PDA

View Full Version : Former University of Houston QB Case Keenum agrees to a contract with the Texans


Pages : 1 [2]

CloakNNNdagger
06-10-2012, 09:12 AM
Having John Beck as a backup is about as risky as it gets.

In the games I saw him in, he seemed to get rattled under any significant pass rush. And I noticed he would resort to a hurried sloppy sidearm delivery, quite remeniscent of D...d C..r. I also remember a couple "hail Marys" into the EZ. The problem was, these weren't thrown at the end of a game.....and they were thrown not from 40 yds, but from less than 10 yards. Last year, I remember thinking how pitifull the Redskins were having to agonize over a decision between Grossman and Beck.

GuerillaBlack
06-10-2012, 09:13 AM
It's amazing that folks look at a "home town" product, and believe that three weeks of practices in helmets and shorts that are not open to outside observers (beyond a few media members) will convince other teams to reserve one out of 53 roster spots for someone when five years of college football, the NFL combine, U of H pro day, and the opportunity to bring him in for interviews/workouts did not even convince one of them to use a 7th round draft pick on him.

Which is why Houston didn't draft him either.... How do you know other teams weren't looking at him as an UDFA?

Lucky
06-10-2012, 09:31 AM
Last year, I remember thinking how pitifull the Redskins were having to agonize over a decision between Grossman and Beck.
I didn't get Baby Shanny's love affair with Beck. Yes, Rex is a bad NFL QB. But...he's an NFL QB. Beck should be selling insurance or coaching high school ball. He's not an NFL QB. I'm not surprised that Beck looks OK on the sandlot, tossing around balls without live bullets. There are a ton of guys that could come off the street and do that.

I don't know if Case Keenum can make the roster. I don't know if he would or wouldn't be claimed off the practice squad. His ability to succeed in the NFL is a complete unknown. Beck is a known. He's 30 years old, entering his 6th year in the league, and he's done nothing but fail. John Beck should be nowhere near this final roster.

badboy
06-10-2012, 10:03 AM
None of that has anything to do with my post (he had done all of that prior to the draft as best I can recall). I just think it's unlikely he'll do anything to change that perception in TC/preseason.

For the record, I view him as not getting picked up on waivers as a good thing since I'm a Case fan in addition to a Texans fan - I'm simply asking why are so many folks so positive Case would get picked up on waivers, when history has shown that to be highly unlikely.I think it has everything to do with your post. NFL teams constantly watch what others do. A team makes it to playoffs with a certain defense, offense or big back versus smaller back, TEs versus WRs and others follow. I think the fact that Texans signed Case drew attention of other GMs. Kubiak talking him up could be just that or it could be a QB making coach seeing some things others did not or saw and chose not to make a move. The stats (and your recollection is accurate) were before the draft but still happened. Keenum can throw the ball and do so accurately. Eyeballs watched him make different types of throws that some doubt he can. A cautious coach wants to see him do it under pressure which during college was his forte.

True, we do not know if Keenum will do well in the NFL, but we can say that about almost all college players. A 24 year old with those stats and no NFL experience gets the nod from me over a 30 year old who has done almost zilch while in the NFL for years. Stephanie has pointed out that in OTA's the more experienced QB has played better than Keenum. Well, would you expect that tto be the case (pun intended).

ArlingtonTexan
06-10-2012, 10:21 AM
On team generally raiding the practice squads of other teams.: Happens, of course, but fans fear of it is greater than the reality of how often it occurs. and even when it does, the exception is when that specific player becomes a long term significant piece in the NFL. Also, if a team is truly worried about a player being taken from the practice squad then simply paying him more than the minimium salary is an option.

On Keenum love:

1) Is a Houston prodcut who has provided no reason to be negative towaards him.
2) Highly productive as a college player. would have some suppport because of that no matter where he was played college ball.
3) Has overcome injury and remained #2.
4) does have some good traits viewable on film, although his overall profile is borderline NFL.

My belief is that if Keenum wasn't from the area he would have a few people high on him, but the sort near assurance some people have that he will be successful would not exist. Nice story, but has a long way to go to be even a decent NFL back-up.

ChampionTexan
06-10-2012, 12:17 PM
Which is why Houston didn't draft him either.... How do you know other teams weren't looking at him as an UDFA?

No doubt they were, and I would imagine the Texans weren't the only ones who offered him a contract, but there's a huge difference between giving somebody an opportunity to try out as part of a 90 man roster, and bringing somebody in who's guaranteed a spot on a 53 man roster.

I think it has everything to do with your post. NFL teams constantly watch what others do. A team makes it to playoffs with a certain defense, offense or big back versus smaller back, TEs versus WRs and others follow. I think the fact that Texans signed Case drew attention of other GMs. Kubiak talking him up could be just that or it could be a QB making coach seeing some things others did not or saw and chose not to make a move. The stats (and your recollection is accurate) were before the draft but still happened. Keenum can throw the ball and do so accurately. Eyeballs watched him make different types of throws that some doubt he can. A cautious coach wants to see him do it under pressure which during college was his forte.

True, we do not know if Keenum will do well in the NFL, but we can say that about almost all college players. A 24 year old with those stats and no NFL experience gets the nod from me over a 30 year old who has done almost zilch while in the NFL for years. Stephanie has pointed out that in OTA's the more experienced QB has played better than Keenum. Well, would you expect that tto be the case (pun intended).

First, my original post referred to teams wanting him after the three weeks of OTA practices in helmet and shorts. Believe what you want to believe about his desirability to other teams, but if you think anything's different right now than it was immediately before the draft, just keep on believing that.

And I'm not going to argue with you about the likelihood of making it through waivers. I've got my position, you've got yours - maybe we'll get a chance to find out what would happen, maybe not. I just believe that with a starting QB who missed the last 8 games of last season, and a backup who's going into his second year, that unless Beck totally stinks up the joint in preseason (not an impossibility by any means), they'd rather keep Beck and stash Case on the practice squad - and obviously I think that the practice squad will likely be a viable option. On a long-term basis, there's no doubt that Case is the better option, and if it boiled down to a choice between one or the other, I agree it would be Case - I just don't think it's going to boil down to that choice going into the 2012 season.

thunderkyss
06-10-2012, 07:46 PM
Which is why Houston didn't draft him either.... How do you know other teams weren't looking at him as an UDFA?

No doubt they were, and I would imagine the Texans weren't the only ones who offered him a contract, but there's a huge difference between giving somebody an opportunity to try out as part of a 90 man roster, and bringing somebody in who's guaranteed a spot on a 53 man roster.


Agreed. If someone were to snatch him on waivers, he has to be guaranteed a spot on the 53. As has been said, I doubt anyone will see anything from Case over the next three months that they didn't see over the last 4 years.

The only way he could possibly get claimed off waivers, would be if some team has extremely horrible luck over the next three months & that team has intimate knowledge of him (i.e. his college QB coach or offensive coordinator is pulling the strings on that team).

He'll hit the practice squad & we'll have three QBs working our system, Schaub, Yates, Beck.

infantrycak
06-10-2012, 09:29 PM
Agreed. If someone were to snatch him on waivers, he has to be guaranteed a spot on the 53.

No he doesn't. If he is grabbed through the waivers process he goes onto their roster of whatever size it is at that point and is guaranteed nothing. He could be cut the next day. If he passes through waivers he is free to sign to any team's practice squad, the Texans have no particular rights to him. If he signs to the Texans practice squad and then some other team signs him off our practice squad then he counts against their roster for a minimum of three weeks.

Rey
06-10-2012, 09:33 PM
Agreed. If someone were to snatch him on waivers, he has to be guaranteed a spot on the 53.

I'm not sure if the rule changed or not, but I think you mean if he is snatched from the practice squad once the season begins.

thunderkyss
06-10-2012, 10:56 PM
No he doesn't. If he is grabbed through the waivers process he goes onto their roster of whatever size it is at that point and is guaranteed nothing. He could be cut the next day. If he passes through waivers he is free to sign to any team's practice squad, the Texans have no particular rights to him. If he signs to the Texans practice squad and then some other team signs him off our practice squad then he counts against their roster for a minimum of three weeks.

I stand corrected.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 12:51 AM
Since Keenum signed a 3-yr contract with the Texans, they might want to have him on the roster to lock down the very inexpensive deal.

Beck, even with the minimum veteran money, costs much more.

In case Schaub gets hurt for any reason, the Texans can always bring in a vet like Delhome.
They will only have to pay "as you go" at that time.

Rey
06-11-2012, 12:53 AM
Since Keenum signed a 3-yr contract with the Texans, they might want to have him on the roster to lock down the very inexpensive deal.

Beck, even with the minimum veteran money, costs much more.

In case Schaub gets hurt for any reason, the Texans can always bring in a vet like Delhome.
They will only have to pay "as you go" at that time.

That makes sense. I guess it depends on how they do in pre season and camp though.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 12:59 AM
That makes sense. I guess it depends on how they do in pee season and camp though.

That goes without saying.
Keenum has to practice and play very well to get to that point.

infantrycak
06-11-2012, 01:06 AM
OK I will confess to not watching much college ball. I know Brees fell due to his height of 6'0'" to the 1st pick of the 2nd round. Keenum is call it an inch taller. Obviously QB's can be effective at that height. What is it about Keenum v. say Brees that made him drop out of the draft entirely?

Rey
06-11-2012, 01:08 AM
That goes without saying.
Keenum has to practice and play very well to get to that point.

Right, but my point was how much better (or does he even have to be better) than beck does he need to play?

If something crazy happens like beck lighting it up in pre season and Keenum playing ok or not so good, do you think they'd still prefer the scenario you laid out.

I agree with what you posted in theory I'm just wondering if the play on the field will allow it.

And as it stands now Keenum may not get a whole lot of action in games as the 4th qb. Maybe Yates doesn't play in the 4th pre season game and beck and Keenum get all the reps. Or maybe one of them is gone by that time. I dunno.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 01:13 AM
OK I will confess to not watching much college ball. I know Brees fell due to his height of 6'0'" to the 1st pick of the 2nd round. Keenum is call it an inch taller. Obviously QB's can be effective at that height. What is it about Keenum v. say Brees that made him drop out of the draft entirely?

Injury.
Keenum was injured making a tackle after an INT.
He also had a concussion in a different game.

He was injured very early in the 2010 season and it took him a long time to come back; he wasn't ready for the 2011 combine.

Keenum even confessed to being nervous during the first practice in the Spring.

Rey
06-11-2012, 01:13 AM
OK I will confess to not watching much college ball. I know Brees fell due to his height of 6'0'" to the 1st pick of the 2nd round. Keenum is call it an inch taller. Obviously QB's can be effective at that height. What is it about Keenum v. say Brees that made him drop out of the draft entirely?

I don't know what brees' combine was like but apparently Keenum's was a big fail.

Questions about his arm strength from some and the health.

