Texansballer74
The Marine
If Brock ever get the chance to start, he will be view by many as a rookie. He's literally not a rookie but by game data , he's a rookie. Lol
Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!
Official Brock Osweiler MVP Watch Thread!
- Thread starter 76Texan
- Start date
If Brock ever get the chance to start, he will be view by many as a rookie. He's literally not a rookie but by game data , he's a rookie. Lol
FuzzyLogic
Mathematically Possible
Man, I know he hasn't played well - and we could say he "technically" hasn't started anything. That's harsh...
Or you meant Savage
Texansballer74
The Marine
Man, I know he hasn't played well - and we could say he "technically" hasn't started anything. That's harsh...
Or you meant Savage
Lol good catch
I meant Savage.
This is Brock's actual 1st full season starting. Hopefully he gets better throughout the remainder of the season. And hopefully this experience will net a positive for him next year.
This coming up draft we need to really focus on the offensive line.
Drunk this early?
Texansballer74
The Marine
Brisco_County
Apples and roadmaps
If Savage did start, he would immediately look better and cause a QB controversy. Which is why Brock hasn't been benched.
I was rooting for Brock, and I wanted him to run away with the starting job. But that long wind up just doesn't fit this offense. And it'll be two more years minimum before McNair and Smith decide to do something about it. So we're stuck unless he gets hurt, which I'm not rooting for either.
kiwitexansfan
Hall of Fame
The back up QB is always the best player on the team, you know, till he actually plays.
Brisco_County
Apples and roadmaps
I'm aware, but Savage actually demonstrates better arm talent. This was my observation before Osweiler played any preseason snaps, but I was silent on it after Osweiler's impressive preseason performance. It's easy to say there's a reason Savage is only a backup, but I've come to question O'Brien's judgement of talent at this point.
edwardc5637
Waterboy
There is no way in *ell that he is even in the running .
chicagotexan2
Easterby = Little Finger/Cal = Fredo Corleone
chicagotexan2
Easterby = Little Finger/Cal = Fredo Corleone
It was funny at the time but still a crap call by the refs.
that looked more like a pass than that damned "Tuck Rule" pass by Brady and they called Brady's fumble an incomplete pass
Phillip Rivers had the ball knocked out right before he threw the pass in the game against the Broncos. Looked like a fumble to me but it was called an incomplete pass.
Go figure.
Texas Jake
Rookie
I was thinking of this same comparison.
So the question is why would Savage look better (if he would).
Remember Kirk Cousins? Look back at how he finished the end of 2013. Some good, some bad.
He started all of 2014... had that "You like that!!!" moment. Then started playing better game by game.
Now, he's top four in passing yards.
Hopefully, we've gotten past that "You like that!!!" moment with Brock & he'll start playing better. Good enough to actually compete in the playoffs. Then next year, maybe he'll be top four in passing yards.
The team seems to be coming together pretty well around him.
Max
Veteran
http://www.footballperspective.com/how-long-does-it-take-great-quarterbacks-to-break-out/
I thought this was an interesting article to give some perspective. This guy analyzed the top 42 qb’s in the league since 1970. The “top” qb’s were selected from stats measuring passing yards adjusted by the average pass attempts in the given year (qb’s threw much less in 1970 than today). He measured the performance of these 42 qb’s in increments of 16 game spans to determine when these qb’s “broke out”. These top qb’s were then measured relative to their peers by relative adjusted net yards/attempt or rany/a – to see if they were above average or below in those 16 game spans.
There’s a lot of info in the article, but I’ll summarize with the following:
13/42 of these top qb’s were below average in their 1st 16 starts. (including Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees)
8/42 were below average in their 2nd year or 2nd 16 game span (Terry Bradshaw, Joe Theismann, Warren Moon, Vinny Testaverde, Troy Aikman, Brett Favre, Drew Brees and Michael Vick)
7/42 were below average in their 3rd year or 3rd 16 game span (Terry Bradshaw, Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, Vinny Testaverde, Rich Gannon, Donovon McNabb and Michael Vick)
The following quote probably best summarizes the article: “If a quarterback is below-average through two years worth of starts then it seems highly unlikely that such a player will turn into a franchise quarterback absent extenuating circumstances.”
My takeaway? 2/3 of these qb’s were above average in their first 16 games – the Brock haters have Vegas odds on their side. But I’m not quite sure why you wouldn’t want to be in the ‘wait and see’ camp for the following reasons:
1) It’s clear that a number of historically good qb’s weren’t good for quite some time.
2) You don’t have to eat crow if Brock ‘breaks out’. It’s just as easy to say that Brock sucks now but might not suck eventually as it is to say that Brock sucks and always will.
3) We’re stuck w/ Brock so might as well not torture yourself while we are.
I thought this was an interesting article to give some perspective. This guy analyzed the top 42 qb’s in the league since 1970. The “top” qb’s were selected from stats measuring passing yards adjusted by the average pass attempts in the given year (qb’s threw much less in 1970 than today). He measured the performance of these 42 qb’s in increments of 16 game spans to determine when these qb’s “broke out”. These top qb’s were then measured relative to their peers by relative adjusted net yards/attempt or rany/a – to see if they were above average or below in those 16 game spans.
There’s a lot of info in the article, but I’ll summarize with the following:
13/42 of these top qb’s were below average in their 1st 16 starts. (including Terry Bradshaw, John Elway, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees)
8/42 were below average in their 2nd year or 2nd 16 game span (Terry Bradshaw, Joe Theismann, Warren Moon, Vinny Testaverde, Troy Aikman, Brett Favre, Drew Brees and Michael Vick)
7/42 were below average in their 3rd year or 3rd 16 game span (Terry Bradshaw, Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham, Vinny Testaverde, Rich Gannon, Donovon McNabb and Michael Vick)
The following quote probably best summarizes the article: “If a quarterback is below-average through two years worth of starts then it seems highly unlikely that such a player will turn into a franchise quarterback absent extenuating circumstances.”
My takeaway? 2/3 of these qb’s were above average in their first 16 games – the Brock haters have Vegas odds on their side. But I’m not quite sure why you wouldn’t want to be in the ‘wait and see’ camp for the following reasons:
1) It’s clear that a number of historically good qb’s weren’t good for quite some time.
2) You don’t have to eat crow if Brock ‘breaks out’. It’s just as easy to say that Brock sucks now but might not suck eventually as it is to say that Brock sucks and always will.
3) We’re stuck w/ Brock so might as well not torture yourself while we are.
powda
The bridge between stupid and useless is short.
Good find Max - however, i think going back that far might be a bit misleading statistically. There was a time not long ago when a new coach was almost guaranteed 4 years. That's not the case as much now days and new coaches are expected to produce results sooner. (Essentially the point here is qb's now go through more coaches/offenses then they used to.)
There was also a time not long ago when rookie quarterbacks were expected to sit and be groomed for a few years before getting a chance. I realize what's being measured here is starts...not years of experience ,but the farther back you go, the more qb's had years on the bench learning offenses and defenses BEFORE their starts.
I don't know how much time we should give Os. Roughly a rookie by starts in a new offense behind a crap line. All i want to see is steady progress really. We have seen him **** the bed a few times...so how long is the leash? What i do know is i want to see savage a couple of times in blowouts - wether we're blowing someone out or being trampled. I don't want to go into the offseason wondering still what kind of potential savage might have. If Os is not the guy fine. If savage is not the guy fine. But I want to know about one or the other BEFORE next offseason and adjust accordingly.
There was also a time not long ago when rookie quarterbacks were expected to sit and be groomed for a few years before getting a chance. I realize what's being measured here is starts...not years of experience ,but the farther back you go, the more qb's had years on the bench learning offenses and defenses BEFORE their starts.
I don't know how much time we should give Os. Roughly a rookie by starts in a new offense behind a crap line. All i want to see is steady progress really. We have seen him **** the bed a few times...so how long is the leash? What i do know is i want to see savage a couple of times in blowouts - wether we're blowing someone out or being trampled. I don't want to go into the offseason wondering still what kind of potential savage might have. If Os is not the guy fine. If savage is not the guy fine. But I want to know about one or the other BEFORE next offseason and adjust accordingly.
It's not easy to determine the plays of the QBs of the past because the game was different then.
I remember rewatching
a some old games, including a few Oilers game. The rules were different back in the days of Bradshaw and Moon. They got hit like crazy, unlike today where defenders get called for just touching the QBs' hair.
Also, we don't know how each of the O-line performed; just one of many variables.
It's an exercise of futility, IMO.
I remember rewatching
a some old games, including a few Oilers game. The rules were different back in the days of Bradshaw and Moon. They got hit like crazy, unlike today where defenders get called for just touching the QBs' hair.
Also, we don't know how each of the O-line performed; just one of many variables.
It's an exercise of futility, IMO.
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
powda
The bridge between stupid and useless is short.
Perhaps, but good message board fodder nonetheless. To me it's a wash. For every team with a poor line/coaching/defense/skill players there's a team with some of those elements. Im inclined to value the article stats more in the 2000's rather then back to the 70's.
sandman
Brexit Advisor
Think you have your seasons mixed up. He played the final 3 games of 2013 when RG3 was hurt. He played 6 games in the first half of 2014 but wasn't named the season starter. He started all of 2015.
First 10 games of 2015 he was 4-6 with 15 TDs and 10 INTs. In the last 6 games of the season he went 5-1 with almost 1800 yards, 14 TDs, 1 INT and a ridiculously high rating, finishing 9-7 and getting blown out in the Wildcard game.
My point is he "got it" well into his first season as the named starter. Which was just last year. No one 8 games into last season was calling Cousins a franchise QB. Could Brock do the same this year? No one actually knows. But I'll give him the chance to prove it.
Max
Veteran
As I mentioned – qb’s in this article are compared to their peers. Qb’s in the good ol’ days weren’t compared to qb’s of today but instead, their performance was measured against other qb’s in the year that they played to see how much above or below average they were in that year (a ‘good’ qb in the 1970 was only considered ‘good’ if his stats warranted this label relative to other qb’s in 1970) -- so the era argument isn’t relevant. The thing measured in this article is how long it took good qb’s to become good statistically when compared to peers of the same era. Issues such as a bad O-line are also addressed as outliers in the article. Troy Aikman, Vinny Testaverde and Terry Bradshaw are singled out as qb’s who were drafted by very bad teams and this is done to explain their poor performance in their first 2 years.
This is a fairly broad set of data and many of the early underperforming top qb’s had mitigating circumstances pointed out in the article to explain poor early performance (hindsight has a way of making things more clear). The 13/42 top qb’s who underperformed in their first 16 starts were: Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Joe Theismann, Dave Krieg, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Donovan McNabb, Vinny Testaverde, Terry Bradshaw, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, Michael Vick and Rich Gannon. 76, you mentioned ‘variables’ -- all of these 13 qb’s had all 16 starts with the same team, unlike Brock who has 7 w/ one team and system and 8 with another. Does Brock not get a ‘variable’ consideration?
When asked if Brock is a bust, my magic 8 ball answers ‘ask again later’. I’m just trying to figure out why so many people’s 8 ball answers ‘it is certain’.
Grams
Veteran
Because there are a lot of people here the believe in the "instant fix". If something does not fix the problem immediately, they want to discard it immediately and get someone else.
Most were optimistic that the Texans finally did something to address the QB situation, and were not upset about the amount of money thrown that way. But because Brock is not the "instant fix" they are ready to find someone else and trade one or more of our better players to do that. Then they will complain if the someone else is the right person, that we have wasted his time here because of the supporting cast.
Some people have to have something to complain about or they are not happy.
I don't know it Brock is the answer or not, but at lease he deserves more than half a season in our system to show that.
It's not easy to determine the plays of the QBs of the last because the game was different then.
I remember rewatching
a few old games, including a few Oilers game. The rules were different back in the days of Bradshaw and Moon. They got hits like crazy, unlike today where defenders get called for just touching the QBs' hair.
Also, we don't know how each of the O-line performed; just one of many variables.
It's an exercise of futility, IMO.
Just that his mental capacity and his throwing motion is keeping him "Mediocre".
Many QBs that you mentioned played in the days that the defense was favored in the rule book; receivers got mugged more often on the field than strolling in the fifth ward.
It's very easy to get intercepted if the right/wrong circumstance arises.
Testaverde was a special case.
He was colorblind at a time when the condition was not widely known.
(He had thrown 5 Ints in a game at UM.)
I used to live in Shreveport so I know Woodlawn HS and Louisiana Tech where Bradshaw attended.
For Bradshaw not to be the starting QB at La Tech, he must have had certain issue(s) that was not known at the time.
I remember rewatching
a few old games, including a few Oilers game. The rules were different back in the days of Bradshaw and Moon. They got hits like crazy, unlike today where defenders get called for just touching the QBs' hair.
Also, we don't know how each of the O-line performed; just one of many variables.
It's an exercise of futility, IMO.
First off, I'm not one who call Osweiler a bust.
Just that his mental capacity and his throwing motion is keeping him "Mediocre".
Many QBs that you mentioned played in the days that the defense was favored in the rule book; receivers got mugged more often on the field than strolling in the fifth ward.
It's very easy to get intercepted if the right/wrong circumstance arises.
Testaverde was a special case.
He was colorblind at a time when the condition was not widely known.
(He had thrown 5 Ints in a game at UM.)
I used to live in Shreveport so I know Woodlawn HS and Louisiana Tech where Bradshaw attended.
For Bradshaw not to be the starting QB at La Tech, he must have had certain issue(s) that was not known at the time.
Max
Veteran
I understand that - I can see how I came across as insinuating that but it wasn't my intention. Since I've been on the board, I've viewed your take on Os similar to how a scout would unemotionally analyze his game (mechanics/mental makeup) and you're projecting mediocrity as a result of your take. I respect that and in the end you may be right. My comments were aimed at the no-perspective, emotional over-reactions to Os that keeps popping up like whack a mole on the board.
Last edited:
Not always the instant fix but the fix they propose is the only way.
And it's not just the QB. On this board for the Texans, it's every player....
How much outcry was there about Merciless his first two seasons? The booing of JJ.... etc etc. Fans here aren't happy fans for the most part. We haven't won a SB yet, or even seriously contended so obviously we have a failed franchise. People don't want to listen about how hard it is or that most franchises take decades to produce a viable contender. It's fix it now or you suck and will never do anything other than suck. Progress is measured in minutes, not weeks or months.
Is that really true?
Can't you go back and see how often a QB was sacked and also look at how well his team's running attack was working to get some idea of the O-line's effectiveness?
Sack stats haven't been kept all that long have they? And a teams running attack will vary depending on passing attack and offense (see Warren Moon)
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
The number of sacks often does not reflect the real situation (nor does the QB pressure stats nor QB hit stats.)
Besides the sacks (and other types of pressure) given up quickly by the blockers, there are those that the QBs brought onto themselves.
Some QBs like Big Ben often take sacks trying to do something, which is acceptable most of the time.
Kolb and HHSNBN, on the other hand, just take too much time for no real reason.
Osweiler isn't as bad, but his long wind-up and set-up (his legs are long, too) have been making things worse for him.
Some people complained that Keenum took too many sacks in 2013, but I didn't see it that way; just an acceptable figure.
A good percentage of those sacks were on third down, in the "neutral" zone.
If he doesn't make a play, it's a punt (that doesn't lose much or hardly any field position - with Lechler's leg.)
So the blockers weren't at fault, and neither was Keenum.
At any rate, statistics are just numbers.
There has never been a scientific way to make them really meaningful in some instances, IMHO.
I know you are a Keenum fan, and that's ok... but the 35 yard loss sacks were all on Keenum. Many of the sacks were because he tended to hold the ball too long
I'm not kidding you; I had come back and watched all the sacks several times.
Like just now, I just look up the play by play of his first game, against the Chiefs.
There were 5 sacks.
The last one was the strip fumble that ended the game while he was trying to get out of the pocket on 2nd down.
The O-lineman, I think it was Brown, got beat early.
The other 4 sacks were all on 3rd down.
