Blake Bortles

[Mr teX]

In the 8 seasons from the Ravens SB to Flacco's arrival they made the playoffs 4 times and one once with an all-time ridiculous defense.

This period included 10 & 11 loss seasons.

In the 7 seasons since drafting Flacco they've been to the playoffs 6 times, never losing more than 8.

One of these periods is consistent, and one ain't.

Both eras are consistent......& what you're failing to realize is that that defense was present & was more of a significant force for that entire run...Flacco's presence pretty much had nothing to do with it b/c they won 1 with him and 1 without him. Same pretty much applies to Big Ben and the Steelers during their run. He was there for the 1st one he won, but he wasn't the key factor, just a guy handed the keys to a ferrari.

 

[Mollywhopper]

Both eras are consistent......& what you're failing to realize is that that defense was present & was more of a significant force for that entire run...Flacco's presence pretty much had nothing to do with it b/c they won 1 with him and 1 without him. Same pretty much applies to Big Ben and the Steelers during their run. He was there for the 1st one he won, but he wasn't the key factor, just a guy handed the keys to a ferrari.

Right now, please type the words ... "winning 7, 10, 9, 6, 13, and 5 games in consecutive seasons is consistent" ... and mean it. Go ahead, I dare ya.

And I'm not failing to realize that, especially seeing as I haven't disputed it. We have defensive pieces in place that don't demand a complete overhaul. Certainly not in lieu of us trying to grab a difference maker at QB.

You can spark a really fun season here or there and win some with a stellar team and wishy-washy QB.

You can't win consistently and truly make something great without one.

 

[Mr teX]

Right now, please type the words ... "winning 7, 10, 9, 6, 13, and 5 games in consecutive seasons is consistent" ... and mean it. Go ahead, I dare ya.

And I'm not failing to realize that, especially seeing as I haven't disputed it. We have defensive pieces in place that don't demand a complete overhaul. Certainly not in lieu of us trying to grab a difference maker at QB.

You can spark a really fun season here or there and win some with a stellar team and wishy-washy QB.

You can't win consistently and truly make something great without one.

You can't do that switching out qb's every 2-3 years either...

Right now we have A piece on defense....

 

[Mollywhopper]

You can't do that switching out qb's every 2-3 years either...

Right now we have A piece on defense....

We've been switching qb's every 2-3 years, it's time to ID and grab one early.

 

[Mr teX]

We've been switching qb's every 2-3 years, it's time to ID and grab one early.

Not really..Schaub was our guy for what 5-6 years here...we had consistent qb play at the position during his tenure & it didn't lead to much...Not so much important that we grab 1 early...just that we grab the right one....

 

[Mollywhopper]

Not really..Schaub was our guy for what 5-6 years here...we had consistent qb play at the position during his tenure & it didn't lead to much...Not so much important that we grab 1 early...just that we grab the right one....

What are you arguing against exactly?

 

[dream_team]

Right now, please type the words ... "winning 7, 10, 9, 6, 13, and 5 games in consecutive seasons is consistent" ... and mean it. Go ahead, I dare ya.

And I'm not failing to realize that, especially seeing as I haven't disputed it. We have defensive pieces in place that don't demand a complete overhaul. Certainly not in lieu of us trying to grab a difference maker at QB.

You can spark a really fun season here or there and win some with a stellar team and wishy-washy QB.

You can't win consistently and truly make something great without one.

So why aren't the Ravens winning this season?

 

[Mr teX]

What are you arguing against exactly?

This "qb in the 1st or 2nd at all costs" mentality some seem to be dead set on... I think it'd be a mistake for our FO to go into a draft with that mindset..If that qb we want isn't there, we certainly don't need to force it....

 

[dream_team]

Not really..Schaub was our guy for what 5-6 years here...we had consistent qb play at the position during his tenure & it didn't lead to much...Not so much important that we grab 1 early...just that we grab the right one....

I agree. Not a fan of grabbing QBs early just to get one and give fans hope. We do need stability at QB, but I believe it takes patience and luck to find the right one. Patriots went through a lot of bad QBs before getting lucky with Brady.

 

[Mollywhopper]

So why aren't the Ravens winning this season?

I don't watch the Ravens week in and week out, but I'd assume turnovers is an issue, and that starts with their QB. As well as turnover at their OC.

This "qb in the 1st or 2nd at all costs" mentality some seem to be dead set on... I think it'd be a mistake for our FO to go into a draft with that mindset..If that qb we want isn't there, we certainly don't need to force it....

