We haven't signed anybody in 5 days. Obviously, this means we're not going to sign anybody at all which means we'll try to fill all our holes through the draft. And if we're going to try to fill all needs via the draft, we're going to need more draft picks. Duh. #TexansFanLogic
Doritos? Mountain Dew? People are so knee jerk that they're ready to cut a player who still has value and can net us a draft pick in return.
Interesting take; forgot about the McGloin-BOB connection. I actually liked what I saw from McGloin last year. Would rather just have a higher draft pick though.
The Raiders were so far below the cap floor at the start of FA that Schaub's bloated contract might actually be a positive for them, or at the very least a non-issue.
IOW, all you can offer is a flaccid attempt to throw everyone off the scent of your big bag of nothing?... (For the record, I’m not spinning anything – it might be a slightly different take than the braying sheep you follow, but it’s a perfectly legitimate point of view. I’ve asked everyone to list the bad and unjustifiable contracts; no one can. The Texans have $6MM in dead money – that’s pennies. They have $13MM in cap space – their situation isn’t ideal but it’s not franchise-crippling, either.)
Agreed that Texans contracts are not the problem. It's the lack of development and production from our draft picks, and the lack of attention to significant problem areas like the o-line and passrush.
Lack of attention? Look at how many OL and pass rushers they've drafted since 2011. They paid plenty of attention to it. Problem is, the replacements haven't panned out. Particularly on the OL.
Only because of hindsight; both proved healthy and the injuries weren't of the nagging/recuring type. Any veteran contract is inherently risky; few still have their primes in front of them. So if you can take advantage of a circumstance and sign valuable players a bit below market value because they're hurt/recovering and don't have full leverage... Again, people need to at least recognize that each and every action has consequences. As troubling as the Schaub deal is, it is sooooooooooo much better than the Flacco deal, and in September/October 2012, more than a few of us thought Schaub was on a similar course. I'll remind everyone that Joe Flacco's salary in 2016 in $28MM.
At this point, I would be happy if we had to give Schaub a Flacco deal after he lead us to a SB win. At least then you know you are paying a little more for something that he already acheived as opposed to saving something and hoping he gets us there.
Hard to say that. I think if you polled everyone here they would trade Schaub and his deal for Flacco and his deal in a heartbeat. They're both overpaid, but Schaub is overpaid more. You can at least win with Flacco.
Tough call, but I'd have to say no with the way Flacco's deal is structured. He earned it, no doubt, but that playoff success looks like it was a bit of an anomaly for him. And they really can't get out of that contract until 2016 without eating a huge percentage of it. At least Schaub's allowed us to get out of it reasonably early (IE this offseason).
Then, WADR, those people are fools. Flacco is 29 and coming off his worst season as a pro (and he hasn't had a truly great season since 2010). Releasing him this or next year will cost you$38.2MM/$36.4MM; he essentially carries a $45.3MM silver bullet (which is the combined cap hit he'd net you in '14 or '15 with a release/trade). Again, this is for a guy that, other than four games two Januarys ago, has been a fairly pedestrian QB for the length of his career. Schaub's deal didn't work out but it was structured creatively to hold his big payday off until we (presumably) got to see him in not one but two postseasons. As is, a $10.5MM hit to walk away from a guy we all thought was the difference between losing to Baltimore and challenging NE for the AFC crown not even three years ago isn't that terribly irresponsible. And far less so than paying a uniformly average QB $28MM for one season.
The only difference is Baltimore is not the worst team in the league, still signing FA's and has a SB to show for it.
You're also conveniently leaving off the fact that Flacco's deal came as a direct result of a Superbowl. Something most people here would give their left nut for. Couch the question like this: Would you rather be a Ravens fan 2012-2017 or a Texans fan 2012-2017 and you might get a markedly one-sided response. Obviously it's an unfair question because we've got 3 more years to go in that hypothetical, but as of right now, even with Flacco's crap deal... the Ravens win that comparison. If Flacco goes off a cliff and the Texans get reborn without Schaub, then the conversation will change... but as of now, I don't think Vegas would bet on the Texans to be better than the Ravens the next 3 years.
Again, it's hindsight. We can't lose the context: sign Schaub when he's still unproven (and thus a little cheaper because he doesn't have the leverage) or wait and possibly get stuck behind the same rock the Ravens found themselves. Sure, I think we'd all happily help McNair pay Schaub $28MM in 2016 if he delivered a Super Bowl (and played as lights-out as Flacco did). I'm just arguing that the Texans' deal with Schaub wasn't as bad as most think; it was actually really smart. Unfortunately, when ticking off worst-case scenarios, I don't think anybody had Schaub turning into a small girl on their radar. So a smart, aggressive move with lots of upside got unexpectedly splattered against the wall.
dude, you need to realize that every NFL contract is subject to "hindsight"... and TBH... when he handed Schaub/Foster/Cushing those deals.. I cringed because I knew the Texans would regret it.. which obviously they do... #hindsight
LOL. Yes, you can lose the context, because this discussion is all about hindsight. We all know why the Texans did what they did. But it didn't work, and now they're open for criticism. Not that complicated. The Schaub deal was done with very poor timing, and due to his total implosion, has ended up worse than the Flacco deal. NFL execs are paid to have better predicative powers and business sense than that. I really would be curious to see how many Texans fans would trade places with the Ravens 2012-2017. I bet it would be a staggeringly lopsided "yes".
With Schaub’s deal, sure – we know how (poorly) it ends; we don’t have that luxury with Flacco’s. Not yet. So it's not apples to apples. But even with hindsight, Schaub’s was not a terribly egregious contract. In fact, it was designed to minimize the impact of Schaub potentially not working out, which is exactly what happened. They're going to eat cash - but that's the nature of this beast. All contracts carry significant risks. Just because the worst-case scenario spectacularly (and unexpectedly) materialized doesn’t invalidate the sound reasoning behind the deal *at the time they made the deal*. The deal is structured around the unknown; paying a QB of Schaub’s stature (2-4 weeks into the 2012 season) $18MM for two years is beyond reasonable. This is, again, why context is important – the Texans took a calculated risk in exchange for having greater leverage. I’m not suggesting it was the *right* decision; just a defensible one. Yeah, of course it would, Donny, because it's a silly idea. Who would trade a Super Bowl ring from two years ago for four yet-to-happen seasons in which the Ravens are, currently, a better team? But I’m more than willing to meet back in 2017 and revisit where everybody is; I have a sneaking suspicion it’s going to greatly favor the Texans. I don't think the Ravens are appreciably better team right now and I don't think they have an agreeably brighter future.
