Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

How long before we see Weeden

G

gafftop

All Pro
Will he be next man up or will Savage be first.
I think either Brock gets shaken up enough during the next two games or by Jags game after bye they decide he needs a break. I hope Weeden is first but Savage will be given a chance just because....
Savage will last for a game or so and then we will see Weeden if still a chance for playoffs. If not Brock may play out the season.
Weeden and Savage for that matter will show that BO is part of the Texans problem on offense.

Or do we give up on this season completely because BOB/Rick have so much invested in Brock.
He may just not be ready yet, but again he is not a rookie.
 
Mid to late next year you may see Savage. Short of injuries, chances of seeing anyone besides Brock are about nil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max
If Brock is healthy he is playing. OB and Smith put their chips on the table this offseason with Os. They aren't going to fold 5 games in.
 
Osienhymer is our QB, best get used to it. And maybe he'll get better. He does show flashes now and then, kind of like a flashlight with low batteries.
 
PapaL said:
Mid to late next year you may see Savage. Short of injuries, chances of seeing anyone besides Brock are about nil.
Click to expand...

You know what? I've been thinking a lot about what it's going to take for Os to sit down and with that contract I've of course come to the same conclusion that everyone else has and that is "injury or not likely at all" but then I got to thinking about it. The way we lose QB's around these parts (How many have we been through in the last two seasons?) we'll be watching Savage here in a few weeks at the rate we're going. Mid-season at the latest. Weeden by the 10th game.
 
TheRealJoker said:
If Brock is healthy he is playing. OB and Smith put their chips on the table this offseason with Os. They aren't going to fold 5 games in.
Click to expand...

OB flip flopped between Mallett and Hoyer last year early. I agree with you that he's not going to do it with Os because of the money but lets be honest and admit that he's not exactly the kind of guy who holds his ground on a decision and gives you that "Thousand Yard Stare" no matter how much he likes to play the part.

If his play doesn't improve the money will be the only thing keeping Os at the top of the depth chart and the team will know it. Then it's just that long, slow, spiral to the ground once that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
Weeden is 3rd string. Hopefully we won't see him this year.

We know who Weeden is, he's not a quality NFL starter.

Os or Savage may be, so we use them up first.
 
kiwitexansfan said:
Weeden is 3rd string. Hopefully we won't see him this year.

We know who Weeden is, he's not a quality NFL starter.

Os or Savage may be, so we use them up first.
Click to expand...

It's only a matter of time before OZ goes down, Savage has not shown he's capable of staying healthy. There is a good chance we will see Weeden before the season is over.
 
Redtexans said:
It's only a matter of time before OZ goes down, Savage has not shown he's capable of staying healthy. There is a good chance we will see Weeden before the season is over.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thought. Only I don't think Savage needs to get hurt to see the bench. Once BO is out there is no telling what may happen.
Also I think Miller is going to get worn out very soon. They need to platoon some at rb.
 
You won't see him this year unless both Brock and Savage get injured.

So judging by the past 2 years under OB, you will see Weeden at some point this year.
 
If Os goes down with injury, it will probably be because our OL continues to scare no one and continues to roll out the red carpet leading straight to the QB. After that, that same red carpet will be washed, dried, Febreezed and re-used until all of the backup QBs are pulling up daisies with Os.:spy:
 
The real question that I wonder about is if O'Brien has it in him to make a decision like Pete Carroll did with Russell Wilson when they were paying Matt Flynn starting QB money.

Is Savage a perpetual backup? He's been in this system for three seasons now.
 
Double Barrel said:
Is Savage a perpetual backup? He's been in this system for three seasons now.
Click to expand...

I think if he had shown to be all that, or even the possibility of becoming all that, he'd be the starter now and BO would still be in Denver

And that should tell you all you need to know about Savage
 
JB said:
I think if he had shown to be all that, or even the possibility of becoming all that, he'd be the starter now and BO would still be in Denver

And that should tell you all you need to know about Savage
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kind of my gut feeling, as well. They already knew what they had in Savage when they signed Brock.

They should be spending a draft pick every year, even late round, just to spin the wheel. Don't stop until they find The Man, because really nothing else matters until you have a reliably good QB.

Maybe Brock just needs some patience for the learning curve. Not comparing them as players, but Warren Moon's first three seasons with the Oilers was pretty bad. He threw more INTs every year than TDs. Nobody had a sense of what he would eventually become at that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
Double Barrel said:
Yeah, that's kind of my gut feeling, as well. They already knew what they had in Savage when they signed Brock.

