Tex Grossman

[madlithuanian]

Texans agreed to terms with QB Rex Grossman on a one-year, $745,000 contract.

 

We're guessing that Rex isn't being brought in to compete with Dan Orlovsky, who the Texans will pay about $3M this year. Grossman, 29, holds an awful career completion rate of 54.2 and a weak 6.4 career YPA. Most likely, he will push Alex Brink to be another insurance policy behind starter Matt Schaub, who's missed 10 games with injuries over the last two seasons.

Source: Houston Chronicle

[Guest TerraTor]

Texans agreed to terms with QB Rex Grossman on a one-year, $745,000 contract.

 

We're guessing that Rex isn't being brought in to compete with Dan Orlovsky, who the Texans will pay about $3M this year. Grossman, 29, holds an awful career completion rate of 54.2 and a weak 6.4 career YPA. Most likely, he will push Alex Brink to be another insurance policy behind starter Matt Schaub, who's missed 10 games with injuries over the last two seasons.

Source: Houston Chronicle

 

I wish i was absolutely terrible at my job and could get 745K for a year to do it.... wow what a fall

[CrackerDog]

Texans agreed to terms with QB Rex Grossman on a one-year, $745,000 contract.

 

We're guessing that Rex isn't being brought in to compete with Dan Orlovsky, who the Texans will pay about $3M this year. Grossman, 29, holds an awful career completion rate of 54.2 and a weak 6.4 career YPA. Most likely, he will push Alex Brink to be another insurance policy behind starter Matt Schaub, who's missed 10 games with injuries over the last two seasons.

Source: Houston Chronicle

 

Confirmed: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6472219.html

[Wesson44]

I wish i was absolutely terrible at my job and could get 745K for a year to do it.... wow what a fall

Yeah good for Rex, as soon as he learns the playbook he will be the number two QD

[DrunkBomber]

With Schaubs injury history I think its a big possibility we could see him playing.

[Pixote]

Wow, a super sleeper for QB in FF Drafts

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Rex was never as bad as people here made him out to be. He led us- YES HE LED US- to that Super Bowl. I wish him all the best down there in Texas.

[bradjock]

Texans agreed to terms with QB Rex Grossman on a one-year, $745,000 contract.

 

We're guessing that Rex isn't being brought in to compete with Dan Orlovsky, who the Texans will pay about $3M this year. Grossman, 29, holds an awful career completion rate of 54.2 and a weak 6.4 career YPA. Most likely, he will push Alex Brink to be another insurance policy behind starter Matt Schaub, who's missed 10 games with injuries over the last two seasons.

Source: Houston Chronicle

 

How the hell did Dan Orlovsky get paid 3 million per year??? WTF???

 

Rex could actually dominate with the Texans. He's got one helluva an arm and that offense is very explosive. They have the guys who can go deap and Rex can definitely throw the deep ball.

[Mongo3451]

Rex could actually dominate with the Texans.

Good one. LOL!

[selection7]

Is 6.4 ypa actually that weak? You hit 7 ypa and you're doing good...8 and you're the best in the league. 6.4 is more like average right?

[nfoligno]

I would say 6.4 is more on the below average side.

 

All of the top 12 QBs (going off QB rating) are above 7.0 ypa. Of the top 18, there are 3 below 7.

 

Eli was just under, at 6.8. McNabb was at 6.9, which is also his lowest ypa in the last 5 years.

 

The only other QB was Senaca Wallace.

 

Orton also had a 6.4 last year, and he was the 26th rated QB in that regard.

 

I am not saying this is the end all be all stat, but 6.4 is pretty low. You have exceptions, but give or take a couple, 7.0 is a pretty decent indicator, not of a great or elite QB, but of a good QB. I am not sure if there is a QB on that list, who threw 6.7 or below, who would be considered a good QB.

 

Is 6.4 ypa actually that weak? You hit 7 ypa and you're doing good...8 and you're the best in the league. 6.4 is more like average right?

