Mock Draft 1

[Bigtinylittle]

You could be right about Sanchez, but as I said, he was surrounded by as much offensive talent as just about any QB in history. USC has tremendous athletes at almost every offensive position. Playing QB there has got to be the easiest job in the country. Look at Leinart. Heismann trophy at USC and now struggling in the NFL. Look at Reggie Bush. He was a world beater at USC. Put him in the NFL where the talent on the other teams is roughly equal, and Bush becomes less than ordinary. Did you ever watch the size of the holes Bush had at USC? I used to wonder when he was at USC what he was going to do when he didn't have those enormous holes to run through. That's why I wasn't one of the guys who were mad that we didn't draft him. That makes me wonder about Sanchez. Is he for real or just a product of the USC machine?

[jppaul]

Its a valid question, and teams often look at prospects harder because of the talent they are surrounded by or the scheme they run. For instance, the knock on Slaton was that he ran the spread, and he too had some cavernous holes to run through.

It just makes the evaluation more difficult. Along the lines of what you were saying, Sanchez's success in the rose bowl was more a function of the offensive game plan than any spectacular decision making or plays on his part.

How may times did they throw that same skinny post in the seam to exploit Penn State's Cover 3? They were the exact same throw each time, they were good throws but nothing spectacular.

Still I believe that Sanchez has first round talent, and I believe that San Fran might look at him in the first, because Alex Smith is not the answer, Shaun Hill's success is more a function of Martz offense than anything else. And as we have seen Martz offense transforms servicable QB's into something more, in the same way that Jeff Tedford's scheme does.

On the other hand, it has only been 3? years since they drafted Smith and that might be too close, temporally, to the last time they got burnt by a # 1.

[nunusguy]

Seems to me that Kubiak/Smith are struggling almost as much to Draft/sign-FA playmaker DLinemen as Capers had to acquire OLBs for his 3-4 ?
OK Mario is a success, a great success but that's only 1 out of the 3 big deals because they've wiffed badly on Weaver and Okoye, after the completion of his second full season, is not looking like a first-round talent least of all a top 10 pick ?

[mussop]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Seems to me that Kubiak/Smith are struggling almost as much to Draft/sign-FA playmaker DLinemen as Capers had to acquire OLBs for his 3-4 ?
OK Mario is a success, a great success but that's only 1 out of the 3 big deals because they've wiffed badly on Weaver and Okoye, after the completion of his second full season, is not looking like a first-round talent least of all a top 10 pick ?

The thing is the kid is still just a kid. This is why we signed him to a 6 year deal. Everyone knew it would take awhile. I really dont expect much from him for another year.

Wasnt Weaver a product of Casserly as GM?

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by mussop

Wasnt Weaver a product of Casserly as GM?

It was Kubiaks call to convert to a 4-3 and Weaver was his choice as much as Casserly's to fill the strongside DE position.
BTW Casserly and not Smith was Kubiak's GM for the 2006 Draft, which was easily the best Draft the Texans have ever had.

[Bigtinylittle]

I think it will always be a bit of a mystery as to who was responsible for the selections in that draft. Weaver has had some health problems since he was signed, and if he had stayed healthy maybe we would have a better opinion of that signing.

I was all for the Okoye pick, but in hindsight I think Willis is a no brainer. I still wonder whether Okoye isn't being misused, and am hoping the new DC uses him more as a penetrater. I thought that was what we got him for.

By the way, I'm not stuck on the idea we must go D-line. We have enough weaknesses on this team that we could go with a number of positions and it wouln't bother me.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

It was Kubiaks call to convert to a 4-3 and Weaver was his choice as much as Casserly's to fill the strongside DE position.
BTW Casserly and not Smith was Kubiak's GM for the 2006 Draft, which was easily the best Draft the Texans have ever had.

Yes he was, and it was also well known that Casserly was a lame duck. I'm not saying Casserly didn't have any input, but he definitely had diminished power when it came to making the final call on the picks.

OK Mario is a success, a great success but that's only 1 out of the 3 big deals because they've wiffed badly on Weaver and Okoye, after the completion of his second full season, is not looking like a first-round talent least of all a top 10 pick ?

Like mussop said Okoye was 19 when we drafted him to play one of the toughest positions in the game. He showed flashes early in his rookie year. He was hurt most of this year, but I thought he played much better over the last few games. I'll be ready to make some kind of judgment on him once we get through a good portion of next season. 3 years is the minimum to really judge a draft pick. Some guys give you a pretty good idea before that sure, but with Okoye's age and position I'm not close to calling him a bust.

[Keith]

Okoye is probably still younger than most of the DTs in this draft, right? That was my biggest beef with the selection at the time... that the Texans were going to be paying this starlet millions (I think he probably cashed around $9 or $10 million already) with the built-in age excuse for any performance deficiency.

It's not that it isn't a valid excuse - it is - but it really clouds any ability to really evaluate Okoye's first couple years in the league, especially at his position. I think if he were 24 or 25 right now with two years under his belt, there would be less doubt cast on any evaluation. That said, he seemed to be misused in the scheme this year. Hopefully the new DC will rectify that.

Back on topic, nice effort jppaul. January mocks are like miniature time capsules when the real thing rolls around in April, and while they might look radically different four months later, they help us gauge our perceptions as they change over that timespan.