Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

What's your plan for QB next season?

76Texan said:
Yes, he does at times.
He definitely sees much more of the field than Osweiler ever did.

This is one of the major reasons I put him at no. 3 at the moment.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking to you nor did I mention Osweiler. I couldn't care less where you have him
 
i wanted us to take Tyrod way back in the 5th. thought he would be perfect the kubes systems of roll outs and bootlegs.
 
JB said:
I wasn't talking to you nor did I mention Osweiler. I couldn't care less where you have him
Click to expand...
Okay.

It's a MB, and I'm not slandering any people.

Next time, you could say that you're only addressing that particular poster or whoever. That way other people would know to leave you alone.

Thank you.
 
VTexan said:
i wanted us to take Tyrod way back in the 5th. thought he would be perfect the kubes systems of roll outs and bootlegs.
Click to expand...
I didn't mind Tyrod Taylor, but with Yates playing in an almost exact copycat WC offense at UNC, he was an immediate fit as a prospect.
 
76Texan said:
Okay.

It's a MB, and I'm not slandering any people.

Next time, you could say that you're only addressing that particular poster or whoever. That way other people would know to leave you alone.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I woke up in a foul mood and didn't word that as I meant. No offense. I was just pointing out that Mahomes does not read the full field on a play by play basis as was implied
 
JB said:
Sorry, I woke up in a foul mood and didn't word that as I meant. No offense. I was just pointing out that Mahomes does not read the full field on a play by play basis as was implied
Click to expand...

I never implied Mahomes reads the whole field either I put it out there as a worry for Peterman, most people associate spread qbs with not reading the whole field so I didn't write is about Mahomes. But I have seen him sit and go through progressions, and right now at this point in my scouting I have Mahomes well above Peterman. I do need to go watch and analyze Mahomes against LSU as that's probably the best defense he faced his whole career. that's another reason I worry about big 12 qbs because none of the teams play defense
 
Texansphan said:
Weedon was #3 behind Savage so if they can trade him for a draft pick, great. Otherwise release him.
Keep Savage.
Draft a qb in the second round.
Osweiler likely stays one more year.
The rookie needs to sit and learn the first half of the season while Savage and Os duke it out for starter.
Savage wins that one and Os is BU unless rook is ready second half of season.
Click to expand...
Think I have found the guy - Nathan Peterman, Pittsburgh 6'2" 225lbs.
Projected as 3rd to 4th round, no doubt his stocks will rise dramatically so Texans will need to take him in the 2nd.
 
infantrycak said:
FAs should be scratched off the list of solutions - Link

Heck 8 of them have been Texans at some point.
Click to expand...

That is really sad.

That being said, I would STILL put Case over everyone else we have. Quick decisions and accurate, that's all we need. Give him an Alex Smith type offense and we could ride checkdowns and screens through the post-season.
 
Need to build our offense like the Titans. Add a RT in draft or FA and a hammer at RB to complement Miller. Ball control offense that gives our D the rest it needs to perform.

If our QB has to throw it 40+ times in a game that's bad news for us.
 
TheRealJoker said:
Need to build our offense like the Titans. Add a RT in draft or FA and a hammer at RB to complement Miller. Ball control offense that gives our D the rest it needs to perform.

If our QB has to throw it 40+ times in a game that's bad news for us.
Click to expand...
Teams know that if your qb has problems throwing the ball accurately past 15-20 yards, they will stack the box to disrupt the run game and force you to throw it.
This is why the need for a serviceable qb becomes necessary to keep D's honest and open up all facets of your attack.
I do agree with what you said, but I also add we still need a qb who can keep the bastards honest.
That's if you want the best of all worlds.
 
Texansphan said:
Teams know that if your qb has problems throwing the ball accurately past 15-20 yards, they will stack the box to disrupt the run game and force you to throw it.
This is why the need for a serviceable qb becomes necessary to keep D's honest and open up all facets of your attack.
I do agree with what you said, but I also add we still need a qb who can keep the bastards honest.
That's if you want the best of all worlds.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why Brandon Weeden should be starting. He can throw downfield much better than Osweiler or Savage. The Texans will never advance in the post season with QBs that specialize in the 4-6 yard passing game. If Osweiler was ever asked to open it up beyond 20 yards, he'd be throwing an avalanche of picks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
I'm going to say something drunk and stupid. Case Keenum. If we have any luck SteelB dictates our draft and we spend all 32 picks this year on the offensive line. O'Brien doesn't have a lick of sense, but in this scenario he realizes that Fuller, Miller and Miller can stretch the field horizontally. He takes a page out of Andy Reid's playbook and realizes that 'catch and run' is your offense, and a quarterback adept at quick lead throws would be a good thing.