What's wrong with grabbing a promising arm in the second?

And what if that "QB we want" isn't there the next three or four years, should we just say our HC is finicky and that's ok?

 

[dream_team]

I don't watch the Ravens week in and week out, but I'd assume turnovers is an issue, and that starts with their QB. As well as turnover at their OC.

Wait, please clarify your stance again? I thought a franchise QB makes your team consistent?

What's wrong with grabbing a promising arm in the second?

And what if that "QB we want" isn't there the next three or four years, should we just say our HC is finicky and that's ok?

I'm all good with grabbing promising QBs, if that's what the FO believes in said player. I just don't like drafting a QB high just because that's what we need. If BOB believes Bortles is the next Alex Smith... then don't take him at 1.1

If the FO believes there are no franchise QBs in the draft for 3-4 years, then yes, find an alternative route to get some kind of decent QB play and try to build a winning team that doesn't revolve around elite QB play (which we're doing this season).

Now if Bortles, Bridgewater, Carr or Jimmy G do turn into franchise QBs... then the FO was wrong and they should be dinged on that somehow.

 

[Mr teX]

What's wrong with grabbing a promising arm in the second?

And what if that "QB we want" isn't there the next three or four years, should we just say our HC is finicky and that's ok?

Nothing's wrong with that...taking him at the expensive of another promising young higher rated talent at another need position just b/c he's a qb is the problem. Imagine if we would've taken say Christian Ponder instead of JJ in the 2011 draft....Geno Smith or EJ Manuel instead of Nuk just b/c we were so hard up for a qb? We basically wouldn't have an offense or a defense right now lol..

& i understand that this is all in hindsight and there's gonna be risk of missing out on lots of game changing talented players no matter who we pick, but when you select a qb, that risk is double. At minimum you make a commitment of couple of years to that pick, you draft personnel around that pick & you adjust your offense around that pick b/c there's only 1 guy who gets to play the position on offense. Literally every other position on the field on offense & defense except on like the o-line there are or can be at the very least 2 guys who play the same position on the field at all times.....WR, DE, CB, S, LB...even RB. Plus the sting of committing to the wrong guy in 1 year & then in the next year or year after that, you're out of the market for a qb when there are better talents available to choose from. Cleveland's been chasing their tails for years now with this.

 

[Mollywhopper]

Wait, please clarify your stance again? I thought a franchise QB makes your team consistent?

Show where I said a franchise QB makes your team consistent.

I'm all good with grabbing promising QBs, if that's what the FO believes in said player. I just don't like drafting a QB high just because that's what we need. If BOB believes Bortles is the next Alex Smith... then don't take him at 1.1

If the FO believes there are no franchise QBs in the draft for 3-4 years, then yes, find an alternative route to get some kind of decent QB play and try to build a winning team that doesn't revolve around elite QB play (which we're doing this season).

Now if Bortles, Bridgewater, Carr or Jimmy G do turn into franchise QBs... then the FO was wrong and they should be dinged on that somehow.

An alternative route to get some kind of decent QB play, huh? Is that what we've been doing?

 

[Mollywhopper]

Nothing's wrong with that...taking him at the expensive of another promising young higher rated talent at another need position just b/c he's a qb is the problem. Imagine if we would've taken say Christian Ponder instead of JJ in the 2011 draft....Geno Smith or EJ Manuel instead of Nuk just b/c we were so hard up for a qb? We basically wouldn't have an offense or a defense right now lol..

& i understand that this is all in hindsight and there's gonna be risk of missing out on lots of game changing talented players no matter who we pick, but when you select a qb, that risk is double. At minimum you make a commitment of couple of years to that pick, you draft personnel around that pick & you adjust your offense around that pick b/c there's only 1 guy who gets to play the position on offense. Literally every other position on the field on offense & defense except on like the o-line there are or can be at the very least 2 guys who play the same position on the field at all times.....WR, DE, CB, S, LB...even RB. Plus the sting of committing to the wrong guy in 1 year & then in the next year or year after that, you're out of the market for a qb when there are better talents available to choose from. Cleveland's been chasing their tails for years now with this.

It is in hindsight. We could have taken Aaron Rodgers instead of Travis Johnson in hindsight.

Fact is we've been biding the last couple of years on building while passing on "not the QB for our coach". That's not a terrible philosophy, for a minute.

