PDA

View Full Version : Arian foster Gives Case Keenum a real chance.


EllisUnit
05-30-2014, 07:03 PM
http://houston.culturemap.com/news/sports/05-27-14-arian-foster-gives-case-keenum-real-chance-as-houston-texans-starting-qb/

This idea that Keenum's already flamed out after eight games of being yo-yoed around in his first year playing never held much basis in reality. Keenum showed more than enough promise under impossible circumstances to warrant a real chance. Keenum still has yet to play even one full game with the Texans' most important offensive player.

Plenty would have been different for Keenum and the Texans if the University of Houston star had Arian Foster in the backfield last season. There's no way Keenum finishes winless as a starter with a healthy Foster for one. That 0-8 easily would have been two to three wins better. At minimum.

Pretty interesting article i do agree with some points for sure. No doubt not having Foster allowed defenses to key in on Keenum more.

Vance87
05-30-2014, 07:32 PM
This man's opinion will always be tainted by his article saying we should have drafted Nick Fairley instead of JJ Watt, and saying we would be sorry for it.

Playoffs
05-30-2014, 07:41 PM
Strange title from the "pizza boy JJ Watt" originator...

Does Arian's presence only help Keenum, or all the QBs...? :thinking:

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 12:11 AM
Arian Foster in the backfield or not doesn't change the fact that Keenum couldn't recognize defenses or pressure packages & make the proper adjustments in protection presnap.

That was the single biggest issue for him last season , that's not to say he cant make improvements in that department either but for him to become a real NFL caliber QB he's going to have to make great strides , not just marginal improvement in that aspect of QB play.


Good Luck .....

houstonspartan
05-31-2014, 12:29 AM
This man's opinion will always be tainted by his article saying we should have drafted Nick Fairley instead of JJ Watt, and saying we would be sorry for it.


It wasn't that he just said we should have taken Fairley over Watt; it was how he said it. He dismissively referred to Watt as Pizza Boy. That is immature and unprofessional, even if you didn't like the Watt pick at the time.

Tom Savage switched schools more than once, and yet, Baldwin dismissively referred to him as "Mr Transfer" and essentially said that he was a weak person who couldn't handle adversity. That's just a bit much.

JPPT1974
05-31-2014, 01:34 AM
Keenum had to start right away last year. And really was trying to learn the offense. But hopefully he will really be better this year. As he gets to know the offense more.

xtruroyaltyx
05-31-2014, 01:42 AM
I don't know what to put on Schaub and the rest of the qb's anymore. Someone showed me some clips from last year of this team and there were certain instances where the team just seemed confused.

Case running back and taking massive losses on those sacks is inexcusable, but on some of those sacks it wasn't about case not recognizing it. Our oline simply didn't pick it up.

I don't think kubiak did a good job making adjustments over any time period and I think those chickens came home to roost last season. Lots of confusion out there. Undisciplined play. I have been down on Schaub for a while as a player, but I've also said some of that could have been due to the offense as well. Schaub was no star talent, but I don't think he was a scrub he looked like last year either.

I'm not sure how any of these qb's will perform or if ultimately on OB will field a more disciplined, finely tuned team but I suspect he will.

I say all this to say that I think case has some talent and if he can mentally grasp this offense, and if OB can do his thing case and the other qb's could really surprise. I think the qb battle is going to good. The one guy I worry about is Yates...from a fit standpoint. But hell...he could surprise me too.

I also heard that the texans were trying to move Yates before the draft as well. Fwiw.

revan
05-31-2014, 01:46 AM
I'm tired of all these excuses needed for Keenum to be successful. I'm pulling for him to be our starter this year but I'm tired of the fans saying that he needs an OL a RB, etc to succeed. Let's just see what he can do in this new system. He has a chance, now let's see and hope he can overcome the QB battle.

thunderkyss
05-31-2014, 04:25 AM
Arian Foster in the backfield or not doesn't change the fact that Keenum couldn't recognize defenses or pressure packages & make the proper adjustments in protection presnap.

That was the single biggest issue for him last season , that's not to say he cant make improvements in that department either but for him to become a real NFL caliber QB he's going to have to make great strides , not just marginal improvement in that aspect of QB play.


Good Luck .....

The strange thing, is that the Texans called protection the same way they did it at A&M (and I'm assuming the same way at UH) in so much as it was done by the center.

It seemed as if Case wasn't on the same page with the OL because he thought the free runner was going to get picked up by someone else, when "everybody" else knew he had to deal with that guy.

Maybe he was calling the protection at UH, I'm just assuming it was handled the same in all the Art Briles' systems.

But yeah, hope he improves in this area big time.

CloakNNNdagger
05-31-2014, 07:43 AM
Here is a piece by a Texans writer I very much enjoy and respect. Reading this article in retrospect gives a insightful look into the Keenum case, and for maintaining the case for Keenum.

Case Keenum and The Dumbening of the Texans (http://threeconedrill.com/2013/12/16/case-keenum-and-the-dumbening-of-the-texans/)
Rivers McCown
Posted: December 16, 2013

EllisUnit
05-31-2014, 10:20 AM
Strange title from the "pizza boy JJ Watt" originator...

Does Arian's presence only help Keenum, or all the QBs...? :thinking:

Helps all QBs but when TJ was QB he had a healthy fosters, only starter we have had at QB who hasnt had foster is keenum thus far.

Playoffs
05-31-2014, 10:23 AM
...He dismissively referred to Watt as Pizza Boy. That is immature and unprofessional...

Tom Savage switched schools more than once, and yet, Baldwin dismissively referred to him as "Mr Transfer" and essentially said that he was a weak person who couldn't handle adversity...

It's the equivalent of a child saying he's going to "hold my breath until I turn blue"...

The writer is ignorant of sports but seeks attention. I suggest the only way he'll get that attention is if he stands next to Johnny Manziel.

ObsiWan
05-31-2014, 11:30 AM
Helps all QBs but when TJ was QB he had a healthy fosters, only starter we have had at QB who hasnt had foster is keenum thus far.
Hmmm, very true. It's obvious when you slow down and think about it.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 12:11 PM
Helps all QBs but when TJ was QB he had a healthy fosters, only starter we have had at QB who hasnt had foster is keenum thus far.

Tate was playing very well prior to the rib injury .... then again towards the end , Keenum has street FA's in the backfield behind him & that O-line was horrible , Wade Smith & Newton in particular.

I have to wonder how much of Brown's mediocre to poor play had to do with having Smith next to him.


That doesn't change the fact that he had problems reading defenses and making adjustments.

steelbtexan
05-31-2014, 12:39 PM
Tate was playing very well prior to the rib injury .... then again towards the end , Keenum has street FA's in the backfield behind him & that O-line was horrible , Wade Smith & Newton in particular.

I have to wonder how much of Brown's mediocre to poor play had to do with having Smith next to him.


That doesn't change the fact that he had problems reading defenses and making adjustments.

With X next to Brown next yr we will find out how bad Wade Smith really was. Brown + X equals being able to convert in the red zone and 3rd and short situations. I'm excited.

All rookie QB's (Which Keenum essentially was) have trouble reading defenses and making adjustments. According to Schaub in another thread the QB's weren't allowed to make many adjustments in last yrs offense.

Hervoyel
05-31-2014, 01:03 PM
I'm tired of all these excuses needed for Keenum to be successful. I'm pulling for him to be our starter this year but I'm tired of the fans saying that he needs an OL a RB, etc to succeed. Let's just see what he can do in this new system. He has a chance, now let's see and hope he can overcome the QB battle.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most QB's need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses. That's guy's going to be spectacular. I'm not saying he doesn't exist but Peyton Manning and Dan Marino don't come around very often and even then they don't win it all without some help.

This year he either seizes the opportunity and takes the starting spot on his own, then runs with it or we gotta keep turning over rocks until we find the guy who does.

dream_team
05-31-2014, 01:05 PM
Helps all QBs but when TJ was QB he had a healthy fosters, only starter we have had at QB who hasnt had foster is keenum thus far.


At the same time, TJ didn't have a healthy AJ. Keenum did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hervoyel
05-31-2014, 01:06 PM
With X next to Brown next yr we will find out how bad Wade Smith really was. Brown + X equals being able to convert in the red zone and 3rd and short situations. I'm excited.

All rookie QB's (Which Keenum essentially was) have trouble reading defenses and making adjustments. According to Schaub in another thread the QB's weren't allowed to make many adjustments in last yrs offense.

It's funny now that nobody has to cover for anyone else how things are starting to look. Schaub's in Oakland and he's got no incentive to keep his mouth shut about last season. Case and Yates are here under a new regime and they'll stay polite and not point any fingers but even they sound like they're happy to be playing in a different system and starting over. Gary's in Baltimore and I just keep wondering if Joe Flacco, who's already won a Super Bowl is about to get told to play the position the way Gary tells him to.

Hervoyel
05-31-2014, 01:08 PM
At the same time, TJ didn't have a healthy AJ. Keenum did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True. They are fundamentally different things though. Having Foster means you've got an effective run game which is an alternative to dropping back and throwing the ball. Having AJ means you have another target to throw to but the fear of throwing the ball to AJ isn't going to slow that pass rush down even a bit.

eriadoc
05-31-2014, 01:11 PM
Tate was playing very well prior to the rib injury ....

Well, Keenum came in for the KC game, right? Foster went down early in the KC game? Trying to remember .... what I do remember is that Tate got slammed in the ribs by Dontari Poe in that KC game (first half or right after halftime, IIRC) and played crappy thereafter. Well, crappy being relative. He's a tough dude. So Keenum had a healthy Tate for a couple quarters maybe. And he did very well.

All that said, I'm pretty done with this discussion. Keenum's getting a shot, TJ's getting a shot, Savage is getting a shot ... I'm a happy man. I'm hoping for Keenum, but want the best man to win. I think most Keenum fans fall into that category, actually. We just tend to respond to the haters that insist he's crap, done, etc.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 02:02 PM
With X next to Brown next yr we will find out how bad Wade Smith really was. Brown + X equals being able to convert in the red zone and 3rd and short situations. I'm excited.

All rookie QB's (Which Keenum essentially was) have trouble reading defenses and making adjustments. According to Schaub in another thread the QB's weren't allowed to make many adjustments in last yrs offense.

We've had this conversation a dozen times .... and the key word there is "many"

The QB's were allowed to make adjustments , they were limited in what those adjustments were as there were specific adjustments for each play dependent upon what the defense showed.

Protection schemes were one thing they did have the ability to change at the line. They have to understand where the pressure is coming from and account for it.

Go watch the second half of the KC game and you'll understand what I'm getting at. There were times they rushed only 4 but disguised where those 4 were coming from , overloading from one side or another , dropping guys from the front 7 and bringing a DB.

Those are his responsibilities & Keenum looked lost in those situations.

drs23
05-31-2014, 02:25 PM
Keenum had to start right away last year. And really was trying to learn the offense. But hopefully he will really be better this year. As he gets to know the offense more.

Yeah, the new offence no one has ever seen. At least he's now on equal footing and we'll see if he is what he is or can progress. May the best man win, and will.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 02:30 PM
May the best man win

Bottom line , that's what I want to see. Don't care who it is as long as someone steps up and claims the spot .... none of this winning by default sh!t.

drs23
05-31-2014, 02:31 PM
I don't know what to put on Schaub and the rest of the qb's anymore. Someone showed me some clips from last year of this team and there were certain instances where the team just seemed confused.

Case running back and taking massive losses on those sacks is inexcusable, but on some of those sacks it wasn't about case not recognizing it. Our oline simply didn't pick it up.

I don't think kubiak did a good job making adjustments over any time period and I think those chickens came home to roost last season. Lots of confusion out there. Undisciplined play. I have been down on Schaub for a while as a player, but I've also said some of that could have been due to the offense as well. Schaub was no star talent, but I don't think he was a scrub he looked like last year either.

I'm not sure how any of these qb's will perform or if ultimately on OB will field a more disciplined, finely tuned team but I suspect he will.

I say all this to say that I think case has some talent and if he can mentally grasp this offense, and if OB can do his thing case and the other qb's could really surprise. I think the qb battle is going to good. The one guy I worry about is Yates...from a fit standpoint. But hell...he could surprise me too.

I also heard that the texans were trying to move Yates before the draft as well. Fwiw.

Good post and I agree for the most part. I'm in disagreement with the bolded. It was posted by someone yesterday who heard LS on the radio saying that the Texans actually "turned down a/a few late round draft pick offer(s) for Yates." I didn't bookmark it or anything but it shouldn't be too difficult to substantiate.

drs23
05-31-2014, 02:55 PM
Here is a piece by a Texans writer I very much enjoy and respect. Reading this article in retrospect gives a insightful look into the Keenum case, and for maintaining the case for Keenum.

Case Keenum and The Dumbening of the Texans (http://threeconedrill.com/2013/12/16/case-keenum-and-the-dumbening-of-the-texans/)
Rivers McCown
Posted: December 16, 2013

Thanks for posting that Doc. I really enjoy reading Rivers McCowan's perspective on things Texans. He uses pointed reasoning and writes in a manner that's really easy to follow and understand.

As does our very own TC who has the absolute best response in the remarks following the article. Well thought out, to the point and well presented.

Thanks again.

steelbtexan
05-31-2014, 03:20 PM
We've had this conversation a dozen times .... and the key word there is "many"

The QB's were allowed to make adjustments , they were limited in what those adjustments were as there were specific adjustments for each play dependent upon what the defense showed.

Protection schemes were one thing they did have the ability to change at the line. They have to understand where the pressure is coming from and account for it.

Go watch the second half of the KC game and you'll understand what I'm getting at. There were times they rushed only 4 but disguised where those 4 were coming from , overloading from one side or another , dropping guys from the front 7 and bringing a DB.

