Wish to make a one time donation? Make it here.

Texans and Godsey Mutually Part Ways

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
This centers around Os and always has. Os sucking and getting GG fired exacerbated the division between Ricky McNair and BOB. I've remained consistent on this. BOB wanted out, there's very little doubt in my mind. IMHO BOB doesn't like it but isn't about to turn down 10 mil.

That's what is going to make next season so interesting to me, is BOB going to start the QB that Ricky forced on him, or is he going to do what's best for his career/the team and start the QB of his choice? I'm betting on the latter since he already started Savage last yr.
None of that makes sense. If O'b was as sought after as Shefter reported, he'd have been gone collecting $10M from some other club.

He didn't leave because he likes it here with the team he & Rick built together.

The offense sucked from day 1 without Arian & his boss has probably been on his button to get it fixed. Like you he thought he needed speed, so he & Rick went & got speed. They changed QBs 9 times. The definition of insanity is to not change the OC. But the OC was BO'bs brother from another mother.

That was where the friction was coming from. That's where the "mutual parting of ways" came from.

McNair never thought about firing O'b. All McNair wants is to fix the offense & he's going to help O'Brien any way he can. If that means creating an Asst HC position for RAC to allow Billy to focus on his craft, then so be it.
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
So you were wrong about that narrative a couple weeks ago. Now you're changing your narrative.

Maybe you're wrong about other things as well.

The friction appears to have centered around Godsey, not Osweiler at all. O'b selected Osweiler & it was Smith & McNair that got on board.

Never made sense that O'b would want more personnel power when Smith basically gets him what he wants as best he can.
I guess you don't understand the meaning of I'm done here.

I believe multiple reporters reports, you don't.

Nothing is going to change either one of our minds.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
I guess you don't understand the meaning of I'm done here.

I believe multiple reporters reports, you don't.

Nothing is going to change either one of our minds.
One of us definitely doesn't know the meaning of you're done here.

One of us also fails to understand words like "may be" & "could"
 

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
He didn't hire one, he named one. GG was the QB coach the first year
So O'Brien is still too hard-headed to get outside help with the offense?
We're back to square one with him doing both the OC and HC jobs?
 

austins23

Hall of Fame
I was surprised when OB didn't yank Os in the 2nd half of the NE game.
Same here. To me it was Hoyer v Chiefs all over again. Obviously not that bad, but Osweiler was doing his usual 5 ypa thing. Unfortunately the score was too close for O'Brien to yank him. But like last year, after that craptastic playoff game, they came into the year with a new QB. Hopefully 2017 there is a shiny new toy under center. I don't care who it is, just not Osweiler. He is not good. (Captain Obvious)
 
Last edited:

sandman

Brexit Advisor
There was no way Savage was going to start over Os at the beginning of last season, regardless of what Savage did. Os got paid and he was going to play. It's the McNair way.
Money had nothing to do with it.

Take Brock, the biggest FA QB signing in the off season, who just played a major role in the Broncos regular season run to the Lombardi.

Take Savage, a 4th round "project" pick that spent the entire last season on IR and played one half of real NFL football in his career.

Which NFL teams, in that exact same scenario without the benefit of January 2017 20/20 hindsight, would not have named Osweiler as the starter?
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
Money had nothing to do with it.

Take Brock, the biggest FA QB signing in the off season, who just played a major role in the Broncos regular season run to the Lombardi.

Take Savage, a 4th round "project" pick that spent the entire last season on IR and played one half of real NFL football in his career.

Which NFL teams, in that exact same scenario without the benefit of January 2017 20/20 hindsight, would not have named Osweiler as the starter?
Good points, but with the McNair's $$$$$ always comes 1st. I know we disagree on this. But 2.69 billion of them agree with me.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
Good points, but with the McNair's $$$$$ always comes 1st. I know we disagree on this. But 2.69 billion of them agree with me.
I get what you are saying, but wouldn't EVERY owner in the NFL say "I just signed a FA QB to a big contract to be our starter"? Who would say "I just signed a FA QB to a big contract so he can be in an open competition with an injury-prone backup and a 33-year old who was cut for Matt Cassell"?