I think it was a combo of things.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 01:23 AM
Right, but my point was how much better (or does he even have to be better) than beck does he need to play?

If something crazy happens like beck lighting it up in pre season and Keenum playing ok or not so good, do you think they'd still prefer the scenario you laid out.

I agree with what you posted in theory I'm just wondering if the play on the field will allow it.

And as it stands now Keenum may not get a whole lot of action in games as the 4th qb. Maybe Yates doesn't play in the 4th pre season game and beck and Keenum get all the reps. Or maybe one of them is gone by that time. I dunno.

Let's say Schaub is ready for pre-season, the Texans probably won't go with 4 QBs, will they?

I think it will have to take the crazy scenario that you put up in which the Texans see so much positive change in Beck, they decide to keep him.

They will probably cut Keenum then.

However, I think that such a possibility is quite remote.
I'm thinking Beck gets cut before pre-season.

TexanSam
06-11-2012, 01:27 AM
Since Keenum signed a 3-yr contract with the Texans, they might want to have him on the roster to lock down the very inexpensive deal.

Beck, even with the minimum veteran money, costs much more.

In case Schaub gets hurt for any reason, the Texans can always bring in a vet like Delhome.
They will only have to pay "as you go" at that time.

But with a still very inexperienced Yates as our backup QB, having a veteran 3rd stringer who has familiarity with the system and the players is vital. If Schaub were to go down I would feel much better with Beck as our backup to Yates instead of some veteran guy they just picked off the street and has to try and learn the system in a matter of weeks.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 01:34 AM
But with a still very inexperienced Yates as our backup QB, having a veteran 3rd stringer who has familiarity with the system and the players is vital. If Schaub were to go down I would feel much better with Beck as our backup to Yates instead of some veteran guy they just picked off the street and has to try and learn the system in a matter of weeks.

Delhome already knows the system.
If they want to resign Beck at that time, the Texans can always do that, too!

76Texan
06-11-2012, 01:40 AM
I don't know what brees' combine was like but apparently Keenum's was a big fail.

Questions about his arm strength from some and the health.

I think it was a combo of things.

Keenum pulled a hamstring running his second 40 at the combine.
It affected his movement and his throws.
Having seen him throw the ball more than a thousand times, I say there's nothing wrong with his mechanics or anything.
The knock about his arm strength is also unfounded as we had discussed it before.

All we need to know is that he can throw the ball farther than Schaub.

aussie_texan
06-11-2012, 01:49 AM
OK I will confess to not watching much college ball. I know Brees fell due to his height of 6'0'" to the 1st pick of the 2nd round. Keenum is call it an inch taller. Obviously QB's can be effective at that height. What is it about Keenum v. say Brees that made him drop out of the draft entirely?

76 did a big piece on him during the draft process the link is here.
if you read through it you'll find some good info.
great work from 76

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89651&highlight=keenum

Corrosion
06-11-2012, 01:54 AM
OK I will confess to not watching much college ball. I know Brees fell due to his height of 6'0'" to the 1st pick of the 2nd round. Keenum is call it an inch taller. Obviously QB's can be effective at that height. What is it about Keenum v. say Brees that made him drop out of the draft entirely?

Being a system QB .... taking all those snaps from the shotgun along with his lack of ideal size. Its a pretty huge difference , going from the shotgun all the time to under center , biggest difference is in your reads. Some guy's can make the transition .... others cant. But thats what seperates the good QB'sfrom the great ones.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 02:10 AM
Being a system QB .... taking all those snaps from the shotgun along with his lack of ideal size. Its a pretty huge difference , going from the shotgun all the time to under center , biggest difference is in your reads. Some guy's can make the transition .... others cant. But thats what seperates the good QB'sfrom the great ones.

That's another myth.

If one follows the link that aussietexan provides, one can see that Keenum did have experience under center, probably/likely more than RG III and definitely more than Weeden.

Rey
06-11-2012, 08:30 AM
Keenum pulled a hamstring running his second 40 at the combine.
It affected his movement and his throws.
Having seen him throw the ball more than a thousand times, I say there's nothing wrong with his mechanics or anything.
The knock about his arm strength is also unfounded as we had discussed it before.

All we need to know is that he can throw the ball farther than Schaub.

I wasn't stating any of that as my opinion, just saying what some knocks on him were.

As far as his combine performance he himself said that he didn't perform at a level he expected. He said he did things that were uncharacteristic.

I don't expect him to use an injury as an excuse, but I'm just saying from a scouts perspective what the impression might have been. Either way, injury or just a bad performance doesn't sit well with folks.

CloakNNNdagger
06-11-2012, 08:55 AM
This is a must read for understanding a short QB's challenges and how they may be able to overcome them. [Appeared in the NY TIMES Nov. 2009)]

Saints’ Brees Debunks Notions of the Quarterback Prototype (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/sports/football/30brees.html)


Drew Brees stepped onto the scale at the N.F.L.’s scouting combine in 2001 and was quickly reminded of his biggest — and smallest — problem.

The first time he had heard that he was not as tall as the men with clipboards preferred was when he was coming out of high school. Despite leading his team to the Texas state championship with a perfect season, he was not heavily recruited.

After finishing third in the Heisman Trophy race while at Purdue, Brees again faced perhaps his biggest obstacle, this time in a room filled with talent evaluators. “They had him at 6 feet and one-eighth or two-eighths inches,” his Purdue Coach, Joe Tiller, said. “Drew said ‘No, I’m 6-1. Measure me again.’ He said, ‘That can’t be true. I know I’m 6-1.’ ”

Not quite. Brees is listed at 6 feet flat and is the shortest starting quarterback in a league in which 21 of 32 starting quarterbacks are 6-3 or taller. But as a favorite to win the league’s Most Valuable Player award, Brees is making a mockery of the league’s carefully honed quarterbacking prototype.



When the Dallas Cowboys pioneered the use of computer analysis in scouting several decades ago, they determined that the breaking point for quarterbacks having passes blocked at the line of scrimmage was 6-1. Any player shorter than that, even one with first-round ability, should not be drafted above the sixth or seventh round, the Cowboys figured.

Brees was the first pick in the second round. Since then, he has debunked the idea that the taller quarterback is better.



“If you can visualize a salt shaker and a water tumbler,” said Gil Brandt, a former vice president of player personnel for the Cowboys who helped develop the computer models. “A short quarterback is the salt shaker that has to throw over the water tumbler, to a receiver on the other side that is probably just a little taller than the salt shaker. Brees is a 1-in-100 guy. If you look around, the quarterbacks that are playing the best, they’re all at least 6-3.”

To compensate for not being as tall as Peyton Manning or Ben Roethlisberger, each 6-5, Brees has an instinctive ability to slide a few feet in the pocket to better see his throwing lanes. He is no Steve Young, the barely 6-1 Hall of Fame quarterback whose superb scrambling ability helped make up for his size, but Brees shares Young’s conviction that vision is not a problem.

Giants defensive lineman Justin Tuck, who endured Brees’s four-touchdown day last month, said he guessed that Brees takes a deeper drop before he passes to give him a better view over his offensive line. Nope, Brees said. But Tuck does know one thing from experience.

“His release is so quick, it makes it so tough to judge when he’s letting the ball go, so you don’t know when to jump,” Tuck said.

Brees calls his quick release one of his survival skills. He has concentrated on releasing the ball with his hand high in the air, not down near his shoulder.

“I’ve seen plenty of tall guys where the ball is coming out at a height equivalent to their shoulder,” Brees said. “Compare a 6-5 guy who throws the ball sidearm to a 6-0 guy who has a high release point, and whose ball is coming out higher?”

At Purdue, Tiller noticed that Brees has exceptionally long thumbs, and bigger hands than most people 6 foot. That, Tiller said, allows Brees a better grip on the ball. That may be why Brees is also so adept at throwing the ball from a number of release points, the better to get the ball around and over the linemen.

“Over the top, sidearm, three-quarter — he can alter his throwing motion,” said the former coach Jon Gruden, now an analyst for ESPN.

In the end, what has made Brees great, though, may have more to do with what he has in common with Brady and Manning: extraordinary preparation. Brees has mastered the Saints’ offense, and Coach Sean Payton has given him the freedom to change plays, just as Brady and Manning do. Because Brees knows where everybody is going, which allows him to release the ball before his receiver even makes his break, he can throw off the timing of the leaping linemen.

“Height only matters when you’re not mastering it,” Young, also an ESPN analyst, said. “Maybe the degree of difficulty is a little higher, but it’s still not a gating issue to success.”

Still, even Young said that although he never wished he was 6-6, he was always thankful he was not 5-11.

“6-0 is the Maginot line,” he said.

Brees just made it.

“You’re standing next to these N.F.L. quarterbacks, and you’re the shortest one,” Brees said. “You get these looks like, ‘You play quarterback?’ ”


BTW, when Brees was coming out of college, there were many concerns voiced that he was a "system quarterback" with the system at Purdue especially built around him.

Thorn
06-11-2012, 09:00 AM
As some here don't get the love for Case in this forum, I'm one of those that don't get the love for Beck. He's washed out on several teams, proved he can't handle the big time, and some here would rather have him than an NCAA record setting rookie?

I don't see the logic in that.

CloakNNNdagger
06-11-2012, 09:06 AM
And as for the college "shotgun" formation to NFL under center argument, his retired Purdue football coach Joe Tiller had this to say (Feb 2010):

And then there’s the thing about arm strength, but Tiller thinks he’s got that figured out, too, after finally being able to watch professional football on Sundays now that he’s no longer coaching at the college level.

“We also liked him because he throws the short to intermediate ball maybe better than anyone else, certainly as good as anyone in the game,” Tiller stated. “He’s got a great touch. The thing I noticed was one of the knocks on Drew coming out of college was that he always ends up in that shotgun. I’m watching the NFL on Sundays now and that midget quarterback at Pittsburgh (6’7” Ben Roethlisberger), he’s lining up in the shotgun, too. Everybody is in the shotgun anymore in the NFL. Even Sir Peyton is in the shotgun the majority of time.

“I tried to figure that out and I decided that with the speed of the defensive linemen and the speed of the linebackers on blitzes, I didn’t see anyone throw the ball over 40 yards this year. They didn’t have time to throw it over 40 yards. They might have thrown it over 40 when protection broke down, the guy took off scrambling, and he might have flipped it up the field for a home run ball. I don’t see anyone throwing the football way up the field. If you don’t line up in the shotgun and throw the ball when you plant that back foot you’re going to end up on your fanny.

“The stuff they criticized Drew for, everyone in the league is doing now. Go figure. He also has that uncanny sense to be able to feel the rush coming. The good quarterbacks have a feel for it. They don’t look for the rush, they don’t see it because they’re looking up the field, but they can feel it.

“Drew’s a guy who feels it. He skips sideways and he has just enough speed to get outside the pocket and he’s still extremely accurate.”

