They also had an OC who has that title more because of his last name instead of actual smarts or career accomplishments.
Oh, I always considered "Johnny Football" to be a joke anyway. I never could see how his "style" translated to the NFL stage. He was too much of a media w**** and entitled brat to be seriously considered to be a starting NFL QB. And yet, he beat out Hoyer which fills me with soooo much optimism now that BoB has named Hoyer as his starter. No, the situation is not dire but it is in no way great. The best that can be said is that the Texans are threading water once again. Is that enough? No but it will have to do for now.
There's no reason Brian Hoyer can't be '14 Ryan Fitzpatrick, 2.0; a competent QB who doesn't bury the team with poor decisions and is coached up by an intelligent staff that shapes the game plan to accentuate his strengths and hide his weaknesses. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a *good* situation. But I trust they will maximize it.
Will Ryan Fitzpatrick 2.0 be better than 1.0? Or better than 1.0 in year 2? This is the only thing I don't get. They pretty much replaced Fitz with Hoyer? Even if Hoyer ends up being better than Fitzpatrick, it can't be by that much. They just swapped mediocre with mediocre. I would have rather had mediocre in year 2 than mediocre in year 1. But I like I said previously, there must have been something in RF that coach just didn't like.
I find it funny that people are legitamently upset Ryan Mallet isn't starting. It's like Texans fans just love the idea of going into the realm of the unknown, but don't really consider the very real opportunity that it won't pan out at all. Yes, us as the fans haven't been able to see Mallet get a fair chance so we have no idea how good he is. Have the coaches? YES! If he hasn't been good enough to start over 2 mediocre journeymen veteran QB's then I'm not sure he has all of this crazy potential some posters on here thinks he has.
Watching when O'B broke the news to the qb's, Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Hoyer. Basically he told Hoyer if he F's up that Mallett will be there ready to take over. I was hoping that Mallett would get the job but after watching that I felt sorry for Hoyer. Hoyer will have so much pressure on him now that I don't see how he can succeed.
The fundamental problem is that you only want to take a QB who "guaranteed to be a franchise savior". As long as that is the standard, you'll just endlessly neglect the position because those only come around once a decade, and the odds of you having the top pick that year are slim to none. And you'll perpetually end up with Hoyers and Malletts and the like. Most teams actually take risks to find their franchise QBs. As you said, the Titans - who failed so far at finding a QB - are no closer than the Texans to being a champion. But the other way to look at is that they are also no further. If any of those many attempts work out (VY, Mettenberger, Mariota, etc), they will be closer. Their upside is higher while their downside not really much worse. They might go 5-11 instead of 8-8, but that just means another opportunity at a QB.
You say that but we never know how far the Texans might have gone if they had been healthy a few years back. The Titans are a joke and have been for a while now. Their path led to awful results, the Texans have always been at least competitive.
Nah, I'm all for giving up draft picks to pick up a QB (either young backup, or higher up in draft) that has the needed prequesite skills (body type, arm strength, accuracy, etc.) that make it a worthwhile investment. I would have been for a Matt Schaub-like trade this year. I just think when there are holes everywhere, you're better off attempting to fill as many of those as possible before taking a gamble on a QB. Are you kidding me? They're on their 3rd different regime since VY (which coincides with 3 different QB's selected). A lot of the rest of the team was neglected or just was unable to improved thanks to resources devoted into trying to find the next great QB... and thus predictably when the QB didn't work out, there wasn't much salvageable elsewhere as well. I'd say a downside of having to go through a whole new coaching/GM search, hire totally new staff which usually results in a vast shuffling of the roster (regardless of the talent already there) is a pretty big downside. Whisenhunt's clock has likely already started going into year 2... if his team has a similar bottoming out performance this year, he's going to be on the hot seat before he could even build anything of note. Same goes for the Jaguars coach. The Titans fan base is deseperatley pinning a ton of hope on to Mariota... when in reality, he may need a good 2-3 years before he, or the team, is even close to being ready. But in the "get good now" world of the NFL, and based on where he was picked, he's not going to have a lot of the luxury that most young QB's should require. He may survive another regime change (as David Carr did), but the odds get slimmer and slimmer at that point. The Texans could very well peak similarly to Arizona did... as they fell into the right situation with Palmer (with the team relatively built up everywhere else). They could also poach a promising backup somewhere ala the Matt Schaub trade (although I have no clue who the candidates are right now). There's just that many QB failures that have led to automatic regime changes (and some of those failures are very much the team failing the QB) that its not just as simple as "pick a QB every year till you find the right one."
Buncha Hoyer clones QB'ing those teams. I don't understand how you can honestly think this, and think that anything else is silly, but how about we make these 2 bets for $1k each: #1: I'll bet you that the Texans, Jaguars, Titans, or Browns do not win the Super Bowl this season. #2: I'll bet you that the Seahawks or Patriots win the Super Bowl this season. Should be a no-brainer, insta-accept for you, mathematically. You get 4 teams, I get 2. All 6 have an equal shot at winning the Super Bowl. So, being 6-7 going into week 15 and winning out gives them a realistic shot at making the playoffs is a successful season to you? Interesting. I'll give you credit - you've got a good chance at enjoying most seasons. Can't argue with that. Just not enjoyable to me, especially after 12 years of mostly aggravation. Plus the Oilers.
Like I said, I wasn't arguing, it's a matter of preference. But too many seasons have gone by for me to get satisfaction out of a season like that at this point. "This season was enjoyable given the circumstances" just doesn't do anything for me. What the hell do you care that we were 9-7 last year? Are those fond memories to look back on?
What's a successful season to you then... Super Bowl win? Many here weren't really satisfied with the Texans "only" making the 2nd round of the playoffs. Unfortunately, by that standard, there are only 3 or 4 teams out of 32 that end up having a successful season. I'm more concerned about finding the right coach/staff to not only provide some stability to a yo-yo'ing organization, but also provide some sustained success.
What you said right there is exactly what matters to me. Getting a team in place (like the early 90's Oilers) that is in the playoffs every year, with a good shot at a ring if things break our way. A sustained stretch like that is a successful era to me. We're in a holding pattern right now until we find a real QB. I don't consider any seasons a success until then. I think we have a good coach/staff (FO not included) in place, but that doesn't matter much if we never have a QB who doesn't suck.
Pretty sure BOB knows that he'll need to find a QB capable of a lot if he wants to win it all... but till that opportunity presents itself, I do like the foundation that is being put in place (along with his flexible game-planning skills).
Hoyer's younger, has more upside. That's the difference. It's not too far removed from rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic...
