I'm just against using words incorrectly. The team is not "mediocre" based on what that word means. When it comes to BOB, honestly, I don't know what he even does for the team so until I see him actually doing something, I wouldn't call him "mediocre" either because till then he just looks bad and bad isn't "mediocre" either. As far as I can tell, he's an offense minded coach and since he's been here the offense has gotten worse every year. I wish he were mediocre, it might be an improvement.
The last part you wrote is why I label Billy Bob mediocre. He was suppose to be this offensive guru and QB whisperer, and yet the Texans are great because of their top ranked defense and the masterful work Romeo Crennel has done. Billy Bob has not produced any improvement on the offense over his predecessor Pistol Kubiak.
Fair enough, but honestly I rate him much lower. His system hasn't led to results and his play calling is just stupid a lot of the time. I'm hoping to see some improvement from him but I'm just about ready for him to go if he doesn't show an ability to make the offense at least decent.
I'm going to listen to Lance tomorrow for the first time since he was cohosting with charlie in the afternoon.
Being pretty good makes it *harder* to get a QB - you have better players and thus bigger salaries and you're rarely picking at the top of the draft. The Texans blew it in 2014; they were a bit unlucky (they actually *were* picking at the top of a draft - but one, unfortunately, with no sure-fire franchise QB) but they had opportunities later and for various reasons, they missed them. If, three years later, it makes fans feel better to beat that dead horse, cool. But I don't see a lot of missed opportunities in 2015 and they did try - with a huge swing - to correct it last year (which would've been Year 3, BTW). And, obviously we now know they've swung for the fences again, giving up a ton of resources (you have to factor in the cost of moving Brock, too, I think) on a guy with no consensus, in terms of his pro prospects.
I agree with this. I had no issues with the Brock move (I think they overpaid and bid against themselves as they did with Schaub, but that's a minor quibble and I can't really say it with certainty). I have no issues with this Watson move, because they really had/have no choice. I had no idea if Brock would be any good, and I certainly have no idea if Watson will be any good - I learned a long time ago that I'm not good at seeing what translates from college to the NFL. I appreciate that they are trying their best to solve the problem. They screwed up the Romo thing by waiting and trying to get him cheap - I firmly believe that if they traded for him, he'd be the Texans QB right now, and the Texans would be one of the 3 or 4 best teams in the NFL. But after that, there wasn't much else in FA or by trade, so they did what they had to in the draft. I think I've said before, but I believe you build around a QB and then work from there. If Watson sucks, they repeat this in a couple of years (potentially from a high draft spot). I have *zero* issue with that, because I don't think they are going to win anything until they get their QB anyway, so the opportunity cost is very low to me. No matter how good Clowney turns out, I wish they'd have picked a QB in 2014 (same in 2006 w/ Mario) - don't care if they would have been a total bust. The potential upside for the franchise would still have been higher - a reasonably good QB has more impact than a superstar anything else, and will be around longer and generate more total value. Until this past year, they've always picked the "safe" route, and that simply relies on a lot of luck - hoping that a Tom Savage or Brian Hoyer magically becomes really good. I prefer chasing the QB, and rinse-and-repeat if you fail, so I'm happy with the route they tried last year and this year. I also very much appreciate that they did what was necessary to rectify the Brock mess when it didn't work out. My only real contentions are that BoB is some kind of QB Guru and the idea that their inability to solve the problem is an excuse. Other teams have found QBs over the last 4 years, so it's not impossible. The Texans simply have not succeeded in that area, and it's limited their upside ability to compete - that's a legit criticism of the team and the front office. We can quibble on specific language, but I'd argue they are essentially non-contenders - they simply have zero shot to compete with any of the legit big boys in the league until they solve the QB problem. Whether they are 10-6 in a crappy division or 8-8 in a normal one, it's all sort of the same to me. In baseball, just making the playoffs gives you a shot because there's so much randomness due to starting pitching. But in the NFL and NBA, that's not really the case unless you get ridiculous luck like every team losing their top 2 QBs just before they face you in the playoffs.
The Texans are not a "very good team". They were 9-7 each of the last two years and have benefited from playing mediocre opponents twice a year because they play in the weakest division in football. me·di·o·cre ˌmēdēˈōkər/ adjective of only moderate quality; not very good. "a mediocre actor" synonyms: ordinary, average, middling, middle-of-the-road, uninspired, undistinguished, indifferent, unexceptional, unexciting, unremarkable, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian, prosaic, lackluster, forgettable, amateur, amateurish; More The idea that you view the Texans as a "Very good team" at 9-7, and having been out scored by their opponents this season is bizarre.
