I don't care if he's all but done, I want Bob Sanders

That's not silly--that's the point. Getting upset over Tramon Williams is just as silly as getting mad at your NFL team for missing on Tom Brady. Back then, if the Texans didn't have those DBs they kept over Tramon Williams, guess what -- they would have gone out and got other low-cost veterans. Because NFL franchises *like* experience. Hence, it taking Williams *months* to even catch on with another franchise's freaking practice squad.

 

I don't care if he's all washed but done, I want Jeremy Shockey.

You can never have too many Tight Ends.

Signed,
Gary

 

No - because Tramon Williams wasn't a replacement for Philip Buchanon. They got Buchanon because they were looking for a starting DB. If Buchanon wasn't there, they would have gone and found another starting DB.

But separate from that, the Texans have to win NOW. They're not going to be looking to fill their roster with Tramon Williams type players that may or may not pan out 4 years down the line. Bob Sanders is going to do one of two things: contribute NOW or be put on the IR and free up a roster spot. In either case, they won't be wasting any resources.

 

Yeah... except he was the last DB cut, was signed to the Packer's practice squad a month and a half later, and was getting playing time the next year at the nickle/dime.

 

Or they might have done what they did when they cut Buchanon two months later and start Petey Fagans and kept another young guy like Tramon Williams.

Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers. Is that the way they did business? Is that how they succeeded? Did the Packers cut rookie PUP player James Starks and run out to sign a veteran RB when Grant was injured? Or did they activate the young guy and build from within?

And who were the over-the-hill overpriced vets making a living on past accomplishments that the Steelers signed? Or did they keep around the young practice squad guys like Doug Legursky to back up the center position and give them the starting assignment in the Super Bowl?

I mean, shouldn't we be emulating the teams that actually succeeded? The Packers, apparently, knew enough to sign on Tramon Williams and develop him, whereas we cut Williams and, according to you, would have signed whatever washed up vet we could find. Which method has worked out better?

 

nice strawman there, bub.

 

Explain. Did you not say he was signed months later, and playing years down the line or am I hallucinating? A month ≠ months and a year ≠ years. And for the Texans to keep him around to be the final cut, apparently they saw something that they liked.

 

Ah, you were correcting my exaggeration. Got it -- but my point wasn't how long it was, but that he did not contribute that year. I was making that point in response to Ric, who was saying signing a guy like Sanders would "waste valuable resources" and cost the Texans dearly this year.

And, (to redundantly repeat myself again once more) who said they need to *cut* anybody?? TWilliams was cut in '05. What the hell does that have to do with this? Do they no longer have a practice squad to assign a guy to? Oh wait -- now we're lamenting over the guy from the bottom of the practice squad?? Really???

I just don't buy that you're going to lose out on the Superbowl destiny of your franchise because you stuck a ST scrub on your practice squad in order to sign Bob Sanders. That's just too melodramatic for me.

 

Jeez. I step away for one meeting and the whole place goes to hell in a hand basket.

meh, fair-ish points. I’ll counter by arguing that you’re *vastly* overrating Bob Sanders. Again, he hasn’t been healthy/game-changing good since 2007. To even dream he might reverse that downward trend 4 years later is rather silly, IMO.

KingCheetah, I don’t care how loudly you yell “fluke injury” – he’s had 5 of 7 seasons cut short by injury. That’s not a fluke, it’s a trend.

Bob Sanders is fool’s gold; that’s the issue. If you’re willing to treat him like your run-of-the-mill 53rd roster option, fine.

But we all know you don’t sign a guy like Sanders to fill your 53rd roster spot. You sign him because you’re hoping against all hope that this will be the year he stays healthy, starts all 16 games and vastly improves your secondary. That’s precisely what’s implicitly implied whenever someone breaks out the, “Ah, what the heck? He’s a cheap risk” defense.

And that leads to compromise. It’s why we failed year after year to address the LT position because this is the year, we swear, Boseli is totally going to play. Or the running back position because Ahman Green, we swear, has less tread on his tires despite his age and we expect a bounce back year. Etc., etc., etc. When you invest in a Bob Sanders-type – all limitless ceiling (on paper) - it absolutely, positively impacts how you go about doing your business.

