What's wrong with Watson?

[infantrycak]

When was riding the bench "a few seasons" been the norm? Before the merger of the leagues back when players were paid $10k and worked a 2nd job in the offseason? It's more a notable exception. Staubach because he had military service. Rodgers because he epically fell and ended up behind a HoFer. Sitting has never been the norm.

 

[76Texan]

When was riding the bench "a few seasons" the norm? Before the merger of the leagues back when players were paid $10k and worked a 2nd job in the offseason? It's more a notable exception. Staubach because he had military service. Rodgers because he epically fell and end up behind a HoFer. Sitting has never been the norm.

I wouldn't say "norm", but young QB playing was not as prevalent as today.

I think some of that has to do with fans' loyalty back in the day.
They were more likely to keep a jersey for longer.

 

[Speedy]

I wouldn't say "norm", but young QB playing was not as prevalent as today.

I think some of that has to do with fans' loyalty back in the day.
They were more likely to keep a jersey for longer.

Of the 20 1st round QBs in the 90's, 10 started 6 games or more their rookie season, 6 of those started 12 or more. That's half playing a significant amount of snaps their 1st season.

Steve McNair is the only one that sat multiple seasons (2).

The rest, the Vikes had signed FA Jeff George the year they drafted Culpepper, so he sat a season, Drunkenmiller had Steve Young in front of him his entire 3 year career, Tommy Maddox was behind Elway, and Klinger had to wait for Boomer Esiason to leave. Trent Dilfer basically sat 1, starting 2 games his rookie year, and Andre Ware (4 starts) had 2nd year starter Rodney Peete, a 6th rounder who started 8 games his rookie season, in front of him. McGwire, Marinovich, and Akili Smith (4 starts) were busts.

So, I don't know the definition of "norm" here, but young QBs playing right away happened quite a bit. Particularly for teams who didn't have an established vet (Elway/Young) in front of them.

I don't know if I want Watson starting week 1 or not, I think a few games on the sidelines could be beneficial (learn the game, the nuances, see the speed) but I don't want him holding the clipboard for more than 6 games this year, 8 at the most. I just don't see how that benefits anyone......unless Savage is tearing it up.

 

[JB]

Steve McNair is the only one that sat multiple seasons (2).

Aaron Rodgers don't count? And is going back only to the '90's reflect historic? Woudn't the modern era go back a bit further?

 

[Speedy]

Aaron Rodgers don't count? And is going back only to the '90's reflect historic? Woudn't the modern era go back a bit further?

The point is, the thought of young QBs, particularly 1st rounders, sitting years and learning, isn't a common thing.

Using the 90's that take us back 18-27 years, I thought was an adequate example.

As for Rodgers, if Favre wasn't there don't think for a minute he wouldn't have started his 1st year.

 

[Number19]

The point is, the thought of young QBs, particularly 1st rounders, sitting years and learning, isn't a common thing.

Using the 90's that take us back 18-27 years, I thought was an adequate example.

As for Rodgers, if Favre wasn't there don't think for a minute he wouldn't have started his 1st year.

The question I would ask is, how many of these teams playing a rookie QB early were playoff teams with expectations of being a contender the year the rookie was played. Then the next question would be, how many teams make the post season with a rookie QB (other than out of necessity because of injury)?

Our question should be, with the improvement of the Titans, are we willing to concede the division title for the next couple years while Watson "learns the position" while starting. Of course, this may not happen, but it is the gamble you are taking. Is this gamble acceptable? And would you be accepting of the outcome?

 

[thunderkyss]

The point is, the thought of young QBs, particularly 1st rounders, sitting years and learning, isn't a common thing.

Using the 90's that take us back 18-27 years, I thought was an adequate example.

As for Rodgers, if Favre wasn't there don't think for a minute he wouldn't have started his 1st year.

I don't remember it happening much in the 90s, not with first rounders. You had your Jon Kitnas, Matt Hasselbecks, Aaron Brooks, & the like... Phillip Rivers maybe... ok, I can think of Phillip Rivers & Steve McNair.

Even Tom Brady. I bet he'd have started some time year one, if they didn't have Bledsoe.

