This team will never win anything with Brock Osweiler at QB!

Again, I'm not saying the meeting makes a difference or not. I'm not saying this argument makes a difference or not! Ha! It's a mostly pointless argument.

I'm just pointing out the relative lack of contact between Bill O'brien and Brock Osweiller before the Texans decided to hand him a huge contract that makes him the defacto starting QB for the next two years.... well, seems insane, even recognizing such a meeting likely changes nothing.

And as an aside, yes, coaches do often go to those NBA free agent meetings, and even when they don't, its nowhere close to apples to apples. This is the Bill Obrien regime in Houston. Not the Rick Smith regime. Whereas in the NBA, with DM for instance, it's his regime more than the coaches he's hired under him.

 

SMH....Well damn!! I stand corrected, but all that said, Brock is still PURE garbage....and apparently there is a pattern here by an inept organization determined to be average to below average at the QB position at all times.

Google that.

 

No team is tailor made to waste picks. It's not like the Patriots are churning out SBs every year... plenty of holes to fill on that roster, still.

But look, I get there IS luck involved. The Seahawks weren't drafting QB after QB for years until one worked. They landed the one that really worked. And the Redskins took the tack of drafting 2 one year, and one can argue the success of that (aside from trading all those picks for RG3, I'd actually argue it was at least somewhat effective...)

I just can't get past the importance of the QB position in football, the uniqueness of that importance (there's no single position that is so important in basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, etc.... there's nothing quite like the QB position), and how the Texans have gotten it wrong so often. Clearly not every team out there nails that position either. But the ones that don't... well, that's not a group you aspire to be in!

I'm not saying they should be drafting a QB every year... but on the other hand, why not?

And I'm not saying QB is the only position that matters. Andrew Luck clearly isn't winning anything until that team as a whole improves.
But, conceding that it is probably more about luck at the QB position than other positions, since you are never really sure how they'll pan out, once you have Andrew Luck, a competent front office should be able to build a winner around hi, that because of him then has the chance to also win a SB. As opposed to building a competent team that is capped at how far they can get. And I'm not saying I enjoy 2-14 seasons, or 4-12 seasons or whatever. I'd be very disappointed in that, too.

But if its that, with a plan to address QB, that's ok. That's what Bill came in and did.... EXCEPT, the QB plan seems to have really sucked so far.

And I give Brock a lot of leeway here. Play calling sucks. O-line isn't great. Hopkins seems off. Etc. But there's no way getting around how bad he's been. They are, fundamentally, worse at the position than they were last year. Sure, they got blanked by the Chiefs. But they've been blanked or near so against all good teams this year, too. Brock can turn it around, sure, but those odds seem increasingly against him.

 

And yet the team is 5-3 even with all of the injuries....google that.

 

And will get stomped as usual when they have to play teams with ACTUAL QB talent, good coaching, proper scheme, direction, etc.

You're clearly a fan, and props to you...but that trickle down your back aint rain....it's piss.

You keep drinking that kool-aid if you want to homie.

 

I'm certainly not qualified to be a GM, and clearly QB evaluation is really really hard... but here's what I said about a couple things this off-season...

On Brock: "I will wait and see on this move. I'm not enamored by it, but then I can understand the move... they realize they have to hitch their wagon to some kind of "future QB" and aren't enamored with what they see in the draft. I just don't see star potential with Brock, but who knows..."
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/texans-sign-brock-osweiler.273154/page-12#post-10358899

On Dak: "I admit to having overlooked Dak also, just because he wasn't so consistently brought up as a top option. But then you take a step back, and Russell Wilson comparison's aside, this is a dude that isn't the tallest, but has the size, had 2 really solid years as a Jr/Sr..... There is something about him that makes you think he might not be an Aaron Rodgers type, but could come in and start immediately as a game manager that could take the team far in the playoffs, and get better as a QB prospect himself over the years.. frankly very similar to Wilson, or even Tom Brady, who was the ultimate game manager at first."

Of course... I've also been on the Goff bandwagon. Will be interesting to see how he performs if he ever gets to play...

 

LOL, they got beat by 3 of the best teams in the NFL and no one else despite missing

JJ Watt
Nick Martin
Devon Still
KJ Dillon
Kevin Johnson
Derek Newton
Duane Brown (at first)
Stephen Anderson (for several games)
Will Fuller (for a while)
Quintin Demps
Kurtis Drummond
Braxton Miller (for a few games)
Jonathan Grimes
Eddie Pleasant

They've had to run a patchwork O line and patchwork secondary while missing the best defensive palyer in the NFL all while having a new QB....how many teams overcome that to win 5 games total?

