McNair: "In the draft, we’ll be looking at linebackers"

[Keith]

First Kubiak, now McNair, spilling the beans and/or blowing the smoke.

In the draft, we’ll be looking at linebackers; there are a lot of linebackers available. We ought to be able to get another good linebacker. We would like to strengthen our defensive secondary some more, too. Mainly, the defense is what we’ll be looking for, but at the same time we need to have a big, strong running back to complement Steve Slaton, who had a wonderful year. We need a guy when it’s third-and-one, a guy who can move the pile, so we’ll be looking for that. ...

We were able to trade down (last year) and we picked up another pick. If we can do that, we certainly would. There is a possibility with the depth at some of the positions that we might be able to do that and still get the player that we want. ...

http://www.houstontexans.com/news/St...?story_id=5199

Would it kill anyone at Reliant Park to just mention that maybe the team could use a situational RDE?

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Keith

Would it kill anyone at Reliant Park to just mention that maybe the team could use a situational RDE?

I'm still of the opinion that the Texans could go first round on such a player, though unlikely to be at 15. I sure dunno, but Kollar may think Schobel when he sees Barwin or Maybin and say he's gotta have the guy to make his defense really effective ? And we know Antonio Smith isn't that guy, as reports are he won't even be on the edge in passing situations.
Lack of mention by the Texans of still needing such a player is starting to get obvious ?

[Bigtinylittle]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

I'm still of the opinion that the Texans could go first round on such a player, though unlikely to be at 15. I sure dunno, but Kollar may think Schobel when he sees Barwin or Maybin and say he's gotta have the guy to make his defense really effective ? And we know Antonio Smith isn't that guy, as reports are he won't even be on the edge in passing situations.
Lack of mention by the Texans of still needing such a player is starting to get obvious ?

Well I'm pretty sure they won't spend a first rounder on a situational player. Probably not a second either. And I just don't think they gave Smith big bucks just to sit him on the bench.

What I CAN see them doing, though, is getting a first round linebacker to use at DE in passing situations and use him at linebacker the rest of the time. What worries me is I'm doubting there's a linebacker in the middle or late first round who is a sure bet to excell at that combination. Actually, the farther back the Texans can trade in the first round, the more comfortable I will be with this draft. I wouldn't even mind seeing them give up their first round altogether for some lower picks.

[painekiller]

Like bigtinylittle, I do not see the team going for a part time guy on day one. And the items that McNair mentioned are pretty obvious to the league and the lay man.

This team has not had an above average LB group since they switched to the 4-3. One LB does not make a group. So in a year with plenty of LB to draft, go draft a couple.

To the guys who say well we have Adibi and Diles. I say Adibi is undersized and could not stay healthy, as for Diles he is coming off injury.

And with the pounding the LBs take having extra talent available is a always a good idea. Plus this team sucks against the run, look at the teams solid against the run and they have solid LBs corps.


To the RDE, I would have moved Mario to LDE and found a specialist, like Keith and nunusguy suggested, but this staff went out and found another LDE, leaving Mario out of position still. So now you are spending the big bucks on two LDE, imagine what kind of year would Mario would have at LDE?

[Keith]

1. Misdirection. I'm not asking for a lot, but with the DEs that could be available in the first round, even if the Texans aren't interested, why can't they at least 'admire' them?

2. Yes, I know they spent millions signing Smith this offseason, but I see him moving inside on passing downs with Mario shifting to LDE. Leaves open a big need for a situational pass rusher.

While a situational RDE is not a full-time starter, I think the right player added there could have a huge impact, and "impact" is the key word being tossed around here by McNair and Kubiak.

Generally speaking, sack artists are more desirable in the first round than outside LBs, where even really good ones somehow seem to slip to the second and third rounds.

[jppaul]

Here's the thing Keith, it just might be misdirection in a sense. We probably are going after a LB, but we could also be looking at some of the other higher rated players that likely won't be available at 15.

Now if teams traded in front of us to take Cushing and Matthews, this forces to prospects down that wouldn't be there if the LBs weren't taken. For instance, lets suppose that a team in front of us was looking at Jenkins and a team behind us jumped up the other teams spot to grab Cushing or Matthews because they know we will take one of those.

