Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Report: Brian Hoyer to be named Texans starting QB

The Pencil Neck said:
3) Do you not understand how Forums work? On the old forum and on this forum, you can Ignore another user. The difference between the old forum and this forum is that on this forum, you can't Ignore staff members. Are you following me? So, on the old forum, I had you on ignore. If you go back prior to us moving to this new forum and look at my posts, you'll see that for years, I never, ever quoted you. Why was that? Because I had you on ignore and only ever saw your posts when someone else responded to them. Now, on this forum, I no longer have you on ignore and I can't put you on ignore even though I've tried to. So, yeah, I see your posts now and I've quoted them. But that's why I begged you to put me on Ignore. The whole "If you're ignoring my posts, why are you quoting them" crap only works when someone can actually put someone on ignore. Which I no longer can.
Click to expand...
Let me state the obvious. Just because you can't put someone "on ignore" doesn't mean you can't ignore their posts.

I love Bill O'Brien as the Texans head coach. Love him. The energy. The passion. Capers and Kubiak know the game as well as anyone. I just didn't see them able to relate their passion to the football team.

Still, if O'Brien fails as the Texans head coach, it will be because of personnel decisions. Mainly, the QBs he has picked and passed on. I'm a fan and I hope Brian Cinderella can fit into the glass slipper. But I know it's more likely that the Texans season turns into a pumpkin. That's not being a hater. Just being honest.
 
thunderkyss said:
I agree with this, for two reasons.
  1. You're going to waste a minimum of three years trying to prove he is not the guy. He could look as scared as Blaine Gabbert from day one & you're still going to "give him time."
  2. You passed on a potentially better player. Farley, Watt, Quincy, Pouncey, Solder... & you still didn't solve the QB spot
Not only did taking Carr mean we wouldn't get Julius Peppers, it also meant we were out of the market for Carson Palmer in the 2003 draft, Phillip Rivers & Ben Rothlisberger in the 2004 draft, & Aaron Rodgers in the 2005 draft.

I'm sure David Carr was a fine prospect. But look at his size, level of competition, & accomplishments compared to Carson & Rivers. Those are #1 overall QBs. Fresno state QBs don't go in the top 10.
Click to expand...

To your point 1 above. Aren't the Texans in the process of that same "wasting of three years" with the hurt Schaub, Fitzpatrick, Hoyer* parade of quarterbacks they have used to start recent seasons? Doesn't the lack of continuity have it's own negative effect? In addition, as Clowney proved last year, picking a non-quarterback isn't risk free.

*If Hoyer turns out to be the mediocre quarterback most of the board seems to expect.
 
The only thing you can do is look at the players drafted in hindsight.

Otherwise you can look at any qb drafted that is not Andrew luck/has question marks and say he could be a bust....and then justify it saying the team did its due diligence so I'm fine with them passing on guys.

Well we'll see about that at some point.

My guess would be that our team isn't the first perfect team at evaluating drafted qb's and we've probably missed on see opportunities.

But I fall back to my original thought that OB just is not going to make that type of commitment unless the value is there. He's not going to identify a guy and just take them.
 
Last edited:
thunderkyss said:
I'm sure David Carr was a fine prospect. But look at his size, level of competition, & accomplishments compared to Carson & Rivers. Those are #1 overall QBs. Fresno state QBs don't go in the top 10.
Click to expand...
By that logic, you don't draft Big Ben. But do draft Tim Couch, Akili Smith, and Mark Sanchez.

This is what I'm reading and I think everyone can agree with: If you're going to draft a QB, draft a good one.
 
I believe that this is an excellent article........that reflects exactly how this controversy has left me.

As Texans coach O'Brien enters 2nd year, plenty of questions linger
By Brian T. Smith

August 29, 2015

You can't spell 2015 Texans without saying quarterback and the only irreplaceable position in the NFL continues to drag down O'Brien's early reign. Wherever you stand on the already tiring Brian Hoyer-Ryan Mallett debate, we can all agree both needed and deserved more playing time during the team's initial preseason two contests. The in-game rotations didn't make sense, forcing Mallett to rely on short-range passes was a disservice to the power of his arm, and 15 total attempts for Hoyer doesn't exactly inspire unshakable confidence in a frustrated fanbase again succumbing to QB fear and doubt.

Then there's the short leash on Hoyer that isn't a tight rope - but really is - Mallett's embarrassing grade-school sleep-in day and O'Brien's backward idea to publicly call out his just-named No. 2 quarterback, then pretend like absolutely nothing happened the next day.