Eventually you've got to grow a pair, pick a guy you can coach and win with (cause, ya know, you're a coach) and get on with some continuity in your huddle/team ...

... or you can say you're satisfied with the Fitz's/Hoyer's/Mallet's/Yates's/whoever's next on the scrapheap of the football world.

 

[Double Barrel]

I agree. Not a fan of grabbing QBs early just to get one and give fans hope. We do need stability at QB, but I believe it takes patience and luck to find the right one. Patriots went through a lot of bad QBs before getting lucky with Brady.

Do what? The Patriots had Drew Bledsoe for 9 seasons (drafted him 1.1 in 1993) before Brady came in as a backup in 2001. The Patriots have had two starting QBs in the past 22 years with the exception of Matt Cassel when Brady was out for a season in 2008.

Yes, Patriots got lucky with Brady, but they did not go through any QBs between starters.

 

[Mr teX]

Let's remember that this is only his 2nd year on the job, not his 4th. I don't think OB is saying he's satisfied with the guys he's trotted out there..I think he's saying that he wants "his" guy not the guy that fans or the mel kipers of the world say is the guy. & thus far noone can really say that he's been wrong in not picking any of the qb's he's had the chance to pick in the draft either as none of them are really standing out as a clear "you missed out on him" guy except the one that we clearly weren't going to pick for other reasons besides his play...(Carr).

 

[dream_team]

Do what? The Patriots had Drew Bledsoe for 9 seasons (drafted him 1.1 in 1993) before Brady came in as a backup in 2001. The Patriots have had two starting QBs in the past 22 years with the exception of Matt Cassel when Brady was out for a season in 2008.

Yes, Patriots got lucky with Brady, but they did not go through any QBs between starters.

Yah, I stand corrected. While making that post, I was thinking about the Hugh Millen, Tony Eason & Marc Wilson era. For some reason, the Bledsoe era skipped my mind.

 

[Double Barrel]

Yah, I stand corrected. While making that post, I was thinking about the Hugh Millen, Tony Eason & Marc Wilson era. For some reason, the Bledsoe era skipped my mind.

It's all good, man. I wonder what it's like to have two starting QBs in 22 years?

I remember way back when the Patriots used to be one of the perpetually crappy teams like the Browns and Jags. Many years ago, of course.

 

[Speedy]

This "qb in the 1st or 2nd at all costs" mentality some seem to be dead set on... I think it'd be a mistake for our FO to go into a draft with that mindset..If that qb we want isn't there, we certainly don't need to force it....

Drafting a QB at all costs when you don't have one, yes, absolutely. What's the alternative? Should the Titans have stuck it out with Locker and Mettenberger instead of going after Mariota? Should the Vikings have passed on Bridgewater and tried their luck with a stud OT or DE and Christian Ponder? I don't think so.

The Cowboys are 3-0 with Romo this season, 0-7 without him. Same team, so what gives? The Steelers are 4-2 with Big Ben and 2-2 without him. The Packers were 6-2 in 2013 with Rodgers, 2-5-1 without him. They all had the same 52 other players on their teams, but their success was significantly less without that QB.

The Colts had double digit wins for 9 straight years with Peyton and go 2-14 without him. And because they're sofa king lucky, it looks like they've hit the jackpot again with Luck.

Someone mentioned it took years for the Pats to find Brady, and I don't bring that up to say that QBs can be found in the 6th round, I bring it up to point out how difficult it is to find that QB. The Packers were garbage for 20 years with just 1 playoff appearance before they got Favre. The Colts had 3 playoff appearances in 20 years before they got Manning. The Saints had one playoff appearance in 13 years before Brees. The Bills have had just 2 playoff appearances in 18 years since Kelly. The Dolphins, 3 playoffs appearances in 15 years since Marino. The Texans have 2 playoff appearances in 13 years.

THEY'VE GOT TO GET A QB!!!!

 

[Double Barrel]

It's like getting laid. You're not going to get lucky with every date. But there is 100% chance you won't get any when you stay at home looking at internet porn. [/crude metaphor]

 

[dream_team]

Show where I said a franchise QB makes your team consistent.

Right now, please type the words ... "winning 7, 10, 9, 6, 13, and 5 games in consecutive seasons is consistent" ... and mean it. Go ahead, I dare ya.

And I'm not failing to realize that, especially seeing as I haven't disputed it. We have defensive pieces in place that don't demand a complete overhaul. Certainly not in lieu of us trying to grab a difference maker at QB.

