The key difference is that when down and forced to play catch up (Panthers, Ravens games), Yates tried to play above himself and paid for it (his two miserable games, and 5 of his 6 INTs). And I still put some of that on the very poor state of our receivers. This team could not spread the field to save its life late in the year. Finally, I'd REALLY stop short of declaring Yates "is" this or that - if Kareem gets another year or two to develop out of a trainwreck, than it's absurd to not give Yates a chance to develop. He wasn't even supposed to be on the active roster this season. He showed flashes. Out of 7 games he started, 5 sported a Rating over 85, 2 over 100. Two miserable games. I'm more than inclined to say he gave us more than we reasonably could have expected when he was drafted, and that he deserves a chance to progress and get better behind Schaub.
You're the one fudging the numbers, CaseyH. You're not including fumbles - which are, I'm sorry to break it to you, turnovers. And you're conveniently pretending the postseason games don't count. If you include those two starts, his INT% shoots to 3.2%. His TD%? 2.1. (Schaub's, btw? 5.1.) Six full games; four touchdowns, nine turnovers. Even if you want to throw in the half against Jacksonville and the single series against Tennessee, it's four touchdowns and 9 turnovers in 8 games. I don't know how you'd characterize the turnovers as anything but "a lot." I feel silly typing this but... TJ Yates is not a better QB than Matt Schaub. That's where this all starts. The entire dynamic of this team changes dramatically. You’re going from Schaub (24 TD/11 TOs on a 16-game pace) to Yates (11 TD/ 24 TOs) and assuming EVERYTHING stays exactly the same, which is silly. They don’t automatically beat teams 13-10 instead of 27-10; that’s wildly naive. With Yates for a full 16 games, the Texans go from +7 as is (2nd in the AFC, and that includes 6 Schaub-less games) to -4 in giveaway/takeaway. If you don't think that alone dramatically changes the overall results of the season, I don't know what to tell you. Yates turns the ball over more; he doesn't put near as many points on the board; drives stall more frequently; and as teams see more of Yates, they have a much greater opportunity to take away his (and the team's) strengths and exploit his weaknesses. Given that he lost to 6- and 2-win teams, it's not impossible to imagine a sloppy Yates performance against the Steelers (#1 overall defense), or Jags twice (#6), or Browns (#10) changing the outcome of those games. Miami, without Foster, was a three-point game with 10 minutes left. Who knows what happens if Yates comes out and starts vomiting footballs against those teams?
seriously? if the texans lost another 2 games, their record is 8-8. we don't win the division, and that's not good enough for a wild card. hell, even if we had gone 9-7 depending on tie-breakers, that still might not have been enough.
They don't count. Why not? We are talking about making the playoffs with Not-Schaub. Since Schaub was beaten even worse than Not-Schaub by the Ravens, I don't see your point. The argument here is would we have made the playoffs without Schaub all year. You should feel silly because I never said or implied this. I said Schaub was the most important injury loss was more about the poor quality of our backups than how good Schaub is. OK so you have Not-Schaub losing to the Steelers, Jags( even though Not-Schaub beat them), Browns (LOL!!!!!!!), and Miami. I can now go watch the Browns highlights and have a good laugh. thnx
If we play our defense in Week 17 we win. Heck if we played our starting center we might have won. That makes the Titans 8-8 and gives us the tiebreaker.
