I will admit he hasnt had a good season, but he finished last season strong so hopefully he can do the same. This was his first game back from his first real injury and he really was a sitting duck and the raiders defense was ready for him. But anyone whos a fan of titans cant be upset being 5-2 at this point.
lol...just thinking about the Rockets losing the season opener and the overreaction the board would have. it's almost worth it for a good laugh.
thank the diehard texan fans for bringing them up. they're only solace this season is vince isn't playing well.
mckinney was a 4-year starter for the best QB in football. few FA OL carry those credentials because so few of the really good ones are ever allowed to hit the market. i can think of two OL FAs recently that were available: hutchinson and bentley. otherwise, you're telling me eric steinbach was any better than mckinney was five years ago?
Well that sucked. Anybody else notice that Kubiak was still trying to establish the run in the second half yesterday? WTF was that all about? My only guess is that Kubiak was trying to spare his QB from anymore hits (and rebuild the OL confidence a bit), i.e. not playing to win. If you just looked at the box score from yesterday's game, one might think we destroyed the Chargers. Chargers only had 237 net yards, while the Texans had 367. Chargers offense, if it needed to, could have produce more, but all they needed to do was take a step back and watch the Texans implode. 3-5 and heading toward another 6-10 year. Kubiak will be lucky to survive that.
Again, Manning didn't have a single season with a QB rating over 95 in those four years, and the Colts had a 3-13 season and a 6-10 season within them. Manning was not the same quarterback that he is today, and the Colts were not the same team. Your analogy is flawed.
i didn't make any analogies. i was being literal. mckinney was a 4-year starter blocking for peyton manning, who went to 2 pro bowls in that time and finished in the top 5 in TDs and top 3 in yards passing in all 4 of mckinney's seasons. the team's leading rushers in those 4 years (faulk, then james) totaled 1,319; 1,553; 1,709 and 110 yards/game in '01 (edge missed the final 10 games). the offense between '99-'01 ranked 3rd, 4th and 2nd in points scored. as stated, you'd be hard-pressed to find an OL that was available with better credentials in the past 6 years. i named two, and i'm not even sure bentley hit the market with a resume nearly as impressive as mckinney's.
That logic of thinking an offensive linemen must be quality because his offense and his offensive line as a whole is strong is flawed. That's the same line of thought that led to the Jordan Black signing -- he started on one of the best offensive line teams in the league, so he must be good! Of course, in Houston, he can't even beat out Salaam. Bentley was considered a much superior talent to McKinney, and really it's not even close. He was a two-time Pro Bowler, a second round draft choice, considered among the elite interior linemen in the game. McKinney was a fourth round pick without any Pro Bowls, and his "resume" that you listed is a description of team accomplishments and not an evaluation of him individually. The Texans thought so little of him that they sought to replace him more than a year ago. He's a quality interior lineman, but never at any point in his career was he thought of as much more than average (or slightly above).
not as flawed as posting a team's record; and/or the QB's rating, and holding that against a left guard. bottom line, if mckinney wasn't holding up his end of the bargain, they would not have been able to post the numbers cited. if he wasn't all-pro (and no one ever said he was), he was certainly effective at his job. i recognize and fully acknowledge systems, etc., and that no one player is better than the team. but mckinney wasn't some scratch starter on a bad team. speaking of... black started 14 games in his first 3 years before being pressed into starting 15 last year when whats-his-name retired (roaf?). mckinney started every game he played in 4 seasons with the nfl's consistently best offense. if you really think he's even remotely comparable to jordan black... and that's why i - not you - initially mentioned him. care to actually add to the list? or are we just going to distract ourselves by arguing whether lecharles bentley was a better FA than steve mckinney, which i've already conceded is probably true? good offensive linemen are rarely, if ever, available. i've never argued steve mckinney was anything beyond one of the five best available FA linemen in the past 5-6 years; thus negating the notion that the texans haven't made any significant FA acquisitions to the OL after negating the notion they haven't addressed the OL thru the draft by pointing out their preferred starters around mckinney are all day 1 picks.
