A comment by The Cat in one of the previous Schaub threads brought up an interesting philosophical point on the best way to build a team. The Texans, as constituted right now, have a great chance to make the playoffs, but probably with a low chance of winning a Superbowl. Would you be willing to reduce your chance of making the playoffs, in exchange for increasing your likelihood of winning the Superbowl if you did make it? For example, which would you prefer: A: Texans have an 85% chance of making the playoffs and a 10% chance of winning the Superbowl. B: Texans have a 65% chance of making the playoffs and a 20% chance of winning the Superbowl Basically, it's the idea of making high-risk moves that could be great or terrible, vs sticking with the safe but is proven to work fairly well. This was discussed in the context of Schaub, but really can apply in a much broader way on a variety of decisions. My personal answer for the Texans is to go with B. But it depends on the particular circumstances of a team. For a team like the Browns (or the Texans 5 years ago), A is probably the better approach because you need to build a base.
I'm not smart enough to do it, but I'm sure a statistician could actually write up a scenario where the odds for both scenario A and scenario B netting us a Superbowl end up virtually the same. I say you go with the safest, most consistent route of sustained success until you hit the ditch. When you gotta go balls out, you go balls out. Unfortunately for the Texans, due to extremely bad luck (Frank Bush + Injuries), our plan A didn't get us 4 shots at the Superbowl (like it should have, 2009-2012)... it only got us one, and we pooped the bed. Now we may have to go plan B to salvage what is left of this window.
I'd rather be the Steelers who are always in the hunt and get there from time to time than the Cardinals who catch lightning one year but usually suck.
Based on your posting, I'm surprised to hear this answer. Because that sounds a lot like what the Texans under Schaub have been and are going to be for the foreseeable future. Consistently competitive. A few peaks and valleys. May not get to the promised land, but they have a shot.
Wouldn't option B be limited by the NFL hard cap? You can't make a lot of high risk moves if you're up against the cap. Like you said, it depends on particular circumstances of each team, and Kubiak chose A when he took over. But we did sign Antonio Smith, Manning, and JJo so we were active in free agency. I know there is a huge Brady asterisk to the Pats model of building a franchise, but they (Belichick) know when to jettison a high priced veteran and when to take a low risk gamble on a high profile player. And all the while they keep plugging holes with no names and keep chugging along.
The problem with the Texans is that they are either at or very close to reaching their peak. Foster might have another year or being a Pro Bowl back and Schaub is 32 years old. They've had basically two years of being a playoff team and that's it. They may have one more year realistically and then they're going to be back to average. In retrospect, they should have never traded for Schaub. They should have kept those picks and built the team. I don't know why you trade for a QB when you don't have the talent around him to do anything. Obviously Kubiak just wanted a guy to work with right away because he's an offensive guy. I think McNair actually wants to be the Steelers, it's why he hasn't fired Kubiak. He sees how they keep coaches and just work through it and eventually become successful. Noll, Cowher, and now Tomlin.
High risk doesn't necessarily mean expensive. For example, it could mean going with a rookie QB or a new head coach or things like that. I don't think clear upgrades of talent (like the signing of JJo) is really high risk - that seems more like the solid/steady approach. There wasn't much likelihood of that being a bad move.
FWIW, I don't necessarily think there is a correct answer. The Steelers and current Falcons are pretty good examples of route B. The 49ers and Seahawks are good examples of A. Or the Packers when they finally cut loose of Favre and committed to Rodgers, etc.
Well then we are stuck with option A as Kubiak and safe are synonymous. I'd like a philosophy of A but fluid enough to make an option B decision when it's there to be made.
Here's where that theory falls apart. The 2007 NFL draft was one of the worst QB drafts in history. Jamarcus Russel, Brady Quin, Kevin Kolb, John Beck, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, Jeff Rowe, Troy Smith, Jordan Palmer, Tyler Thigpen... One of those guys would have been our new great hope if we hadn't gotten Schaub. The tragedy here is that the 2008 QB class was amazing, but we wouldn't have kept Carr around long enough to make it there. 2007 FA QBs: Jeff Garcia Patrick Ramsey Chris Redman Marques Tuiasosospo Kerry Collins So... yeah. Unless you wanted to/had the amazing foresight to stick with David Carr through 2007, dump him, and then draft/sign a QB in 2008... the criticism of the Schaub trade is totally hollow.
You don't need a QB when your talent sucks. It'd be like the Astros doling out three or four huge free agent contracts. What would be the point?
OK wait, this is just silly. The QB is the most important position on a team. And you want to make finding a good one a bottom priority...? WTF? QBs take time to mature and mold, just like any other talent. The plain truth is, the Schaub trade was not only a good move... it was pretty much the only good move that could've been made, and I applaud Kubiak/Smith for navigating that absolute minefield in 2007 so deftly. The only other realistic option was to ditch Carr in 2006 and draft one of these guys: VY Matt Leinart Cutler Kellen Clemens Charlie Whitehurst Brodie Croyle Brad Smith Reggie McNeal Bruce Gradkowski Or... wait for it. Sign Drew Brees. But I blame McNair/Casserly for the Carr thing, not so much Kubiak/Smith.
I remember the discussion back then was that part of getting the HC job for Kubes was to make Carr into a viable QB, he said all the right things about Carr to get the job. But when the 2006 season unfolded, Kubes saw Carr for what he was and ran away from him.
I love this plain truth stuff. The plain truth is that they traded two second round picks for a QB, gave him a 6 year $48 million deal, and it took 4 years after that to make the playoffs. The year before Schaub they were 6-10 with David Carr. In the successive years after trading for Schaub prior to last season they were 31 wins, 33 losses.
And your alternative was to draft VY (or worse yet, one of the turds from 2007), who sucked donkey balls and would've threw this franchise into a tailspin. What is your point? Given the circumstances, Kubiak and Smith made the best move on the board. With the benefit of hindsight, we know this to be true. To act as if keeping Carr any longer was a viable alternative (or that you wouldn't have absolutely roasted them for it) is hogwash.
Too many people will vote on this from their current perspective But think back to the Carr time period. Would you have stood for the Texans going for broke in a season and settling for non-playoffs outside it? I sure wouldn't have. I wanted them to build a good team that could get to the damn playoffs consistently Cause I was tired as hell of seeing **** products on the field... we improved that, and now we want something else. It's all about perspective
I don't think 2 second round picks and $48 million dollars to get you 31 wins and 33 losses was really that good. The thing about quarterbacks, talent matters but so does coaching and the talent they have to work with. Alex Smith is a great example of that. He sucked for a long time, then he got a coach that was quality and all of a sudden he's a pretty damn good QB.
Is it horrible idea that I would not mind Jamarcus Russell as backup QB for 1-year non guaranteed Rolando McClain type contract/ no-risk trial? http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...back-2013-ready-to-be-a-teammate-and-a-leader