You can spark a really fun season here or there and win some with a stellar team and wishy-washy QB.

You can't win consistently and truly make something great without one.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what I interpreted. My apologies.

 

[dream_team]

Drafting a QB at all costs when you don't have one, yes, absolutely. What's the alternative? Should the Titans have stuck it out with Locker and Mettenberger instead of going after Mariota? Should the Vikings have passed on Bridgewater and tried their luck with a stud OT or DE and Christian Ponder? I don't think so.

The Cowboys are 3-0 with Romo this season, 0-7 without him. Same team, so what gives? The Steelers are 4-2 with Big Ben and 2-2 without him. The Packers were 6-2 in 2013 with Rodgers, 2-5-1 without him. They all had the same 52 other players on their teams, but their success was significantly less without that QB.

The Colts had double digit wins for 9 straight years with Peyton and go 2-14 without him. And because they're sofa king lucky, it looks like they've hit the jackpot again with Luck.

Someone mentioned it took years for the Pats to find Brady, and I don't bring that up to say that QBs can be found in the 6th round, I bring it up to point out how difficult it is to find that QB. The Packers were garbage for 20 years with just 1 playoff appearance before they got Favre. The Colts had 3 playoff appearances in 20 years before they got Manning. The Saints had one playoff appearance in 13 years before Brees. The Bills have had just 2 playoff appearances in 18 years since Kelly. The Dolphins, 3 playoffs appearances in 15 years since Marino. The Texans have 2 playoff appearances in 13 years.

THEY'VE GOT TO GET A QB!!!!

I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement "THEY'VE GOT TO GET A QB!!!!". We all just disagree with how the Texans should go about it.

 

[Speedy]

I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement "THEY'VE GOT TO GET A QB!!!!". We all just disagree with how the Texans should go about it.

Well, I just don't know how you go about getting one if you don't draft him pretty high.

 

[thunderkyss]

I'm not talking about the Texans putting the pieces together to win in a particular season. I don't want them striving to be better than freaking Cleveland. I want to win the AFC South for 5, 7, 9 years in a row. They've got to have that top 10 QB to even have a chance at that. And the highest probability of you finding that QB is through the draft, and high in the draft at that.

My argument isn't that we shouldn't draft a QB in the first round. If we're going to find our franchise guy, that's more than likely where we will find him.

The way your argument & most arguments in this thread come across is that we've got to "take a chance" & draft a Brandon Weeden, Ryan Tannehill, or Christian Ponder in the first round, when those guys wouldn't "normally" be considered first rounders unless there's a lot of teams fishing for magic in a bottle.

Throwing darts to pick stocks.

Buying lottery tickets as a retirement plan.

We need a QB. I think the defense & the offensive skill positions are ready to take a talented QB to the next level. I'm not sold on our coaching staff's ability to bring out the best in that guy, but the team is ready. Been ready.

 

[thunderkyss]

In the 8 seasons from the Ravens SB to Flacco's arrival they made the playoffs 4 times and one once with an all-time ridiculous defense.

This period included 10 & 11 loss seasons.

In the 7 seasons since drafting Flacco they've been to the playoffs 6 times, never losing more than 8.

One of these periods is consistent, and one ain't.

That may be the case, but still the way I believe it should be done.

When was the last time a team drafted a QB, built around him & rode him to the play-offs?

Peyton Manning is the only one that comes to mind. Maybe the Bengals, but an argument can be made for the Bengals for either method.

 

[Mollywhopper]

Really any discussion about when a team should pick a QB (1st, 2nd, so on), or whether or not they're passing up potential talent to pick said QB, or whether or not they should go back to the project/washout/second-chance treadmill is all just nebulous football philosophy without getting into the particulars of what guys are available at all of those variables.

I think there are at least two, maybe one or two more, QB's that the 2016 draft will offer that would be worth all manner of investment from a second round pick on up to a trade up in the first. But even that is dependent right now on those QB's finishing their prep grades, where we end up drafting, and who's drafting with their needs ahead of us. Versus those couple or so prospects though are guys like Stafford, Kaep, Cutler (if they should become available) and guys like Bradford/Stanton/Cassel/Henne/Fitz/etc. to choose from.