If you switched the channel to an NFL news break, ignoring the picture and only focusing on the sound, you'd immediately imagine Browns, Bills, Jets, Redskins or Raiders. And even Oakland has a Carr.

None of this had to happen. Most is the result of O'Brien's own doing. It was his call to sign both Hoyer and Mallett during free agency, not just one. It was O'Brien's insistence on a manufactured QB duel through training camp, featuring two unpredictable arms that wouldn't start on any of the league's true playoff contenders. It was his move to awkwardly hand the gig to Hoyer following a weak exhibition outing, then allow a nation of "Hard Knocks" eyes to see the links wrapped around the new starting quarterback's neck.

Ryan Fitzpatrick had more Week 1 backing in 2014. And the eventual 12-game starter was charged with turning around a 2-14 team in O'Brien's first year, not a 9-7 squad that nearly fought its way into the playoffs with four QBs.

Hoyer now faces a ridiculous preseason proposition. During a game where strong teams are doing a soft check of their RPMs to gauge how hot they'll be running for the regular-season opener, Hoyer's engine must click at a high level as long as he's on the field. If Hoyer falters again, he and O'Brien will only look more vulnerable. Then there's the ill-timed punchline: What happens if Mallett goes off in the Superdome during a nationally televised Sunday afternoon showcase?

These are rookie coaching mistakes that O'Brien is still working his way through in Year Two. None are forever damning. All will be forgotten if Hoyer magically pulls the postseason out of his red-and-blue hat. But a season where everything has to go right for the Texans to overcome the Colts and make the playoffs has already started off track - Arian Foster's missing, "Hard Knocks" has intruded on O'Brien's precious work space. Meanwhile, a quarterback competition that was supposed to create clarity has only delivered more controversy as Week 1 draws near.

O'Brien's smart, driven and confident enough to find his way out of this. We think. We really don't know and we're about to find out.

There's a 16-game sophomore test waiting for one of the league's promising young coaches. O'Brien's learning that even the meaningless things matter when you're holding onto a short leash.
Click to expand...
 
Runner said:
To your point 1 above. Aren't the Texans in the process of that same "wasting of three years" with the hurt Schaub, Fitzpatrick, Hoyer* parade of quarterbacks they have used to start recent seasons? Doesn't the lack of continuity have it's own negative effect? In addition, as Clowney proved last year, picking a non-quarterback isn't risk free.

*If Hoyer turns out to be the mediocre quarterback most of the board seems to expect.
Click to expand...

1st, I'm not saying you should absolutely not take a QB in the first round. It's all about the talent available vs your needs. If I need a starting QB & an outside pass rusher & the outside pass rusher has a 98% probability of success & the best QB available has an 89% probability of success, then taking the outside pass rusher is the right play. Clowney over Bortles.

Now things change as we go further down the draft. That same 89% QB vs a LG with 90% chance of success & a NT with 82% of success, yeah, we should have traded our 2nd & that 3rd to get Teddy.

Broke foot Schaub, yeah, we should have drafted Osweiller, Cousins, or Foles instead of Mercilus.

We may be wasting time with the likes of Fitz & Hoyer, but at least we've built a team that can win with the likes of Fitz & Hoyer. Unlike the Jags, Titans, Raiders, Bills, or Jets. They find their QB, they may win 9 games. We find ours, we'll win 11.
 
Last edited:
Lucky said:
By that logic, you don't draft Big Ben. But do draft Tim Couch, Akili Smith, and Mark Sanchez.

This is what I'm reading and I think everyone can agree with: If you're going to draft a QB, draft a good one.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You don't draft Akili Smith or Mark Sanchez... they don't have the size. & I don't recall the University of Oregon as a "football" school at the time. I wouldn't draft those guys with a top 5 pick.

Same thing for Ben Rothlisberger. He didn't have the pedigree. But I'd have had him slotted mid draft... 13~18 taking him at 10 in the 2004 draft wouldn't have been too big of a reach for me. Same thing I've said about Bortles & Bridgewater. 1st round picks, not top 5 picks. In hindsight, yeah I could say Rothlisberger was worth the #1 overall. But I'm not. I'm saying Ben Rothlisberger wasn't even on our radar because we drafted David Carr, even though he didn't have all the check marks while passing on someone who did (Peppers).
 
Texecutioner said:
You continue to say this without any type of reasoning at all.

How or why is that the case?

