IntheBullseye.com
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

IntheBullseye.com (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Texans (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Texans FA Tracker (http://inthebullseye.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2076)

chuck 03-18-2017 12:55 PM
I think barrett's point made many times years ago was and is valid - that BOB didn't want to commit himself to a rookie quarterback early in BOB's tenure with the team so he deliberately brought in second (at best) rate guys in order to get his sea legs. I do get the thinking behind that.

Although it's idiotic, of course, and any competently run organization would have a GM who would overrule that sort of foolishness and draft a freakng QB anyway.

chuck 03-18-2017 12:58 PM
Why would you rather have Cutler than Romo?

Arky 03-18-2017 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 45615)
I said nothing about liking Brissett.
It was a flip question. Roll with it.

Quote:
Again, how would Schaub's or Yates' presence mean you weren't looking for the QB of the future? Why would Mallett or any of the castoffs paraded through here affect what we do at QB? Why would you believe a guy in the league that nobody wanted would suddenly fill the need like we're talking about stealing reps at dime back with a street FA? Why would $72 million to Brock affect drafting a QB like Prescott with our 5th rounder? There is almost no way to pay a QB less than to draft a guy in the 5th round. We ought to have a day 3 QB as our 3rd stringer every year on the chance we like one and have a super cheap backup.

I seriously don't understand how you can look at what we've done and say "I get it."
Because I was OK with what they were trying at the time. I'm not going to use the marvelous benefit of hindsight to condemn them when I was OK with what they were trying at the time. Fitz struck out. Hoyer struck out. Mallett struck out. Osweiler struck out. Savage can't stay healthy. If any of those guys would have hit over the last 3 years, then the QB position has an answer for the #1 and it wouldn't have mattered who they drafted to sit on the bench.

I'm not going to play 20 questions with ya, barrett but they did draft Savage during this time to develop and to be, at minimum, the #2.... One of (big) problems is, they haven't found their "win now" (#1) guy, yet. Once they find a good #1, whether that's a FA or through the draft, then they can start throwing draft picks at replacements every year. It's like, some people (not necessarily you) think every draft is full of Dak Prescotts and the Texans think every draft is full of Jared Goffs, i.e., non-plus types.... There is no resolve between those two schools of thought...

barrett 03-18-2017 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob (Post 45616)
I keep reading this and thinking "Boy weren't we stupid not to have Tom Brady and Bill Belichick?" The Patriots didn't have a QB controversy because they got lucky on Tom Brady before the Texans were even in the league (!!!). Without Brady, they could recycle all the QBs they wanted and look just as bad as we do. And we've seen up close what the Patriot assistants bring to the table without Belichick to lead them - not exactly MENSA members.

I think everyone is in agreement that Osweiler was a mistake and that getting veteran QBs wasn't as smart as perhaps using a top pick to grab one of their own (IMO, Teddy Bridgewater was the most logical choice out of the past three years).

The problem is that we're at the worst drafting position (25th) and in a bad QB class to be thinking about drafting a franchise QB. A good one would be long gone and a crappy one likely just be a ticket for more crap.

Someone asked "what would you do?" As of March 18th, my straategy is this:

1) Sign Jay Cutler to a 2-year deal that is manageable within the cap. Don't expect a lot but know you have a guy who can run an offense and make the big play on occasion.

2) With the 25th pick in the draft, get the best LT candidate out there regardless who else is on the board. In order, that would be Ramczyk, Robinson and Bolles. From the mocks, I don't think they'll all be gone by #25.

3) With the second-round pick, get the best QB candidate on the board which I am hoping and praying will be Davis Webb. I might even get itchy and trade up for Webb with my extra fourth if he gets close enough.

If by some crazy coincidence, DeShaun Watson lasts until #25, I'll take Watson and get my OT in the second (Roderick Johnson a possibility).

Nothing else matters besides securing a current and future QB and finding a LT. Everything else can wait until that is settled.
When did you start agreeing with this Bob?