Now those latter groups of guys are those latter groups of guys for a reason, and I'm not particularly fond of adopting those reasons. I've got a much warmer and fuzzier at the idea of seeking out a Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, or even Connor Cook and bringing him in as our guy and coaching him up and moving on to completing as many pieces as need be around him without considering the position, beyond that youngster's growth, for at least a couple or so years and letting the chips fall. If anyone doesn't like the idea of any of the aforementioned coming in, fair enough, but those few groups are pretty much the lot of options to realistically consider for next year. There's also Savage.

Thought I'd parse the actual options less we go round and round with waxing more football philosophical and never getting anywhere.

 

[dream_team]

Well, I just don't know how you go about getting one if you don't draft him pretty high.

Pats struck gold in the 6th round. Broncos got Manning in FA (even though he was only effective for a few seasons). Saints traded for Brees. Packers got Rodgers late in the 1st. Seahawks got Wilson in the 3rd. Cardinals got Palmer via trade. Bengals got Dalton in the 2nd. Cowboys struck gold with Romo as an UDFA.

I understand your best odds may be to draft someone high, but it's far from impossible to get that guy via alternative route.

 

[Speedy]

The way your argument & most arguments in this thread come across is that we've got to "take a chance" & draft a Brandon Weeden, Ryan Tannehill, or Christian Ponder in the first round, when those guys wouldn't "normally" be considered first rounders unless there's a lot of teams fishing for magic in a bottle

That's the problem. It is those guys who you have to choose from. And it's professional football people, whose livelihood depends on evaluating these guys, that put them there.

As I've said somewhere on these boards, the real problem is these college QBs not learning to play NFL QB in college. But since that can't/won't be addressed any time soon, we're stuck with our 1 in 4, 1 in 5 odds. But it's odds you have to play if you're in the position that the Texans, Jets, Browns, etc, are in. If you don't take that plunge you odds are near 0.

Yeah, you've got to get lucky. No doubt about it. But when you get yourself in desperation mode, like the Texans are in for that position, you have to take that plunge.

 

[Mollywhopper]

That may be the case, but still the way I believe it should be done.

When was the last time a team drafted a QB, built around him & rode him to the play-offs?

Peyton Manning is the only one that comes to mind. Maybe the Bengals, but an argument can be made for the Bengals for either method.

Cam.

 

[Speedy]

Pats struck gold in the 6th round. Broncos got Manning in FA (even though he was only effective for a few seasons). Saints traded for Brees. Packers got Rodgers late in the 1st. Seahawks got Wilson in the 3rd. Cardinals got Palmer via trade. Bengals got Dalton in the 2nd. Cowboys struck gold with Romo as an UDFA.

I understand your best odds may be to draft someone high, but it's far from impossible to get that guy via alternative route.

I'm not saying it's not impossible. I'm just telling you what your best odds are. The Texans have tried the trade for with Schaub. The problem there was, this franchise was so bad at the time, that it took years to field a decent team around him, never mind overcoming the bad draft picks. They even gambled on Mallett, which I thought was a good gamble to take on a 3rd round unknown, considering they'd already passed on Carr, TB, and Jimmy G.

The Texans are currently going the retread FA route, which may be the worst option of them all.

They haven't taken a QB as high as the 3rd round since 2003. It's time. And it's not like when they traded for Schaub. They've got a good core this time around, especially on defense, so it wouldn't take much. They just need the QB. And anyway you go about it is going to involve getting lucky.

 

[dream_team]

I'm not saying it's not impossible. I'm just telling you what your best odds are. The Texans have tried the trade for with Schaub. The problem there was, this franchise was so bad at the time, that it took years to field a decent team around him, never mind overcoming the bad draft picks. They even gambled on Mallett, which I thought was a good gamble to take on a 3rd round unknown, considering they'd already passed on Carr, TB, and Jimmy G.

The Texans are currently going the retread FA route, which may be the worst option of them all.

They haven't taken a QB as high as the 3rd round since 2003. It's time. And it's not like when they traded for Schaub. They've got a good core this time around, especially on defense, so it wouldn't take much. They just need the QB. And anyway you go about it is going to involve getting lucky.

Well the Texans have only been looking for a QB for two years now. They didn't believe there was anyone worth taking in the past two drafts with a 3rd rounder or higher. Lets just hope they were right.

 

[Mr teX]

It's like getting laid. You're not going to get lucky with every date. But there is 100% chance you won't get any when you stay at home looking at internet porn. [/crude metaphor]

Lol..well there's tinder, e-harmony and a bunch of other hook up apps so that's not necessarily true these days. and as is the case with building a team and being able to compete, there's more than 1 way to do that besides sacrificing the overall development and competitiveness of the team for years for the sake of 1 position..no matter how important that position may be.

