Do you want them to go offense OR defense? Which is the bigger need for them? Trade down for extra picks or take the best player available w/ the 3rd overall pick?
I'd take Rogers, but it looks like Detroit will get him. Now that Andre Johnson (WR, Miami) just declared, where do people see him going? He's a playmaker the Texans could certainly use. Not sure if he's a #3 pick, though.
I want Rogers...but I don't think he'll be there...I voted for Rogers in the poll...but if they can't get him, it's time to trade the pick.
I think we should do everything in our power to get Rogers. People are dismissing him out of hand merely because it's a certainty that Detroit will take him before us (which I also unfortunately believe). However, why not move up to the #1 position to take him? I'd give up a #1, #3, and possibly a #5 pick to get Rogers, a true playmaker. Cincy would only drop 2 spots and gain more draft picks. From the #3 spot, the Bengals could trade down again with a QB-desperate team (since it's highly, highly unlikely that Detroit would take another QB). I know we could definitely use the extra picks, but we really need an offensive playmaker. Also, I'm not sure (purely in terms of draft picks) any other team could offer a better deal to Cincy than Houston. Seems like win-win situation to me. If, by chance, Cincy can't find a partner to trade down from the #3 spot (and I think they could, seeing as any team that trades with them gets a chance to pick the first -- and possibly best -- QB available), then Cincy could just pickup Palmer or Leftwich at that spot, and not have to pay #1 overall rookie money. However, I think Cincy would have no problem dealing down from that spot to either Carolina, Arizona, or Dallas (who would want to pick before Chicago, assuming they're all going the QB route). We have enough draft picks already. Don't trade down (trade up!). At this point, we need quality, not quantity. That's what free agency is for.
the texans need so many things...they have needs everywhere...i don't think they can afford to give up draft picks...i think they do need quantity...let's face it, depth is certainly not a strength! they have none! i agree that getting rogers would be great...and i'd use the 3rd pick on him if he were available...but i'm not willing to give up a bunch of draft picks to move up two spaces to get him.
at this stage, the team doesn't have "needs." they could stand to upgrade every single position, save QB.
MadMax, I agree that we need everything at this point, but I think our pitiful offense is in most dire need of help from the draft. Depth can come from free agency. According to HoustonProFootball.com's BBS forum, we have 14 picks in the upcoming draft. I think our picks look something like this: (1) #1 (1) #2 (3) #3s (2) #4s (2) #5s (2) #6s (3) #7s If we could trade just one of our THREE #3 picks, plus one of our 2 #5 picks (and of course our #3 pick overall) for the right to select Charles Rogers, considered to be the best prospect in the entire draft, I'd certainly do it. Rogers is no slam dunk (no one is, IMO), but I'd rather take my chances with him than with a fifth-rounder who may or may not even make the team. Besides, who did we select at those spots last year? #3: Fred Weary #3: Charles Hill #5: Jarrod Baxter #5: Ramon Walker Based on those somewhat underwhelming picks, I'd totally trade up. (Granted, the analogy is not perfect, but you get my point.) If Rogers has Randy Moss potential, as Supreme Overlord God Emperor Mel Kiper says he does, then at the very least, me thinks he'll be pretty good (assuming Kiper is slightly to very off on his predictions, which he's prone to be). It's not like I'm asking the impossible, either, by proposing trading up. To Cincinnati, it's a freebie. Any player they want (save Rogers) will still be available at the #3 spot, and they'll get to pay less for that player, too (plus they won't be hampered with having the intensely scrutinized #1 pick). They also get a few all-important draft picks in the process. If they want, they could easily trade down from the #3 spot again for even more picks. That's up to them. For a good example of this, check out what Dallas did last year in the draft. Many draft experts lauded their efforts at trading down and still getting their man.
i understand your points, and it's certainly a reasonable argument...but these guys above were rookies this year...who knows how important they may become down the road.
and two of them were starters. VesceySux, i'm a big, big advocate of putting drafts, once they're done, into vaccums. there's no verifiable correlation between one draft and another. even if all four of the players you listed turned out to be unmitigated busts, it wouldn't have had anything to do with where they were picked. SD did this, got gunshy about taking vick #1, and while it worked out OK for them, they also may have passed on a once-in-a-lifetime athlete... all because ryan leaf tanked. they should have put the '98 draft into the vaccum and moved on. so while i like rogers a lot, there's no way i'd sacrifice three picks to get him because the three picks i'd be giving up didn't yield anything last year.
I understand my earlier analogy was not perfect. I acknowledged as much in my post. You cannot compare drafts that way (at least not easily). However, the point I was making is still valid. Who knows what the 3rd and 5th round will yield in terms of prospects. It's a crapshoot. Rogers, on the other hand, is a stud. Every draftnik will tell you as much. While that's not a guarantee by any means, it's almost as good as you're going to get before the draft (since I think it's highly unlikely Rogers will attend the combine). Therefore, I think it would be in the Texans' interest to scoop him up, and I've outlined a means to do so. Sure, we have to sacrifice some picks to get our man, but we can't have our cake and eat it, too. We'll still be left with 12 picks, which is 5 more picks than most other teams have. And oh, BTW, we'd only be giving up 2 picks instead of 3 (in my hypothetical scenario). Isn't this a reason to trade UP in the draft? We could play the role of Atlanta this year, moving up to grab a stellar athlete, one who could arguably make our offense vastly improved all by himself. You said yourself that free agency this year would be very important to us in terms of finding depth. You also said that the draft is where you find playmakers. I completely agreed with both your points. You also argued with another poster about the lunacy of trading down to get more picks instead of taking an almost sure thing (the age-old quality vs. quantity argument). Once again, I agreed with you there, too. So, what's not to like about my proposal? Rogers is a quality playmaker who is close to a sure thing (but definitely not it). Do you really think the contribution of 2 late round picks will be greater than giving Carr his very own Marvin Harrison/Randy Moss to throw to? Granted, Casserly is pretty good at finding late-round gems, but you have to admit that it's pretty unlikely, especially if Rogers is every good as the hype surrounding him.
