Quarterback Quandary?

[Say Watt]

I will never understand why you wouldn't draft a QB every year. (maybe not in the 1st or 2nd unless it was a recognizable talent ie rodgers,carr,brees, etc) but 3-7 I would take always take a flyer on somebody.

1. Cheap contract. Rookie deals, especially later in the draft are fantastic. If you hit then you have a chance to be contender in 3-4 years due having so much cap space to spend elsewhere. If not who cares cut them in a year or two if they are REALLY bad. If you're really worried about not having a reliable 'veteran presence' then go pay a recent recently retired QB to be a coach.

2. Greatest ROI of any position. If you get any of sort credible QB talent you can trade him and usually get great return... or at the very least get SOMETHING back (we gave up a 6th and a 7th for Ryan bloody mallet).

I'm sure you are exaggerating by "every year", but I have to agree with the basic premise. Like you said, this tactic is pointless to utilize when you have a young superstar QB but if he's getting up in years and/or seeing a drop in performance, why not take one nearly every year? But it simply makes too much sense for the McNair family.

 

[VTexan]

I'm sure you are exaggerating by "every year", but I have to agree with the basic premise. Like you said, this tactic is pointless to utilize when you have a young superstar QB but if he's getting up in years and/or seeing a drop in performance, why not take one nearly every year? But it simply makes too much sense for the McNair family.

idk maybe man.

i mean 5-7 is crapshoot anyways. why not look for the most valuable lottery ticket. gotta carry 3qbs on the roster.

also injuries are unpredictable and your window can be slammed shut. (i hope i just didn't reverse jynx the raiders)

probably every other year though. if i were a gm.

 

[VTexan]

.

 

[thunderkyss]

In the meantime, the Patriots had taken 4 QBs in the 3rd or higher since 2008, even though they have Tom Brady.

So what are we saying? Drafting those QBs is the secret to their success? That we would have been as successful as the Patriots over that time period had we drafted those QBS?

Even though those QBs have done nothing towards the success of the Patriots?

Kevin O'Connell, Ryan Mallett, Jimmy Garoppolo, Jacoby Brissett... none of them have been as successful as 6th rounder Tom Brady, or 7th rounder Matt Cassell.


Exceptions to the rule, maybe. But my point is that pointing to the Patriots drafting QBS in the 3rd or sooner does not help this argument when we had Mallett here, for two years. We had Hoyer... New England QBs not named Brady are wasted draft picks & they foolishly throw away picks all the time.

The lesson to be learned is to find that special QB & ride him into the dirt.

 

[Say Watt]

So what are we saying? Drafting those QBs is the secret to their success? That we would have been as successful as the Patriots over that time period had we drafted those QBS?

Even though those QBs have done nothing towards the success of the Patriots?

Kevin O'Connell, Ryan Mallett, Jimmy Garoppolo, Jacoby Brissett... none of them have been as successful as 6th rounder Tom Brady, or 7th rounder Matt Cassell.


Exceptions to the rule, maybe. But my point is that pointing to the Patriots drafting QBS in the 3rd or sooner does not help this argument when we had Mallett here, for two years. We had Hoyer... New England QBs not named Brady are wasted draft picks & they foolishly throw away picks all the time.

The lesson to be learned is to find that special QB & ride him into the dirt.

Nah, the point of mentioning the Patriots is that if they are drafting QBs in the first 3 rounds while having a QB on the roster named Tom Brady, then it'd seem smart for a team whose best QB in its history is Matt Schaub to think about drafting a QB in the first 3 rounds.

 

[Marcus]

I will never understand why you wouldn't draft a QB every year. (maybe not in the 1st or 2nd unless it was a recognizable talent ie rodgers,carr,brees, etc) but 3-7 I would take always take a flyer on somebody.

1. Cheap contract. Rookie deals, especially later in the draft are fantastic. If you hit then you have a chance to be contender in 3-4 years due having so much cap space to spend elsewhere. If not who cares cut them in a year or two if they are REALLY bad. If you're really worried about not having a reliable 'veteran presence' then go pay a recent recently retired QB to be a coach.

