How the 49ers/Texans changed my view on Football and how to build the redskins

[MTK]

Originally Posted by biffle

The Texans lost their franchise QB and went from a Super Bowl favorite to a playoff also ran. I'm really not sure why that would teach you that franchise QBs aren't crucial to being a SB contender.

This, for the win.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by biffle

The Texans lost their franchise QB and went from a Super Bowl favorite to a playoff also ran. I'm really not sure why that would teach you that franchise QBs aren't crucial to being a SB contender.

haha...this thread is over...

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by celts32

haha...this thread is over...

yeah, they have good QB's, but not elite ones!

[GTripp0012]

The Houston Texans were an also ran this postseason? Really?

My recollection has them as the team that took the Ravens down to the wire in Baltimore the week before the Ravens nearly took the Pats out on the road in the AFC Championship. But maybe I just have a selective memory.

Bottom line is despite losing their quarterback, they still were in the discussion as the best team in the AFC at the end of the year. The spin in this thread is incredible.

[redskinjim]

no more grossman starting!!!We cant win with a bumb nobody can show me the last bumb in the superbowl it was grossman with the bears

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Houston Texans were an also ran this postseason? Really?

My recollection has them as the team that took the Ravens down to the wire in Baltimore the week before the Ravens nearly took the Pats out on the road in the AFC Championship. But maybe I just have a selective memory.

Bottom line is despite losing their quarterback, they still were in the discussion as the best team in the AFC at the end of the year. The spin in this thread is incredible.

Calling them an also ran is a bit over the top, but they definitely would have had a better shot with Schaub at the helm.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Calling them an also ran is a bit over the top, but they definitely would have had a better shot with Schaub at the helm.

If Schaub and Johnson were 100% I feel this Sunday is Giants v. Texans. First off the road to the SB would have come through Houston.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Calling them an also ran is a bit over the top, but they definitely would have had a better shot with Schaub at the helm.

Certainly, but it's hardly a guarantee that they would have gotten any further, just of higher expectations.

Which was really my point: if the number one thing having a healthy, well-respected quarterback is that expecatations will be higher, I'm not sure why that's preferable over finding an elite pass rusher, an elite playmaker on offense, or an all-pro safety. The Texans had stability at quarterback for years and years, which helped them build a defense, but it's ironic at the least and telling at the most that for years the Texans couldn't win anything and then Schaub gets hurt and then they end up in the same place they appeared to be heading before he got hurt.

They probably win 11 or 12 games in the regular season if Schaub starts 16 games, but that's probably true of Andre Johnson as well.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Houston Texans were an also ran this postseason? Really?

My recollection has them as the team that took the Ravens down to the wire in Baltimore the week before the Ravens nearly took the Pats out on the road in the AFC Championship. But maybe I just have a selective memory.

Bottom line is despite losing their quarterback, they still were in the discussion as the best team in the AFC at the end of the year. The spin in this thread is incredible.

Well, they lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to the champs. I guess you can believe that makes them a hair from the title if you'd like.

They were the best team in the AFC with Schaub. WIthout him, they limped in and got a win over the worst team in the playoffs, and then were knocked out.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

Well, they lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to the champs. I guess you can believe that makes them a hair from the title if you'd like.

They were the best team in the AFC with Schaub. WIthout him, they limped in and got a win over the worst team in the playoffs, and then were knocked out.

All of that's true but none of that means that they weren't necessarily still the best team in the AFC. By the end of the season, the Texans defense was almost surely the premier defense in the conference, and that whole limping in thing happened, in large part, because Andre Johnson was limping.

As well as the Schaub thing. The debate as to who is more important to the Texans was not solved. But if you had thought before that Arian Foster was just reaping the benefits of Schaub/Johnson, that was proven wrong.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

All of that's true but none of that means that they weren't necessarily still the best team in the AFC. By the end of the season, the Texans defense was almost surely the premier defense in the conference, and that whole limping in thing happened, in large part, because Andre Johnson was limping.

As well as the Schaub thing. The debate as to who is more important to the Texans was not solved. But if you had thought before that Arian Foster was just reaping the benefits of Schaub/Johnson, that was proven wrong.

Yeah, that must be it. I mean, Johnson was a non-factor all year, but it didn't matter until the end of the year. They were the top seed and cruising until Schaub went down and once he did they couldn't beat Indy and Jacksonville. But that's a coincindence.

