Tom Savage - Texans' fourth round (#135 overall) pick

So can this kid play? Will he start?

 

Please read what I was responding to before you go off calling it horrible.

I was only responding to the take that taking a QB brings hope and excitement. I just said if that's your reason then pick one that will actually bring hope and excitement.

Actually fans on this board like the Savage pick. I'm in the minority. And I don't like it mostly because I would have rather seen them address other needs in the draft.

JJ Watt is different because he was drafted in the 1st round and it was assumed he would be starting day one. This is not the case with Savage.

 

I don't think this is true at all. If you have a great defense, you'd trade some upside scoring in your QB for consistency. You'd rather have the consistent offense that scores 20 points every game than an offense that alternates between 12 and 32, even though that offense scores more.

On the flipside, if you have a mediocre defense, you're probably more OK with an offense with higher variation - and then you hope for a hot streak and luck.

Basically, there's value to consistency in your offense, but that value varies depending on the strength of your defense. Seattle needs a very different type of QB and offense than Jacksonville for each team to maximize their wins.

 

If you have a great defense, you're going to win almost every game that your team scores 32, and probably at least a couple when they score 12. Likewise, if your offense consistently scores only 20, even a great defense is likely to have breaks go against it (injuries, luck, etc.) and potentially give up more than 20 on several occasions.

It seems like a good topic for a study -- anyone know if there's been one conducted on this? I just can't see the "variance" not evening out over time.

 

Detroit uses that method. Loading up on the front 7 and hoping that makes there secondary better... Well it ain't working.

The league has changed and offenses are becoming more versatile by implementing college and high school type plays and or putting more receiving options on the field. That's why the safety positions are becoming more important.

 

Remember how much money that Rick Smith got to spend that year and how much he got this year?

Coaching does make a difference but its all about the players 99% of the time.

How brilliant was Wade Phillips last year?

 

On the extreme side, imagine the ultimately consistent offense and defense:

Defense gives up 20 points every game.

An offense that scores 22 every time will take you to 16-0. On the flipside, an offense that alternates between 32 and 12 will take you to 8-8.

The same proposition with a weaker offense results in the opposite - an offense that scores 18 every game will go 0-16. But if they alternate between 28 and 8, they'll get to 8-8.

Same would apply for an inconsistent defense, but that seems less likely because there are so many moving parts. An inconsistent QB (say, a Vince Young that had lots of terrible games and great ones) can result in an inconsistent offense.

Obviously the scenarios above are extreme and unrealistic. But I think in the case of a Seattle, you'd take an offense that scores 25 without making a lot of mistakes over one that scores 30, but also throws a lot of picks - because you'll win most of the time with your consistent offense, but throw away some games where the offense does some stupid stuff; since all it takes is one loss to boot you out of the playoffs, you'd want the consistency.

If a mediocre defense makes the playoffs, I would think you want an offense that is streaky and hope they put together 3 or 4 great games. Basically, you want to increase the "luck" factor vs decreasing it for a Seattle type team.

That said, I don't know if any studies have been done on this or how this plays out in real life. It just seems like a less-good team wants a Mike Vick x-factor type QB, while a team like Seattle (or Baltimore 2000) wants an excellent "do no harm" game-manager type QB.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>This is called out kicking your coverage... See you soon <a href="https://twitter.com/caycaymeow">@caycaymeow</a> <a href="http://t.co/FdiPv0KtaD">pic.twitter.com/FdiPv0KtaD</a></p>&mdash; Tom Savage (@tomsavage03) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomsavage03/statuses/465919159222943744">May 12, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Nick Fairley is a bust and the coaching in Detroit is also questionable.

Also their offensive style is totally different than what I have mentioned.

Bottom line, when you look at SF or Sea, any good defensive team will always have a superior front 7, no matter how good their secondary will be.

A strong front 7 doesn't only mean you can stop the run and forcing more 3 and outs, strong front 7 also mean you can get to the QB faster and quicker, even not with sacks but you can force him to make bad throws.

