Random question but are we going to have cap room next year not including cuts and or restructuring contracts?
According to Spotrac, right now, we have 43 players under contract for 2016 at a cost of $104.5 M. That's roughly $39M under the cap. But that doesn't include Shorts right now. Or this years rookies. Or next years rookies. And you know we'll have more than 43 under contract (right now we have 66). Regardless, it looks like we'll have cap room to work with next year.
SB Nation at least agree we are heading in the right direction, its like nobody on tv wants to talk about or give credit to Houston for their moves. If the Colts signed Wilfork it would have been top story. Screw em all. Texans continue to add pieces I've been a fan of what Houston has done in free agency thus far, inking Brian Hoyer and Rahim Moore, and re-upping Kareem Jackson, Ryan Mallett and Derek Newton. On Monday, they kept things going by signing veteran Patriots free agent Vince Wilfork, who brings even more talent to an already strong defensive front. Wilfork will join J.J. Watt and Jadeveon Clowney and make the Texans' fearsome up front, in name-value anyway. Assuming guys can get healthy, though, there's some solid potential to really put things together in 2015. With Whitney Mercilus, Jared Crick, Jeoffrey Pagan, John Simon and a returning Louis Nix, the depth on that line has a lot of promise.
I don't get the desire for cutting people. If we NEED to, and we can make due without him, fine. We don't know exactly how our cap situation is going to play out next offseason, but we currently have a bunch of space to work with. So I'm not going to get too eager on cutting Foster right now. Johnathan Joseph is costing us more this year than Foster will next year, but we haven't cut him (yet). Just hold your horses for the time being.
I am not either but for I find RBs particularly replaceable. I am a fan of going RB by committee personally.
I don't get it. So much talk about cut Arian, cut Cushing, cut Joseph without talk about who is replacing them. You can't assume anybody would be a good replacement. Just ask the Colts about their RB replacement.
That's kind of the NE model. But when was the last time NE had a back like Arian? WalterFootball has us taking Gurley in the first round. I don't see it, especially coming off an injury when our last 1st round pick could barely get on the field last year. We'll see what they do in the draft. Blue did OK I guess last year for a 6th round pick, but I wouldn't be confident in him being Arian's successor.
Nobody cares about a team that's building for the future, they care about the contenders. Like Indianapolis.
Yep. No one is expecting to be talking about Vince Wilfork leading the Texans to the AFC title game next year. Please god Ryan Mallet deliver us from purgatory.
This reminds me of the Brooks/Lowry debate back in the day. Lowry was better at everything, except shooting. Yet people said Brooks was better, because he was better at one (very important) thing and deemed that Lowry would never improve that one weakness. Lo and behold Lowry found a jumper and became an All-Star. I think the Texans have an across the board better team than Indy except for that one (extremely important) thing. And the national media, and many Texan fans, have deemed it impossible that we may actually improve that one area. I'm not saying we're contenders, I can see the QB question mark just as clearly as everybody else. I just don't see why so many consider us a complete non-threat to get decent to good QB play. We went 9-7 last year, with improvement in that one area we're a threat to win it all right now IMO. That is a big if though.
Agree. I don't know why people are hyping up Indy to be the top dog in the AFC. Having Gore and Johson on your team won't help you stop the run or rush the passer any better. I feel like the actual areas in which that team had needs, they didn't really address them as well. But hey, I'm not complaining. Indy's trash D ftw.
Well now Indy has better WRs and TEs. Plus one of their CBs is better than Texans' starting CBs and they arguably have a better punter. Just saying.
I'm always curious why people care what the national media thinks? I mean, I understand the importance of validation, etc., but don't we all, by now, inherently understand that they can't cover all 32 teams with the same intensity that we invest in the Texans? We do this every year; the national media groupthink crowns a Super Bowl champion in March (and again in April, after the draft), and 99% of the time, they prove to be dead wrong. Remember the Dream Team Eagles several years ago? The Colts signed players with name-recognition that play "important" positions. It requires almost no thought to be "impressed" by what they're doing; it's easy to manufacture, easy to sell, easy to digest. The NFL Network, et al, is not catering to die hard fans who watch all-22 film to break down their team's free agents. They cater to fans who casually pay attention to the NFL and would thus be duly impressed by the Colts signing Frank Gore because, "Hey, I've heard of Frank Gore!" And I'm not judging them for it; I just understand it and thus, couldn't care less who or what they focus on because I recognize it has the insightful depth of a wad of spit on the ground. September-February is what's important; everything else is empty rhetoric signifying nothing.
I read an article on my CBS Sports phone app a few days ago that actually gave the Texans a higher offseason grade (B+) than the colts (C).
We had a decent record but the easiest schedule in the league. I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas thinks we regress.
