Hall of Fame
Seth Payne said it was cover three, not prevent which leads to the belief that it was likely due to mallets ability to go over the top especially with the circumstances as they were in the game.
Really?The fact is, in this case, Hoyer has had enough dropbacks to know that his career 56% is no more misleading than his other 44% of attempts.
Exactly... for suits & giggles, I googled Vinny Testeverde... different era & all, but interesting none the less.That's a fair point on the sheer number of attempts. You and I both know though that 30 year old journeymen simply don't get the same kind of allowances as fresh faced number one picks in the draft. NFL fact of life, man.
Luck, Smith, even Winston get to have an arc to their learning curve. 30 year old guy has to have a rocket pack attached on his. Won't be much easier for 27 second chancer.
No ****.Are you people actually trying to use stats to prove or disprove this?
Look at the ball.
Hoyer throws like a 3rd grade girl.
Maybe the whole strategy was just to piss off Mallett so he comes out and plays like a madman the rest of the season.No ****.
I'm willing to assume Mallett's cocky ass is going to throw some 'WTF you thought you could make that' balls for INTs but I bet there are a lot of throws like that TD and 2 PT that are 'WTF that worked' as well.
If OB wants the QB guru moniker he needs to rein in Mallett instead of try to build up never gonna be Hoyer.
OB needs to pony up.
Don't remember who, but someone previously suggested that naming Hoyer was to light a fire under Mallett. Not sure I buy into that, but who knows. However unlikely, I suppose anything is possible.Maybe the whole strategy was just to piss off Mallett so he comes out and plays like a madman the rest of the season.
I think that was stated before OTA's started when we thought he was signed as a back-up. Obviously that wasn't true since the competition was even except for the closed practices.Don't remember who, but someone previously suggested that naming Hoyer was to light a fire under Mallett. Not sure I buy into that, but who knows. However unlikely, I suppose anything is possible.
It did anyway, but no chance OB purposefully puts the team in a bad position just to fire up another guy.Don't remember who, but someone previously suggested that naming Hoyer was to light a fire under Mallett. Not sure I buy into that, but who knows. However unlikely, I suppose anything is possible.
I like the red, and I like the blue, but I'm not a fan of any one color pants and jerseys combo, especially white. I also don't care for the "themes" for each game. Just wear the cool unis, like the red, whenever you feel like it.I'm going to drop this here and it will be my last post in this thread. I'm just curious and it has nothing to do with how the Texans did (I've felt like this for years), am I the only one who is just incredibly tired of the white on white season opening thing? I don't care for the look (goes back to the old Oiler's days when they ran with the all-white look for a while) but on top of that why does it have to be every single opening day? Why not a "Deep Steel Blue Beat Down" or even drop a "Battle Red" day on opening day? Maybe even just hold off for a few weeks and open the season at home wearing your home colors for a change?
Because our colors are Blue & White. Blue with red & White.Why can't they alternate red top/blue pants and red top/white pants?
Basically, keep the red all the time.