So what about Hoyer? Why is it that he hasn't been able to be a product of anyone else's system? What is it going to take 8 teams for him to find a system where he can perform like Foles did? At least Foles has shown that he can shine in "someone's system." Whether you want to make that argument until you die, Foles only threw 2 picks two years ago. Foles has led a team to the playoffs. Had Foles played all season he likely was going to be an MVP candidate that season. He has done ten times more than anything Hoyer has dreamed of doing in the NFL in just his year and half of playing time before he was injured.

Your idea that he is a system QB that is a product of Chip Kelly is the same thing that could be said about any QB in the NFL. I guess Rogers is a product of Mike Mike McCarthy.
Click to expand...

Again man, Foles in his second season did not perform up to his first year. His QBR, TD:Int came back down to earth. Mark freaking Sanchez performed well with chip system. If Sanchez can come in play well, to me that's the system. I am basing that on what I have Sanchez do in this prior till signing with the Eagles. It's the reason why Sanchez choose to resign with the Eagles before last season. I have good feeling the Bradford will perform well under chip.

Do you have any idea what Chip spread offense is all about? His offense very QB friendly. Just like how a WCO is very QB friendly. Sometimes a system can make a QB look better, sometimes, a QB is just pretty damn good. Like Rodgers who is a pretty damn good QB and is not a product of the system.

Who knows about Hoyer. He was with the Browns and he got benched, I hope that he succeeds here under under a better situation here in Houston.

Btw, Not all QBs are a product of a system. Which what I am not trying to say. I am arguing about Foles, I based that of what he had done with the Eagles and how Sanchez was able to come in not miss a beat.

If Foles is all that, why didn't chip keep him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
corytx8 said:
Again man, Foles in his second season did not perform up to his first year. His QBR, TD:Int came back down to earth. Mark freaking Sanchez performed well with chip system.
Click to expand...

You act like he played shitty. He did not. His QBR only came down a little and was both well above Sanchez and still at a borderlIne pro bowl level.

If Foles is all that, why didn't chip keep him?
Click to expand...

Is McCoy a product of the system too?
 
xtruroyaltyx said:
Or Hoyer did a poor job making a pre snap read.

You have Keyshawn running a slant nothing in the middle of the field. The DB is way back off the line. Even if Hoyer thinks the LB is guarding him for some reason, it's still a LB on a WR.
Click to expand...
Oh so that's how it works.... When Mallett get's the ball out quickly for a short completion (without looking anywhere else but at the RB), he's "properly executing the offense" but when Hoyer makes a quick throw to a back - for the first down, BTW - it's a poor pre-snap read.
riiiight....
:shades:
 
The Pencil Neck said:
They are rare things, indeed. But they do show up from time to time.

I would have been perfectly happy with Luck or RGIII. I would have been perfectly happy with anyone OB decided to pick.



I can't tell you how much this statement irritates me. This is a "water is wet" statement. Could you possibly say anything more obvious? Have you ever spent time on a team's forum before or is this your first day here?

If the Texan's draft a QB in the first round, I'm going to be excited and optimistic. Why? Why on Earth would I be excited and optimistic? Because I'm a god-damned FAN. Am I going to try to come up with rationalizations for why the team picked this or that guy? Of course I am! I'm a god-damned fan!? What do you expect me to do? Sit around here and ***** and moan that they drafted a quarterback in the first round that I didn't like and so now we're doomed!? Hell no! I'm going to be totally pumped that my team did their due diligence and finally found a guy worthy of using a first round pick on.

And I'm going to hope like hell they got it right. I'm going to go back over his film looking for the qualities that they liked, I'm going to follow ever snap during training camp hoping that he develops.

Hell! I did that and am doing that with SAVAGE! I'm hoping that his development from the 1st to 2nd year continues and that he has a break-out year in his 3rd year (if not sooner.)

Are you even a freaking fan? Do you understand what that means?

I was totally prepared for them to draft Bridgewater or Bortles in the first round last year, and I totally would have gotten behind either of those guys if they'd become Texans. Why? Because I'm a god-damned FAN of the HOUSTON TEXANS and whoever they picked would be my quarterback. I would have gotten behind Carr or Garoppolo if they'd picked either of them.

I'm getting behind them right now on freaking Hoyer because as of this moment, he's my QB... like it or freaking not.

You act like it's some sort of cognitive failing to be a fan, to root for your team to make the right decision from time to time, and to try to convince yourself that they have.