I'm not saying that McNair wouldn't make that decision based on money. I'm saying that his thought process would align with the majority if not all of the other 31 owners. Therefore, it is an invalid critique of his decision.
 

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Good points, but with the McNair's $$$$$ always comes 1st. I know we disagree on this. But 2.69 billion of them agree with me.
If making money was Priority One for McNair, as you keep saying, it would make more sense that he'd roll with the cheap backup (Weeden) or the youngster on his rookie contract (Savage) and, maaaybe, order his staff (Smith and O'Brien) to draft a prospect in the 2nd round or later (also cheaper). Wouldn't that be much, much cheaper than signing Osweiler to that huge contract??

If you honestly and logically examine your "money comes first for McNair" mantra it just does not fit what happened.
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
If making money was Priority One for McNair, as you keep saying, it would make more sense that he'd roll with the cheap backup (Weeden) or the youngster on his rookie contract (Savage) and, maaaybe, order his staff (Smith and O'Brien) to draft a prospect in the 2nd round or later (also cheaper). Wouldn't that be much, much cheaper than signing Osweiler to that huge contract??

If you honestly and logically examine your "money comes first for McNair" mantra it just does not fit what happened.
After the Hoyer debacle McNair had to get a QB his fanbase would buy as a legitimate NFL QB or he would lose his fanbase. (You know this) What he got was an overpayed Ostrich that that set NFL records for futility.
 

Sigma

Veteran
If making money was Priority One for McNair, as you keep saying, it would make more sense that he'd roll with the cheap backup (Weeden) or the youngster on his rookie contract (Savage) and, maaaybe, order his staff (Smith and O'Brien) to draft a prospect in the 2nd round or later (also cheaper). Wouldn't that be much, much cheaper than signing Osweiler to that huge contract??

If you honestly and logically examine your "money comes first for McNair" mantra it just does not fit what happened.
Weeden is not the cheapest option here.

actually, he is the most expensive between Os, savage and himself.

we save zero dollars by cutting Osweiler, we save 524864$ if we cut savage, we save 2.15 millions if we cut weeden

so cutting weeden is the cheapest option

and if you take merchandise into account, I'd think savage is the one that sells more stuff between the three
 

TheKDog

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Eh... we'll see what we want to see.

Osweiler's mechanics weren't different than they were in Denver. I think O'b picked Osweiler so I don't believe O'b has an issue with Brock's mechanics.

Feel in the pocket, decision making... we're talking about a small sample size with Savage. Brock looked fine in Denver & again later in the season.

He looked really good in New England imo.
Osweiler actually didn't look fine in Denver. He was benched for a reason.

It's the job of guys like O'Brien, Rick Smith and the scouts to figure stuff like that out.

They should have known he was INT prone (likely the main reason he was benched in Denver) not super accurate and can't throw a slant pass. But considering they also though Mallet was worthy of being a starter, it's not surprising.

I don't see why the QB decisions will get better in the future when it's the same people for the 4th year.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
Osweiler actually didn't look fine in Denver. He was benched for a reason.
My point was O'b saw what he looked like in Denver & picked him as his guy regardless. I doubt O'b is Asa concerned about Osweiler's mechanics as the people on this board.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
Money had nothing to do with it.

Take Brock, the biggest FA QB signing in the off season, who just played a major role in the Broncos regular season run to the Lombardi.

Take Savage, a 4th round "project" pick that spent the entire last season on IR and played one half of real NFL football in his career.

Which NFL teams, in that exact same scenario without the benefit of January 2017 20/20 hindsight, would not have named Osweiler as the starter?
No team would be in that exact scenario, but the Steelers had given the job to a guy named Joe Gilliam to start the 1974 season despite the fact that Terry Bradshaw was in his fifth year.
He even posted a 19-4 record the previous two years while Gilliam had attempted a total of 71 passes up to that point.

He was drafted in the 11th round.
 

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
No team would be in that exact scenario, but the Steelers had given the job to a guy named Joe Gilliam to start the 1974 season despite the fact that Terry Bradshaw was in his fifth year.
He even posted a 19-4 record the previous two years while Gilliam had attempted a total of 71 passes up to that point.

He was drafted in the 11th round.