2. Greatest ROI of any position. If you get any of sort credible QB talent you can trade him and usually get great return... or at the very least get SOMETHING back (we gave up a 6th and a 7th for Ryan bloody mallet).

I would like to see them take at least 2 OL every year. One in the higher rounds and one in the lower rounds. Every year. Just getting tired of having a bad OL every year.

 

[thunderkyss]

I would like to see them take at least 2 OL every year. One in the higher rounds and one in the lower rounds. Every year. Just getting tired of having a bad OL every year.

If it's a crappy OL draft I'd just as soon pick up a couple udfa & see what happens.

 

[Texecutioner]

I would like to see them take at least 2 OL every year. One in the higher rounds and one in the lower rounds. Every year. Just getting tired of having a bad OL every year.

Right now, I'd say we need to draft Oline heavy. Just get some guys in here. Get as much talent as possible.

 

[Marcus]

If it's a crappy OL draft I'd just as soon pick up a couple udfa & see what happens.

It's the reason why I want them to do that every year so you don't have to count on the walk-ons. I'd like for there to be all draft picks on the depth chart.

We are not going to fix the offense until the OL is fixed, QB be damned.

 

[Texansphan]

I see a lot of discussion about the quarterback situation in Texansville - understandably so seeing it is the most important position.
It looks at the moment that Brock Osweiler is not the solution, although some have made a case that we should not give up on him just yet.
He was benched for Tom Savage in the Jags game who came in and had considerable success bringing the team home for a win from a 13 point deficit. Many including myself were excited at what he brought to the team in a spark and demonstrating a live arm.
He then had an ordinary first half v the Bengals but still won the game but many were immediately disenchanted with the lack of offense and are now shopping for a new QB.
I am shocked at how quickly some have turned against Savage and there is much heated debate in these fora.
Personally I think it is shortsighted to want to kick him to he curb so soon.
For example, if a team drafts a new QB, one of the first things a responsible team would do would be to protect him. They would also get him good help with some good TE's, receivers and a strong running game and mold the game plan around his abilities.
Next season, Texans will have the opportunity to employ some of these concepts with new olinemen, etc, so to abandon Savage so quickly is irrational.
I am sure we will see plenty more lively debate on this topic over the ensuing months so a poll seems to be the order of the day.
This one will stay up for 4 months.
Edit - I added a poll option I inadvertently left out.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has checked the " Add another vet" option as there has been quite a bit of discussion about Rivers, but we do see some varied opinions with draft a rookie the most popular so far.

 

[Texansphan]

I see a lot of discussion about the quarterback situation in Texansville - understandably so seeing it is the most important position.
It looks at the moment that Brock Osweiler is not the solution, although some have made a case that we should not give up on him just yet.
He was benched for Tom Savage in the Jags game who came in and had considerable success bringing the team home for a win from a 13 point deficit. Many including myself were excited at what he brought to the team in a spark and demonstrating a live arm.
He then had an ordinary first half v the Bengals but still won the game but many were immediately disenchanted with the lack of offense and are now shopping for a new QB.
I am shocked at how quickly some have turned against Savage and there is much heated debate in these fora.
Personally I think it is shortsighted to want to kick him to he curb so soon.
For example, if a team drafts a new QB, one of the first things a responsible team would do would be to protect him. They would also get him good help with some good TE's, receivers and a strong running game and mold the game plan around his abilities.
Next season, Texans will have the opportunity to employ some of these concepts with new olinemen, etc, so to abandon Savage so quickly is irrational.
I am sure we will see plenty more lively debate on this topic over the ensuing months so a poll seems to be the order of the day.
This one will stay up for 4 months.
Edit - I added a poll option I inadvertently left out.

I'm a bit surprised nobody has checked the " Add another vet" option as there has been quite a bit of discussion about Rivers, but we do see some varied opinions with draft a rookie the most popular so far.

So what are we saying? Drafting those QBs is the secret to their success? That we would have been as successful as the Patriots over that time period had we drafted those QBS?

Even though those QBs have done nothing towards the success of the Patriots?

Kevin O'Connell, Ryan Mallett, Jimmy Garoppolo, Jacoby Brissett... none of them have been as successful as 6th rounder Tom Brady, or 7th rounder Matt Cassell.