And as for the best option in the last 3 years I'll pass on Bridgewater. If we weren't afraid of our fans and bad PR we could have come away with the best young QB in the NFL and Jadaveon Clowney in the same draft. But we preferred a fat guard who can't play. It's so hard to find competent interior line play after all.

barrett 03-18-2017 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck (Post 45617)
I think barrett's point made many times years ago was and is valid - that BOB didn't want to commit himself to a rookie quarterback early in BOB's tenure with the team so he deliberately brought in second (at best) rate guys in order to get his sea legs. I do get the thinking behind that.

Although it's idiotic, of course, and any competently run organization would have a GM who would overrule that sort of foolishness and draft a freakng QB anyway.
Especially an organization with a GM who has authority to sign QBs the coach never met.

barrett 03-18-2017 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arky (Post 45619)
It's like, some people (not necessarily you) think every draft is full of Dak Prescotts and the Texans think every draft is full of Jared Goffs, i.e., non-plus types.... There is no resolve between those two schools of thought...
I have said the exact opposite but you're not listening. The reason you keep drafting guys is because it's so hard to find one. So you throw resources at it and fake other positions. You don't try to get away with faking QBs. You can't get lucky on a QB if you never try. And you can increase your odds of getting lucky if you try often. And obviously the rewards and consequences are so obvious that you try often if you have a brain in your head.

And as for hindsight, I think I've been very clear for years now that we should have been drafting QBs all along. Even among the choir of Brock applause last summer.

Arky 03-18-2017 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 45622)
I have said the exact opposite but you're not listening. The reason you keep drafting guys is because it's so hard to find one. So you throw resources at it and fake other positions. You don't try to get away with faking QBs. You can't get lucky on a QB if you never try. And you can increase your odds of getting lucky if you try often. And obviously the rewards and consequences are so obvious that you try often if you have a brain in your head.

And as for hindsight, I think I've been very clear for years now that we should have been drafting QBs all along. Even among the choir of Brock applause last summer.
And the Texans have thrown mucho bodies at the QB position over the last 3 years. Not via the draft as is your preferred method but FA "maybe" guys. Unfortunately, every stinkin' one of them turned out to be below average..... Once again, if they had hit on one of those guys, then we're not having this conversation..

So, yep, one more time I will agree, the Texans long term QB plan sucks. But it's not like they haven't tried or your words "faked it". 72 mil is some serious faking....

Unlike the Pats, the Texans don't have the stability of a #1 (you listening?). At this point in time, they don't have the luxury to set up a draft/groom/you're-gonna-be-a-star, kid program but they can start right now with this draft. I doubt whoever is drafted though will be the opening day starter - it's probably going to be a FA or Tom Savage, IMO....

HPF Bob 03-18-2017 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck (Post 45618)
Why would you rather have Cutler than Romo?
Cost. Cutler is not under contract so it's just a straight money deal. I think he would come cheaper than Romo and is marginally more likely to make it through an entire season than Balsa Wood Romo.

HPF Bob 03-18-2017 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 45620)
When did you start agreeing with this Bob?
I disagreed with the way it was done from the beginning. I chose, however, to accept what was done instead of reaching for a thesaurus to find every negative word I could find to describe our quarterback play. I tried to be an optimist and remind people that there were positives (including a playoff win) with Osweiler at the helm.

Quote:
And as for the best option in the last 3 years I'll pass on Bridgewater. If we weren't afraid of our fans and bad PR we could have come away with the best young QB in the NFL and Jadaveon Clowney in the same draft. But we preferred a fat guard who can't play. It's so hard to find competent interior line play after all.
Environment being what it is, I seriously doubt Derek Carr would be the Pro Bowl caliber QB in Houston that he's been in Oakland, particularly when you factor in our stinking to holy hell offensive line which they never bother to improve. It's alot easier to look like a great QB behind three pro bowlers on the offensive line.

barrett 03-19-2017 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob (Post 45626)
I disagreed with the way it was done from the beginning. I chose, however, to accept what was done instead of reaching for a thesaurus to find every negative word I could find to describe our quarterback play. I tried to be an optimist and remind people that there were positives (including a playoff win) with Osweiler at the helm.