Absolutely. If you’re not a starter and certainly not part of the rotation, you absolutely, positively have to be a contributor on special teams. It’s how Vonta Leach stuck around here for so many years. No one here would advocate keeping Antwaan Molden another year – why? “It’s just the 53rd roster spot, right? He has loads of potential….” Because that space can better used by a player able to contribute.

Why are you bringing Bob Sanders in to be your 3rd string safety? He’s 30 and hasn’t been productive in 4 years.

Money is certainly an issue, sure. But so, too, are resources. How do you properly prepare your roster? Do you act like Yao’s not there? Then why have him there at all?

My guess is that every decision is hedged a bit, if ever so slightly, because, “Man… if Yao could just stay healthy……………………………”

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Money is only part of the equation. He still takes up other, equally important resources.

Tramon Williams was among their final cuts, and apparently a difficult one. It’s not much of a stretch to suggest that had the Texans placed a greater emphasis on developing talent over trying to wring a final productive season out of past-their-prime veterans, he might still be here.

Please stop. He is not a really damn good player. He *was* - for about 14 games four years ago.

So, of course, he’d absolutely be willing to come here for a rookie wage as the 53rd man on the roster…

If he was in any way, shape or form a “really damn good player,” they would have found a way to keep him. It’s not like the Steelers, a really good defensive team, cut him.

 

Sanders is meeting with the Bills next...it's doubtful he will come to Houston.

 

In pretty much every other situation, you'd have to consider Sanders 'done' and not worth the time.

Unfortunately, we are in a Texans Secondary Situation.

 

I gotta agree with Ric here - Sanders is fools gold. Probably do not want.

BUT...

It IS a little disheartening (but not surprising....) that the Texans aren't even willing to at least bring the guy in and talk to him. When you have one of the worst secondaries in the history of the NFL, seems like you would make it a point to bring in every single FA out there just to cover all your bases. Especially a week after cutting one of your starting safeties.

This doesn't bode well for our willingness to bring in FA's to help our pathetic defense.

 

not really. they may just view him the same way you, ric and i do and want to spend their resources going after guys who can actually play more than 3 games a season and whose last consistent play wasn't back when we all thought t-mac and yao were still going to help keep the rockets relevant for years to come.

 

I have a feeling it went like this...



"We called him, asked what his status was and if he understood our battlefight team concept. I don't get why he hung up on me but I think its probably for the best, don't know much about him - he never played in Denver - but I think it's better to stick with the kids anyways."

 

Agreed, but there's no harm in at least bringing him and and listening to what he has to say.

With our luck, he signs with J-ville, plays in 16 games and makes the Pro Bowl....

 

You're wasting your valuable interviewing resources. You could be using that time to interview a guy who washes clothes in the clubhouse and will end up being a solid rotation DE for two years. If you miss on that guy because you interviewed a myth like Bob Sanders, you will never make the Superbowl. Ever.

 

Considering that Bob Sanders makes up almost the entire Free Agent market for DBs until March 3rd (and then beyond that until the CBA gets done), I'm not worried about spending resources pursuing him.

But there's also this dude...

Spoiler

http://www.nfl.com/players/oshiomoghoatogwe/profile?id=ATO237308

He'll fit right in here O_O

 

i don't necessarily expect them to go after the top-tier free agents, but i'm more commenting on how i'd run the team. i wouldn't want to waste time on the guy, but if he comes out and plays a full season next year and is effective, then yeah, i can admit i was wrong. but if he only plays 3 games and is put on ir yet again, i don't see how them not going after any other top-tier dbs proves that we should've signed bob sanders.

 

Perhaps but isn't this the same line of thinking - rummaging through garage sales to find players on the cheap - that has come back to bite the Rockets? And let's not forget how Bookiak has used this approach with great success (sarcasm alert!) with players such as Ahman Green, Chris Brown, Jacques Reeves. I suppose that if you view things in that context and the ultimate objective is play fantasy, what-if or if-only football then this move makes sense. BUT if the ultimate objective is to assemble a defensive team capable of taking on the better teams in the league, then all you're doing is spinning your wheels which, now that I think about it, is pretty much what's happening with the Texans right now. I still maintain that the time has passed for taking flyers on guys like Sanders. I would much rather see them get solid healthy players who make a difference by playing rather than waiting to see if they will be able to play.