In 1973 Bradshaw went 89 of 180 (49.4%) for 1183 yds with 10TD's and 15 Ints. Rate of 54.5. Steelers were winning in spite of Bradshaw, not because of him. His early years Bradshaw was deplorable. It was only after the 1974 draft (Swann, Stallworth & Webster) that Bradshaw began to have any success.

Said Bradshaw in an interview with Playboy, via Maury Z. Levy, six years later: "Joe Gilliam had a phenomenal preseason; he won the starting job and I lost it. We had the players’ strike, I stayed out a week -- he didn’t. He played well and I got the ax."
 
Last edited:

TheKDog

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Yep, cuz they had a HOF Qb whining about wanting to play for his $17 Mill in a SB run
I just think it was a matter of too many INTs and near INTs.

They didn't trust Brock, just like we don't trust Brock here.
 

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
I just think it was a matter of too many INTs and near INTs.

They didn't trust Brock, just like we don't trust Brock here.
Pure speculation on your point and far from factual. He was benched after a RB fumble
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
In 1973 Bradshaw went 89 of 180 (49.4%) for 1183 yds with 10TD's and 15 Ints. Rate of 54.5. Steelers were winning in spite of Bradshaw, not because of him. His early years Bradshaw was deplorable. It was only after the 1974 draft (Swann, Stallworth & Webster) that Bradshaw began to have any success.
Same thing applies to Osweiler.
He was one of the worse, if not the worse QB in the league, yet they kept trotting him out there even though Savage was cleared to play.

Nick Foles was benched for good after 11 games despite having success his first three years, with a 46/16 TDs/INTs ratio and a much better QB rating than Osweiler.

The Broncos and the Texans both were winning despite of him.
 

infantrycak

Admin & Mod
Yep, cuz they had a HOF Qb whining about wanting to play for his $17 Mill in a SB run
Yup, Manning had been cleared. Kubiak miffed Manning by giving him "one more week off" and then during the game Manning was ear jacking Kubiak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
Same thing applies to Osweiler.
He was one of the worse, if not the worse QB in the league, yet they kept trotting him out there even though Savage was cleared to play.

Nick Foles was benched for good after 11 games despite having success his first three years, with a 46/16 TDs/INTs ratio and a much better QB rating than Osweiler.

The Broncos and the Texans both were winning despite of him.
Just pointing out that your Bradshaw & Steelers comparison was a fail as was Gillam
 

TheKDog

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
"Manning came in because Osweiler was benched after struggling for more than two quarters against the Chargers. During his time on the field, Osweiler threw two interceptions and the Broncos turned the ball over a total of five times."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/brock-osweiler-benched-peyton-manning-leads-broncos-to-win/

That sounds pretty familiar.
Yup, Manning had been cleared. Kubiak miffed Manning by giving him "one more week off" and then during the game Manning was ear jacking Kubiak.

The Broncos coach has said since November that if Manning was 100 percent healthy, then he'd be the starter. Manning will now have two weeks to get to 100 percent, so don't be surprised if he's starting when the Broncos open the postseason.
cherry picking quotes don't change the facts
 

TheKDog

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
cherry picking quotes don't change the facts
Manning never got 100% healthy, but he was better at protecting the ball than Osweiler.

Besides, what are you arguing here? He got benched again in Houston even though the backup was a 4th rounder with almost no experience. Denver won the Super Bowl. It was clearly the right call by Kubiak.
 

ChampionTexan

Hall of Fame
No team would be in that exact scenario, but the Steelers had given the job to a guy named Joe Gilliam to start the 1974 season despite the fact that Terry Bradshaw was in his fifth year.
He even posted a 19-4 record the previous two years while Gilliam had attempted a total of 71 passes up to that point.

He was drafted in the 11th round.
The Texans didn't start Brock because they had big bucks invested in him - they invested big bucks in him because after whatever evaluation whoever did, they deemed him to be the potential answer at QB. In other words, the decision to start him wasn't made because of money, the decision to give him money was made because they thought he could be the starter. It's looking highly likely that their evaluation was wrong, but that's another post.

I didn't have a problem with it at the time knowing it might not work out (although I did not see the worst case scenario we've seen to date playing out), and I don't have a problem with it now.