Those are his responsibilities & Keenum looked lost in those situations.

Thanks for explaining this.

Keenum looked like a slightly above avg rookie QB. He had the problems most rookie QB's have. (Reading defenses/Protection scheme adjustments) But would you agree that Gary didn't do Keenum any favors with some of the play calling? I mean Keenum seemed to play better when Gary was out/in the press box.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 05:07 PM
Thanks for explaining this.

Keenum looked like a slightly above avg rookie QB. He had the problems most rookie QB's have. (Reading defenses/Protection scheme adjustments) But would you agree that Gary didn't do Keenum any favors with some of the play calling? I mean Keenum seemed to play better when Gary was out/in the press box.

Not at all , Gary did everything possible to put Case is positions he was comfortable / able to succeed.

Lots of roll outs , play action - things that typically put a defense on its heels and buys a QB time / throwing lanes.

Case played like crap the weeks Gary wasn't on the sidelines , especially that first week .... at least that's my view of revisionist history. Hell , the offense in general was increasingly piss poor over the final few weeks of the season.


I'm not saying Case cant become an NFL QB , he does have the physical ability , my questions are more about his ability to process bits of information and make the proper reads .
This was a strength of Schaub's - he was lacking in the physically gifted department , he had just enough ability to be effective and once he regressed a tiny bit physically he went to sh!t.
Schaub did the little things and mental things very well .... his play action fake was one of the best and he identified pressure well.

Each of these QB's on the roster has flaws , for Case its presnap reads , Yates is a lot like a healthy Schaub , just good enough physically that as long as he doesn't make a mistake .... Fitzpatrick seems to make an awful lot of mistakes both pre and post snap , Savage is a total wildcard.


Bottom line , you look at the downfall of Gary's offense and it coincides with the piss poor QB play. They started 2012 11-1 and have gone 3-17 since with virtually the same team. The main difference being they were missing a healthy Schaub - Doc even predicted Schaub's ineffectiveness as time went on.

Texecutioner
05-31-2014, 05:15 PM
Saw all I needed to of Keenum last season to know that he'll never be a top 10 type of QB on a yearly basis.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 05:17 PM
Saw all I needed to of Keenum last season to know that he'll never be a top 10 type of QB on a yearly basis.

Many teams have won Lombardi Trophy's with less than top 10 QB's.


I'm not ready to discount Keenum just yet ... but I do recognize his flaws.

thunderkyss
05-31-2014, 06:46 PM
Keenum's getting a shot, TJ's getting a shot, Savage is getting a shot ... I'm a happy man. I'm hoping for Keenum, but want the best man to win. I think most Keenum fans fall into that category, actually. We just tend to respond to the haters that insist he's crap, done, etc.

QFT

Hervoyel
05-31-2014, 07:02 PM
Keenum's getting a shot, TJ's getting a shot, Savage is getting a shot ... I'm a happy man. I'm hoping for Keenum, but want the best man to win. I think most Keenum fans fall into that category, actually. We just tend to respond to the haters that insist he's crap, done, etc.

QFT

Quoting your QFT again..... for MORE TRUTH!

Texecutioner
05-31-2014, 08:59 PM
Many teams have won Lombardi Trophy's with less than top 10 QB's.


I'm not ready to discount Keenum just yet ... but I do recognize his flaws.

No, that really doesn't happen often. Especially not in today's NFL. Most SB's have at least one elite level QB or at the very least a 10 type of QB. Sure, one below average can be part of that equation, but it's very seldom and very difficult. A QB being the most important position on the field usually holds a team back from reaching their full potential if they're a great team than them succeeding to their full potential.

CloakNNNdagger
05-31-2014, 09:56 PM
We keep on talking about Keenum not correctly calling/recognizing his protection. Over the years, I have read numerous times that Meyers has been mostly responsible for calling protections on the line. At UofH, Keenum set all protections, and read his hot reads with no problems, and seemed to consistently produce more than adequately. He didn't just lose these abilities coming to the Texans. Yes, the NFL is faster. All the more reason to allow a rookie QB to play to his strengths, which if it includes setting his own protections and being able to adjust plays to his strengths, then so be it. Whether he agreed or not, he was dealt the called protections, and restricted besides in what he could do once he was given them....a recipe for certain failure.

Here's an article from 2012 which speaks to protection schemes by various NFL teams, including the Texans. Meyers has been the main guy, with some input by a veteran QB, Schaub.

Who calls the protections, and why? (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/68746/who-calls-the-protections-and-why)

December, 20, 2012
1:43 PM ET
By Paul Kuharsky | ESPN.com

Keenum as a rookie was not about to get veteran status in this system, anymore than he was to be given true free reign to audible into HIS play of comfort.

LikeMike
05-31-2014, 10:09 PM
Arian giving Case a real chance is a moot point. This new team including a healthy Arian Foster gives whoever is our QB a real chance. There will be a competition in camp, there will be preseason and then OB will choose the QB that will best help him win. If that`s Case, great. But having Arian back doesn`t really change anything as to his chances.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 10:13 PM
We keep on talking about Keenum not correctly calling/recognizing his protection. Over the years, I have read numerous times that Meyers has been mostly responsible for calling protections on the line. At UofH, Keenum set all protections, and read his hot reads with no problems, and seemed to consistently produce more than adequately. He didn't just lose these abilities coming to the Texans. Yes, the NFL is faster. All the more reason to allow a rookie QB to play to his strengths, which if it includes setting his own protections and being able to adjust plays to his strengths, then so be it. Whether he agreed or not, he was dealt the called protections, and restricted besides in what he could do once he was given them....a recipe for certain failure.

Here's an article from 2012 which speaks to protection schemes by various NFL teams, including the Texans. Meyers has been the main guy, with some input by a veteran QB, Schaub.



Keenum as a rookie was not about to get veteran status in this system, anymore than he was to be given true free reign to audible into HIS play of comfort.

Doc , you can dispute what I've said about Keenum if you like .... but you know that my information comes from a guy who's been a part of the NFL since 1983.


I hope he's successful .... its entirely possible Keenum wakes up tomorrow understanding presnap reads ..... But I don't expect it.

CloakNNNdagger
05-31-2014, 10:21 PM
Doc , you can dispute what I've said about Keenum if you like .... but you know that my information comes from a guy who's been a part of the NFL since 1983.


I hope he's successful .... its entirely possible Keenum wakes up tomorrow understanding presnap reads ..... But I don't expect it.

And I respect that. The point is that I don't believe the system served him well. If things don't change for him with another system, I will be right there with you proclaiming that Keenum has short-comings that he cannot overcome.

Corrosion
05-31-2014, 10:25 PM
And I respect that. The point is that I don't believe the system served him well. If things don't change for him with another system, I will be right there with you proclaiming that Keenum has short-comings that he cannot overcome.

The system ( play action & roll outs) was tailor made for Keenum .... His issues (presnap reads) had nothing to do with the system and everything to do with processing information.


We'll see in a few weeks ....

badboy
05-31-2014, 10:27 PM
We keep on talking about Keenum not correctly calling/recognizing his protection. Over the years, I have read numerous times that Meyers has been mostly responsible for calling protections on the line. At UofH, Keenum set all protections, and read his hot reads with no problems, and seemed to consistently produce more than adequately. He didn't just lose these abilities coming to the Texans. Yes, the NFL is faster. All the more reason to allow a rookie QB to play to his strengths, which if it includes setting his own protections and being able to adjust plays to his strengths, then so be it. Whether he agreed or not, he was dealt the called protections, and restricted besides in what he could do once he was given them....a recipe for certain failure.

Here's an article from 2012 which speaks to protection schemes by various NFL teams, including the Texans. Meyers has been the main guy, with some input by a veteran QB, Schaub.



Keenum as a rookie was not about to get veteran status in this system, anymore than he was to be given true free reign to audible into HIS play of comfort.Exactly and if the QB is allowed to do his thing as we keep hearing, well Case should do well IF the rest of offense plays up to talent level. Let's just wait and see. What happened last season hopefully in the past. New blood at new positions should make for some good ball.

thunderkyss
05-31-2014, 11:31 PM
Keenum as a rookie was not about to get veteran status in this system, anymore than he was to be given true free reign to audible into HIS play of comfort.

As a true rookie coming into this same system, RG3 didn't seem to have a problem.

I want Case to succeed. I'm just not down with the whole, the system/team wasn't worth a crap around him so he didn't look so good.

When the play/protection broke down, Case made decisions that I'd rather he not made. & when teams figured out how to rattle him, they could implement it again & again and Case never figured it out.


He's getting another chance. Whether he deserves it or not. I'm hoping Case & Godsey & OB click & Case can lead us to an 8-8 season if not a winning season in 2014... But if you look at rookie QBs who averaged 10 yards per sack, most of them have not turned out too well.

But I'm rooting for him.

HouTx11
05-31-2014, 11:40 PM
I am glad that there will be a QB battle for starter.

I am rooting for Keenum, but the guy who wins the QB battle should get the starting job.

I thought that Keenum did pretty well in his games all things considered. Some aspects of the game he can control, and some he can't.

Definitely can't blame the losses solely on Keenum. A better secondary effort and less dropped passes by the WRs (AJ included) and the Texans beat the Patriots.

legacy_gt
06-01-2014, 12:05 AM
The system ( play action & roll outs) was tailor made for Keenum .... His issues (presnap reads) had nothing to do with the system and everything to do with processing information.


We'll see in a few weeks ....

it wasn't tailored for keenum. it was made for schaub and keenum came in.

thunderkyss
06-01-2014, 12:08 AM
it wasn't tailored for keenum. it was made for schaub and keenum came in.

I think he meant more like "it was right up his alley"

Texecutioner
06-01-2014, 12:11 AM
And I respect that. The point is that I don't believe the system served him well. If things don't change for him with another system, I will be right there with you proclaiming that Keenum has short-comings that he cannot overcome.

I think the system favored Keenum's skills very nicely. The rollouts from the the play action and they had a ton of plays designed to get the QB in space. Keenum's mobility was pretty good. He throws well on the run. I think Kubiak's offense set Keenum up very well from a skill set standpoint. Keenum just didn't get better at picking up schemes and how to avoid a lot of traps that defenses would splash on him especially in the 2nd halves. He struggled immensely to adjust. Now I know a lot of that had to do with Kubiak and his refusal to allow audibles or any real creativity from the QB to get out of a bad play call, but Keenum seemed to regress as the season went on. A lot of rookies do. I don't think that Kubiak's system was any type of major factor in that result though.

steelbtexan
06-01-2014, 03:03 AM
The system ( play action & roll outs) was tailor made for Keenum .... His issues (presnap reads) had nothing to do with the system and everything to do with processing information.


We'll see in a few weeks ....


Compared to other rookie QB's how do you think Keenum performed?

Nitrofish
06-01-2014, 04:13 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most QB's need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses. That's guy's going to be spectacular. I'm not saying he doesn't exist but Peyton Manning and Dan Marino don't come around very often and even then they don't win it all without some help.

This year he either seizes the opportunity and takes the starting spot on his own, then runs with it or we gotta keep turning over rocks until we find the guy who does.

See 2009 Matt Schaub

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2009.htm

rmartin65
06-01-2014, 08:11 AM
What I am learning from the recent outbreak of Keenum threads is that he cannot be judged (unless it is in a good way, of course) until he is surrounded by elite talent, and in a system designed specifically for him.

Good deal.

EllisUnit
06-01-2014, 09:22 AM
I think the system favored Keenum's skills very nicely. The rollouts from the the play action and they had a ton of plays designed to get the QB in space. Keenum's mobility was pretty good. He throws well on the run. I think Kubiak's offense set Keenum up very well from a skill set standpoint. Keenum just didn't get better at picking up schemes and how to avoid a lot of traps that defenses would splash on him especially in the 2nd halves. He struggled immensely to adjust. Now I know a lot of that had to do with Kubiak and his refusal to allow audibles or any real creativity from the QB to get out of a bad play call, but Keenum seemed to regress as the season went on. A lot of rookies do. I don't think that Kubiak's system was any type of major factor in that result though.

To me it seemed that when Keenum was in there that bootlegs, play action and roll outs virtually disappeared. I remember the game Keenum was pulled the play calling was really pissing me off, it was always generic 3 step drops no play action or roll outs. Well that was one of the games Keenum was pulled and Schaub went in, and i'll be damn if the play calling didn't get a whole lot better/more creative for Schaub.

infantrycak
06-01-2014, 11:05 AM
To me it seemed that when Keenum was in there that bootlegs, play action and roll outs virtually disappeared. I remember the game Keenum was pulled the play calling was really pissing me off, it was always generic 3 step drops no play action or roll outs. Well that was one of the games Keenum was pulled and Schaub went in, and i'll be damn if the play calling didn't get a whole lot better/more creative for Schaub.

I did not see that kind of play calling change. But that is also exactly the kind of thing the system did allow the QB to change at the line - check out of a bootleg to another pass play out of the same formation.

From a logic standpoint it makes absolutely zero sense. Kubiak knew damn well he was fighting for his job. The ONLY way he takes plays off the table with Keenum in the game is if Keenum has been absolutely miserable at them in practice. Sabotaging Keenum doesn't fly unless you believe Kubiak didn't give a flying f'k through a rolling donut about his job and there isn't a single thing that doesn't point strongly in the opposite direction.

EllisUnit
06-01-2014, 11:35 AM
I did not see that kind of play calling change. But that is also exactly the kind of thing the system did allow the QB to change at the line - check out of a bootleg to another pass play out of the same formation.

From a logic standpoint it makes absolutely zero sense. Kubiak knew damn well he was fighting for his job. The ONLY way he takes plays off the table with Keenum in the game is if Keenum has been absolutely miserable at them in practice. Sabotaging Keenum doesn't fly unless you believe Kubiak didn't give a flying f'k through a rolling donut about his job and there isn't a single thing that doesn't point strongly in the opposite direction.