I'm not a scout. It's not my job to watch all the film on these guys in college and project them into the NFL. It's not my job to have a decision on which guys are going to be good and which guys are going to be bad and then to grade the front office on whether they chose the guys I thought were going to be good or not. If my team drafts someone that I didn't have a high grade on, I'm going to get behind those guys and hope I was wrong. Because I'm a fan of the HOUSTON TEXANS not some talking head on ESPN trying to protect his reputation as a damned draftnik. I'm not going to revel in my team making decisions that didn't pan out. I'm not trying to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the Houston Texans' scouting department. If I was right and they were wrong, I'm not going to break my arm patting myself on the back, because it means my team isn't winning the Super Bowl every year, which is what I want them to do.

You can take your "right track spin" and go root for whichever damned QB you think we missed out on.
Click to expand...
ok.. but who you taking in the first three rounds 2016?
 
Texecutioner said:
You continue to say this without any type of reasoning at all.

How or why is that the case?

So what about Hoyer? Why is it that he hasn't been able to be a product of anyone else's system? What is it going to take 8 teams for him to find a system where he can perform like Foles did? At least Foles has shown that he can shine in "someone's system." Whether you want to make that argument until you die, Foles only threw 2 picks two years ago. Foles has led a team to the playoffs. Had Foles played all season he likely was going to be an MVP candidate that season. He has done ten times more than anything Hoyer has dreamed of doing in the NFL in just his year and half of playing time before he was injured.

Your idea that he is a system QB that is a product of Chip Kelly is the same thing that could be said about any QB in the NFL. I guess Rogers is a product of Mike Mike McCarthy.
Click to expand...
I think it just boils down to messureables.
infantrycak said:
Call it what you want.

Pittsburgh - no starts, neither he nor Batch were retained as backups for 2013.

Arizona - a team with him under contract and desperate at QB released him. FYI - Kolb was injured. But yes Lindley was benched after a 4 INT game.

Browns - 2 HCs found him wanting and attempted to replace/did replace him.

The last alone makes my statement correct - he has had opportunities to start under multiple HCs and been found wanting.
Click to expand...

Found wanting....but most likely b/c he doesn't possess the measureables that HC's covet....& less about what he was actually doing on the field. 10-7 as a starter....19 TD's..19 Int's. Those numbers aren't great..but they're not horrible either and are what you'd expect playing for bad teams..which is what he was playing for.

Now if those were the stats and record for a guy with better physical measureables in his 1st 17 starts, what do u think teams are gonna do? Throw said guy in the bushes like they did with Hoyer after 1 year...or work with him for at least another year...put more weapons around him & get him more protection to see if he can improve? Short of him lighting it up, he was never gonna be looked upon favorably by HC's.

He, like most guys who don't have the desired measureables, don't really get good opportunities to start where they have the organization fully behind them we'll see how he does with OB & godsey and the Texans FO. Forthe record, I believe the same thing holds true for Mallet as well...just for different reasons.
 
Mr teX said:
I think it just boils down to messureables.


Found wanting....but most likely b/c he doesn't possess the measureables that HC's covet....

He, like most guys who don't have the desired measureables, don't really get good opportunities to start where they have the organization fully behind them we'll see how he does with OB & godsey and the Texans FO.
Click to expand...


He's roughly the same size as Aaron Rodgers. He's also never played in a real game while Bill O'Brian was his coach, I.e. OB saw the same things the Pittsburgh & Arizona coaches saw... but O'Brien fell in love with it, they didn't.
 
thunderkyss said:
He's roughly the same size as Aaron Rodgers. He's also never played in a real game while Bill O'Brian was his coach, I.e. OB saw the same things the Pittsburgh & Arizona saw... but O'Brien fell in love with it, they didn't.
Click to expand...

Stop saying "fell in love with".
 
I think the ultimate problem is going to be that BoB will put any QB in a good position to beat the mediocre teams. The problem is, talent, no matter how good your game plan, is necessary to beat the best teams. We are going to be a .500 team +/- 1 or 2 with a mediocre QB. That maybe enough to get you into the playoffs some years, but not enough to go deep.

BoB will be judged by his win/loss record as all coaches are. His decision to not get a QB is likely going to keep him out of the playoffs. I hope he gets over his ego and decides to draft someone at QB. He's a great coach, but I think his talent evaluation (so far) has not been good.
 
thunderkyss said:
He's roughly the same size as Aaron Rodgers. He's also never played in a real game while Bill O'Brian was his coach, I.e. OB saw the same things the Pittsburgh & Arizona coaches saw... but O'Brien fell in love with it, they didn't.
Click to expand...

He's 10-15 lbs smaller With half the arm strength...which is significant.
 