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

It's hilarious how easily people forget the @ Packers, Lions, Seahawks, Bills, 49ers, @ Jets, @ Giants, @ Rams, and Bucs regular season games from 2006 where Rex was awesome. Take the Bucs game- the great defense we had gave up 31 points to an eventual 4 win team and Rex played awesome which clinched home field throughout the playoffs. Or the Giants game, where everyone was calling for Orton and the Rex-led offense scored 38 points AT GIANTS STADIUM. Also, don't forget his solid performance in the playoffs against Seattle and his very good game in the playoffs against the Aints.

[bowlingtwig]

It's hilarious how easily people forget the @ Packers, Lions, Seahawks, Bills, 49ers, @ Jets, @ Giants, @ Rams, and Bucs regular season games from 2006 where Rex was awesome. Take the Bucs game- the great defense we had gave up 31 points to an eventual 4 win team and Rex played awesome which clinched home field throughout the playoffs. Or the Giants game, where everyone was calling for Orton and the Rex-led offense scored 38 points AT GIANTS STADIUM. Also, don't forget his solid performance in the playoffs against Seattle and his very good game in the playoffs against the Aints.

In the SB he wasn't completely horrific either like some people in the media make it sound like. The Defense just couldn't stop the run at all the game. The D was bad in that game.

[nfoligno]

Are you kidding. I have had this argument before, and just will not let it go.

 

The defense gave up 22 points to one of the best offenses in the league.

 

The great Payton Manning was held to one TD. and as I recall, one big play (a blown coverage). At the same time, the QB who doesn't turn it over threw one pick, as well as putting another on the ground. This was a team that didn't turn the ball over, and yet our D forced 3 turnovers.

 

On the other side though, no matter what our D did, it just didn't seem to matter. The offense just couldn't do crap, and continued to turn it over, again and again. Rex tossed a pair of picks, and put another on the ground. Benson fumbled another away, and add yet one more from special teams. FIVE TURNOVERS!

 

How many defenses over-come 5 freaking turnovers, particularly against an elite offense?

 

Our defense was facing an elite offense. Our offense was not facing an elite defense, yet made them look all-world.

 

I am not saying the D played great, but PLEASE don't try to say Rex didn't play horrible in the SB, or try to push it all on the D.

 

In the SB he wasn't completely horrific either like some people in the media make it sound like. The Defense just couldn't stop the run at all the game. The D was bad in that game.

[madlithuanian]

Thank you...

 

Are you kidding. I have had this argument before, and just will not let it go.

 

The defense gave up 22 points to one of the best offenses in the league.

 

The great Payton Manning was held to one TD. and as I recall, one big play (a blown coverage). At the same time, the QB who doesn't turn it over threw one pick, as well as putting another on the ground. This was a team that didn't turn the ball over, and yet our D forced 3 turnovers.

 

On the other side though, no matter what our D did, it just didn't seem to matter. The offense just couldn't do crap, and continued to turn it over, again and again. Rex tossed a pair of picks, and put another on the ground. Benson fumbled another away, and add yet one more from special teams. FIVE TURNOVERS!

 

How many defenses over-come 5 freaking turnovers, particularly against an elite offense?

 

Our defense was facing an elite offense. Our offense was not facing an elite defense, yet made them look all-world.

 

I am not saying the D played great, but PLEASE don't try to say Rex didn't play horrible in the SB, or try to push it all on the D.

[nfoligno]

It's not that people forget how well he played early on, but how well we remember how poorly he played after defenses seemed to adjust.

 

Prior to 2006, Rex as a part time played, and teams didn't have much film on him. Thus, he was able to look quite good early in the season. Heck, as I recall, our offense was considered top 10, and we were just lighting teams up. The problem is, teams began to figure out that Rex would crack under pressure. Luckily, that year, we still had a pretty solid OL, and not every team was capable of putting that pressure on Rex, but that was the new strategy against him.

 

No question he had some damn good games that year. The problem was just how bad he was in others. 5 games w/ 3 or more interceptions. He only had 3 games w/ 3 or more TDs, yet 5 games w/ 3 or more picks. That is not a good ratio.

 

But hey, this was his first full season starting. No shock there was going to be some bad, right? I just do not think was the problem though. The problem was his lack of progression, and many would say regression, after this season. His weak areas were pretty well known, both on this board and in public. It was expected he would work on those areas and show improvement after 2006. Instead, he seemed to go backward in terms of development.

