Both players possess different attributes, but let's say they all even out, making them equals overall on the field. Schaub was no scrub. Scale 1-10, I'd give him a high-6/low-7. Keep in mind, Matt had worse defenses overall than the current Texans, so Brock's being 2.0 could really mean something, postseason-wise.
Should've had better options... 1) Reluctantly, yes 2) Easily, yes 3) No I probably fall in #1 category
I get so sick of people talking **** about Matt Schaub. Yeah, dude fell off a cliff after his foot injury, but until then, we were having legitimate discussions about whether he was a top ten quarterback. I personally think he was, but even if not, he was in the discussion. People act like he was always trash, when in reality he's the best quarterback in Texans history by far (I know that's not saying much). For that contract though, Brock needs to deliver, so I guess my answer is no.
Only if you believe 1.0 > 2.0. If you do, cool... just saying 2.0 is guaranteed. Obviously, any Texans fan would want Brock to better Matt.
If you answer "no", you're crazy...Schaub was pretty damn solid during his prime years. If we get that from Brock, we contend every year.
All I ask from Osweiler is to be better than Matt Schaub. Be better than him when he was at his best and be better than him when he was at his worst. Is that too much to ask?
No. The one reason is simple. Results. Matt Schaub never won a playoff game. Bad luck? Possibly. But your hypothetical looks back at his whole career and asks if a fan would be happy with a repeat. How else can you evaluate an athlete except for his results? At the end of the day.. Matt Schaub will be remembered (if remembered at all) as a QB who accomplished nothing. Will I be happy with another QB who accomplishes nothing? No. Absolutely not.
I struggled with this. Matt was a 7.5 IMO statwise, but his clutchness is what dropped him to maybe high-6. So, for everything to even out, if Brock is "more clutch", he needs to fall back another area compared to Schaub. Eli and Flacco come to mind. Lesser QBs statwise (regular season), then playoff beasts. Ideally, compared to those 2, I'd prefer a mix of less-clutch/better-regseason. The defense balling hard for a good while will help regardless.
Right now Matt Schaub is by far the best QB in franchise history and I'd guess you just forgot about how good he could be in his prime. You also forgot that he was 1-1 in the playoffs averaging over 300 yards per game at over 70% completion percentage.
You're right. Schaub did win a playoff game. Against Cinci. My mistake, I guess I just assumed that was TJ Yates. Schaub playoff win was forgettable. Thats the point. Sure, I get the counter, a competent QB is better than anything we've had. And they are VERY hard to come by. But really.. Matt Schaub 2.0? Come on. Lets do better.
Guy who when in his prime led the league in passing and was a top 10 QB.....let's do better? I mean, sure that's the goal, but if Brock Osweiler is "merely" a top 10 QB, we'll be set.
Again, agreed... We win if Brock is a top 10 QB. But we are completely ignoring intangibles. Would you really feel comfortable saying.. ok Schaub, its on your back, lets win a big game against a great team? No. I dont want that type of QB. I want one with some "it" factor.
I don't feel comfortable doing that with any QB. I'd much rather have it be a team game. For example, if the defense gives up 40+ points, like they did in Schaub's 2nd playoff game, there's nothing that almost any QB can do to bail them out. If the Texans had a competent defense during Schaub's prime, they would have won a LOT more games.
No, back foot Schaub was NEVER good enough, he had some good years but you could always see the fear in his play. DD