HOU conspiracy theory... (1 Viewer)

[switz]

Maybe it's totally out there, but I was just thinking about HOU, the Reggie Bush, RB thing...

They've been totally stupid about their RB situation. Didn't draft Bush, brought in Ron Dayne and Samkon Gado, traded away Morency who was their best RB on the roster...

Maybe they want to lose so they can draft APete next year...

Anyone else think they are losing on purpose? Yes I know they won this week, but doesn't it seem their personnel moves are set up for them to lose more often than not?

 

[jon_mx]

Anyone else think they are losing on purpose?

Maybe they are losing so they can draft someone like a Reggie Bush?

 

[SSOG]

Maybe it's totally out there, but I was just thinking about HOU, the Reggie Bush, RB thing...They've been totally stupid about their RB situation. Didn't draft Bush, brought in Ron Dayne and Samkon Gado, traded away Morency who was their best RB on the roster...Maybe they want to lose so they can draft APete next year...Anyone else think they are losing on purpose? Yes I know they won this week, but doesn't it seem their personnel moves are set up for them to lose more often than not?

No.Gary Kubiak is fresh out of Denver. Denver's philosophy in each of the last 3 seasons has been why pay big money to RBs when you can get similar production for half the price. I would be shocked to see Koobs draft an RB in the top 10. What Houston really needs is talent on the offensive line- lots and lots and lots of it. The kind of talent that you can usually stockpile without necessarily needing a top-5 draft choice.What really makes this conspiracy theory ridiculous, though, is the play of the team. If this team wants to lose, why did it break up that 2pc against Miami? If this team wants to lose, why is David Carr's QB rating over 100? As far as conspiracy theories go, this is one of the more patently absurd ones I've ever heard.

 

[KiddLattimer]

If Im going to believe any Houston conspiracy theory its going to be the "The league wants the Saints in LA so they talked the Texans into passing on Reggie Bush by buying out Charley Casserly with a front office job so that when they move the Saints to LA, Reggie Bush can be their marketing key" theory.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Adrian Peterson will have more career NFL rushing yards than Reggie Bush.

Please save this for a year 2019 signature.

 

[coolnerd]

If the "conspiracy theory" notion was debunked last year when losing on purpose to Reggie Bush, why in the bleep are you proposing another one?

Sometimes there are bad teams in the league with organizations that make questionable decisions. Conceptually, I don't know why some people have difficulty with this idea.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Maybe it's totally out there, but I was just thinking about HOU, the Reggie Bush, RB thing...

They've been totally stupid about their RB situation. Didn't draft Bush, brought in Ron Dayne and Samkon Gado, traded away Morency who was their best RB on the roster...

Maybe they want to lose so they can draft APete next year...

Anyone else think they are losing on purpose? Yes I know they won this week, but doesn't it seem their personnel moves are set up for them to lose more often than not?

No.Gary Kubiak is fresh out of Denver. Denver's philosophy in each of the last 3 seasons has been why pay big money to RBs when you can get similar production for half the price. I would be shocked to see Koobs draft an RB in the top 10. What Houston really needs is talent on the offensive line- lots and lots and lots of it. The kind of talent that you can usually stockpile without necessarily needing a top-5 draft choice.

What really makes this conspiracy theory ridiculous, though, is the play of the team. If this team wants to lose, why did it break up that 2pc against Miami? If this team wants to lose, why is David Carr's QB rating over 100? As far as conspiracy theories go, this is one of the more patently absurd ones I've ever heard.

This is easy. Just because the front office is trying to lose (not saying they are, but going along with the for argument's sake) does not mean the players are bought into it, or even aware of it. In fact, I would guess that the players would not even be made aware of it because the risk of a leak to the press would be too great. The theory would be that the team is set up to fail more often than not, but every once in a while someone like Daunte stumbles into your path and you can't help but win.

 

[Sidewinder]

Maybe it's totally out there, but I was just thinking about HOU, the Reggie Bush, RB thing...

They've been totally stupid about their RB situation. Didn't draft Bush, brought in Ron Dayne and Samkon Gado, traded away Morency who was their best RB on the roster...

...

To be fair, they felt they had a (reasonably) healthy DD at the time of the draft.

 

[redman]

Yeeeeeeeaaaaah, that's the ticket, they've been making these moves because they're smart, smarter than the rest of us. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[bjabrad]

If Im going to believe any Houston conspiracy theory its going to be the "The league wants the Saints in LA so they talked the Texans into passing on Reggie Bush by buying out Charley Casserly with a front office job so that when they move the Saints to LA, Reggie Bush can be their marketing key" theory.

Everything works here except the timing in that Bush will have either blown out a knee by them or been exposed as the NFL fraud RB that he is and will be reduced to a 3rd down back. Oh, wait,,,that's what he is now. I retract the fraud comment to be replaced by either over valued or over hyped.

 

[Futility]

If this is your conspiracy, apply it to Tennessee. Makes much more sense there.

 

[BlueOnion]

Most definitely. And when they get the #1 pick next year they will pass on Peterson, draft the perfect bookend for Mario Williams in Quentin Moses (DE - Georgia) and trade for Michael Bennett.

 

[T Man]

At the time of the draft DD was on the roster. While not a super stud, he was good in the games he played. He would have fit the system fine. All reports were that he would be healthy by training camp. With that defense and the mindset from Denver that RBs can be plugged into your system, it made little sense to draft another RB - even Bush.

DD left training camp after day 1. If he didn't, the questions may have stopped before they began.

