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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.