Then maybe we should invest on linemen instead of WRs. I'm actually pretty happy with the trio of Johnson, Mathis and Walters. They can stand to add a veteran posession WR or maybe add someone late in the draft, but giving up the 3rd for a WR is something I don't think the team can afford, especially a player like Burleson who had one career year two years ago.
He's only been in the league for 3 years so it's not as bad as saying he has only had 1 career year. He's a young player that had a very good season in 2004 receiving 1000+ yards and had 9 TDs. While this draft is really deep, we have the 2 picks in the 3rd and spending one on a good, young receiver would be worth it IMO. Especially when considering CC's track record with draft picks.
When the Texans picked up P-Burnt, he had one good year and 2 bad ones also. Also, our 3rd round pick is practically a late 2nd round pick. I hope the Texans don't make the same mistake twice.
Good point. But don't forget that we have 2 3rd Rounders back to back (#65 and #66) so using one to select a proven WR would be okay with me.
to anyone who questions him, realize that he was incredible as a #2 receiver, and had a tough time being "the guy". Coming along-side AJ i think he'd be solid and well-worth the pick.. (plus he was with Daunte during his crap year)
Posted this in another thread. I guess CC doesn't want to give up a 3rd Rounder for Burleson, he'll probably use the pick on another backup QB. Not sure why we are looking at another FB after we've signed Cook, can't Wells play some FB as well?
Houston. Texans thread. Kubiak's & Casserly's. I wouldn't want to give up the 1st or 2nd pick in the 3rd round for Nate Burleson either. If he was unrestriced or we had a pick in the bottom half of the round, sure. Going into the season with AJ/Mathis/Armstrong/Walter/draft pick? at WR - assuming you have a decent to good receiving TE along with Bush & DD in the backfield - this wouldn't be the end of the world. Especially if you think the new staff will put a better O-line on the field. Texans have too many holes to fill in a single offseason.
I'm going to have to vastly disagree with you here. If you can get a proven young 2nd WR with a third round pick, you have to do it. Chances are we're going to use that pick on a WR anyway (or a backup QB). If we go into this season with one of those guys as our 2nd WR, AJ will absolutely rape us next offseason.
Not sure how much that's going to change things, though. It's going to take a truckload of cash to keep him, regardless (assuming he has a productive, healthy season). They can always franchise him, right? He'll be asking for top-5 WR money anyway, I'd think. I'm willing to give Kubiak the benefit of the doubt this offseason. There's no way he takes this job unless he has serious input on personnel decisions. Like I said earlier, they can't fix everything in one offseason. This draft is huge, huge, huge. They need to get starters/rotation players with at least 5 picks, especially on defense.
I agree with this, but I just feel that if you have a chance to add a proven 2nd WR with one of your third round picks, you have to do it. Especially when chances are they will pick a WR on the first day.
i hear ya. you're really making my point strongly in that last sentence. the idea that this team is going to compete next year and start winning a bunch of ballgames is one reason why i've heard it's so vital to take reggie bush. that we could get 'er done next year. "remember the rams?" and i don't see it that way. not at all. so many holes it's silly. as for burleson. i understand not wanting to give up a 3rd rounder for him. but the texans may very well end up spending a 3rd rounder on an unproven colege receiver. of course, my money is on them taking a back up QB for Rosenfels.
I don't see how you can make a claim that the 70-something pick isn't worth Burleson at all...but the 90-something pick definitely is. Is there THAT huge a dropoff between the 2 that it makes it so cut and dry? I think you trade a 3rd for Nate. They maybe didn't want to spend as much as it'd take with Seattle involved too? (it'd be like a fantasy auction draft where higher demand inflates the value of a player)
Yeah, mgmt thinks the $$$ + the pick is too much for Nate Burleson. I don't think that's an outrageous position to take. I haven't seen him enough (especially the '04 game tape) to know how good he is...'04 numbers are verrah nice, but how much of that was on their offensive scheme, or Daunte & his ridiculously good career year? I have no idea. But I'll definitely agree that he's better than what they have. Like I said, I'll trust Kubiak untill I have reason not to. Curious to see what he or Cass has to say about it.
I think Rosenfals was brought in to breathe down Carr's neck a little bit. We've never had a backup that we felt like might be a legitimate starter if given the chance...Rosenfals brings a little more of that than Banks or Ragone. And then you've got Kubiak saying he will compete for a starting job...which fits in with the idea of trying to push Carr. And I think you guys are missing the point on Burleson. It sounds like Seattle and Minnesota are about to duke it out for him...which means he will probably be severely overpaid. The Texans don't need a WR that badly to overpay for a #2 guy. I'm hoping that they really use Bush (if taken) quite a bit in the slot, so maybe signing a veteran receiver shouldn't be that big of a priority. Hilliard, Walter, Putzier, and Bush as a part time receiver is an upgrade over what we had last year for sure. Anybody know if we still have Armstrong? If he can really focus on his route running I think he could be an ideal #3.