 

 

 

It's hilarious how easily people forget the @ Packers, Lions, Seahawks, Bills, 49ers, @ Jets, @ Giants, @ Rams, and Bucs regular season games from 2006 where Rex was awesome. Take the Bucs game- the great defense we had gave up 31 points to an eventual 4 win team and Rex played awesome which clinched home field throughout the playoffs. Or the Giants game, where everyone was calling for Orton and the Rex-led offense scored 38 points AT GIANTS STADIUM. Also, don't forget his solid performance in the playoffs against Seattle and his very good game in the playoffs against the Aints.

[madlithuanian]

Bingo nfo!

 

Opponents were preparing for run, run, run and we passed, passed passed. Then when we got a nice lead, the D started making big plays...then the run game came in...then hester was doing his thing. It was a wonderful snowball ride for a while. Then as you mention, it was figured out. Get in Rex's dish and he'll fold like a house of cards. Miami I think was the first team to do it. AZ was onto something, but heroics from Url, Mike Brown and Hester proved too much. And the rest is history...

 

And as you say, he went backwards. He did not improve. Especially on things like throwing off the back foot, reading defenses, holding onto the ball. Things under his control.

 

It was a fun run. But ultimately, I feel duped.

 

And while many I'm sure disagree with me, I'm still irritated how he did not take any personal responsibility for the SB loss. He called it a team loss, and while it was...a strong leader and stand-up guy takes the whole heat, even if more blame should be shifted elsewhere. It showed immaturity at that moment. It showed weakness. I was honestly done with him from that point on.

 

I'd wish the guy luck, but he's not a Bear. I just wish him good health and hope that if we ever see him again, he's so kind to return the favor and give us about 5 turnovers.

 

 

 

It's not that people forget how well he played early on, but how well we remember how poorly he played after defenses seemed to adjust.

 

Prior to 2006, Rex as a part time played, and teams didn't have much film on him. Thus, he was able to look quite good early in the season. Heck, as I recall, our offense was considered top 10, and we were just lighting teams up. The problem is, teams began to figure out that Rex would crack under pressure. Luckily, that year, we still had a pretty solid OL, and not every team was capable of putting that pressure on Rex, but that was the new strategy against him.

 

No question he had some damn good games that year. The problem was just how bad he was in others. 5 games w/ 3 or more interceptions. He only had 3 games w/ 3 or more TDs, yet 5 games w/ 3 or more picks. That is not a good ratio.

 

But hey, this was his first full season starting. No shock there was going to be some bad, right? I just do not think was the problem though. The problem was his lack of progression, and many would say regression, after this season. His weak areas were pretty well known, both on this board and in public. It was expected he would work on those areas and show improvement after 2006. Instead, he seemed to go backward in terms of development.

[defiantgiant]

I agree with everything from nfo - Rex really did choke away the Super Bowl in the last quarter. We were still in the game until he threw two fourth-quarter picks and one of them went for a Colts TD.

 

Rex's problem was always consistency and performing well under pass pressure, even when he was doing well. There's a great blog entry at pro-football-reference about this. They break down quarterbacks by a single composite stat, Adjusted Yards per Attempt. The NFL average AY/A was 5.81 for the 2006 season. Grossman had a 5.26 AY/A in 2006, which is somewhat below average, but not awful. But the really interesting part comes when they examine his AY/A from individual games, to see how he got to that mark for the season:

 

"Three times [in the 2006] season, Grossman had AY/A ratings of over 9.50, and three times this year he had AY/A in the negatives. That’s pretty odd: only eleven times this season did any QB have a negative AY/A in a game (min: 10 attempts). No QB reached that level of futility twice, but Grossman did it three times, and had the two worst averages in 2006.

 

But there’s another side to Rex, of course. Only seven quarterbacks had three or more games with an AY/A of 9.50 or greater: Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger and Donovan McNabb did it four times each; Philip Rivers, Damon Huard, Drew Brees…and Rex Grossman hit that mark three times. None of those six ever had a negative AY/A, while Grossman did it three times. So is Rex the ultimate two-faced QB?"

