Antonio Smith has been a good player, as have Shaun Cody and Kevin Walter. By and large, the free agent pickups haven't been that great, but you know what? They're not supposed to be. This team's stated mission, as with any prominent NFL team, is to build through the draft. Building through free agency gives you the Washington Redskins. The Texans look at free agency, which is mostly littered with over-the-hill, big-name vets, as a way to potentially fill holes with average production. Some work, some don't - but as long as you don't give them excessive contracts, there's no major loss. Smith's far and away top priority is building through the draft and young talent, and he's done a very good job at that.
Smith gets more credit for his drafting skills then he deserves. I think people forget he wasn't the gm in the 2006 draft, when we got Willams, DeMeco, Daniels, and so on, but people still seem to get him credit for it. I give him credit for getting Cush, Diles and Quinn, but I need to see more. I give him a C for his draft skills.
So if KC were to call up the Rams today and offer Cassel for Sam Bradford, you're saying the Rams should certainly accept, right? After all, Cassel has QBed an 11-win NFL team and Bradford has done nothing. Just checking.
If they have so much young talent, why have they never made the playoffs? Side note, Rick Smith was not the GM during the 2006 draft. It is too early to judge, but the Texans drafts from 2007-2010 are above average, not great. In 2007 Jacoby Jones (3rd Round) Zac Diles (7th round) Amobi Okoye remains a starter but was a pretty clear bust Kasey Studdard is a somewhat serviceable backup In 2008 Duane Brown (1st round) Steve Slaton (3rd Round) those two were only average drafts, if even that, you could argue that they were below average 2009 so far appears to be a pretty solid draft, looks like everyone except for Hill will be contributors this season. and we will have to see about 2010 I would say that is slightly above average, not great
You asked about value at the time they were traded. Cassel was a know commodity while Shaulb wasn't. Correct? Cassel was worth more and Shaulb less, no?
Of those three, only one (Mario) falls into the 25 or under category. The folks at ESPN and Football Outsiders, who analyze every game and video with far greater depth than any of us could, rank the Texans as the top team in the league (and by a wide margin, at that) for 25 and under talent. The vast majority of that talent has been acquired in the Rick Smith era. So, please explain how that would be possible with only an "average" draft performance.
Kubiak buys the groceries. They both have input, but ultimately in a tie, Gary makes the call. If you are hiring a name coach, they are going to want their own guy or will ultimately call the shots like Gary does.
I'm asking you a similar comparison. Cassel is a known commodity while Sam Bradford isn't. Correct? By your exact logic - if proven wins (which is a team statistic, in the first place) override everything else - shouldn't a team with a No. 1 draft pick jump at the chance to trade pick for a quarterback on the level of Matt Cassel? Hint: just like with rookie quarterbacks with no track records, there are other ways to determine a player's talent and overall value besides game production. Schaub was very well known throughout the league for how he had performed in practice, preseason, training camp, etc. as well as how he conducted himself. And much like how a rookie quarterback - say Sam Bradford - can increase his value without playing in a ton (or any) real NFL games - a guy like Schaub can as well.
Cassel was a proven player, Schaub has only played in a handful of NFL games. Cassel's stock was certainly higher at the time he was traded
He also QBed a 12 loss NFL team the following year, although, to be fair, he only led them to 11 of those losses. I suspect Schaub would have done as well on the Patriots.
We could have if the Colts & Bengals didn't give a ish against the Jets. I've liked your posts in general, but rezdawg has already owned you on this topic.
When did rezdawg own me on anything? Those teams did roll over for the Jets but the Pats also did not play at full strength against us.
I'll ask you the same question I asked REEKO. Since Cassel was a "proven" player, then by the same logic, wouldn't his stock have to be higher at the time than Matthew Stafford (the No. 1 pick that year)? Shouldn't Detroit have traded the No. 1 overall pick to New England, by your exact same logic?
The Chiefs would ABSOLUTELY say HELL NO to Bradford anyways because of his contract. He hasn't proven anything but in Cassel's case he did and it only took a 2nd round pick to get him. Schaub was not "very well known". Maybe to pro scouts and hardcore gamblers but to come in here and tell me you knew who he was like you think you know every thing about him like you do the Astros makes me think you're full of it frankly.
No, Matt Stafford/Bradford were the consensus #1 picks in the draft. Schaub was a 3rd round pick who had already been in the league for 3 seasons with very little experience. What had Matt proven at that point in the league that would make you think he had more value than Cassel?
Because there's more to the game than young talent? By the way, Adibi and Barber in 2008 have both been very solid contributors. Also, undrafted free agents - the likes of Arian Foster - are very much a part of the drafting/scouting process, and it's disingenuous not to include them.
I said, I didn't give 2 **** about Cassel but the point is that Cassel was proven and Schaub was not. That's a fact. The Texans gave up two 2nd rounders and flipped 1st rounders for him while The Chiefs only had to trade 1 second rounder and got back Vrabel too.