It's funny you harp on 9-7 given that they took a game off at the end of the season that they easily could have won and were screwed out of a game in Mexico City. I guess it's just really fortunate for you those things happened or your entire narrative falls apart. Anyway, keep up the good fight to push that ridiculous narrative, but it'll keep being ridiculous and it'll keep getting ridiculed when you do it.
That's interesting. I agree with the importance of a reasonably good QB over superstar-whatever - but I can't look back at '06 and '14 without hindsight. I think they made the right decision, at least with 1:1. Yeah - but *most* of those teams found their QBs at or near the top of the draft - Newton, Luck, Winston were 1:1s; Mariotta 1:2; Ryan 1:3. Wilson and Prescott are the obvious outliers - but their success, to some degree - perhaps large degree - can be attributed to them landing on *very* good teams, which would invalidate your approach (QB, QB, QB until you find one at the possible expense of other needs) I think luck is still a huge factor in the NFL - just look at the Patriots: they were lucky to draw the Texans; lucky the Steelers had significant injuries; lucky the Falcons curled up into a fetus position at the most critical juncture of their season. And the Pats are obviously the greatest organization in the NFL. There's still value - and a chance - if you make the NFL playoffs. I wouldn't wish that away. The Texans were competitive with New England, more than Pitssburgh, frankly. A few balls bounce their way and.... you never know.
Keep making excuses. You can play the "if" game all the want. At the end of the day they were 9-7 again and they were outscored on the season. They were not a "very good" team. They were 3-5 against teams with a winning record.
I agree for those guys, and they are the obvious franchise guys. But there are 2nd tier QBs that would be good enough to win on this team too. Guys like Tyrod Taylor, Alex Smith, Sam Bradford, Carr, Bridgewater, and Palmer were all available with a bit of effort & risk either by draft, FA, or trade. This year, you had Romo, Kap, Cutler. Would Jimmy G or anyone else have been available for this year and next year's firsts (no idea if the organization thinks more highly of him than Watson, though)? If you extend the window a little further back, Cousins, Peyton Manning, etc were available (I understand some of these were pre-BoB). And, in theory, if BoB is really an offensive genius, he could have gotten more out of some of these guys than they've otherwise showed, as he did with Hoyer and Fitz. Not necessarily advocating for these guys or suggesting they would have been the solutions, but I'd argue there are always opportunities if you're willing to take some chances. My problem with the franchise has been their general reluctance to even try (until the last 2 years). But to your other point - yes, these guys are all more functional on an already good team than as start-a-franchise QB types. So they wouldn't have worked at all times along the Texans' history, and wouldn't work with my endless-QB approach to building a team. But if the Texans were that bad at other positions, they'd also be drafting higher and be more likely to find a high end QB that way. Regardless, the point is moot for the near future, because the Texans have made legit attempts to address QB the last couple of years. We'll see if they work.
And you can continue to try your best to downplay any accomplishment to push your ridiculous narrative....in fact, I'm certain that's what you'll do. Won't change anything though. People who know better will laugh at you and those who don't won't matter.
Oh, I think they've tried. But I also think we have to be fair about what was available to them. I was advocating they deal for Romo and stop all the cute shenanigans. Interesting that they (seemingly) learned their lesson and didn't mess around with Watson. But I didn't see any QBs change hands in 2015 that would've been worth a damn. To me, 2014 is the year fans can really be upset as it seems there were two legitimate options available to them at 2:1 and not only did they pass, but seemingly passed for a fairly pedestrian OL. Those types of misses are what really kill you. If XSF grew into a Pro Bowl-level guard, you deal with it. But to pass on Carr and JG for XSF is just a bad look and I can understand fans being upset over that.
Keep in mind - not every Texan fan, and, beyond that, Houstonian would spend hours a day on a message board debating the Texans. The vast majority of them are pedestrian bandwagon fans who love JJ Watt and buy AFC SOUTH CHAMPIONS shirts at Academy. Winning and making the playoffs has value and merit to the team's brand; it builds support. awareness, etc. I'm not suggesting those are king - but I think we need to recognize that the Texans don't play exclusively for die-hards. That's not meant to sway the argument either way - but we do, I think, need to understand that variable.
If you don't think that winning your division damn near every year and winning playoff games is an accomplishment that is good, well.....maybe you should find another sport to follow or just embrace the fact that you are a bandwagoner and pull for whoever is winning at the moment. Being able to have essentially a bye week at the end of the season is "very good", and I shouldn't have to explain to anyone, no matter how much of a casual fan they might be.
Some of the NFL guys like Breer and Rapoport are saying he loves the kid and that Watson was the number one qb on our board (I'm guessing Mahomes and him were neck and neck). Today was the first time I've seen O'Brien smile a lot. Hopefully this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship between him and Deshaun. O'Brien supposedly loves Foreman too and they considered taking him even at 57 but Cunningham was too good to pass up.
