Spoiler Indy 236 yards 2 to's 7 points 167 rushing MIA 306 yards 2 turnover 13 points 138 rushing Steelers 296 yards 2 turnover 13 points 109 rushing Titans 148 yards 1 turnover 7 points 222 rushing jags 174 yards 2 turnover 14 points 156 rushing Browns 172 yards 2 turnover 12 points 261 rushing bucs 231 yards 2 turnover 9 points 185 rushing You cannot make a serious argument that we would lose 3 of these games. On top of that for them to end up 7-9 and out of the playoffs, they would still have to lose to Tenn and Indy. That is foolishness. Our first team defense would have stomped Tenn just like the first go round.
He played in 10; won 7. And he rarely turned the ball over; that is such a HUGE key here (and why Schaub is so vital to this team). Yates, meanwhile, was a turnover machine. With the possibility of the offense routinely stalling at 10, 13, 17 points and turning the ball over more frequently, the defense has to play flawlessly every week, for 16 straight weeks, with no games off. That's asking a lot. It also removes any cushion, with regards to injury. They went 2-1 without Foster; do you think they go 2-1 without Foster and Schaub? I don't know about 7-9 - but there's no way they get to 10 wins with Yates starting 16.
You can make a legit argument Yates loses to Miami and Steelers, my feeling is he wins at least 1 of those putting them at 6-4. He won 3 games, and we kill Tenn if we play all our guys in Week 17. TJ had 3 picks in 6 regular season games, Schaub had 6 in 10 regular season games. 2.1% for Schaub. 2.2% for TJ.
Matt Schaub 3 fumbles, 1 lost plus 15 TDs. TJ Yates 5 fumbles, 3 lost and only 3 TDs. and for someone quicker and more elusive, TJ Yates was sacked 15 times, Schaub just 16.
Our offensive line play was bad after the bye, and it wasn't just about Briesel getting injured. None of that adds up to TJ only winning 7 games. 7 wins is delusional.
Delusional that the Texans win three less games with Yates starting from the beginning of the season? Come on now...
i won't prove how wrong this statement is because several other people already did. But I will say that this ridiculous statement is why no one can take what you say as even somewhat sensible and/or rational.
Tell me which 4 out of the 7 wins Schaub had, they would have actually lost with Yates so I can laugh at you.
That's wildly misleading. He only played 4 *full* regular season games; the other two "games" were (roughly) a half against Jacksonville (in which he threw 3 4Q passes) and the first series of the regular season finale. In his 4 full regular season starts, Yates threw 3 INTs and lost 3 fumbles. If we extend it to the postseason, it was 6 INTs, 3 fumbles in 6 starts. And don't forget: in the ATL game, a game-killing INT was wiped out by an off-the-ball flag, and Cincinnati dropped an easy pick in the WC game that might've changed the outcome, as well. He was a turnover machine, and that was with Kubiak sitting on him for long stretches. Schaub had 7 total TOs in 10 starts. If you throw out Jacksonville and Tennessee, since he didn't start/finish those two games, and include the playoffs, he was 3-3 as a starter. That's an 8-win pace. And he scored 17, 13, 16 and 13 points in 4 of those 6 games (1-3 record). And he broke 20 on the final play of the Cincinnati game. Delusional would be taking the "over" on a 5th round rookie who showed a propensity for turnovers and inability to consistently put points on the board. The defense was good; it wasn't THAT good.
You're being much too literal; much too black and white. It's not that easy. You have to consider Yates' performance and how that might have changed the overall dynamic. He turned the ball over a lot; the offense stalled more often and scored less; considerably less, in fact. The puts an extra burden on the defense - shorter fields to defend, on the field more... holding a team to a FG works with Matt Schaub; you can't afford that with Yates... how does it affect Phillips' approach and gameplan? Is he more aggressive? Do they get burned more often? Not only that, but 16 weeks of Yates = 16 weeks of footage for a guy that was actually an unknown 11 weeks into the season; teams would have known his limitations and weaknesses and exploited them, dropping the hammer on Foster and stalling what was, under Schaub, a pick-your-poison offense. He's not very good, and the team undoubtedly would have suffered with him under center for all 16 weeks.
You must not actually watch football games. Because if you do, you'd know that offense and defense are intertwined. An extra 2 minutes of TOP means 2 less minutes for defense to give up points. An extra 10 yards per drive means defense get 10 yards extra cushion to prevent points. More points scored means defense can tee off on opposing QBs because they have to pass rather than balance offense. Regardless of whether or not the Texans can win more than 7 games with Leinart/Yates, using defensive stats like that is utterly meaningless.
