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

I disagree. It's much easier to acquire one great QB than all the pieces necessary to build a GREAT defense. And once you've acquired the QB, it's far easier to keep him around to sustain competitive football than it is to keep together all the components of a GREAT defense.

More recently we've seen great QB's take mediocre to flat out bad defenses to the Super Bowl. The Saints defense is probably the best example of that. It was flat out bad...they won with a great QB. We haven't seen the flip of that since the 2000 Ravens.

I'm not suggesting the Texans should have reached on a QB this draft...but I also don't think they're going anywhere in the league today until they acquire a real QB. And I personally don't see one on this roster.

 

The saints defense gave up a ton of yards, but they created a tremendous amount of turnovers.

 

The Saints and Pats have both had hyper competitive teams that no one in their right mind would confuse with a "great" defense.

I used to say all the time that a great defense beat a great offense...that the key was having the best defense. But I've seen that notion get tossed aside in the last 10 years or so.

 

Seahawks,Ravens, both Giant teams. I'd say the jury is still out on that one.

I do feel that a great QB will give you a competitive chance at a Super Bowl every year though.

No point in the Texans reaching for a QB . The Jags made a mistake on Bortles .

 

This last Ravens team was not a great defense.

The Seahawks were for sure.

I'd point out that the Giants and Ravens both had QB's playing out of their minds in the playoffs as "what the hell" gunslingers making huge plays.

And I said there was no point in the Texans reaching for a QB if they didn't believe he was there, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with on that point. It still doesn't minimize the importance of the quarterback on an NFL roster in this era. Even if they're absolutely right, and none of these guys they passed on amount to anything worth talking about, it doesn't change the fact that our starting QB heading into the season is likely Ryan Fitzpatrick. You can disagree with me all you want, but my best guess is they're going to need something better than Ryan Fitzpatrick.

But perhaps they're right and everyone else is wrong...perhaps Savage is better than Manziel, Bridgewater, Bortles, etc. If that's the case, then it will be a lot of fun to watch.

 

The Ravens played great D in the playoffs.

You are underrating Fitsy who struggles with colder weather/windy conditions. NRG will help him out.

Savage flashed when given ample pocket time. He had the worst line of all the QB's in this draft.!

And not arguing but I do think the Texans had a top 5 draft and that the Jags will be toward the bottom 5.

Bortles is compared to Big Ben because he literally looks like him. I thought his arm was blah and his mechanics were dog poop. His balance sucks.

 

I'm not underrating "Fitsy." I'm saying I don't see enough there.

I hope you're right, though. I hope Fitsy is the second coming of Tom Brady...that our defense is the 85 Bears...that our draft is the greatest of all time...and that unicorns will prance throughout NRG all season long.

 

I don't think either are the case, but Fitzpatrick is not a terrible QB.

The defense will be be very good if they can get some quality play from DB's. I think you will see a different team this year. O'brien seems like a much better leader than Kubes at this point, but even then, I'm not in the locker room to see that.

 

You know what the great thing about QBs not drafted in the first round? You don't have to worry about giving them years to "develop" when they don't pan out. You avoid the "sunk cost" commitment bias that causes many GMs to stay with bad picks because of what they cost to acquire. If Savage sucks, we cut him and draft another QB without even thinking about it. Was that the case with David Carr?

 

The Ravens defense was ranked #17 during the regular season of their super bowl run and the Giants defense was ranked #27 the year before when they won. Seattle's defense was ranked #1 this year. Ravens and Giants are in no comparison to Seattle. Just to add to your point.

 

The flipside is lower round QBs are highly likely to suck.

 

So we avoid committing to the best prospects available at the most important position on the roster and one where we have a need because it might not work out? We just cross our fingers and keep skipping those high level prospects praying we'll catch lighting in a bottle?

 

Its not the same anymore. Rookie contracts are structured differently now that it won't mortgage your future if you make the wrong decision. Now it may hurt you in a sense that you could have got a better player than the bust you drafted. But we're not going to be hurt finacilly for years if we take a QB and he doesn't pan out. It won't be like a David Carr situation.

Most QBs are not Andrew Luck. They might need a couple years to pan out.

 

It's on the staff to decide how they feel about the guys in the draft. The media and fans love deciding who the "top" prospects are, usually without any regard for what the coaches want/don't want out of the position.

