I'm not saying don't try. But you don't "have to" take high risk, expensive moves. We now don't have a first or second next year. We really need Deshaun to work out or we're in a very bad spot.
If you can still put a good team on the field, why not? Like I said on draft night, the chiefs pretty much did the same thing even though they have a good QB already. Both them and the Texans are still good teams and can afford giving up next year's first. The Eagles did last year and are still a good team even with all the picks they gave up. Sure it doesn't work all the time but the alternative was to get who? Cam Robinson? Deshone Kizer? Jabrill Peppers? All those are good players but won't have the effect that Watson will.
Just wondering, what is your version of low risk getting the guy for our future? Neither Mahomes nor Watson were gonna be there at 25, if they had any liking towards Peterman, Webb, Kaaya, or something then they would have waited, but they went for their guy. And of course after Peterman has a Derek Carr year 3 years from now after starting 14-18 I'm sure we will hear from you about how stupid we were not to wait. Would you rather us have kept that 1st rd next year and go for one of the next crop of QB's? Did you want us to tank all year? Or do you magically think one of next year's ELITE qbs was going to fall to the mid 20's when 3 this year didnt?
Can we still put a good team on the field? That's an open question. Las Vegas now has us 3rd in our divison. If you keep trading away picks and overpaying free agents, you won't have a good team for long.
I think there were many lower risk moves we could have made the past 4 years, not just the past month. For starters, we should have never offered Brock that much based on what he had done, and we didn't have to trade him (could have left him on the bench). Garoppolo was the big one we missed on in the 2nd round, but there were other guys (Carr and Brigewayer for example). And this year I would have waited to see who fell to us. I would have preferred Kizer and then still have our 1st rounder next year.
I think so. But we'll find out if they actually do, right? It's not like any of the players available at 1-25 would have made that much of a difference. Actually, the Texans were the only team who's win total went up with Vegas due to the draft. So they obviously thought the move was worth it.
See, here is where you lost me. People have been ragging on the Bears for what they gave up to get him just one spot earlier. First of all, I like Watson more than Trubisky, so I would not have liked the move, secondly you just proved what I said, it is worth it to move up to get your guy.. Basically, instead of ragging on the Texans for moving up high risk, just say what you really mean... You wished it was Trubisky over Watson. I mean how can you be in favor of moving up for Trubisky, that would have been a WAY HIGHER risk, costing WAY MORE FUTURE PICKS...
I don't know. I mean, maybe we should give them a first and a second after seeing him play.. That's what we did with Brock, but this is somehow different. Mr. Clutch pretends he is mad about our risky moves, but what he actually is mad about is that we got someone he didn't want over who he did want. That is a different argument completely.
What other option is there? It's not like you can keep bringing in other team's rejects and expect that to work, right?
I don't want Trubisky, just saying he was the most sure QB prospect in the draft. And there were rumors we actually wanted Mahomes and Watson was 3rd on our board. If that's the case, then we just panicked.
No, only Mr. Clutch can make hypothetical or suggestive statements, when you do it, it doesnt count. Trubisky was best prospect, Texans wanted Mahomes and panicked. Anything contrary to that is pure speculation and doesn't count at all.
It's funny you should say how sure he was.. barely had better completion percentage and get this...ONLY STARTED 13 GAMES. But man, how could we spend all that on Brock when he had played 7 in the NFL?!?!?!?!?!?! Brock even had a better record haha.
... for a guy who only started 13 games in college. I'm not saying Trubisky will bust but I will not be surprised if he did. Who here thinks that Trubisky has a better than 50/50 chance of being starter five years out?
That's ancient history and completely irrelevant to the 2017 Texans. Yes, they're in a hole - but you don't dig out of it by continuing to beat the dead horse of a three-year old draft. They had to do *something* and when asked what that something is, the answer cannot be, "Well, they should/shouldn't have done such and such however many years ago." Their choices *right now*: 1) roll with Tom Savage; 2) bring in a low-ceiling veteran; 3) be proactive and spend resources to acquire a young QB with upside; 4) be passive and take whatever was available when they drafted. None of those choice are inspiring - but they likely took the path with the highest ceiling.
No we just went with our third option. They had their minds set on a QB and went and got one. People are going crazy over one pick in one season. Please dont. I ask this question again, at the start of the draft process, even before players decided to go back, I had been hearing only of the QB's that did decide to enter. So much so, that I don't even know most of next year's QB classes names. Seth Rogen, Luke Falk and some other people. I went gaga over Mahomes and I didn't know who he was until then as well. That was only because I thought we were picking at 25 and didn't think he would jump that high. I have been hearing about Watson for the past 2 seasons. At no time during the draft process did I think we would have a chance at getting Watson until the last 2 weeks before the draft and that was because there were mocks that had him going at 25. My point is Watson has been the best QB in college for the past 2 seasons. He is a victim of over-analyzing. Just too much tape of him winning. As far as him being the starter day one, I say this. They started Brock Osweiler over Tom Savage and they didn't know anything about him. They no a lot about Watson.
Show us a credible rumor that indicates the Texans had two other QBs ranked higher than Watson. The post-draft story is that Watson has been on Smith's radar for more than a year and that he fell in love with him during the pre-draft process. Also, they could have liked Mahomes better physically; but the general consensus on him is that he's a year, maybe two away from being a viable NFL QB. Given the team's urgency to find a QB, do you really think Mahomes would have been their choice? Finally, it's possible to like more than one prospect. Dating Bar Refaeli doesn't represent a panic move because Kate Upton was taken. That's a dead-end idea, that they can only like one prospects and any other prospect represents a step-down. It's especially specious given we have no credible information they preferred one over the other.
Also not happening. There's no sense in living in some alternate reality. It's 2017: Rick Smith in the Texans' GM; Bill O'Brien is the Texans' head coach; Tom Savage is the projected day one starter; and they own(ed) the 25th pick in the draft..... THAT'S your reality. Any solution that doesn't begin from that point represents a waste of everyone's time.
