This team will never win anything with Brock Osweiler at QB!

19 TDs, 7 INTs, a solid rating...no losing record...that's not decent? You always like to point to the fact that Hoyer got those stats because he played bad teams. Does it not count when Osweiler plays the Titans and Bears? Stay consistent.

And FO and PFF agree with this notion.

Brock should be able to eclipse Hoyer easily though...but we have to wait and see.

 

Again, we've been over this. I accept that you don't know any better, let's stop cluttering up the board with your hilarious and futile attempts at re-writing history and making Hoyer seem like anything other than the disaster of a QB that he was. You are seriously embarrassing yourself even if you don't know enough to realize it.

 

Brock wasn't signed to be a stud quarterback in 2016. He was signed for the future. Who cares what is spent right now? What are we going to do with that money? I don't understand this logic. Everyone's favorite what if, is Derek Carr and he was a 58% completion guy his first year ala Case Keenum. Brock is still playing out his rookie year, and sitting on a bench can only do so much.

Patience.

 

I dont have issues with the signing of Brock and Im not worried about his future with this team. I do want to see improvement with him as the season progresses though, because thus far, his play hasnt changed from week 1 to week 4. In fact, it hasnt changed from his early games with the Broncos until now. But, Im fine with being patient.

The issue here is how Bobby makes his points and the narratives he tries to push.

 

I didn't say I bailed on Brock, I said he hasn't looked good so far and he's way overpaid, and that a better option would have been through the draft.

Derek Carr 2014 (rookie)- 58.1%, 21 TD, 12 INT, 76.6 QBRating
Derek Carr 2015 (second year)- 61%, 32 TD, 13 INT, 91 QBRating
Derek Carr 2016 (third year)- 68%, 9 TD, 1 INT, 104.6 QBRating

This is Osweiler's 5th year. Do you think he reaches any of those numbers?

Or even Schaub's first year as starter, which is probably the fairest comparison (4th year in league, same age of 26, although he only had 2 starts with the falcons)?

66%, 9TD, 9 INT, 87.2 QBRating

Osweiler so far:
61.6%, 5 TD, 6 INT, 74.8 QBRating

And neither Schaub nor Carr took huge contracts, although Schaub cost picks.

 

We could have spent it on OL. There's a salary cap, so it does matter how much you spend for production.

 

Please name someone........? Then who are we left with at QB? Please do not say Tom Savage. Please don't do it.

 

What does him being in the NFL for 5 years have to do with anything? People tend to use that narrative too much like he's suppose to be lighting up the league or something.

The Raiders did a good job and building Carr up. And plus he's been in his system for going on three years now.

This is Brock's third system and 11 start. Yes the turnovers are an issue but let's give the man some time.

 

Playing and sitting are completely different. The 5th year talk is completely irrelevant. You learn by playing, and that has been discussed plenty of times before.

 

Years are irrelevant; games are what matter. Do I think, after 16 NFL starts, Brock will be in Carr's neighborhood (58.1%, 21 TD, 12 INT, 76.6 QBRating)? Yes - and, again, Carr didn't switch systems during his first 16 games.

The $100,000 question is whether he'll reach Carr's status games 17+... don't know yet.

Actually, Schaub's first year - which was really just 9 games - and Osweiler's first seven starts were all for the same coach/system...

Schaub: 66%, 9TD, 9 INT, 87.2 QBRating
Osweiler: 62%, 10TD 6 INT, 86.4 QBRating

And I can't emphasize enough: Osweiler is learning a new system - it invalidates a lot of the advantages he had of being a "veteran rookie" - especially if BOB's system is more complicated than Kubiak's, which it reportedly is.

And Schaub took a huge contract. But, again - you continue to demonstrate an almost laughable misunderstanding of how a free market works. Worse, you seem to be blaming Osweiler for taking advantage of it.

He was perfectly positioned to make a lot of money. Whether he's ultimately worth it shouldn't even be a discussion point after just four starts.

