Bob McNair: We’re working on getting a quarterback

Bob deserves zero trust when it comes to QB's.

 

You just cursed them for going with an unproven QB... I realize you stipulated "overpay" - but do you really think there's a better QB in this draft at #22? If not, you're going to have to pay to move up...

Good QBs are rarely free,

I don't know... what does "doesn't work out" look like? No QB has worked out yet - and BOB is 18-14 with a division championship in two seasons.

If they sign him to a 15-year, $12000000000000 contract, sure - the clock will start. But if he signs for... 3 years/$45MM with a wink-wink agreement to revisit if he proves to be worthy... I mean, it's not going to cripple the team.

Front-load the deal in year 1, see what happens...

 

If I were arguing he's a good QB, and citing W/L record, it would be misleading. But that's not my point - good or bad, the Broncos won 5 of 7 with him. The Texans have a good defense and a star WR. Improve around him and Osweiler has, at the very least, proven not to be an impediment to winning.

 

To be clear, that's not how it happened.

In barely over a half vs. SD, Osweiler threw for 232 yards (over 10 YPA) and the team had over 300 yards of offense. Osweiler's last drive/play ended when C.J. Anderson found a gaping hole to run through... then fumbled on minimal contact.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=400791687

I watched that game throughout, and it was very easy to see that Denver was the superior team and would eventually run away with it. And in Osweiler's last full game -- a huge win over 10-3 Cincinnati on Monday Night Football that put Denver in position to earn the No. 1 seed -- Osweiler progressively played better throughout the game and was at his best by the fourth quarter. But vs. San Diego, Kubiak used the turnovers -- none of which were really Osweiler's fault, and especially not the final one -- as an excuse to do what he wanted to all along, which was play the veteran. As we should all know, Gary doesn't like to trust young players -- especially at QB. That is why things happened the way they did.

Side note: I've said since that day that if I were Osweiler, I would be livid with how Kubiak handled that situation. At the very least, Gary could've been honest and maintained throughout the process that Manning was his starting QB, when healthy. Instead, he scapegoated Osweiler during a game for issues that weren't his fault, and Manning instead got to be the caretaker and "win" a Super Bowl on the coattails of that legendary defense.

Just imagine what Osweiler's market would be like if he had gotten to finish that San Diego game and then been able to say he "beat" Tom Brady and Cam Newton in the playoffs to win a Super Bowl. (Is there anyone who thinks Denver wouldn't have?) He'd be getting franchise-level money, in all likelihood. Instead, he'll probably come in below Sam Bradford due to the "small sample". Not many media members talked about this angle, because everyone loved the feel-good narrative of Peyton riding off into the sunset with his ring and Osweiler taking over afterward... but if I were Brock, I'd have some resentment toward Gary Kubiak for the way certain things went down.

 

Funny because many accuse Kubiak of not wanting anything to do with Manning, and his influence on the offense.. and was looking for any reason to get Osweiler in as starter in the first place (hence why Osweiler was still starting even after Manning was healthy).

I can see both sides to the argument... fact remains that Denver was going to win largely with defense, regardless of who was the QB.

 

I think there are tiers to the equation. I think the Schaub arrangement was Kubiak's preferred setup at QB -- a veteran who would also cede control. But after watching Gary for eight years, I think the one thing he hated above all else was trusting younger players, especially at QB. So while he trusted a healthy Schaub over Manning in 2012, I think he would also prefer Manning over a younger QB with more variance.

I could be wrong, but my read on how Kubiak managed this year's situation in Denver was that his gut always wanted to go back to Manning, but he was indecisive on how/when to pull the trigger. I think Gary's ideal timetable was always Week 17, and that worked for Manning's medical team as well. But after Osweiler threw for 299 yards (QB rating over 100) against a great Cincinnati defense in Week 16, leading Denver to a huge win that put them in position for the No. 1 seed -- could you really bench him then? At that point, I think Kubiak felt boxed in and stayed with the status quo... but then he used the turnovers/need for a "spark" vs. San Diego as justification to go with his gut.

It wasn't an easy situation, and it's not like Gary handled it terribly. After all, his team did secure the No. 1 seed and went on to win the Super Bowl. It's just that the specific way he did it had a negative impact on Osweiler's FA market, and if I were Brock, I might not have warm fuzzies about committing to that organization over the long-haul.

 

I think you're a little too swayed by Osweiler's "good".... he also had a lot of bad, with much of it due to his inability to take care of the ball. Yes, some of it wasn't his fault, but we all saw that the Denver offense didn't even have to be good to win... but it did have to be largely mistake-free. We also know nothing about what sorts of reads Osweiler was making (or failing to make) even if he was completing some passes, we know nothing about what sort of progress (or lack thereof) he was making in the film room/practice... all-in-all, it wasn't as if Gary ended up benching the second-coming of Brady.