Tiller also has an explanation for that exceptional asset.

“One of the things physically about Drew, he might have been a little shorter than people wanted him to be, but he has very big hands,” Tiller said. “He has unusually long thumbs. You don’t pay any attention to those kinds of things unless you’re around a guy for four years. You’re up close and you notice how he can grip the ball the way he does. I’m sure it helps him in the way he controls his passes.”link (http://www.toledofreepress.com/2010/02/04/former-toledoan-guided-brees-through-purdue-career/)



It is interesting to note that Keenum has 9-inch-1/8 hands, the second-smallest hands among quarterbacks invited to the combine.......yet, it has not seemed to hamper him in any way.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 11:01 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1022419/6/index.htm

The bad news: Brees had one other goal for Indianapolis—"I don't want any incompletes in the passing drills"—but he didn't come close.

The heart of the quarterbacks' workout was a series of 20 throws: two pass attempts on each of 10 patterns. Brees was prepared to work at full speed, taking a hard drop and throwing on rhythm, before the receiver broke. However, Seahawks quarterbacks coach Jim Zorn, who ran the session, told the passers, "Just ease up and complete balls. Don't worry about anything else."

Brees was confused. Some quarterbacks took Zorn's advice and threw three-quarter-speed spirals to wideouts long after the receivers came out of their breaks. Balls like those would get picked off in a game, but they were safe passes in this arena. Brees stuck with his game plan and threw on rhythm. Some wideouts made sharp breaks, others didn't. Of Brees's 20 balls, 11 were solid throws and nine were poor. He one-hopped a simple out-cut and overthrew another. His long throws—the post-corner and the streak—were wobbly, setting off alarms throughout the league.

.....
Brees' poor showing at the combine didn't hurt him.
It looks to me, it was Keenum's injury on top of the lack of size that scare teams.

76Texan
06-11-2012, 11:23 AM
Stephen McGee (A&M) - hand size 9"
drafted in the 4th by the Cowboys in 09


Jimmy Clausen (ND) - hand size 9"
drafted in the 2nd by the Panthers

Zac Robinson (Okl St) hand size 9"
drafted in the 7th by NE

Chad Henne (UM) hand size 9"
drafted in the 2nd by Mia

John David Booty (USC) hand size 8-1/2
drafted in the 5th by Minn

Josh Johnson (SD) hand size 9"
drafted in the 5th by TB

Kevin O'Connell (SD St) hand size 8-7/8
drafted in the third by NE

ArlingtonTexan
06-11-2012, 11:53 AM
Stephen McGee (A&M) - hand size 9"
drafted in the 4th by the Cowboys in 09


Jimmy Clausen (ND) - hand size 9"
drafted in the 2nd by the Panthers

Zac Robinson (Okl St) hand size 9"
drafted in the 7th by NE

Chad Henne (UM) hand size 9"
drafted in the 2nd by Mia

John David Booty (USC) hand size 8-1/2
drafted in the 5th by Minn

Josh Johnson (SD) hand size 9"
drafted in the 5th by TB

Kevin O'Connell (SD St) hand size 8-7/8
drafted in the third by NE

If someone thinks small hands matter (negative) to NFL success then you could not have provided them much better evidence.

HOU-TEX
06-11-2012, 12:09 PM
IMO, Keenum will mysteriously sustain an injury towards the end of TC and be stored on IR for the season. Unless, of course, he ends up winning the #3 spot.

Texan_Bill
06-11-2012, 12:40 PM
IMO, Keenum will mysteriously sustain an injury towards the end of TC and be stored on IR for the season. Unless, of course, he ends up winning the #3 spot.

I like Case but it won't be mysterious. He does that quite well on his own. :kitten:

CloakNNNdagger
06-11-2012, 01:06 PM
If someone thinks small hands matter (negative) to NFL success then you could not have provided them much better evidence.


One of the largest hand size measurements of any quarterback drafted in the first round was the 11¼" of Jim Druckenmiller. He was a bust, as was Heath Shuler (10 5/8"). Now Michael Vick at barely 6' ?........he should have problems handling a White Castle burger with his whopping 8 1/2" graspers.:)

badboy
06-11-2012, 01:17 PM
It has been said that Keenum weakness was using only one half field when doing his reads. I think Texans can correct that over time. For me a 3rd string QB must project long term. I just don't see Beck getting much better but it could happen. I see more potential in Keenum.

ArlingtonTexan
06-11-2012, 01:33 PM
One of the largest hand size measurements of any quarterback drafted in the first round was the 11¼" of Jim Druckenmiller. He was a bust, as was Heath Shuler (10 5/8"). Now Michael Vick at barely 6' ?........he should have problems handling a White Castle burger with his whopping 8 1/2" graspers.:)

Honestly, any measurable that you place out there is going to be suspect when taken in isolation. that's why I was questioning the guys that 76 used. pretty sure besides Vick there is some other good smalled handed QB. Just like there is probably some other sucky big handed QB besides Druckenmiller.

CloakNNNdagger
06-11-2012, 04:38 PM
Honestly, any measurable that you place out there is going to be suspect when taken in isolation. that's why I was questioning the guys that 76 used. pretty sure besides Vick there is some other good smalled handed QB. Just like there is probably some other sucky big handed QB besides Druckenmiller.

I certainly understand your point...........that's why the smiley was attached. Keenum has some hurdles to overcome. But I believe that he is a QB Kubiak likes and could very well be taken under his wing. With Keenum's history of playing "intelligently" and Kubiaks guiding hand, I don't see it as far fetched that he could see promotion through the ranks, and quicker than most would think.

drs23
06-11-2012, 07:07 PM
I certainly understand your point...........that's why the smiley was attached. Keenum has some hurdles to overcome. But I believe that he is a QB Kubiak likes and could very well be taken under his wing. With Keenum's history of playing "intelligently" and Kubiaks guiding hand, I don't see it as far fetched that he could see promotion through the ranks, and quicker than most would think.

:goodpost:

...and I believe Keenum's already under GK's warm feathers. I agree with those that say it's way too early to tell. That's only common sense especially when you take into consideration the other record breaking, stats racking QBs that have come out of UH prior to Case Keenum and flopped miserably in the NFL.

That being said, I see a few differences here. He's not being asked to sign the line then lead a team to glory after one training camp and preseason. He may or may not be PS'd but he will certainly be brought along slowly. He'll be thrown out there when he's ready, unless of coarse, we have 2011 all over again.

What are the odds of that? idonno:

76Texan
06-11-2012, 11:20 PM
If someone thinks small hands matter (negative) to NFL success then you could not have provided them much better evidence.

That's the problem with using "numbers" to quantify success.

I merely listed the QBs that were drafted since 2008 with same hand size as Keenum or smaller.

Out of some 10 QBs drafted in 08, the only one who has had a certain degree of success in the NFL is Matt Ryan.
(Joe Flacco is borderline).

From the 09 bunch, only Matt Stafford has gone anywhere, and from the 2010 bunch, none has made a name for himself so far.

Hand size, as long as it's not too small, shouldn't be a problem, is all I'm saying.

Heath Shuler has 10-5/8 hand size.
David Carr 9-3/4

On the other side, Jake Plummer's measured 9-1/4, same as Chris Chandler.
....

And as long as we're on sizes, you would think that guys like Weeden, Foles, and especially Osweiler (who was the tallest QB in this recent draft) would have fewer passes batted down than Keenum, but that wasn't the case.

Despite being under pressure more than any QBs in the last draft (the two guys I don't have many game tapes on were Coleman and Harnish), Keenum managed to have fewer balls batted down than any one of them (while throwing more passes).

76Texan
06-11-2012, 11:47 PM
It has been said that Keenum weakness was using only one half field when doing his reads. I think Texans can correct that over time. For me a 3rd string QB must project long term. I just don't see Beck getting much better but it could happen. I see more potential in Keenum.

That's another myth I really have to point out.
Keenum's pre-snap and post-snap reads are excellent.
He uses the entire field and he locates the open receiver quickly.

That's why his top 3 receivers had 96, 89 and 87 receptions (the guy with 96 receptions had the lower ypc, the guy with 87 had the highest ypc) and the top 2 RBs had 51 and 44 receptions (the Cougars didn't have a true TE last year).

Overall, Keenum threw to 17 different guys.
He spreads the wealth very well; you get open, you get the ball, period.

GP
06-12-2012, 03:01 AM
Overall, Keenum threw to 17 different guys.
He spreads the wealth very well; you get open, you get the ball, period.

And that's the stat(s) that matters most. Can a QB, whether he's a rookie or a veteran, display the ability to identify who is open and get the ball to the right person on every pass play? His history says he can.

Plus, we MIGHT be entering a really great era for Case to be a part of. We're rid of Jacoby Jones who was eating up snaps that guys like DeVier Posey and/or Lestar Jean will now enjoy. Keshawn Martin too. I think this is a great time for a guy like Case Keenum to enter the Texans roster.

The only downside is that he's 3rd man on the totem pole. And while it's nice to daydream about what Case "could" do for the Texans if he progresses as it's been theorized...nobody wants a scenario where Case is the starter in 2012. Yates rallied the team for the last part of 2011, but 2012 needs us to be stable with Schaub and Yates.

Still, he's a great long-term prospect at QB for us. The more the can sit and soak up the playbook and just watch and learn, the better.

badboy
06-12-2012, 09:46 AM
That's another myth I really have to point out.
Keenum's pre-snap and post-snap reads are excellent.
He uses the entire field and he locates the open receiver quickly.

That's why his top 3 receivers had 96, 89 and 87 receptions (the guy with 96 receptions had the lower ypc, the guy with 87 had the highest ypc) and the top 2 RBs had 51 and 44 receptions (the Cougars didn't have a true TE last year).

Overall, Keenum threw to 17 different guys.
He spreads the wealth very well; you get open, you get the ball, period.Good info and thanks. That is what I saw when I watched him but did read more than one article that he used only half field despite being in shotgun. There are many QBs who develop confidence in one side of field due to receiver and blocking. I still think Texans are a perfect fit.

b0ng
06-12-2012, 12:34 PM
He's going to be cut and P-squaded, or IR'd. I doubt any team picks him up to put on their 53-man roster and I'm sure Kubiak knows this.

76Texan
06-12-2012, 01:23 PM
He's going to be cut and P-squaded, or IR'd. I doubt any team picks him up to put on their 53-man roster and I'm sure Kubiak knows this.

It's not like teams don't sign a QB off another team PS.