They should be spending a draft pick every year, even late round, just to spin the wheel. Don't stop until they find The Man, because really nothing else matters until you have a reliably good QB.

Maybe Brock just needs some patience for the learning curve. Not comparing them as players, but Warren Moon's first three seasons with the Oilers was pretty bad. He threw more INTs every year than TDs. Nobody had a sense of what he would eventually become at that point.
Click to expand...
But but Savage hasn't even start a game yet.
How do we know without giving him at least 2 years worth of start?
:kitten:
 
Double Barrel said:
Yeah, that's kind of my gut feeling, as well. They already knew what they had in Savage when they signed Brock.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is the quality of their "knowing" -- not sure these bozos would "know" what they have at any time. From what I've seen Savage is easily better than Oz, and Weeden, while kind of up and down, is no slouch. It's like Bill wanted to pay OZ by the inch based on height.
 
For some reason both McNair and O'Brien believe they can win without, and I quote, "A super quarterback." They must also think that said (non-super) QB can win while playing behind our joke of an O-line...
 
It doesn't matter who the QB is with the OL play. Every QB I can think of not nicknamed Big Ben wilts under the kind of pressure Os has faced. It doesn't matter who the RB is with the OL play. The OL has been a turnstile at an NYC subway station and every defense has had a Metro Card.

I'm not wearing blinders to Os' and Miller's poor play, but with better than average OL play, those would be significantly diminished.
 
Double Barrel said:
Yeah, that's kind of my gut feeling, as well. They already knew what they had in Savage when they signed Brock.

They should be spending a draft pick every year, even late round, just to spin the wheel. Don't stop until they find The Man, because really nothing else matters until you have a reliably good QB.

Maybe Brock just needs some patience for the learning curve. Not comparing them as players, but Warren Moon's first three seasons with the Oilers was pretty bad. He threw more INTs every year than TDs. Nobody had a sense of what he would eventually become at that point.
Click to expand...

Yeah and Moon had already won 5 Grey Cups..
 
DocBar said:
It doesn't matter who the QB is with the OL play. Every QB I can think of not nicknamed Big Ben wilts under the kind of pressure Os has faced. It doesn't matter who the RB is with the OL play. The OL has been a turnstile at an NYC subway station and every defense has had a Metro Card.

I'm not wearing blinders to Os' and Miller's poor play, but with better than average OL play, those would be significantly diminished.
Click to expand...

The biggest issue with the OL is their run blocking
 
I'd prefer it if Philip Rivers demands a trade and lists Houston on the short list. Im tired of the 'lets hope for the best' QB's. I need a proven commodity on my team that actually knows how and when to throw a football.
 
Uncle Rico said:
I'd prefer it if Philip Rivers demands a trade and lists Houston on the short list. Im tired of the 'lets hope for the best' QB's. I need a proven commodity on my team that actually knows how and when to throw a football.
Click to expand...
The Chargers take an $18 Million cap hit if they trade him after this season, and the Texans would have to pick up Rivers 2017 $14 Million base salary, in addition to the $19 Million in cap hit Osweiler will have (or $25 Million if they decided to cut him).

So then if Rivers asks for a trade after this season it won't matter because:

A. The Texans can't afford to have any interest in trading for him.

B. The Chargers can't afford to have any interest in honoring his request.

As much as the possibility exists (and has existed from the day the contract was signed) that Osweiler will end up a $37 Million bust, this is why these kind of risks (or bad decisions if you've already made up your mind) are undertaken in the NFL - if there's a QB with a proven track record of success, you're not getting him short of assuming a fair share of injury risk ala Drew Brees and Peyton Manning.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JB
ChampionTexan said:
The Chargers take an $18 Million cap hit if they trade him after this season, and the Texans would have to pick up Rivers 2017 $14 Million base salary, in addition to the $19 Million in cap hit Osweiler will have (or $25 Million if they decided to cut him).

So then if Rivers asks for a trade after this season it won't matter because:

A. The Texans can't afford to have any interest in trading for him.

B. The Chargers can't afford to have any interest in honoring his request.
Click to expand...

sucks.
 