 

[thunderkyss]

Our question should be, with the improvement of the Titans, are we willing to concede the division title for the next couple years while Watson "learns the position" while starting. Of course, this may not happen, but it is the gamble you are taking. Is this gamble acceptable? And would you be accepting of the outcome?

I'm more like... "Are we going to win 12+ games with Tom Savage." If that wins the division, it wins the division. If it doesn't.... it don't.

& the reason I say 12+ games is because we've won 9 games the last three years in this division without a QB. Not that it "should be easy" to win 9 games without a QB in 2017, but winning 9 games in 2017 most likely won't get you to the post season. (we could have easily won 10 games had O'b gave a crap about week 17).

If you don't think we can win 12 games, I vote for getting DeShaun on the field this year. 4 games (like someone mentioned before)... or 8 games. I'd like to see him in games that mean something, not when we're already 0-8 or anything like that. Those are the games that will challenge him & the team and get him ready for the post season (whenever that happens).

If we're two games behind the division leader at the bye week (3-3, 2-4, 1-5) ready or not, he's playing the Seahawks in week 8.

 

[Flyingfish]

Start Watson now! Make Watson sit!... Jeez. Wait for training camp and let the talent sort itself out - "Ball don't lie." If you cannot wait for training camp and preseason for the coaches to choose the starter, consider the options:

1. Play Watson now. If he does poorly learning under fire, the Texans will suck and the Browns will be the big winner (they have the Texans first two draft picks in 2018). Throwing a rookie to the NFL wolves has a long history of producing much less than stellar first seasons. Meanwhile, the Texans risk premature mental, physical and quite possibly career damage to their new QB.

2. Let Watson sit (a season), then start him in 2018 (if the coaches think he is ready). Watson gets the chance to maintain a healthy mind and body while he learns the system and the NFL. If he does poorly for any reason, the Texans will at least have the benefit of their own (higher) draft picks.

In conclusion, there is less risk for the Texans on the field, for the coaches, and for the front office to wait and hope "Ball don't lie" to sort this all out by the start of the regular season. If they still can't decide who to start, there is less risk for the Texans on the field, for the coaches, and for the front office to go with Option 2 and have Watson sit for 2017. If a starter other than Watson does well in 2017, no QB conroversy. If a starter other than Watson falls on his face, no controversy starting Watson in 2018.

 

[thunderkyss]

Start Watson now! Make Watson sit!... Jeez. Wait for training camp and let the talent sort itself out - "Ball don't lie." If you cannot wait for training camp and preseason for the coaches to choose the starter, consider the options:

1. Play Watson now. If he does poorly learning under fire, the Texans will suck and the Browns will be the big winner (they have the Texans first two draft picks in 2018). Throwing a rookie to the NFL wolves has a long history of producing much less than stellar first seasons. Meanwhile, the Texans risk premature mental, physical and quite possibly career damage to their new QB.

2. Let Watson sit (a season), then start him in 2018 (if the coaches think he is ready). Watson gets the chance to maintain a healthy mind and body while he learns the system and the NFL. If he does poorly for any reason, the Texans will at least have the benefit of their own (higher) draft picks.

In conclusion, there is less risk for the Texans on the field, for the coaches, and for the front office to wait and hope "Ball don't lie" to sort this all out by the start of the regular season. If they still can't decide who to start, there is less risk for the Texans on the field, for the coaches, and for the front office to go with Option 2 and have Watson sit for 2017. If a starter other than Watson does well in 2017, no QB conroversy. If a starter other than Watson falls on his face, no controversy starting Watson in 2018.

So.... I guess you're saying we should let the coaches decide after assessing his aptitude & ability through training camp, but you can go ahead & opine on the best course now?

 

[Texansballer74]

Bwhahaha at the Browns being the big winner. Wake me up when they're actually relevant again. But hey picking high in the draft every year Im pretty sure they are bound to get it right one day.

If Watson somehow do starts and doesn't play well. Does not mean he's a bust. What if Watson and the Texans go on a 10 year playoffs streak and winning the Superbowl twice. Does that mean the Browns were the winner in the 2017 draft Flyingfish?