Mollywhopper hit on it, it's just a matter of philosophical differences. Some of you guys are all in no matter what to get a guy..while others would rather see this team build a foundation 1st before going that route.

 

[Speedy]

Lol..well there's tinder, e-harmony and a bunch of other hook up apps so that's not necessarily true these days. and as is the case with building a team and being able to compete, there's more than 1 way to do that besides sacrificing the overall development and competitiveness of the team for years for the sake of 1 position..no matter how important that position may be.

Mollywhopper hit on it, it's just a matter of philosophical differences. Some of you guys are all in no matter what to get a guy..while others would rather see this team build a foundation 1st before going that route.

You're acting like there's just 1 pick in the entire draft. There's not. You're not sacrificing anything drafting a freaking QB, THAT YOU NEED, in the 1st round. Plus the Texans have plenty of pieces where they'll be competitive. They've got a good defense. Sure, they could use some pieces here and there, a RB, MLB, OL what have you, but it isn't like they're starting from scratch. And there are other picks in the draft.

The Texans HAVE a foundation. They're not a freaking expansion team. They need a damn QB.

 

[Mr teX]

I'm not saying it's not impossible. I'm just telling you what your best odds are. The Texans have tried the trade for with Schaub. The problem there was, this franchise was so bad at the time, that it took years to field a decent team around him, never mind overcoming the bad draft picks. They even gambled on Mallett, which I thought was a good gamble to take on a 3rd round unknown, considering they'd already passed on Carr, TB, and Jimmy G.

The Texans are currently going the retread FA route, which may be the worst option of them all.

They haven't taken a QB as high as the 3rd round since 2003. It's time. And it's not like when they traded for Schaub. They've got a good core this time around, especially on defense, so it wouldn't take much. They just need the QB. And anyway you go about it is going to involve getting lucky.

The worst route of them all is being stuck in qb purgatory where there's always a question. A question whether or not it's the qb or if he just needs help..a question of whether its the head coach and his offense or the qb that needs to go. A question of whether we should pay him for 1-2 years of average qb play but great team results or let him walk and try to upgrade...

 

[Mollywhopper]

Mollywhopper hit on it, it's just a matter of philosophical differences. Some of you guys are all in no matter what to get a guy..while others would rather see this team build a foundation 1st before going that route.

Except I never said there has to be a sacrificing of developing a competitive team just because a QB is drafted early. It's not an either/or proposition.

 

[infantrycak]

Mollywhopper hit on it, it's just a matter of philosophical differences. Some of you guys are all in no matter what to get a guy..while others would rather see this team build a foundation 1st before going that route.

There has been a foundation there throughout OB's tenure.

 

[Mr teX]

You're acting like there's just 1 pick in the entire draft. There's not. You're not sacrificing anything drafting a freaking QB, THAT YOU NEED, in the 1st round. Plus the Texans have plenty of pieces where they'll be competitive. They've got a good defense. Sure, they could use some pieces here and there, a RB, MLB, OL what have you, but it isn't like they're starting from scratch. And there are other picks in the draft.

The Texans HAVE a foundation. They're not a freaking expansion team. They need a damn QB.

Yeah you are sacrificing...I already outlined this...when you commit to a qb, especially one drafted in the 1st 2 rounds, you're committing for a couple of years at minimum to that guy. You're building around THAT qb, you're picking a guy that that HC is comfy with running HIS offense..you're basically ignoring all other qb prospects coming out for the next couple of years.

And hat about the Texans and the way they've frittered away 2nd and 3rd round draft picks over the last couple of years give you confidence that they're gonna be able to build a roster around that qb to where we'll be able to compete with said franchise guy?

 

[Mr teX]

Except I never said there has to be a sacrificing of developing a competitive team just because a QB is drafted early. It's not an either/or proposition.

Yeah it is... You guys' whole argument is based on the "success" rate of picking a qb in the 1st 3 rounds and if we don't do that then we really aren't committing to finding a qb. Basically you've categorically ruled out successfully picking and finding a qb outside of that or by any other means.

The Savage pick wasn't enough...the Mallet pick up wasn't enough... And now it's turned into we have to pick a qb in the 1st 3 rounds or else.. How much is enough for you guys to consider it a worthy enough investment?

And the very nature of spending 1 of your most valuable picks every couple of years on a qb until you hit on a guy is sacrificing the development of your team if it means that you keep wasting them on guys who don't pan out and passing on other guys who can help your team and your making those picks out of desperation.

