Limited sample size. You claim that other posters clearly have a bias, when you clearly are the one with a bias. Classic Bobbyism. One guy throws a pick every 32 passes. One guy throws a pick every 92 passes. Your defense is pretty good. Basically, if you don't turn the ball over and put up SOME points, which the guy without the passing touchdown has proven he can do, you should win the game. Do I choose the guy who "throws touchdowns" (in quotes because he really doesn't throw that many), or the guy who doesn't throw picks? I choose the guy who doesn't throw picks. Every. Single. Day. Savage added to the hate list. Interesting.
No bias. I was all for the signing of Brock. Got nothing against him. Seems like a really really good guy, and he has handled himself with class. He's just proven to me he doesn't have what it takes. And yes, I'm effectively saying that. I think there is zero confidence in Brock. He might be the best practice player in the world. I don't know. But he has been bad all year, and that's not debatable. I don't care if you use stats, the eye test, whatever. Maybe it's debatable whether Brock is a better option than Savage. I think any rational sports fan would realize neither are good choices, so I'm not saying Savage is a great choice or even a decent one. The only thing that has been established with a fair amount of data is Brock is bad. I will take my chances that Savage can do better. Frankly, it's a pretty low hurdle to clear, and there is at least some chance, however small, that Savage is a decent QB. I see close to no downside to going with Savage. Is he going to be less accurate? Will he turn the ball over more? Will he be more inept at finding our receivers. The only advantage Brock has is athleticism. All that said, it will take some balls for Obrien to go with Savage. The conservative approach would be to go w Os since Savage might not be able to practice. If Savage is clear for practice in some capacity, then he is the obvious choice to me.
True, but almost all of that sample has been meh to bad. When all you have to go on is meh to bad and the player won't be able to prep or practice due to the concussion protocol, you don't go with that player. The reason I bring up the 0 career passing TD's is because it's not like Savage came in and tore things up when he got his opportunity. He benefited from dropped interceptions and penalties that got the team into FG range a few times and that's pretty much all he's showed us. I was all for making the switch to Savage when they did, and if not for the concussion I'd be all for playing him in this game, but it doesn't make sense to play him despite the problems with the concussion and the short week. It's setting the team up to fail just to force a QB situation.
All this talk about Savage isn't really the point. Brock is really, really bad. Do you even see how bad he has been. Why would we roll that out there? I would honestly rather play Weeden. Maybe he catches lightning in a bottle.
Both quarterbacks have been equally bad, which means, to me, it's a flawed system due to a terrible offensive line. One QB allows you to open the playbook up completely one doesn't. One doesn't turn the ball over, one does. The answer is clear. You've reduced yourself to trying to push an agenda again, though your agenda is flawed. Saying that Osweiler played better when you're comparing apples to oranges from last game. Savage had no chance to get into a rythym and took one fifth the attempts Osweiler did. The line found a bit of a groove in the second half when we started moving the ball. See my last post (after edit) as to why I'd start Savage. He doesn't turn the ball over like Osweiler. That is HUGE when your offense isn't putting up points. Our offense has been no better or worse since Savage has come in, points-wise (putting up about half a point less than average in the two games where he played a decent amount of minutes....Once again, small sample size...), except for the fact that we haven't been turning it over as much, which is the name of the game in the playoffs.
Osweiler has had some bad games, but certainly not so bad that you should be wanting just anyone over him. If he plays like he did in the Green Bay, Oakland, Tennessee, the first Indy game, or against Chicago then the Texans will be fine so long as the defense does their job. With Savage he'd have to play on a level that we haven't seen yet for him to even be that good.....and that's VERY unlikely given that he won't be able to practice much due to the concussion protocol and the short week. Bad Osweiler means we lose, the Savage we've seen thus far means we score some FG's and that's it, the good Osweiler means we win. It's not an awesome situation, but the most likely scenario where we win is if Osweiler plays and he plays at least decently while the defense handles their business.
LOL pushing an agenda? C'mon man, you are pushing for a QB that has a concussion and can't even practice.....I'd call that pushing a narrative, not saying the obvious, that you go with the QB that isn't concussed, can practice, and has at least 1 passing TD in his career.
I'm not pushing for anything other than the guy that gives us a better chance to win to play. Call that pushing a narrative if you want. I've clearly outlined why Savage is the better QB to play in the game. It all depends on how he progresses through the protocol. If he's moved through the concussion protocol rather quickly, which we agree doesn't typically happen, he should start. If he's cleared to start football activities by Friday, he should start. I realize its a bit of a long shot, but if healthy, there's no question who should start.
Brock Osweiler is worse than Hoyer. Unfortunately, if Savage can't practice, then Osweiler will probably get the nod... But he is the worst QB in the NFL.
The guy you think gives them the best chance to win despite evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that he's currently in the concussion protocol and he can't practice or prep for the upcoming game on a short week....that's what makes it pushing a narrative and that's what makes it kind of ridiculous. Hell if you want Savage only due to ball security (which he didn't display this past week BTW) then why not just run the ball on every down? Clearly you aren't concerned about scoring TD's if you put him in.
What is the evidence to the contrary? I've laid mine out. Let's see yours. Mine is rooted in numbers. I'd like to see your numbers. You've got the concussion thing. I've given you that. That is literally the ONLY reason you would start Osweiler I've Savage. I didn't even cover the non-numbers things, like the fact that Hopkins clearly gets frustrated with Osweiler often in each game. I've seen it multiple times this season on TV. Looking for the amount of fumbles between the two, because I'm quite sure Osweiler fumbles more often than Savage, as well. In summation, the only reason Savage doesn't start is because of a concussion. He likely won't get out of the protocol. If by some miracle he does, he stats. O'Brien is waiting until tomorrow to name a starter because if he named it today, it'd have to be Osweiler. That's not best for the team, but at the same time, if Savage hasn't progressed through the protocol any by tomorrow, it'll be Osweiler by default.
Based on the performance on the field and based on the concussion and short week combo. Savage hasn't done so well that it overshadows the concussion and short week. If he came in 3 games ago and lit up the league by maybe throwing at least 1 TD pass at some point then maybe I could see the argument but that amazing performance just never happened. There's just an awful lot of emotion and basically no substance in the arguments of those who want to play a concussed QB with no preparation over going with Osweiler.
So you cannot at all see how someone might think that if we are talking about trying to make it past round 1 and trying to evaluate our QB situation, it just might be a good idea to start Savage? Not that it's the absolute right answer, but a reasonable viewpoint that is contrary to yours? I think you are the one that needs to check yourself. There is literally zero chance that a Texans team with Osweiler at QB can go to Arrowhead or Foxborugh and win. Yep, it's highly unlikely that Savage can do it, but Brock has unfortunately proven he can't play QB. Even looking at the Raiders game in isolation, you take the view that there's no reasonable argument for playing Savage over Osweiler. Yes there is -- Brock is bad at football.
No, I cannot see at all how someone might think that if you want to get past the first round that you should go with a concussed QB that can't even prepare for the game. It's simply not a reasonable viewpoint. So there's literally no chance that the Texans could beat the Chiefs while starting the same QB that they started when they beat them earlier this year? Yeah, doesn't sound like any emotion there, purely logical statement. Savage has yet to show that he's better than Brock.....and he's in the concussion protocol unable to prepare for the game. No there is no reasonable argument for playing Savage over Osweiler given those things. I was all for pulling Osweiler for Savage a few games ago when they did it, but it's not logical to stick with Savage due to the current circumstances.