 

They go on to examine the standard deviation of his AY/A numbers, and it's ridiculous:

 

"Not surprisingly, Grossman tops the list [at a standard deviation of 5.74], and by a wide margin. For those unfamiliar with standard deviation, what that 5.74 number means is that if Grossman’s performances are normally distributed, we’d expect his AY/A in a given game to fall between -0.48 and 11.00 roughly 68% of the time. On the other hand, we’d expect Peyton Manning’s AY/A in a given game to fall between 5.66 and 9.78 about 68% of the time. Obviously, Manning’s performance in any given game is going to be much more predictable than Grossman’s. Perhaps even more amazing is that nearly 1/3 of the time, we’d expect to see Grossman play absolutely out of his mind good (over 11.00 Y/A) or absolutely horribly bad (a negative AY/A).

 

So how inconsistent was Grossman? Not only is his 5.74 mark the worst this year, but it’s the worse since 1995 (which is as far back as the PFR games database goes)...So there you have it; Rex Grossman has been the most inconsistent quarterback in the last 12 years of NFL football...We don’t have game data going back much farther, but I’d be surprised if there’s ever been a QB as inconsistent as Rex Grossman was in 2006."

 

That's basically what I remember of 2006 Rex: sometimes he would just explode and destroy teams, and just as often he would lose you the game all by himself. There was really no middle ground.

 

As far as Rex on the Texans, I hope that they don't have to start him any time soon. He's got really top-shelf arm talent, but his decision-making needs a HUGE amount of work, and I don't know if he'll ever get there. If he finally puts it together mentally, he could be a dangerous quarterback, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Lucky Luciano]

Are you kidding. I have had this argument before, and just will not let it go.

 

The defense gave up 22 points to one of the best offenses in the league.

 

The great Payton Manning was held to one TD. and as I recall, one big play (a blown coverage). At the same time, the QB who doesn't turn it over threw one pick, as well as putting another on the ground. This was a team that didn't turn the ball over, and yet our D forced 3 turnovers.

 

On the other side though, no matter what our D did, it just didn't seem to matter. The offense just couldn't do crap, and continued to turn it over, again and again. Rex tossed a pair of picks, and put another on the ground. Benson fumbled another away, and add yet one more from special teams. FIVE TURNOVERS!

 

How many defenses over-come 5 freaking turnovers, particularly against an elite offense?

 

Our defense was facing an elite offense. Our offense was not facing an elite defense, yet made them look all-world.

 

I am not saying the D played great, but PLEASE don't try to say Rex didn't play horrible in the SB, or try to push it all on the D.

 

while agreeing that our offense was pathetic with the turnovers (especially grossman) i also have to state that our *defense did little themselves. in my opinion it certainly wasn't a one sided affair when laying blame but seeing as how our defense was SUPPOSED to be the crown jewel in our franchise and we expected little from our offense to begin with, it had to be more on their shoulders than any other squad.

 

i also believe it was more on BOTH teams defenses to dictate the game due to weather conditions. monsoon rains definately help a running game more than the passing attack we feared from manning yet we gave away our weather advantage and let them run us down like roadkill racoons. to give up 191 yards rushing in a game where running is expected due to conditions is flat out horrible. this should have been on not only rivera but lovie for coming out the second half as flat and unimaginative as they appeared. turner also needed to be SLAPPED for only rushing 19 times in a game like this whether benson was hurt or not.

 

one final item... those who think the score was not lopsided in the colts favor are kidding themselves. the colts could have virtually blown us out more than they acutally did by the end of the game if they wanted to.

 

note... lovie does deserve his 20th ranking as a coach. forget the win loss record and go with how he actually performed 'coaching' over the last TWO years. in my opinion he is lucky to have been ranked that high.

 

*the colts put up SIX long drives that buried the bears. one in the first quarter, a 4 1/2 min 80 yard drive for a TD, 2 second quarter drives that ate up 7 minutes for 105 yards and 10 points, 2 third quarter drives that consumed nearly 10 minutes for 128 yards and 6 points, and one fourth quarter drive with 5 min left in the game that ate up 3 1/2 minutes and 37 yrds to put the final nail in the coffin.

