I don't think he really needs to step it up as much as he needs to stay healthy. I would take the Matt Scaub the we had at the beginning of last season for a whole season. They never said he was injured but he couldn't throw the ball at the end of the season like he did at the beginning of the season.
Well, he played every game last season, right? As for the next three years, what do you want them to do? Is there a realistic scenario out there where we can land a better QB than Schaub?
but not against the ravens or broncos/ steelers? . I don't have faith in you SMH at the author of books.
Well, they were 15-1 the year before. They were not your typical 2-3 team when they came to Reliant. 2 of those losses were very flukey (Seattle and Indy) and they went on to go 9-2 after they beat us. So yeah, they were a very good team due for a big win. Look, I am not a Schaub lover. He played horrible down the stretch last year and that was a big part of why we wilted after the 11-1 start. All I'm saying (and continue to say) is that the team had other problems last year besides QB. The defense was decimated by injuries at LB and our running game never got started. I always find myself defending Schaub around here because so many people seem to think that everything that goes wrong is his fault and everything that goes right happens in spite of him. It's just not a very analytical way of thinking. Just sounds like a typical sports talk radio caller whining about the coach and QB so he can hear himself talk on the radio.
I don't think anyone would disagree that that the team had other problems. But the point the "anti-Schaub" people make is that you try to address all the problems - saying the LBs suck doesn't lessen the need to fix other problems. People who are pro-Schaub believe he's not part of the problem - and that's where a legitimate disagreement comes from. But it has nothing to do with anyone believing Schaub is or was the ONLY problem.
I guess I'm in the middle then. I don't consider him elite by any measure, but I certainly think we can win a Superbowl with him. If the defense plays like it did 2 years ago, we just need Schaub to minimize mistakes.
I agree with all of that - but that's the Trent Dilfer argument. If the defense and running game are top-3 caliber, you could win a Superbowl with about half of the QBs out there, so I don't think it speaks much about Schaub. The anti-Schaub people would argue that if you could get a better QB, you would have more margin for error and wouldn't need both the running game and the defense to be elite. I would agree with that group as well - the problem is finding a QB better than Schaub is not necessarily easy, so its understandable that they are "stuck" with him. But I don't think that should preclude a team from looking or trying if the opportunity presents itself. I think it's frustrating when people use "well, we could win with him if everyone else was awesome" as a defense of him.
Like you, in this argument that never seems to end nor will it until schaub's retirement, I've never said he was elite. He can play like the 14th best qb to the 7th best qb in the leauge and on certain sundays play like the best of them, but it's the consistency that separates the schaubs/gannons from the bradys. But what I don't get is this myth that only Matt schaub needs the defense and oline to come through to hold the lombardi trophy. I've never seen a QB do it by himself, ever. People can name an elite qb and I can state with evidence that they don't win if not for special teams/defense. Honestly, I don't trust schaub against the patriots. It's now a mental thing. Just like I don't Brady against the Ravens D. Just like I don't trust Rodgers against that 2010 bears D, if briggs had intercepted that pass instead of urlacher, briggs scores a td and bye bye superbowl for Rodgers. Just like I don't trust Peyton Manning against any playoff defense. We will be glorious this year. I can feel it. We just need to avoid brady and the little midget receivers. Nice to have cushing back for those games though if it comes down to that.
But this simply isn't true. Several SB winners have not had elite running games *and* defenses. Green Bay barely had a running game at all. New Orleans' defense was nothing spectacular, if I remember correctly. The most recent Giants team was pretty mediocre to bad all around. The Indy SB team was one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Baltimore last year wasn't top 10 passing or running or on defense - they won games a variety of different ways, including sometimes on defense and sometimes on the back of Ray Rice, and other times on the back of Joe Flacco. It doesn't necessarily take an elite running and elite defense to win. It generally takes an elite *something* and then competence elsewhere. For many of those teams above, the elite *something* was the QB.
Schaub is one tough cookie to figure out. There have been times in his career where he looked like a top notch QB. The game against Washington in 2010 comes to mind, he had a couple of games last year where he racked up yards when the defense wasn't doing their part. But he just fell apart towards the end of last year, which is why people don't have faith in him. The Patriot losses were tough to watch, but for some reason the Minnesota game really sticks out in my mind as the game where he looked the most inept and where I really began to have big concerns. He seemed to have diminished arm strength towards the end of the year and his lack of mobility really shows through when the offensive line isn't at its best. What magnifies the dissatisfaction that people have for him is the extension the Texans gave him after the Miami game. It's honestly is hard for me to see how they could have just let him play out his contract year and regretted not extending him. I tell every year myself not to get excited about preseason performances (thanks Jacoby Jones), but I really like what I've seen from Keenum and I think that his mobility could do wonders for this team, especially considering that it seems like the problems on the right side of the line still haven't been fixed.