Not saying he was trying to make keenum fail, i think more along the lines he was pressured by Mcnair to have Keenum start and he did not fully trust keenum. Which is odd to me because the bootleg IMO suits keenum perfect.

Texecutioner
06-01-2014, 11:40 AM
To me it seemed that when Keenum was in there that bootlegs, play action and roll outs virtually disappeared. I remember the game Keenum was pulled the play calling was really pissing me off, it was always generic 3 step drops no play action or roll outs. Well that was one of the games Keenum was pulled and Schaub went in, and i'll be damn if the play calling didn't get a whole lot better/more creative for Schaub.

I didn't see what you are saying you noticed. I saw the bootlegs being called and I saw Keenum rolling out quite regularly. I also saw him fixating on certain receivers with his eyes, I saw him having a hard time figuring out what to do with the ball.

EllisUnit
06-01-2014, 11:43 AM
I didn't see what you are saying you noticed. I saw the bootlegs being called and I saw Keenum rolling out quite regularly. I also saw him fixating on certain receivers with his eyes, I saw him having a hard time figuring out what to do with the ball.

I blame some of the play calling on us not having a legit run game at the time. Schaub was way more experienced and as we all know could read the blitz a lot better.

Anyways like i said i am pulling for Savage personally. I would be happy if Savage or Keenum win the job honestly.

Corrosion
06-01-2014, 11:46 AM
Not saying he was trying to make keenum fail, i think more along the lines he was pressured by Mcnair to have Keenum start and he did not fully trust keenum. Which is odd to me because the bootleg IMO suits keenum perfect.

The main differences in the offense with Schaub Vs Keenum was one being under center , the other always being in the pistol / shotgun.

Schaub didn't suffer the same kind of pressure Keenum did because he was able to recognize pressure situations and check to the proper protections.


Schaub just couldn't throw the ball worth a sh!t anymore .... had you put Schaub's mental game with Keenum's physical traits , you'd have a damn good QB .... but the reality is Gary had two halves and no whole.

76Texan
06-01-2014, 11:52 AM
What I am learning from the recent outbreak of Keenum threads is that he cannot be judged (unless it is in a good way, of course) until he is surrounded by elite talent, and in a system designed specifically for him.

Good deal.

I don't know about others; I can only speak for myself.
I always evaluate a players noting the condition around him.
The guys he plays with and the guy he plays against.
That is call "noting the level of competition".

When I evaluate Keenum in college, for example, I specified those things clearly in the thread that I posted. The same goes for any other QB or any player for that matter.

Uncle Rico
06-01-2014, 12:03 PM
Foster isn't a quirky 'feel good story' anymore. He's been linked to some raunchy stuff, his body is failing, and I'm hoping Andre Brown can challenge him for reps.

76Texan
06-01-2014, 12:06 PM
I didn't see what you are saying you noticed. I saw the bootlegs being called and I saw Keenum rolling out quite regularly. I also saw him fixating on certain receivers with his eyes, I saw him having a hard time figuring out what to do with the ball.

Yes and no.

Like CNND had pointed out, a guy doesn't lose what he already possessed except for cirscumstances like medical/health.

Having a concussion or two can change the mental state of a guy; that is true.

When evaluate Keenum's play in college, I noted that he regularly looks off safeties, eye one way pass another.

The thing is that the QB shouldn't do that all the time, IMO.
If you keep looking one way and pass to another target, the D can key on that.
I think you have to mix it up.

On quick pass, often QB usually just go straight to the target (but not always.)

The mental capacity of Keenum can be seen in a play like the one he made it looks like he was trying to line up guys quickly so he can spike the ball, but instead, he fired a pass to AJ in the end zone for a TD.

That is the kind of quick wit that Keenum already displayed in college.

For example, when he saw a mismatch, he calls for the ball quickly and get the pass off.

He had beaten blitzes many a time before.

He had done all these things with regularity in college, it does not make sense that he lost it all of a sudden.

On the other hand, I do agree with Wade Phillips on the point that seeing and recognizing is one thing, finding the right target in a split of a second at the NFL is harder.
He still needs to keep working on those things.

And to corrosion, I don't get where he comes from with Keenum always in the shotgun.
That is just not true.
Look at the TDS he threw last year.
That's the quickest way to verify that.

76Texan
06-01-2014, 12:14 PM
We've had this conversation a dozen times .... and the key word there is "many"

The QB's were allowed to make adjustments , they were limited in what those adjustments were as there were specific adjustments for each play dependent upon what the defense showed.

Protection schemes were one thing they did have the ability to change at the line. They have to understand where the pressure is coming from and account for it.

Go watch the second half of the KC game and you'll understand what I'm getting at. There were times they rushed only 4 but disguised where those 4 were coming from , overloading from one side or another , dropping guys from the front 7 and bringing a DB.

Those are his responsibilities & Keenum looked lost in those situations.
So you are going to make a decision on the way a guy play in hist first game against one of the top defenses in the league in a hostile environment?

I'm sure you want a great QB, but whoever the guy that can satisfy your want there is going to be an HOF right off the bat.

I think you're being too harsh.

I would be noting those things and check on his improvement to see whether the progress is there.

He had reduced the number of sacks taken after that game, whether it was on him or on the pass pro, or something else.

I call that progress.

Number19
06-01-2014, 12:19 PM
To me it seemed that when Keenum was in there that bootlegs, play action and roll outs virtually disappeared. I remember the game Keenum was pulled the play calling was really pissing me off, it was always generic 3 step drops no play action or roll outs. Well that was one of the games Keenum was pulled and Schaub went in, and i'll be damn if the play calling didn't get a whole lot better/more creative for Schaub.I do remember this happening and also being a bit frustrated. Whether this was a result of Kubiak or Schaub, I have no idea. I didn't record the games last year so I can't go back to find what I remember, but I did comment on this about 3 months or so ago. My comment was refuted then as well as this current comment. But it is good to see someone else had the same impressions at the time.

Texecutioner
06-01-2014, 12:27 PM
So you are going to make a decision on the way a guy play in hist first game against one of the top defenses in the league in a hostile environment?

I'm sure you want a great QB, but whoever the guy that can satisfy your want there is going to be an HOF right off the bat.

I think you're being too harsh.

I would be noting those things and check on his improvement to see whether the progress is there.

He had reduced the number of sacks taken after that game, whether it was on him or on the pass pro, or something else.

I call that progress.

The reality of all of this is that you're referring to a 3rd string QB that NO ONE in the league cares about other than some Houston fans that don't want to let go of the UH days. NO ONE around the league saw any major potential in Keenum by the end of the season that didn't exist from a Houston fan base. Keenum was never drafted for a reason. He was a 3rd string for a reason. He didn't play that well last season for a reason. I don't see any teams trying to trade for him as if he was some hot commodity that just played on a bad team. I suppose that is for those same reasons as well.

I'm not completely writing him off and I won't be shocked if he were to win the starting job, but I doubt it will happen. I was one of the guys that was completely on board with putting him out there last season. He looked to have the best potential of all the guys we had on the roster. He disappointed though and couldn't even squeak out one win in several close losses. In the grand scheme of things, this is just a bunch of Houston fans hoping that they're baby from UH will turn into a special story. There is very little chance of that happening at this point though.

76Texan
06-01-2014, 04:32 PM
Saw all I needed to of Keenum last season to know that he'll never be a top 10 type of QB on a yearly basis.

The reality of all of this is that you're referring to a 3rd string QB that NO ONE in the league cares about other than some Houston fans that don't want to let go of the UH days. NO ONE around the league saw any major potential in Keenum by the end of the season that didn't exist from a Houston fan base. Keenum was never drafted for a reason. He was a 3rd string for a reason. He didn't play that well last season for a reason. I don't see any teams trying to trade for him as if he was some hot commodity that just played on a bad team. I suppose that is for those same reasons as well.

I'm not completely writing him off and I won't be shocked if he were to win the starting job, but I doubt it will happen. I was one of the guys that was completely on board with putting him out there last season. He looked to have the best potential of all the guys we had on the roster. He disappointed though and couldn't even squeak out one win in several close losses. In the grand scheme of things, this is just a bunch of Houston fans hoping that they're baby from UH will turn into a special story. There is very little chance of that happening at this point though.

Oh I agree.
I agree from the moment the Texans signed him as an UDFA.

It's a good thing that you think he might cracked the top ten at least one year in his career.

Sure, there were reasons why he went undrafted.
And those reasons have been brought up many times.

What goes on between his ears was not one of those reasons though.
In fact, it is the main reason why some, like me, think that he has a chance in the NFL.

If he didn't have that, I would never ever want him on my team.
I mean, the guy is short.
He isn't as quick as Wilson.
His arm isn't as strong as Wilson.
He was hurt once and was given a medical red shirt.

Why would I bother with a QB that is lacking in physical measurables?

I mean Kevin Kolb went to UH.
He has the physique and the arm.
I did not want him for my NFL team.
Sorry Kolb and Ware.

I prefer a Montana type of QB.
That guy was about an inch taller than Keenum (at most) without the bulk.
And Keenum was known as a dual QB in highschool and early in college.

I watched Montana beat the UH Cougars in the Cotton Bowl and he became the gold standard for me.

There have been quite a few great QBs since then.
The reason I mention Montana is because he only showed just above average arm strength at the combine.

I can't post the link, but it's an article referred to by Wikipedia.

I think Keenum is quite as smart at about the same age.
However, the other two guys (Montana and Brees) continue to learn to adapt their game to the next level.

Obviously, Montana was in a good situation with.Bill Walsh and Brees with Payton.

But they also had to take their game to the next level.

I honestly don't know if Keenum can or not.
Who can predict how far a guy can grow.

There are plenty of UDFA QBs who surpassed the level of expectation for them.
From Warner to Flutie.

Obviously a short guy will have to play really really smart.

If you tell me the Texans can be in a position to draft a guy with a combination of smart and measurables, I would be all over it.

I wanted Wilson; he didn't go to UH.
In fact, I said I prefer Wilson over Keenum.
If the Texans had taken Wilson, I would have not mind at all if they didn't even sign Keenum as an UDFA even though I think it's a colossal mistake not taking a look at him as an UDFA.
No risk; all reward.
At least, you get a solid backup QB for peanuts.
If he gets hurt, you didn't waste any draft pick.

Hervoyel
06-01-2014, 04:40 PM
See 2009 Matt Schaub

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2009.htm

That's the guy you're going to hang your hat on for this? 2009 Matt Schaub of the 9-7, barely-won-more-than-they-lost 2009 Houston Texans?

Did you look at who they beat? Aside from a disinterested New England team with jack **** to play for they beat one team with a winning record.

My point stands even if we allow the fairly pathetic 2009 Texans into the argument. Damn few QB's in the history of the NFL ever did much of anything without a running game and some protection. They're kind of important. Even 2009 Schaub had a running game for two of his "epic" 9 wins that year. Arian Foster averaged over 100 yards a game in those last two wins.

76Texan
06-01-2014, 04:48 PM
Each year is different.
It just so happens that there wasn't any QB that I think is the type of franchise QB I hope for at 1.1

If Mariota had come out, I would be cheering for the Texans to draft him.
Forget about Fitz.
Save that money to sign another FA at a position of need; a situational pass rusher for example, or an ILB.
Use the fourth round for Savage and see if you can package it with some of the late round picks or a future pick to grab a RT.

You have Mariota, Keenum, and Yates at QB.

Let them compete for the job.

You would have a better Oline to protect them regardless who wins the job.

Also, obviously, in this scenario, Keenum is most definitely highly unlikely in the plan for the Texans future.
The Texans would definitely spend all their resources to help Mariota become a franchise QB, and I would not have any problem with it.

Hervoyel
06-01-2014, 05:06 PM
What I am learning from the recent outbreak of Keenum threads is that he cannot be judged (unless it is in a good way, of course) until he is surrounded by elite talent, and in a system designed specifically for him.

Good deal.

I don't agree with that. He's got faults and he's made mistakes. The real question is can he be judged "ultimately" at this point? I'm not convinced that he can be.

I think we're very, very close to being able to do so.

If he doesn't step up and perform right now, in this system and with all the work to prepare him to be the starter than anyone could ask for then you have to move on. He got a chance to start in 2013. I think everyone will agree that he wasn't expected to start in 2013 and that he really wasn't ready. He came in and enjoyed a brief period of success on adrenaline and a general lack of film existing on him. Once defenses got a look at him they solved him pretty quickly.

I think OB will be the judge of whether or not Keenum is done. He'll see whether or not Keenum learned anything in his time starting. I'm satisfied with whatever decision OB makes. Whoever he picks I expect the entire fanbase to get behind.

I also think that no matter who he picks it's just as likely that we aren't looking at the long-term starter and that's fine. If Case starts for us, does well in 2014 but OB thinks he needs to upgrade the position anyway then so be it.

76Texan
06-01-2014, 05:57 PM
Another thing I want to mention, which I had mentioned before, that is Belichik never neglected the offensive line.

Whether guys were drafted or brought in, he always had good depth there.
Their current Oline has two first rounders and a second rounder in the foil.

Before that he had Matt Light in the second and a multiple probowlers in Brian Waters to help the transition.

Before that he had Nick Kaczur in the third round at RT and so on and so forth.

That guy never neglected the trench.

Insideop
06-01-2014, 06:05 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most QB's need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses. That's guy's going to be spectacular. I'm not saying he doesn't exist but Peyton Manning and Dan Marino don't come around very often and even then they don't win it all without some help.

This year he either seizes the opportunity and takes the starting spot on his own, then runs with it or we gotta keep turning over rocks until we find the guy who does.