Mangler said:
For some reason both McNair and O'Brien believe they can win without, and I quote, "A super quarterback." They must also think that said (non-super) QB can win while playing behind our joke of an O-line...
Click to expand...

Don't laugh, but sometimes I've had this thought, based on what McNair so strongly pushed and commented about concerning our QB and RB situation last year, that ultimately the decision for both of these choices was not O'Brien's except for public consumption.
 
I really don't understand why people are losing their minds over Brock at this point. We have seen signs that he can make throws that no Texans QB (probably even HWWNBN) has ever been able to make. He needs to take a little bit off on touch passes (probably the thing that worries me the most) but you just spent (30 in guaranteed?) mil on him. This isn't Peyton or Brady coming in to save the franchise in game 1. If it was that then you wouldn't have been able to get him for the contract you gave him. You run an allegedly complicated offense, you have no OLine and your running game has been trash. He's used some of your weapons pretty well (Fuller) and teams are double covering your main threat (Hopkins). If you cut ties and bail, you probably won't get many top free agents coming here in the future. Obrien mentioned that there are certain route concepts that he seems more comfortable with. I don't know what those are and maybe those are things he was exposed to in Den and perhaps there are a bunch of concepts that he's seeing for the first or second time here. It's probably one thing to see the route concepts for the first time when your OL is not garbage but I would imagine that running them against live competition for the first time while at the same time having little to no pocket or time probably leads to bad things.

I'm not saying that you don't hold him accountable for his mistakes, I'm suggesting that you hold him accountable but you don't blow the thing up after 5 games. Unfortunately, we don't know what's being said in the meeting room. I have no idea if he is going to improve, but you saw enough to make it worth giving him 72M (potentially). At least get through the first year before you bring someone else in. I was a big fan of Savage but he can't stay healthy and after 2 years you felt the need to go spend 72M which isn't encouraging to me. If you don't see any development out of BO then you can dump him at the end of the year IIRC.
 
Texanmike02 said:
I really don't understand why people are losing their minds over Brock at this point.
Click to expand...

I said he sucked as a prospect coming out of college. I said he sucked in Denver, where he was benched for someone who quite literally could barely throw a football. I say he sucks now and has shown it for 5 consecutive weeks.

No grand insight, just wanted to reiterate my stance.
 
Brisco_County said:
Why would O'Brien name Savage the backup just to leap frog him?
Click to expand...

Kinda like why would you pay Bradford $20M, Daniels $7M, name Bradford the starter all OtAs, Daniels the #2, trade up to draft Wentz, trade Bradford, then leapfrog Wentz over Daniels a week before the season starts
 
76Texan said:
But but Savage hasn't even start a game yet.
How do we know without giving him at least 2 years worth of start?
:kitten:
Click to expand...
Maybe not two years worth of starts, but starts under the same team conditions that Oz has not been productive under.
 
DocBar said:
It doesn't matter who the QB is with the OL play. Every QB I can think of not nicknamed Big Ben wilts under the kind of pressure Os has faced. It doesn't matter who the RB is with the OL play. The OL has been a turnstile at an NYC subway station and every defense has had a Metro Card.

I'm not wearing blinders to Os' and Miller's poor play, but with better than average OL play, those would be significantly diminished.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but we don't KNOW if Savage or Weeden would "wilt" until they're given an opportunity. At some point, I'm suggesting after the bye if things aren't turned around, these two should be given the opportunity to show what they can do under the identical conditions that Oz hasn't been successful under.
 
thunderkyss said:
Kinda like why would you pay Bradford $20M, Daniels $7M, name Bradford the starter all OtAs, Daniels the #2, trade up to draft Wentz, trade Bradford, then leapfrog Wentz over Daniels a week before the season starts
Click to expand...

Sigma said:
why would OB name a starter QB and change it halfway through week 1?
Click to expand...

Those are different scenarios. One is preseason, and the other involves a guy who didn't perform to expectation.

The first question in the OP is based on the assumption that Weeden immediately be given the start without Savage taking a snap.

Will he be next man up or will Savage be first.
Click to expand...

That's just Weeden fan wishcasting.
 
Brisco_County said:
Those are different scenarios. One is preseason, and the other involves a guy who didn't perform to expectation.

The first question in the OP is based on the assumption that Weeden immediately be given the start without Savage taking a snap.



That's just Weeden fan wishcasting.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I'm just saying these guys (& I mean NFL people) don't always do what "makes sense."
 
