Fitz would have probably played better against KC which is why the decision to go to Mallett was logical. Fitz would have probably handled the pressure since he can run some but overall Hoyer is the better qb with decent protection.
I still don't think he played anyone worth a damn but if you just want me to say I'm wrong to placate you, I will. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and in this case I think it's more perception. Do you perceive that New Orleans was a good team last year - if you do, you think he played someone Do you think the Bengals were a good team last year - if you do, you think he played someone Do you think the Steelers were a good team last year - if yo do, you think he played someone I happen to think all three were mediocre to bad. And the main point that brought this about, was rez pushing the hoyer agenda. There is nothing to push. There is an old saying - when you have two quarterbacks, you don't have a quarterback. That's what we are living. At least Mallett has the potential to be good. Hoyer does not.
Steve Reed ✔@SteveReedAP AP Story: Texans making QB change, Ryan Mallett starting against Panthers.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-16-18-04-56 … 3:47 PM - 16 Sep 2015
If BOB were like me, he never would have signed Hoyer and would have gone with Mallett last year the moment he proved ready. I'm genuinely shocked. BUT, and I said this: what's most important here is the locker room - this is a massively disruptive decision, on a number of levels. It undermines BOB; it threatens to splinter Hoyer/Mallett camps (which might have already been raw); it sends a harsh message of accountability*... The vibe I got from HK was that BOB had his finger on the team's pulse, so I'll trust he has confidence in this decision being properly digested. But, man... it is a bold choice. (* I know a lot of fans probably love the quick hook - and setting that standard of performance, I think, is important. But one game is awfully quick and sends a message that potentially escalates what's already a pressure-filled cooker. PLUS... BOB has to be consistent: is he yanking Randy Bullock? Anyone else that fell down Sunday? Managing locker rooms is the hardest but most important thing a coach has to do.)
Why would I, or anyone with an IQ greater than -10, perceive a 7-9 team with a horrible defense as good? That's not perception; it's bias. You don't want to give Hoyer any credit, even within the larger canvas of him not being very good, so you've determined 2 playoff teams - which is a pretty universal standard of a certain degree of competency - are "mediocre to bad." I don't think anyone is pushing a Hoyer agenda. I think fans too often mistake patience with complacency. And there's nothing wrong with spending time in gray areas - everything doesn't have to be black and white. You can easily arrive at a conclusion that Brian Hoyer is not very good while still admitting that... you know what? He actually wasn't that bad for this certain stretch - and hey, maybe that's what drew BOB's interest.... Further, a think a lot of us are rubbed raw by these knee-jerk declarations of certainty that permeate sports talk. There's way too much unfiltered emotion swallowing rational thinking and discussion... And speaking of, I'm off to the Astros forum!
agreed. still think the bengals are a joke and that Pitt hasn't been the same team most fans remember for several years, but I generally agree with the rest of your premise. *but it should be noted that in the league today, there are only a handful of teams I think are "good". Most teams are mediocre and prone to major swings in their record depending on scheduling. It's teams like - Pats, Seahawks, Broncos (until this year), Packers that I classify in the "good" team realm. And yes, I get the consistent ingredient each of those has that we don't.
That's fine, and probably true... so why are you holding Hoyer to such a standard if he'll only face, at most, 3 of those teams a year? If the vast majority of any NFL schedule is against mediocre teams (and you've essentially labeled 88% of the league mediocre), then what he does against those mediocre teams is relevant and meaningful, no?
primarily because I want a qb that at least has the potential to put us into the good category and I don't believe hoyer has any upside to get us there. I doubt Mallett is any better, but as an unknown commodity with a strong arm - he has the potential (dirty p word) that hoyer doesn't.
I really think the key is that nobody won or lost the job with any sort of distance during the pre-season.... and BOB prepared both equally. Even with HK dramatizing everything, I still never got the vibe that Hoyer was winning the job by a landslide. We never saw any sort of footage or got any sort of notion that this team was behind one or the other (which would lend themselves the ability to be "fractured" more easier with a rash change of plans like this). Somebody HAD to be the starter... and in many ways, naming Hoyer the starter and then going to Mallett (in the process possibly motivating him further) is the route with higher upside than vice versa (which still could end up being re-visited in the future, if Mallett is an inaccurate/clueless turnover machine). Did Foster play in the awful Bengals game last year (the torn pec game?) I know Mallett won at Cleveland without him. Regardless of who is the starter, this offense changes immensely with him coming back soon.
Another QB change coming? 3 1/2 quarters Hoyer OUT 2 3/4 games/quarters Mallett OUT Hoyer back IN before he's OUT again? Great job Bill!
Quarterback you say? So glad the Texans passed on Derek Carr in the second round and took the dominant Xavier Filo.
Xavier Bust'a-Filo has been passed over first by Jeff Adams and now Oday Aboushi. But Xavier is working hard to come back.
Mallet consistently misfires on checkdowns. How is that even possible? It sucks that BOB let talk radio callers influence his decision on the starting QB after 3 quarters.