Exceptions to the rule, maybe. But my point is that pointing to the Patriots drafting QBS in the 3rd or sooner does not help this argument when we had Mallett here, for two years. We had Hoyer... New England QBs not named Brady are wasted draft picks & they foolishly throw away picks all the time.

The lesson to be learned is to find that special QB & ride him into the dirt.

I believe they have tried everything they could other than try drafting one high.
Eight qbs on the carousel is evidence of that.
The qbs that come in here are faced with less than optimal conditions - for instance, our oline is not giving them enough time for more opportunities for big plays down field, our running game has suffered with the departure of Foster and they just seem s##t scared to try anything much and the system is so complicated it requires a Peyton Manning to run it - and that we simply do not have.
Unfortunately, O'Brien might have to go - and take his OC and GM with him.

 

[Marcus]

I'm a bit surprised nobody has checked the " Add another vet" option as there has been quite a bit of discussion about Rivers, but we do see some varied opinions with draft a rookie the most popular so far.

Do you want to know what would happen if we took Rivers?

"We" would "expect" him to come in here and immediately lead us to the promised land before addressing the problems upfront.

How many times have we been down this road?

 

[DocBar]

I don't think any QB can come in and master OB's offense in one offseason. I don't care if it's a vet or top 5 draft pick. There's just too much chemistry that needs to be developed between QB and skill positions.
I'm still in the go with Savage/Osweiler/Weeden in '17 mode and draft a QB in '18 if none of them pan out.
If OB is out after this season, I still roll with those guys as a new HC could make all the difference in the world for any or all three.

 

[Wolf]

And that is a problem. By the time one masters the offense we will be rebuilding the defense again.
Texans timing suck

 

[Texansphan]

Do you want to know what would happen if we took Rivers?

"We" would "expect" him to come in here and immediately lead us to the promised land before addressing the problems upfront.

How many times have we been down this road?

His line at the Chargers is no better off than ours - a good qb helps his line as well as the other way around.
I like the idea, but don't see it happening with our cap right now.

 

[driller80545]

Weeden is the best QB on this team. The Texans are undefeated when he plays. Of course, Weeden will never play another down for the Texans unless both Osweiler & Savage get hurt, probably due to age or ginger-hair discrimination.

I wonder why the coaching staff won't give Weeden a shot. On tape, he is obviously better than either Os or Savage. Something screwy here it seems.

 

[driller80545]

A good offensive line can make a mediocre qb look good (ala Dallas) and a mediocre offensive line can make a good qb look bad if he is not named Brees! I would concentrate on the o line in the draft.

 

[Number19]

I wonder why the coaching staff won't give Weeden a shot. On tape, he is obviously better than either Os or Savage. Something screwy here it seems.

The only thing I can figure is that Weeden is not a long term solution because of his age and OB would rather not give him playing time. Was he a Smith signing?

 

[Thorsson]

The only thing I can figure is that Weeden is not a long term solution because of his age and OB would rather not give him playing time. Was he a Smith signing?

I agree it's the age thing. However, Weeden has two things going for him in that regard: He's well preserved since he played baseball in his late teens and early twenties and didn't take a physical pounding like a QB would, and he has a rocket arm which he'll probably have for another ten years.

 

[Number19]

I agree it's the age thing. However, Weeden has two things going for him in that regard: He's well preserved since he played baseball in his late teens and early twenties and didn't take a physical pounding like a QB would, and he has a rocket arm which he'll probably have for another ten years.

I agree that he's young for his age.

 

[mussop]

I pick options a,b and d.

 

[Speedy]

Dave Ragone says hi.

Who would've thought the high point of Ragone's career would be as a trivia question?

Wait, so being the MVP of NFL Europe isn't the high point?

Oh, no, you're right. I think it is the trivia question.

 

[Texas Jake]

Do you want to know what would happen if we took Rivers?

"We" would "expect" him to come in here and immediately lead us to the promised land before addressing the problems upfront.

How many times have we been down this road?