They count because it increases our sample size of TJ Yates. He started and finished 6 games and turned the ball over 9 times. And no, the argument is Schaub v. Yates; not Schaub v. Not-Schaub. Not-Schaub means Leinart, or maybe Delhomme, and Leinart/Delhomme are better than TJ Yates. Further, you continue to apparently believe turnovers = only interceptions and are ignoring his three fumbles. So even if you want to discount the playoff games, it’s 4 full regular season games: 3 TDs, 6 TOs – it’s very nearly the exact same pace (12 TD/24 TOs), either way. And you don’t think *that* QB over a 16-game schedule changes the outcome of games? How many teams have won 10 games with a QB that finished 12/24, CaseyH? If you think the Texans still win 9-10 games after replacing Schaub with Yates over the course of a full-season, then you are most assuredly implying this, if not outright stating it. Again, where is this “Not-Schaub” QB coming from? And I didn’t re-engineer any results, CaseyH; I’m merely suggesting that those 4 teams all had very good defenses and that a turnover-prone QB (which Yates was) might have leveled the playing field considerably and changed the outcome of the game. You can’t just look at the final score, adjust for the point-differential between the Schaub-led Texans and Yates-led Texans and determine the Texans still would have won. That’s overly simplistic. Look, I’m sorry… but I consider this to be pretty basic and obvious. So to carry on trying to convince you of something that should be abundantly clear is pointless. If you don’t understand the differences between the Schaub-led Texans and Yates-led Texans, and how they might have impacted the results, then… let’s just wrap this up and move on.
hahahah huge post and then say you cannot explain? move on? I have already moved on. You think they would have lost to the Browns. Thats fine, and in my opinion, insane.
We very well could have lost to the Titans with TJ starting (in the "Not-Schaub" scenario, Delhomme... who had an exceptionally efficient game with a passer rating of 99 wouldn't have been playing this game), as well. Even with the 1st string defense (which also didn't play particularly well to end the year), knowing how poorly TJ played at times (yes, he was a turnover machine)... it's no given that we win that game. I get your scenario, 8-8, win the tiebreaker vs. Titans... it's plausible... but it's also just as plausible that we go 7-9 and don't make it. We both overstated our sides, it's not "for sure" they make it, and it's not "almost certain" they don't.
Yes, CaseyH... that's what I said. Well done. Tell ya what, ignore everything else, OK? I want you to answer this question: How many teams have won 9-10 games with a QB that finished with 12 TDs/24 TOs in 16 games? Heck, I'll even grant you the "Not-Schaub QB," whose pace was 13/19. Again, name the 9-10-win team with *that* QB.
No offense Casey, but I'm really dumbfounded by how obtuse you're being here. If you took this argument to any other football forum you would be laughed off the board. It doesn't matter which team you're talking about either. Go tell Ravens fans they still would have made the playoffs with Tyrod Taylor starting 16 games, or Steelers fans they would have made it with 16 games of Charlie Batch. It's absolutely absurd to assume that our defense would hold teams to the same amount of yards and points if our offense was significantly worse. I think people are stumped at how to further explain this because it should be an easy concept.
Yeah, two-and-a-half year old posts are hilarious! I stand by every word I typed then; he's obviously fallen off a cliff since and the only "Heheh" would be if I was dumb enough to not admit that (which I've been doing since the slide in 2012). Eli still blows...
I didn't realize how bad Eli's 2013 was until just now. Yikes. Eli fell off a cliff. Matt tumbled off it and hit every rock on the way down. <iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=jbjyaygemsl4b9jr6hkfaw" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yeah, doing "I told you so's" during a players last few seasons in the league is not a real argument. I could point to Earl Campbell, Ed Reed, or a majority of nfl players, last year in the league and go, "see I always told you he was sorry." Not saying that Schaub was ever at that level, but all players fall off at some point.
As a full-time starter (8 years), Eli has thrown 162 INTs, including 27 last year... The guy's completed 60% of his passes in just four seasons and owns a career completion % of 59. He has many 20 INT seasons (3) as 4,000-yard seasons (and was on a 21 INT pace his first year in seven starts). He was terrific in two Super Bowl runs and I guess that's blinded people to how bad he's been otherwise. I mean, if you want to pull a two-year old "gotcha!" post to flaccidly try and rub it in on a Schaub ship that long ago sailed, picking a thread in which people think Eli Manning was better than Matt Schaub seems wildly misguided. Eli Manning is not a good NFL QB.
Eli is doing alot of fantasy owner's pretty well, this year. And even with last night's lost, the Giants are steady in the NFC East race. Where's .... nevermind.