 

[Flyingfish]

Eliminating all of the histrionics, this topic has two distinct options: 1. Play Watson, 2. Sit Watson. Each option has its own inherent risks to the team, the coaches, the FO, and the QB. I also pointed out that if a QB other than Watson starts and does well, there is no QB controversy going in to next year. Likewise, if a QB other than Watson starts this year and falls flat on his face, there is no QB controversy when Watson takes over next year.

I never "opined" taking Option 1 or Option 2. I merely stated the obvious options and presented a basic risk analysis. I definitely believe that the coaches should (and will) make their assessments and decide on which option has the risk level they are willing to accept.

 

[Flyingfish]

TB74-
Never said that if Watson starts and plays poorly he's a bust. I stated some obvious risks to playing poorly. Just because something is a risk does not mean it will occur. BTW, I don't really care about what the Browns did in the 2017 draft, I was addressing the 2018 1st and 2nd round draft picks they have from the Texans.

 

[steelbtexan]

Put Watson out there game #1 let him suck against a 1st place schedule with a weak OL and finish 3-13. Meanwhile Watson gets the crap beat out of him and the rookie is forever gunshy. Yep, where have I seen this play out before.

With that said, if Savage does poorly then I woould throw Watson to the wolves in week 8-10 and let him suffer.

Do y'all think Savage will get a fair shot, or will Bob/Ricky McNair do what the Texans always do? Those who get paid play whether they deserve to are not.

 

[76Texan]

The point is, the thought of young QBs, particularly 1st rounders, sitting years and learning, isn't a common thing.

Using the 90's that take us back 18-27 years, I thought was an adequate example.

As for Rodgers, if Favre wasn't there don't think for a minute he wouldn't have started his 1st year.

It would be more interesting if you tally the total numbers of QBs and the number of their starts in the two periods and see what happens.

I never said it was uncommon; I only said it's not as prevalent as today.

 

[thunderkyss]

Put Watson out there game #1 let him suck against a 1st place schedule with a weak OL and finish 3-13. Meanwhile Watson gets the crap beat out of him and the rookie is forever gunshy. Yep, where have I seen this play out before..

I don't have a problem with that. The guy we want will be mentally tough enough to learn from the experience. The way Aikman did, the way Peyton did, the way (gasp) Derek Carr did.

But the team we can put around Watson is better than the team around rookie Aikman, rookie Peyton, & rookie Derek (imo). Maybe they can carry him to success like the team that carried rookie Roethlisberger, rookie Flacco, or (gasp) rookie Brady. Ok, scratch rookie Brady & add rookie Russell Wilson.

& yeah, if he's ruined by the experience, I'll be disappointed. Not as disappointed as if they stick with him & try to make it work the next five years (a la David Carr). I'd just as soon they move on, the way the Jets didn't wait on Geno, or the Seahawks didn't try to make Flynn work.

 

[steelbtexan]

I don't have a problem with that. The guy we want will be mentally tough enough to learn from the experience. The way Aikman did, the way Peyton did, the way (gasp) Derek Carr did.

But the team we can put around Watson is better than the team around rookie Aikman, rookie Peyton, & rookie Derek (imo). Maybe they can carry him to success like the team that carried rookie Roethlisberger, rookie Flacco, or (gasp) rookie Brady. Ok, scratch rookie Brady & add rookie Russell Wilson.

& yeah, if he's ruined by the experience, I'll be disappointed. Not as disappointed as if they stick with him & make it work the next five years (a la David Carr). I'd just as soon they move on, the way the Jets didn't wait on Geno, or the Seahawks didn't try to make Flynn work.

I'm just gunshy after what happened to HWNSNBM.

Plus, since I believe Watson will be an avg QB at best, it's really hard to think about having to endure 5 yrs of avg as a fan. Then after those 5 yrs we will be having the same discussion we had with Schaub. Can you win a SB with an avg QB? This will go on for another 5 yrs so we are looking at another decade of avg QB play. IMHO and I hope I'm wrong about this. But this is the least excited I've been about a Texans season since Ricky/Kubiak weren't fired after the 2010 debacle. At that point I knew the Ricky McNair/Kubiak tandem wouldn't be bringing a Lombardi to this city.