Unfortunately for the Texans, you don't have to look any further than Indianapolis for that QB! Our only hope is that they keep making trades for players like Trent Richardson and giving away their #1 picks.

steelbtexan
06-01-2014, 06:35 PM
That's the guy you're going to hang your hat on for this? 2009 Matt Schaub of the 9-7, barely-won-more-than-they-lost 2009 Houston Texans?

Did you look at who they beat? Aside from a disinterested New England team with jack **** to play for they beat one team with a winning record.

My point stands even if we allow the fairly pathetic 2009 Texans into the argument. Damn few QB's in the history of the NFL ever did much of anything without a running game and some protection. They're kind of important. Even 2009 Schaub had a running game for two of his "epic" 9 wins that year. Arian Foster averaged over 100 yards a game in those last two wins.

Yep, That was the yr I realized Kubiak wasn't the man for the job. Schedule of cupcakes and the best he could do was 9-7. Then it was followed by acting as if the organization had really accomplished something and during the offseason Kubiak decided to have an elective surgery during the combine. This screamed of an organization resting on its laurels. The 6-10 2010 season followed and that still wasn't enough to hold people responsible. Finally when the team that was built on a house of cards had a few unlucky breaks and the Texans org became the laughingstock of the NFL McNair saw the light and atleast changed HC's. Hopefully if the same thing happens under the BOB/Smith regime McNair wont be as patient.

EllisUnit
06-01-2014, 06:40 PM
Unfortunately for the Texans, you don't have to look any further than Indianapolis for that QB! Our only hope is that they keep making trades for players like Trent Richardson and giving away their #1 picks.

The Colts 1743 rush yards and 15 TDs they averaged 108 yards per game
The Texans 1743 rush yards and 7 TDs we averaged 108 yards per game

The Colts were sacked 32 times
The Texans were sacked 42 times

So really Luck had the advantage as far as stats go.

thunderkyss
06-01-2014, 06:54 PM
I didn't see what you are saying you noticed. I saw the bootlegs being called and I saw Keenum rolling out quite regularly. I also saw him fixating on certain receivers with his eyes, I saw him having a hard time figuring out what to do with the ball.

There were a couple of situational things as well. Twice I can remember he took a snap in the endzone & took his time surveying the field. One time, he tried to scramble & "make something happen"

I'm screaming at the TV, "You're in the f'ckn endzone you moron."

Or the third & longs.... Hello.... the defense is coming to get you. But he had no clue.


I don't like Andrew Luck, I just don't think he's the guy that everybody thinks he is. But that sumbtch understands the game enough to recognize what's going on & when he should get it out quick, give a hard count, pump fake...




/sigh.....

thunderkyss
06-01-2014, 06:55 PM
Anyways like i said i am pulling for Savage personally. I would be happy if Savage or Keenum win the job honestly.

If Tj or Fitz were better, why wouldn't you be happy?

thunderkyss
06-01-2014, 07:53 PM
The Colts 1743 rush yards and 15 TDs they averaged 108 yards per game
The Texans 1743 rush yards and 7 TDs we averaged 108 yards per game

The Colts were sacked 32 times
The Texans were sacked 42 times

So really Luck had the advantage as far as stats go.

Wow... didn't realize it was that close.

Passing, they completed 60% of their passes for 3,725 yards (6.8 ypa) 23 TDs, 10 Ints, passer rating of 86.5

We completed 59% of our passes, for 3,813 yards (6.6 ypa) 19 TDs 22 Ints, passer rating of 74

Heck, we can be 11-5 next year.

Corrosion
06-01-2014, 10:21 PM
Wow... didn't realize it was that close.

Passing, they completed 60% of their passes for 3,725 yards (6.8 ypa) 23 TDs, 10 Ints, passer rating of 86.5

We completed 59% of our passes, for 3,813 yards (6.6 ypa) 19 TDs 22 Ints, passer rating of 74

Heck, we can be 11-5 next year.

The Texans biggest problems were turnovers , negative plays and the lack of turnovers they forced .... They made more and forced less mistakes than the opponents.

ObsiWan
06-01-2014, 10:31 PM
The Colts 1743 rush yards and 15 TDs they averaged 108 yards per game
The Texans 1743 rush yards and 7 TDs we averaged 108 yards per game

The Colts were sacked 32 times
The Texans were sacked 42 times

So really Luck had the advantage as far as stats go.

Wow... didn't realize it was that close.

Passing, they completed 60% of their passes for 3,725 yards (6.8 ypa) 23 TDs, 10 Ints, passer rating of 86.5

We completed 59% of our passes, for 3,813 yards (6.6 ypa) 19 TDs 22 Ints, passer rating of 74

Heck, we can be 11-5 next year.
The important number among those stats is TDs (I know, "duuh" right?)
Foster alone had at least 15 TD in two of his past three full seasons.
2010 - 16 rushing / 2 receiving (2220 yds from scrimmage)
2011 - 10 rushing / 2 receiving (1841 yds from scrimmage)
2012 - 15 rushing / 2 receiving (1641 Yds from scrimmage)

Maybe having a healthy Foster all of last year would have given the whole team a "real chance".

thunderkyss
06-01-2014, 10:36 PM
Maybe having a healthy Foster all of last year would have given the whole team a "real chance".

Nah... there was a serious lack of givafuk even with Arian in the game.

silvrhand
06-01-2014, 11:09 PM
Arian should focus on taking the handoff and finding the hole and do his part, not get involved in the QB role. I'd love to see Arian react if Ryan Fitzpatrick said that Ben Tate gave us a better chance to win.

ObsiWan
06-02-2014, 12:09 AM
Arian should focus on taking the handoff and finding the hole and do his part, not get involved in the QB role. I'd love to see Arian react if Ryan Fitzpatrick said that Ben Tate gave us a better chance to win.
Wait... what!?
:mcnugget:

Nitrofish
06-02-2014, 03:31 AM
That's the guy you're going to hang your hat on for this? 2009 Matt Schaub of the 9-7, barely-won-more-than-they-lost 2009 Houston Texans?

Did you look at who they beat? Aside from a disinterested New England team with jack **** to play for they beat one team with a winning record.

My point stands even if we allow the fairly pathetic 2009 Texans into the argument. Damn few QB's in the history of the NFL ever did much of anything without a running game and some protection. They're kind of important. Even 2009 Schaub had a running game for two of his "epic" 9 wins that year. Arian Foster averaged over 100 yards a game in those last two wins.

Sure, you asked for an example, I gave you one. You then proceeded to move the goal post in your response.

So if the Texans benefit from a soft schedule, and by some miracle, make and/or win the AFCCG, or the SB, will you then say, "Yeah, but"? Will the city of Houston refuse throw a ticker tape parade if the Texans win the Super Bowl because of record or schedule?

The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of examples out there of QB's who won despite not having a running game or a defense which is exactly what Schaub did in 2009. Barely or not, he won more than he lost, and he did it with no running game and no defense.

steelbtexan
06-02-2014, 09:17 AM
Sure, you asked for an example, I gave you one. You then proceeded to move the goal post in your response.

So if the Texans benefit from a soft schedule, and by some miracle, make and/or win the AFCCG, or the SB, will you then say, "Yeah, but"? Will the city of Houston refuse throw a ticker tape parade if the Texans win the Super Bowl because of record or schedule?

The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of examples out there of QB's who won despite not having a running game or a defense which is exactly what Schaub did in 2009. Barely or not, he won more than he lost, and he did it with no running game and no defense.

True

And because Kubiak refused to play Foster (He was teaching him some kind of lesson. SMH) until the last 2 games of the season, after they lost control of their destiny. Kubiak's hardheadedness cost the team a chance at its 1st playoff appearance. But I'm sure Foster learned something. LOL

2009 Schaub was good enough to win a SB. IMHO

Insideop
06-02-2014, 10:45 AM
The Colts 1743 rush yards and 15 TDs they averaged 108 yards per game
The Texans 1743 rush yards and 7 TDs we averaged 108 yards per game

The Colts were sacked 32 times
The Texans were sacked 42 times

So really Luck had the advantage as far as stats go.

Take Luck away from the Colts and put Schaub/Keenum in there and they would be 2-14. Put Luck on the Texans last season and we may have won 12 or more games. Agree?

Hervoyel
06-02-2014, 11:01 AM
Sure, you asked for an example, I gave you one. You then proceeded to move the goal post in your response.

So if the Texans benefit from a soft schedule, and by some miracle, make and/or win the AFCCG, or the SB, will you then say, "Yeah, but"? Will the city of Houston refuse throw a ticker tape parade if the Texans win the Super Bowl because of record or schedule?

The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of examples out there of QB's who won despite not having a running game or a defense which is exactly what Schaub did in 2009. Barely or not, he won more than he lost, and he did it with no running game and no defense.

So it's going to be like that then is it. Ok well then in 2009 Schaub had a running game for his last two wins. That means Matt Schaub was a .500 QB in 2009 and did not win more than he lost in the scenario as discussed (without a RB and/or without protection from his OL).

Happy? Your example is now 7-7 without a RB and/or protection. Impressive.

I gave two examples (Manning and Marino) of QB's who won consistently without having either of those two things in place on a regular basis. The fact remains that there are not "plenty of examples" of QB's being successful for long careers while playing in a talent vacuum.

Nobody said anything about not having a defense. Plenty of QB's have won without a defense. At least until the playoffs came around.

EllisUnit
06-02-2014, 11:34 AM
Take Luck away from the Colts and put Schaub/Keenum in there and they would be 2-14. Put Luck on the Texans last season and we may have won 12 or more games. Agree?

No i dont think so, the texans had so many more problems than just QB last season. From Foster and tate both getting hurt, to the defense not helping them at all. If we had luck i still see us only winning 5-6 games at most.

Corrosion
06-02-2014, 11:47 AM
True

And because Kubiak refused to play Foster (He was teaching him some kind of lesson. SMH) until the last 2 games of the season, after they lost control of their destiny. Kubiak's hardheadedness cost the team a chance at its 1st playoff appearance. But I'm sure Foster learned something. LOL

2009 Schaub was good enough to win a SB. IMHO

People b!tch and complain when coaches don't hold people accountable , when they do fans use revisionist history and hold it against them ....

31 Coaches are in a no win situation every year. The other one wins the ultimate prize.

I wonder how long this honeymoon with O'Brien lasts. My bet is on the middle of next season - Unless they all the sudden find a winner at QB , then it'll be a bit longer.

ObsiWan
06-02-2014, 11:48 AM
Take Luck away from the Colts and put Schaub/Keenum in there and they would be 2-14. Put Luck on the Texans last season and we may have won 12 or more games. Agree?
No.
You're still missing eight, count 'em, EIGHT TDs.
Give me those eight TDs and let me put them where they'd have the most favorable impact and we win 7-8 more games. Now we're 9-7 or 10-6.

Of course some of you won't like that outcome because it means Kubiak, Wade, Schaub, et. al. are likely still here and we don't get the 1-1 pick.
:fingergun:

EllisUnit
06-02-2014, 12:04 PM
No.
You're still missing eight, count 'em, EIGHT TDs.
Give me those eight TDs and let me put them where they'd have the most favorable impact and we win 7-8 more games. Now we're 9-7 or 10-6.

Of course some of you won't like that outcome because it means Kubiak, Wade, Schaub, et. al. are likely still here and we don't get the 1-1 pick.
:fingergun:

Yeah that would really help considering how many games we lost by 3-7 points.

Arky
06-02-2014, 12:30 PM
Ya, there was a definite lack of playmaking/playmakers last year. With Kube's let's-just-keep-it-close tactics late in the game, I kept waiting for someone (anyone) to step up and make a play.

But there was no tipped pass that led to an INT. No crushing sack that reversed field position. No fumble recoveries or INT's when it was really needed. A lot of people like to point to the QB and say, "YOU make the play". Unfortunately, Schaub was the anti-playmaker. Keenum, eh....idonno:

Seems like guys like Flacco get help when they need it. Not so for the Texan QB's last year....

Corrosion
06-02-2014, 12:58 PM
Ya, there was a definite lack of playmaking/playmakers last year. With Kube's let's-just-keep-it-close tactics late in the game, I kept waiting for someone (anyone) to step up and make a play.

But there was no tipped pass that led to an INT. No crushing sack that reversed field position. No fumble recoveries or INT's when it was really needed. A lot of people like to point to the QB and say, "YOU make the play". Unfortunately, Schaub was the anti-playmaker. Keenum, eh....idonno:

Seems like guys like Flacco get help when they need it. Not so for the Texan QB's last year....

Fewest turnovers forced since the NFL/AFL merger (11).

Combine that with allowing the 2nd most points off of turnovers in the NFL.

No , the QB's didn't get any help , and Schaub sure didn't help himself with that string of pick 6's. Keenum didn't shoot himself in the foot to the extent Schaub did (hell , Schaub chewed his leg off) but he did have his share of negative plays.

I wouldn't object to Keenum getting another chance to prove himself , pending he beats out Yates , Fitzpatrick & Savage .... But to earn that job , he's got to show he drastically improved in the mental aspect of the game. He can sling it around .... but can he do the little things ?! That's yet to be seen.

Arky
06-02-2014, 01:23 PM
I think they have to go with 3 QB's this year.... Should Fitz (and I'm assuming it's his job to lose) have an injury, having just a rookie for backup could be dicey. And then they'd have to scramble to bring in someone else..

I'm for whoever OB wants to go with.... At this point in time, it seems he knows what he wants out of a QB....

Nitrofish
06-02-2014, 02:31 PM
So it's going to be like that then is it. Ok well then in 2009 Schaub had a running game for his last two wins. That means Matt Schaub was a .500 QB in 2009 and did not win more than he lost in the scenario as discussed (without a RB and/or without protection from his OL).