LeFevour was drafted by the Chicago Bears in the sixth round (181st overall) of the 2010 NFL Draft. He struggled through the 2010 preseason, completing 19 of 41 passes (46.3%), with 204 pass yards, 1 TD 1 int, 6 Sacks, and 38 rush yards. Chicago signed veteran Todd Collins to be the 3rd string quarterback, and waived LeFevour after the 2010 preseason in hopes of placing him on the practice squad

LeFevour was claimed off waivers by the Cincinnati Bengals the next day, and spent the 2010 season as the third string quarterback, but did not see any action.

badboy
06-12-2012, 01:29 PM
He's going to be cut and P-squaded, or IR'd. I doubt any team picks him up to put on their 53-man roster and I'm sure Kubiak knows this.I can say just the opposite, claim Kubiak knows it and be just as accurate as you. Just opinions from guys who really have little info.

:kitten:

76Texan
06-12-2012, 01:37 PM
Rudy Carpenter, 25, starred at Arizona State before signing with the Cowboys as an undrafted free agent in April 2009. After he was cut at the end of training camp, he joined the team's practice squad.

In November 2009, Tampa Bay signed him to its active roster.

Hervoyel
06-12-2012, 01:48 PM
I believe that Beck is nothing but a camp arm. I think that the single biggest factor in whether Keenum sticks on the 53 as our #3 (after his own performance) is Yates performance. If Yates looks really solid as our #2 and builds on what he did last year then I think Gary will be comfortable with him behind Schaub and with Keenum in the #3 slot. If Yates doesn't look like he's improved much or even just has some moments that make the coaches go "WTF?" then Gary will want a veteran in there somewhere and try to slip Keenum over to the practice squad.

76Texan
06-12-2012, 02:30 PM
I believe that Beck is nothing but a camp arm. I think that the single biggest factor in whether Keenum sticks on the 53 as our #3 (after his own performance) is Yates performance. If Yates looks really solid as our #2 and builds on what he did last year then I think Gary will be comfortable with him behind Schaub and with Keenum in the #3 slot. If Yates doesn't look like he's improved much or even just has some moments that make the coaches go "WTF?" then Gary will want a veteran in there somewhere and try to slip Keenum over to the practice squad.

Sounds very logical to me.

badboy
06-12-2012, 03:26 PM
I believe that Beck is nothing but a camp arm. I think that the single biggest factor in whether Keenum sticks on the 53 as our #3 (after his own performance) is Yates performance. If Yates looks really solid as our #2 and builds on what he did last year then I think Gary will be comfortable with him behind Schaub and with Keenum in the #3 slot. If Yates doesn't look like he's improved much or even just has some moments that make the coaches go "WTF?" then Gary will want a veteran in there somewhere and try to slip Keenum over to the practice squad.Agree and it seems logical that Gary would want Keenum to get as much work & coaching as possible

The Pencil Neck
06-12-2012, 03:26 PM
I believe that Beck is nothing but a camp arm. I think that the single biggest factor in whether Keenum sticks on the 53 as our #3 (after his own performance) is Yates performance. If Yates looks really solid as our #2 and builds on what he did last year then I think Gary will be comfortable with him behind Schaub and with Keenum in the #3 slot. If Yates doesn't look like he's improved much or even just has some moments that make the coaches go "WTF?" then Gary will want a veteran in there somewhere and try to slip Keenum over to the practice squad.

Prior to the OTA's my position was that it all depended on Matt's health.

If Matt is healthy, then any veteran brought in is a camp arm and we'll end up with Matt, TJ, and Case as our QBs.

If Matt is not healthy, then the vet brought in will be looked at as a #2 behind Yates to start the season.

However, word from the OTAs is that Matt looks like he's in good shape. So, unless there's some sort of meltdown or something, I expect us to go with Matt, TJ, and Case. If Case just doesn't look like he's getting it OR if Beck steps up and kicks ass, Case might get cut and placed on the PS.

TJ would have to meltdown pretty bad to lose the #2 job, I think.

76Texan
06-12-2012, 04:24 PM
Prior to the OTA's my position was that it all depended on Matt's health.

If Matt is healthy, then any veteran brought in is a camp arm and we'll end up with Matt, TJ, and Case as our QBs.

If Matt is not healthy, then the vet brought in will be looked at as a #2 behind Yates to start the season.

However, word from the OTAs is that Matt looks like he's in good shape. So, unless there's some sort of meltdown or something, I expect us to go with Matt, TJ, and Case. If Case just doesn't look like he's getting it OR if Beck steps up and kicks ass, Case might get cut and placed on the PS.

TJ would have to meltdown pretty bad to lose the #2 job, I think.

Honestly, I don't have any ill will against any player competing for a roster spot.
Let the best man win the job.
As fans, what we do is to share knowledges and observations.

If, somehow, Kubiak can help Beck become a better QB, so much as he can be a competent 3rd QB, I would be good with it.

All the same, let's see if we can (try to) decipher what Kubiak meant in this paragraph on Beck:

“He’s a great young man,” Kubiak said. “I knew that. Anytime you play for how many teams he’s played with, and he’s played with a few, he’s played with a lot of coaches, which tells you he can handle all of that. Maybe we’ll settle him down right here and hopefully he’ll be here for a few years.”

....

What I read from that paragraph: the best hope for Beck is that he can be a third string QB for a little while; but it's not even a guarantee by any stretch of imagination.

Hervoyel
06-13-2012, 06:01 PM
Prior to the OTA's my position was that it all depended on Matt's health.

If Matt is healthy, then any veteran brought in is a camp arm and we'll end up with Matt, TJ, and Case as our QBs.

If Matt is not healthy, then the vet brought in will be looked at as a #2 behind Yates to start the season.

However, word from the OTAs is that Matt looks like he's in good shape. So, unless there's some sort of meltdown or something, I expect us to go with Matt, TJ, and Case. If Case just doesn't look like he's getting it OR if Beck steps up and kicks ass, Case might get cut and placed on the PS.

TJ would have to meltdown pretty bad to lose the #2 job, I think.

I don't think TJ would lose the #2 job even if he did give the coaches that WTF? moment I mentioned. I just think that it would do enough to make Gary think he needed another viable option with experience on the roster as opposed to a promising project (Case).

ObsiWan
06-16-2012, 03:01 PM
I don't think TJ would lose the #2 job even if he did give the coaches that WTF? moment I mentioned. I just think that it would do enough to make Gary think he needed another viable option with experience on the roster as opposed to a promising project (Case).

I'm going with what I said earlier. Kubiak doesn't want to face the new season with only half a season's worth of NFL experience between his two backups.

I agree with 76T's interpretation of Kubiak-speak: If we can coach Beck up, he's my 3rd stringer until Case shows me he's NFL-ready. Case being "NFL-ready" to Kubiak's satisfaction is unlikely - not impossible, just unlikely - to happen this season.

Thorn
06-17-2012, 04:15 AM
I'm going with what I said earlier. Kubiak doesn't want to face the new season with only half a season's worth of NFL experience between his two backups.

I agree with 76T's interpretation of Kubiak-speak: If we can coach Beck up, he's my 3rd stringer until Case shows me he's NFL-ready. Case being "NFL-ready" to Kubiak's satisfaction is unlikely - not impossible, just unlikely - to happen this season.

TJ, for a backup, seemed NFL ready his rookie year. Hell, he's the only QB on the roster with a playoff win under his belt. LOL

Right now Case is more "potential" than anything else, it's just I think there is so much potential there we'd be stupid to let him slip away to another team. I can't wait until the pre-season games are being played so we can get some real answers to our questions.

TejasTom
06-17-2012, 08:30 AM
... I can't wait until the pre-season games are being played so we can get some real answers to our questions.

I think all you get in pre-season are clues not answers. In 2009 John Busing made some great plays at safety in the 4th pre-season game to make the team. He was awful thereafter.

There may be more recent examples, this is just one that I remember saying during the game, "he just made the team".

We do seem to be improved at our NFL readiness evaluation(excluding Kareem Jackson, Jacoby Jones). Apologist need not respond to this last sentance, I was one.

I too am anxious to see Case in a pre-season game.

CloakNNNdagger
06-17-2012, 10:38 AM
I think all you get in pre-season are clues not answers. In 2009 John Busing made some great plays at safety in the 4th pre-season game to make the team. He was awful thereafter.

There may be more recent examples, this is just one that I remember saying during the game, "he just made the team".

We do seem to be improved at our NFL readiness evaluation(excluding Kareem Jackson, Jacoby Jones). Apologist need not respond to this last sentance, I was one.

I too am anxious to see Case in a pre-season game.

I agree with you in example (Busing). However, you usually get a much greater sample of play when you are trying to evaluate a QB than most other positions. Nothing is a sure deal, but after the completion of a TC stint, there is more material to make a weighted and "educated" decision in choice of QBs vs. many other positions. Of course, only in-season performance truly validates the impressions.

76Texan
06-25-2012, 02:10 PM
Interview with Jerry Rhome (you can skip the interview with Keenum - it's pretty lengthy - and come back to it whenever you have some time).

Rhome mentioned guys, including Steve Largent (5'10) and Dave Krieg (6'1).
I doubt that these guys were that "tall".

Toward the end, Rhome shared his though; that Keenum will make the team, and that "if" Keenum has to come in due to the injury to the starters, he'll do well.

http://old.houstontexans.com/news/PodcastCentral2.asp?AUTO=Y&EID=2181

thunderkyss
06-25-2012, 06:36 PM
I'm all for Case Keenum making the team & I hope in a few years, he can be a true franchise QB..... heck, I'd like it if that were the case today.

But we've got enough to worry about with the two guys ahead of him on the depth chart.

CloakNNNdagger
06-28-2012, 08:11 PM
No stranger to skeptics, Keenum making most of chance
Posted Jun 25, 2012

By Nick Scurfield


Case Keenum has heard it all before.

He’s not tall enough. His arm isn’t strong enough. He’s a system quarterback.

Keenum had a record-setting career at the University of Houston, but he went undrafted in April before signing with the Texans as a rookie free agent. One of the biggest knocks on him was his height, measured at 6-0 and 5/8 inches at the NFL Scouting Combine. Critics roundly questioned if he was tall enough to succeed in the NFL.

“I’d like to see some statistic where they talk about guys who are less tall,” Keenum said last week at Reliant Stadium. “Obviously, most other quarterbacks are taller rather than shorter, but there’s got to be more than being 6-4 to be quarterback. I know there is. That’s something I’ve had to deal with a lot, especially in the last couple months, but when it comes down to being on the field, I haven’t heard it at all from any of my coaches or anything. It’s about playing to your strengths, and everybody’s got different strengths. I think I’ve got great footwork and can move around in the pocket and find throwing lanes and move around and find my vision and be able to find receivers and get the ball in their hands.

“If you’re moving the ball down the field as a quarterback and breaking records like Drew Brees, nobody says anything about how tall you are, if you’re six-foot or not. If something’s going wrong, then they’re going to look for something. ‘What’s causing this? Oh, well he’s short, so that’s why he can’t do it.’ Or, ‘His arm strength’s not good enough.’ If the ball’s where it needs to be and the offense is moving down the field, I think it doesn’t matter if you’re 5-2 or 6-2.”