Environment being what it is, I seriously doubt Derek Carr would be the Pro Bowl caliber QB in Houston that he's been in Oakland, particularly when you factor in our stinking to holy hell offensive line which they never bother to improve. It's alot easier to look like a great QB behind three pro bowlers on the offensive line.
He plays for Jack Del Rio. On the Oakland Raiders. That alone shows he can overcome any obstacle. Del Rio is like poison to offense.

barrett 03-19-2017 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arky (Post 45624)
And the Texans have thrown mucho bodies at the QB position over the last 3 years. Not via the draft as is your preferred method but FA "maybe" guys. Unfortunately, every stinkin' one of them turned out to be below average..... Once again, if they had hit on one of those guys, then we're not having this conversation..

So, yep, one more time I will agree, the Texans long term QB plan sucks. But it's not like they haven't tried or your words "faked it". 72 mil is some serious faking....

Unlike the Pats, the Texans don't have the stability of a #1 (you listening?). At this point in time, they don't have the luxury to set up a draft/groom/you're-gonna-be-a-star, kid program but they can start right now with this draft. I doubt whoever is drafted though will be the opening day starter - it's probably going to be a FA or Tom Savage, IMO....
I think there should not be just one plan. Make a plan for an opening day starter and then make a plan for the next decade's opening day starter at the same time. The low financial cost of young QBs means there is no conflict of interest.

And yes, trying to sign existing unproven players is faking it at QB. You can get a castoff or a street FA, or a project at the other positions, but decent QBs don't hit the market unless health forces them to. So no, signing countless journeymen does not equal a plan. I will give to you that Brock was a sincere attempt even if it was idiotic and against the entire financial structure of the NFL. Somehow the approach got copied this year with Mike Glennon, so there are dumber front offices than us.

Arky 03-19-2017 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett (Post 45628)
I think there should not be just one plan. Make a plan for an opening day starter and then make a plan for the next decade's opening day starter at the same time. The low financial cost of young QBs means there is no conflict of interest.

And yes, trying to sign existing unproven players is faking it at QB. You can get a castoff or a street FA, or a project at the other positions, but decent QBs don't hit the market unless health forces them to. So no, signing countless journeymen does not equal a plan. I will give to you that Brock was a sincere attempt even if it was idiotic and against the entire financial structure of the NFL. Somehow the approach got copied this year with Mike Glennon, so there are dumber front offices than us.
Well, I suppose Fitz and probably Hoyer (now) fall into the "journeyman" category. But Mallett and Osweiler were both youngish, had limited work when they became Texans and were still unknown as full time starters. Some of us had hope for those two so I'm not quite sweeping along with that generalization....

In 2014, they picked up Savage in the draft while Fitz was mostly the starter that year. 2015, no QB in the draft but they spent (wasted?) the year finding out what they had in Hoyer and Mallett. 2016 was spent finding out what Brock was all about. IMO, Savage was kinda the "groom" guy during this 3 year period. Weeden hops on board towards the end of 2015, sticks around for 2016 and one could make the case that he was a safer bet to keep on the roster than drafting some 3rd round rookie QB.

Yet, during this parade of horrors, the Texans somehow go 9-7 all three years. Man, they could be really good with just an average QB....

So, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, how the Texans suck at drafting QB's..... Include Schaub's "magical" 2013 and it's been a really painful four years of watching Texan QBs. I'm not sure I'll know how to react to competent QB play if I ever see it again...

popanot 03-19-2017 04:11 PM
Savage's groom year should have been in 2015. Instead, they IR'd him the full season for what amounted to a hangnail on the severity scale. Maybe Savage sucks. Maybe he's good. I have a feeling we'll never really know. When your franchise has sucked at QB for as long as the Texans have, you draft a QB at some point in the draft every year. Why not take a gamble that you might hit on a QB rather than a TE, K, S, etc? I thought they were idiots for not drafting McCarron as late as he went. They were idiots for not drafting Conner Cook, who, by the way, went to a team with a young star at QB. Maybe these guys suck. Maybe they're good. At least have them on your roster and see for yourself.

popanot 03-20-2017 12:00 PM
Side note to this drafting a QB discussion... If the Texans plan on drafting a QB with their #1 pick and really like a guy who happens to be falling, say Trubisky or Watson, they should trade up a few picks to get him. IMO, pick #25 is a prime area where someone (Browns, Chiefs or Steelers, maybe?) will jump over us to grab him. There are 3 or 4 teams in front of us that I could see trading their pick and moving back a few slots. I'd even try to jump the Giants at #23 with Eli getting up in age. Maybe try to work a deal with Miami at #22 or Detroit at #21. #19 to #22 seems to be a sweet spot for the right deal. #16 and #17 look workable too but will likely be too costly.