You put Richard Sherman in some bad teams with weak front 7 and he will look no better than Kareem Jackson.

 

When you are trying to find the best players available on the board rather than filling your needs, that basically telling people this :

1. You have too many holes in your team to fill.
2. You are not expecting to compete immediately.

Rick Smith is not a great GM, but he is not delusional to believe Fitz is all they need in this position to lead them to the playoff.

By ignoring this glaring needs, there is no way how this draft can give them the best chance to win immediately.

 

What ? Accuracy comes from proper technique and repetitions ... of course some of it comes from natural talent but it can absolutely be taught .

 

The Patriots are NOTORIOUS for taking BPA over need. They are probably the best organization in the game. If you're taking the best players available on the board, you're basically telling people that you have common sense. It's just what good teams do.

Fitzpatrick isn't all they need, but he's not worthless, either. You seem to have this all-or-nothing view that if the team isn't Super Bowl caliber, they may as well say "**** it!" and start projects all over the field. In a parity-driven sport like the modern NFL, if you have an opportunity to be competitive in games, you take it. With the defense they could have and the weak schedule they definitely have, that means not playing the likes of Keenum/Savage unless the team is out of realistic contention. That's not Week 1.

(The upside is that if you're right and Fitzpatrick is the disastrous fit for this team that you think he is, then it should be clear by the middle of the season that it's not a playoff team, and you'll have plenty of time for experiments with other QBs. Same way Keenum got his shot a year ago. My only point is that you certainly can't START the season with that mentality.)

 

The way I see how they will use this pick is this :

1. If Bridgewater will be available in R2, they will pick him.
2. If Jimmy G will be available in R3, they will pick him.

Either Rick Smith is completely not expecting Min and NE will make those moves, or he just don't really care about this whole QB class as a whole.

But when it was getting to the 5th round, this pick basically is more of a PR move, which he MUST to pick a QB in this situation otherwise there will be an outcry of the "Texans giving up the coming seasons completely".

No one in their mind before the draft will believe either Keenum or Fitz will be good enough to lead this team to a winning record.

 

Agreed, Savage only completed 61% of his passes for 2217 yards with 16 TD's and 6 interceptions at a weak 7.5 yards per attempt and a passer rating of 138 in his final year of college.....oh wait, that was Tom Brady.....Savage's numbers were 61.2% 2958 yards 21 TD's 9 Int's 7.6 yards per attempt and his rating was 138.2.

I'm not saying the kid will be Tom Brady, but pretending that accuracy is "God given" is ridiculous.

 

I'm not going to fabricate , I wasn't sold on this pick because I really didn't know anything about the youngster. But after looking at some of his highlights and reading other forums as well as this one, im starting to like this pick.

 

First of all, when you have Tom Brady, you can blind fold yourself to throw a dart on the board each year, it really doesn't matter.

Secondly, I am not saying Fitz is completely useless, I am just saying he is what we think he will be.

If you will have any hopes on the Texans new season to have any success, you better place your bet on either Keenum will have a vastly improved second year (which is not totally out of the question, judging him only base on a 0-8 record is not that fair and I believe the coaching staff will still give him a fair chance to compete) or somehow Savage will have something like Tebow 2.0.

 

What he's been over the course of his career as a starter, and Buffalo and Tennessee fans would likely concur, is average. With an extremely weak schedule and potentially strong defense, it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that average QB play is enough for you to be a playoff contender.

I agree that Keenum/Savage certainly have more upside, in terms of lightning in a bottle. But it has to be considered unlikely, and you have to make them force your hand in training camp and the preseason. Committing to putting one out there for ****s and giggles (when you have an alternative that's average) would be a mistake.

 

Wish we were able to get Bortles or Garoppolo.

Now we're stuck with a bunch of scrubs.

 

Im just mad that we had a chance to secure Bridgewater, but let Minnesota come up and grab him for chump change...I really cant believe that at all.

 

I don't like Bridgewater, but yes. We couldn't trade down and also got leapfrogged a couple times.