Keenum’s height didn’t seem to matter in college. He left Houston as the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) career record-holder in passing yards (19.217) and passing touchdowns (155). He ranked seventh in FBS history in completion percentage (69.4) and eighth in passer efficiency rating (160.6). He finished in the top-10 in Heisman Trophy voting twice and had a 37-14 record as a starter.

And yet, Keenum’s name wasn’t one of the 253 called during the seven rounds of the 2012 NFL Draft.

“That wasn’t a fun day,” he said. “That night was a lot better when I knew where I was going and everything like that. The entire draft process, everything leading up to it, was not a blast, either. I tried to look at it in that there’s not many people that even get this chance, and that’s all I needed was a chance somewhere. I’m truly blessed that it just came down the street from where I live, and I’m blessed that one of the best organizations in the NFL is down the street from where I live.

“When it comes down to it, hopefully, one of these days, it won’t really matter how I got here. I’m here. I’m going to attack each day like it’s my last, and I’ve tried to get as much out of each day and put in as much into each day as I possibly can. I have so far. I’m going to do that the entire time I’m here. Hopefully, it’s longer than shorter.”

The draft experience mimicked Keenum’s college recruitment – or lack thereof. He was a second-team all-state selection at Wylie High School in Abilene, Texas, where he passed for 6,783 career yards and 48 touchdowns, ran for 2,000 yards and had a career record of 31-11. Only one school, Houston, offered him a scholarship.

Six years later, Keenum left the Cougars as the leading passer in NCAA history. He had proven the skeptics wrong.

He’s looking to do the same thing in Houston yet again – this time for its NFL team.

“I tell any high school football player I talk to that it’s not about how many stars you have on Rivals or Scout.com or if you’re invited to the Elite 11 quarterback deal, because I wasn’t,” Keenum said. “I wasn’t one of those guys. There’s a lot of coaches out there that didn’t offer me a scholarship, and I’d be willing to bet that of the 119 Division I teams out there, I bet 118 are maybe thinking twice about that now. That’s the way I see it, and I think that high school kids should see that, too. All that stuff is good to some extent…but it’s not the only way to get into college and to get on even a Division I football program and to go be successful.

“All you need is a chance, whether that’s walking on somewhere or going wherever. Just make the most of that chance, and that’s what I’m going to do here.”

GP
06-28-2012, 08:16 PM
The draft experience mimicked Keenum’s college recruitment – or lack thereof. He was a second-team all-state selection at Wylie High School in Abilene, Texas, where he passed for 6,783 career yards and 48 touchdowns, ran for 2,000 yards and had a career record of 31-11. Only one school, Houston, offered him a scholarship.

Six years later, Keenum left the Cougars as the leading passer in NCAA history. He had proven the skeptics wrong.

He’s looking to do the same thing in Houston yet again – this time for its NFL team.

“I tell any high school football player I talk to that it’s not about how many stars you have on Rivals or Scout.com or if you’re invited to the Elite 11 quarterback deal, because I wasn’t,” Keenum said. “I wasn’t one of those guys. There’s a lot of coaches out there that didn’t offer me a scholarship, and I’d be willing to bet that of the 119 Division I teams out there, I bet 118 are maybe thinking twice about that now. That’s the way I see it, and I think that high school kids should see that, too. All that stuff is good to some extent…but it’s not the only way to get into college and to get on even a Division I football program and to go be successful.

“All you need is a chance, whether that’s walking on somewhere or going wherever. Just make the most of that chance, and that’s what I’m going to do here.”

To me, the great QBs are the guys who play with a chip on their shoulder. They defy the odds. They overcome. All of this is what makes the teammates around such a QB strive to go harder, faster, longer in their own NFL lives.

Nobody saw Tom Brady coming. He played with a chip on his shoulder:

FOXBORO (CBS) – New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, speaking from Gillette Stadium on Friday, remembers back to when he first met Tom Brady.

The 22-year-old Brady was just as confident as the 34-year-old version that takes the field every Sunday for the Patriots.

“I still have the image of Tom Brady coming down the old Foxboro stadium steps with that pizza box under his arm, a skinny beanpole, and when he introduced himself to me and said ‘Hi Mr. Kraft,’ he was about to say who he was, but I said ‘I know who you are, you’re Tom Brady. You’re our sixth round draft choice,’” recalled Kraft. “And he looked me in the eye and said ‘I’m the best decision this organization has ever made.’ It looks like he could be right.”

Link to story here. (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/20/brady-told-patriots-kraft-im-best-decision-this-organization-has-ever-made/)

When I read Case Keenum's quotes, he sounds like a guy who knows he can deliver and all he wants is a chance to show it.

thunderkyss
06-28-2012, 08:20 PM
No stranger to skeptics, Keenum making most of chance

What a maroon.

Case, not you doc.

He should hold a slumber party at his house & call it "practice" that way everyone would know he's a leader & a real NFL QB.


:kitten:

thunderkyss
06-28-2012, 08:25 PM
Nobody saw Tom Brady coming. He played with a chip on his shoulder...



No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

GP
06-28-2012, 08:31 PM
No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

Oh, I was just thinking that somehow he took the reins of the Patriots and won the Super Bowl fairly quickly...when the guy before him, Bledsoe, failed to do so. My bad.

6th round QBs who win multiple SBs, let alone a single SB, are special. If anybody could have seen the talent...he would have been #1 overall.

Case Keenum has the chance to fly as low under the radar as Tom Brady. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up the Texans' starter and having a pretty decent career at it.

Texan_Bill
06-28-2012, 08:51 PM
No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

Are you freaking kidding me? I hope you're being facetious.

Forget about 2000 (he was a back-up to Bledsoe), but from 2001 to 2005:

Pro-Bowl - 3 times
TD's/Int's - 123/66
Completion % - 62%
QBRating - 88.6%

I dunno know man, but maybe you could re-evalute your standards, because those numbers are pretty freakin' solid in my book. Yes, they had a good defense and yes they had a pretty good kicker but to suggest that Brady wasn't very good is pretty ludicrous, TK.

And this is coming from someone that despises that douche.

drs23
06-28-2012, 08:52 PM
What a maroon.

Case, not you doc.

He should hold a slumber party at his house & call it "practice" that way everyone would know he's a leader & a real NFL QB.


:kitten:

Is that this color, or is this one closer to what you have in mind?

Help me out here TK. :D

:kitten::kitten::kitten:

ObsiWan
06-28-2012, 09:22 PM
What a maroon.

Case, not you doc.

He should hold a slumber party at his house & call it "practice" that way everyone would know he's a leader & a real NFL QB.


:kitten:

Is that this color, or is this one closer to what you have in mind?

Help me out here TK. :D

:kitten::kitten::kitten:

it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQF2rwMmna_2Hpg64ikn-gN54jxe9hX9fEkoWjZ7jd7zg-WnrsT



Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

Texan_Bill
06-28-2012, 10:03 PM
it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQF2rwMmna_2Hpg64ikn-gN54jxe9hX9fEkoWjZ7jd7zg-WnrsT



Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

Really?? The "Olden Days"??

Hey ****ers, it's you people that brought us into the world of young hipsters AND us into you're terrible "times"...

Wait, WHAT??? Scooby Doo rocked!!! Yosemite Sam? Bugs??? Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

Grams
06-28-2012, 10:04 PM
No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And his 4th - 2003.
That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

GP
06-28-2012, 10:17 PM
No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.

I think you stepped out there and didn't know the history of Tom Brady as well as you thought you did.

Your entire premise is way off.

CloakNNNdagger
06-28-2012, 10:56 PM
Draft ANALYSIS

Positives... Touch passer with the ability to read and diagnose defensive coverages...Confident leader who knows how to take command in the huddle...Very tough and mobile moving around in the pocket...Has a quick setup and is very effective throwing on the move...Throws across his body with great consistency...Hits receivers in stride and improvises his throws in order to make a completion...Puts good zip behind the short and mid-range passes...Shows good judgement and keen field vision...Has a take-charge attitude and is very cool under pressure...Hits receivers in motion with impressive velocity...Has superb pocket presence and uses all of his offensive weapons in order to move the chains...Has solid body mechanics and quickness moving away from center... Elusive scrambler with the body control to avoid the rush.link (http://www.footballsfuture.com/2001/profile/drew_brees.html)











Oh, did I fail to mention that this was a 2001 Brees draft profile?

thunderkyss
06-28-2012, 11:05 PM
I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And his 4th - 2003.
That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

Team game. The name on the back, not the front...... to quote a wise old sage.

thunderkyss
06-28-2012, 11:08 PM
I think you stepped out there and didn't know the history of Tom Brady as well as you thought you did.

Your entire premise is way off.

I hold by my original statement. Couldn't care less about popular opinion. His first 4 or 5 years, he didn't belong in the conversation with Peyton, regardless how many rings Peyton didn't have.

Dan Marino, Dan Fouts..... Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, great QBs, no rings.

Troy Dilfer, Brad Johnson... suck with rings.

It's not my premise that is off.

badboy
06-28-2012, 11:10 PM
No he didn't. He played on a team with a bad-ass defense & one of the better kickers the league has ever seen.

Tom Brady wasn't a very good QB for at least his first 4 or 5 years. Maybe there was a chip on his shoulder that made him get better over the years....... he's definitely better.

Those early years, there was Brady vs Manning talk & I thought it was the silliest TV generated crap I had ever heard. Wasn't even close. But in the last 5 or 6 years, Brady has put himself into that conversation & I can now see some people grading him higher than the best there ever was.So if you have basic skills, desire, a good coach and right system, you could succeed in NFL.

thunderkyss
06-28-2012, 11:12 PM
So if you have basic skills, desire, a good coach and right system, you could succeed in NFL.

yes

JB
06-28-2012, 11:12 PM
Really?? The "Olden Days"??

Hey ****ers, it's you people that brought us into the world of young hipsters AND us into you're terrible "times"...

Wait, WHAT??? Scooby Doo rocked!!! Yosemite Sam? Bugs??? Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

Old ****

The Pencil Neck
06-28-2012, 11:18 PM
I hold by my original statement. Couldn't care less about popular opinion. His first 4 or 5 years, he didn't belong in the conversation with Peyton, regardless how many rings Peyton didn't have.

Dan Marino, Dan Fouts..... Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, great QBs, no rings.

Troy Dilfer, Brad Johnson... suck with rings.

It's not my premise that is off.

But aren't you the one who categorized QBs by whether they were SB caliber or not?

thunderkyss
06-28-2012, 11:22 PM
But aren't you the one who categorized QBs by whether they were SB caliber or not?

I don't think Dilfer or Brad Johnson are SB caliber. I don't think either of them could lead their team to a SuperBowl. Riding on the coat-tails of one of the greatest defenses of all times is not leading your team to a super bowl.