Not that Peyton was less mistake prone than Osweiler. Again, I don't see it being one big master plan... Peyton sucked/got hurt, Gary put in Osweiler (whether he wanted to all along or not), then Osweiler started showing some cracks (despite all the gaudy numbers you mention), and he went back with Peyton in a must-win game... and rode it out till the end.

Also, Schaub wasn't exactly seasoned/experienced when Gary hand-picked him and gave him the job outright in 2007. I don't think he's all that averse to playing younger players, provided they have talent and are a clear upgrade to possible replacement options.

 

Manning had 18 turnovers (17 interceptions) in 9 starts... Osweiler had 8 turnovers (6 interceptions) in his 7 starts. Brock was actually much more efficient. I think that's you're right in that that's how Gary viewed it in his head, especially given the youth factor, but that's not how it played out.

To be clear, I'm not saying I think Osweiler is necessarily a franchise QB. He had his moments, but consistency was an issue (as it is for most young "prospect" QBs). What I'm saying is that looking at it from his perspective, I could see how Brock might not think he was treated fairly -- and to me, the media isn't considering that angle enough.

As far as the Schaub 2007 parallel, I'd note that that was a rebuilding Houston team. They were coming off seasons of 2-14 and 6-10, and generally were thought of as being years away. It was about building. The issues that I'm referring to came in 2012 and 2013, when the team had a "win now" mindset going in (much like Denver did), and I thought it was clear that Kubiak struggled to trust younger players in that environment. And to clarify, I'm talking not just at QB, but all positions. From my vantage point, Kubiak didn't like to make major adjustments on the fly with a veteran-laden roster.

 

Eh, he seemed to be on both sides of that as well.

2010 could have ben a great year had they not gone with unproven/young players in the secondary. That was also the year he inserted the undrafted/unproven Arian Foster in.

I don't recall a single young/talented players from 2011-2013 who's growth was stunted because Gary refused to play younger players.

This league is just too injury-riddled, and seasons are just too dynamic, to be that fixed in your ways... despite what the BBS mindset is on certain coaches and their tendencies.

Lastly, its not as if Brock was benched for Matt Schaub... even 39 year old injury-riddled Peyton Manning carries more clout than most other QB's in the league. He got inserted out of desperation as in the particular SD game, the offense needed a mistake-free spark... and Manning gave it to them.

 

I hear what you're saying but I don't think you can base this just on his record. Manning had a much better winning percentage and he was absolutely an impediment to winning, luckily the Broncos fielded one of the best defenses in NFL history and pretty much won all of those games but you wouldn't be able to tell that just by looking at W/L. And you could really use this argument for any QB with a winning record. Hell Fitzpatrick had the same winning percentage with a better QBR last season.

I will say this though, the fact that Elway is willing to shell out big bucks for him makes me a little more optimistic. But the pessimist in me is wondering why only 3 years...

 

If you coach for eight years in the NFL, it's inevitable that you'll have plenty examples on both sides of the spectrum. I don't think Gary is "fixed" in his ways, because as you said, it's impossible to be in the modern NFL. But I do think he has a decided preference. If you want examples with the contending Texans, see Coach Reed, Kevin Walter, his struggles to move on from Schaub in 2013, his entire management of a continually-failed special teams unit (starting with a stubborn removal to move on from Marciano). I get that there are examples the other direction, too -- inevitably you're going to have some of both.

None of the turnovers were on Osweiler, and they were moving the ball extremely well. In fact, they were winning the game at the time of Osweiler's last snap. They didn't need a spark at all, IMO... Gary just found a convenient excuse to go with what his gut was telling him all along. Guess we can agree to disagree on this.

 

so would we rather dish out $18-$20 M/yr for 3-5 yrs for Osweiler, trade up in the Draft and take a rookie, or try and trade for a guy like Garoppolo, which would likely cost us our first rounder and then some. He seems like an obvious trade target with Brady's new deal. If I'm Garoppolo, I'd be dying to get out of NE.

If Garoppolo is available, would you rather have him or someone from the current draft at QB? I'm asking b/c I feel like he'd be a possible target.

 

Better in what way, Cheap? There is a reason one is being released and one is in a potential bidding war.

 

There's nothing special about Brock, it would be overpaying for a mediocre at best QB and IMO he won't even be average.

 

Hell just hearing that Brock is a "BOB type of QB" is enough to make me want him to never be on the Texans.

 

Hitching your wagon to RG3 is even worse. If you want Robert Jr Jr because he's "not" an O'B guy is just silly. How do you think that relationship is gonna work? Ask Gruden. Brock has shown great potential where as RG's potential is fading along with his legs.

 

Brock would be a waste of time. RG3 a better option.

 

I disagree that it would be worse, you wouldn't be "hitching your wagon" to him, you'd be picking him up as a reclamation project. Go after Brock and you are 100% hitching your wagon to him. With RG3, you can just cut him and move on with life, with Brock you are stuck with garbage if he fails.

 

For the record I have been for going all in on Stafford. A GM could get it done.

 

Now IMO that's a QB worth "hitching your wagon" to