It's a risk, but a dumb risk. It might have actually been a smarter risk to keep Fitzpatrick or Keenum until Watson came along. Of course they don't really think two steps ahead. They close one hole and create another. Stubborn might be a better description. They are more like the New York Knicks or some franchise stuck in mediocrity. They occasionally get a good player but don't build it into anything because they don't know how.
A lot less money could be made too. Osweiler signing was just plain dumb. They needed a QB and just overpaid whoever happened to be a FA at the time. It wasn't smart, it wasn't forward looking, it wasn't a plan. Every team has capspace and draft picks they absolutely have to use, so that in and of itself doesn't mean taking real risks. I'd be more interested in them developing a multi-year plan for sustained success, even if the plan involves trading down or letting some stars go, instead of just doing whatever their gut tells them every offseason and hoping to get lucky. The Astros had a plan. It had to take several years because the farm system was decimated. Even ESPN predicted the results of the plan. The Rockets obviously have a unique method that's risky but it's smart risks (Chris Paul).
If they really want to win, why keep O'Brien? Does anyone seriously think he is a Super Bowl caliber coach?
The Texans are nowhere close to the minimum salary. In the year they signed Brock, they ended up with 152 million salary with only 5M cap space. They didn't just pay whoever was a FA at the time. They paid the highest rated FA QB available. They went after the best available and outbid the Broncos. They were not being cheap. They didn't have to. They could have just sat pat and did nothing. You can say they are not smart, but you cannot say they are not trying. They are not just standing taking strikes, they are swinging. And it absolutely was risky; so risky that it cost them a 2nd round pick just to get him out of the building. You should say you don't "see their plan", not they don't have a plan. How is this for a plan - build an offense with a good line (Brown, Smith, Winston, Briesel), RB (Foster and Ben Tate), and a decent QB to go with a strong defense (Wade, JJ, JJo, Manning, Cushing). That was a solid plan that was blown up by Schaub. We've heard hints of their plan since then ("faster on defense", "smaller quicker RB", "faster receivers", "big on the D Line"). They don't have to give us the full picture and they don't for obvious reasons. They've either had a bad plan or have not implemented it well; maybe both. We're arguing semantics but the narrative that the McNairs have always sat on their hands and collect checks is absolutely wrong. Do you know how many major league teams have done what the Astros did and not win a world series? I'm sure ESPN predicted they would win world series too.
Well if they spend the minimum they will piss off casual fans and they don't want that. Their goal is to do enough to keep the casual fan on board. Interestingly the casual fan finally hates O'Brien, so he's probably done next year All of those moves you mentioned were under kubiak. I agree kubiak had a strong plan until ownership forced a resigning of schaub. BTW they only fired kubiak because fans were angry, not because he's a bad coach I don't think we've had a plan since, definitely not on the offensive side. They change it up every year. Obrien drafts size one year, speed the next, now TE projects. He has no clue. He said he'd revamp the offense for Watson and it might as well be hoyer out there because it looks the same
Because one team at that time had already developed Keuchel, McHugh, McCullers, Peacock, Morton, etc. while the other team had gone through Fitzpatrick, Hoyer, Mallet, etc. It's fine to take risks if you know what you're doing. If the Texans were half as good as the Astros at identifying star talent, this thread wouldn't exist right now.
I thought the Brock signing was a great move, one that had to be done at the time. Our compadre Mcnair said he wanted a franchise qb. As it turned out, Brock wasn't it, but Mr. Mcnair wanting that franchise qb led to Smith getting Watson for him. Otherwise, BOB would still be waiting for someone like Brady to come along thus neglecting the position. Though I do wonder if the Pats would have eventually traded us Garoppolo. what's the saying all the ends well...
Oh, come on... they are NOT like the freaking New York Knicks........ No one should be throwing the Texans any parades - but mediocre?.... They just finished 11-5. It might've been an inflated 11-5... but mediocre teams don't win 11 games. I mean... that is just......
I think the Texans are mediocre. I hate to say it, I love the Texans but if you look at the teams they beat this yr and how they won; last second field goals, other teams missing field goals, etc. IT SPEAKS MEDIOCRE. However, I do think they have talent but it's the coaching that causes them to be mediocre. Unfortunately, I think the Flagship Station, Sports 610 and other media personnel, mainly John Harris and Marc Vandemeer fester the mediocracy. Marc just got upset for someone calling the Texans mediocre! Just because they went 11-5 and won the division, does not make them an upper echelon team. Look at who they played, when they played them, who was out at the time, etc. Initially, I like the hire of B O'B but as time went on, I saw him for what he is....AN AVERAGE NFL COACH! He does not out coach his talent. I can't think of one single win where he has beat someone, he was not suppose to. He can't beat Belicheck, Reed, nor any of the top coaches......He's just AVERAGE/MEDIOCRE AND SO IS HIS TEAM! UNFORUNATELY, THE TEAM HAS TAKEN ON THE COACHES PERSONA
That's fair, the Knicks are flat out terrible. The Texans in my mind are a mediocre team that sneaks into the playoffs but has no real chance of contending. They are that team that is always the 7th-8th seed but no one is afraid of. Portland maybe?