Happy? Your example is now 7-7 without a RB and/or protection. Impressive.

I gave two examples (Manning and Marino) of QB's who won consistently without having either of those two things in place on a regular basis. The fact remains that there are not "plenty of examples" of QB's being successful for long careers while playing in a talent vacuum.

Nobody said anything about not having a defense. Plenty of QB's have won without a defense. At least until the playoffs came around.

Don't get mad at me Herv because you did not pose your question properly. Now you are tacking on additional things so that things fit your narrative, and I don't think that's right. But some will go to great lengths to keep from giving Schaub credit for anything.

Hervoyel
06-02-2014, 03:01 PM
Don't get mad at me Herv because you did not pose your question properly. Now you are tacking on additional things so that things fit your narrative, and I don't think that's right. But some will go to great lengths to keep from giving Schaub credit for anything.

What makes you think I'm mad? I've said it before and I'll say it again here. I'm smiling almost the entire time I'm on this site and this thread is no different.

I haven't tacked anything on. I don't have any idea where you are getting that. In the original post I made that you responded to I stated the following

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most QB's need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses. That's guy's going to be spectacular. I'm not saying he doesn't exist but Peyton Manning and Dan Marino don't come around very often and even then they don't win it all without some help.

This year he either seizes the opportunity and takes the starting spot on his own, then runs with it or we gotta keep turning over rocks until we find the guy who does.

Note that I said "Most QB's" and that I stated that they needed an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. Admittedly just saying "really be successful" is a vague measure of success. If that's where our mix up is then OK. To clarify I said "really be successful" and by that I meant "Have consistent success without the presence of either of those resources being available (a serviceable RB and OL).

Forget completely about the soft schedule I mentioned. It's still there but disregard it and look at Matt Schaub's 2009 season. 7-7 when he didn't have a decent RB behind him. That's pretty much the argument in a nutshell but if we're going to be sticklers for what I originally said then how was his pass protection that year? 25 sacks he took that year. Now, we all know and I think can agree that sacks are not solely a function of the OL's ability to pass protect. Fair enough?

Matt didn't play 16 games too often over the course of his career here but during the time he was here he was never sacked fewer times in 16 games than he was in 2009. That year he got some of the best protection he'd ever had. What does that mean?

Well, it means that he's not a candidate for this answer no matter how you look at it. My original statement (again, in case you didn't see it or didn't understand it the first few times)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most QB's need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses. That's guy's going to be spectacular. I'm not saying he doesn't exist but Peyton Manning and Dan Marino don't come around very often and even then they don't win it all without some help.

This year he either seizes the opportunity and takes the starting spot on his own, then runs with it or we gotta keep turning over rocks until we find the guy who does.

Note the two areas I made bold. You have not shown me any evidence that the first one is incorrect. Most QB's do need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. Also I have shown you in as much detail as I can manage that Matt Schaub had good OL play in 2009 for 16 weeks and an outstanding RB's behind him for 2 of his wins. He didn't overcome bad line play to win games in 2009. He didn't win more games than he lost without a good running game.

You're wrong. He's a bad example to use in this instance and nothing will change that. It isn't about Matt Schaub not being given the credit he's due. He played well in 2009. He threw 29 TD's to only 15 picks and kept us in games. He didn't however do that while trying to overcome a lousy OL or without any help from his running game.

thunderkyss
06-02-2014, 06:25 PM
Take Luck away from the Colts and put Schaub/Keenum in there and they would be 2-14. Put Luck on the Texans last season and we may have won 12 or more games. Agree?

No i dont think so, the texans had so many more problems than just QB last season. From Foster and tate both getting hurt, to the defense not helping them at all. If we had luck i still see us only winning 5-6 games at most.

The Colts aren't perfect. If you were a Colts fan, you'd be able to pick at every weakness on their roster.

If Schaub played to his career averages last season, we win 10-12 games.

thunderkyss
06-02-2014, 06:38 PM
I wonder how long this honeymoon with O'Brien lasts. My bet is on the middle of next season - Unless they all the sudden find a winner at QB , then it'll be a bit longer.

The honeymoon will continue to roll until his good decisions outnumber his bad decisions.

So far, there may have been a few questionable moves... cutting OD, passing on Bridgewater, firing coach Joe. But he's made some strong moves in the other direction as well, getting a draft pick for Schaub, drafting big guys, landing RAC.

Bringing in kicking "competition"

As long as his good decisions keep pace with, or outpace his bad decisions, everything's good.

EllisUnit
06-02-2014, 08:05 PM
The honeymoon will continue to roll until his good decisions outnumber his bad decisions.

So far, there may have been a few questionable moves... cutting OD, passing on Bridgewater, firing coach Joe. But he's made some strong moves in the other direction as well, getting a draft pick for Schaub, drafting big guys, landing RAC.

Bringing in kicking "competition"

As long as his good decisions keep pace with, or outpace his bad decisions, everything's good.

Don't see firing coach Joe as a questionable move but okkkk.....

Corrosion
06-02-2014, 08:51 PM
The honeymoon will continue to roll until his good decisions outnumber his bad decisions.

So far, there may have been a few questionable moves... cutting OD, passing on Bridgewater, firing coach Joe. But he's made some strong moves in the other direction as well, getting a draft pick for Schaub, drafting big guys, landing RAC.

Bringing in kicking "competition"

As long as his good decisions keep pace with, or outpace his bad decisions, everything's good.

Ultimately the talent on the field will determine how long it lasts as soon as the progress stalls , we'll be breaking out the pink soap for him too.

Giving him credit / blame for some of those moves is a bit much - He's the coach , not the GM.

GoCoogs
06-02-2014, 09:59 PM
So far, there may have been a few questionable moves... cutting OD, passing on Bridgewater, firing coach Joe.

Coach Joe was fired before Bill O'Brien joined the Texans.

infantrycak
06-02-2014, 10:21 PM
Coach Joe was fired before Bill O'Brien joined the Texans.

And some would argue should have been fired before Kubiak joined the Texans.

Rockville
06-02-2014, 11:22 PM
The Colts 1743 rush yards and 15 TDs they averaged 108 yards per game
The Texans 1743 rush yards and 7 TDs we averaged 108 yards per game

The Colts were sacked 32 times
The Texans were sacked 42 times

So really Luck had the advantage as far as stats go.

Luck doesn't have much of an advantage. Luck IS the advantage.

He rushed 63 times for 377 yards (20% of their total) and 4 of those TDs. Keenum/Schaub had just south of 100. I have to imagine he had so many rushes because the OL sucks. If he wasn't mobile, he would have been sacked a lot more often. Bad running game, bad OL, run of the mill defense, etc. Imagine what the kid could do with a solid OL and a running game from the actual RB position. It pains me to think about it.

ArlingtonTexan
06-02-2014, 11:57 PM
Not sure why a 2-14 team having below average production from the QB position, the OL, and the running game (ALL of them) is a difficult analytical conclusion.

Corrosion
06-03-2014, 02:05 AM
Not sure why a 2-14 team having below average production from the QB position, the OL, and the running game (ALL of them) is a difficult analytical conclusion.

Analyze the statistics under a microscope not knowing the record and those stats appear to be of a much better team - Its only when you factor in the mistakes that their record comes into focus.

#7 total defense

#3 passing defense

#23 rushing defense


#11 total offense

#15 passing offense

#20 Rushing offense

#6 Time of possession.


Now for the ugly truth.


#23 in Penalties committed

#32 in turnover +/-

#17 in sacks allowed

#30 in Int's allowed

#31 in points allowed off of turnovers.

#32 in turnovers forced and set an NFL record for futility in the process.

When they executed they were much better than their record shows but far too often they failed to "execute".

CloakNNNdagger
06-03-2014, 08:42 AM
Analyze the statistics under a microscope not knowing the record and those stats appear to be of a much better team - Its only when you factor in the mistakes that their record comes into focus.

#7 total defense

#3 passing defense

#23 rushing defense


#11 total offense

#15 passing offense

#20 Rushing offense

#6 Time of possession.


Now for the ugly truth.


#23 in Penalties committed

#32 in turnover +/-

#17 in sacks allowed

#30 in Int's allowed

#31 in points allowed off of turnovers.

#32 in turnovers forced and set an NFL record for futility in the process.

When they executed they were much better than their record shows but far too often they failed to "execute".

Very interesting breakdown. Thanks! MSR.

EllisUnit
06-03-2014, 09:38 AM
Luck doesn't have much of an advantage. Luck IS the advantage.

He rushed 63 times for 377 yards (20% of their total) and 4 of those TDs. Keenum/Schaub had just south of 100. I have to imagine he had so many rushes because the OL sucks. If he wasn't mobile, he would have been sacked a lot more often. Bad running game, bad OL, run of the mill defense, etc. Imagine what the kid could do with a solid OL and a running game from the actual RB position. It pains me to think about it.

Someone said the colts had worse protection and a worse running game, that was all to prove they did not. And luck although has been good he has not been great. I personally never got caught up in all the hype, and even now when i see him play i am not in awwwww over it.

Nitrofish
06-03-2014, 11:25 AM
... I haven't tacked anything on. I don't have any idea where you are getting that....

What you said was:

I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses.

So I replied to see the 2009 Schaub. You then followed up with:

2009 ...Matt Schaub of the 9-7, barely-won-more-than-they-lost 2009 Houston Texans?

So now it went from "won more than he lost" to "he barely won more than he lost"

You went on to say:

Did you look at who they beat? Aside from a disinterested New England team with jack **** to play for they beat one team with a winning record.

So now you are adding who they beat as part of the scenario, even though that was not mentioned in your original question. Now your question has become 'I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses, and the teams he beat must have winning records' So yes, IMO, that is moving the goal post, or tacking things on.

... look at Matt Schaub's 2009 season. 7-7 when he didn't have a decent RB behind him. That's pretty much the argument in a nutshell but if we're going to be sticklers for what I originally said then how was his pass protection that year? 25 sacks he took that year. Now, we all know and I think can agree that sacks are not solely a function of the OL's ability to pass protect. Fair enough?

There were only 25 sacks because Schaub got rid of the ball quick or threw it away instead of taking a sack. He was very proficient at this in 2009. Let's not forget who the starting guards were in 2009. LG: Kasey Studdard (7521st overall since 1950) & RG: Chris White (Center playing out of position) (7979th overall since 1950) Duane Brown (Although improved from his rookie season) struggled with pass protection in 2009. Brown allowed 7 sacks, 11 hits and 35 hurries as well as giving up eight penalties. The Texans OL was ranked 13th overall that year. (Run Rank 21st, Pass Rank 16th, Penalties Rank 7th) So I disagree with your assertion that the Texans had a good OL in 2009 let alone the best Schaub had seen.


Matt didn't play 16 games too often over the course of his career here but during the time he was here he was never sacked fewer times in 16 games than he was in 2009. That year he got some of the best protection he'd ever had. What does that mean?

Well, it means that he's not a candidate for this answer no matter how you look at it.

...You have not shown me any evidence that the first one is incorrect. Most QB's do need an OL and/or a RB to really be successful. Also I have shown you in as much detail as I can manage that Matt Schaub had good OL play in 2009 for 16 weeks and an outstanding RB's behind him for 2 of his wins. He didn't overcome bad line play to win games in 2009. He didn't win more games than he lost without a good running game.

The Texans OL was ranked 2nd overall in 2010 (Run Rank 3rd, Pass Rank 4th, Penalties Rank 4th) but gave up 32 sacks that season, so where does this leave your theory about 2009 being the best OL Schaub had ever seen?

And while Schaub's season was shortened by injury in 2011 to just 10 games, the Texans OL was ranked 5th overall (Run Rank 6th, Pass Rank 4th, Penalties Rank 21st) and only gave up 16 sacks which means the 2010 and 2011 OL were leaps and bounds better than the 2009 OL. Heck even the 2012 OL was better than the 2009 OL.

In regard to your claims about RB's. The Texans finished 30th in rushing in 2009. Yet you want to cherry pick two games out where you say Schaub had "outstanding RB's behind him for 2 of his wins." but you fail to backup your claims or even consider who those two teams were and what their D was ranked against the run, but earlier you wanted to discount the wins based on their win/loss record.

MIA: 18th against the run (114.7 ypg) Foster gained 97 yds (-17.7)
NE: 13th against the run (110.5 ypg) Foster gained 119 yds (+8.5)

And as you pointed out, "a disinterested New England team with jack **** to play for" only allowed Foster 8.5 more yards than the teams average. So why are you now claiming Fosters 119 yards is something to brag about? You can't make up your mind. Foster did not even gain the Dolphins average yards allowed for that season.

The fact is Foster had decent games because Schaub lead the league in passing and teams were playing the pass, and had no idea who the UDFA Arian Foster would become in 2010, so they were in nickle and dime most of the time to stop Schaub and you know it.

Will that evidence suffice?


You're wrong... ...He didn't however do that while trying to overcome a lousy OL or without any help from his running game.

Instead of just asserting it like you did, I think I have gone out of my way to prove you are wrong. Schaub did in fact win more games than he lost with no OL, no running game, and no defense to boot. All the while out pacing guys players like Brady, Manning and Brees.

Insideop
06-03-2014, 12:10 PM
Someone said the colts had worse protection and a worse running game, that was all to prove they did not. And luck although has been good he has not been great. I personally never got caught up in all the hype, and even now when i see him play i am not in awwwww over it.

I never said the Colts had worse protection and worse running game than the Texans. I was responding to Herv's post about wanting to "see the guy with no protection and no running game who wins more than he loses!" I basically said that guy was Luck. Then in another post I said that if you put Schaub/Keenum on the Colts and gave the Texans Luck, the Colts would've been 2-14 and we might have won 12 games. I still stand by that, though there is no way to ever prove it. You can throw out all the stats you want about who had the better protection and run game, but the bottom line is that Luck would have made the Texans a better team last year. And I believe he could have taken them, and probably any team he played on, to the playoffs. Yes, I believe he's that good!

