Former University of Houston QB Case Keenum agrees to a contract with the Texans

[GP]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

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]

Originally Posted by GP

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

Originally Posted by GP

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.

Originally Posted by GP

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.

Originally Posted by GP

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

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]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

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]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

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]

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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]

Originally Posted by drs23

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]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

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]

Originally Posted by Texan_Bill

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]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

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]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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]

Originally Posted by Vinnie

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]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

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

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by beerlover

"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

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]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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