This is where I write the corrected version of how effed up 'they' would make it, but ... meh. I just hope this post was in English.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
Thorsson said:
That's exactly why Brandon Weeden should be starting. He can throw downfield much better than Osweiler or Savage. The Texans will never advance in the post season with QBs that specialize in the 4-6 yard passing game. If Osweiler was ever asked to open it up beyond 20 yards, he'd be throwing an avalanche of picks.
Click to expand...


He's already thrown an avalanche of picks .... throwing 4-6 yard routes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
Shishkabob said:
I never implied Mahomes reads the whole field either I put it out there as a worry for Peterman, most people associate spread qbs with not reading the whole field so I didn't write is about Mahomes. But I have seen him sit and go through progressions, and right now at this point in my scouting I have Mahomes well above Peterman. I do need to go watch and analyze Mahomes against LSU as that's probably the best defense he faced his whole career. that's another reason I worry about big 12 qbs because none of the teams play defense
Click to expand...
The LSU game is a good one to watch Mahomes going through his progression as it shows some endzone views.

Many times, the QB goes with the first progression because of the play call and his read on the defense, so we won't see multi reads often. But I definitely have seen Mahomes done it in several games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
Peterman seems to be a pretty good prospect as well, but because of the nature of the offense he runs.
Under center with lots of play action passes similar to the one Yates played in college, his reads are often limited to one side or one third of the field.
He didn't see a whole lot of pressures either, so that makes it hard to truly evaluate him.
I will need to find more game films on him.
But he's a good prospect for a team like the Seahawks.

Kaaya isn't bad either.
I had watched many of his games, but haven't looked at them carefully, so I still reserve judgement on him.
 
thunderkyss said:
Was he in one of those offenses that didn't really use a play book?
Click to expand...

He was in a spread offense but I don't know if they had a playbook or not. I do know that some of the NFL pundits are comparing him to Derek Carr and that's probably because both ran spread offenses in college and are about the same size and athletic ability. He's definitely going to need time, like Carr, to develop in a pro system, but if he has the size, arm, accuracy, and other tools BOB is looking for, then why not get him.
 
The Silver lining of Os being so terrible is that maybe we can have him work on/change his throwing mechanics. The risk is low because he had such a poor season anyway, and there is decent upside if it can improve his accuracy.
 
thunderkyss said:
Was he in one of those offenses that didn't really use a play book?
Click to expand...

Texas Tech runs about 7 plays. They use formations and motion to give the defense different looks but they run the same route combos over and over.

Leach's whole offensive system is built on the idea that it is better to be able to run just a few plays at an elite level than to run numerous plays at just an above average to good level.
 
bah007 said:
Texas Tech runs about 7 plays. They use formations and motion to give the defense different looks but they run the same route combos over and over.

Leach's whole offensive system is built on the idea that it is better to be able to run just a few plays at an elite level than to run numerous plays at just an above average to good level.
Click to expand...

So other than his academics there's no practical evidence that he would be able to handle half a playbook with just one offseason?
 
bah007 said:
Texas Tech runs about 7 plays. They use formations and motion to give the defense different looks but they run the same route combos over and over.

Leach's whole offensive system is built on the idea that it is better to be able to run just a few plays at an elite level than to run numerous plays at just an above average to good level.
Click to expand...
I believe this is either oversimplification or exaggerated.
I quickly took a look at the Oklahoma game in the first half and I already saw at least six personnel groupings with at least a dozen formations, not counting motions, and various different plays from the several formations.
 
76Texan said:
I believe this is either oversimplification or exaggerated.
I quickly took a look at the Oklahoma game in the first half and I already saw at least six personnel groupings with at least a dozen formations, not counting motions, and various different plays from the several formations.
Click to expand...

You're free to believe that if you wish.

They use multiple personnel groups, formations, and motions to give the illusion to the defense that there is more going on than there really is.

The plays are created with the goal of running specific routes against specific coverages so that a specific target can get open every time. There is a lot of timing involved so that the ball gets out quickly. They use tempo to force the defense into simpler schemes, so that they can more easily define which combination they want to run.

The beauty of the simplicity is that each play can be run from every formation, giving the illusion that they run a lot of different things. But they are really just running the same concepts over and over again from different looks.
 
bah007 said:
Texas Tech runs about 7 plays. They use formations and motion to give the defense different looks but they run the same route combos over and over.

Leach's whole offensive system is built on the idea that it is better to be able to run just a few plays at an elite level than to run numerous plays at just an above average to good level.
Click to expand...