Ben Rothlisberger was not a great QB when he won his first Super Bowl was he? He's a much better QB now, than he was then. Same holds true for Brady.

GP
06-28-2012, 11:35 PM
I don't think Dilfer or Brad Johnson are SB caliber. I don't think either of them could lead their team to a SuperBowl. Riding on the coat-tails of one of the greatest defenses of all times is not leading your team to a super bowl.

Ben Rothlisberger was not a great QB when he won his first Super Bowl was he? He's a much better QB now, than he was then. Same holds true for Brady.

Ben was better than people expected him to be. He won a SB, not many NFL sophomores win a SB. I don't care what they have around them, they're still between a rock and a hard place when it comes to being a starting QB in the NFL (let alone WINNING a SB!).

What in da hell else can make a QB be recognized as being "great?"

Your standards are so quirky. You're the only guy on this board who thought Steve Slaton was running BETTER his last year here than his first season here. I really don't grasp your analytical skills when it comes to grading players.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 07:31 AM
Ben was better than people expected him to be. He won a SB, not many NFL sophomores win a SB. I don't care what they have around them, they're still between a rock and a hard place when it comes to being a starting QB in the NFL (let alone WINNING a SB!).

Do you think Ben was better, worse, or the same in 2011 as he was the year he won the Super Bowl?

Are you saying as a sophomore, Ben was a better NFL QB because he won a Super Bowl, than he was in 2011, when his team missed the play-offs?

ckhouston
06-29-2012, 07:42 AM
Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Boesch

Paul Boesch was awesome. The first airing from the Sam Houston Coliseum would be late Friday night, around 11pm if I remember, but I would always stay up to watch. They would then re-air it the next morning on Saturday.

Wahoo McDaniel, Ivan Putsky, Gorgeous Gino Hernandez, Von Erich Brothers, etc. Good times.

drs23
06-29-2012, 09:45 AM
it's ain't about color
(hmm... could you be that young?!)

It's a Bugs Bunny thing... from the olden dayz
(pre-P.C.) cartoons
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQF2rwMmna_2Hpg64ikn-gN54jxe9hX9fEkoWjZ7jd7zg-WnrsT



Maybe TK should have used a Dilbert reference...

Dang, and I used to watch BB/RR hour in black-n-white with rabbit ears. Maybe I couldn't read yet. :hides:

GP
06-29-2012, 10:09 AM
Do you think Ben was better, worse, or the same in 2011 as he was the year he won the Super Bowl?

Are you saying as a sophomore, Ben was a better NFL QB because he won a Super Bowl, than he was in 2011, when his team missed the play-offs?

Clearly he was better in 2005.

You are always trying to flip conventional wisdom on its head. You think Steve Slaton ran better in his last year than he did in his best season ever (rookie year). You think Brady wasn't a great QB his first 5 years. And you think Ben was better last year than he was in his Super Bowl year in 2005.

Do you not see a pattern with your analysis???

Even Ben admitted recently that he feels he wasn't that great in 2011. He says he's going to try and get back what he HAD BEEN prior to 2011.

You're getting Kubiak Cute with player analysis.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 11:23 AM
Clearly he was better in 2005.

You are always trying to flip conventional wisdom on its head. You think Steve Slaton ran better in his last year than he did in his best season ever (rookie year). You think Brady wasn't a great QB his first 5 years. And you think Ben was better last year than he was in his Super Bowl year in 2005.

Do you not see a pattern with your analysis???

Even Ben admitted recently that he feels he wasn't that great in 2011. He says he's going to try and get back what he HAD BEEN prior to 2011.

You're getting Kubiak Cute with player analysis.

Is this correct? Is this the way the rest of you think? Am I alone on this one?

Ben was better in 2005 because he won a Super Bowl than he was in 2011 because he didn't make the play-offs...

Is that conventional wisdom?

infantrycak
06-29-2012, 11:55 AM
Is this correct? Is this the way the rest of you think? Am I alone on this one?

Ben was better in 2005 because he won a Super Bowl than he was in 2011 because he didn't make the play-offs...

Is that conventional wisdom?

OK on the one hand I don't disagree with all your contrarian positions. OTOH yes Ben was better in 2005 because he was more efficient in almost every regard. It isn't that he won the SB - that is a team achievement. It is that he was efficient within what the team wanted to do. He has adopted a bit of a gunslinger mentality and is making mistakes.

TheEastwood
06-29-2012, 12:04 PM
I dont know why you keep on saying that he didn't make the playoffs in 2011... if you mean last year, then they made it and got bounced out by the broncos. If you mean the year before that.... the Steelers made it to the freakin Superbowl lol.

And imo, of course Big Ben is better know than he was back then. A great defense and some sketchy calls won him that first ring. Football is a TEAM game. For the first couple of years, Brady has good. not great, good. He was a solid game manager that relied on the defense and running game to win. His specialty was that he was always so clutch at the end of the game. And even then, without adam venateri, nobodies talking about how clutch Tom Brady is imo. Dont you remember people talking about Peyton vs Brady? Peyton has the stats but Brady has the rings? That's cause his first few years in the nfl, Tom Brady wasnt the TB of today. He has completely elevated his game to something special and is now, today, one of the best ive ever seen.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 12:16 PM
OK on the one hand I don't disagree with all your contrarian positions. OTOH yes Ben was better in 2005 because he was more efficient in almost every regard. It isn't that he won the SB - that is a team achievement. It is that he was efficient within what the team wanted to do. He has adopted a bit of a gunslinger mentality and is making mistakes.

So Ben has regressed is what you're saying?

I believe we've had discussions about Brady/Manning on this board (or the old one) around that time. My opinion (as contrarian as it may seem) was the same then as it is now. Brady didn't belong in the conversation at that time.

I think he's a much better QB now than he was then, even though he didn't win an MVP last year.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 12:19 PM
I dont know why you keep on saying that he didn't make the playoffs in 2011... if you mean last year, then they made it and got bounced out by the broncos.

You're right.. thank you for correcting me & not being smug about it.

If you mean the year before that.... the Steelers made it to the freakin Superbowl lol.

Belay my last.

And imo, of course Big Ben is better know than he was back then. A great defense and some sketchy calls won him that first ring. Football is a TEAM game.

So you agree with me.

For the first couple of years, Brady has good. not great, good. He was a solid game manager that relied on the defense and running game to win. His specialty was that he was always so clutch at the end of the game.

And even then, without adam venateri, nobodies talking about how clutch Tom Brady is imo. Dont you remember people talking about Peyton vs Brady? Peyton has the stats but Brady has the rings? That's cause his first few years in the nfl, Tom Brady wasnt the TB of today.

He has completely elevated his game to something special and is now, today, one of the best ive ever seen.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Thanks again. I'm not alone.

infantrycak
06-29-2012, 12:23 PM
So Ben has regressed is what you're saying?

Wouldn't say regressed so much as has taken too much on himself and has become a less efficient QB. The Steelers were about team. Now Ben thinks they are about him.

GP
06-29-2012, 12:29 PM
You're right.. thank you for correcting me & not being smug about it.

Belay my last.

So you agree with me.


Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Thanks again. I'm not alone.

Well, "not being alone" is not exactly having a crowded room of supporters either. If the bar you're setting is that low, then congrats.

The issue is that Ben, whether it be from injuries or declining team around him (injured o-line, inconsistent RB situations, etc.), is not the same guy he was in 2005. He was good in 2004, too. He's been decently consistent, IMO. But to say he's better now than he was early on...it's a reach.

Tom Brady. Look, the Pats found a way to win with Brady at QB early on. Since then, they've been adding weaponry to the arsenal. As weapons have been added, YES there has been an increase in his productivity. But I still think he was fundamentally the same QB early on that he is now. Growth? Yes. But it's not like he was mediocre those first four or five years. To me, with what you typed, you're saying Tom Brady wasn't even in the running as being a "great QB" his first four or five years. That bit of text was hyperbole, surely. Right?

You need to quote the other two people, such as the quote Grams made, and not just the lone supporter of your thoughts on this topic. I'll re-post it, and let's discuss to what degree Tom Brady is massively better now than he was his first four or five years.

Grams said:

I believe he won the Super Bowl in his 2nd season - 2001. And in his 4th season in 2003. That looks like a pretty dang good QB to me. Took Peyton a whole lot longer to win 1, much less 3 that Brady has.

And Texan Bill said:

Are you freaking kidding me? I hope you're being facetious.

Forget about 2000 (he was a back-up to Bledsoe), but from 2001 to 2005:

Pro-Bowl - 3 times
TD's/Int's - 123/66
Completion % - 62%
QBRating - 88.6%

I dunno know man, but maybe you could re-evalute your standards, because those numbers are pretty freakin' solid in my book. Yes, they had a good defense and yes they had a pretty good kicker but to suggest that Brady wasn't very good is pretty ludicrous, TK.

And this is coming from someone that despises that douche.

Now, SBs can be held in a vacuum...but when the guy has multiple SBs and a trio of Pro Bowl starts in four years' time, he's doing something right. Consistently. Eli Manning outplayed Tom Brady in this previous SB....so is the window on Brady as a "great QB" closing? No. He just got outplayed in the singularly most important game of his season, that's all. So when he DOES play well in 2001 and 2004 and gets a ring both those years, he was doing things really well back then as well. To say he's better now than he was in 2001 and 2003, it doesn't seem to hold water.

TheEastwood
06-29-2012, 12:36 PM
GP, if Brady plays those games the exact same way and Venetari misses those kicks, he doesnt have 3 rings. Is he still the best?

That's what I mean by football being a team game. When you look at a qb, you cant just look at rings. If that's how your judging qbs then Dilfer > Marino. Ugh, I feel dirty for even typing that.

GP
06-29-2012, 12:44 PM
GP, if Brady plays those games the exact same way and Venetari misses those kicks, he doesnt have 3 rings. Is he still the best?

That's what I mean by football being a team game. When you look at a qb, you cant just look at rings. If that's how your judging qbs then Dilfer > Marino. Ugh, I feel dirty for even typing that.

The kicker doesn't get to make those kicks if the QB hadn't performed all reg season, all playoffs, and in the SB game itself to even get the kicker to that point in the first place. Team game? Yes. But that's a problematic viewpoint to take in this discussion.

How about this:

I am the commissioner and I just decided that extra points are no longer a part of the game. In fact, I'm removing the kicker completely. Now you don't even have field goals, and instead you've got to score TDs to score points and the only way to break ties is by virtue of 2-point conversions............

So in those same scenarios, Tom Brady is going to end up playing the deciding role in the outcome of those games. If we remove the kicker(s) from the equations, to have an apples-to-apples comparison between QBs, Tom Brady wins that battle 9 times out of 10 vs. opposing defenses and opposing QBs. He's THAT consistently "great." Does Trent Dilfer stack up when we examine it in this way? No. Therefore SB outcomes can play a role if we consider those SB wins within a proper context of the full body of work.