[defiantgiant]

note... lovie does deserve his 20th ranking as a coach. forget the win loss record and go with how he actually performed 'coaching' over the last TWO years. in my opinion he is lucky to have been ranked that high.

 

I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but how do you measure a coach's performance if not by how often his team wins? Seriously, I want to know if there's another metric where a coach isn't ultimately responsible for winning. Is there such thing as a bad coach who consistently wins? I can't think of any bad coaches who had winning seasons more often than not.

 

If Lovie's a bad coach, why has he won more than all but ONE team in the NFC? If he's lucky to be ranked 20th, the what's the explanation for the fact that he's won more than 14 of the coaches ranked better than 20th?

 

When I think of a bad coach, I think of a guy like Dick Jauron, who had one winning season in five years with the Bears. In point of fact, 2001 with the Bears was his only winning season in 9 years as a head coach in the NFL. THAT'S a bad coach.

[nfoligno]

while agreeing that our offense was pathetic with the turnovers (especially grossman) i also have to state that our *defense did little themselves. in my opinion it certainly wasn't a one sided affair when laying blame but seeing as how our defense was SUPPOSED to be the crown jewel in our franchise and we expected little from our offense to begin with, it had to be more on their shoulders than any other squad.

 

I agree it is reasonable to expect a lot from our defense. But what exactly was your expectation? Indy was a truly elite offense, w/ a passing game on tier w/ all-time greats. Not sure it would be realistic to expect to shut them out. In fact, I think giving up only 2 TDs to Manning would have been considered doing pretty well by most going in. On the other hand, while our offense may not have been great, it was going up against a pretty mediocre defense, and thus I think it was fair to expect more.

 

i also believe it was more on BOTH teams defenses to dictate the game due to weather conditions. monsoon rains definately help a running game more than the passing attack we feared from manning yet we gave away our weather advantage and let them run us down like roadkill racoons. to give up 191 yards rushing in a game where running is expected due to conditions is flat out horrible. this should have been on not only rivera but lovie for coming out the second half as flat and unimaginative as they appeared. turner also needed to be SLAPPED for only rushing 19 times in a game like this whether benson was hurt or not.

 

I understand, however, I personally think the Colts were waiting for us to start shifting to play the run. That would have played right into their hands.

 

*the colts put up SIX long drives that buried the bears. one in the first quarter, a 4 1/2 min 80 yard drive for a TD, 2 second quarter drives that ate up 7 minutes for 105 yards and 10 points, 2 third quarter drives that consumed nearly 10 minutes for 128 yards and 6 points, and one fourth quarter drive with 5 min left in the game that ate up 3 1/2 minutes and 37 yrds to put the final nail in the coffin.

 

Yes, they did have several long drives on us, but....

 

(a) That was the plan going in, IMHO. Force them to drive the field, thus creating more turnover opportunities. In a way, that worked as we forced 3 turnovers against a team who was known for not turning the ball over.

 

( I think that was also by design to limit an offense known for quick/long strikes. You talk about the long drives, but I would counter the alternative could have been much worse, w/ more 80 yard, one hit strikes.

 

© I also think it has to be noted that, while they have many long drives, the D was able to most often, keep them out of the endzone. Sorry, but against that offense, that is not something to dismiss.

 

I know many had dreams of shutting out the Colts, or killing Manning, but I just wonder how realistic those dreams ever were. This was a great offense we were facing, and I think they did a better job limiting Manning then they get credit for, especially when you factor how they had to deal w/ an offense that turned the ball over 5 freaking times. Heck, I remember one point where we picked off Manning, and the Defense was as high as a kite after that. W/ in like a play or two, our offense turned it over, and the wind seemed to be sucked from the D's sails.

 

In history, how often do you think a defense can compensate for their offense turning it over 5 times?

[nfoligno]

While not wanting to get into a huge Jauron argument, I am not sure he would be a good example to make your point. In fact, I would argue Jauron would be an example of how it might be difficult to measure a coach simply by W/L record.