If you don't think Luck is that good, agree to disagree. But here's some stats to chew on comparing Luck and Manning in their first 2 years in the NFL.

Luck..8,196 yds...46 tds...27 ints...73 sacks...632 rush yds...9 tds..81.5 QBR

Manning..7,874 yds..52 tds..43 ints..36 sacks..135 rush yds..2 tds..80.95 QBR

A lot can happen between now and when Luck retires, but baring injury, I think Luck will be considered one of the greats when it's all said and done. Unfortunately for the Texans, they have to deal with him 2 times a year from now on until he leaves the Colts.

EllisUnit
06-03-2014, 12:16 PM
I never said the Colts had worse protection and worse running game than the Texans. I was responding to Herv's post about wanting to "see the guy with no protection and no running game who wins more than he loses!" I basically said that guy was Luck. Then in another post I said that if you put Schaub/Keenum on the Colts and gave the Texans Luck, the Colts would've been 2-14 and we might have won 12 games. I still stand by that, though there is no way to ever prove it. You can throw out all the stats you want about who had the better protection and run game, but the bottom line is that Luck would have made the Texans a better team last year. And I believe he could have taken them, and probably any team he played on, to the playoffs. Yes, I believe he's that good!

If you don't think Luck is that good, agree to disagree. But here's some stats to chew on comparing Luck and Manning in their first 2 years in the NFL.

Luck..8,196 yds...46 tds...27 ints...73 sacks...632 rush yds...9 tds..81.5 QBR

Manning..7,874 yds..52 tds..43 ints..36 sacks..135 rush yds..2 tds..80.95 QBR

A lot can happen between now and when Luck retires, but baring injury, I think Luck will be considered one of the greats when it's all said and done. Unfortunately for the Texans, they have to deal with him 2 times a year from now on until he leaves the Colts.

You should also compare the teams each one inherited when they came into the NFL, Mannings team was in shambles, virtually nothing on offense to work with. Luck came into a much better situation.

Hervoyel
06-03-2014, 01:46 PM
What you said was:



So I replied to see the 2009 Schaub. You then followed up with:



So now it went from "won more than he lost" to "he barely won more than he lost"

You went on to say:



So now you are adding who they beat as part of the scenario, even though that was not mentioned in your original question. Now your question has become 'I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses, and the teams he beat must have winning records' So yes, IMO, that is moving the goal post, or tacking things on.



There were only 25 sacks because Schaub got rid of the ball quick or threw it away instead of taking a sack. He was very proficient at this in 2009. Let's not forget who the starting guards were in 2009. LG: Kasey Studdard (7521st overall since 1950) & RG: Chris White (Center playing out of position) (7979th overall since 1950) Duane Brown (Although improved from his rookie season) struggled with pass protection in 2009. Brown allowed 7 sacks, 11 hits and 35 hurries as well as giving up eight penalties. The Texans OL was ranked 13th overall that year. (Run Rank 21st, Pass Rank 16th, Penalties Rank 7th) So I disagree with your assertion that the Texans had a good OL in 2009 let alone the best Schaub had seen.



The Texans OL was ranked 2nd overall in 2010 (Run Rank 3rd, Pass Rank 4th, Penalties Rank 4th) but gave up 32 sacks that season, so where does this leave your theory about 2009 being the best OL Schaub had ever seen?

And while Schaub's season was shortened by injury in 2011 to just 10 games, the Texans OL was ranked 5th overall (Run Rank 6th, Pass Rank 4th, Penalties Rank 21st) and only gave up 16 sacks which means the 2010 and 2011 OL were leaps and bounds better than the 2009 OL. Heck even the 2012 OL was better than the 2009 OL.

In regard to your claims about RB's. The Texans finished 30th in rushing in 2009. Yet you want to cherry pick two games out where you say Schaub had "outstanding RB's behind him for 2 of his wins." but you fail to backup your claims or even consider who those two teams were and what their D was ranked against the run, but earlier you wanted to discount the wins based on their win/loss record.

MIA: 18th against the run (114.7 ypg) Foster gained 97 yds (-17.7)
NE: 13th against the run (110.5 ypg) Foster gained 119 yds (+8.5)

And as you pointed out, "a disinterested New England team with jack **** to play for" only allowed Foster 8.5 more yards than the teams average. So why are you now claiming Fosters 119 yards is something to brag about? You can't make up your mind. Foster did not even gain the Dolphins average yards allowed for that season.

The fact is Foster had decent games because Schaub lead the league in passing and teams were playing the pass, and had no idea who the UDFA Arian Foster would become in 2010, so they were in nickle and dime most of the time to stop Schaub and you know it.

Will that evidence suffice?



Instead of just asserting it like you did, I think I have gone out of my way to prove you are wrong. Schaub did in fact win more games than he lost with no OL, no running game, and no defense to boot. All the while out pacing guys players like Brady, Manning and Brees.

1. If you think he had no OL in 2009 you need your eyes checked.

2. At no point did I ever mention defense and you keep coming back to that so who exactly insists on tacking things on now?

3. I said a lot more than "I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses." in my first post that you originally responded to. You've disregarded everything but that one line for some reason. What I'm seeing here is a guy being intentionally obtuse because he thinks he's won an argument.

Unless you really believe that Matt Schaub got no protection in 2009 this is over. If you do believe that his protection in 2009 met that standard (non-existent) then I don't know what to tell you. How about "You're right Nitro!" I can do that.

"You make a great case Nitro and yes, the elusive and crafty 2009 Matt Schaub is the reason why he was only sacked 25 times in 16 games and threw for 29 TD's that year. I missed it but I'm sure HOF voters will not."

:sarcasm:

Lets simplify this OK? Lets pretend that that only thing I said was the single line you have locked in on.

I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses.

Did Matt Schaub have "no protection" in 2009? I assert that he did in fact have adequate protection in 2009 and that he is not an example of a QB who won more than he lost without protection or a RB.

Insideop
06-03-2014, 02:03 PM
You should also compare the teams each one inherited when they came into the NFL, Mannings team was in shambles, virtually nothing on offense to work with. Luck came into a much better situation.

Manning had Marvin Harrison and Marshall Faulk 98/Edgerrin James 99. That doesn't sound like "shambles" to me. In 98 Faulk had 1300 yds rushing and 900 yds receiving, and in 99 James had over 1500 yds rushing and almost 600 yds receiving, while Harrison had over 1600 yds receiving. While the 1998 team was bad (3-13) it wasn't without talent, and by 1999 they were 13-3.

Luck, on the other hand, had Wayne, Donald Brown, and Vick Ballard in 2012. While Wayne had a good year (1300+ yds), Brown had 400 yds rushing and Ballard had 800 yds rushing. Not bad but I don't think anybody will get Faulk or James mixed up with Ballard and Brown. In 2013 it was worse. He had T.Y. Hilton with 1000+ yds receiving and Brown with 500+ yds rushing and Richardson with 450 yds rushing.

While Manning took over a bad team that was 3-13 in 1997, they were still 3-13 in 1998 with him at QB. Luck took over a bad team that was 2-14 in 2011 and they went 11-5 in his rookie season. So I can't say Luck came into a much better situation. Not with Manning having Faulk and Harrison his rookie year. Neither one came in to a great situation, but I think I would rater have a young Harrison with Faulk than have an aging Wayne with Ballard/Brown. JMO.

False Start
06-03-2014, 03:11 PM
I would still like to see Case get another chance. He was just in a bad situation last season.

dream_team
06-03-2014, 04:06 PM
BTW, what do people define a "chance" to be? If it's an honest pre-season battle to be the starter, then I think he'll get that. If it's to start several games, before we can make an honest assessment, that may be asking for too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EllisUnit
06-03-2014, 04:36 PM
Manning had Marvin Harrison and Marshall Faulk 98/Edgerrin James 99. That doesn't sound like "shambles" to me. In 98 Faulk had 1300 yds rushing and 900 yds receiving, and in 99 James had over 1500 yds rushing and almost 600 yds receiving, while Harrison had over 1600 yds receiving. While the 1998 team was bad (3-13) it wasn't without talent, and by 1999 they were 13-3.

Luck, on the other hand, had Wayne, Donald Brown, and Vick Ballard in 2012. While Wayne had a good year (1300+ yds), Brown had 400 yds rushing and Ballard had 800 yds rushing. Not bad but I don't think anybody will get Faulk or James mixed up with Ballard and Brown. In 2013 it was worse. He had T.Y. Hilton with 1000+ yds receiving and Brown with 500+ yds rushing and Richardson with 450 yds rushing.

While Manning took over a bad team that was 3-13 in 1997, they were still 3-13 in 1998 with him at QB. Luck took over a bad team that was 2-14 in 2011 and they went 11-5 in his rookie season. So I can't say Luck came into a much better situation. Not with Manning having Faulk and Harrison his rookie year. Neither one came in to a great situation, but I think I would rater have a young Harrison with Faulk than have an aging Wayne with Ballard/Brown. JMO.

Correct me if i am wrong but even then the league was still a rushing league, not so much anymore. And we all know that the colts were sucking for luck regardless of what the team was saying at the time. And you mentioned Luck, Faulk, Harrison. Is that all the team had ? I'm not saying luck is horrible but there are a handful of other guys i would want at QB before him.

chenjy9
06-03-2014, 04:39 PM
I would still like to see Case get another chance. He was just in a bad situation last season.

What do you mean by chance? If you mean pencil him in as a starter to see what he can do, I strongly disagree with this. I don't think Keenum "deserves" anything. He needs to earn everything, just like Savage, Yates, and Fritz. Whoever comes out on top starts. If someone can't agree with them, then I strongly believe they are more of a Keenum fan than Texans fan.

Playoffs
06-03-2014, 05:31 PM
http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/wp-content/blogs.dir/2348/files/texans-2014-otas/20140603_texans_otas_btc_251.jpg
http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/wp-content/blogs.dir/2348/files/texans-2014-otas/20140602_texansotas_jps_30.jpg--chron.com

thunderkyss
06-03-2014, 08:29 PM
While Manning took over a bad team that was 3-13 in 1997, they were still 3-13 in 1998 with him at QB. Luck took over a bad team that was 2-14 in 2011 and they went 11-5 in his rookie season. So I can't say Luck came into a much better situation. Not with Manning having Faulk and Harrison his rookie year. Neither one came in to a great situation, but I think I would rater have a young Harrison with Faulk than have an aging Wayne with Ballard/Brown. JMO.

I'm slowly getting on board the "Andrew Luck is God" bandwagon, however when Manning came into the league, he was in the AFC East where the Jets, Bills, & Dolphins all won 10 games in 1998... & the Patriots were the dominant team in that division at that time (only won 9 games).

At no time in Andrew Luck's short career did he have a division that competitive. I'd argue the AFC as a whole was more competitive back in the late 90s.

thunderkyss
06-03-2014, 08:32 PM
I would still like to see Case get another chance. He was just in a bad situation last season.

I'm happy he's getting another shot at it, but he made some bad decisions in that bad situation. I'd have felt much better about him had he made good decisions in that bad situation.

drs23
06-03-2014, 08:36 PM
http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/wp-content/blogs.dir/2348/files/texans-2014-otas/20140603_texans_otas_btc_251.jpg
http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/wp-content/blogs.dir/2348/files/texans-2014-otas/20140602_texansotas_jps_30.jpg--chron.com

Yeah! I'd like to see that for a while. I didn't follow CK's collegiate career but I'd certainly heard about him and his medical extension to five years. I was really excited those first three games. I'm not sure GK put him at a disadvantage with the play calling but I thought at the times it was a little different than Matt's tool box. I can't go back and watch the games because DTV replaced my ****** receiver with the latest and greatest so I lost all 16 of 'em. I'd really like to go back and watch them to verify if I saw what I *thought* I saw, along with several other posters here. Then there are those that saw things differently and said so. I'd sure like to go back and draw a more informed opinion.

I just want the best qualified QB under center. Even if it Pickspatrick. Perhaps he's grown by leaps and bounds since last season. I'm just not feelin' it personally.

They'll all get their shot and O'Brien will start the best man standing.

Have I mentioned I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE SEASON?

Heck, I'm jonesing so bad I CAN'T WAIT FOR PRESEASON!

Maybe that last part's just me...

:fans:

Texans_Chick
06-03-2014, 10:48 PM
This is my opinion based on what I know.

1 I haven't seen the author of that article at any of the 2014 OTA sessions FWIW.

2. O'Brien is giving all the QBs a very thorough tire kicking.

3. It's early but none of the QBs are standing out in a above the others way--all pluses and minuses.

4. It is O'Brien's interest to pick the best QB. He is going to not have any easy choices.

5. As it was in Kubiak's interest to pick the best QB. FWIW, despite what the Pizza Boy Writer Man says, Schaub had the best camp in 2013.

6. The premise that Kubiak was somehow intentionally undermining Case Keenum is the biggest pile of an assorted of bad words the MB doesn't allow you to type. It makes my eyes roll back up into my head in an unattractive way.

Kubiak was the biggest supporter of Keenum out of school. His offense is actually probably one of the most well suited ones for Keenum because of the bootlegs. Why did Kubiak pull him? Because he didn't want him to get killed because he couldn't make the right choices as it related to blitzes. After there were marching orders post-Kubiak to play Keenum no matter what, that's when he got hurt.

The offense finally turned into a training wheel shell of itself because of so many roster/injury problems with it.

Not ideal to develop any QB, and not an ideal introduction to the league for Keenum, but better than most UDFAs get.