And just because someone's considered the "top" prospect in a draft class....it doesn't mean they're elite. What good did it do anyone taking "the top QB prospect" in 2007 or 2002? Are we feeling great about anyone from 2013?

I don't know who's going to turn out to be what. But it's fair to say that this staff didn't feel good about taking any of the QBs early. If they felt any of those guys was a stud that could give them what they wanted, they would have taken him first. They didn't. You're free to disagree, but it doesn't seem they were keen on Manziel's size/need to play outside the pocket, Bridgewater's arm, etc. They're giving Savage a year to show them something, and then they re-evaluate in 10 months.

It's not "easy" to find your franchise QB. Almost half the league spins their wheels for years trying to find one. Wasting picks to roll the dice on guys that don't look the part is as foolish as teams like the Grizzlies drafting Hasheem Thabeet 2nd overall.

 

Schaub in his prime still wasn't good enough to will this team to victory. Peyton Manning dragged the colts to two superbowls and was only good enough to win one. I don't want a stat monkey I want a weapon that embarrasses defenses. I want a monster who's confidence can't be broken with mistakes because mistakes would be a rarity. Last season when the patriots played the saints Brady threw three interceptions, the last one with I think 2:05 left in the game. Brady didn't sulk or hang his head, he went to the sideline and fired up his troops. The defense saw that, went on the field and forced the saints to go three and out. Brady got back on the field with maybe a minute left on the clock, marched down the field with laser like precision to a game winning touchdown. It looked like he was in his backyard throwing to his homeboys LoL. I want that type of ferocity in my qb. Schaub even in his prime was nowhere near elite. No more mediocre expectations

 

That had nothing to do with Schaub, that had to do with his best years being wasted because the defense was historically bad. You seem to think there is some kind of intrinsic "just winz" that QB's either have or don't have. The Brady example you gave, the 3 picks could have easily been enough to put the game out of reach if the defense wasn't doing their job but for some reason you think that was an example of a good QB simply because the team happened to win the game....it doesn't make any sense. It especially doesn't make any sense because Tom Brady didn't have a multiple interception game last season.

If the rest of the team was right, the Texans could have won with Schaub, simple as that. There are lesser QB's with rings right now....for example the last 2 QB's to have their team win them a SB. Schaub's best seasons were wasted on crappy teams and by the time the team improved, Schaub was broken. If Savage managed to be another Schaub, it would be a good thing, though fans seem to only remember the short term.

 

Patriots had a great defensive team in Brady's first few years. Brady was a game manager esque QB back then, but developed into an all time great.

 

I see it a bit like drafting a franchise big man on a basketball team. Both a franchise QB and a franchise C or PF will carry a team very far. Every team wants a franchise player at that position. The problem is that true franchise players in those positions are rare, and many teams reach for players just because they have a need in that position and they're willing to gamble. Conformation bias causes GMs who need a better QB to see a franchise QB in prospects that probably won't pan out, but they pick them anyway and hope for the best.

While the financial implications of picking someone so high at QB isn't the same as it was, and isn't anywhere near the implications of the NBA draft, there's still the problem of confirmation bias and loss aversion that will cause teams to hang on to high pick busts longer than they would lower pick busts. Hanging onto a high pick bust at a position as crucial as QB can be devastating. A smart staff won't want to take that risk if you don't see a player your staff is willing to risk their jobs on.

 

Sure - a lot can happen. That's the point. QB is the single most important position to fill. People say "great QB" vs "great defense". But a great defense is 11 players - that tell you how valuable the QB is. And this was the one year we know the Texans controlled all the variables. So if any of this year's QBs are great, they messed up. There will of course be good QBs in in future years too, but there's no telling if the Texans will be in position to draft them. If Winston and Mariota are as good as people say, then they'll likely be gone in the top few picks. If not, it means they turned out to have the same questions as this year's group.

 

That's not a confirmation bias - that's a recognition of reality that hitting on the QB has far more value than hitting on any other player. From an expected value analysis, if your top-pick QB has a reasonable chance to be great, you're better off with that than your top-pick-anything-else having a very good chance to be great.

Hanging onto a terrible QB gives you a better chance to draft another franchise QB. For fixing the QB position, its better to be terrible than mediocre. Since there's limited financial implication, it actually makes sense to give your terrible QB as long as possible to see if he becomes good than to ditch him and go with a known mediocre QB.