yep; i misread what you offered. i saw the "2" right before the "#5 picks" and ignored the "one of our" -- i'm not a strong reader. no, but i don't view WRs the same way i do QBs, or even RBs, for that matter. i think rogers would be a terrific addition, i really do -- if he falls to us at #3. i don't think he's worth it if we have to give up picks, though. why? here's what you'd be giving up: a jimmy kennedy-type, a fred weary-type and a jarrod baxter-type. is the difference between rogers and kennedy significant enough to warrant giving up two guys who have starting potential, or, at the very least, the ability to be viable, important back-ups? imo, that's giving up waaaaaay too much for a guy who's dependent upon the QB being healthy, the OL giving the QB time to throw, the RB being effective enough to bring the safeties up...
To my point, there is a better chance of Rogers (the 1st round pick) being a star than of a 3rd round or 5th round pick making a significant difference for this team. Besides, we have 3 #3 picks (a.k.a. picks to burn), in case the Texans feel unfomfortable about giving up such a high pick. Let's get the playmakers NOW. Let Carr and Rogers grow together and get comfortable as a tandem. When we're playoff contenders, then let's worry about depth and backups. Or address the problem in free agency. In 1988, a certain team picked up a franchise WR in the first round. In 1989, that same team drafted a franchise QB (also in the first round). In 1990, this team scooped up a franchise back (once again, in the first round). A few years later, this very team won a Super Bowl and went on to win 2 more in 3 years. The team? The Dallas Cowboys. Those franchise players? Michael Irvin, Troy Aikman, and Emmitt Smith. In 1996, a certain team picked up a franchise WR in the first round. In 1998, this very same team picked up a franchise QB (in the first round as well). The next year, in 1999, this team drafted a franchise back (yup... in the first round). More often than not since then, they have been playoff contenders. The team? The Indianapolis Colts. The players? Marvin Harrison, Peyton Manning, and Edgerrin James. Why can't we follow a similar blueprint? Heck, take a look at Capers' first 3 drafts. In the first round during that span, he's gone QB (1995), RB (1996), and then WR (1997). There's history there. I say go for the gusto. Carpe diem! Chances are, you won't miss the extra picks, anyway...
Weren't Irvin and Smith mid-first round picks while Harrison was taken about ninth in the first round? The Texans are in a much better situation with Carr last year and Charles Rogers this year. I'd love to see the Texans get Charles Rogers, but I don't know that he will be there. I don't see a running back worthy of the #3 pick thus my vote to trade down... just a few spots!
Smith: 1st round (#17 pick) - 1990 Irvin: 1st round (#11 pick) - 1988 Harrison: 1st round (#19 pick) - 1996 As much as I love Rogers, I don't think the Texans can afford trading multiple picks to move up to get him. There are too many needs on the team that need to be addressed with those extra picks. Maybe we could trade down and pick up Andre Johnson or Kelly Washington or hold out hope for Roy Williams next year?
If there's a guy you want NOW, go get him. Don't hold out hope for next year's draft (i.e. Roy Williams). Using Ric's logic, you have to put each draft in a vacuum and let them stand on their own. Who knows what position we'll be in next year. All I know is that I'd like to move up 2 spots to grab the guy that is considered by many to be the best in the draft. If I thought Detroit wouldn't take him, there's no way I'd advocate trading up. Duh. He'd fall to us anyway. Besides, the Clipp-- er... Bengals are interested in trading the pick. Might not take much to land the top spot (especially at our #3 position). Maybe if we dangle our #3 overall pick and a fourth rounder (or a pick next year), they'll bite. They ARE the Bungles, after all... Last year, the New York Giants traded up ONE spot (giving up a fourth rounder in the process) to draft Jeremy Shockey, clearly the best TE of the 2002 NFL Draft. I think that worked out pretty well for them.
I don't use other people's logic, I use my own. Since I haven't heard or read about the Bengals wanting to trade their pick, I'll assume its not going to happen. I would love to get Rogers and I totally see your point VS. In fact, if the Texans were to trade up, I'd be ecstatic! I love Rogers. But if I had the choice, I'd rather keep those extra picks and move down to get Johnson, Suggs, or Gross. Maybe that's just because I'm really high on Johnson while others may not be. Just to many holes, in my opinion, to trade away picks.
but, VS, you're not comparing rogers to the 3rd or 5th round pick; you're comparing him to whoever you could draft if you kept the third pick. here's the deal is: rogers or kennedy-type, weary-type, baxter-type. if you're going to pass on the opportunity to add two potential contributors, then rogers had better be head, tails and every other body part better than whatever player you can grab at #3. and i don't think he is. also, re: the cowboys -- that team was built through their offensive line, perhaps the best ever assembled. aikman, smith and irvin could have been larry, moe and curly and that team still would've won. and how did dallas load up on OL talent? grabbing talent in the early-to-middle rounds.
If Rogers is available at #3, take him and ask no questions. It is not worth it to give up picks to get him at #1. However, if Rogers is not available at #3, trade down with Dallas or Arizona, get an extra pick and take Terrell Suggs.