 

They did - in fact, they signed two and used a high draft pick on another. And even with all the spending, had $7MM of cap space available.

 

I'm not blaming Osweiler for taking advantage. This has nothing to do with "understanding the free market." It has to do with teams making bad free agent and draft decisions leading directly to a worse product on the field.You seem to laughably not understand that.

You said it yourself, Belichik does the exact opposite of overpaying guys and trading away draft picks.

You sure have to massage Osweiler's stats to make him look good. He's in his 5th year, but you compare him to rookie Carr. And you don't compare his first year as a starter in a new system to Schaub's first year as a starter in a new system, instead you go change it to "first 9 starts".

Brock hasn't been good and is getting paid way too much to be mediocre. That's the bottom line so far. Can he get better? Sure.

$37m guaranteed for a 75 QBRating (plus a $20m cap hit next 3 years) isn't cutting it

 

And we let two much better OLinemen go to sign cheaper replacements.

 

No amount of information is going to make the whiners stop whining. It's just what they do. It's basically what they bring to this board.

 

Explain to me how years has greater significance than games played. That's nonsensical and I'm genuinely curious how you would justify equating the two.

Nine games; not starts - learn how to use quotations. Schaub started nine games in 2007; finished 7. I compared his first year as a starter in Kubiak' system to Osweiler's first year as a starter in Kubiak's system (which accounted for 7 starts). You claim you knew Schaub had the goods after four starts, and yet - Osweiler and Schaub wound up with roughly the same numbers, in nearly the same amount of playing time, in strikingly similar situations.

I don't understand the rush to judgement on Brock. He has to be viewed as essentially a rookie drafted first overall under the previous CBA - a Bradford or Stafford; guys who were paid for potential, not accomplishments.

That had nothing to do with Brock Osweiler.

 

All Mr. Clutch is saying is that Brock hasnt played well. Is that really not the truth? I havent heard him mention that Brock is going to fail for the rest of the season. All we can go off of right now are facts...and Brock hasnt played well. It doesnt mean his contract will be deemed a failure two years from now...it just means he needs to do a lot better to justify the cost, which we will know in a couple years.

Sure, he's still young, he's in a new system, etc... There are plenty of young guys in new systems around the league. But, Brock has played below par, even given his change in environment and inexperience in playing NFL games.

Given OB's record of giving Fitz and Hoyer 90+ ratings, anything short of that for Brock should be seen as a failure. I've said this before, if by week 10 we dont start seeing marked improvement, then I dont think Osweiler will be more than an mediocre NFL QB (which might still be enough to win if we can shore up the OL and keep the defense stout).

 

If signing Osweiler prevents the Texans from spending more money on the line, then Brock is part of the equation. I have no issues with the Texans letting Ben Jones go, he sucked...and Im happy with our draft pick to shore that up. But, the OL was an area of concern all offseason (Duane Brown injury, XSF proving every day to underachieve, etc...). A player like Okung would have been nice for our team, but we didnt have a shot at him because we went with Brock. And that's okay, I dont mind that decision, but us signing OL is directly impacted by signing Brock.

 

The Texans are incredibly lucky to have a QB like Osweiler, and I think the knowledgeable fans realize that. Sure there's always going to be the jokers that simply don't get football that will be loud and ignorant, but we can hope that they don't represent the majority of the fanbase.

 

The Texans committing $32MM through 2019 to their two current tackles is why they didn't pursue Russell Okung. It has nothing to do with Brock Osweiler. In fact, Okung's 2016 cap hit is just $5.2MM, and the Texans, as of this very moment, have $6.7MM in cap space. But Okung wasn't signing a team-friendly one-year deal; in fact, he signed a five-year deal worth $53MM.

Brock or nor Brock, you don't pay three players $135MM to play two positions.

 

Very true. Should be obvious, but somehow it never is to some.

The Texans drafted a replacement center and got depth on the line. Unfortunately injuries happened so we've got people second guessing things because it's an excuse to complain.