Then as a result, Jenkins is still on the board then we would take Jenkins. It is in essence a ploy for forcing a player down the board who likely wouldn't have been there for our pick. Its a numbers game. Below is an illustrative example:

Taken from ESPN Player Rankings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft)

1 Aaron Curry
2 Michael Crabtree
3 Jason Smith
4 Eugene Monroe
5 Brian Orakpo
6 B.J. Raji
7 Matthew Stafford
8 Mark Sanchez
9 Jeremy Maclin
10 Aaron Maybin
11 Andre Smith
12 Brandon Pettigrew
13 Malcolm Jenkins
14 Knowshon Moreno
15 Tyson Jackson

Now suppose that Cushing and Matthews are both drafted ahead of us ahead of the 13 spot. This would essentially force Jenkins down to us. Then the draft would look like this.

1 Aaron Curry
2 Michael Crabtree
3 Jason Smith
4 Eugene Monroe
5 Brian Orakpo
6 B.J. Raji
7 Matthew Stafford
8 Mark Sanchez
9 Jeremy Maclin
10 Aaron Maybin
11 Andre Smith
12 Brandon Pettigrew
13 Clay Matthews
14.Brian Cushing
15. Malcolm Jenkins

So either way it is almost like playing with house money. They could either take the LB they are high on, or they could force a higher rated player down, but they lose nothing from admitting they are after a LB.

From McNair's comments its clear that they want a LB, but it is also clear that they are not sure they are worth the # 15 pick.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by Keith

Would it kill anyone at Reliant Park to just mention that maybe the team could use a situational RDE?

How would you feel about David Veikune at #112?

Maybe a one trick pony like Stryker Sulak as an UDFA?

[Blitzwood]

Originally Posted by Keith

1. Misdirection. I'm not asking for a lot, but with the DEs that could be available in the first round, even if the Texans aren't interested, why can't they at least 'admire' them?

2. Yes, I know they spent millions signing Smith this offseason, but I see him moving inside on passing downs with Mario shifting to LDE. Leaves open a big need for a situational pass rusher.

While a situational RDE is not a full-time starter, I think the right player added there could have a huge impact, and "impact" is the key word being tossed around here by McNair and Kubiak.

Generally speaking, sack artists are more desirable in the first round than outside LBs, where even really good ones somehow seem to slip to the second and third rounds.

What if you could get a sack artist/LB who is capable of lining up on passing downs? A player that would give your defense tremendous versatility on your D-line and the backfield, a player that can step in and play from day one and play every down. A player that will likely be there if we trade down to the early twenties.

If stopping the run is priority #1, then IMO, Connor Barwin makes alot of sense for our team. He can play either end, which would be useful when Smith moves inside, and is also fast enough to play either OLB in the pros. He can also play TE in case O. Daniels goes down. And since everyone assumes we're trading down, there is a real chance Matthews will be off the board, so I've had him stuck in my head for a few days, he seems to solve some major needs in one pick.

Granted, we should and probably will take at least another OLB to shore up the spot in a draft that is deep at the position, but most importantly, he would give us a real boost in run defense and also provide depth at the DE position. IMO, Connor Barwin could play either OLB positions but is probably best suited at the SAM. He had 8 PBU last year, to go along with 53 TT, 16 TFL and 11 SK and runs a 4.5 forty. He has a knack for getting up field and does a good job shedding blockers. I honestly feel he's a better value than Matthews in the mid-late first round simply because of his stats last year, his versitility on either side of the ball, and being slightly bigger and faster.

Here's a clip from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u79CJdrxZbo

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by Roy P

How would you feel about David Veikune at #112?

Maybe a one trick pony like Stryker Sulak as an UDFA?

I'd be ok with either/or, heck maybe both those guys.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by Keith

Would it kill anyone at Reliant Park to just mention that maybe the team could use a situational RDE?