How is that any different from what you were doing -- using the team and the QB's success to credit a left guard? It's the same principle! Effective isn't marquee. I don't think they're comparable in ability. I'm saying the logic was the same. Individual analysis of Black showed him to be a poor tackle, but we gambled otherwise, based on the Kansas City system. From the Chiefs fans I talk to on a frequent basis, the K.C. line was still a strength a season ago, even with Black starting. That goes to show you that a great line can survive one weak link. Barron, Ferguson... loads of potential second rounders... and that's not even mentioning all the free agents. I'm working on a paper tonight, but yes, I'll try and add to the list if you give me until tomorrow. I remember several examples but the specific names escape me... I'll do research ASAP and come back to this.
this is what you posted, cat: Within those four seasons, the Colts had a 3-13 season and a 6-10 season. Let's not make it seem like they were playing at a similar level of dominance to the past five years. look back at the numbers i posted; they were as dominant, offensively, as they've ever been - and mckinney was a part of that success. posting the OVERALL team's record (in which you left out their 13- and 10-win seasons, btw, as well as failed to mention edgerrin james missed 10 games in 2001) to try and diffuse how great the offense was is disengenious. you're holding mckinney accountable for indianapolis having one of the NFL's worst defenses? really? mckinney was a 4-year starter for the nfl's best offense. period. how many games they won with that offense is irrelevant. cat, i'm curious - if we were discussing the astros, and i discounted a move they made because it wasn't "marquee" enough... which side of the fence would you be on? mckinney came with impressive credentials; he was part of an offensive juggernaught. it wasn't orlando pace, but then, that's the problem: the orlando pace's of the world are never, available. no, cat - i'm sorry; it's simply not. mckinney was a 4-year starter on the nfl's best offense - they usually don't hand those jobs out willy-nilly. he was expected to come in here and anchor our line, and was given a hefty contract to do so. black came with maybe an nth of those expectations (and money). those are draft picks, cat - we're discussing "major free agent signings." this is what you initially said: In six years... the most the Texans have done to ever address the offensive line was a couple of third-round draft picks. No choices in the first two rounds. No major free agent signings. and that statement is wrong. wrong, wrong, wrong. pitts was a 2nd rounder; weary was a 3rd rounder; spencer and winston were 3rd rounders. if you want to argue they drafted the WRONG guys in those rounds... have at it; not my point and i probably wouldn't disagree with you. but 4/5 of the projected starting line-up are day 1 picks. otherwise, they haven't had picks to select more guys, and they certainly can be ripped (and ripped hard) for that. they've dealt six 2nd and 3rd round picks since 2004. unfathomable. in terms of "major free agents signings," mckinney ranks among that group; by default, yes - but that's the nature of the beast. you can't complain that they haven't signed any "major free agents" when "major" free agent OL are never available.
How were they the NFL's best offense in those four years? Speaking of leaving out, you left out one of those years (1998) entirely from your numbers, and they weren't the highest-scoring offense in any of the other three. They led the AFC in points scored with 439 in 2005... led the entire NFL with 522 in 2004... and finished second in the NFL with 447 in 2003. Yes, McKinney was clearly a big part of that success. If it has been a problem with the team for five-plus years, I'd be on the side slamming the team if they weren't taking what I considered to be adequate steps to address the situation. There's a level between Orlando Pace and Steve McKinney that is available. So the Colts were a great offense prior to 1998, when they handed McKinney his job? I'm talking about both draft picks and free agent signings. Also, I know this is a technicality, but I don't consider Pitts in this evaluation because I'm looking at moves the Texans have made after the point (2002 regular season) they realized the offensive line was a major problem and needed to be addressed. Since then, they haven't made a draft choice on the offensive line in the first two rounds, nor have they made a significant addition on the free agent or trade market. I'm not sure what your point is here. You're disputing my statement that the Texans haven't addressed the situation in the first two rounds by listing several third round picks? OK.