 

[thunderkyss]

I'm just gunshy after what happened to HWNSNBM.

Plus, since I believe Watson will be an avg QB at best, it's really hard to think about having to endure 5 yrs of avg as a fan. Then after those 5 yrs we will be having the same discussion we had with Schaub. Can you win a SB with an avg QB? This will go on for another 5 yrs so we are looking at another decade of avg QB play. IMHO and I hope I'm wrong about this. But this is the least excited I've been about a Texans season since Ricky/Kubiak weren't fired after the 2010 debacle. At that point I knew the Ricky McNair/Kubiak tandem wouldn't be bringing a Lombardi to this city.

I think O'b has issues. But I think we were an Angel's hair from beating the Patriots with some of the worst QB play we've seen in a long time.

I say that, not to argue over the width of an Angle's hair, but to say I believe he is good at taking what he has to work with & making it work in context of winning.

I hope he does what he says, look in the mirror, make an honest assessment & work to get better every day. I know Ricky & Bob are likely to get in his way. But if he's as smart as we hope he is, he'll learn to use them to his benefit.

 

[Texansballer74]

Put Watson out there game #1 let him suck against a 1st place schedule with a weak OL and finish 3-13. Meanwhile Watson gets the crap beat out of him and the rookie is forever gunshy. Yep, where have I seen this play out before.

With that said, if Savage does poorly then I woould throw Watson to the wolves in week 8-10 and let him suffer.

Do y'all think Savage will get a fair shot, or will Bob/Ricky McNair do what the Texans always do? Those who get paid play whether they deserve to are not.

What if you start him day one and his mobility is the key to helping extend plays. Resulting in a 13-3 season and a deep run in the playoffs.

If Savage loses to the Jaguars game 1, it's a good chance he won't start the following week.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

What if you start him day one and his mobility is the key to helping extend plays. Resulting in a 13-3 season and a deep run in the playoffs.

If Savage loses to the Jaguars game 1, it's a good chance he won't start the following week.

I would seriously consider turning in your crystal ball for a new model.

 

[Texansballer74]

I would seriously consider turning in your crystal ball for a new model.

Do we have to revisit Hoyer first game? Let's not act like its never happened before.

 

[JB]

Eliminating all of the histrionics, this topic has two distinct options: 1. Play Watson, 2. Sit Watson. Each option has its own inherent risks to the team, the coaches, the FO, and the QB. I also pointed out that if a QB other than Watson starts and does well, there is no QB controversy going in to next year. Likewise, if a QB other than Watson starts this year and falls flat on his face, there is no QB controversy when Watson takes over next year.

I never "opined" taking Option 1 or Option 2. I merely stated the obvious options and presented a basic risk analysis. I definitely believe that the coaches should (and will) make their assessments and decide on which option has the risk level they are willing to accept.

Unless they get overruled

 

[JB]

I don't know why all the consternation about what to do with Watson. Savage is going to play so well that the only action that Watson will see is mop up duty. Before the 2020 draft we will trade him for 2 1's and 2 2's to Cleveland. ,,,....

 

[steelbtexan]

Unless they get overruled

It's not like this hasn't happened before.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Do we have to revisit Hoyer first game? Let's not act like its never happened before.

A totally different situation. The starter status was not named until just prior to the beginning of the season. Throughout the preseason and TC there was a back and forth debate, not only by fans, but by the coaching staff. The coaching staff at the beginning of this offseason established that Savage is our starter. There have been no signs of any internal debate or signs to the otherwise. It's time for some to accept that the competition for the QB starting role for the 2017 season is entirely a fan creation.

 

[Texansballer74]

A totally different situation. The starter status was not named until just prior to the beginning of the season. Throughout the preseason and TC there was a back and forth debate, not only by fans, but by the coaching staff. The coaching staff at the beginning of this offseason established that Savage is our starter. There have been no signs of any internal debate or signs to the otherwise. It's time for some to accept that the competition for the QB starting role for the 2017 season is entirely a fan creation.

Im not saying that would happen per say. Just throwing out if Savage really poop the bed it's a small chance of that happening. We are in a win now situation I believe. Savage goes out there throwing picks and not moving this offense, the two headed monsters will start barking.

