Why would we cut Brock? If we were doing "the Sean Plan" (which btw has been mentioned by several posters here prior to him), it might be better to cut Savage. Now, all things equal, yes I'd take Savage on the team over Brock. But doesn't cutting Brock cost us more money than if he was on the team? For a team having to scrounge up every last penny to get Romo (or AJ..?), I don't understand the reasoning behind cutting Brock. Someone help me out here.
Yes, I agree with everything you said and would absolutely try... I was just hopeful that market value for him was less. The article suggested "4 year contract worth $53,000,000 and up to $57,000,000 with $9 million guaranteed at signing and an additional $10 million in vesting guarantees. The $9 million initial guarantee would be made up of $8 million signing bonus and a fully guaranteed $1 million salary for 2017." It did go on to suggest that basically only year 1 is guaranteed given his injury history, which makes sense. And in today's market, I guess $14-$15 million annually makes sense. As I noted, Brock got what he got. And I think I'd DEFINITELY be looking at it in much more of a "who cares" light if not for the Brock disaster. But I agree, you have to go for it.
Cutting Savage essentially saves you nothing. He's better than Brock. If you're going to draft a rookie to groom, which everyone except maybe one person wants them to do, you're not going to carry four quarterbacks. You're going to release Brock after the season. Releasing him after June 2nd is the same, money-wise, as releasing him after the season. Addition by subtraction. He knows he's not going to be here after this season. He probably won't play much this season, so we're just skipping the middle man that is the 2017 season. It works best for everyone, to be honest. Brock can go to San Fran to run a kubiak-like system. It's what I've been advising for a while. My name is Sean. Thus, when I see "The Sean Plan", I'll henceforth take credit for it.
If this is true, then I support it. I have been under the impression that cutting him this offseason would result in a bigger cap hit for us than his cap hold, in which case I don't see the logic in further hurting our cap room.
Pendergast falls victim to the usual lazy revisionism when it comes to Schaub-Manning, which was an intricately complicated situation grounded in the fact that nobody, including Peyton Manning, had any idea if he'd ever be healthy enough to play football again: Tony Romo is healthy; whether he *stays* healthy is a viable discussion - but as of right now, he's healthy. The other significant difference: Matt Schaub in 2011/12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brock Osweiler. Pendergast quickly glosses over 2012 to get to 2013 when Schaub's wheels blew off. Small problem: Matt Schaub was very good in 2012, including outplaying Peyton Manning when they faced off early in the season. It ended poorly, obviously - but the Texans were freaking 11-1 at one point in 2012 and both QBs were eliminated from the postseason the same weekend (although Schaub only after winning his home playoff game). It's not like we chose Schaub over Manning and then the franchise immediately imploded. I defended Schaub over Manning at the time in large part (aside form the health concerns, obviously) because Schaub was a very good QB; even if we knew Manning would've been able to play (which, again: we didn't), Schaub still ranked as a pretty damn good consolation in those days. Osweiler is NOT a good QB. If the Texans don't trade for or sign Romo because they'd rather roll with Osweiler, that's objectively stupid. Schaub over a Peyton Manning who still had "gains to achieve in terms of arm strength and endurance that are related to nerve regeneration due to his neck injury" is defensible.
When did this 1 playoff win narrative gain so much traction? Am I the only one with Google? From an earlier post: He's 2-4. He owns a 97 career qb rating; it's 93 in the playoffs. His last start, v. Green Bay, he completed 15 of 19 passes for 191 yards (10.1 YPA), 2 TDs and 0 INTs. In fact, in six playoff starts, Romo has thrown 8 TDs and 2 INTs. He lost when the Cowboys botched a GW FG (granted, HE botched it - but, still) and when the officials overturned what was clearly a touchdown that, likely, would have beaten the Packers in '15. His injury history is a legitimate concern; his playoff record is not.
Sorry, I forgot the question mark! hence the "what". I'm not super concerned about playoff performance with him, just noting that it is what it is (which I guess is 2-4).
Anyone have insider?: http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/sto...teams-2017-nfl-offseason-new-england-patriots
In that scenario you wouldn't have Savage, he'd be getting cut in any scenario that picks up Romo and drafts a QB.
Exactly, it would be costing the team 6 million dollars just so they could say they cut Osweiler, it would be incredibly stupid given that there is a hard cap and the Texans have players to sign. In any scenario where Romo is signed and a QB is drafted, Savage gets cut.
Not in the scenario we're talking about here - as in cutting Osweiler. I know you want to pretend it will never happen. Whether you say you're grounded in reality or however you want to spin it, that's the scenario we're talking about, which happens to be the best scenario for the team, talent wise.
It's not that I want to pretend it will never happen, it's that it would be pants on head r****ded to do so and cost the team 6 mil with that move as opposed to cutting Savage. There is a hard cap so if you cost your team 6 mil, you won't be able to make the moves you were previously planning on making all so that you could cut Osweiler a season early.....there's no sane excuse for it.
I take back what I said about cutting Osweiler, if the Texans cut him post june 1st then he only counts 19 mil against the cap so it wouldn't be an extra 6 mil. I still don't think they cut him, but that fact at least opens up the possibility.
Conversation and debate in this city about whether or not the Houston Texans should sign Tony Romo—assuming he’s released by the Dallas Cowboys—has heated up over the last couple weeks, with people on both sides having reasonable arguments to make a case for either signing him or avoiding him. On one side, Romo would be the most talented quarterback in franchise history if he’s 100% healthy and is a massive upgrade over Brock Osweiler, but the other side has legit concern over Romo turning 37-years-old before the season starts, only starting four games over the last two seasons due to injury, and his history of coming up short in the playoffs. So, I got curious about how many times a 37-year-old quarterback, in his first season with a new team, and after missing the entire previous season posted numbers better than what Osweiler did for the Texans in 2016 (3,000 yards/15 TD)? Obviously that’s a very low bar that I fully expect Romo to clear if healthy, but I still wondered what history said about the situation. The player season finder on Pro-Football-Reference.com didn’t let me add the criteria of playing for a new team or having missed the previous season, but there have been 17 quarterbacks in NFL history who have produced better stats than Osweiler did in 2016 during their age 37 season. http://houston.cbslocal.com/2017/02...s-about-the-houston-texans-signing-tony-romo/
I wouldn't think Romo would be allowed to talk with any teams while he is still under contract with the Cowboys.