Jamaal Westerman


http://www.kffl.com/player/21540/nfl
Texans | Westerman scheduled to work out
Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:21:43 -0700

J.J. Pesavento, of NFLDraftBible.com, reports Rutgers DL Jamaal Westerman is scheduled to work out with the Houston Texans.



http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/518828

DE/LB Jamaal Westerman (6-2 1/8, 257) ran a 4.81 and 4.78 in the 40-yard dash, a 4.38 short shuttle and a 7.03-three-cone drill. Westerman also posted 20 bench press reps.

tied for fourth in the BIG EAST and tied for 63rd nationally with .50 sacks per game and tied for 11th in the BIG EAST in tackles for loss per game (0.88) … tied for third in Rutgers history and tied for eighth in BIG EAST history with 26 career sacks … six sacks on the season … recorded a TFL in eight of 12 games …

[mussop]

Maybe we want a LB that can put his hand down on third down.

Clay Matthews maybe?

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by mussop

Maybe we want a LB that can put his hand down on third down.

Clay Matthews maybe?

Just got a chance to ask Rob Rang who was on 1560 this morning if he had any concerns about Matthews being unable to crack the starting USC line-up until his last year of eligibility ?
His reply was yes. Rang said he definitely likes Matthews and appreciates his versitility and hustel but feels he may basically an overachiever who we've already seen the best from. He said Matthews late in the first round (25 or later) maybe, but no way at 15. FWIW.
There was an upper echelon of Trojan LBs including Keith Rivers, Cushing, & Rey-Rey that Matthews just couldn't break into as a starter for several years and only did so because of default and I want a player drafted in the top of the first round to be an "upper echelon" player.

[mussop]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Just got a chance to ask Rob Rang who was on 1560 this morning if he had any concerns about Matthews being unable to crack the starting USC line-up until his last year of eligibility ?
His reply was yes. Rang said he definitely likes Matthews and appreciates his versitility and hustel but feels he may basically an overachiever who we've already seen the best from. He said Matthews late in the first round (25 or later) maybe, but no way at 15. FWIW.
There was an upper echelon of Trojan LBs including Keith Rivers, Cushing, & Rey-Rey that Matthews just couldn't break into as a starter for several years and only did so because of default and I want a player drafted in the top of the first round to be an "upper echelon" player.

Im just dont understand how he was suposed to start. He was an undersized walk on when he first got there and the starters were considered one of the best group of college LB's ever. He did everything asked of him, worked his ass off, excelled at every level they put him and worked his way into the starting lineup on that group.

Even if he just maxed out athletically which is obsurd considering hes only what 22 or 23 years old, he has shown to be more athletically gifted than both Cushing and Mauluga. Anyone who watched USC the last few years will tell you when he is in the game he makes a diffference.

He is athletic enough, smart enough and has the desire and work ethic you wold want in a early first round pick. Im not saying we should draft him I'm just saying from what I have seen of him IMO he will be just as good or better than any of the other USC LB's. How many games he started doesnt matter to me. IF he is availabe at 15 and the Texans think he fits a need they better take him or their is a good chance they will be missing out on a very good prospect.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by jppaul

Here's the thing Keith, it just might be misdirection in a sense. We probably are going after a LB, but we could also be looking at some of the other higher rated players that likely won't be available at 15.

Now if teams traded in front of us to take Cushing and Matthews, this forces to prospects down that wouldn't be there if the LBs weren't taken. For instance, lets suppose that a team in front of us was looking at Jenkins and a team behind us jumped up the other teams spot to grab Cushing or Matthews because they know we will take one of those.

Then as a result, Jenkins is still on the board then we would take Jenkins. It is in essence a ploy for forcing a player down the board who likely wouldn't have been there for our pick.

I understand your speculated ploy, I just don't believe it. If this is how we end up drafting Jenkins though, I'll take it.

Megan Manfull of the chron was on an ESPN mock a few days ago and predictably selected Clay for the Texans. Jenkins was off the board, but she brought his name up as someone the team would be very interested in should he fall to 15. fwiw, she also mentioned Raji and Jerry, too, so whatevs.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by mussop

Im just dont understand how he was suposed to start. He was an undersized walk on when he first got there and the starters were considered one of the best group of college LB's ever. He did everything asked of him, worked his ass off, excelled at every level they put him and worked his way into the starting lineup on that group.

Even if he just maxed out athletically which is obsurd considering hes only what 22 or 23 years old, he has shown to be more athletically gifted than both Cushing and Mauluga. Anyone who watched USC the last few years will tell you when he is in the game he makes a diffference.

