McNair: Texans Open To Trading Down

HPF Bob · #1 01-03-2014, 07:29 PM

Whether it was heartfelt or not, McNair did the right thing by opening up the possibility of a trade down. If they want to get two #1s this year, they can currently talk to the Browns or the Rams. While I see the Browns as a possibility, I don't for the Rams although if the Texans and Rams are both interested in the same player, I could see the Rams trading up one spot for Washington's #1 (2nd overall) and something small like a 4th rounder.

Trading with Cleveland only makes sense if the guy the Texans target is likely to still be there at #7 or the position in need has several suitable guys and one is bound to be there (like an OT).

I like the CB from Michigan St. and I think he'll still be there at #7. Is he a better choice than Clowney though? Less risky?

jcp · #2 01-03-2014, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Trading with Cleveland only makes sense if the guy the Texans target is likely to still be there at #7 or the position in need has several suitable guys and one is bound to be there (like an OT).

I like the CB from Michigan St. and I think he'll still be there at #7. Is he a better choice than Clowney though? Less risky?

Pretty sure Cleveland has the 4th pick which makes it more attractive. They may want bridgewater bad enough and that likely would leave us with our pick of defensive players...who knows what qb the jags will take

nunusguy · #3 01-04-2014, 07:33 AM

While there may not be the total absence of QB talent in this Draft that there was in last years Draft, it's still hard to justify any of these QBs as worthy of being a #1 overall, so no doubt that McNair would trade the pick unless in the unlikely circumstances the Texans have a QB they really like.
I think clearly the best non-QB prospect is Clowney who's a better prospect than Mario was for in 2006, and he turned out to be a wise choice by the Texans. There's also no "franchise" LT in this Draft, not that the Texans need one anyway with Duane Brown still in his twenties and under contract for some time.

Joshua · #4 01-04-2014, 08:26 AM

Sorry to go off topic but I'm curious about something. Seems like many here don't want us to take a QB or at least would be fine with it if we traded down and got a RT or something like that. Is this because you don't think any of these guys has the potential to develop into a franchise guy? Or is it that you think that we can win without an above average QB if all the other parts are good enough so there's no need to "reach" for a QB?

If it's the first, I'd like to hear your reasoning on each guy. If it's the second, I'm at a loss for how people think you can have sustained success in today's NFL without a really good QB. Take this year's playoffs. With the exception of Alex Smith, the other 11 QBs were all in the top 15 in ESPN's total QBR rankings. The other guys in the top 15 were Romo and Cutler/McCown combo, who missed the playoffs on the last day of the season to a better QB on the list. With rare exceptions, you can basically predict the standings by looking at nothing but QB rankings.

nunusguy · #5 01-04-2014, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua

Sorry to go off topic but I'm curious about something. Seems like many here don't want us to take a QB or at least would be fine with it if we traded down and got a RT or something like that.

Right back at you - I'm curious why anybody would entertain using a top 5 or even top 10 pick on a RT ? And using the #1 overall on a guy who's going to be your RT tackle for years is just ludicrous IMO. It's kinda like saying you are gonna use a very high pick for your #2 WR.

Joshua · #6 01-04-2014, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Right back at you - I'm curious why anybody would entertain using a top 5 or even top 10 pick on a RT ? And using the #1 overall on a guy who's going to be your RT tackle for years is just ludicrous IMO. It's kinda like saying you are gonna use a very high pick for your #2 WR.

I'm the wrong guy to ask because I'm not in favor of that. Bob can chime in since I'm pretty sure he was banging the Jake Mathews drum on here somewhere.

I'm of the opinion that sustained success only comes if you have one of the top 10 QBs. Anything less than that and best case scenario, we're back to where we were in 2011 and 2012. Good enough to get in if our running game and defense are clicking but not a tremendous threat to go the distance. So we must do everything in our power to get one, which pretty much means staying put at No. 1 and taking the best QB.

HPF Bob · #7 01-04-2014, 12:07 PM

My bad. Cleveland has the 4th and the 26th picks of the first round and they *are* as desperate for a QB as we are.

I would not take Matthews at 1-1 but it should be noted that the Chiefs already had Brandon Albert who was a higher draft pick than Duane Brown when they selected Eric Fisher at 1-1 last spring and he has helped turn their club around.

Jake Matthews can be used in a similar capacity - as an RT until Duane Brown is done then an LT for emergencies and for later down the road. There's no doubt to me that we haven't had decent play on the right side of the OL since Winston and Briesel left which had as much to do with the downfall of the offense as anything else. Solidify the line and put in an offense that emphasizes quick-strike throws and you can get by great with a mediocre quarterback.

If you can acquire a good QB some other way than a high first-round choice, I think you're further ahead than getting a rookie QB 1-1 and watching them go through a couple of years of learning curve.

Joshua · #8 01-04-2014, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE=HPF Bob;Solidify the line and put in an offense that emphasizes quick-strike throws and you can get by great with a mediocre quarterback

If you can acquire a good QB some other way than a high first-round choice, I think you're further ahead than getting a rookie QB 1-1 and watching them go through a couple of years of learning curve.[/QUOTE]

When you say "get by", does that include win a Super Bowl? The last 20 years suggest that's a long shot. While it's happened a couple times, it is not a course I would recommend.

Agreed that it would be nice to somehow find a franchise QB somewhere besides our first pick, but I note that the details of this plan are absent.

There are no guarantees in the NFL so you have to play the percentages. The numbers overwhelmingly suggest that a good QB is damn near a prerequisite to sustained success and that the best place to find one is the 1st round (and often the 1st pick). Or to bring it back to the particulars here, who do you think we're more likely to land in the 3rd round-a franchise QB or a RT?