OB benched him in game 15, and is on the record (or at least I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it) that it might have been a game or two earlier had Savage been healthy for those games.

Right now, because of that, I go into the 2017 season believing it's not a given at all that Oz will be the starter going into the opening game. I also don't believe he'll be released, and feel like those who do are dead wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about the starter thing (which we may never know beyond speculation), and maybe I'm wrong about Oz being released (which we will definitively find out), but that's the way I view it now.
 

Number19

Hall of Fame
Right now, because of that, I go into the 2017 season believing it's not a given at all that Oz will be the starter going into the opening game. I also don't believe he'll be released, and feel like those who do are dead wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about the starter thing (which we may never know beyond speculation), and maybe I'm wrong about Oz being released (which we will definitively find out), but that's the way I view it now.
There are numerous comments that state the opinion that there was no true competition in training camp for the starting position.

Now there are numerous comments that seem to imply that Oz should be awarded the #2 position, at worst, right now, without any competition in training camp. Maybe there will be some lip service that there will be camp competition between Savage and Oz for 1 & 2, but no one else has any chance except as #3.

Or do you think Oz will remain on the roster even if delegated to #3?
 

ChampionTexan

Hall of Fame
There are numerous comments that state the opinion that there was no true competition in training camp for the starting position.

Now there are numerous comments that seem to imply that Oz should be awarded the #2 position, at worst, right now, without any competition in training camp. Maybe there will be some lip service that there will be camp competition between Savage and Oz for 1 & 2, but no one else has any chance except as #3.

Or do you think Oz will remain on the roster even if delegated to #3?
As to this past season, I've never stated that there was a true competition for the starting QB position in TC, because I don't believe there was. The competition (if you want to put it that way) was in the evaluation done (again - whatever that was, and whoever did it) prior to signing Brock. That's when he won the job.

As to this coming season, I don't know who's comments you're talking about when you say nobody has a chance besides Brock and Savage, but I believe there will be a competition, and whether it's 2 or 3 (or 4?) depends on who the other candidate(s) ends up being. If it stays static, then yes, I agree that Weeden probably has no chance - only because if he were going to get one, it probably would have already happened. I'm also not going to criticize someone who's seen him in off season drills, TC and practice if they've come to that conclusion. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong - it just means it's a reasonable body of work to allow them to come to a conclusion. Based on that, I'm guessing Weeden's probably not around to compete anyway, and I'll then refer you back to my earlier comment about the third (and possibly fourth) competitor.

As to whether Brock's on the roster if delegated to #3? Yeah, I believe right or wrong (and I do believe that is debatable - but it won't be by me), the Texans aren't going to pay someone $17 Million to not play for them. At that point, I'm not arguing what they should do (because it's a waste of time and may very well never have a definitive answer), but what they will do, and I think he'll be a Texan in 2017 regardless of his spot on the depth chart.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JB

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Weeden is not the cheapest option here.

actually, he is the most expensive between Os, savage and himself.

we save zero dollars by cutting Osweiler, we save 524864$ if we cut savage, we save 2.15 millions if we cut weeden

so cutting weeden is the cheapest option

and if you take merchandise into account, I'd think savage is the one that sells more stuff between the three

My post refers to their QB strategy going into this past season. Going into 2016, drafting a QB and keeping Weeden and Savage was a much cheaper option than what they paid to get Osweiler.

My post has nothing to do with what they do going forward. We all know we're painted into a corner with Osweiler.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
The Texans didn't start Brock because
The Texans didn't start Brock because they had big bucks invested in him - they invested big bucks in him because after whatever evaluation whoever did, they deemed him to be the potential answer at QB. In other words, the decision to start him wasn't made because of money, the decision to give him money was made because they thought he could be the starter. It's looking highly likely that their evaluation was wrong, but that's another post.

I didn't have a problem with it at the time knowing it might not work out (although I did not see the worst case scenario we've seen to date playing out), and I don't have a problem with it now.

OB benched him in game 15, and is on the record (or at least I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it) that it might have been a game or two earlier had Savage been healthy for those games.