new orleans defense was amazing at creating turnovers, the giants at providing hurries on the QB. When we didn't have a running game, the passing game was at its purest to the point where schaub played action with no running backs in the backfield and the defenses still bit. In Indy's SB run manning was utter crap, the defense played like the 86 bears once the playoffs started. but you're right before the playoffs, ron dayne went off for 160 yards. It's crazy to expect even elway to throw more than 28 tds in the kubiak/Mike S. offense. Infact, Schaub has that record. It will always be a balanced once. Granted schaub is the slowest of Elway, Plummer and Griese. I agreed having those legs would add an extra punch to the offense but it is what it is. Just have to hold protection and we will be fine.
Anecdotally, sure, OK. Factually? No. In his most recent two full seasons, Peyton Manning has faced 10 playoff teams (’10 and ’12) and is 3-7 (including playoffs). Brady? 7-7. Rodgers? 7-6. I could do this all day long. Matt Schaub is 5-7 the past two years. Worse, sure (well, not worse than PeePee – but no one is arguing he’s as good as those guys so this isn’t earth-shattering) – but not appreciably worse. (And keep in mind, he missed four games against playoff teams in 2011; the Texans were 3-1 without him. He doesn’t get credit but… that ’11 team was very, very, very good…) Elite QBs, from a W-L perspective, have always cleaned-up on, yep – the Jacksonvilles and Tennessees of the league. And go roughly .500 against the good ones. This has been true for ever and a day.
Major, you run to this often, and it is continually refuted - here's just one example. Bottom line: you can't name a single otherwise mediocre champion that was carried by an elite QB during the postseason. The Ravens last year were absolutely lifted by elite QB play in the postseason… but let’s not discount Anquan Boldin’s all-world performance or the work of the defense, which held the Colts (who averaged 23 points/game) to 6 and the Patriots (who averaged 35 points/game and had just dropped 42 on the Texans) to 13. They also scored a defensive TD in a 3-point victory (Broncos) and a special teams TD in another 3-point victory (49ers). I just don’t understand how people are so 100% sure Schaub can’t win 3 (or 4) playoff games in a row when the guy has won 73% of his last 26 starts. I get some skepticism - heck, I have skepticism... but the certainty of some of it…
Except this doesn't refute anything I said - in fact, it just agrees with it. I said you need to be elite somewhere and competent in other areas and that you don't have to be elite both running the ball and on defense. Your post says exactly that: Yes, the Packers’ defense was terrible last year. But they allowed 68 fewer points than the ’10 Texans and forced 20 more turnovers (38 to 18), which was tied for the most in football. That was at least a functionally competent defense. Last year, they were terrible both running the ball and defensively (though very good passing - 8th overall) – but they only went 9-7 (despite only playing 4 teams that won 9 or more games) and won a division in which no one else finished above .500 Yes, Peyton Manning carried some otherwise average teams (though they were always stacked with talent). Peyton Manning is also arguably the greatest QB to ever play in the National Football League. If we have to trot Peyton Manning out to discredit Matt Schaub, I’d argue it’s an indication Schaub is doing pretty well. This is exactly what I said. Elite QB means you can be not-elite in other areas and still win, and those are examples of teams that didn't have elite running games and defenses. Schaub wins when the rest of his team is elite. The above are examples of QBs not just winning when the rest of the team isn't elite, but winning a SB that way. You just pointed to some. Well of course. No one has claimed that the other players wouldn't ever step up and a QB would do everything by himself - after all, you're generally playing other great teams and great QBs in the playoffs. A mediocre defense still has it's moments. It doesn't mean they are mediocre every single game - it means they have bad games and good games. To win 3 games in the playoffs, you probably need to have more good ones than bad, so whoever wins is obviously going to have players make big plays. That doesn't change the fact that those units were mediocre units over the course of the season. What part of this: If the defense and running game are top-3 caliber, you could win a Superbowl with about half of the QBs out there, so I don't think it speaks much about Schaub. Implied that the team can't win with Schaub? You seem to have significant reading comprehension problems and seem to be creating a strawman because you've gone so far down the rabbit hole trying to convince people that Schaub is awesome. He's not. He's average or maybe slightly above average. When the team around him is great, he wins. When it's not, he doesn't. That's different than elite QBs who do win when the team around them has significant weaknesses.
Yeah, I think I'm about done waiting for Schaub to improve. Dwight Howard might have a small window left to improve his offensive post-game, but he's 27 and we're talking about a 32-year-old QB. Schaub is who he is, I ain't trippin'. There is no one out there available who is better than him, but thankfully this team isn't built to depend themselves on Matt Schaub's arm alone.
