Texans FA Tracker

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Arky

I got your point a long time ago. Yep, the Texans have neglected the QB position via the draft.

You want Brissett? I don't.

I can defend them during the Schaub era. We had TJ Yates for most of that time. TJ was serviceable when Schaub had health problems.

But then Schaub and Kubes were both gone. Enter OB. We get Fitz and maybe OB is a little reluctant to take Garoppolo @ 2.1 that year. First gig, first draft, maybe he doesn't want to get himself tied to Jimmy Garoppolo (who was a total unknown at that point - small school guys sometimes don't get the NFL). The following year, a lot of us had high hopes for Mallett while Hoyer was OB's choice (the Hard Knocks year). And then we got Brock last year.

So, I understand why they did what they did. In each instance, the QB "problem" was thought to be solved. But there really is no excuse for not drafting a high round QB over the last 3 years.... A lot of us liked Prescott last year but they had just signed Brock. Hindsight now says they shoulda pulled the trigger....

I said nothing about liking Brissett.

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."

[HPF Bob]

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.

[chuck]

Why would you rather have Cutler than Romo?

[HPF Bob]

Originally Posted by chuck

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.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

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.

[HPF Bob]

Originally Posted by barrett

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.

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]

Originally Posted by HPF 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.



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.

[chuck]

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.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

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.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by barrett

I said nothing about liking Brissett.

It was a flip question. Roll with it.

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]

Originally Posted by Arky

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]

Originally Posted by barrett

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....

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Arky

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]

Originally Posted by barrett

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]

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.