Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Starting a rookie is an advantage? Do you mean beyond financially? The Texans could have traded up for Goff, they could have taken Bortles over Clowney, they could have not signed Osweiler and settled for Paxton Lynch.... any of these scenarios put the Texans at 4-2 and in the driver seat for the playoffs this year? In O'Brien's third season?
I recall your distaste for Bortles and know you did not like the signing of Osweiler even back in March... all defensible opinions that are standing the test of time. And I agree the team is in the brutal middle, so I know you must understand the 2016 Texans were caught in a tough spot with very limited viable options... as much as I liked Wentz pre-draft, it was a pretty unrealistic scenario to think they could trade all the way up to get him (or Goff) since it takes two to tango.
So what was your ideal plan for the team to take?
|
I am not as down on the Osweiler signing as I'm making it sound. It was better than another year of purgatory, and at least this way, we have a chance at it really working out. Of all the FA options, I like Osweiler the best since he at least has an unknown ceiling and some flashes that say that ceiling might be very high.
I just think the current CBA gives a very unique financial (and thus competitive) advantage to any team that can find average QB play from a guy on a rookie contract. There is admittedly a lot of uncertainty in starting a rookie QB, and that is why the best option by far is to pay a proven veteran, even if he is in the Andy Dalton tier. But since everyone knows that, the only time a proven veteran hits the open market is when their are amazing circumstances (like a broken neck and a once in a lifetime prospect landing Manning in FA).
But we opted for the uncertainty of the unproven QB without the financial advantage to offset it. So we don't get either advantage. We pay full price for rookie level inconsistency.
As for what we should have done, you don't have to go Bortles over Clowney. You can just go Carr over Sua' Fio if you aren't afraid of your fan base. Or Garropolo. Or Prescott. Or take one every year until you get it right since the cost is so low in terms of picks and only hind sight tells you which one. If O'Brien can't find a guy in 3 drafts, he's not much of a coach.
My point is if you aren't going to be great at QB the next best option is to be cheap.
And to answer your question about what other option gets us to 4-2, Hoyer/Mallett/Weeden/Yates got us to the playoffs, so I am pretty sure some replacement level NFL QB could have managed to beat the 4 bad/mediocre teams we played and lose ugly to the two good ones. It's not like any of the four wins have come down to great QB play.