ObsiWan said:
Oh so that's how it works.... When Mallett get's the ball out quickly for a short completion (without looking anywhere else but at the RB), he's "properly executing the offense" but when Hoyer makes a quick throw to a back - for the first down, BTW - it's a poor pre-snap read.
riiiight....
:shades:
Click to expand...

Well I actually looked at the plays instead of completely guessing. There's still a bit of that going on but it's a pretty educated guess.

Hint: there was a pick route run in one and not the other.
 
Mr teX said:
I think it just boils down to messureables.


Found wanting....but most likely b/c he doesn't possess the measureables that HC's covet....& less about what he was actually doing on the field.
Click to expand...

Try lifting the blindfold every once in a while. You clearly are just slapping any excuse down:

Brian Hoyer - 6'3" 215 lbs
Johnny Football - 6' 207 lbs
Josh McCown - 6'4" 212 lBS
 
infantrycak said:
Try lifting the blindfold every once in a while. You clearly are just slapping any excuse down:

Brian Hoyer - 6'3" 215 lbs
Johnny Football - 6' 207 lbs
Josh McCown - 6'4" 212 lBS
Click to expand...

Yeah that proves nothing when just about all of the top guys average out around 225 lbs and have significantly stronger arms than hoyer....or at least did in their primes...old Peyton manning not withstanding.

Point is teams more often than not give those types of guys the benefit of the doubt and give those guys more opportunities....even when it's apparent they just suck...see bums like Jay Cutler and Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden, David Carr. Guys with Hoyer's measureables not so much.
 
Last edited:
Mr teX said:
Yeah that proves nothing when just about all of the top guys average out around 225 lbs and have significantly stronger arms than hoyer....
Click to expand...

LOL - it definitively proves you wrong that they replaced Hoyer for size rather than merit. If they were size obsessed they would have gotten someone appreciably bigger.

And neither JFF nor McCown are known for their arm strengrh eitber. You're just digging the hole deeper.
 
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger said:
I believe that this is an excellent article........that reflects exactly how this controversy has left me.
Click to expand...

That's a really well written article. I'm surprised it came out of the Chronicle's stable.

None of this had to happen. Most is the result of O'Brien's own doing. It was his call to sign both Hoyer and Mallett during free agency, not just one. It was O'Brien's insistence on a manufactured QB duel through training camp, featuring two unpredictable arms that wouldn't start on any of the league's true playoff contenders. It was his move to awkwardly hand the gig to Hoyer following a weak exhibition outing, then allow a nation of "Hard Knocks" eyes to see the links wrapped around the new starting quarterback's neck.
Click to expand...

All true, and I'm left with two possible outlooks: The less sunny one interprets this as hubris by a young coach who believes that he can sew a silk purse from a sow's ear. The only positive I'm left with here is that we don't know yet if it's compulsive behavior like it was with Kubiak.

The rosy perspective is that he's biding his time with system-savvy game managers while developing Savage.

Hoyer now faces a ridiculous preseason proposition. During a game where strong teams are doing a soft check of their RPMs to gauge how hot they'll be running for the regular-season opener, Hoyer's engine must click at a high level as long as he's on the field. If Hoyer falters again, he and O'Brien will only look more vulnerable. Then there's the ill-timed punchline: What happens if Mallett goes off in the Superdome during a nationally televised Sunday afternoon showcase?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised. If O'Brien's decision were different, one could at least say, "Yeah, Hoyer looked good with the 2's, but Mallett's the upside guy."

(Jerome Solomon should take notes -- This is how you critique a program without sounding like a professional troll.)
 
Brisco_County said:
The rosy perspective is that he's biding his time with system-savvy game managers while developing Savage.
Click to expand...

This thought has crossed my mind. What if Savage was the guy he wanted his first year but knew he had to mold him. Make him the QB he wants and it is a 3 year process?

Maybe he passed on Bortles, Garrappollo, Teddy, Carr because he saw something in Savage that he really liked
 
Mr teX said:
10-7 as a starter....19 TD's..19 Int's. Those numbers aren't great..but they're not horrible either and are what you'd expect playing for bad teams..which is what he was playing for.
Click to expand...

Fun fact: Brian Hoyer is the only Cleveland QB who had a winning record there since the original Browns moved to Baltimore 20 years ago. There's a credible argument that Brian Hoyer is the best QB the modern Browns have ever had. Yeah that's not saying much, but it's not like our history is much better. Maybe he'll become the best we've ever had too.
 
hradhak said:
I think the ultimate problem is going to be that BoB will put any QB in a good position to beat the mediocre teams. The problem is, talent, no matter how good your game plan, is necessary to beat the best teams. We are going to be a .500 team +/- 1 or 2 with a mediocre QB. That maybe enough to get you into the playoffs some years, but not enough to go deep.
Click to expand...