I've been through arguments with guys like you before. Every Super Bowl is being won by franchise QBs. Most are lost by franchise QBs. Most divisions are won by the teams with the best QBs.
Bad defenses, bad lines, bad special teams, bad running games. They have all won SBs lately.

But you're gonna tiwst yourself around to come up with excuses for it. Non franchise QBs who coulda/woulda/shoulda won the title. Oh, it almost happened. It will happen. They wuz robbed. etc etc.

Well, have at it. I think it's ridiculous, but keep fighting that fight, brother.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

Yeah, that must be it. I mean, Johnson was a non-factor all year, but it didn't matter until the end of the year. They were the top seed and cruising until Schaub went down and once he did they couldn't beat Indy and Jacksonville. But that's a coincindence.

I've been through arguments with guys like you before. Every Super Bowl is being won by franchise QBs. Most are lost by franchise QBs. Most divisions are won by the teams with the best QBs.
Bad defenses, bad lines, bad special teams, bad running games. They have all won SBs lately.

But you're gonna tiwst yourself around to come up with excuses for it. Non franchise QBs who coulda/woulda/shoulda won the title. Oh, it almost happened. It will happen. They wuz robbed. etc etc.

Well, have at it. I think it's ridiculous, but keep fighting that fight, brother.

Look, to put it politely, you don't know what you are talking about.

There's a reason the best quarterbacks win a lot of games and populate the playoff field. It has nothing to do with why you think it does. When two quarterbacks play in the super bowl and the second best quarterback wins, it makes your argument bunk. The second best quarterback in this super bowl won it. The second best quarterback two years ago won it. The second best quarterback three years ago won it. The second best quarterback four years ago won it.

Obviously, there's something there as to why Tom Brady has lost two super bowls to Eli Manning, but beat Kurt Warner in one. Some would even suggest that just maybe, other players on the field matter.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Look, to put it politely, you don't know what you are talking about.

There's a reason the best quarterbacks win a lot of games and populate the playoff field. It has nothing to do with why you think it does. When two quarterbacks play in the super bowl and the second best quarterback wins, it makes your argument bunk. The second best quarterback in this super bowl won it. The second best quarterback two years ago won it. The second best quarterback three years ago won it. The second best quarterback four years ago won it.

Obviously, there's something there as to why Tom Brady has lost two super bowls to Eli Manning, but beat Kurt Warner in one. Some would even suggest that just maybe, other players on the field matter.

Yeah, none of that really has anything to do with anything.

Don't worry, man. One of these years a team without a franchise QB will win a Super Bowl again, and then at least you'll have something to crow about while you're pretending that franchise QBs aren't really that important.

It'll happen. You just have to wait. Keep the faith.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

Yeah, none of that really has anything to do with anything.

Don't worry, man. One of these years a team without a franchise QB will win a Super Bowl again, and then at least you'll have something to crow about while you're pretending that franchise QBs aren't really that important.

It'll happen. You just have to wait. Keep the faith.

I don't think a team without a franchise QB will EVER win it again. The reasoning is easy, for those who know how to use it: franchise QB is a meaningless term roughly used on players who have lead their team deep into the playoff or have won super bowls. I mean, think about Eli Manning in 2007. No one knew he was a franchise quarterback. BUT HE WAS!!!!!11!!

So if Joe Flacco's pass to Lee Evans gets caught, BOOM! You call him a franchise quarterback. And the observation holds. T.J. Yates? Franchise quarterback. Mark Sanchez? Franchise quarterback. Alex Smith? Franchise quarterback.

You can do whatever you want with labels. How would you like to be "Einstein?" Labels are meaningless, so I'd have no problem calling you that if you'd like.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think a team without a franchise QB will EVER win it again. The reasoning is easy, for those who know how to use it: franchise QB is a meaningless term roughly used on players who have lead their team deep into the playoff or have won super bowls. I mean, think about Eli Manning in 2007. No one knew he was a franchise quarterback. BUT HE WAS!!!!!11!!

So if Joe Flacco's pass to Lee Evans gets caught, BOOM! You call him a franchise quarterback. And the observation holds. T.J. Yates? Franchise quarterback. Mark Sanchez? Franchise quarterback. Alex Smith? Franchise quarterback.

You can do whatever you want with labels. How would you like to be "Einstein?" Labels are meaningless, so I'd have no problem calling you that if you'd like.

I'd like you to call me Akbar Shabazz Jenkins-Robinson III.