cat, wadr, what the **** is the difference between ranking 1st or 4th? in '98, they ranked 19th in points scored. after that: 3rd, 4th, 2nd. is your argument that it wasn't THE best offense in football? ok. got me. and that diminshes mckinney's accomplishment of earning a starting spot on that team as a rookie and for three years after that... how, exactly? because i guess it's no big deal to start for the NFL's FOURTH-best offense...? i mean, seriously -- is this all you have left? splitting hairs? it was a great offense. mckinney was a 4-year starter on it. period. and i didn't leave out 1998, cat: mckinney was a 4-year starter blocking for peyton manning, who went to 2 pro bowls in that time and finished in the top 5 in TDs and top 3 in yards passing in all 4 of mckinney's seasons. the team's leading rushers in those 4 years (faulk, then james) totaled 1,319; 1,553; 1,709 and 110 yards/game in '01... the events bolded all happened in 1998. the mckinney deal was done five years ago, cat. i doubt you were complaining then that taking the starting left guard off ONE of the best offenses in football wasn't "marquee" enough. floor is yours; list 'em... what? what are you even arguing at this point - do you even know? your initial point was wrong; you've managed only to dig the hole deeper. this one makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. i don't even know what your point is. ahhhhhhhhh..... could you have maybe made that rather convenient distinction prior to us wasting time discussing a free agent signing that, you know, happened before pitts was drafted?........ well, cat; unfortunately, i wasn't privy to what you MEANT to post. i was responding to what you DID post. my fault entirely. i'll grant you the room to reconfigure your point because i don't really disagree with it; but don't wiggle it, tell us, sorry - this is what i REALLY meant, and then try and slam me. weak-ass. your post said, and i am copying and pasting: In six years... the most the Texans have done to ever address the offensive line was a couple of third-round draft picks. No choices in the first two rounds. "six years..." covers every draft and free agent signing period, cat. it didn't read, "Since 2003..." 4/5 of the preferred starters are 2s or 3s and they signed mckinney off ONE of the best offenses in football.
I'm not sure if we're going to get anywhere on this particular point, so I'll drop it after this. You consider it splitting hairs; I consider it relevant. Numbers be damned (and you didn't include 1998 in total offense); by and large, the Colts (and Manning) weren't nearly as efficient then as the machine they've grown to become in the past five years. Right now, they're unbelievable. Don't get me wrong; I hate the Colts and nothing in the world would make me happier than to see the Patriots b****slap them Sunday. I'm certainly no fanboy. But I've watched them on a consistent basis, and everything -- from Manning's decision making to the offensive line production is dramatically better than it was pre-2002. It's also worth pointing out that the Colts have had numerous games in the past few years where they haven't even had to play starters in the fourth quarter when if they had, the numbers would've been much greater. But I suppose I'll drop this discussion because I can't quantify it; it's just my own gut feel. I'd be interested to hear others' opinions, though. Steve Hutchinson. LeCharles Bentley. Eric Steinbach. Derrick Dockery. Jon Runyan. Max Starks. Leonard Davis. Mike Gandy. Luke Petitgout. Marco Rivera (pre-injury). John Tait. Damien Woody. Kareem McKenzie. Those are a few of the many options from the last four offseasons that I think most people would consider having a greater name and more of an impact than Steve McKinney. That's also not to mention the trade market, which is harder to quantify since we don't have access to those discussions. This was your post: no, cat - i'm sorry; it's simply not. mckinney was a 4-year starter on the nfl's best offense - they usually don't hand those jobs out willy-nilly. he was expected to come in here and anchor our line, and was given a hefty contract to do so. black came with maybe an nth of those expectations (and money). When they gave McKinney his job (1998), the Colts were not one of the league's best offenses, and they weren't even close. I think I know what points I'm arguing; thank you very much. Even so, Pitts is one example. Since then (when the lack of talent has become even more apparent), they haven't spent a pick in the first two rounds. That said, I'll explain my frustration in complete detail. To me, this team hasn't spent nearly the time or resources on the offensive line that it should have given the embarrassing play it's put forth. Of those high picks you're detailing, two of the four came before this franchise ever played a game. Once play started, there should have been a wake-up call of sorts that the line needs an infusion of talent. But by and large, there hasn't been. They signed a mediocre Todd Wade and drafted a pair of third-round tackles, and basically, that's it. No first or second round picks. No marquee free agents. No trades. There's always an excuse. The offensive linemen doesn't "fit the system." Or, "the offensive line really isn't that bad -- it's the fault of" (insert player or position here -- David Carr, lack of a known running back, lack of a proven secondary receiver, etc.). In almost every game this franchise has played, the defining characteristic of the Texans has been an offensive line that is far inferior to the average NFL team. Given that, I don't think they've reacted with the intensity they should have. They consistently seem to rationalize it to themselves by blaming David Carr or blaming this supposed complex "system." Lather, rinse, repeat every offseason. I'm tired of it.