Ben is consistently GOOD. Tom is consistently great and has been for more than just the past several years.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 12:50 PM
Well, "not being alone" is not exactly having a crowded room of supporters either. If the bar you're setting is that low, then congrats.

I'm just glad someone other than me remembered the Brady/Manning arguments back then... maybe I'm not crazy. There was a reason we had that argument. One guy looked like the best QB of all time & the other looked like a lucky sumbix

The issue is that Ben, whether it be from injuries or declining team around him (injured o-line, inconsistent RB situations, etc.), is not the same guy he was in 2005. He was good in 2004, too. He's been decently consistent, IMO. But to say he's better now than he was early on...it's a reach.

:spit:



Tom Brady. Look, the Pats found a way to win with Brady at QB early on. Since then, they've been adding weaponry to the arsenal. As weapons have been added, YES there has been an increase in his productivity. But I still think he was fundamentally the same QB early on that he is now. Growth? Yes. But it's not like he was mediocre those first four or five years. To me, with what you typed, you're saying Tom Brady wasn't even in the running as being a "great QB" his first four or five years. That bit of text was hyperbole, surely. Right?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Look, Ben & Tom were lucky to get on good teams. They didn't have to do much & their coaches didn't ask them to do much. They've both got much better since. I don't really see how anyone could argue.


So when he DOES play well in 2001 and 2004 and gets a ring both those years, he was doing things really well back then as well. To say he's better now than he was in 2001 and 2003, it doesn't seem to hold water.

What? Take Venitari off those teams in 2001 & 2004, what are the odds they even get to the Super Bowl? Get us a referee in 2001 who knows a fumble when he sees one... & we're not having this conversation.

By your logic..... if we can call it that, Dilfer is a better QB than Moon & Marino.

Winning a Super Bowl in 2001 does not make Tom Brady a better QB than he was in 2011. It's a team game. Put Brady on a team with a defense half as good as the one he played with in 2001 & it's not even close they'd have beat anyone.

Aaron Rodgers. Better QB his Super Bowl year, or did he just have a better defense?

SuperBowls are about the name on the front of the Jersey, fans with nothing better to do make it about the name on the back.

TheEastwood
06-29-2012, 01:09 PM
You wont find me argueing that Brady is not great now. He is. Absolutely. One of the best of all time. But back in his early career, he was more of a game manager that relied on short quick passes, running game, and defense. One of the biggest indicators of a QB, to me, is the avg YPA. A higher number shows that they're pressing the ball downfield and seeing the whole field.

For his first 4 years, Tom Brady didn't even break 7 YPA. To me, this shows that he relied on the safe short throw to his rb or te (which he did early on) and if they didnt get the first down, trusted their defense to hold the other team.

Yes, Tom Brady is clutch but he cant do it by himself. He was able to win games this year with no defense, but do you really believe that he would have been able to do the same in 2001? That defense helped him out tremendously.

TheEastwood
06-29-2012, 01:19 PM
And if you want to take kickers out of the equation, then Matt Schaub is one of the most clutch players ever, right? It's crazy how many times he led the team back, only to have the kickers shank it or the defense lay it down in the final minute.
But you cant just dismiss an entire third of the game imo. Kickers are an important part of the game. If you don't have a good kicker, that's a huge detriment to your team.

Viniteri made two kicks in the last seconds of two superbowls to win the game for them. If he misses those, does Brady have the reputation for being clutch that he does now?
Hell, in the AFC championship, Flacco hit a reciever in the hands in the endzone and had the pass dropped. That would have won the game. Then cundiff shanked his kick shortly after. That changed what would have been an amazingly clutch win by Flacco to just another loss. If the team round them doesn't play up to par, no QB can win. Football is still a TEAM game

GP
06-29-2012, 02:21 PM
By your logic..... if we can call it that, Dilfer is a better QB than Moon & Marino.

Winning a Super Bowl in 2001 does not make Tom Brady a better QB than he was in 2011. It's a team game. Put Brady on a team with a defense half as good as the one he played with in 2001 & it's not even close they'd have beat anyone.

Aaron Rodgers. Better QB his Super Bowl year, or did he just have a better defense?

SuperBowls are about the name on the front of the Jersey, fans with nothing better to do make it about the name on the back.

By MY Logic Trent Dilfer is better than Moon and Marino??? No, I never said a single SB win outweighs other factors. In fact, if you would have represented what I said a little more honestly/thoughtfully...you would see (as others did) that I said a SB win, or multiple SB wins, has to be held in context to the larger body of a QB's work. In this case, we can say that Tom Brady is consistently great no matter if his kicker "won" the game or if he failed to get the win vs. the Giants, etc. His larger body of work when coupled with his SB appearances and wins, and the close losses as well, show that he's better than Dilfer by a mile. Marino and Moon, by virtue of their body of work, both are better than Dilfer.

But you're obfuscating, as you always do, and trying to rabbit trail the topic away from the main point and take it into alleys and backroads it doesn't need to go to. If you can't even re-post, correctly, what I said (which is well covered) then I won't follow you down the rabbit hole any further. This cat chooses to turn around and head back to the city limits.

GP
06-29-2012, 02:27 PM
And if you want to take kickers out of the equation, then Matt Schaub is one of the most clutch players ever, right? It's crazy how many times he led the team back, only to have the kickers shank it or the defense lay it down in the final minute.
But you cant just dismiss an entire third of the game imo. Kickers are an important part of the game. If you don't have a good kicker, that's a huge detriment to your team.

Viniteri made two kicks in the last seconds of two superbowls to win the game for them. If he misses those, does Brady have the reputation for being clutch that he does now?
Hell, in the AFC championship, Flacco hit a reciever in the hands in the endzone and had the pass dropped. That would have won the game. Then cundiff shanked his kick shortly after. That changed what would have been an amazingly clutch win by Flacco to just another loss. If the team round them doesn't play up to par, no QB can win. Football is still a TEAM game

You're still not addressing the CORE issue. We have a thousand BUTs and WHAT IFs that we can ramrod into a discussion.

All things considered, removing other variables that cannot be held against a QB's ability and his overall stats and impact upon a team's performance...do you rank Matt Schaub into the same zone as Tom Brady? You surely wouldn't.

Because Neil Rackers won the 2010 game vs. Redskins, not Matt Schaub. Schaub and AJ hooked up for a desperation TD that sent it to overtime. Rackers nailed the game-winning FG in OT. But that doesn't mean Schaub didn't have a hand in it, in fact he had a HUGE hand in it. Likewise, in the 2010 loss to the Ravens on a Monday Night game...Schaub threw a pick-six and the Ravens won the game on it...by this measure, Schaub failed in epic fashion because he never even gave Rackers a chance to win the game. So it goes a lot of ways, but ultimately at the end of the day WHICH QB is better if we remove all extraneous factors (such as a kicker saving the day or shanking a kick).

There's an element of Homer in us that wants to believe Matt Schaub is near, or at, that same level and he juuuuuust hasn't had the breaks that other guys have had, I call B.S. on that. He is who he is, and he won't be ranked or considered any higher until he takes the team on his back consistently and pushes us all the way to the top. Team game? Yes. But that doesn't discount the idea that a proven, "great" QB is worth a bushel full of RBs and defenses.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 03:31 PM
And if you want to take kickers out of the equation, then Matt Schaub is one of the most clutch players ever, right? It's crazy how many times he led the team back, only to have the kickers shank it or the defense lay it down in the final minute.

I'll admit, when discussing Matt Schaub I don't factor this in as much as I should.

You're right & this is a very good point.

The Pencil Neck
06-29-2012, 03:58 PM
To me, winning a Super Bowl should be totally divorced from the conversation when discussing whether a QB is good or not. There are simply too many other factors involved in winning a SB and that makes it so that a bad QB can win a SB and a great QB might never make it to the game.

But how the QB performs in big games should be considered. How the QB performs in pressure situations should be considered. But whether the team ultimately wins or loses, shouldn't. If a kicker misses a FG or a defense gives up a last second TD or if a WR drops a pass that hits him in the hands, that's not the QBs fault and shouldn't be a negative assigned to him.

Because of that, I'll never use the "SB Caliber" label when talking about someone. I believe that any mediocre QB can win a SB given the right team and the right set of circumstances. And the term "SB Caliber" should be defined to mean "able to win a SB." If you win a SB, then you are obviously "able" to win a SB.

I don't think Bob Griese was a great QB. I don't think Terry Bradshaw was a great QB. I don't think Trent Dilfer was a great QB. I don't think Brad Johnson was a great QB. I think you have to look at how the QB performs his function: reading the defenses, making the throws, play-faking, running his offense. If a guy puts up good numbers against weak defenses and then disappears against tough ones or when the game is on the line, then he's not a great QB.

drs23
06-29-2012, 05:54 PM
To me, winning a Super Bowl should be totally divorced from the conversation when discussing whether a QB is good or not. There are simply too many other factors involved in winning a SB and that makes it so that a bad QB can win a SB and a great QB might never make it to the game.

But how the QB performs in big games should be considered. How the QB performs in pressure situations should be considered. But whether the team ultimately wins or loses, shouldn't. If a kicker misses a FG or a defense gives up a last second TD or if a WR drops a pass that hits him in the hands, that's not the QBs fault and shouldn't be a negative assigned to him.

Because of that, I'll never use the "SB Caliber" label when talking about someone. I believe that any mediocre QB can win a SB given the right team and the right set of circumstances. And the term "SB Caliber" should be defined to mean "able to win a SB." If you win a SB, then you are obviously "able" to win a SB.

I don't think Bob Griese was a great QB. I don't think Terry Bradshaw was a great QB. I don't think Trent Dilfer was a great QB. I don't think Brad Johnson was a great QB. I think you have to look at how the QB performs his function: reading the defenses, making the throws, play-faking, running his offense. If a guy puts up good numbers against weak defenses and then disappears against tough ones or when the game is on the line, then he's not a great QB.

I'm in complete agreement with all but the bolded. I think Bradshaw is one of the best to be behind center. I couldn't have admitted that 30 years ago when he was constantly throttling the Oilers but I've gotten over it now. In retrospect I appreciate his "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach to the game. One of the original "gunslingers" I think.

The Pencil Neck
06-29-2012, 06:00 PM
I'm in complete agreement with all but the bolded. I think Bradshaw is one of the best to be behind center. I couldn't have admitted that 30 years ago when he was constantly throttling the Oilers but I've gotten over it now. In retrospect I appreciate his "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" approach to the game. One of the original "gunslingers" I think.

For me, the Steelers teams were so dominating from a defensive and running standpoint that they were able to overcome and make up for Bradshaw's deficiencies.