Arky 03-20-2017 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popanot (Post 45631)
Side note to this drafting a QB discussion... If the Texans plan on drafting a QB with their #1 pick and really like a guy who happens to be falling, say Trubisky or Watson, they should trade up a few picks to get him. IMO, pick #25 is a prime area where someone (Browns, Chiefs or Steelers, maybe?) will jump over us to grab him. There are 3 or 4 teams in front of us that I could see trading their pick and moving back a few slots. I'd even try to jump the Giants at #23 with Eli getting up in age. Maybe try to work a deal with Miami at #22 or Detroit at #21. #19 to #22 seems to be a sweet spot for the right deal. #16 and #17 look workable too but will likely be too costly.
This year's 1st round should be quite interesting. I'm expecting high drama....

Been awful quiet on Kirby, lately...

Keith 03-21-2017 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popanot (Post 45631)
Side note to this drafting a QB discussion... If the Texans plan on drafting a QB with their #1 pick and really like a guy who happens to be falling, say Trubisky or Watson, they should trade up a few picks to get him. IMO, pick #25 is a prime area where someone (Browns, Chiefs or Steelers, maybe?) will jump over us to grab him. There are 3 or 4 teams in front of us that I could see trading their pick and moving back a few slots. I'd even try to jump the Giants at #23 with Eli getting up in age. Maybe try to work a deal with Miami at #22 or Detroit at #21. #19 to #22 seems to be a sweet spot for the right deal. #16 and #17 look workable too but will likely be too costly.
Problem is every team knows the Texans need a QB, so any other QB-needy team is going to jockey around them to get one they want. Happened with the Pats getting Garrapolo.

So yeah, if there is a QB the Texans have their eye on, they probably will have to at least consider some maneuvers to get him. Will it be a "value" pick then? Probably not, but the team can only blame themselves for getting into this mess.

HPF Bob 03-21-2017 09:39 AM
And there's your catch 22 as the most plausible way to move up in the first round is to give up your second rounder and we also need to get an offensive lineman before the third round.

If Watson is falling, it makes sense to go get him. Otherwise, I'd prefer to draft a LT then wait for round two and trade up if needed for Webb or Mahomes.

HPF Bob 03-24-2017 10:58 PM
Jeff Darlington tweet per CBS Sports now reporting that, according to Romo, it's Houston or retirement.

Texans seem resolute to wait out the Cowboys and probably wait for a June 1st release then sign Romo. Dallas still hoping they can trick Houston into giving up draft picks.

The Broncos, it is said, have not closed the door on Romo but are not actively pursuing him either.

Of course, Dallas may decide that they can keep Romo since Dak Prescott is still under a rookie contract but releasing him and getting the cap savings makes more long-term sense. But then Romo can retire and get the Fox gig he's been promised if he takes the offer rather than be a backup.

Frankly, for $21 mil or whatever it is, I would be happy being a backup - but that's just me.

painekiller 03-25-2017 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob (Post 45635)
Frankly, for $21 mil or whatever it is, I would be happy being a backup - but that's just me.
I think I could be persuaded to keep that gig also.

HPF Bob 03-25-2017 01:35 PM
Apparently, CBS is now also wooing Romo for an analyst job, not just Fox.

I think the Texans are still going to commit a high draft pick to a QB, Romo or no Romo but it they *know* they can sign Romo (or if they tire of waiting and sign Cutler or Kaepernick) then QB doesn't have to be their #1 need.

BTW, I'm seeing several mocks now that have Notre Dame's Deshone Kiser falling to us at 25 if we want him. Some of these mocks are also showing Kiser being passed over for Mahomes.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.