Official Brock Osweiler MVP Watch Thread!

[Rich Schmidt]

It is still pre season. BOB said he LET and PLANNED to go more downfield this week and we saw it and a better performance by Oz. So although I see some concerns with Oz, I will hold out my view until it is informed. What do I mean? I see meaningful regular season games, with game plans, and a few months of coaching and corrections. By mid year people will be able to make an informed judgement, at this time, my view is it is still too early to judge, but plenty have their opinion. He is just a step above a rookie. We paid cash, not draft picks for him, so we can walk away. We could have Hackenburg, he is buried 4th string on the Jets!

If Oz sucks mid year, happy to call him out then, until then I wait and get to watch everyone throw down their views.

 

[JB]

Well the word I'm getting is that Osweiler is not the best-performing QB in the Texans training camp.

Who are you getting this word from? Weeden himself?

 

[DBCooper]

You're entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that O'Brien is in the NFL and where are you? Brain Surgery you said?

Osweiler may not be the answer, but if he's not, Weeden is for damn sure not

Lol

It's funny to me that anyone could think that anyone other than Oz is the best QB on this team right now.

He plays better today and his upside far surpasses anyone else on our roster.

He puts the ball where he wants it, makes quick decisions, and moves great for a big man.

He needs to get more comfortable, stop trying to thread the needle, work on that touch a little, he likes throwing hot!

 

[DBCooper]

Who are you getting this word from? Weeden himself?

Reddit

 

[WolverineFan]

Thunder we all know the obvious bud. Another obvious fact: we had three starting offensive linemen down again. Last week our backups looked horrid at best. So it was refreshing to see that same horrid line protect their quarterback against a 1st team defensive front.

And I feel for Breezy as well. But guess what, that's a Saints problem not ours. So bleep them.

Ehh the Saints were missing 2 starters up front on what was already one of the worst pass rushes in the league. Not a good litmus test for the OL. We'll see how things go against Arizona.

 

[gs27]

I do not understand the narrative of coaches having hidden agendas with their QB decisions. Heard it about Fitz, then about Hoyer versus Mallet, and now with Oz versus Weeden. O'Brien's job is to win football games and if he doesn't he won't have his job for long; he is going to play the QB that gives the Texans the best chance to win games!

Did the coaches have it in for Weeden in Cleveland? How about Dallas, who was desperate for a quality back-up QB for the often injured Romo? Weeden has arm talent but he has heavy legs in the pocket and he has issues with making panic throws when he holds the ball to long.

 

[infantrycak]

Who are you getting this word from? Weeden himself?

I'd like to hear the answer to this. Funny how often naysayers claim inside knowledge.

Ehh the Saints were missing 2 starters up front on what was already one of the worst pass rushes in the league. Not a good litmus test for the OL. We'll see how things go against Arizona.

But have added Nick Fairley.

 

[JB]

Reddit

The National Enquirer of interwebz?

 

[76Texan]

Except he wasn't just a backup in the context that you describe. He was 5-2 as a starter during the regular season for the SB champs.

So the Texans should have said, "Here is $37 million guaranteed, but it will be an open competition for the starting job"?

He was a backup alright.
He only got to play because Manning got injured.
Keenum got the chance when Schaub sucked.
But at the end of the day, they were both backups at the time.

If Keenum remained unproven, then so should Osweiler be.
You think his 5-2 is legit (O'Brien and Rich Smith seem to concur), but I (and some others) don't.

I strongly believe that Keenum can achieve a similar results in that same situation (maybe not quite as good, maybe a little better.)

Guess what?
The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money the Texans did on an "unproven" QB. And they drafted a player that has a fairly good chance to be a top 10 QB in his own time.

The Texans took the low percentage play.
Osweiler is more apt to stay a mediocre QB, and the Texans still don't have an answer at QB - as usual.

 

[WolverineFan]

But have added Nick Fairley.

True. I will say that the fact that Cameron Jordan wasn't a factor is a big positive.

It will be interesting to see how things go against Arizona. I consider them one of the top 3 most talented overall rosters in the league. Having our dress rehearsal against them is a very good thing IMO.

 

[DocBar]

He was a backup alright.
He only got to play because Manning got injured.
Keenum got the chance when Schaub sucked.
But at the end of the day, they were both backups at the time.