Is Kingsbury only running Leach's old offense or has he added some of his own wrinkles?
 
bah007 said:
Texas Tech runs about 7 plays. They use formations and motion to give the defense different looks but they run the same route combos over and over.

Leach's whole offensive system is built on the idea that it is better to be able to run just a few plays at an elite level than to run numerous plays at just an above average to good level.
Click to expand...
bah007 said:
You're free to believe that if you wish.

They use multiple personnel groups, formations, and motions to give the illusion to the defense that there is more going on than there really is.

The plays are created with the goal of running specific routes against specific coverages so that a specific target can get open every time. There is a lot of timing involved so that the ball gets out quickly. They use tempo to force the defense into simpler schemes, so that they can more easily define which combination they want to run.

The beauty of the simplicity is that each play can be run from every formation, giving the illusion that they run a lot of different things. But they are really just running the same concepts over and over again from different looks.
Click to expand...
See, now you're changing the term from "play" to "concept".

The term "play" is still used today in a very misleading way.
It should be replaced with "concept" for clarification, and also for a better description of the actual meaning.

Take the "mesh" concept from the Air Raid playbook.
It's one concept, but the various receivers can run different route combos on each actual play.
http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com...esh-concept-playbook-air-raid-mike-leach.html

When you simply states that "Texas Tech runs about 7 plays", it's grossly misleading.
 
76Texan said:
See, now you're changing the term from "play" to "concept".

The term "play" is still used today in a very misleading way.
It should be replaced with "concept" for clarification, and also for a better description of the actual meaning.

Take the "mesh" concept from the Air Raid playbook.
It's one concept, but the various receivers can run different route combos on each actual play.
http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com...esh-concept-playbook-air-raid-mike-leach.html

When you simply states that "Texas Tech runs about 7 plays", it's grossly misleading.
Click to expand...
From the last few diagrams, we see a bunch of "multi-mesh", and that's not all the combinations.
I can see many, many more from different personnels and various formations from each of those personnel groupings.

For example, in four wides, single back, I can run a mesh concept on each side, not crossing the middle of the field.
If I run 4 deep routes, that would threaten cover 1, 2 severely.
If I run 4 short routes, and then spring the RB either straight forward or to either side, that would threaten any type of underneath coverage much the same.

The combinations are not endless, but there are way too, too many to call the "Mesh" just "A PLAY".
 
thunderkyss said:
Was he in one of those offenses that didn't really use a play book?
Click to expand...
The Air Raid offense does have a playbook.
http://www.footballxos.com/texas-tech-offense-playbook-mike-leach/
At least one of them can be download for free there.

I believe originally, Leach started to teach "concepts" and didn't want his players to get bogged down by playbook.
He installs/teaches the concepts and then have the players going through different looks each week.

Art Briles started to use videos to help his players further; which is something that Kliff Kingsburry had learned and now applied at Tech.

The Air Raid offense nowadays has many variations at several programs throughout the country, and they are nothing like the originally Air Raid.
They do retain the major concepts, but had added more while keep expanding on the original concepts.
 
The point... There have been several high profile QBs coming from these systems that have struggled to learn an NFL playbook.

Are we looking at first round prospects in this draft that will have to conform to a play book?
 
76Texan said:
See, now you're changing the term from "play" to "concept".

The term "play" is still used today in a very misleading way.
It should be replaced with "concept" for clarification, and also for a better description of the actual meaning.

Take the "mesh" concept from the Air Raid playbook.
It's one concept, but the various receivers can run different route combos on each actual play.
http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com...esh-concept-playbook-air-raid-mike-leach.html

When you simply states that "Texas Tech runs about 7 plays", it's grossly misleading.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about. Mesh is just a single concept. It's one play, with different routes designed to trick coverage depending on what the defense shows.

The OC calls in Mesh from the sideline with whatever personnel group and formation he wants. His guys line up. The defense lines up. The offense looks to the sideline to get the coach's interpretation of the defense's look. Say that the defense is showing Cover 2. The coach signals in Cover 2 and the WRs run the routes associated with beating that coverage. And they can run those same routes from any formation or with any grouping.

Just because the #5 WR runs an out in one Mesh and a corner in another does not mean that they are entirely different plays. His route isn't even important. It is only designed to draw coverage away from the receiver that they want to target. The QB is still making a single read throw to one of two routes based on the movement of his read defender on the Mesh. If you're going to argue that those are two separate plays then that's where we're not seeing eye to eye.
 
bah007 said:
This is what I'm talking about. Mesh is just a single concept. It's one play, with different routes designed to trick coverage depending on what the defense shows.

