So which one of those metrics was Fitz deemed to be good at prior to BOB getting his hands on him? There are way too many variables in all those above metrics as well. I'm not saying W's-L's are the only factor... but you don't have much basis to completely write it off (or say you'd accept a 3-13 QB starter over a Super Bowl QB starter if the previous starter had better "stats"... which again are team dependent). You really aren't giving enough credit to the mental aspect of the game... knowing where/when to throw it is just as important as how you throw it. There have been plenty of QB's who look the part, with huge arms, big frames, who ultimately fail because of this. As far as those "greatest QB seasons ever" argument... that is entirely subjective depending on how you value a QB's true impact on the game/team/win's. Brady's 16-0 regular season could have been the greatest QB season ever. Montana's 1989 season (culminating in a SB win) is right up there too.
That doesn't follow that logic at all, just because QB performance isn't the only factor in team success doesn't mean you should play an inferior QB when you have a better option. Could the Texans still manage to win games despite Hoyer? Possibly....but that wouldn't mean that the team wouldn't be better off with a better QB who brings more to the table. Let's not forget that in Hoyer's last 4 starts he threw 8 picks and had only 1 TD, that's a lot for teams to overcome. He has a noodle arm, he doesn't get the ball out quick enough to avoid sacks, and he isn't a particularly accurate QB. I just don't see any positives here.
What did he (and others) fail to understand? This is pretty cut and dried. Give me a QB who performs well with a 3-13 record over a QB who performs terribly yet his team manages to win the SB. Would you rather have a great performing QB on the Texans, but the Texans finish 3-13 or would you rather have a crummy QB who leads the league in all the wrong stats, but the Texans win the Super Bowl?
Who is the better option? I double-dog dare you to look up Fitz's last few starts for the t*tties before BOB got him.
It's simply an argument between those who prefer metrics that show a QB's actual performance vs those who prefer "just winz" You bring up Brady's 2007 season when his team went 16-0, that happens to be one of, if not his best ever season, but it's not his best season because his team won a lot, it's his best because of his individual performance. If he had played poorly but his team still won 16 games, some would still think he performed great, but that wouldn't have been the case. Same story with Montana, his 89 season happened to be a very good season for him, but it had nothing to do with the SB win. If you looked at Fitz before he was on the Texans, you see seasons where he had a very high completion percentage and a ton of yards, you could see that as a reason to believe he could cut down on the interceptions and have a decent year....he did just that last year. There's more to it than that, but the point is that his 27-49-1 record going into last year meant less than nothing....just as Vince Young's 31-19 record still means nothing. Just as Mark Sanchez's 4-2 playoff record means nothing, just as Joe Flacco's 10-5 playoff record means nothing,
Yeah, it's pretty cut and dried, I'd rather have a great performing QB with a bad win loss record be my QB than one that is awful who happened to be QB on a SB winning team. Should be obvious and really easy to understand, but I know some will fail. The better option is Mallett.
The only reason I'm disappointed is because Mallet couldn't win the job. O'Brien knows what he's doing with quarterbacks and he just sees more in Hoyer to help us win this season. Before people complain about play calling in the preseason, it was vanilla last season too but was very good in the regular season. If there's anyone that can get the most of a QB its BoB. FitZpatrick recently stated that he learned the most in his season with us than he has in any other season. I'm willing to give Hoyer a chance because we all had the same reaction to Fitz and he was manageable. But the most likely scenario this entire time was that neither of the QBs on this roster was going to be that guy going forward. I'm worried because the 2016 draft doesn't look to have a standout QB besides maybe Hackenberg who will be gone by the time we pick. And from what I've read, the 2017 draft looks pretty bad in terms of QB talent.
Not sure if anybody has been asinine enough to look at "just wins"... except for the person saying he'd prefer the 3-13 QB if he put up good numbers. You're the one who said the two best QB seasons ever ended up on teams that went 7-9.... I just gave you, IMO, two of the best QB seasons ever that were on teams that were in the Super Bowl. Those QB's performances had a lot more to do with those wins than the seasons you're quoting. And I'm still trying to decipher your logic about how Montana's very good season for him had nothing to do with a SB win... He had a ton of yards playing on losing teams that were throwing the ball a lot more... its no shock that his overall best season (in terms of wins, completion %, and interceptions) also featured a career low in passing yards/game as a starter. Again, nobody is saying the record is everything... but it is something.
Based on what? Your eye test? Wishful thinking? You seem like you want to be the smartest guy in the room... and yet you're not willing concede that people with infinitely more access to game footage, live footage, meetings, discussions, practices, and actual game situations could actually have a better idea of who gives this team the best chance to win in 2-3 weeks. You've also yet to concede that QB's are capable of improving in the right situation. In fact, I'm pretty sure I had this exact same argument with you last year when you were saying the same garbage about Mallett that you're currently saying about Hoyer.
Oh, I misunderstood you, I thought you were just trying to give examples of good seasons. If you think those were the best 2 ever....well you're wrong. It's not even debatable. Team accomplishment is literally nothing when the conversation is about individual performance. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but there's really nothing that will change that. That's something that should be intuitive, but I guess some just don't get it. That's okay, there's always room for the sports talk caliber of fans.
Based on his quick release and strong arm. Mallett took no sacks in the preseason, Hoyer did. Neither had terribly good protection. When you have 2 guys that perform similarly you take the one that takes no sacks, has the stronger arm, and doesn't turn the ball over. If there was a fair QB competition, Mallett would be the guy. Not at all, I'd prefer to not be but....well. Maybe I need to pick the rooms that I'm in better. If I thought there was a fair QB competition and that was the result they came up with, then fine. I don't think that's the case here. Sure, miracles can happen.....they can happen to you, but hoping Publisher's Clearninghouse comes knocking on the door isn't a solid plan. You must have a terrible memory.
By what metric? If you take a combination of QB rating and team performance (which is impacted by how the QB plays), they most certainly are. 1994 Steve Young is up there too. I'm sorry if you don't understand that in a sport where the QB is considered the most important position, the individual performance should also have an impact on the team performance. Certainly there have been exceptions... and if the Texans win it all this year, it likely is an exception-type year (even if Mallet had been tabbed)... but largely, give me a QB that not only performs well/doesn't make mistakes, but also wins. And that last comment by you is pretty petty... just reeks of desperation at this point as you dig your own grave with your polarizing stances.
Again, you're refusing to even acknowledge that there is much more to the evaluation process than meaningless pre-season games. While BOB doesn't say much, he did say he couldn't care less about using pre-season game performances to make his decisions. The way these guys practice and make decisions in the film room very much impacts what's going to happen on Sunday. You make mistakes there, it will happen on Sunday. Hell, it even happened in the meaningless pre-season games with Mallet. But go ahead with your theory that it was "unfair"... based on absolutely nothing.
How many times to I have to explain to you that team performance means literally nothing when comparing individual players? Unless you can figure out that is the case and understand why that is the case, there's no point in continuing this discussion. It just shows a fundamental misunderstanding that can't be overcome.
Of course he didn't use pre-season game performances to make the decision, he made the decision months ago when Hoyer signed. There was no legitimate QB competition because if there was, Hoyer wouldn't have "won" it.