7. What is weird going into 2014 is that what makes the offense appealing for fans who want change is also difficult for developing QBs.

Kubiak's offense = easier for QBs to have early success in it because it doesn't put high demands on QB.

O'Brien's offense = QBs like it because of the options that it gives them, but there are a lot of mental demands on the QB pre-snap.

Each approach has pluses and minuses, but what is difficult to determine is how much of Keenum's introduction to the NFL last year was system or him. Sage Rosenfels will argue that QBs have their best years under Kubiak because his offense is easy for quarterbacks to pick up and there's always a place for the ball to go.

The Keenum downfield plays were 1. because he does some nice throws that way 2. a recognition that it was unlikely he could repeatedly manufacture a march down the field drive with the problems that they were having on offense. It's sort of the Flacco approach to offense, and perhaps what they would do if Savage got pushed into service early with the new group.

The Flacco form of offense is a bunch of "Hey diddle diddle, Ray Rice down the middle," TE dump offs, and then pulling the slot machine handle on a deep ball, int, or at worst an arm punt.

Problem with that approach is that it tends to be feast or famine. And if defenses know that you are limited, they take away what you like to do and make you pay.

8. I think that the QB competition is wide open for real. That what has happened in the past really doesn't matter because this is a new scheme with a different and steep learning curve. That Fitz probably has the inside track because of experience and manner of carrying himself as a vet, but none of the guys have particularly impressed. To be fair, the installation of the offense is very new, and the defense is always ahead of the offense, even when it is an established offense.

9. The real title of that article should be Arian Foster could give THIS OFFENSE a real chance. He really has been the most outstanding looking player on the offense of the skill positions in 2014.

10. I have nothing nice at all to say about that article. Perhaps that it would make a great emetic.

So those are my thoughts.


/side note, I don't want to get into a this or that Schaub, Keenum, Kubiak whatever discussion. Don't care about the peoples, just care about winning and truth--not spreading misinformation to feed people's biases.

That was then, this is now. You get rid of old problems, you get new problems. Kind of a negative way of looking at things, but every team has their own challenges.

thunderkyss
06-03-2014, 11:01 PM
...but every team has their own challenges.

yup

:tiphat:

ObsiWan
06-04-2014, 04:59 AM
This is my opinion based on what I know.

1 I haven't seen the author of that article at any of the 2014 OTA sessions FWIW.

2. O'Brien is giving all the QBs a very thorough tire kicking.

3. It's early but none of the QBs are standing out in a above the others way--all pluses and minuses.

4. It is O'Brien's interest to pick the best QB. He is going to not have any easy choices.

That was then, this is now. You get rid of old problems, you get new problems. Kind of a negative way of looking at things, but every team has their own challenges.
Great post.
I always wonder why the defense is ahead of the offense early on. Is defensive trickeration easier to install than offensive counters or is it that the QBs haven't quite yet learned which offensive counters work best against which defensive sets....
Well, there are two more months until we start playing something resembling football (P/S) so it'll be interesting to see which guy emerges as a winner. I just hope we have a clear winner and not a tie.

steelbtexan
06-04-2014, 08:26 AM
So kubiak's offense limited the QB? Is there a chance that this was because Kubiak was an inflexible control freak?

The Flacco diddle diddle in the middle offense lead the Ravens to 1 SB victory and and AFC championship loss in the last 3 yrs. The Texans with 8 yrs under Kubiak's could only dream of reaching these heights.

It should be really interesting to see how Flacco/Kubiak mesh this yr.

Texans_Chick
06-04-2014, 09:16 AM
Great post.
I always wonder why the defense is ahead of the offense early on. Is defensive trickeration easier to install than offensive counters or is it that the QBs haven't quite yet learned which offensive counters work best against which defensive sets....
Well, there are two more months until we start playing something resembling football (P/S) so it'll be interesting to see which guy emerges as a winner. I just hope we have a clear winner and not a tie.

I think typically, there is just more moving parts and timing on the part of the offense. It takes a bit before offensive players are on the same page early in OTAs. When the regular season starts, some good offenses can take advantage of defenses because the tackling is so bad.

I do not think there will be a clear winner. In my mind, I have no idea how I would sort them based on what I've seen so far, but they are VERY early in their installation of the offense.

Ultimately, I think ties should go to 1. The player that doesn't waste this season of the other players; 2. The player you would want to develop for the future. Those criteria should go for the starter and backup.

Texans_Chick
06-04-2014, 09:22 AM
So kubiak's offense limited the QB? Is there a chance that this was because Kubiak was an inflexible control freak?

The Flacco diddle diddle in the middle offense lead the Ravens to 1 SB victory and and AFC championship loss in the last 3 yrs. The Texans with 8 yrs under Kubiak's could only dream of reaching these heights.

It should be really interesting to see how Flacco/Kubiak mesh this yr.

It's just a different offensive system. With pluses and minuses.

The Flacco offense has always been wildly inconsistent, but boy howdy got on a timely hot streak their SB year. Most years he has had the benefit of great defense and a good running game. Those didn't happen for the Texans until their playoff years.

I've never liked the Ravens O but I'm not sure how the marriage of Flacco and Kubiak will go. Don't like Flacco's short throws (sometimes he whiffs on basic bread and butter throws). And it has been a while since Kubiak has worked with a QB with a huge arm. Given how much Flacco likes throwing to TEs, and that the Texans old TE coach is there now, I'm guessing they will have a fairly effective offense.

But this is not Texans talk, so good buh.

Corrosion
06-04-2014, 09:33 AM
So kubiak's offense limited the QB? Is there a chance that this was because Kubiak was an inflexible control freak?

The Flacco diddle diddle in the middle offense lead the Ravens to 1 SB victory and and AFC championship loss in the last 3 yrs. The Texans with 8 yrs under Kubiak's could only dream of reaching these heights.

It should be really interesting to see how Flacco/Kubiak mesh this yr.

You really gotta let go of this angle ....

ObsiWan
06-04-2014, 11:03 AM
You really gotta let go of this angle ....
...don't hold your breath.




and they said Kubiak was stubborn... :)

Nitrofish
06-04-2014, 12:23 PM
1. If you think he had no OL in 2009 you need your eyes checked.

2. At no point did I ever mention defense and you keep coming back to that so who exactly insists on tacking things on now?

3. I said a lot more than "I want to see the guy with no protection or running game who wins more than he loses." in my first post that you originally responded to. You've disregarded everything but that one line for some reason. What I'm seeing here is a guy being intentionally obtuse because he thinks he's won an argument.

Unless you really believe that Matt Schaub got no protection in 2009 this is over. If you do believe that his protection in 2009 met that standard (non-existent) then I don't know what to tell you. How about "You're right Nitro!" I can do that.

"You make a great case Nitro and yes, the elusive and crafty 2009 Matt Schaub is the reason why he was only sacked 25 times in 16 games and threw for 29 TD's that year. I missed it but I'm sure HOF voters will not."

:sarcasm:

Lets simplify this OK? Lets pretend that that only thing I said was the single line you have locked in on.

Did Matt Schaub have "no protection" in 2009? I assert that he did in fact have adequate protection in 2009 and that he is not an example of a QB who won more than he lost without protection or a RB.

I laid the stats out there deny them if you like. Pass protection was middle of the pack in 2009 so it was mediocre at best. It was nowhere close to the protection Schaub enjoyed in '10, '11, and '12, and we know the running game was light years better in those years too, yet he did not achieve the same kind of success as in 2009.

You didn't mention defense, did I say you did? I added the defense aspect to disprove what you were saying about what QB's need to be "REALLY" successful as you put it. Why so defensive?

Yeah sure you said more words, but it was the essence of your point. Why you are now trying to move the goal post, or add more to your scenario, I don't know. You asked the question and IMO 2009 Schaub is a perfect example of what you asked for. I don't know why you have such a inflated view of your opinion, but I couldn't care less about winning an argument with you. I shared my opinion on your post, you got all defensive and cocky. Not my problem.

Herv, I would never expect to see you agree with me. Your posts speak for themselves. You are taking this way too personal, and I am sorry if you feel slighted somehow.

Brees had better pass protection (13th) yet he finished 4th, Brady had much better protection (4th) yet he finished 3rd, Manning had worse protection (17th) and he finished 2nd. And ALL of those teams had better running games than the Texans in 2009. Those are facts.

You don't have to like it, or agree with it.

Hervoyel
06-04-2014, 01:01 PM
I laid the stats out there deny them if you like. Pass protection was middle of the pack in 2009 so it was mediocre at best. It was nowhere close to the protection Schaub enjoyed in '10, '11, and '12, and we know the running game was light years better in those years too, yet he did not achieve the same kind of success as in 2009.

You didn't mention defense, did I say you did? I added the defense aspect to disprove what you were saying about what QB's need to be "REALLY" successful as you put it. Why so defensive?

Yeah sure you said more words, but it was the essence of your point. Why you are now trying to move the goal post, or add more to your scenario, I don't know. You asked the question and IMO 2009 Schaub is a perfect example of what you asked for. I don't know why you have such a inflated view of your opinion, but I couldn't care less about winning an argument with you. I shared my opinion on your post, you got all defensive and cocky. Not my problem.

Herv, I would never expect to see you agree with me. Your posts speak for themselves. You are taking this way too personal, and I am sorry if you feel slighted somehow.

Brees had better pass protection (13th) yet he finished 4th, Brady had much better protection (4th) yet he finished 3rd, Manning had worse protection (17th) and he finished 2nd. And ALL of those teams had better running games than the Texans in 2009. Those are facts.

You don't have to like it, or agree with it.


OK man.

steelbtexan
06-04-2014, 01:13 PM
You really gotta let go of this angle ....

She put it out there I was just asking for a clarification.

steelbtexan
06-04-2014, 01:22 PM
...don't hold your breath.




and they said Kubiak was stubborn... :)


My wife agrees with this post.

Hervoyel
06-04-2014, 02:01 PM
My wife agrees with this post.



http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc272/Hervoyel/24959-ilyke_net-large-24959-gXdTZ1z_zps2bf40fcb.jpg

Lucky
06-04-2014, 02:47 PM
9. The real title of that article should be Arian Foster could give THIS OFFENSE a real chance. He really has been the most outstanding looking player on the offense of the skill positions in 2014.
The thread title confused me. I thought that Foster was endorsing Keenum's chances at becoming the starting QB. Misleading.

EllisUnit
06-04-2014, 03:22 PM
The thread title confused me. I thought that Foster was endorsing Keenum's chances at becoming the starting QB. Misleading.

sorry i did not make the name of the article i just copied it, but yeah thats what i thought before actually reading the article

Texans_Chick
06-04-2014, 04:53 PM
The thread title confused me. I thought that Foster was endorsing Keenum's chances at becoming the starting QB. Misleading.

Yeah, that's what got me to look at the thread in the first place. I was um, when did he talk to Foster? Because Foster isn't saying much, and he likely wouldn't say that.

And then I looked at the article. Blurgh. His hot takes from takey town are demented by even Skip Bayless standards.

Corrosion
06-04-2014, 05:08 PM
She put it out there I was just asking for a clarification.

What more clarification did you need than straight from the source ?!

Double Barrel
06-04-2014, 05:43 PM
Correct me if i am wrong but even then the league was still a rushing league, not so much anymore. And we all know that the colts were sucking for luck regardless of what the team was saying at the time. And you mentioned Luck, Faulk, Harrison. Is that all the team had ? I'm not saying luck is horrible but there are a handful of other guys i would want at QB before him.

Colts players said they never sucked for Luck. I've seen interviews with various players that find the concept offensive to expect professional players to lay down for a draft pick. These guys are graded and paid by performance, so asking any of them to SUCK on purpose is preposterous.

And if anyone thinks the HC was in suck for Luck mode, why would he do that and lose his job? Which he did after that season. It makes no logical sense.

The owner and GM certainly did NOT call plays or make roster decisions, so any conspiracy in that regard is simply foolish.

"Suck for Luck" was a media creation perpetuated by fans, but it was never an actual strategy by anyone in the Colts organization.

Besides, they were not sucking for Luck when they played the Texans on 12/22/11 and Dan Orlovsky lead them to victory at the end. If they were truly trying to suck for Luck, they would have clearly rolled over, but instead they kept fighting, thus undermining anyone trying to sell it. (I'm sure someone will try to spin that they already had the #1 pick at this point. If so...what? The owner goes into the locker room and tells the team to stop sucking on purpose? Really? Is that the reality that you are trying to believe?)


6. The premise that Kubiak was somehow intentionally undermining Case Keenum is the biggest pile of an assorted of bad words the MB doesn't allow you to type. It makes my eyes roll back up into my head in an unattractive way.

Kubiak was the biggest supporter of Keenum out of school. His offense is actually probably one of the most well suited ones for Keenum because of the bootlegs. Why did Kubiak pull him? Because he didn't want him to get killed because he couldn't make the right choices as it related to blitzes. After there were marching orders post-Kubiak to play Keenum no matter what, that's when he got hurt.

QFT.

Every time I read/hear folks slam Kubiak because he didn't give Keenum a chance or whatever, I pretty much mark it up to doofus talk (no offense to anyone who continues to bleat such a thing).

The ONLY reason Keenum was even on an NFL roster was specifically because of Gary Kubiak. Keenum would be a footnote in NCAA football history right now if not for Kubiak.

mussop
06-04-2014, 06:21 PM
Very interesting breakdown. Thanks! MSR.

Got him for you.

76Texan
06-04-2014, 06:33 PM
The thread title confused me. I thought that Foster was endorsing Keenum's chances at becoming the starting QB. Misleading.

It doesn't mislead me one bit.

My understanding when reading the title is that "Keenum, if he start, has a real chance with Foster in the backfield".