If Keenum remained unproven, then so should Osweiler be.
You think his 5-2 is legit (O'Brien and Rich Smith seem to concur), but I (and some others) don't.

I strongly believe that Keenum can achieve a similar results in that same situation (maybe not quite as good, maybe a little better.)

Guess what?
The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money the Texans did on an "unproven" QB. And they drafted a player that has a fairly good chance to be a top 10 QB in his own time.

The Texans took the low percentage play.
Osweiler is more apt to stay a mediocre QB, and the Texans still don't have an answer at QB - as usual.

The Rams risked much, much more by trading up to 1.1 to draft an even less proven player than Os. I'm not going to judge Goff of two preseason games, but he is looking very much like a rookie after those two games. Fisher has reiterated that Keenum is his starter, so Keenum should be a much more proven.

 

[76Texan]

The Rams risked much, much more by trading up to 1.1 to draft an even less proven player than Os. I'm not going to judge Goff of two preseason games, but he is looking very much like a rookie after those two games. Fisher has reiterated that Keenum is his starter, so Keenum should be a much more proven.

I have to agree with Texian on this point.

You have to pay to play.

Nothing is guarantee, but Goff was carrying his collegiate team.
He was under pressure a whole lot and responded well (and I never say perfect.)

Luck was playing in a mix of a "traditional" pro system and a WCO at Stanford.
When he arrived in Indianapolis, the Colts switched to the same scheme, making it an easier transition for Luck.

On the other hand, I had said that Goff will need time to make adjustment to playing under center.
(The Rams have plenty of plays from the shotgun, but Goff still needs to learn the other skills.)

All the scouts and offensive coordinators, QB coaches, HCs, GMs, etc. have to evaluate a college QB with the tapes and the work-outs.
None of the college QB was ever proven.
That is always true.

With a QB like Osweiler, they have more tapes (and at times insider resources - sometimes illegally, we have seen that) to know more about him. He looked very meh, and I'm talking about watching how he performed throughout the years since he entered the league.
He never had the high-ceiling potential to begin with; he never demonstrated that he made a big jump off that low-ceiling.
He isn't crap; he's just mediocre.

Putting money on Mediocrity and hoping that your defense, your O-line, your RB, you receivers, your TEs, your special team, etc. to help him was never the optimum strategy.

We've seen that with Schaub.
When Schaub was at his best (and at that time he was making pretty good decisions with the ball in those two seasons, getting the ball quick most of the time), we still didn't want to trust him carrying the team at critical time.

Basically, Schaub was somewhat proven at that time; he was regarded as at least in the conversation to be in the top ten.

Osweiler had not proven himself to be capable of even that.

 

[thunderkyss]

Well the word I'm getting is that Osweiler is not the best-performing QB in the Texans training camp. The starting job was not earned, it was given to him only because he made seven starts for the Broncos last season, received a ton of publicity for it, and was rewarded with $tens of millions. The only QB more overhyped than Osweiler last season was Johnny Manziel.

The money is inconsequential. It means nothing. It's what we had to pay to get him out of Denver. No more, no less. Earning ain't got sht to do with it. If we didn't have a QB that wet himself every time he saw a decent pass rush, we wouldn't have been so desperate to find one who beat a decent pass rush when the stakes were high.

That's the only reason Brock is at the top of our QB depth chart. It's not because he throws the prettiest ball in practice, or that he knows the playbook better than any one else. It's because he demonstrated that he'll beat a blitz & pro quality coverage when he needs to in games that matter.

Weeden didn't. That's why he's a back up. True, the situation Weeden was in (in Cleveland) was a tough one, but I'm glad the Texans didn't gamble our 2016 season that he might be better in Houston.

Savage... I love me some Tom Savage, but it's not like he's had the opportunity to play in many meaningful games. No fault of his own, but it is what it is. Lots of question marks because of the little experience he had coming into the league, then putting him on IR last season didn't help. Too big a gamble, for me, going into 2016.

Osweiler, Savage, Weeden... That's a good way, I think, to hedge our bets & get Jj Watt to the Super Bowl.

 

[infantrycak]

 

[thunderkyss]

It is still pre season. BOB said he LET and PLANNED to go more downfield this week and we saw it and a better performance by Oz. So although I see some concerns with Oz, I will hold out my view until it is informed. What do I mean? I see meaningful regular season games, with game plans, and a few months of coaching and corrections. By mid year people will be able to make an informed judgement, at this time, my view is it is still too early to judge, but plenty have their opinion.

If Oz sucks mid year, happy to call him out then, until then I wait and get to watch everyone throw down their views.

I agree with this line of thinking. Nothing's set in stone. Very few teams will finish the season the way they planned.

 

[sandman]

He was a backup alright.
He only got to play because Manning got injured.
Keenum got the chance when Schaub sucked.
But at the end of the day, they were both backups at the time.

If Keenum remained unproven, then so should Osweiler be.
You think his 5-2 is legit (O'Brien and Rich Smith seem to concur), but I (and some others) don't.

I strongly believe that Keenum can achieve a similar results in that same situation (maybe not quite as good, maybe a little better.)

Guess what?
The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money the Texans did on an "unproven" QB. And they drafted a player that has a fairly good chance to be a top 10 QB in his own time.

The Texans took the low percentage play.
Osweiler is more apt to stay a mediocre QB, and the Texans still don't have an answer at QB - as usual.

Your whole post makes no sense. Would Keenum have gone 5-2 in the exact same scenario? Why does it matter? He wasn't Manning's backup. We can play What If forever and it doesn't change a single thing. Os went 5-2 as a starter. Regardless of what Keenum could've have done in the same situation.

So which is it with Keenum? The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money for the same thing as the Texans (long term starting QB), or they drafted what could be a Top 10 QB? Because you can't have both. Fisher named him the starter because Foles was horrible. Keenum is clearly a stop-gap assuming that Goff pans out.

 

[thunderkyss]

Guess what?
The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money the Texans did on an "unproven" QB. And they drafted a player that has a fairly good chance to be a top 10 QB in his own time.

The Texans took the low percentage play.
Osweiler is more apt to stay a mediocre QB, and the Texans still don't have an answer at QB - as usual.

Let's see who wins more games over the next three years. I like Case, but I think chances are better that Brock will be our starting QB after the next three years than Case will be in LA (part of the reason the money thing is so different). The Rams invested draft picks in their QB. We invested Cash. If need be, we can draft a first round QB in year 3 or 4.... The Rams can't. If Goff isn't the man, & Case isn't, they're going to overpay for someone else's back-up... maybe even Brock.

More than one way to skin a cat & all.

 

[76Texan]

Your whole post makes no sense. Would Keenum have gone 5-2 in the exact same scenario? Why does it matter? He wasn't Manning's backup. We can play What If forever and it doesn't change a single thing. Os went 5-2 as a starter. Regardless of what Keenum could've have done in the same situation.

So which is it with Keenum? The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money for the same thing as the Texans (long term starting QB), or they drafted what could be a Top 10 QB? Because you can't have both. Fisher named him the starter because Foles was horrible. Keenum is clearly a stop-gap assuming that Goff pans out.

Let's start slowly.

The Broncos were 4th in points allowed at 18.5

The Texans defense were 24th, at 26.8.
That's more than a TD per game

If Osweiler was with the Texans, would he had achieved the same 5-2 record? You tell me.

 

[76Texan]

Let's see who wins more games over the next three years. I like Case, but I think chances are better that Brock will be our starting QB after the next three years than Case will be in LA (part of the reason the money thing is so different). The Rams invested draft picks in their QB. We invested Cash. If need be, we can draft a first round QB in year 3 or 4.... St Louis can't. If Goff isn't the man, & Case isn't, they're going to overpay for someone else's back-up... maybe even Brock.

More than one way to skin a cat & all.

Did you ever mention that a guy shouldn't start just because he got paid a ton?

Honestly, I don't remember. I'm just asking. ')

 

[texan279]

I know we are only 2 preseason games in with Osweiler as the starter, but I have not been impressed and am not hopeful. I've watched every snap he has taken and on every drop back I have seen him take he locks onto one receiver. I have yet to see his head swivel while in the pocket and it scares the hell out of me. Granted we are working with a makeshift line so far, but there have been instances where he did have some time in the pocket. The play that comes to mind is the pick he threw against the Saints in the end zone. He locked onto the receiver and still threw into tight coverage. Hopefully I am wrong in what I am seeing and if I'm not hopefully this is something he works on or gets better when starters get plugged back into the line. Who knows maybe I'm crazy.

 

[Texecutioner]

He was a backup alright.
He only got to play because Manning got injured.
Keenum got the chance when Schaub sucked.
But at the end of the day, they were both backups at the time.

If Keenum remained unproven, then so should Osweiler be.
You think his 5-2 is legit (O'Brien and Rich Smith seem to concur), but I (and some others) don't.

I strongly believe that Keenum can achieve a similar results in that same situation (maybe not quite as good, maybe a little better.)

Guess what?
The Rams didn't risk anywhere near the money the Texans did on an "unproven" QB. And they drafted a player that has a fairly good chance to be a top 10 QB in his own time.

The Texans took the low percentage play.
Osweiler is more apt to stay a mediocre QB, and the Texans still don't have an answer at QB - as usual.

I'll agree that Oz is "unproven", but you sound like you're being very unfair with your mind made up before allowing him a chance to show what he can do with this offense with his new teammates. What I see in Oz skill set wise is a guy that could possibly be another Joe Flacco. Maybe the good Flacco or the bad one, but that is who his skill set reminds me of. I'll take the hot Flacco that gets sizzling at times if he could become that. We'll see, but you should recognize some of the potential that Oz has before being so quick to judge what he will do here. He will struggle some early on this year. Prepare yourself for that. These young WR's in a new offense are simply not going to look great right away. There will be growing pains on offense this season.

 

[76Texan]

I'll agree that Oz is "unproven", but you sound like you're being very unfair with your mind made up before allowing him a chance to show what he can do with this offense with his new teammates. What I see in Oz skill set wise is a guy that could possibly be another Joe Flacco. Maybe the good Flacco or the bad one, but that is who his skill set reminds me of. I'll take the hot Flacco that gets sizzling at times if he could become that. We'll see, but you should recognize some of the potential that Oz has before being so quick to judge what he will do here. He will struggle some early on this year. Prepare yourself for that. These young WR's in a new offense are simply not going to look great right away. There will be growing pains on offense this season.

I'll get back to you later, Tex.

I still have your other posts in the back of my mind.
I need to spend some time to respond, because I know it would be better if I can choose the right words, if at all possible, when responding to you.

 

[thunderkyss]

With a QB like Osweiler, they have more tapes (and at times insider resources - sometimes illegally, we have seen that) to know more about him. He looked very meh, and I'm talking about watching how he performed throughout the years since he entered the league.
He never had the high-ceiling potential to begin with; he never demonstrated that he made a big jump off that low-ceiling.
He isn't crap; he's just mediocre.

So Elway was wrong to offer him 3 years $45M?

 

[76Texan]

So Elway was wrong to offer him 3 years $45M?

You know what?

I was thinking of all that and so forth that has been transpired.

We have to remember the WCO that Kubiak runs; it can "mask" some of the QB's deficiency.

The play action pass behind the zone run to the opposite is one example.
It "somewhat" negates an agressive/excellent pass rush, or at least, alleviates the pressure.

The QB needs to do something well in that system.
The QB needs to do some other things in O'Brien's system.

Schaub's flaws were at times masked when he runs Kubiak's play-action off the zone run. Remember how many of us said that Schaub became very very good at the play fake?

 

[thunderkyss]

Did you ever mention that a guy shouldn't start just because he got paid a ton?

Honestly, I don't remember. I'm just asking. ')

I don't think that's the reason Osweiler is starting. I think he's our starter because of the way he handled real game situations.

 

[76Texan]

I don't think that's the reason Osweiler is starting. I think he's our starter because of the way he handled real game situations.

He's a starter because the Texans have Weeden and Savage on the roster.

 

[santo]

He's a starter because the Texans have Weeden and Savage on the roster.

And Mark Sanchez is the starter in Denver because Osweiler is gone.

 

[Rich Schmidt]

so getting retreads is bad, I agree
Getting 1.1 in the draft is rare, were we supposed to give up an entire draft this year for a "potential QB"? When we were 1.1, Clowney versus Bridgewater was a big gap and we would have been seen as fools and noone seemed to be offering value for 1.1 so we were stuck. Is TB going to be better than Oz, let's see. We tried 1.1 with David Carr, burned. So much speculation, I liked the approach this year, go all in on best young QB we could get, not a retread, use draft picks to upgrade weaponry for the new QB, and if he flames, we only have $ commit for 2 years. Whether onboard or not, this was at least a strategy that makes sense.

PS, I wanted TB and don't know why we did not creep up for him on day 1. 1st round draft picks let you lock them in another year if we get a steal at bottom of round 1. So I much preferred this years draft and off season free agent signings. Seems we had a plan of what we could get in the draft versus free agency

 

[thunderkyss]

so getting retreads is bad, I agree

I don't think Osweiler qualifies as a rethread. A rethread is a guy who's had an opportunity to be a starting QB & it just didn't work out. Weeden is a retrhead. Fitzpatrick, Foles, Bradford, are rethreads. Being the spot holder for the hall of famer... I don't think Osweiler ever had the opportunity to "the man."

 

[Texecutioner]

I'll get back to you later, Tex.

I still have your other posts in the back of my mind.
I need to spend some time to respond, because I know it would be better if I can choose the right words, if at all possible, when responding to you.

Stop being over the top man. If you want to insult me because you disagree, then have at it. You don't need to be careful when responding. Just make your case with some substance. Personally, all you can really do at this point is attempt to crap all over Oz's play from last year, because that is all there is to judge and it is a very small sample of what he can or can't do. I'll agree that he didn't set the world on fire at all last season. He had some ups and downs and generally was average. It was his first time starting though for a HC that doesn't usually have QB's playing like All Pros right out the gate. I don't think Kubiak is that easy of a coach to play for right away like that especially on a team that strategically had a winning formula by playing strong defense and smart ball control. They were very likely careful with Oz last season, and didn't allow him to do much. It worked though. For all intents and purposes, since Oz got here he has said and done everything like a true professional and as far as his attitude goes I am buying what he is selling. We'll see if it translates on the field or not in the long term. I have my hopes as well as my concerns with him for the record. You and I probably agree about his skill set and potential more than we disagree.

 

[76Texan]

And Mark Sanchez is the starter in Denver because Osweiler is gone.

Mark Sanchez currently runs the one because Manning was gone.
But what the heck, why are we talking about Sanchez.

But really, Sanchez did have a ton of experienced running the WCO, even back from the days he was at USC. He might be a "game-manager" type for cheap.

In the meantime, I did have Paxton Lynch as an intriguing guy.
I actually had him third behind Goff and Wentz.
Great athletic ability, but very raw.
Some of the deficiencies that he has, could be "masked" or somewhat "masked" by the WCO scheme.

 

[thunderkyss]

Stop being over the top man. If you want to insult me because you disagree, then have at it. You don't need to be careful when responding. Just make your case with some substance. Personally, all you can really do at this point is attempt to crap all over Oz's play from last year, because that is all there is to judge and it is a very small sample of what he can or can't do. I'll agree that he didn't set the world on fire at all last season. He had some ups and downs and generally was average. It was his first time starting though for a HC that doesn't usually have QB's playing like All Pros right out the gate. I don't think Kubiak is that easy of a coach to play for right away like that especially on a team that strategically had a winning formula by playing strong defense and smart ball control. They were very likely careful with Oz last season, and didn't allow him to do much. It worked though. For all intents and purposes, since Oz got here he has said and done everything like a true professional and as far as his attitude goes I am buying what he is selling. We'll see if it translates on the field or not in the long term. I have my hopes as well as my concerns with him for the record. You and I probably agree about his skill set and potential more than we disagree.

I like this Texecutioner.... that old crabby man going by the same name, not so much. But this guy is all right with me.

 

[76Texan]

And Mark Sanchez is the starter in Denver because Osweiler is gone.

Mark Sanchez currently runs the one because Manning was gone.
But what the heck, why are we talking about Sanchez.

But really, Sanchez did have a ton of experienced running the WCO, even back from the days he was at USC. He might be a "game-manager" type for cheap.

In the meantime, I did have Paxton Lynch as an intriguing guy.
I actually had him third behind Goff and Wentz.
Great athletic ability, but very raw.
Some of the deficiencies that he has, could be "masked" or somewhat "masked" by the WCO scheme.

 

[TexansBull]

Has anyone mentioned that it is we are still in preseason yet?

 

[76Texan]

Has anyone mentioned that it is we are still in preseason yet?

Did you see how this MB perking up with the two threads I created recently?

Plenty of football talk instead of just... you know...

 

[sandman]

Let's start slowly.

The Broncos were 4th in points allowed at 18.5

The Texans defense were 24th, at 26.8.
That's more than a TD per game

If Osweiler was with the Texans, would he had achieved the same 5-2 record? You tell me.

You seem very certain that Case could have replaced Brock and vice versa in their respective seasons and each would have obtained the exact same result. You have nothing to base that on other than your opinion, but you are indeed very certain of it. I admire your confidence.

 

[Texecutioner]

I like this Texecutioner.... that old crabby man going by the same name, not so much. But this guy is all right with me.

The old crabby man? Lol! At least we're back to arguing football and not racial politics. I'd much rather debate this stuff.

 

[Luv_ya_blue]

I can say this much fwiw...
Having lived in Colorado for the past two years I can attest to the FACT that 100% of the people that I knew and spoke with were absolutely sick about Oz leaving Denver. They believed that he was the future of the franchise and were extremely upset about us getting him. Again, fwiw.

 

[Texecutioner]

Mark Sanchez currently runs the one because Manning was gone.
But what the heck, why are we talking about Sanchez.

But really, Sanchez did have a ton of experienced running the WCO, even back from the days he was at USC. He might be a "game-manager" type for cheap.

In the meantime, I did have Paxton Lynch as an intriguing guy.
I actually had him third behind Goff and Wentz.
Great athletic ability, but very raw.
Some of the deficiencies that he has, could be "masked" or somewhat "masked" by the WCO scheme.

Did not watch much of Lynch in college, but I like what I see of him in pre season. As a guy who hates the Broncos that worries me.

 

[76Texan]

I can say this much fwiw...
Having lived in Colorado for the past two years I can attest to the FACT that 100% of the people that I knew and spoke with were absolutely sick about Oz leaving Denver. They believed that he was the future of the franchise and were extremely upset about us getting him. Again, fwiw.

Most people would love 5 and 2.

BTW, where have you been?

 

[Luv_ya_blue]

Most people would love 5 and 2.

BTW, where have you been?

NW Colorado, about an hour outside of Steamboat Springs.

 

[76Texan]

Did not watch much of Lynch in college, but I like what I see of him in pre season. As a guy who hates the Broncos that worries me.

Soon as you said that, I was thinking.

OK, so you see how Lynch "looked" good in the WCO, "maybe" Osweiler looked good for some reasons in the WCO just the same?

You're not crazy about college football, so I have to say you missed the opportunity to scout these guys from HS to college and so on.

Even if practice doesn't make perfect, as long as we keep studying the game because we love it, I know I have learned a lot.
It's never about "I know more than anybody". If that's the case, I wouldn't have joined any MB, let alone having discussion on them.

 

[Double Barrel]

We have to remember the WCO that Kubiak runs; it can "mask" some of the QB's deficiency.

Case Keenum is 0-8 in that offense under Kubiak. But, Keenum is 2-0 out of a deer blind in O'Brien's offense. You can chase your own tail now.

 

[TexansBull]

Did you see how this MB perking up with the two threads I created recently?

Plenty of football talk instead of just... you know...

So you are either stirring the pot and throwing rocks at the hornet nest or overreacting over nothing. I see.

 

[Texecutioner]

Soon as you said that, I was thinking.

OK, so you see how Lynch "looked" good in the WCO, "maybe" Osweiler looked good for some reasons in the WCO just the same?

You're not crazy about college football, so I have to say you missed the opportunity to scout these guys from HS to college and so on.

Even if practice doesn't make perfect, as long as we keep studying the game because we love it, I know I have learned a lot.
It's never about "I know more than anybody". If that's the case, I wouldn't have joined any MB, let alone having discussion on them.

We're talking two small samples of preseason games against back ups though man. I haven't watched tons of college in the last 4 years or so. I watched quite a bit the year before and studied a ton of QB's the year we had the #1 pick. Before that, I used to watch a ton of college football. I do know very little about this year's crop of QB's out of the draft. None of them were that impressive to me, but again I watched very little of them.