He is athletic enough, smart enough and has the desire and work ethic you wold want in a early first round pick. Im not saying we should draft him I'm just saying from what I have seen of him IMO he will be just as good or better than any of the other USC LB's. How many games he started doesnt matter to me. IF he is availabe at 15 and the Texans think he fits a need they better take him or their is a good chance they will be missing out on a very good prospect.

Plus anyone who is closely connected to any big time college program will tell you the politics of playing time is a real animal. For a walk on to get any significant playing time at any division 1 school is hard enough, to walk on and beat out the super gold chips that attend USC is a monster most player never break through.

And I do not care what the official stance is but these players have alumni "advocates" for a lack of a better name and there is a prestige things fore their players to be playing. Do not kid yourself that this is not happening at UCS, it is.

When a team has guys like Dallas Sartz, Keith Rivers, Rey Maualuga, and Cushing on it, any playing time is hard earned. This kid pushed a HS blue chip to the bench, it may have taken him some time but he still did it.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

Just got a chance to ask Rob Rang if he had any concerns about Matthews being unable to crack the starting USC line-up until his last year of eligibility ?
His reply was yes. Rang said he definitely likes Matthews and appreciates his versitility and hustel. He said Matthews late in the first round (25 or later) maybe, but no way at 15. FWIW.

Rob Rang is known for his draft projections. By that, I mean predicting when a player will be drafted. Now, how good those players will be once they are in the NFL is anybody's guess. Just because he may have correctly forcasted that Vince Young would be a top 3 pick didn't translate into having a great Pro career.

Every player has something that concerns me. We can point at Crabtree's lack of a 40 time, Curry's hip fluidity, Raji's motivation, etc. However, they will probably be drafted in the top ten and are expected to have an impact for the team that drafts them. It would be nice to have 15 players who were National top 15 players coming out of Pop Warner all the way through their senior year of college. Real upper echelon players who broke records at their FBS schools and led their teams to national championships. However, in the real world there are late bloomers and players with flaws that have the potential to be Pro-Bowlers that never realized that promise in college. I wonder if Rob Rang felt that Antonio Cromartie was worth the 19th pick in the draft since his senior year was not perfect. He guessed he was a 24 or later kind of guy.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/mockdra...nd=1&year=2006

Oh he also had Winston Justice #14, Chad Jackson #15, and Jimmy Williams #16. I think San Diego is probably pleased that they took Cromartie instead of Williams.

[jppaul]

Originally Posted by Keith

I understand your speculated ploy, I just don't believe it. If this is how we end up drafting Jenkins though, I'll take it.

Megan Manfull of the chron was on an ESPN mock a few days ago and predictably selected Clay for the Texans. Jenkins was off the board, but she brought his name up as someone the team would be very interested in should he fall to 15. fwiw, she also mentioned Raji and Jerry, too, so whatevs.

I am not saying its a ploy, I am just saying that there is no harm it admitting it because it is a likely win-win either way.

[mussop]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Plus anyone who is closely connected to any big time college program will tell you the politics of playing time is a real animal. For a walk on to get any significant playing time at any division 1 school is hard enough, to walk on and beat out the super gold chips that attend USC is a monster most player never break through.

And I do not care what the official stance is but these players have alumni "advocates" for a lack of a better name and there is a prestige things fore their players to be playing. Do not kid yourself that this is not happening at UCS, it is.

When a team has guys like Dallas Sartz, Keith Rivers, Rey Maualuga, and Cushing on it, any playing time is hard earned. This kid pushed a HS blue chip to the bench, it may have taken him some time but he still did it.

And performed well when he did do it.

By the way nice points.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by Roy P

Rob Rang is known for his draft projections. By that, I mean predicting when a player will be drafted. Now, how good those players will be once they are in the NFL is anybody's guess. Just because he may have correctly forcasted that Vince Young would be a top 3 pick didn't translate into having a great Pro career.

That would mean he's basically on the same page the teams who are doing the drafting are on. That's quite a compliment.

[Keith]

It wouldn't make it easier on Matthews to break through as a walk-on either if a teammate (allegedly) used steriods to gain an advantage.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/story?id=...s&confirm=true

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nat...cushing_i.html

No positive tests though, which is really unfair to Cushing, but man, speculation on this has been rampant.