 

[76Texan]

Im not saying that would happen per say. Just throwing out if Savage really poop the bed it's a small chance of that happening. We are in a win now situation I believe. Savage goes out there throwing picks and not moving this offense, the two headed monsters will start barking.

Obviously anything can happen since none of us have a crystal ball.
It's not likely though, as Savage seems to understand it's better to let the defense wreck havoc.

But it's true that Savage hasn't built any reputation that gives him a long leash.

 

[edromeo]

A totally different situation. The starter status was not named until just prior to the beginning of the season. Throughout the preseason and TC there was a back and forth debate, not only by fans, but by the coaching staff. The coaching staff at the beginning of this offseason established that Savage is our starter. There have been no signs of any internal debate or signs to the otherwise. It's time for some to accept that the competition for the QB starting role for the 2017 season is entirely a fan creation.

OI agree to an extent. But Flacco, Wilson, Bortles and Wentz were in similar situations. There might not be an open and competition but in the NFL there's always competition......ball don't lie. If Watson is the person/player that everyone says he is big game/big situation player then I would bet he's going to approach the situation as an all out competition. And IF Watson is executing the offense near the level of Savage and everyone sees it then why not start him?

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

OI agree to an extent. But Flacco, Wilson, Bortles and Wentz were in similar situations. There might not be an open and competition but in the NFL there's always competition......ball don't lie. If Watson is the person/player that everyone says he is big game/big situation player then I would bet he's going to approach the situation as an all out competition. And IF Watson is executing the offense near the level of Savage and everyone sees it then why not start him?

Simple. It will not happen in this system, especially without exclusive 1st team reps and especially when the live bullets start flying.

 

[edromeo]

Simple. It will not happen in this system, especially without exclusive 1st team reps and especially when the live bullets start flying.

Obviously I know you don't think it can happen. But, that wasn't my question.
My question is....IF Watson is performing close to the same level as Savage why wouldn't you start him?

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Obviously I know you don't think it can happen. But, that wasn't my question.
My question is....IF Watson is performing close to the same level as Savage why wouldn't you start him?

I'm sorry, I already spend enough time thinking about and answering reasonable and not unrealistic hypothetical questions here. You'll probably get a more willing answer elsewhere.

 

[ObsiWan]

Obviously I know you don't think it can happen. But, that wasn't my question.
My question is....IF Watson is performing close to the same level as Savage why wouldn't you start him?

"Close to" implies Watson is still coming in second, performance-wise. And I want the best performer to start no matter how close #2 might be. Especially since #2 is a wet-behind-the-ears rookie.

And it doesn't hurt to have a young, hungry guy breathing down #1's neck either.

At least it didn't hurt the 49ers when Young was breathing down Montana's neck.

Of course, O'Brien is no Bill Walsh

 

[thunderkyss]

Has anyone mentioned his height?

 

[sandman]

Has anyone mentioned his height?

He has some. Hoping time holding the clipboard and absorbing the game will improve it.

 

[edromeo]

"Close to" implies Watson is still coming in second, performance-wise. And I want the best performer to start no matter how close #2 might be. Especially since #2 is a wet-behind-the-ears rookie.

All rookie QBs are wet behind the ears.

When/if a rookie QB plays at level close to the "starting" QB during training camp NFL teams often go with the rookie with the thought being IF a rookie is already near there 'starter' during training camp then they're going to surpass them given play time.

I don't think that is a new concept....and who are we kidding Watson isn't exactly up against Tom Brady in his competition with Savage.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Has anyone mentioned his height?

No worry with today's foot ware advances............



Height Increasing Elevator Platform Sport Shoes for Adults Men Taller 8cm (3.15in)



HIGH TOP

LOW TOP

 

[xtruroyaltyx]

Obviously I know you don't think it can happen. But, that wasn't my question.
My question is....IF Watson is performing close to the same level as Savage why wouldn't you start him?

If Watson is close to savage, start him.

Makes no sense to sit him in that case since that would either mean Savage hasn't elevated his game or Watson has tremendously elevated his or some combo of the two.