Build a strong o-line and you take a major step forward in solving ALL the problems on the offense. With a great o-line even a marginal QB will look good, and with a poor, inconsistent line even a future HOF'er can look bad. When there is no trust in protection, QB's have a tendency to rush throws which results in inaccuracy, poor processing and bad decision making. I believe the o-line is one of the reasons that BO has done so poorly (certainly not the only reason and I am not implying that he is the answer at QB). What I am saying is that if we don't fix the o-line, it doesn't matter who we have at QB, we won't get the quality of play out of them that they are capable of and the run game will never be able to consistently pick up the hard/got-to-have yards. Our ineffectiveness in the red zone is largely a result of the quality of our o-line. You have to be able to win in the trenches.

 

[Marcus]

Build a strong o-line and you take a major step forward in solving ALL the problems on the offense. With a great o-line even a marginal QB will look good, and with a poor, inconsistent line even a future HOF'er can look bad. When there is no trust in protection, QB's have a tendency to rush throws which results in inaccuracy, poor processing and bad decision making. I believe the o-line is one of the reasons that BO has done so poorly (certainly not the only reason and I am not implying that he is the answer at QB). What I am saying is that if we don't fix the o-line, it doesn't matter who we have at QB, we won't get the quality of play out of them that they are capable of and the run game will never be able to consistently pick up the hard/got-to-have yards. Our ineffectiveness in the red zone is largely a result of the quality of our o-line. You have to be able to win in the trenches.

You sir, are a steely-eyed missle man!

 

[thunderkyss]

Our ineffectiveness in the red zone is largely a result of the quality of our o-line. You have to be able to win in the trenches.

We were three for three in the red zone Saturday. The Lamar Miller long run to the corner. The quick slant to Hopkins. & the long run to the corner by Osweiler.

I agree with you, an OL that can move the LOS would be a plus, but there are ways around not having the better front that day.

 

[Texas Jake]

We were three for three in the red zone Saturday. The Lamar Miller long run to the corner. The quick slant to Hopkins. & the long run to the corner by Osweiler.

I agree with you, an OL that can move the LOS would be a plus, but there are ways around not having the better front that day.

I agree there are ways around the problems on the o-line, but it is hard to consistently compensate for the weakness. It is much easier to be consistently win in the red zone (or in short yardage situation outside the red zone) when you win in the trenches. A top defense + an o-line that can oppose its will on the opponent = a juggernaut that is hard to stop.

 

[sandman]

Sort of interesting that Osweiler's stats in his first season as a starter are pretty damn close to Weeden's first season as a starter.

 

[Double Barrel]

Build a strong o-line and you take a major step forward in solving ALL the problems on the offense. With a great o-line even a marginal QB will look good, and with a poor, inconsistent line even a future HOF'er can look bad. When there is no trust in protection, QB's have a tendency to rush throws which results in inaccuracy, poor processing and bad decision making. I believe the o-line is one of the reasons that BO has done so poorly (certainly not the only reason and I am not implying that he is the answer at QB). What I am saying is that if we don't fix the o-line, it doesn't matter who we have at QB, we won't get the quality of play out of them that they are capable of and the run game will never be able to consistently pick up the hard/got-to-have yards. Our ineffectiveness in the red zone is largely a result of the quality of our o-line. You have to be able to win in the trenches.

Well said, man. I propose every Texans fan print this on a piece a paper with their name on it and mail it to Kirby. Maybe if the FO receives thousands of these messages from different fans they will actually absorb it. [/wishful thinking]

 

[Honoring Earl 34]

Well said, man. I propose every Texans fan print this on a piece a paper with their name on it and mail it to Kirby. Maybe if the FO receives thousands of these messages from different fans they will actually absorb it. [/wishful thinking]

IMO ... if you have Manning , Brady , Rogers you might not need a great OL because they can make average OL look good . Having said this , it's easier to build an OL and run a simpler more physical offense than finding an all time great QB to play behind an average OL .

 

[Double Barrel]

IMO ... if you have Manning , Brady , Rogers you might not need a great OL because they can make average OL look good . Having said this , it's easier to build an OL and run a simpler more physical offense than finding an all time great QB to play behind an average OL .

yep. Building an o-line should be paramount until you find that great QB, then you can start spending more money on skilled positions instead of making the line the no. 1 priority. Until then, though, I say make it a point to win the trenches, because that will always make a QB and RB play better.

