IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2010, 10:22 AM
nero THE zero nero THE zero is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spring
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett View Post
I think Roy nailed it. LT has always had a huge ego. But if he is truly ok with being nothing but a redzone guy who gets a 4-6 carries inside the 10 and maybe 8-10 total per game, then I am interested. Because the guy is still good in short yardage and at scoring TDs. After all, in a horrible year last year for one of the league's worst running teams, he still ran for 12 TDs. And after watching our team pretend Chris Brown was a goalline back (and losing three games because of it), I would have no problem with those carries going to LT instead.

If the signing bonus is low but the base and incentives are high, then you go into training camp with Foster, Slaton (if healthy), LT, and a rookie back. Then, if the rookie back can push one of those guys out the door you are happy about it. If not, at least you're not giving chris brown carries.
That's pretty much it, right there. He's a veteran who can bring winning experience, football savvy, leadership, and, while not the threat he used to be, is still better than at least half (and maybe all) of our RB right now. I'd sign him to pair him with a high draft pick (Dwyer, Matthews, or Dixon.)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-06-2010, 12:50 AM
HPF Bob HPF Bob is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,149
Default

Not to start any arguments but one of the best short-yardage backs I ever saw was Priest Holmes.

I kinda concur with the rest of the group. I'd sign him if he can handle having a reduced role for less money. If he still wants to be top dog, I'll pass.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-07-2010, 05:05 PM
NBT NBT is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Texas Coast
Posts: 1,836
Default

The talking heads on the NFL network at the SB are predicting he goes to either Seatle or Houston. I don't think he would be worth the money it would take to get him
__________________
NBT - Elder statesman. Wisdom comes with age - Now if i could remember what it was!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-08-2010, 07:30 AM
popanot popanot is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,916
Default

Oops... I just poted something similar to this in the Slaton injury thread before seeing this thread... Yes, I could see LT coming here, and yes, I'd sign him as long as he comes fairly cheap and knows/accepts his role. He's certainly an upgrade over most of what we have now and I personally think he still has a little bit left in the tank.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-08-2010, 08:25 AM
nero THE zero nero THE zero is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spring
Posts: 366
Default

Given that we're likely going uncapped, people are going to have to drop the idea of budgetary restriction -- at least within reason.

Pre-2010 football would dictate that we worry about such a thing. But, not that we will not have a cap, the amount of money LT would get is only a concern to McNair, Rick Smith, and LT. There's really no difference in LT coming to us for 2 years $2M, 2 years $6M, or 2 years $10M.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:37 AM
popanot popanot is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nero THE zero View Post
Pre-2010 football would dictate that we worry about such a thing. But, not that we will not have a cap, the amount of money LT would get is only a concern to McNair, Rick Smith, and LT. There's really no difference in LT coming to us for 2 years $2M, 2 years $6M, or 2 years $10M.
True, but I'm sure McNair has a budget in mind that he's willing to spend, and I'd rather they use it to re-sign some of our quality RFAs (DeMeco, Pollard, Daniels, etc.) than throw cash at LT. Just because there's likely to be no cap this next year doesn't mean you give some crazy contract to someone and be bound to it when there is a cap possibly in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-08-2010, 09:52 AM
nero THE zero nero THE zero is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spring
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by popanot View Post
True, but I'm sure McNair has a budget in mind that he's willing to spend, and I'd rather they use it to re-sign some of our quality RFAs (DeMeco, Pollard, Daniels, etc.) than throw cash at LT. Just because there's likely to be no cap this next year doesn't mean you give some crazy contract to someone and be bound to it when there is a cap possibly in 2011.
I agree that re-signing some of our RFA is idea. But while the amount of money spent on our roster will be finite, it will also be malleable. There will be not "cap" on our roster, and McNair has shown the willingness to do what it takes to win.

I just hate to see the idea of bringing in an effective RB pooed on because of antiquated restrictions. So, if the singing of LT was dependent on not re-signing Pollard, Ryans, and Daniels, I'd obviously prefer the latter. But, I don't believe that to be true. And, even if it was, we still have a couple of more years to work out a contract with those guys (though that's obviously not ideal).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.