 

You're right. It is pointless but let me just add
When Morey was showing up at free agent's houses at midnight, the coach wasn't with him. When Cuban was chasing down Deandre Jordan, Carlisle wasn't riding shotgun.

I'm not sure how you're coming up with whose "regime" it is but Rick Smith hired the head coach not the other way around. It would seem it is Rick Smith's. Sorry, another pointless argument

 

I've got the impression, and thought it was widely agreed, that Rick Smith isn't one of the "power" GMs of the league. He works with the HC at the time, and with McNair, contorting to their preferences more than putting his stamp on things.

 

That's exactly what he is......

He's the Tommy (see: Martin and RIP) of NFL General Managers.

 

Texans are one of the more secretive teams in the NFL and no one knows who's in charge of what usually. Even 610 nor 790 couldn't figure it out.

If this Brock thing doesn't work out, BOB is gone and maybe so is Rick Smith. Who is to say McNair won't keep Brock around and blame his failure on the system? I mean he called Brock a rookie!

 

According to this chart, Oz has thrown 54 bad passes out of 294 total passes. That's 18.2%

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-bad-pass-percentage/2016/

 

That's pretty bad but not altogether surprising given the patchwork nature of the O line and the fact that the sample includes some really good defenses (the #1, #3, #5, and #8 ranked defenses) in a fairly small sample of only 8 games.

 

look at tim 'cooch' and that brady dude's bad passing numbers.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-bad-pass-percentage/2001/

didn't know they kept this stat since the late 90s.

 

Brock Osweiler is a bad starting NFL QB.

This isn't a surprise to anyone except Rick Smith and Grampa McNair. Hell if you believe the reports out last week; even Brock knows he is bad.

Those butts will keep filling up Reliant and McNair will keep getting richer and Rick Smith will keep calling the shots... nothing changes.

 

Yet the Pats marched out their third string QB and Gronk only playing 17 snaps. Completely embarrassed by that 3rd string QB and shutout on national TV.

Embarrassed yet again by the APless Viking and Teddy bridgwater out also. Bradford playing only his fourth game with his new team.

Crushed by the Broncos, that had lost their two last games and seemed vulnerable, on yet another nationally Televised game

3 of those 5 wins were only by the skin if their teeth against the very bad Colts, Titans and Bears. These are teas that a good team would crush.

Will not say the Texans are garbage but they sure as **** not good but Brock is just an awful QB. Just awful and will not win anything with

 

sigh. I see the bye week started early.

 

Yeah....you do realize that those are arguably the 3 best teams in the NFL right? I mean, by any standard they are all 3 top 10 teams in the league.....exactly how good do you expect the Texans to be without all of those players? Is it absolutely elite or bust?

You know what all 5 have in common though? They were wins. There was a season where the Patriots never beat a team with a winning record at any point during the regular season.....know what we called them after that season? NFL champions.

This isn't the NCAA, style points mean nothing at all, when you win games, you win them. If they go 5-3 in the last 8 they'll win the division for the 4th time in 6 years....that's called dominance......or at least that's what people called it when it was the Colts doing that instead of the Texans. Sure, it's dominance of a weak division, but you can always whine about any level of accomplishment if you just really want to. Again, that's not what was said when the Colts were the team doing so.

Point is, they aren't as unsuccessful as a great many "fans" seem to think. The problem is that they just have a terrible fanbase for the most part. A bunch of bandwagoners and fair weather types.

 

They're 5-3. Things could actually be a lot worse given the injury situations and overall schedule.

And yes, it would be embarassing if a city of 6 million+ people couldn't sell out 8 home games.... really not sure what you're advocating for.

 

not a question worth answering. Injuries happen it is football it is apart of the game. No team comes out the regular/postseason unscathed and all teams end up missing key players. The point here is Brock sucks. And I can ask you just as stupid question a about the games against the patriots(Brady and Gronk) and Minny (Peterson and Bridgewater). You something along the lines of just how bad would the Texans have gotten beaten had they played?

correct a win is a win whether it is 1 point or 30 but is to much to ask that you atleast compete against those "Super Bowl teams", of which the Pats are really the only ones? And my point was you brought up the Texans injury history all the while glossing over the other teams and now dismiss it. But I guess it is okay lose the games against actually good teams so long as you beat the bad teams with said logic it's okay if the Texans never make to the Super Bowl because they made the playoffs. If wanting more out of my team makes me a bandwagon fan then call be a bandwagon fan.

Yes the Texans have been or rather are a successful team. A successful treadmill team that makes the playoffs here and there but nothing more. Getting in because the AFC south is a complete joke. Asking for progress is just to much to ask for