Right now, because of that, I go into the 2017 season believing it's not a given at all that Oz will be the starter going into the opening game. I also don't believe he'll be released, and feel like those who do are dead wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about the starter thing (which we may never know beyond speculation), and maybe I'm wrong about Oz being released (which we will definitively find out), but that's the way I view it now.
It is true that I never wanted Osweiler to begin with, but it's also true that I understood they (whoever they are) wanted to start Osweiler at the beginning of the season.

The problem I had is that after Savage had gone in and won a game, O'Brien had officially stated that he sees Savage as giving the Texans the best chance to win.

He even named Savage to start the Titans game.

What happened to the playoffs?
Savage had passed the protocol.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
Fitz or Mullethead.
Mullethead or Hoyerer.
Ostrich or Savage.

The only constant thing with O'Brien is his dart-throwing method or succumbing to the higher power; neither is good, because, after all, it's his offense.

The only other reason I can think off is that he's cool with the pay, which is great for him, but does nothing for the franchise.
Or the marketing company is all good with the football division underperforming, and McNair's words of being a true contender is just lip service.
 

Sigma

Veteran

My post refers to their QB strategy going into this past season. Going into 2016, drafting a QB and keeping Weeden and Savage was a much cheaper option than what they paid to get Osweiler.

My post has nothing to do with what they do going forward. We all know we're painted into a corner with Osweiler.
whoops, sorry :)
I thought you were talking about next year :)
 

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
Or the marketing company is all good with the football division underperforming, and McNair's words of being a true contender is just lip service.
Just curious, but with the Texans winning the division in back to back years, and contending for the division in 4 of 5 years, why shouldn't McNair consider them as true contenders? While we know they have had absolutely no shot of reaching the SB do you think he feels the same? He knows that once you reach the dance anything can happen, as shown by the Giants (twice) and the Ravens and the Bucs and ...
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
Just curious, but with the Texans winning the division in back to back years, and contending for the division in 4 of 5 years, why shouldn't McNair consider them as true contenders? While we know they have had absolutely no shot of reaching the SB do you think he feels the same? He knows that once you reach the dance anything can happen, as shown by the Giants (twice) and the Ravens and the Bucs and ...
McNair had said several times that the Texans' ultimate goal is the SB.
He said that with Schaub.
He said that with Hoyer/Mallett, that a team can WIN it without a superstar at QB.
He had stated that the Texans are no question contender (for the SB).
He had said that the Texans can play with anybody.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/zachpetersel/2017/01/09/dont-be-fooled-houston-texans-may-keep-game-close-vs-new-england-patriots/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

Play with anybody?
Like in a doll playhouse, maybe.
:ahhaha:
 

ObsiWan

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
McNair had said several times that the Texans' ultimate goal is the SB.
He said that with Schaub.
He said that with Hoyer/Mallett, that a team can WIN it without a superstar at QB.
He had stated that the Texans are no question contender (for the SB).
He had said that the Texans can play with anybody.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/zachpetersel/2017/01/09/dont-be-fooled-houston-texans-may-keep-game-close-vs-new-england-patriots/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

Play with anybody?
Like in a doll playhouse, maybe.
:ahhaha:
and your point would beeeeee.....?
 

banned1976

All Pro
Best case scenarios for next season: 1 - the defense is just as good, if not better than they were this past season and the offense improves dramatically, or; 2 - the team finishes as a cellar dweller. Because I expect few changes this off-season and I expect Osweiler will not only remain on the team but will be named starter. McNair and company isn't going to aggressively go after Jimmy G, Romo or any other QB. They're not going to do that 2 years in a row. So who can really legitimately call shenanigans if Oz "beats" out Tom Savage and Weeden in a "true" competition.

Here's to hoping for scenario one.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
Best case scenarios for next season: 1 - the defense is just as good, if not better than they were this past season and the offense improves dramatically, or; 2 - the team finishes as a cellar dweller.
Good points.

I'd normally be concerned about the team not buying in to what the HC is selling. But with OB publicly taking the majority of the blame & technically a demotion... I can see a rally to the coach thing going on.

I don't know that O'b has ever been in a situation like this, but even though I hate some of his specifics, I think he's a good coach & will "fix" our offense one way or another.

If that means Brock on the bench, or run out of town, then that's what's going to happen & I'm good with that.

If that means starting Brock Osweiler, then that's what's going to happen & I'm fine with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO


Top