I know, this is going to be a stupid question, but here we go: what is the connection between McNair and Pancakes? Did he say something about pancakes?
Bob McNair is not Pancakes. John McClain, the Houston Chronicle beat writer, is Pancakes. And the reason he is called Pancakes is because during training camp last year, instead of watching the players, he was too busy eating the pancakes and hitting on girls.
Yes this would be a sad case. I will again lose my confindence in this FO, as I did when they stayed with Carr so long. Man just the thought is ticking me off. I use to root for Titans (of course because they were the old Oilers), but stopped rooting for them once we got the Texans. This would almost sway me back. Probably not, but I would be ............... They would have to do something to gain my respect back, especially if we miss the playoffs.
Wait, are you saying that if the Titans sign Peyton Manning, you would think about jumping ship to go root for them?? Without even knowing the circumstances behind the move, or whether or not Peyton is even healthy?? And then you're claiming that the Texans need to do something to earn your respect BACK, even though they were within one play of getting to the AFC Championship with a 5th round rookie at QB?? AND after having just locked up their stud RB for the next 5 years when they didn't have to?? To you, I say:
Read the whole thing, that was frustration talk. I said I would be ticked if the Titans won the division and we missed the playoffs. Not going to change teams, just would be frustrated. TY
Oh and I been a Texan fan since day 1. Not like most of the people on here. I root everything Houston (basketball, baseball, football, soccer, college), even when we suck.
They were 7-3 with him; 4-4 without him, including a loss to a 2-win, Peyton-less Colts team. They had flashes of "good" - and with Foster and that defense, you'll be in most games - but they were a decidedly worse team once Schaub went down. Remember, they were 6-6 in 2010 before winning their final 4. That marked the first time since 2002 they won fewer than 12 regular season games. So a lot of us saw a team on the decline even before Manning's injury. Not 2-14… but a struggle to win 9 would not have shocked a lot of us and, given how poorly that team played this year, 7-8 wins is probably more realistic. There’s no way *that* team, healthy Manning or not, wins 10+ games. But Manning isn't being licked up by numerous posters here because he'll lead us to regular season success - we all agree we can have that as is. This is about winning championships –which Manning doesn't do with any degree of even remote regularity. In fact, he's really bad at it. This is pure revisionist history. No team with James/Addai, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Freeny, Mathis, Sanders, Dungy - et al - all in their primes, could be considered anything but well above-average, with or without Peyton Manning. The Colts collapse was every bit a product of a lot of different things, including numerous poor drafts (they seriously haven't had a good one in years), poor coaching, and players getting older and/or hurt.
McNair: "We have a quarterback we like. No surprise Manning talk. Texans are ideal fit." His tone kinda leaves the door open, IMO Moe
Bob McNair on 610 right now... Asked about Peyton, he said we would definitely be Manning's preferred destination...he knows the team and we're close to a championship. But we're 'happy with our quarterback (Schaub)'. Teams that need a QB are taking a risk on him without even seeing him workout. I think we can put this to bed.
such an awful, awful, awful, awful attempt at a point. going to give you one shot to understand this, but am not going to engage in an argument with you over this, because, trust me, you are wrong here and you have none: you are using that point to strengthen the argument for a player who has ZERO PLAYOFF appearances in his career.
Thoughts on Peyton and thoughts on your team being linked to him? That's not surprising. He played in our division. If there was an ideal club and it was only his decision, it would be the Texans. They'd give him the best chance to win but we have a QB we're happy with. The teams he's talking to are the ones that don't have a QB. Those teams are taking a risk. I hope Peyton does recover but he says he's not at 100% now. It remains to be seen. Teams will have to deal with that. Yeah, we can put this to bed as DiehardRocket said.
What this tells me is that if Peyton said (and proved) that he was 100%, he would be a Texan right now. However, because he's saying he's not, as of right now, the Texans are not interested. If that changes, and he still hasn't signed, then look out. Not that it's ground-breaking stuff or anything.....the guy is one of the greatest QBs to ever take the field.
yeah, there is still ambiguity. why can't he just say "there is no chance whatsoever that we will look into peyton manning"?
What it told me, actually hearing it from Bob's mouth, is that Matt Schaub is our quarterback and we are not interested in anybody else, especially a guy that isn't sure to be healthy. Of course he didn't explain it that way but that is what he meant. If only this was with some real interviewers and not two guys that are basically Texans employees (Kalu and Vandermeer) we might have actually heard that. IMO there was absolutely no ambiguity -- he was just putting it delicately and avoiding absolutes just like they do with anything else. I just don't get this salivation over Peyton in a Texans uniform. It would not be an "automatic Super Bowl" just as the Colts were not automatics for the Super Bowl when they had a running game and a solid defense under Dungy. We don't have the money, he's not proven to be healthy, and he just doesn't fit our offense (Kubiak's scheme does not work if you give the QB the entire playbook to audible to and Peyton is at his best when given that freedom, not to mention Peyton would look even worse than Schaub on the rollouts). Bottom line is it would be stupid to revamp a top ten offense and a team poised for a Super Bowl run for a guy that might not even make it through another season.
Agreed they won't be pursuing Manning. That said I had to turn off that interview. It has been nothing but a fluff piece so far and the tidbits we were getting have now made me apprehensive that this is not going to be a productive offseason. It shocked me with the almost caviler approach they are taking with Briesel, Myers, and Williams. One would think they would be at least a little proactive but for all intents and purposes they are going to let them test the free agent market first and then hope they can work out a deal if they are still available. After his comments it wouldn't surprise me now if we lose all three.
Awful, awful, maybe - but awful, awful, awful, awful?... Oh, cardpire, I've missed you so. Your fundamental inability to grasp simple posits, your misplaced bluster, your unearned sanctimony.... This has nothing to do with Matt Schaub. My contention (for, like, the 3,214,546,756th time) is that Peyton Manning, independent of every other QB who has ever lived or will ever live, has never, ever been "a lock to getting to the super bowl." He's gone to postseason 11 times and been to the Super Bowl twice. I know you know this - I've posted it, like, infinity times. I also know you know that he's actually been one-and-done 7 times among those 11 trips because I’ve posted that, like, infinity x 3 times. Schaub is merely a baseline here because he’s our current QB. We actually don’t know what he’ll do in the postseason. But we do know they were on pace to win 11 games and were considered by most - yourself included - to be legitimate Super Bowl contenders last year with Schaub under center. So you're suggesting Peyton Manning is the guy to get us over a hump we don't even know if we'll have trouble getting over... and yet, Manning's career, which has nothing to do with Matt Schaub, is marked - repeatedly - by *not* getting over the hump. I'm dumbfounded you continue to pretend this isn't relevant. I know, I know: He’s better than Schaub. But if the overall results aren’t better – and Manning’s history suggests they wouldn’t be – then who cares?