Actually I did watch those games, did you? 4 out of those 7 wins, the other teams offense was doing NOTHING against our defense. Bucs, Browns, Colts, and Titans were all totally dominated by our defense. He was not a turnover machine, that is false. His Int % was .1% off of Schaubs. That stat of course deals with INT/attempts (and not your fuzzy math of INT/game that you didn't include 2 games for for some odd reason). 8 quarterbacks had a lower %. Also we are talking about Schaub here, not Yates, but Schaub vs Not-Schaub. Not-Schaub threw 3 picks in the last 6 games so not including Jags and Titans makes zero sense. Non-Schaub was also in still position to tie the Titans game in Week 17 with a 3rd string defense and Foster, Owen on the bench. Andre on the bench for the second half, and a backup offensive line. I guess I am a homer if I say they would have won that game? lol. Therefore in order for them to not make the playoffs they would have to had a WORSE record than Tenn by owning the tiebreaker. That means 7-9, which means he would have lost 4 of the games that Schaub won. Tell me which ones they are so I can have a good laugh.
That's simply way too simplistic, Casey. You can't just look back at each game individually, plug in Yates production for Schaub's and say we still would have won. Over the course of a season each game affects the next, and every time you re-play a game it's going to develop in a different way. For one, I think this team built up a lot of confidence and belief in themselves by the time Yates took over. If they started with Yates, and like you conceded lost to the Steelers and started out 2-4? That feeling of confidence is replaced with "here we go again." Don't try to downplay the importance of that. And this has been touched on already, but don't assume we win against Atlanta and Cincy again when they have 10 games of Yates tape to study. Also have to reiterate what others are saying. If this offense wasn't pumping out points and long drives you can't assume the defense plays as well as it does. The 2nd Indy game is a good example. The offense never threw a knock-out punch and allowed the Colts to hang around till the last drive, at which point our D was exhausted. There's no reason the Dolphins, Browns, or Bucs could not have won in similar fashion.
the non-Schaub led Texans lost to IND. LOST TO THE INDIANAPOLIS COLTS! THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. a game they were trying to win. and you think it's inconceivable that it could have happened another 4 times in the season?
Riiiiiight...............so our offensive line was playing terrible, and Yates was getting nailed on free rushers against Carolina, then Indy rolls in and Kubiak holds Yates to 16 attempts (13 completed) in an attempt to protect him yet he STILL gets sacked 4 times. Mathis had Winstons number the entire game. Schaub never dealt with that. Plus your argument is what? I didn't count this as a win. For the Texans to NOT make the playoffs they would have had to lose 4 more games before the bye week, when the o-line was playing well.
yes, it was the offensive line's fault that the Texans could barely eek out 16 points per game after the bye. it had nothing to do with a 5th round QB who couldn't read or adjust to a defense, a QB who would lock into one receiver as soon as the ball was snapped. Schaub never dealt with pressure? how about Schaub is just plain better at dealing with pressure because he's a much better QB? the point of my previous post is if a Yates-led Texans couldn't beat the bottom of the barrel IND Colts, it's not that far fetched to think they would have lost other games. maybe not 4 games, but another 2 losses and we're not in the playoffs. so what is your argument? that the Texans are just as good with Yates? you claim he's not a turnover machine when it comes to INTs but you've ignored his fumbles lost. those count as turnovers too.
Mind you, TJ was being "protected" by Kubiak with more vanilla, less risky play-calling. TJ: 26.4 pass attempts per game 6 picks 5 fumbles (3 lost) 1 turnover per 20.55 passing plays Schaub: 29.2 pass attempts per game 6 picks 3 fumbles (1 lost) 1 turnover per 41.71 passing plays You were saying...?
what is my argument? my argument is you would have to be functionally r****ded if you think the texans would have only won 7 games this year playing Not-Schaub all year. I thought I was pretty clear. You and Donny can talk about 3 fumbles all you want remember the one "fumble" against ATL that looked exactly like an incomplete pass? Remember Winston getting owned by Mathis and letting him go wherever he wanted? I have already addressed the funny math that hey now started and Donny has decided to take up not including all of the Not-Schaub QB's and then making them per game stats. Just tell me which of those 4 games we lose, let me laugh, and we can all move on. That isn't true. They only miss the playoffs with a 7-9 record.