 

[Marcus]

We were three for three in the red zone Saturday. The Lamar Miller long run to the corner. The quick slant to Hopkins. & the long run to the corner by Osweiler.

I agree with you, an OL that can move the LOS would be a plus, but there are ways around not having the better front that day.

No offense, but I cannot stand that line of thinking. This attitude or philosophy, or whatever you want to call it, that an OL that can move the LOS is a "nice to have" instead of "must have". Unfortunately, I think the Texan's brain trust has the same attitude. And on the radio.

Was listening to those two goofballs on 610 go on and on about Deshaun Watson, and they were asking the listeners' thoughts about drafting him, and when someone replied, "No, we need a right tackle", he says "a right tackle? Oh, how exciting!"

That says it all.

 

[thunderkyss]

No offense, but I cannot stand that line of thinking. This attitude or philosophy, or whatever you want to call it, that an OL that can move the LOS is a "nice to have" instead of "must have". Unfortunately, I think the Texan's brain trust has the same attitude. And on the radio.

I was replying to a post blaming our "red zone woes" to our poor OL.

Our OL didn't change. The way we approached those possessions changed. My response was more of a, "well, we're not going to forfeit the game, let's try coaching" kind of thing.

Things rarely go the way you hope. Maybe you drafted the 3rd best Center prospect in the draft. Maybe you signed the best RG prospect in FA.... but you're OL sucks. You either find a way to work around it, or you quit.

 

[Dakota]

I'm completely onboard with a "boring" draft and bringing in an OL big guy with our top pick. I don't think we're that far away from having a very serviceable oline - you get Nick Martin back next year, maybe Newton returns to full strength, draft Brown's replacement if the value is good, and bring in one or two vets in the offseason and our inside rungame might actually exist next fall. PAss protection will soon follow. We can't use the Cowboy's drafts over the last several years as a template, they have been unbelievably lucky in finding guys that excel in the translation to the NFL along with having something like 5 of the top paid guys at their position next year. Plus one of the best runningback in the game and a new franchise QB. For every Randy Gregory, they've struck gold on 2-3 other guys.

Draft an Olineman with the first pick, draft a QB from here on out until you find one that sticks, and we're not too far away from having an elite lineup.

 

[TheRealJoker]

^^^

Newton is not returning to full strength. His career is over.

 

[sandman]

Assuming there will be a worthy lineman for them to pick late in the first round. Don't care than it is the biggest position of need. If the talent isn't there, it's a wasted pick.

 

[Texecutioner]

Pretty hilarious when I think of the Houston fan base, and that I see that pretty much just as many people would rather have Savage over Jimmy Garropalo. :mariopalm:

 

[Marcus]

Pretty hilarious when I think of the Houston fan base, and that I see that pretty much just as many people would rather have Savage over Jimmy Garropalo. :mariopalm:

Ha! Nice try. We don't have Garropalo, and what it would take to get him has a big impact on the numbers.

 

[Texansphan]

Pretty hilarious when I think of the Houston fan base, and that I see that pretty much just as many people would rather have Savage over Jimmy Garropalo. :mariopalm:

I love the idea of Jimmy as he is already NFL acclimated and familiar with our system, but I don't like the idea of giving up more than 1 + 2 and that is what it will cost to get him.
If they can cobble together a deal for a player + pick trade (preferably not a first) I would be on board for that.
As much as I would hate it perhaps we could offer Jaelen Strong + Andre Hal + a 2nd. Just spit balling here.

 

[Texecutioner]

I love the idea of Jimmy as he is already NFL acclimated and familiar with our system, but I don't like the idea of giving up more than 1 + 2 and that is what it will cost to get him.
If they can cobble together a deal for a player + pick trade (preferably not a first) I would be on board for that.
As much as I would hate it perhaps we could offer Jaelen Strong + Andre Hal + a 2nd. Just spit balling here.

