Okay, this is NOT just a reactionary thread to the game yesterday. I'm starting to wonder if we should have just gone to war with Sage this year and saved the 2nd round draft picks we gave up for Schaub. Throughout Sage's whole tenure with the Texans, we've been saying "yes, he played good but it's just the preseason" or "yes, he played good but it was in garbage time against the 2nd team defense" etc. Bottome line is Sage has looked just as good if not better than Matt Schaub. In his Texans career, Sage has 14 TD's and 8 INT's. Schaub has 9 TD's and 9 INT's. Sage is 2-0 as a starter this year (don't forget about his almost comeback against the titans), Schaub 4-7. At what point do we stop saying his play is just a fluke? Since we seem to be building this franchise around the defense, perhaps we don't need a superstar QB. Maybe just a good game manager, which Sage seems to be. He's somewhat poised in the pocket, throws a very catchable ball, is durable and seems to make good decisions more often than bad ones. Not saying he's Bart Starr, but this team seems to click when he's in there. Thoughts?
It's about upside. I believe Schaub has more upside. He's 3 years younger than Rosenfels and is just now coming in as a starter in this league. I think in a couple of years Schaub will develop well enough that we'll laugh at the notion that we should have gone with Rosenfels, instead.
I don't think Schaub is anything special. Just an average QB who's frail. He and Favre had the exact same injury and Favre played yesterday.
Sage=Matt Hindsight is good we should have kept both 2nd rd. picks But, that being said it has been nice to have two good QB's of fairly equal play and style. That isn't bad.
I don't see Schaub committing those two awful fumbles yesterday. If it's the two picks we're questioning I hear you loud and clear. If it's straight up Schaub v. Rosenfels, I still take Schaub--though I'm admittedly standing on the thin, fragile ice of "upside".
with our o-line we need two capable qb's. I still think schaub has more upside and will work out. But it is something I've wondered for a while. Its funny because when this was asked a year ago people were bashed for bringing it up. Either way, Carr had to go and I think almost everyone realizes that was the correct move.
Favre also had an extra 3 days to recover. From some reports, Schaub wasn't far from being able to play.
I heard Schaub was out for the year? Do you have a link? I'd be very pleased to know he's not out for the year.
really, how many QBs outside of Favre are going to play after a dislocated shoulder anyways. i wouldn't call Schaub frail. he got cheap shotted once and was out one game. and a dislocated shoulder would put most people out at least a week. it does concern me that Sage seems to be outplaying Schaub.
Sage just turns the ball over too much for me. That fumble when we were in field goal range was just a r****ded play all he had to do is fall down and we get 3pts.
I think Schaub is a better game manager than Sage. While Sage may put up more yards and throw a few more touchdowns, he just seems a lot more mistake prone than Schaub. This season Rosenfels has thrown an INT once every 22 passes, ehile Schaub has thrown one once ever 32. I like both guys, but I think we'll see a much better Schaub next year in his second year in this offense and hopefully behind a better offensive line.
Statistics don't lie. Sage is better than Schaub. Given how bad our OL is at pass protection (the direct cause of both fumbles), it really does not matter who our QB is. By the time that the Texans have rebuilt their OL, Sage or Schaub will likely be David-Carr-isized and the Texans will be looking for their next QB.
Then what do you have to say about my post above yours? Sage throws more INTs than Schaub. How does that prove what you just said?
And here we have two sets of statistics that argue a different side of the same argument. See--one could ultimately find some statistic to support any conclusion at which one wishes to arrive, no matter how far-fetched. A premium example: early last season I was vehemently spitting out completion percentage and QB rating in defense of David Carr, who (I think this is how I put it) might never be a Pro-Bowl QB but would be an above-average QB if he had a decent line and running game. Erm, WRONG. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" didn't become a cliché on accident. You need statistics, but you need them in their proper context, and you need more than just statistics.
They never tell the whole truth either. Like who the opposition was, who had Andre Johnson on the field, who had tipped balls and dropped passes. Who was quarterbacking when the team was actually trying to establish a running game. Schaub's better, if he can play. The coaches had seen a lot of Rosenfels and weren't comfortable with him as the franchise QB. The real truth to be gleaned from this situation is that in the NFL you better have two capable quarterbacks. Although strangely this year the best quarterbacks Brady Romo and Manning haven't missed a down. And Farve just a little. That's almost wierd.