 

[Mollywhopper]

Yeah it is... You guys' whole argument is based on the "success" rate of picking a qb in the 1st 3 rounds and if we don't do that then we really aren't committing to finding a qb. Basically you've categorically ruled out successfully picking and finding a qb outside of that or by any other means.

The Savage pick wasn't enough...the Mallet pick up wasn't enough... And now it's turned into we have to pick a qb in the 1st 3 rounds or else.. How much is enough for you guys to consider it a worthy enough investment?

And the very nature of spending 1 of your most valuable picks every couple of years on a qb until you hit on a guy is sacrificing the development of your team if it means that you keep wasting them on guys who don't pan out and passing on other guys who can help your team and your making those picks out of desperation.

If you wouldn't want to take a QB early then what would you suggest?

 

[infantrycak]

Yeah it is... You guys' whole argument is based on the "success" rate of picking a qb in the 1st 3 rounds and if we don't do that then we really aren't committing to finding a qb. Basically you've categorically ruled out successfully picking and finding a qb outside of that or by any other means.

Dead wrong. Of course all options should be examined each offseason. But trades and free agents are rare and/or typically low quality. The one thing a team can plan on is the draft.

Here is the list of possible 2016 FA QBs. The only one with a shot at being more than a backup is Brock Osweiler and 90+% chance he never gets to FA. So droning on about other options than the draft is pretty much wasted effort.

 

[Speedy]

Yeah it is... You guys' whole argument is based on the "success" rate of picking a qb in the 1st 3 rounds and if we don't do that then we really aren't committing to finding a qb. Basically you've categorically ruled out successfully picking and finding a qb outside of that or by any other means.

The Savage pick wasn't enough...the Mallet pick up wasn't enough... And now it's turned into we have to pick a qb in the 1st 3 rounds or else.. How much is enough for you guys to consider it a worthy enough investment?

And the very nature of spending 1 of your most valuable picks every couple of years on a qb until you hit on a guy is sacrificing the development of your team if it means that you keep wasting them on guys who don't pan out and passing on other guys who can help your team and your making those picks out of desperation.

If you don't get a QB you're just spinning your wheels with the rest of it any way. What you're sacrificing is the career of JJ Watt by screwing around with Fitzpatrick and Hoyer and whatever bum you bring in next year.

If you pick QB high and he flops, how is that different than what you are doing now? Other than the fact that you tried to address the 800 lb. gorilla. Either way, you're not going any where, and you won't until you get the QB.

So you draft all the Watt's and Mercilus and Hopkins you want, I've already pointed out the team's record with those guys.

And it's not like the Texans have done it every 2, 3 years, rinse and repeat. Only 2 QBs have ever been drafted by the Texans in the 1st 3 rounds and those were both in their 1st 2 years of existence. Two 2s for Schaub, which led to the only success they've ever had, and that's it!!

Until you get the QB, JJ Watt, DeAndre Hopkins, the other 8 1st rounders on defense, isn't going to get you jack. If you're sacrificing anything, it's the careers of those guys.

 

[Marshall]

I'm not saying it's not impossible. I'm just telling you what your best odds are. The Texans have tried the trade for with Schaub. The problem there was, this franchise was so bad at the time, that it took years to field a decent team around him, never mind overcoming the bad draft picks. They even gambled on Mallett, which I thought was a good gamble to take on a 3rd round unknown, considering they'd already passed on Carr, TB, and Jimmy G.

The Texans are currently going the retread FA route, which may be the worst option of them all.

They haven't taken a QB as high as the 3rd round since 2003. It's time. And it's not like when they traded for Schaub. They've got a good core this time around, especially on defense, so it wouldn't take much. They just need the QB. And anyway you go about it is going to involve getting lucky.

Drafting a QB at all cost usually mean drafting them above their value and that value is based on their probability of doing well. They need a GOOD QB, not just another flawed one. Drafting a 5th rounder in the 2nd or 3rd doesn't make them better, it just costs more.

I'm perfectly satisfied with Hoyer, Yates and Weeden if there isn't a good value play at QB. But if there is, I'm not opposed to drafting QB. Message boards usually rate QBs higher than they are drafted, but the best are often at the top of the draft board of both message boards as well as the actual draft. But even at 1-1, your at no better than 50-50 at finding the guy you will keep for ten years.