Brisco_County said:
Those are different scenarios. One is preseason, and the other involves a guy who didn't perform to expectation.

The first question in the OP is based on the assumption that Weeden immediately be given the start without Savage taking a snap.



That's just Weeden fan wishcasting.
Click to expand...

My point was that sometimes OB seems to take some decisions which seem to make little to no sense.

I'm not an OB hater but I am tired of being sold on the idea the texans are a good team and then every year it turns out the projections were overrating us.

I always hated people using the term "pretenders", I think it's a very bad word to be called... way worse than "overrated".

but the more time passes the less I can find reasons to explain why the texans aren't really pretenders

Granted, I'm very far from being a football expert. but this is the fourth year that we are here discussing "let's see what we have in X QB backup" and I'm tired of that discussion.

I've been a fan since 2010 and the first three years were the best, in 2011 we started 3-3 and went on to finish the season 10-6, winning the division and our first playoff game.

I'd like to think this year is the 2011 of BOB offence, but I won't put any money on it

And yes, I know this is only BOB's third year, but I really hope it will not take him 5 years to reach the playoffs with Brock.
(Kubiak needed 5 years to get to the playoffs once he got his QB -Schaub-)

EDIT:
if you take a look at the 2011 season you'll see that the schedule is not very different from what we have this year.

up to week 14 we lost 3 games
2 games against very good teams (Baltimore and Saints)
1 game against Oakland (the raiders are always tricky even if they are a bad team)

of the remaining 11 wins we had:
2 wins against good teams (Falcons and Steelers)
1 win againt the Bengals
8 wins against bad teams (Colts, Dolphins, Titans, Jaguars, Browns, Buccaneers, Jaguars)

at that point we clinched our first playoff berth and lose out because that was enough of an achievement for one year :D
(Panthers, Colts, Titans)


if you look at this year's schedule we have already have our 2 losses against good teams (Patriots and Vikings)

we also already have 3 of the 8 wins against bad teams (Bears, Chiefs, Titans)

The good teams we will face are Broncos Packers and Bengals

Even losing all those games, plus one surprise loss (ironically we have Oakland on our schedule, or it could be the usual loss @ indy) we should still be able to get a 10-6 record

I think anythink worse than that would be a huge disappointment

note that to get a 10-6 record this year we don't need to beat any good team, and we can still manage to lose 1 game to a bad team
 
Last edited:
powda said:
Have thought this for years.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's S.O.P. for a lot of teams, but not the Texans. They have had this sort of myopic vision since the beginning of picking a QB and naming him starter before they earn it. It was that way with Carr and Schaub, and we see it repeated again with Brock. Carr was a bust after 5 years of being automatic starter, Schaub ended up being a decent gamble during his good years, and the jury is obviously still out with Brock.

However, there is an alternate perspective that we are talking about with drafting QBs. For instance, the Seahawks has just signed Matt Flynn in 2012, but still invested a third round pick in Wilson and let them duke it out in the off-season to earn the starting position. If that had been the Texans. Flynn would have been automatic starter in March and they never would have thought of drafting Wilson.
 
I think it's a fallacy to say what "the Texans" would do. It has to be modified by the regime as each is different. Clearly OB"s handling of QBs is diffetent than Kubiak's even with a common GM and owner.
 
infantrycak said:
I think it's a fallacy to say what "the Texans" would do. It has to be modified by the regime as each is different. Clearly OB"s handling of QBs is diffetent than Kubiak's even with a common GM and owner.
Click to expand...

There is a common theme through three regimes, though. Starting QB is anointed and has never had to compete for the job. Carr, Schaub, and Osweiler are all the same in that regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
Double Barrel said:
There is a common theme through three regimes, though. Starting QB is anointed and has never had to compete for the job. Carr, Schaub, and Osweiler are all the same in that regard.
Click to expand...

& Fitz & Hoyer....

Take it with a grain of salt, but this QB competition thing is mainly for the fans. Nine times out of 10, the HC knows who his QB is going to be. Russell Wilson being the exception.
 
Double Barrel said:
There is a common theme through three regimes, though. Starting QB is anointed and has never had to compete for the job. Carr, Schaub, and Osweiler are all the same in that regard.
Click to expand...

Actually both Capers and Casserly said their intention was to start Banks but Carr beat him out.

And I'd say highly paid QBs are the presumptive starters throughout the league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top