I don't even care if an O-lineman got beat early or not.
On third down, I don't mind the QB trying to convert, as long as he doesn't make the situation much worse.
1 . Lechler punted 58 yards, returned 5 yards to the Chiefs 18.
2. Lechler punted 53 yards to the Chiefs 16, returned for 24, but Chiefs were called for holding.
They got the ball at their 8.
3.Lechler punted for 53 yards, but returned for 26 to the Chiefs 47.
4. Lechler punted 48 yards to the Chiefs 35, no return.
So, you see.
I don't make stuffs up like some other people.
But he added... because he held on to the ball too long; which is true sometimes, but untrue on many occasions... even when he did hold on to the ball past the 3-sec mark.
I had mentioned Big Ben trying to make play for that reason.
Sometimes the QB has to hold on to the ball longer than normally - as I said, on third down, when no receiver is immediately open. The team needs a first down. Throwing the ball away does not accomplish that task.
You just want to pull me legs; that's what you're doing.
Just for you and JB, I'm bringing up another random game (I had these torrent files saved on so many different storage media that I've never gotten around to organize.)
This is the week 14 game against the Jags.
Keenum "took" only one sack.
The sack came on 3rd and 8 at the HTN 48.
Both Newton and the LG were beaten before the 3sec mark.
The ball left Keenum's hand right around the 3sec mark.
He was 6 yards behind the LOS.
The guy that beat Newton had a little piece of the ball from behind.
The ball goes forward and landed on the ground (though not as far as Osweiler's ball on his "fumble".)
The ref called it a sack and a strip fumble that Brandon Brooks recovered.
Lecher punted the ball to the Jags 14, where a fair catch was called.
Nobody is going to tell me that this one was on Keenum or that he held on to the ball too long.
Making stuffs up has no place in a football discussion.
DX-TEX
#TomSavageDontCare
When is it allowed to mention Vince Young?
Soon as he becomes a starting QB in the NFL
....again
Just a thought, but first year starting seems to be a terrible indicator of career stats based off of my memory.
IIRC Rodgers (who stepped into a league leading offense his first year starting) was better than Brock but not all world.
IIRC Rodgers (who stepped into a league leading offense his first year starting) was better than Brock but not all world.
Brisco_County
Apples and roadmaps
I was at the game in Arlington when Rodgers took his first snaps for an injured Favre. He looked starkly better than Osweiler does.
But it's also worth noting that Osweiler doesn't even look as good as himself from his first two games.
Last edited:
Texecutioner
Hall of Fame
Has there been a more strange year for NFL QB's? This entire season really stands out to me. Rodgers, Rivers, Flacco, Ginger, R. Wilson, C. Newton, Osweiller, Bortles, Luck, and Palmer all have been having either garbage or average seasons. That is a long list of guys that all had strong expectations going into this season. This isn't just the Texans with this poor luck and poor play at QB. A lot of changing of the guard at QB, but more than anything QB play all around has been very inconsistent this season.
It has been a weird year, however Rivers is playing really well. San Diego is having issues with injuries to their D. They can't stop anyone. I'd love to have Rivers on the Texans
Texansphan
Football connoisseur
Osweiler plays like he is afraid of failure - says to me he is on a leash.
We won't truly know what we have until he can play with confidence and the confidence of the coaches. Evidence of this is when he gets the green light to start throwing deeper passes - especially beyond 30 yards.
We won't truly know what we have until he can play with confidence and the confidence of the coaches. Evidence of this is when he gets the green light to start throwing deeper passes - especially beyond 30 yards.
I agree with one condition:
He brings that offense (along with Antonio Gates & Melvin Gordon
) and we toss whatever it is O'Brien is running in the trash.I'm not one who believes that you can drop one guy from one offensive system into a different one and have immediate success. There's always a QB learning curve when they go into a new system.
Texansballer74
The Marine
I am predicting a much better 2nd half for Brock.
220-310 71%, 1889 yards 6.1 att, 236.1 yds/g, 13 TD's, 5 INT's.
220-310 71%, 1889 yards 6.1 att, 236.1 yds/g, 13 TD's, 5 INT's.