 

[infantrycak]

Drafting a QB at all cost usually mean drafting them above their value and that value is based on their probability of doing well. They need a GOOD QB, not just another flawed one. Drafting a 5th rounder in the 2nd or 3rd doesn't make them better, it just costs more.

Nice straw man. Nobody is suggesting take someone in a reach. Given all the specific examples discussed like Bridgewater, Carr, Garoppolo, etc. (none reaches) that's pretty damn obvious.

 

[Speedy]

Yeah, not a lot of attention to detail being paid here. Nobody's saying I like Garropolo, we need to take him at 1-1.

 

[Marshall]

Nice straw man. Nobody is suggesting take someone in a reach. Given all the specific examples discussed like Bridgewater, Carr, Garoppolo, etc. (none reaches) that's pretty damn obvious.

That's funny. The examples are QB's OFF THE BOARD by the time we drafted and folks are hollering to draft high anyway. I wanted CARR, but the fan base would have revolted. Bridgewater looked like he was going to be available to us the next pick and we simply got beat to the pick. Garropolo was a reach. We got Savage because he was a good value at 5. I think we're doing it right. Why is that a straw man argument? Why the CERTAINTY that Savage isn't the next Brady or Romo?

 

[Mollywhopper]

Why would Garropolo at 2-1 have been a reach?

 

[infantrycak]

That's funny. The examples are QB's OFF THE BOARD by the time we drafted and folks are hollering to draft high anyway.

Saying it in all caps doesn't make it true.

Bortles - taken after our 1st.
Bridgewater - taken 1 before our 2nd, easy move.
Carr - taken 3 picks after our 2nd
Garoppolo - taken 3 picks before our 3rd, again, easy move.

None reaches for the Texans' nearest draft picks.

LOL at Garoppolo being a reach.

We got Savage because he was a good value at 5.

Actually if any QB in this discussion got drafted earlier than needed it was Savage. There was no certainty he was going to be drafted at all.

Why the CERTAINTY that Savage isn't the next Brady or Romo?

Part of it is no QB drafted after the 3rd since Brady has worked. But it isn't about knowing he won't. He is an exceedingly high risk unknown. In the next draft the only rational process is assume he doesn't exist.

 

[dream_team]

Bortles - taken after our 1st.
Bridgewater - taken 1 before our 2nd, easy move.
Carr - taken 3 picks after our 2nd
Garoppolo - taken 3 picks before our 3rd, again, easy move.

I, personally, would have been ok with taking any of those guys. But BOB has gone on record and said there's not much difference between those guys & Savage to justify taking them early. Also, I remember a lot of people were projecting Savage as a 2nd-3rd round pick. So why does he not count?

 

[Mr teX]

Saying it in all caps doesn't make it true.


Part of it is no QB drafted after the 3rd since Brady has worked. But it isn't about knowing he won't. He is an exceedingly high risk unknown. In the next draft the only rational process is assume he doesn't exist.

Speaks to the bigger problem of teams/HC/fan bases these days becoming more & more unwilling to want to take the time and develop a guy. If late round guys were given even 1/2 the same opportunities and amount of lease to be successful as 1st-3rd rounders you'd likely see alot more success in the later rounds with qbs. Not saying don't take the best prospect if he's there for you, but the matt hasselbecks, Marc Bulgers..kirk cousins and Schaubs are there in almost every draft in those rounds. Subtract a few of those opportunities that known 1st round bums like Mark Sanchez, Rex Grossman & Jason Campbell get to bounce around the league for years & you'd almost certainly see an uptick of guys after the 3rd succeeding at the position.

It's like interviewing for a job & you've got all the requisite academic qualifications but the employer won't hire you b/c you lack experience...Well how the hell am i supposed to get experience if noone will hire me to get any?

 

[infantrycak]

Speaks to the bigger problem of teams/HC/fan bases these days becoming more & more unwilling to want to take the time and develop a guy. If late round guys were given even 1/2 the same opportunities and amount of lease to be successful as 1st-3rd rounders you'd likely see alot more success in the later rounds with qbs.

Yeah, facts don't support you. Late round guys are the ones who don't get rushed out on to field and get the opportunity to learn the system, being a pro, etc. And they still don'the make it to starter quality. You know, guys like TJ Yates, Case Keenum.

It's like interviewing for a job & you've got all the requisite academic qualifications but the employer won't hire you b/c you lack experience...

No it's like someone else had a much better resume so they got hired as store manager and you got hired as fry guy.