Which is why I thought we all should have expected to go 9-7 or better last season. Their were at least 10 games against teams who flat out had not been good for several years.

Same thing in 2015. 9-7 should be expected, not cause for celebration. We were in the play offs just two seasons ago.

So I agree with you, talent alone won't get us to .500 but against this schedule, it should.
 
DX-TEX said:
This thought has crossed my mind. What if Savage was the guy he wanted his first year but knew he had to mold him. Make him the QB he wants and it is a 3 year process?

Maybe he passed on Bortles, Garrappollo, Teddy, Carr because he saw something in Savage that he really liked
Click to expand...

I liked Savage more than Bortles & Garapolo. He's got the size, the arm, played in a pro system, & against better competition. He might not have had the success the other two had, but you know why, you know his story. But watching the difference between his last three games compared to his first three, no doubt in my mind Pitt would have been a 10 win team if he were able to stay another year.

But then OB brought in Hoyer. How does that fit the plan? Sure, he "studied the system" for three years, but Fitzpatrick played in it for a year. Hoyer never did. How can he value Hoyer's academic knowledge over Fitzpatrick's practical knowledge?

Then to bury him on the depth chart for a second year? No, that's highly irregular. Sure, the process may take three years, but the next phase should include learning the offense, preparing to play. Neither of which happens when you're running the scout team, there are only so many snaps to go around in practice.

You could even look back to New England, back to Brady. If they keep a third guy, it's only for one year. If that third guy is any good, h becomes the back up in his second year, the other guy is gone.
 
On the other hand, OB had to play 4 different QBs last year just to get through the season. That's going to give him a different perspective than someone who has a guy who rarely misses a game.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
On the other hand, OB had to play 4 different QBs last year just to get through the season. That's going to give him a different perspective than someone who has a guy who rarely misses a game.
Click to expand...

Understood, but if you're talking about developing potential you saw in Savage, comparable to Bottles & Garopolo, you don't bury him on the bench. You've got to get him ready to play... maybe you feel like your timeline goes beyond the 4 year standard since McNair is the owner, but if this is your guy...
 
Dan B. said:
Fun fact: Brian Hoyer is the only Cleveland QB who had a winning record there since the original Browns moved to Baltimore 20 years ago. There's a credible argument that Brian Hoyer is the best QB the modern Browns have ever had. Yeah that's not saying much, but it's not like our history is much better. Maybe he'll become the best we've ever had too.
Click to expand...

The real question that has to be asked then is, in the end, how much positive impact did his being "the best QB the modern Browns have ever had" in actuality have (and leave) on the present state of the Browns.............and the answer is perfectly clear to me.............NONE! And, with your assertion that "it's not like our history is much better," in addition to the recent injuries, players coming off of previous injuries/surgeries and all the question marks with the OL............I find it difficult to imagine that Hoyer will leave any more of a positive mark on THIS franchise than he did in Cleveland.
 
thunderkyss said:
1st, I'm not saying you should absolutely not take a QB in the first round. It's all about the talent available vs your needs. If I need a starting QB & an outside pass rusher & the outside pass rusher has a 98% probability of success & the best QB available has an 89% probability of success, then taking the outside pass rusher is the right play. Clowney over Bortles.
Click to expand...
I still say using last years top pick on Clowney was a no-brainer at the time. What I don't get is waiting until the end of the 4th round before drafting a QB ? Oh you say Billy really believed Savage was the best QB in the Draft, or maybe at leats the second or third best. OK given the highest priority of finding a QB for the Texans, why would he wait that late in the expectations that one of the best QBs in the Draft would still be on the Board that long ? It's the old argument about folks patting the Pats on the back for getting Brady in the 6th round, when obviously they had no more of a clue about his potential than the other 31 teams did. Billy doesn't believe Savage is his long-term answer, never did.
 
Grams said:
Why don't we just wait and see how Hoyer performs in real games for us before we get all bent out of shape on which QB should actually be starting.
Click to expand...

This is what I've suggested many many many posts ago.......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
 
Grams said:
Why don't we just wait and see how Hoyer performs in real games for us before we get all bent out of shape on which QB should actually be starting.
Click to expand...

I agree but....
I think we can be hopeful for Hoyer and discuss his potential impact here at the same time.

I've seen some good things in the little I've seen from him so far.