cat, it's irrelevant. sorry. they had a top 2 or 3 offense between 1998 and 2001 when mckinney was starting. again, split hairs all you want about points scored; they had a 1,300-yard rusher and a QB that ranked in the top 5 in passing yards and TDs. and when a guy from that enviornment - a starter - becomes available, especially given mckinney's age (26 at the time), it's a big deal. what the colts did prior to and/or since has no bearing; none. unless your point is that they got SO much better, mckinney wouldn't have been able to hold down his job, which is complete and utter conjecture and not worth discussing. a lot of these guys, if they even hit the market, stayed with their respective teams, meaning houston and the other 30 teams had absolutely no shot at them. others, like leonard davis, are overpaid garbage, and not better than mckinney. the remaining guys are not appreciably better or worse than steve mckinney when he came available. a 26-year old, 4-year starter for one of the nfl's best offenses is by no means marginal. what makes steinbach better? so your point was that they handed him the job? and then continued handing it to him for three years after that? that's how teams improve and/or stay at the top? by handing out jobs to unworthy players? come on... and if, initially, or in the 3 or 4 posts shortly thereafter, you had stated you simply mis-posted and explained yourself, we all could have gone home happy. instead, you got defensive, dug in, started splitting hairs about just how good a really good offense was... hell, you even threw attitude at me for not properly responding to what you MEANT to post... and i mention all that because i completely agree with everything you posted from here on out. so why did you put us through this? the "system" is killing me, too. i know he can't do it all overnight, but kubiak's being much too blase about the running game for my tastes (which indirectly implicates the OL). retreads like dayne, gado -- even green are nothing more than band-aids if they're even that. he seems to think he can drop any ol' anybody into his "system" and we'll be denver south like that (finger snap) - but denver has A LOT of really good players. TD, portis, now travis henry: these are GOOD backs. and their OL is great, too. imo, they haven't addressed the issue with any urgency. and now, schaub is at the start of an eeirly familair path as the pass protection has begun to break down... it's frustrating.
I think the Colts' offensive line and offense in general is significantly better than it was in 2001. I suppose you can call it conjecture, but it seems fairly obvious to me. I just don't get the team correlation. There are plenty of good offenses with weak links on the offensive line. Hell, there are plenty of good offenses even with weaknesses at marquee positions (QB or RB). I'll try and find an individual analysis of Steve McKinney from 2002... haven't seen it yet, but I'm working on it. If the guy is serviceable, cheap, and the rest of the offense plays well... why spend resources to upgrade it, especially with the holes on defense the Colts had? Who is this "us"? I haven't seen anyone outside of you parading McKinney as an high-profile acquisition, nor have I seen anyone besides you disagreeing with my points. I forgot one example -- Chester Pitts. My goodness, is that really that big of a deal?