Either way, in those scenarios, Savage has no future here as a starter. Might as well let the rookie learn.

Now if Savage is clearly better then you have to see how far he can take you.

But I've see nothing from Savage to make me believe he's head and shoulders better than any qb on the roster and he's pretty much the starter now by default so I'll stick with my prediction that Watson winds up being the starter.

He's their guy and based on their actions it appears they've never intended for Savage to be the guy. Savage has been groomed to be the guy to come in and play when the starter can't for some reason and not be an embarrassment. Basically, a solid back up.

 

[Texansphan]

Savage knows this system better than Watson but Watson has better mobility so O'Brien will be in a quandary.
Texans have the running game to help the rook out but not the oline so if they do go with Watson, expect plenty of quick short passes and lots of ground game.
Savage is a pocket passer and needs time for plays to develop. If you are going to utilize his big weapon - that arm - then an oline is imperative if you want to take advantage of that and Texans oline is questionable.
Watson should be just as capable at throwing quick short to intermediate throws so I would not be shocked to see Watson in this offense early or even from the get go.

 

[Texansphan]

Savage knows this system better than Watson but Watson has better mobility so O'Brien will be in a quandary.
Texans have the running game to help the rook out but not the oline so if they do go with Watson, expect plenty of quick short passes and lots of ground game.
Savage is a pocket passer and needs time for plays to develop. If you are going to utilize his big weapon - that arm - then an oline is imperative if you want to take advantage of that and Texans oline is questionable.
Watson should be just as capable at throwing quick short to intermediate throws and has been eagerly trying to absorb the playbook so I would not be shocked to see Watson in this offense early or even from the get go.

 

[Francois Kutz]

I think he'll be fine. We just have to give him a game or two to get the pre game/Welcome to the NFL jitters out the way.

 

[steelbtexan]

If Watson is close to savage, start him.

Makes no sense to sit him in that case since that would either mean Savage hasn't elevated his game or Watson has tremendously elevated his or some combo of the two.

Either way, in those scenarios, Savage has no future here as a starter. Might as well let the rookie learn.

Now if Savage is clearly better then you have to see how far he can take you.

But I've see nothing from Savage to make me believe he's head and shoulders better than any qb on the roster and he's pretty much the starter now by default so I'll stick with my prediction that Watson winds up being the starter.

He's their guy and based on their actions it appears they've never intended for Savage to be the guy. Savage has been groomed to be the guy to come in and play when the starter can't for some reason and not be an embarrassment. Basically, a solid back up.

Agreed

BOB will be starting whoever Bob/Ricky McNair tell him to start.

 

[cuppacoffee]

"Close to" implies Watson is still coming in second, performance-wise. And I want the best performer to start no matter how close #2 might be. Especially since #2 is a wet-behind-the-ears rookie.

And it doesn't hurt to have a young, hungry guy breathing down #1's neck either.

At least it didn't hurt the 49ers when Young was breathing down Montana's neck.

Of course, O'Brien is no Bill Walsh

OB has a better four year starting W / L record than Walsh had.

But Walsh did have a Super Bowl sprinkled in during those first four years.

Go figure. Most Texan fans don't realize just how close we came last year even with Oz.

OBrien will probably leave next year. Another Texan org. screw up.

 

[badboy]

I don't know why all the consternation about what to do with Watson. Savage is going to play so well that the only action that Watson will see is mop up duty. Before the 2020 draft we will trade him for 2 1's and 2 2's to Cleveland. ,,,....

Just as easy to dream big as not.

 

[badboy]

Savage vs Watson as described above, I go with better Qb in Savage allowing Watson to develop and adjust. I think Savage with time in system with players he knows + his contract year + being his best if not last chance to show he is capable will bring out his best. He has had odds against him virtually his entire college and NFL career. I believe he is ready to rock n roll; being first to welcome Watson showed me his confidence. Let's see how it all starts to come together in preseason games. I would love to have two good QBs on team.

 

[sandman]

Savage vs Watson as described above, I go with better Qb in Savage allowing Watson to develop and adjust. I think Savage with time in system with players he knows + his contract year + being his best if not last chance to show he is capable will bring out his best. He has had odds against him virtually his entire college and NFL career. I believe he is ready to rock n roll; being first to welcome Watson showed me his confidence. Let's see how it all starts to come together in preseason games. I would love to have two good QBs on team.