 

At the time Jauron was the coach, take a look at what he had to work with. Now, if you want to argue he was an awful personnel man, I would agree. I am not even necessarily arguing his evaluation as a coach, but pointing out that sometimes a W/L record may not be a great measuring stick, as a coach may not have the players needed to win with.

 

An opposite situation might be Barry Switzer. He joined the Cowboys and immediately won a SB. He must be a great coach, right? How could anything but a great coach win the SB. But then you factor how he took over a SB team, and had so much talent already in place, all he had to do was stay out of the players way.

 

No question W/L record is a big part of the evaluation, but at the same time, I do not think it is the only way of measuring a coach. I think there are other factors that can be used.

 

I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but how do you measure a coach's performance if not by how often his team wins? Seriously, I want to know if there's another metric where a coach isn't ultimately responsible for winning. Is there such thing as a bad coach who consistently wins? I can't think of any bad coaches who had winning seasons more often than not.

 

If Lovie's a bad coach, why has he won more than all but ONE team in the NFC? If he's lucky to be ranked 20th, the what's the explanation for the fact that he's won more than 14 of the coaches ranked better than 20th?

 

When I think of a bad coach, I think of a guy like Dick Jauron, who had one winning season in five years with the Bears. In point of fact, 2001 with the Bears was his only winning season in 9 years as a head coach in the NFL. THAT'S a bad coach.

[madlithuanian]

Great example of Switzer.

 

I think you can possibly include the likes of Siefert, Fassel, Ross, Martz, Callahan....

 

Just like mentiong great players, more than win/loss or winning the big game factors in... We all know Trent Dilfer or even Jim McMahon aren't the best QB's of all time. We also know marino is, and he never won the big game.

 

Coaching, as I see it, is not different.

 

There are other factors as you note.

 

1. Win/loss

2. ability to adapt

3. innovation

4. uttilize the talent to the best potential

5. put together a strong staff

 

I'm sure there are more!

 

 

While not wanting to get into a huge Jauron argument, I am not sure he would be a good example to make your point. In fact, I would argue Jauron would be an example of how it might be difficult to measure a coach simply by W/L record.

 

At the time Jauron was the coach, take a look at what he had to work with. Now, if you want to argue he was an awful personnel man, I would agree. I am not even necessarily arguing his evaluation as a coach, but pointing out that sometimes a W/L record may not be a great measuring stick, as a coach may not have the players needed to win with.

 

An opposite situation might be Barry Switzer. He joined the Cowboys and immediately won a SB. He must be a great coach, right? How could anything but a great coach win the SB. But then you factor how he took over a SB team, and had so much talent already in place, all he had to do was stay out of the players way.

 

No question W/L record is a big part of the evaluation, but at the same time, I do not think it is the only way of measuring a coach. I think there are other factors that can be used.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

In the SB he wasn't completely horrific either like some people in the media make it sound like. The Defense just couldn't stop the run at all the game. The D was bad in that game.

On 2nd and 1, Turner was calling pass plays which the 1 resulted in a fumble. The defense couldn't stop the run. Benson pussed out.

 

Oh well.

[defiantgiant]

While not wanting to get into a huge Jauron argument, I am not sure he would be a good example to make your point. In fact, I would argue Jauron would be an example of how it might be difficult to measure a coach simply by W/L record.

 

At the time Jauron was the coach, take a look at what he had to work with. Now, if you want to argue he was an awful personnel man, I would agree. I am not even necessarily arguing his evaluation as a coach, but pointing out that sometimes a W/L record may not be a great measuring stick, as a coach may not have the players needed to win with.

 

I think we're saying the same thing, just about different guys: that's pretty much my take on Lovie in 2007. After a couple of poor front office moves and a TON of injuries, he just didn't have the personnel he needed in order to put together a winning season. The fact that he still got the team to 7-9 is a testament to his coaching.

 

I'm not trying to say that good coaches don't sometimes have losing seasons. But I think it's safe to say that a good coach, over his career, wins more often than not. Lovie's had two losing seasons, one where he inherited a losing team and one where he did what he could with a badly depleted roster. I'm more than willing to excuse both of those and still call him a good coach.