My beef with Yates performance was that it simply wasn't very good.
Honestly, so many folks on here have selective memory about 2011.
He was average to serviceable during the regular season, and horrific
against Indy and the playoffs against Baltimore. I don't get the
logic of pinning the first Bengals playoff win on him when JJ made the
play that broke the game open.
The 2011 Texans could run the ball really well and played much
better defense than the Texans teams of 2012 and today.
Saying that Yates "has to be" the defacto #2 because of his playoff
experience, etc. is senseless to me when he was so average against
Cincy and so aweful against Baltimore.
People can remember the end of 2011 however they want, but the
bitter taste in my mouth from the way that season ended is still
there - in part - because of Yates..
And, please, don't give me this B.S. about being called into service
without a full playbook. "yadda yadda". Yates played in a system
very similar to Gary's at N.C. (for multiple years), and if it was
such a complicated system to learn Keenum would not have been
able to pick it up in one season holding a clipboard. (given his
collegiate experience was in a system 180 degrees out of phase)
Either Gary's approach isn't rocket science, or Keenum is some
type of "playbook savant"
After all, from where I sit, there is almost no distinguishable difference
between Yates and Keenum, and Yates has been doing this a much
Originally Posted by 76Texan
I don't understand this mindset.
Yates had not proven anything when he was called on to replace Schaub and Leinart.
Brady had not proven anything when he was called on to replace Bledsoe in 2001 en route to a SB.
He was a sixth round draft pick that was 1 of 3 for 6 yards in 2000 as a rookie.
And there are plenty of other examples.