If you aren't willing to part ways with a 1st round pick to land a QB, then you're not really trying to get one. That is what it costs. The liklihood of landing a Dak Prescott or Tim Brady is just not going to happen. You've got to be aggressive and go after guys. The Texans have never made a move like that other than 2 2nds for Schaub. Otherwise, they might as well just say screw getting a QB, and stack defense all around the place. Do everything possible to create a Ravens/Bucs/Broncos type of defense. With as bad as the Texans are at finding QB's that might be the way to go.

 

[thunderkyss]

I'm very interested in seeing how Brock develops next season.

 

[Texansphan]

I'm very interested in seeing how Brock develops next season.

With a decent line and a good running game, he will be Schaub 2.0 - and I'm fine with that.
However, I would still like to see Texans try for a quality guy via the draft/s.

 

[powda]

With a decent line and a good running game, he will be Schaub 2.0 - and I'm fine with that.
However, I would still like to see Texans try for a quality guy via the draft/s.

Kinda my point in the "different strategy thread." With a better line can we salvage oz or savage? I don't know, but putting better players around them shouldn't hurt. At the least it should give the next qb a better chance. Do we have so many scheduled free agent departures and weaknesses on defense we should ignore this crayon eating craptastic offense? I don't think so. Defense may win championships but you still have to score SOME points. Right now every passing play feels like interception roulette.

 

[Texansphan]

Kinda my point in the "different strategy thread." With a better line can we salvage oz or savage? I don't know, but putting better players around them shouldn't hurt. At the least it should give the next qb a better chance. Do we have so many scheduled free agent departures and weaknesses on defense we should ignore this crayon eating craptastic offense? I don't think so. Defense may win championships but you still have to score SOME points. Right now every passing play feels like interception roulette.

Both Os and Savage would be serviceable with more time and a strong running game - Savage has a little more upside.

 

[Texaspat]

With the money tied up in Osweiller and Osweiller being un-tradeable, the following is a list of directions we could go….
1. Bench Osweiller, suck it up and play Savage
2. Grab a cheap draft prospect. Maybe in the middle rounds. THis year's draft is very weak at the QB position. I wouldn't trade up for Watson or anyone else..at least not this year.
3. Grab a cheap FA veteran.

We won't be able to afford Garoppolo. Even if we trade for him, he's on the last year of his contract and will want starter money. Can't afford to pay Osweiller and him starter money.

There is of course the pull in case of emergency option still available…that option while it could work, would require no sacred elephants approach.

 

[TexansBull]

With a decent line and a good running game, he will be Schaub 2.0 - and I'm fine with that.
However, I would still like to see Texans try for a quality guy via the draft/s.

He will not be as good as Schaub pre lisfranc. Schaub had much better accuracy for lack of arm strength. Brock may have power, but is still inaccurate compared to Schaub. Schaub could put up 30+ points and I never remember him being shut out or struggling to get the ball across the 50 yard line for almost an entire half like Brock in the New England game this year.

 

[Thorsson]

Start Brandon Weeden; he is the best QB on this team. BOB should be fired for "giving" the starting job to Osweiler, rather than having him earn it. Anyone in the cheap seats can see that Osweiler is the worst free agent signing in NFL history!

 

[Thorsson]

Here is what the Texans can have right now:

 

[thunderkyss]

#BelieveInBrock


Osweiler looked pretty accurate Saturday. Showed quite a bit of arm talent actually. IMO he looked better than at anytime last year, when he looked better overall.

Maybe he & O'b are on the same page & we'll finally see why O'b & Rick gave him $37M guaranteed.

 

[DocBar]

#BelieveInBrock


Osweiler looked pretty accurate Saturday. Showed quite a bit of arm talent actually. IMO he looked better than at anytime last year, when he looked better overall.

Maybe he & O'b are on the same page & we'll finally see why O'b & Rick gave him $37M guaranteed.

He still had some WTF throws and should've had a couple of INT's.

 

[Number19]

Assuming there will be a worthy lineman for them to pick late in the first round. Don't care than it is the biggest position of need. If the talent isn't there, it's a wasted pick.

Anytime you talk about a positional pick this is to be assumed. I would hope that those who frequent a forum such as this have enough football smarts not to think otherwise.