Williams has not been a world beater yet. SO the decision looks questionable. But you can't judge a DE on four games. Patience.

As for Dayne, while I don't like him as a player, it is a great move. THe purported starting RB in Denver before the season for nothing. He knows the system. I like Morency, but if he doesn't fit your system and you didn't draft him, it's easy to send him packing. Can't fault Kubiak for that.

I think the better question is why Houston did not trade the #1. That would have been my preference.

I look for the Texans to draft a RB in round 2 or 3 next year. O-line in 2, 3 or 4. I don't think Kubiak will put all his eggs in DDs basket again. But I think the Texans go Defense again next year in round 1.

 

[dudaman]

Houston is the new Arizona

 

[doomsdaydoc]

If Davis' status was clearer at that time, they probably would have drafted Reggie. I think personally they should have traded down and got 2 picks later in the round that they could have turned into an offensive lineman and Lawrence Maroney or Joseph Addai, or even DeAngelo Williams. That would have been better value.

 

[Bertha]

Houston makes Kentucky look like California.

 

[Oscar]

Adrian Peterson will have more career NFL rushing yards than Reggie Bush. Please save this for a year 2019 signature.

As will Laurence Maroney.

 

[corpcow]

I think the better question is why Houston did not trade the #1. That would have been my preference.

Suggesting that they should trade down implies there was someone to trade with where they felt they could still get a top-tier guy. They would have had to move down too far to make it worth their while.NO had Brees and was more interested in Williams or Ferguson at #2 - no reason for them to trade up. The Titans wanted a QB, but it was unlikely that either NO (now that they had Brees) or Houston was going to go WR. No need for them to trade up.My jets felt there was more value taking what fell to them at #4. If Williams was there, they certainly would have drafted him as a replacement for Abraham. If not, it was likely going to be OL. They also had no intention of giving up their other 1st round pick.GB wanted Hawk - they didn't need a QB with Rodgers already on the roster and Green is still relatively young. SF wanted offensive weapons for Alex Smith. Bush might have been an option, but I thinkt hey felt comfortable enough with Gore/Barlow at the time that the move up wasn't worth it. Davis is a good fit. Oakland? Maybe interested in QB, but they did pass over Leinart. RB not really worth trading up for with Lamont. Was Vince worth #1?Buffalo? McGahee, Losman. No move there. Detroit? Kevin Jones. Maybe to replace Kitna, but probably giving up too much for Leinart (who they passed on anyway) and Young.Arizona had Edge...So the way I see it, the best they could have done was 11 pick or worse. I don't have the trade chart handy, but they probably just couldn't find anyone with 2 first rounders worth the #1 pick. So then it becomes a case of who do you want more - Bush or Williams or Ferguson, etc.

 

[The Royal Jack]

The thought has crossed my mind that the Texans factored in potentially having the 1 or 2 overall pick in 2007 and decided to go with Williams, knowing that other running backs would be available in '07 that they liked as much as Bush (especially with perceived signability issues).

But I don't think they are losing on purpose in the mean time.

 

[cstu]

The thought has crossed my mind that the Texans factored in potentially having the 1 or 2 overall pick in 2007 and decided to go with Williams, knowing that other running backs would be available in '07 that they liked as much as Bush (especially with perceived signability issues). But I don't think they are losing on purpose in the mean time.

The management isn't stupid and I'm sure they looked at the '07 RB's and thought it would be better to get a potential stud DE now, let him develop, and then then draft a RB next year who could go right into the starting lineup and make them a playoff contender. I'm in a minority but I think the Texans did the right thing passing on Bush - even though I love his game he wasn't the right fit for the Texans. I personally thought they should have taken Ferguson since I thought he was more of a sure-thing and a huge need for them. I can't fault Mario over Bush because if the team wants to win they need to be able to stop people on defense and guys like him don't come around very often.

 

[coolnerd]

I think the better question is why Houston did not trade the #1. That would have been my preference.

Suggesting that they should trade down implies there was someone to trade with where they felt they could still get a top-tier guy. They would have had to move down too far to make it worth their while.NO had Brees and was more interested in Williams or Ferguson at #2 - no reason for them to trade up. The Titans wanted a QB, but it was unlikely that either NO (now that they had Brees) or Houston was going to go WR. No need for them to trade up.My jets felt there was more value taking what fell to them at #4. If Williams was there, they certainly would have drafted him as a replacement for Abraham. If not, it was likely going to be OL. They also had no intention of giving up their other 1st round pick.GB wanted Hawk - they didn't need a QB with Rodgers already on the roster and Green is still relatively young. SF wanted offensive weapons for Alex Smith. Bush might have been an option, but I thinkt hey felt comfortable enough with Gore/Barlow at the time that the move up wasn't worth it. Davis is a good fit. Oakland? Maybe interested in QB, but they did pass over Leinart. RB not really worth trading up for with Lamont. Was Vince worth #1?Buffalo? McGahee, Losman. No move there. Detroit? Kevin Jones. Maybe to replace Kitna, but probably giving up too much for Leinart (who they passed on anyway) and Young.Arizona had Edge...So the way I see it, the best they could have done was 11 pick or worse. I don't have the trade chart handy, but they probably just couldn't find anyone with 2 first rounders worth the #1 pick. So then it becomes a case of who do you want more - Bush or Williams or Ferguson, etc.

We fans love the tradedown and falsely think it is always available. There was not any reason for any of the teams mentioned to trade multiple picks as all of them had some combination of a new administration, poor overall depth and/or cap issues.