I am worried about him dealing with pressure though.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
On the other hand, OB had to play 4 different QBs last year just to get through the season. That's going to give him a different perspective than someone who has a guy who rarely misses a game.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but that's kind of like Mark Twain's cat learning the wrong lesson.
 
lol, it's not like we have any choice but to wait. but this is a message board and we do tend to complain when we do not understand the thinking behind decisions. Just close the thread then if we are not allowed to comment. Sheeeesh.
 
IDEXAN said:
I still say using last years top pick on Clowney was a no-brainer at the time. What I don't get is waiting until the end of the 4th round before drafting a QB ? Oh you say Billy really believed Savage was the best QB in the Draft, or maybe at leats the second or third best. OK given the highest priority of finding a QB for the Texans, why would he wait that late in the expectations that one of the best QBs in the Draft would still be on the Board that long ? It's the old argument about folks patting the Pats on the back for getting Brady in the 6th round, when obviously they had no more of a clue about his potential than the other 31 teams did. Billy doesn't believe Savage is his long-term answer, never did.
Click to expand...

Do you play fantasy football? You'll see Eddie Lacy drafted before Aaron Rodgers in most leagues. Normally they'll say it's because the gap between Rodgers and the next tier QB isn't as great as the gap between Lacy and the next Tier RB. Same thing here, I don't think OB saw a difference between the top 6 QBs in this draft & if you remember, LG was horrid for us the year before. He was never going to start a rookie QB, so "the most ready" to start QB in this draft meant nothing to him.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the draft went. I'd have taken McCarran at the top of the second (yeah, you're lucky as hell I'm not running the show), but I can understand his thinking. You still had Mettenberger, McCarran, & Murray on the board when we took Savage. Had we not traded our fifth, I bet we wouldn't have gone QB with the Savage pick. But it's interesting to know OB picked Savage over Mett & seeing Mett play as well as he has.

But no, I don't believe OB believes Savage is the long-term answer. I'm even more sure OB didn't think Bridgewater, Johnny Mnziel, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garopolo, or Logan Thomas could be the long-term answer.
 
thunderkyss said:
Do you play fantasy football? You'll see Eddie Lacy drafted before Aaron Rodgers in most leagues. Normally they'll say it's because the gap between Rodgers and the next tier QB isn't as great as the gap between Lacy and the next Tier RB. Same thing here, I don't think OB saw a difference between the top 6 QBs in this draft & if you remember, LG was horrid for us the year before. He was never going to start a rookie QB, so "the most ready" to start QB in this draft meant nothing to him.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the draft went. I'd have taken McCarran at the top of the second (yeah, you're lucky as hell I'm not running the show), but I can understand his thinking. You still had Mettenberger, McCarran, & Murray on the board when we took Savage. Had we not traded our fifth, I bet we wouldn't have gone QB with the Savage pick. But it's interesting to know OB picked Savage over Mett & seeing Mett play as well as he has.

But no, I don't believe OB believes Savage is the long-term answer. I'm even more sure OB didn't think Bridgewater, Johnny Mnziel, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garopolo, or Logan Thomas could be the long-term answer.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment. Weren't the Texans rumored to be ready to snatch up Teddy B at top of 2? Vikings pulled a hell of a stunt and moved up to get him and we have the big,bad,bust of Sua Filo. You sure that OB wouldnt like to be grooming Teddy instead of wading through mediocre players?
 
Uncle Rico said:
Interesting comment. Weren't the Texans rumored to be ready to snatch up Teddy B at top of 2? Vikings pulled a hell of a stunt and moved up to get him and we have the big,bad,bust of Sua Filo. You sure that OB wouldnt like to be grooming Teddy instead of wading through mediocre players?
Click to expand...
There was somebody (Bran T. Smith maybe?) who made the comment on radio this past week that "There was no way the Texans were ever going to take Bridgewater". He didn't give any details, but basically said when the time is right (whatever that means), he'll write an article telling what he knows.

So in answer to your questions, yes, I imagine there were rumors that they were ready to snatch up Bridgewater, just as there were rumors they wanted no part of him. What's the common component between those two things?
 
ChampionTexan said:
There was somebody (Bran T. Smith maybe?) who made the comment on radio this past week that "There was no way the Texans were ever going to take Bridgewater". He didn't give any details, but basically said when the time is righ, he'll write an article telling what he knows.

So in answer to your questions, yes, I imagine there were rumors that they were ready to snatch up Bridgewater, just as there were rumors they wanted no part of him. What's the common component between those two things?
Click to expand...