Besides, from start to finish, all he did was to reiterate the current state of open competition at the QB position.
Whatever he wrote in any other article isn't carried over to this piece.
So what that he was wrong about Watt.
It won't be the last time somebody's opinion turns out to be wrong.

ObsiWan
06-04-2014, 07:43 PM
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc272/Hervoyel/24959-ilyke_net-large-24959-gXdTZ1z_zps2bf40fcb.jpg
:spit:

Nitrofish
06-06-2014, 10:18 AM
Is it really an open competition? Sounds like to me it's going to be Fitzpatrick by default.

Link (http://www.csnhouston.com/football-houston-texans/talk/what-did-texans-about-fitzpatrick)

michaelm
06-06-2014, 10:24 AM
Is it really an open competition? Sounds like to me it's going to be Fitzpatrick by default.

Link (http://www.csnhouston.com/football-houston-texans/talk/what-did-texans-about-fitzpatrick)



I'm honestly not sure how you drew that conclusion form anything written in that article.

Nitrofish
06-06-2014, 10:55 AM
I'm honestly not sure how you drew that conclusion form anything written in that article.

Perhaps I am just better at reading between the lines than you? Maybe I phoned into Mrs. Cleo's Psychic hotline. :kitten:

santo
06-06-2014, 11:12 AM
I don't see it either. Basically I took it as an article stating why Fitzpatrick would be a good starter for O'Brien's system. We'll get a clearer picture of who will start once preseason starts.

xtruroyaltyx
06-06-2014, 11:14 AM
Reading that article was a waste of 30 seconds.

TexansSeminole
06-06-2014, 12:30 PM
Reading that article was a waste of 30 seconds.

Pretty much my thoughts.

The Pencil Neck
06-06-2014, 12:40 PM
Is it really an open competition? Sounds like to me it's going to be Fitzpatrick by default.

Link (http://www.csnhouston.com/football-houston-texans/talk/what-did-texans-about-fitzpatrick)

Because of his experience, he's the probable starter. PROBABLE.

He's the guy who should win the job but if someone unexpectedly steps up, they can take the job from him. Personally, I think he's just keeping the seat warm for Savage and when OB thinks Savage can play without getting killed or without making too much of a fool of himself, Savage will "win" the job.

HouTx11
06-06-2014, 03:50 PM
Besides, they were not sucking for Luck when they played the Texans on 12/22/11 and Dan Orlovsky lead them to victory at the end. If they were truly trying to suck for Luck, they would have clearly rolled over, but instead they kept fighting, thus undermining anyone trying to sell it.

Among the top 3 most embarrassing losses that the Texans ever endured.

HOU-TEX
06-06-2014, 04:14 PM
Among the top 3 most embarrassing losses that the Texans ever endured.

Not even close, imo. We'd already clinched and we were playing with Yates as our QB.

Embarrassing to me is like the game in NE showing up with those ridiculous letterman jackets and getting thumped by 4 TDs.

"Any given Sunday" and all that jazz, but that game made us out to look like fools and fakes

xtruroyaltyx
06-06-2014, 04:22 PM
http://cdn.hsmemes.com/2012/5/29/f788fc5251c68f0171f221cc5b7105c8.jpg

infantrycak
06-06-2014, 04:28 PM
Not even close, imo. We'd already clinched and we were playing with Yates as our QB.

Embarrassing to me is like the game in NE showing up with those ridiculous letterman jackets and getting thumped by 4 TDs.

"Any given Sunday" and all that jazz, but that game made us out to look like fools and fakes

To me there is a lesson in the letterman jackets but it is for the fans and not so much the team. Fans constantly clamour for the team to have swagger, unity, esprit de corps, etc. If they had won that game half the fans in Houston would have been sporting letterman jackets. Instead they are the stupidest, most immature, poorly coached, distracted collection of dumbasses to ever pretend to be an NFL team.

Hervoyel
06-06-2014, 04:46 PM
Besides, they were not sucking for Luck when they played the Texans on 12/22/11 and Dan Orlovsky lead them to victory at the end. If they were truly trying to suck for Luck, they would have clearly rolled over, but instead they kept fighting, thus undermining anyone trying to sell it.


Among the top 3 most embarrassing losses that the Texans ever endured.

Note, Dan Orlovsky did not lead the Colts to victory over the Houston Texans in that game. Jerome Boger secured the win for the Colts and should not be denied the credit he's due.

Double Barrel
06-06-2014, 05:02 PM
Not even close, imo. We'd already clinched and we were playing with Yates as our QB.

Embarrassing to me is like the game in NE showing up with those ridiculous letterman jackets and getting thumped by 4 TDs.

"Any given Sunday" and all that jazz, but that game made us out to look like fools and fakes

I don't know, man. I know it's all subjective, but that loss was truly pathetic.

The Colts were 1-13 at that point. The Texans were 10-4 and had already beaten Cincinnati to win the franchise's first division title and playoff berth.

It should not have even been a competitive game with Manning out and the Texans riding high. It should have been the first win in Indy, but instead, the team was so hyped about the playoffs that it was part of three losses in a row to end the season.

If you recall, the Texans didn't convert a third down in that game until late in the fourth quarter, and then the Texans defense gave up three penalties in the last drive to let the Colts score a TD with 19 seconds left.

It was that game that I started to realize that being a division champion is much different than ACTING like a division champion. They did not have the killer instinct, and while they beat the Bengals in the playoffs, they were manhandled by the Ravens a week later *cough*JacobyJonesFAIL*cough*.

It was not as embarrassing as the VY rookie game at Reliant, but I'd say it was up there simply because the 2011 Texans were acting like big boys of the division with Manning gone, but appeared to be just that, an act.

In hindsight, they were just keeping the seat warm for Andrew Luck.

With the New England game, I never expected them to win. I did expect them to be competitive, but there's no shame in losing to a dynasty team. By comparison, losing to the 1-13 Colts in a last minuted drive by Orlovsky was truly pathetic for a division "champ".

Note, Dan Orlovsky did not lead the Colts to victory over the Houston Texans in that game. Jerome Boger secured the win for the Colts and should not be denied the credit he's due.

I know what you're saying, man, but if a loss to a 1-13 team has to be blamed on an official, then perhaps the division champion needs a serious gut check.

HouTx11
06-06-2014, 07:16 PM
Not even close, imo. We'd already clinched and we were playing with Yates as our QB.

Embarrassing to me is like the game in NE showing up with those ridiculous letterman jackets and getting thumped by 4 TDs.

"Any given Sunday" and all that jazz, but that game made us out to look like fools and fakes

We agree to disagree, sir.

If we can't even beat the one win Colts with Dan Orlovsky (of all ppl) leading their team, that's pretty embarrassing. Not sure, but I believe that the Texans weren't out of the hunt for first round bye at that point, so the Texans certainly had more than one reason to want to win that game. Although, if whipping the Colts in their own building isn't a good enough reason to want to win after constantly being thrashed by them I don't know what is!!!!

ObsiWan
06-07-2014, 01:16 AM
To me there is a lesson in the letterman jackets but it is for the fans and not so much the team. Fans constantly clamour for the team to have swagger, unity, esprit de corps, etc. If they had won that game half the fans in Houston would have been sporting letterman jackets. Instead they are the stupidest, most immature, poorly coached, distracted collection of dumbasses to ever pretend to be an NFL team.
So you're saying Ben Tate had a point...?

Txn_in_FL
06-07-2014, 10:24 AM
To me there is a lesson in the letterman jackets but it is for the fans and not so much the team. Fans constantly clamour for the team to have swagger, unity, esprit de corps, etc. If they had won that game half the fans in Houston would have been sporting letterman jackets. Instead they are the stupidest, most immature, poorly coached, distracted collection of dumbasses to ever pretend to be an NFL team.

I remember seeing those things and thinking WTF. The amount of crap I put up with as a Texan fan over those things is unimaginable. To this day I still have people asking how my high school football team is doing.

You can't create your own reputation through silly nicknames and garbage like letterman jackets. You create your rep on the field, by winning games and playing smash mouth football. I hope this season is a new beginning for this team.

ArlingtonTexan
06-07-2014, 11:31 AM
I remember seeing those things and thinking WTF. The amount of crap I put up with as a Texan fan over those things is unimaginable. To this day I still have people asking how my high school football team is doing.

You can't create your own reputation through silly nicknames and garbage like letterman jackets. You create your rep on the field, by winning games and playing smash mouth football. I hope this season is a new beginning for this team.

the letterman jackets are an easy target, but if the Texans had made a deep playoff run or if it was a more established or even "cooler" media team, we would be seeing those things all over the place.

BTw, i have not had one person ever mention the letterman jackets to me in their Texans bashing.

drs23
06-07-2014, 12:46 PM
I remember seeing those things and thinking WTF. The amount of crap I put up with as a Texan fan over those things is unimaginable. To this day I still have people asking how my high school football team is doing.

You can't create your own reputation through silly nicknames and garbage like letterman jackets. You create your rep on the field, by winning games and playing smash mouth football. I hope this season is a new beginning for this team.

Ever the optimist, I believe your hopes will be realized beginning with this season. Good bye fitness, Hello Black -N- Blue opponents.

the letterman jackets are an easy target, but if the Texans had made a deep playoff run or if it was a more established or even "cooler" media team, we would be seeing those things all over the place.

BTw, i have not had one person ever mention the letterman jackets to me in their Texans bashing.

Likewise. We may be kinda in the same boat AT. Determined in your case by geographical location and the fact that there are STILL MORE C'boy fans around here than Texans fans. 'Nawlins running a close second with the Texans rounding out the order.

Granted there was more show of Texans support during a recent two year window but it appears that window is closed again and all those seats on the bandwagon are now vacant.

They'll be back but now I know who they are. :spy:

thunderkyss
06-07-2014, 05:33 PM
Ever the optimist, I believe your hopes will be realized beginning with this season. Good bye fitness, Hello Black -N- Blue opponents.

I'm glad everyone is buying into all things new, just... well, how much of it is new & how much has just been re-labeled?

Yeah, things are going to be different... but some of these things make me wonder. Were we full of it when we feigned outrage when Lombardy called us soft? Did that really happen when DBrown76 redecorated James Harrison's (a bad mofo in his own right) skull? Where we a finesse team when Arian led the league in rushing?

I like the new... but it ain't all knew. A lot of what we're going to be doing will be the same as what we've been doing; two TEs, a lot of pre snap reads by the QB, converting routes based on the defense, zone runs, pulling guards, & the last time Arian was healthy he was used as one of the best receiving threats out of the backfield.

This team needed to get mentally tough & I hope more than anything that's what OB brings.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

EllisUnit
06-07-2014, 07:46 PM
I'm glad everyone is buying into all things new, just... well, how much of it is new & how much gas just been re-labeled?

Yeah, things are going to be different... but some of these things make me wonder. Were we full of it when we feigned outrage when Lombardy called us soft? Did that really happen when DBrown76 redecorated James Harrison's (a bad mofo in his own right) skull? Where we a finesse team when Arian led the league in rushing?

I like the new... but it ain't all knew. A lot of what we're going to be doing will be the same as what we've been doing; two TEs, a lot of pre snap reads by the QB, converting routes based on the defense, zone runs, pulling guards, & the last time Arian was healthy he was used as one of the best receiving threats out of the backfield.

This team needed to get mentally tough & I hope more than anything that's what OB brings.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I think they just meant in general like us getting pushed around by the tougher stronger teams. Us not competing very well in prime time in hostile environments. I think that is what they meant when calling us soft.

drs23
06-07-2014, 10:00 PM
I'm glad everyone is buying into all things new, just... well, how much of it is new & how much has just been re-labeled?

Yeah, things are going to be different... but some of these things make me wonder. Were we full of it when we feigned outrage when Lombardy called us soft? Did that really happen when DBrown76 redecorated James Harrison's (a bad mofo in his own right) skull? Where we a finesse team when Arian led the league in rushing?

I like the new... but it ain't all knew. A lot of what we're going to be doing will be the same as what we've been doing; two TEs, a lot of pre snap reads by the QB, converting routes based on the defense, zone runs, pulling guards, & the last time Arian was healthy he was used as one of the best receiving threats out of the backfield.

This team needed to get mentally tough & I hope more than anything that's what OB brings.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I think they just meant in general like us getting pushed around by the tougher stronger teams. Us not competing very well in prime time in hostile environments. I think that is what they meant when calling us soft.

TK, see EllisUnit's reply. More in line with what I was thinking but I know that's not the way it came across. But yeah, mentally tough along with being just Bad MoFos whistle to whistle. That oughta leave 'em with at least with a mark, eh? :)

badboy
06-07-2014, 11:43 PM
When I was in junior high and high school, I thought letter jackets were silly unless a pretty girl was wearing one. I wasn't on a team so wasn't into them (pun intended). I went from class to work. TBH I did wear an grocery store apron and thought that was silly also.

These Texans will be going to work.

EllisUnit
06-08-2014, 12:20 AM
When I was in junior high and high school, I thought letter jackets were silly unless a pretty girl was wearing one. I wasn't on a team so wasn't into them (pun intended). I went from class to work. TBH I did wear an grocery store apron and thought that was silly also.

These Texans will be going to work.

yeah lettermans were the ****, still are in high school. I met some girl from another school district, slept with her and she stole my damn jacket. Prob due to my ravishing good looks but it still sucked.

badboy
06-08-2014, 12:29 AM
yeah lettermans were the ****, still are in high school. I met some girl from another school district, slept with her and she stole my damn jacket. Prob due to my ravishing good looks but it still sucked.
So you might have a child out there somewhere?

EllisUnit
06-08-2014, 08:58 AM
So you might have a child out there somewhere?

i have 3 i know about, and due to my current financial situation that's all i want to know about ;)

:overreact: