I'm not for drafting a QB every year, that's some Cleveland Browns nonsense, what I do support is giving the guy we have one more year with the team he was supposed to have this year to get it right or get gone. At that point, we can either go with Savage or draft a QB in the first round if there is one worth drafting. The blanket "keep drafting QB's till one sticks" policy IMO is a bad idea. What is more important IMO is to make sure the team that the QB is going to will have an O line to protect him. Dak Prescott isn't a notably good QB, but he does have the best O line the NFL has seen in years.....unsurprisingly people think he's a great QB as a result. Have a garbage O line, and you'd have to have the greatest QB of all time to even look decent.
OL class in the draft is supposedly really bad. I still like to get a QB somewhere to "compete" with Brock and Savage. Savage seems injury prone and in his last year if I am right
All the more reason to grab a tackle early because Chris Clark is just godawful. My pick would be Mike McGlinchey out of Notre Dame, he's not the top prospect, but given that he has experience playing on the same line with our new center Nick Martin, I think it's a no brainer. Speaking of Martin, just getting Nick Martin back healthy at center will help things out immensely. When it comes to QB this season, the draft class is pretty terrible. I'll probably take a closer look at it when the season is over, but none of the "top" guys are worth a damn.
That sounds good but they do not do that. They get retreads from other teams or they draft someone as an afterthought in their draft.
They don't need to look at the draft to find a QB that's better than Osweiler. There are plenty of journeyman guys that can game manage at a fraction of the cost. That's all that I care about. I want a QB who is paid somewhat fairly for his production. Drafting a rookie QB obviously guarantees that, but it's not a requirement. The only time we had a fairly paid QB was fitzpatrick.
Seven months ago, based on what we knew, what free agent QB would you have rather they went after? RG3, Kaepernick? Brock was obviously the best of the bunch. I care less than most fans how overpaid players are. Not my money.
If the NFL didn't have a salary cap I wouldn't care either, but Brock's money might prevent us from improving the team in other ways, whether it's not re-signing a 2nd string RB like we wanted to or not offering enough to a prized free agent. also, knowing what we know now, I would say keep Brian Hoyer over Osweiler. Of course, injuries change this hypothetical up.
Yeah but it's really unfair to throw reality and logic at arguments like that because they instantly crumble and that's mean.
Just because there was no one much better doesn't mean we had to overpay the one guy who sucked a little less than everyone else. What if we had taken that Brock money and retained Brandon Brooks? Our o-line would be in better shape because he's actually worth the money he got.
They paid Brock middling QB money, nothing more.....and paying Brock had nothing at all to do with why they didn't pay Brooks. It was pretty clear for whatever reason they didn't want him because they paid the guy they got to replace him nearly the same money and the team STILL is far enough under the cap to have paid Brooks. The reason our O line is in such bad shape is because we are missing our center and right tackle along with starting out without our left tackle and the right guard not playing well. Without injuries, we have one problem spot instead of 3.
You're assuming Brooks wanted to stay or that the Texans wanted him back. Plus his replacement, Jeff Allen, was a stud last year (according to PFF: https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ranking-all-32-offensive-lines-this-season/). Ben Jones was up and down as a Texan. At this point, I'm still okay with them picking up Nick Martin to replace him. The point is they went out and got the best free agent QB available. His contract was what it required to get him. If Brock turned out to be much better than he is and we found out the Texans weren't willing to pay him; how badly would we be criticizing them right now. The franchise that we criticize as being cheap and not going after a QB, just outbid the defending champions for the best free agent QB available. And they did it in such a way that they can escape from the contract after two seasons and still remain competitive. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 now that we know Brock is playing really bad. But it was a risk. A gamble they absolutely had to take.
1. There was no guarantee Paxton Lynch was going to be available for them in the draft 2. I'm not sure Paxton Lynch will be able to do more in this offense behind this offensive line. He didn't do much better in his few games with the Broncos.
I agree there are no guarantees at all. Lynch could be a bust. I just doing think this was the wisest direction, and certainly not the only direction the Texans had to take
Is this scenario supposed to be someone from Houston? I always root for my home team. Go Astros, Go Texans, Go Rockets, Go Coogs! Now if this person isn't a Houstonian, then honestly, if it was me I wouldn't pick either of those choices. I would pick New England or Oakland, because I love watching a good quarterback.
You're right. This wasn't the only direction the Texans had to take. They could have signed RG3. Or wasted the next three drafts to get Jared Goff. In hindsight, obviously this wasn't the wisest decision (we can agree it wasn't the dumbest lol). I didn't even like the signing when it happened. But I understood why they did it.
I don't think we can say for sure just yet if it was a wise decision or not. Give it a year and we'll know for sure.
Yeah, unfortunately we've been stuck making bad QB decisions for several years now. I wouldn't be surprised if they use a top pick for a QB next year, and there's no guarantee it will work out