It's a win-win for Savage if he plays well this season. Either he solidifies the starting gig here or parlays a good year into a contract with another team.

Emphasis on IF, though. Big IF.

 

[OptimisticTexan]

Agreed

BOB will be starting whoever Bob/Ricky McNair tell him to start.

That might have been a been a possibility last season but this year...O'Brien could be coaching for his job. With that in mind, I think RS and McNair will keep their subjective asses parked in the FO and let O'Brien run this team with no interference, such as last season.

In my eyes, the only way RS and McNair get to see Watson taking the Game 1 snaps as QB1, is if they've fired O'Brien and decided to go in another direction just before the start of the season. Watson is going to need time to develop as he learns an assortment of new requirements to play this position. By the way, O'Brien's offense is built to be commanded by a pocket-passer and thinking Watson will save himself by running when things get a little rushed will certainly set him up for potential injuries. While Watson is learning everything from scratch....Savage has got a 3 year head start in system and player personnel knowledge with the speed in which he goes through his progressions as the last hurdle in his development. This segment of his game will get better with the more reps he gets as QB1.

At this point, all you want to see is improvement and this seemed to be the conclusion from OTA1 to OTA2. I think you will see a little more comfort in OTA3 and then we'll need to wait a few weeks to see if the improvement continues. If the OL and running game can improve along the way...Savage's game is going to improve as well. He'll be a good commander by the time the Pre-Season schedule begins.

 

[cuppacoffee]

"in my eyes, the only way RS and McNair get to see Watson taking the Game 1 snaps as QB1, is if they've fired O'Brien." - optimistic texan


10 09 08 07 06

Is it time to start a new thread "who will be the next Texan head coach"

 

[Texansballer74]

That might have been a been a possibility last season but this year...O'Brien could be coaching for his job. With that in mind, I think RS and McNair will keep their subjective asses parked in the FO and let O'Brien run this team with no interference, such as last season.

In my eyes, the only way RS and McNair get to see Watson taking the Game 1 snaps as QB1, is if they've fired O'Brien and decided to go in another direction just before the start of the season. Watson is going to need time to develop as he learns an assortment of new requirements to play this position. By the way, O'Brien's offense is built to be commanded by a pocket-passer and thinking Watson will save himself by running when things get a little rushed will certainly set him up for potential injuries. While Watson is learning everything from scratch....Savage has got a 3 year head start in system and player personnel knowledge with the speed in which he goes through his progressions as the last hurdle in his development. This segment of his game will get better with the more reps he gets as QB1.

At this point, all you want to see is improvement and this seemed to be the conclusion from OTA1 to OTA2. I think you will see a little more comfort in OTA3 and then we'll need to wait a few weeks to see if the improvement continues. If the OL and running game can improve along the way...Savage's game is going to improve as well. He'll be a good commander by the time the Pre-Season schedule begins.

So an injury couldn't be the reason.
Or Watson flat out wins the job.

Gotcha

 

[beerlover]

Worst offseason thread so far. Give Watson some credit and break until proven otherwise.

 

[PapaL]

If Watson is close to savage, start him.

Makes no sense to sit him in that case since that would either mean Savage hasn't elevated his game or Watson has tremendously elevated his or some combo of the two.

Either way, in those scenarios, Savage has no future here as a starter. Might as well let the rookie learn.

Now if Savage is clearly better then you have to see how far he can take you.

But I've see nothing from Savage to make me believe he's head and shoulders better than any qb on the roster and he's pretty much the starter now by default so I'll stick with my prediction that Watson winds up being the starter.

He's their guy and based on their actions it appears they've never intended for Savage to be the guy. Savage has been groomed to be the guy to come in and play when the starter can't for some reason and not be an embarrassment. Basically, a solid back up.

Concur 100%. Hopefully this all clears up in OTA and preseason. I don't want this QB yo-yo to continue during the season. I will say this; I fully expect Savage to get dinged up. At the point DW should take QB1 and not let it go.