Like you said, he was a gunslinger. I don't like that type of QB. I find it a selfish and self-destructive style. I don't particularly like Favre as a QB, either, but I have to admit he's put up some gaudy numbers. If I were putting a team together, I wouldn't want a Bradshaw, a Favre, or a Roethlisburger. I just don't like the approach.

infantrycak
06-29-2012, 06:17 PM
For me, the Steelers teams were so dominating from a defensive and running standpoint that they were able to overcome and make up for Bradshaw's deficiencies.

Like you said, he was a gunslinger. I don't like that type of QB. I find it a selfish and self-destructive style. I don't particularly like Favre as a QB, either, but I have to admit he's put up some gaudy numbers. If I were putting a team together, I wouldn't want a Bradshaw, a Favre, or a Roethlisburger. I just don't like the approach.

Totally agreed on the italicized. To keep the comparison fair, Staubach and Bradshaw started one year apart. Staubach who was known for ad-libbing plays was much more accurate, threw way less INT's, and was just an across the board better QB. Heck he was even a better runner. But the Steelers won the games.

thunderkyss
06-29-2012, 08:23 PM
Totally agreed on the italicized. To keep the comparison fair, Staubach and Bradshaw started one year apart. Staubach who was known for ad-libbing plays was much more accurate, threw way less INT's, and was just an across the board better QB. Heck he was even a better runner. But the Steelers won the games.

Did you know when you quote someone, the whole post is italicized?

infantrycak
06-29-2012, 10:14 PM
Did you know when you quote someone, the whole post is italicized?

Yeah, remembered that afterwards. Thanks for pointing it out though. I was trying to not be too bold.

ObsiWan
06-29-2012, 10:19 PM
Really?? The "Olden Days"??

Hey ****ers, it's you people that brought us into the world of young hipsters AND us into you're terrible "times"...

Wait, WHAT??? Scooby Doo rocked!!! Yosemite Sam? Bugs??? Mid-South Wrasslin' (Paul Bosch) EVERY Saturday morning was the bomb!!!

That ****e was GOOD Saturday morning TV!!

Have you seen today's Looney Tunes? They're so PC it's sickening. No more Bugs or Elmer Fudd in drag. No more gratutitus (sp?) from the Tazmanian Devil. No more Elmer blowing the beak off of Daffy. Hell, I'm surprised they haven't put pants on Porky Pig yet.

Sorry for going tangential there.

I'm back now.

For the record, in my perfect scenario, Case does a couple of years as Schaub's apprentice then takes over the reins and leads the Texans into the playoffs (while helping A.J. build up mega post season receiving stats in the process) and to a SB championship or three.

infantrycak
06-29-2012, 10:42 PM
For the record, in my perfect scenario, Case does a couple of years as Schaub's apprentice then takes over the reins and leads the Texans into the playoffs (while helping A.J. build up mega post season receiving stats in the process) and to a SB championship or three.

I see Case as a more likely replacement for Schaub than TJ. AJ is totally health dependent. IF AJ, Foster, and Schaub stay healthy together the league needs to be scared.

Vinnie
06-29-2012, 11:27 PM
I see Case as a more likely replacement for Schaub than TJ. AJ is totally health dependent. IF AJ, Foster, and Schaub stay healthy together the league needs to be scared.

No way dude. As much as I really like Case and hope he has a phenomenal NFL career, I just don't see this. TJ is going to have to screw up in a huge way before that happens, and quite frankly, I really don't want to see that.

CloakNNNdagger
06-29-2012, 11:47 PM
No way dude. As much as I really like Case and hope he has a phenomenal NFL career, I just don't see this. TJ is going to have to screw up in a huge way before that happens, and quite frankly, I really don't want to see that.

All is to be seen. But my vote goes with Cak and ObsiWan to Case. Even in college, TJ had at best what could be considered an up and down career with one decent year. The profiles I read of him tended to fit him more in a backup career. While I see TJ as someone who could probably "hold down the fort" for a while, I see Case as someone who would be more likely to make things "happen."

beerlover
06-30-2012, 02:10 AM
All is to be seen. But my vote goes with Cak and ObsiWan to Case. Even in college, TJ had at best what could be considered an up and down career with one decent year. The profiles I read of him tended to fit him more in a backup career. While I see TJ as someone who could probably "hold down the fort" for a while, I see Case as someone who would be more likely to make things "happen."

"making things happen" is not always a good thing when those can be negative as well, which was my opinion of TJ while @ Carolina now with Houston. Seems I'm in the minority around here concerning Yates future being a bit more rosey.

He is a bit of a gunslinger, but that never stopped Farve or his detractors early on at least.

Yates has a quick release that is natural & fluid.

He has size & ability to elude the rush.

He also has a solid base of playing in this system which will only improve his chances for success.

Case has a longer road & more obstacles ahead to overcome.

Must learn a whole new system.

Has to overcome his size disadvantage & borderline measureables.

Injury history, with lack of arm strength.

Throwing motion is a bit low as well not over the top, usually on the run. I'm just not sure this is the best fit system for him?

Love both kids, great character & leadership skills.

I'm projecting Yates will be the starter next year & Case will effort his way into the back-up role. We'll see :vincepalm:

ObsiWan
06-30-2012, 07:40 AM
"making things happen" is not always a good thing when those can be negative as well, which was my opinion of TJ while @ Carolina now with Houston. Seems I'm in the minority around here concerning Yates future being a bit more rosey.

He is a bit of a gunslinger, but that never stopped Farve or his detractors early on at least.

Yates has a quick release that is natural & fluid.

He has size & ability to elude the rush.

He also has a solid base of playing in this system which will only improve his chances for success.

Case has a longer road & more obstacles ahead to overcome.

Must learn a whole new system.

Has to overcome his size disadvantage & borderline measureables.

Injury history, with lack of arm strength.

Throwing motion is a bit low as well not over the top, usually on the run. I'm just not sure this is the best fit system for him?

Love both kids, great character & leadership skills.

I'm projecting Yates will be the starter next year & Case will effort his way into the back-up role. We'll see :vincepalm:

Sounds a lot like the knocks Case has been hearing his whole football life. He's proved "them" wrong before. I'm pulling for him to prove "them" wrong again.

And it's been my experience that guys who have to prove the pundits wrong go the extra mile to do so. They work harder because they know they have to. They often dig deep into the playbook to get to know the nuances of the offense in order to get some edge to make up for the lack of speed or size or arm strength or whatever perceived short-coming that has been attributed to them.

As a fan, I'm pleased because no matter which guy emerges, the Texans win.

thunderkyss
06-30-2012, 08:19 AM
Yeah, remembered that afterwards. Thanks for pointing it out though. I was trying to not be too bold.

:evil:

thunderkyss
06-30-2012, 09:51 AM
"making things happen" is not always a good thing when those can be negative as well, which was my opinion of TJ while @ Carolina now with Houston. Seems I'm in the minority around here concerning Yates future being a bit more rosey.

He is a bit of a gunslinger, but that never stopped Farve or his detractors early on at least.

Yates has a quick release that is natural & fluid.

He has size & ability to elude the rush.

He also has a solid base of playing in this system which will only improve his chances for success.

I like Tj, but definitely thinks he needs more help...

Right now, we've got a talented team..... Andre, Arian, OD, Casey... he's got play makers out there to help him out, make him look better than what he is.

Playing with a team like this can help build his confidence while he builds his skills.

Then later when the team isn't as stacked with talent, maybe he'll be ready to lead the team, because I think he's got the intangibles an NFL QB needs.


Case has a longer road & more obstacles ahead to overcome.


I think Case is more of the kind of guy that will make his team mates look better. Yes, make Andre look better, make Arian look better, make OD & Casey look better.

I'm not saying he is that guy, but what he did at UH leads me to believe he's capable of being that guy. I don't know if he's ready to do it at this time or at this level.

I think we're lucky to have both of them & can't wait to see how this plays out.

CloakNNNdagger
07-17-2012, 08:51 AM
Just an FYI. Yesterday, Conference USA announced the winners of the 2011-12 Male Athlete of the Year award..........it was Case Keenum.

speedfreek
07-21-2012, 09:05 AM
Funny that he wins the award on his way out the door to the NFL and his university out the door to the BE next year.

CUSA will probably become the new "forgotten conference"

TJ

EVOLVIST
11-06-2013, 07:35 PM
Yeah, I'm going to be "That guy" who brings up an old thread (as if there wasn't enough Keenum chatter already). This was such a good read, though, from beginning to end. If you have the time read the whole thing.

There was/is some serious Negrodmus stuff going on up in here! :bravo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beaBHGoEHMs

EllisUnit
11-06-2013, 07:56 PM
this is what i love about message boards, its fun to go back and see who the true believers from the start were and who the converted ones were, and then the ones who say "iknew it all along" until u go back and see where they didnt.

eriadoc
11-06-2013, 09:32 PM
I am saying this right now, and trust me I am not a Cougar homer...

Case Keenum will be starting for the Texans in 3 years...

Pffft, you were SO off.

GuerillaBlack
11-07-2013, 09:21 AM
But no offensive line and its not like Keenum didn't go up against better competition and big schools. His entire body of work is impressive. He just needs to adjust to the speed. If he does that well, he is better than Schaub/Yates (better arm, accuracy, mobility, etc.).

Looks like I was one of the right ones. ;)

speedfreek
11-07-2013, 12:42 PM
After looking back, there wasn't really anyone who was super
negative or said the guy would fail.

I think the general concensus was that we needed a legit #3
given Schaub's health concerns and Keenum would have at least
been that (in everyone's mind at the time)

Pretty much a rosie thread really..

I expected him to be a good pro, but not nearly this quick.

(and certainly not to have the highest QB rating and most
yard per completion in NFL history for his first 2 starts)

TJ

76Texan
11-07-2013, 08:08 PM
76!!!! We're going to find out what your boy is made of. Now that he's a Texan I hope that he proves me wrong.

Good pick up...

But it's a far cry from being number 1 overall to being undrafted....

Just messing wit ya 76...

But seriously...I like this pick up a lot...

I didn't even really need to post in this thread.

Rey was referring to my posts in the college and mock draft forum.

I was saying things like if you think a guy can be a franchise QB, you need to seriously consider drafting him in the first round.

I consider Keenum as a grand general like Napoleon Bonaparte. He might be small in stature, but he ran roughshod all over Europe. Another inch or inch and a half and some ten-fifteen more pounds of muscle, and I would take him over Luck and RGIII any day.
The only concern I have with him is his size; he needs to be smart like Brees and Brady to avoid the hits as much as possible.

Porky
11-07-2013, 09:13 PM
NFL height = no.
NFL arm = no

Happy to have the hometown kid in camp just for the fun of it, but the odds of watching him taking any regular season NFL snaps are extremely low.

Considering the source, I just have to ROFLMAO. :bubbles:

legacy_gt
11-08-2013, 01:24 AM
After looking back, there wasn't really anyone who was super
negative or said the guy would fail.



TJ

not in this thread