PDA

View Full Version : Would you prefer the Texans be a...


ensign_lee
01-01-2006, 03:00 AM
Assuming that you could choose which type of team the Texans would be in the next 2-3 years, and knowing that they wouldn't have all the pieces put together like the Colts or anything, which of the following teams would you prefer?

1) Offensive explosion, running on all cylinders / below average - poor defense.
Shootouts are fun, right? I remember certain teams *cough Colts* *cough Chiefs* that worked off of this principle. They were always exciting to watch, and went into the playoffs. They just...never got all the way.

2) mediocre-poor offense / absolutely amazing 3-4 defense (think the Bears, but 3-4)
These games will be a bit more dirty, and will be a bit more tight. Plus, playing this way doesn't guarantee a postseason berth, nor postseason success.

3) above average-average offense and defense
These games will be close...how close? That depends on the next head coach.

The way I see it, offense sells tickets, and I'd rather be privy to watch my team be involved in shootouts than slugfests. If we win our games next year by scores somewhere like 42-35, that'll be fine with me. I've had enough of the "pound the ball, play sound defense" crap that's been spoon fed to me these past few years.

What are y'all's thoughts?

abbest
01-01-2006, 03:20 AM
I have a short list of potential Headcoaches for the Texans. Only two (Gary ubiak and Mike Singletary) need apply. Both were on teams that won SuperBowls in some capacity as player and/or coach. I believed either will be successful if given the chance. Imagine a potent offense under Kubiak or a defense that sports fangs and snort fire under Singletary. What a fantasy if we could have both here together. MAKE IT HAPPEN MCNAIR!!!!!!!

Grid
01-01-2006, 05:51 AM
I said Weak offense, Strong Defense.

Defense wins championships.

And really.. if you have the strong defense.. its alot easier to put up just enough points to win the game.. especially if you have a strong running game.

touttail
01-01-2006, 06:57 AM
I would say an above average Offense and a strong Defense.
This would be my choice. Granted you need a strong defense, but you also need a offense to be able to score some points to win, not a weak offense.

Bobby 119C:brickwall

WWJD
01-01-2006, 08:01 AM
None of the above.

I'd prefer they be a balanced team. That's the only way they can ever be successful and be championship quality.

tsip
01-01-2006, 08:45 AM
I said Weak offense, Strong Defense.

Defense wins championships.

And really.. if you have the strong defense.. its alot easier to put up just enough points to win the game.. especially if you have a strong running game.

...sounds like Dom Capers all over again!!!

Texans86
01-01-2006, 09:51 AM
I also went with the strong defense, weak offense idea. But there are only a few points that contradict it. The Rams led by Kurt Warner were "the greatest show on turf" and won Superbowls, so offense can win it all. And I really don't like going into other sports, but ask Roger Clemens what it feels like to not allow many points, but not score any. Still, I think defense give a team the best chance to win.

tsip
01-01-2006, 12:04 PM
IMO, your choices are too limited and too extreme as we need more of both sides to win. We've already done the 'no show' offense part of the equation for 4 years and the defense still needs a lot of work. We need an agressive HC that will hire proven assistants and go from there because we've got a long way to go. We need schemes that are suitable to our personnel and we need to play everybody, especially at RB! We need to stress fundamentals and work on them every day--off sides,personal fouls,missed tackles,etc. have got to be minimized. We need a HC that knows how to game plan for one game at a time and can see when things for that game are not working and can make the appropriate adjustments. But, most important, we do not need another 'coaching not to lose' HC. Creative, imaginitive, open minded, flexible, willing to accept blame, etc.

Ibar_Harry
01-01-2006, 12:41 PM
None of the above would be my vote. I think we could be a strong offensive club that could be a good defensive club within a year or so depending upon the coaching. Of course that's true of the offense as well. I think we have the talent right now to be a better offensive ball club than a defensive ball club. Despite what some of you might think I'm not stictly offensive minded. I've simply felt that our strength was a young offensive ball club which should have been a lot better by now than it has been. Again, it has been my belief that the defense fell apart due to the ijuries in year 2. That destroyed their plan. The defense simply got too old too quickly.

HJam72
01-01-2006, 01:24 PM
I think our D got bad over the last off-season, but I agree with you about the offense.

Be more open-minded people. Your choices do NOT include a great offense AND a great defense. Make a choice. I chose D, but now I'm confused because our D sucks and I still want O-linemen in the draft. idonno:

ensign_lee
01-01-2006, 03:30 PM
Ok. I didn't include a choice of great offense AND great defense, because I just don't think that we're capable of having both within 2 years. The question I was posing was whether you would prefer that we concentrate on the offense, making it good, defense, making it good, or try to balance both, making neither extraordinary.

In 4 years, we may have all the pieces put together, but within 2 years, I think we can only be exceptional on one side of the ball.

tsip
01-01-2006, 04:41 PM
Ok. I didn't include a choice of great offense AND great defense, because I just don't think that we're capable of having both within 2 years. The question I was posing was whether you would prefer that we concentrate on the offense, making it good, defense, making it good, or try to balance both, making neither extraordinary.

In 4 years, we may have all the pieces put together, but within 2 years, I think we can only be exceptional on one side of the ball.

...why can't one be great and the other ok--why does the one that's not great have to be terrible?