I anxiously await the article. IMO Bridgewater is better than anything this team has. and is only getting better. As a rookie QB he took his bumps, but led that team. Looking nice so far this preseason, ate up the Cowboys last night, especially that awesome audible at the line for the deep bomb to Wallace. Say what you want, and hindsight is always 20/20 but it would have been a mistake to pass up Teddy at 33. Thanks for the insight though.
 
xtruroyaltyx said:
I agree but....
I think we can be hopeful for Hoyer and discuss his potential impact here at the same time.

I've seen some good things in the little I've seen from him so far.

I am worried about him dealing with pressure though.
Click to expand...
I've just finished watching all of his games from last year, and I think he performed not to shabby under pressure.

He did take plenty of hits.

I think he was playing close to the level of Good Schaub.

I didn't lose any game for the Browns.
He wasn't a big part in any loss.

At worst, he was shared that responsibility with his weapons and offensive line in a couple of losses.

If Howyer was on the Texans roster last year, they would have made the play-off, probably as the division winner.

If you replace the rest of the Browns with the Texans counterpart, that team probably would have won the AFC North as well.

Howyer is an upgrade over Fitz; that's for sure.
 
thunderkyss said:
Do you play fantasy football? You'll see Eddie Lacy drafted before Aaron Rodgers in most leagues. Normally they'll say it's because the gap between Rodgers and the next tier QB isn't as great as the gap between Lacy and the next Tier RB. Same thing here, I don't think OB saw a difference between the top 6 QBs in this draft & if you remember, LG was horrid for us the year before. He was never going to start a rookie QB, so "the most ready" to start QB in this draft meant nothing to him.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the draft went. I'd have taken McCarran at the top of the second (yeah, you're lucky as hell I'm not running the show), but I can understand his thinking. You still had Mettenberger, McCarran, & Murray on the board when we took Savage. Had we not traded our fifth, I bet we wouldn't have gone QB with the Savage pick. But it's interesting to know OB picked Savage over Mett & seeing Mett play as well as he has.

But no, I don't believe OB believes Savage is the long-term answer. I'm even more sure OB didn't think Bridgewater, Johnny Mnziel, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garopolo, or Logan Thomas could be the long-term answer.
Click to expand...
I played FF for several years, then it just got boring for me, except for the Draft which is fun.
OK you kinda made my point for me about taking MCarran which is if you see a QB you like you should aggressively go after him. But somebody who's extremely risk aversive would find that very difficult to do and perhaps that describes our HC.
 
Uncle Rico said:
Interesting comment. Weren't the Texans rumored to be ready to snatch up Teddy B at top of 2? Vikings pulled a hell of a stunt and moved up to get him and we have the big,bad,bust of Sua Filo. You sure that OB wouldnt like to be grooming Teddy instead of wading through mediocre players?
Click to expand...

I may be different from most, but I believe if there was truly any consideration of Bridgewater vs Clowney at 1-1, we wouldn't have waited for Bridgewater to drop to 33.
We'd have gone got him last 19 or so.

I also believe if you believe a particular QB is the future of your franchise, he's in that conversation at 1-1.

I wasn't a fan of Bridgewater during the draft. I still don't believe he should have been a consideration at 1-1. But looking over his game log from last year & watching him this preseason, it's getting harder to justify not going up to get him.

It doesn't help that we're not able to see these other guys against #1 defenses. But Bridgewater looks good.
 
76Texan said:
I've just finished watching all of his games from last year, and I think he performed not to shabby under pressure.

He did take plenty of hits.

I think he was playing close to the level of Good Schaub.

I didn't lose any game for the Browns.
He wasn't a big part in any loss.

At worst, he was shared that responsibility with his weapons and offensive line in a couple of losses.

If Howyer was on the Texans roster last year, they would have made the play-off, probably as the division winner.

If you replace the rest of the Browns with the Texans counterpart, that team probably would have won the AFC North as well.

Howyer is an upgrade over Fitz; that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Great post and reason for optimism. You know the organization did their homework and analyzed this game film. What struck me in your analysis is that Hoyer "didn't lose any game for the Browns. He wasn't a big part in any loss." Well done.
 
76Texan said:
I think he was playing close to the level of Good Schaub.
Click to expand...

Funky definition of close you have there:

55.3% vs. 67.9%
2.7 TD% vs. 5 TD%
3 INT% vs. 2.6%
7.6 ypa vs. 8.2 ypa
76.5 rating vs. 98.6 rating
43.08 QBR vs. 72.56 QBR

with

17th in rushing vs. 30th in rushing

That's miles apart. Or put another way:

No offer made to keep vs. pro-bowl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top