The OC calls in Mesh from the sideline with whatever personnel group and formation he wants. His guys line up. The defense lines up. The offense looks to the sideline to get the coach's interpretation of the defense's look. Say that the defense is showing Cover 2. The coach signals in Cover 2 and the WRs run the routes associated with beating that coverage. And they can run those same routes from any formation or with any grouping.

Just because the #5 WR runs an out in one Mesh and a corner in another does not mean that they are entirely different plays. His route isn't even important. It is only designed to draw coverage away from the receiver that they want to target. The QB is still making a single read throw to one of two routes based on the movement of his read defender on the Mesh. If you're going to argue that those are two separate plays then that's where we're not seeing eye to eye.
Click to expand...
I think you're trying to pinhole everything.
But I'm not talking about that particular play. You can call that the same play, and that's fine with me.

But I disagree when using the same semantic for all the different variations of the mesh concept.
If that's the case, there would not be a need to add the term over or under, etc. to the term Mesh.

Take it further, Klingsburry had learned from/with Sumlin to add "package plays" to the Air Raid concepts, for example:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.roll.../4716186/previewing-texas-a-ms-packaged-plays

These are now entirely different animals; one incorporates an inside zone and the other a receiver screen.
There are a plethora of variations out there with other teams running the Air Raid; coaches are marrying other concepts to the scheme.
 
Grab Mallett out of the bargin Bin Start Brock and lets go Put Savage on the PS for all I care

and spend more money on the DEF
 
Norg said:
Grab Mallett out of the bargin Bin Start Brock and lets go Put Savage on the PS for all I care

and spend more money on the DEF
Click to expand...

I'd be shocked if Mallet was a consideration. He didn't play all that well here when he got a shot and then the off field issues...
 
It's not Jimmy G apparently:

There has been talk that the New England Patriots are seeking a first-round pick for backup quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo, but in surveying teams around the league, they don’t think Garoppolo is worthy of that price tag. One AFC general manager told WalterFootball.com that he thinks Garoppolo is worthy of a third-round pick, but the Patriots could probably get a second-round selection for him. An NFC general manger said he thinks Garoppolo would go for a second-round pick. Another NFC general manager said they thought a third-round pick would be fair.

All of the general managers cited the trades of Alex Smith, Matt Cassel and Matt Schaub. Each member of that trio went for a second-round pick when dealt. All three of those quarterbacks also had more starts and experience than Garoppolo does. The general managers thought this offseason was the best opportunity for the Patriots to deal Garoppolo if they want to get something quality in return.

One team that has been rumored to be in the market for trading for Garoppolo is the Houston Texans. However, in speaking with Texans sources, that is very unlikely. Houston doesn’t sound willing to be interested in dealing the necessary picks for Garoppolo. The Texans are definitely in the market to add talent to their quarterback competition, but they are more likely to select a signal-caller in the early rounds of the 2017 NFL Draft.

According to sources, if the Texans do acquire a veteran, it would probably be a free agent like Jay Cutler or Tony Romo if they were released and willing to take a cheap contract. The Texans are the only playoff team in the market for a starting quarterback, so if either Cutler or Romo wants a shot to win before the end of their careers, Houston could be their best opportunity. The Texans won’t be able to offer a big contract for either veteran because of the money taken up by Brock Osweiler. Thus, the most likely move will be taking a quarterback prospect with one of their early picks in the 2017 NFL Draft.
Click to expand...

https://walterfootball.com/seniorbowl2017rumors.php
 
I'd trade our first round pick, being late first round, easy for Jimmy G.

We aren't going anywhere until we get some good, or at bare minimum, above average quarterback play.

This way, you don't have to worry about trying to trade up. If you like Jimmy G and that trade is actually doable, you do it.

You do that move and draft 2 or 3 offensive linemen in the rest of the draft, hopefully earlier than later, and you're giving yourself a chance.

If it doesn't work, tough. Atleast you tried. We tried with Brock and it didn't work out. We can't get scared of making a big blunder at the position right now. The biggest blunder you can make at QB is not trying to get better when you clearly need to get better. Most of the time, we don't even try. So, I say go for it if that is actually possible.

infantrycak said:
They whiffed on Schaub being 2 2nds.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? I know that we've both found that that trade was a good one for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
Jimmy G's cap hit is minimal. $1M in 2017. If he works out, you can re-sign him after you cut Brock and it's not a big deal from a cap perspective. Plus, you've got your QB for atleast a few years. If he doesn't play well, you've got the option to either re-sign him to a more friendly deal, or cut bait and eat the loss of a low 1st round pick.

Seems almost too good to be true, honestly. I'd imagine that the Pats would be looking for either a higher 1st round pick or multiple picks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROO
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top