're mentioning the running game under a Denver system right now, but the running game has simply not been as terrible as people make it out to be.
it was, by and large, terrible last year during the first 8-9 games of the year; it got better ... but, so too, did the overall results. coincidence?
and yes, this is specific to the denver system because that's what kubiak's trying to install here. when you were looking up houston's rankings, did you happen to notice denver's? between 2003-2005, they ranked 2nd, 2nd and 4th in rushing; 22nd, 18th, 6th in passing. but oh sure, let's go get jake plummer!
the system is dependent upon the running game being successful. again, the indy game was kubiak's plan being played out to perfection: run, run, run - have a QB capable of making plays when/if needed.
didnt cory dillon get cut? try to get him if i was GM
corey dillon? good god; there are dead people faster than corey dillon at this point. he's done.
leroy420
03-02-2007, 09:26 AM
it was, by and large, terrible last year during the first 8-9 games of the year; it got better ... but, so too, did the overall results. coincidence?
and yes, this is specific to the denver system because that's what kubiak's trying to install here. when you were looking up houston's rankings, did you happen to notice denver's? between 2003-2005, they ranked 2nd, 2nd and 4th in rushing; 22nd, 18th, 6th in passing. but oh sure, let's go get jake plummer!
the system is dependent upon the running game being successful. again, the indy game was kubiak's plan being played out to perfection: run, run, run - have a QB capable of making plays when/if needed.
You're generalizing everyone that wants Carr gone with those that want Plummer. That's not the case. I don't personally think that Plummer is a worthy enough upgrade to warrant a trade. I'd personally prefer a short term deal with Jeff Garcia while drafting Kolb or Stanton.
If Carr stays, fine. He had damn better show some sort of improvment in his decision making and leadership skills...especially if they manage to improve the OL and RB situation. If he does stay, I'd still love for them to draft someone on the first day. Carr has never really had competition behind him. He needs to know that his job isn't safe anymore. I'm not sold on Sage as a starter long term. Then again, Sage probably would have been starting those last few games had he not made what could be considered the Texans special teams play of the year.
hatemavs4life
03-02-2007, 07:52 PM
You're generalizing everyone that wants Carr gone with those that want Plummer. That's not the case. I don't personally think that Plummer is a worthy enough upgrade to warrant a trade. I'd personally prefer a short term deal with Jeff Garcia while drafting Kolb or Stanton.
If Carr stays, fine. He had damn better show some sort of improvment in his decision making and leadership skills...especially if they manage to improve the OL and RB situation. If he does stay, I'd still love for them to draft someone on the first day. Carr has never really had competition behind him. He needs to know that his job isn't safe anymore. I'm not sold on Sage as a starter long term. Then again, Sage probably would have been starting those last few games had he not made what could be considered the Texans special teams play of the year.
If we can make the numbers work then Garcia would work better long-term for us in the pocketbook plus maximizing with not losing draft picks than taking Plummer. Personally think Garcia may be out of our price range because of his late season heroics with the Eagles but, we'll see. Just don't want us to lose draft picks. We need all those we can get. Since we now have a duo that on draft day doesn't have their head up their ass. If Carr is still on the team, he better be on the bench while Sage and Jeff vie for the starting spot. Honestly, I still think DC will no longer wear a Texans uniform and for both sides I think this move would be advantageous to both sides. A fresh start for everyone and Houston needs to clear some stagnant air here. Time to get out of the doldrums and move on. :D
ac in austin
03-03-2007, 02:07 AM
believe me, kubiak said far worse prior to, during and after the season. only lopez's finger-pointing context gives moulds' quote any bite.
The coach expressing these views and one's own teammate are vastly different. Last season when this was mentioned you were pretty vehement about it being specualtion. Now that Robinson has publicly expressed his lack of faith in Carr you blame him. If this is what it takes to get Carr out of town so smart football fans will stop debating on why Carr is so freaking terrible, I say kudos to you Mr. Robinson.
Last season when this was mentioned you were pretty vehement about it being specualtion. Now that Robinson has publicly expressed his lack of faith in Carr you blame him.
that was in relation to moulds and others (like andre johnson, who just restructured his deal) likely wanting to leave because of carr. that continues to definitively NOT manifest itself.
if robinson is speaking for a majority of players, then it is indeed an issue and problematic. regardless, they bother me because no one on this team is above reproach (especially him). i mean, carr - the guy everyone wants to run out of town - has played for years behind one of the worst OL ever assembled in the entire history of the NFL and has never said a word, and robinson can't show enough class to at least let this thing play out? great teammate....
i mean, carr... has played for years behind one of the worst OL ever assembled in the entire history of the NFL and has never said a word...
This is certainly true of David Carr. Solid, stand-up guy.
that was in relation to moulds and others (like andre johnson, who just restructured his deal) likely wanting to leave because of carr.
Get it right. No one said it was "likely".
updawg
03-03-2007, 07:04 PM
i mean, carr - the guy everyone wants to run out of town - has played for years behind one of the worst OL ever assembled in the entire history of the NFL and has never said a word, and robinson can't show enough class to at least let this thing play out? great teammate....
I agree that people shouldn't be throwing others under the bus.
Just because Carr is a nice guy doesn't mean he should be the starting QB
ac in austin
03-03-2007, 11:50 PM
This is certainly true of David Carr. Solid, stand-up guy.
I agree
rhino17
03-03-2007, 11:52 PM
Being a stand up guy does not make you a good quarterback or a good leader.
Being a stand up guy does not make you a good quarterback or a good leader.
I agree. David's a great guy and a mediocre QB.
vBulletin® v3.0.17, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.