When you are in a forum and especially a team forum, you're going to get probably like 75% of them that will post total **** because they are only invested in wanting their favorite team's success. This is the case on almost every sports forum for NFL teams. If you are new and posting negative criticisms about that team, you'll usually get attacked like a swarm of bees by the homers who usually will put together poor arguments with a lack of substance. I experienced it here when I first joined, and I've seen our members do it to many other newbs when they first join. I'm a Pats fan as well, and believe me I won't even post on those sites. The minute you criticize anyone on coaching staff or team you're in a ton of debates with people that aren't interested in substance and only want to hear about how great everyone is in their franchise.

 

[76Texan]

[43"]Case Keenum is 0-8 in that offense under Kubiak. But, Keenum is 2-0 out of a deer blind in O'Brien's offense. You can chase your own tail now.[/QUOTE]
I honestly could not believe that I would read such a post from you, DB.

You have never been like TK to be stirring up the pot like this.
(Neither have I).

At any rate, a comment like this (yours) works best to stir up the pot.
It provokes responses, usually.
I think it's what you're aiming for.

Or just for fun, which I'm glad; because you seem to be not having a lot of fun lately (but worrying that others don't, hahaha.)

Remember, this is not a personal attack.
Just saying that I'm totally happy doing what I'm doing.
I would gladly entertain any football talk.
Life is grand.

Cheers.

 

[Thorsson]

The money is inconsequential. It means nothing. It's what we had to pay to get him out of Denver. No more, no less. Earning ain't got sht to do with it. If we didn't have a QB that wet himself every time he saw a decent pass rush, we wouldn't have been so desperate to find one who beat a decent pass rush when the stakes were high.

That's the only reason Brock is at the top of our QB depth chart. It's not because he throws the prettiest ball in practice, or that he knows the playbook better than any one else. It's because he demonstrated that he'll beat a blitz & pro quality coverage when he needs to in games that matter.

Weeden didn't. That's why he's a back up. True, the situation Weeden was in (in Cleveland) was a tough one, but I'm glad the Texans didn't gamble our 2016 season that he might be better in Houston.

Savage... I love me some Tom Savage, but it's not like he's had the opportunity to play in many meaningful games. No fault of his own, but it is what it is. Lots of question marks because of the little experience he had coming into the league, then putting him on IR last season didn't help. Too big a gamble, for me, going into 2016.

Osweiler, Savage, Weeden... That's a good way, I think, to hedge our bets & get Jj Watt to the Super Bowl.

There's only one way we'll find out, and that's when the season begins. Can't wait for the Opener!

 

[76Texan]

We're talking two small samples of preseason games against back ups though man. I haven't watched tons of college in the last 4 years or so. I watched quite a bit the year before and studied a ton of QB's the year we had the #1 pick. Before that, I used to watch a ton of college football. I do know very little about this year's crop of QB's out of the draft. None of them were that impressive to me, but again I watched very little of them.

When you are in a forum and especially a team forum, you're going to get probably like 75% of them that will post total **** because they are only invested in wanting their favorite team's success. This is the case on almost every sports forum for NFL teams. If you are new and posting negative criticisms about that team, you'll usually get attacked like a swarm of bees by the homers who usually will put together poor arguments with a lack of substance. I experienced it here when I first joined, and I've seen our members do it to many other newbs when they first join. I'm a Pats fan as well, and believe me I won't even post on those sites. The minute you criticize anyone on coaching staff or team you're in a ton of debates with people that aren't interested in substance and only want to hear about how great everyone is in their franchise.

 

[Texansballer74]

Ehh the Saints were missing 2 starters up front on what was already one of the worst pass rushes in the league. Not a good litmus test for the OL. We'll see how things go against Arizona.

On the Texans verses Cardinals thread my boy Jam started. I stated that this game will be not only a tough test but our true test. It's going to be interesting to see how Brock holds up against their stout front as well as being able to pick out their elite blitz schemes.

Oh well were actually down 4 starting olinemen

 

[infantrycak]

I asked before the draft when this conversation was even semi relevant and got no answer - has any team ever traded up from 21 or lower to 1?