PDA

View Full Version : The Best Texans Team


Runner
10-17-2007, 09:59 PM
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago asking if the members of this board would be happy with an 8-8 season. I thought wow – the Texans were 7-9 without Kubiak, Schaub, and several other upgrades. The Texans are supposed to have more depth now too.

I attempted to compare the starters and a few key players from the two teams (If I made any errors let me know and I’ll fix the list. I’m not sure about the 2004 safeties for one thing).

It is hard to compare two different years, and I know some people will point to the injuries this year. However, I think Davis went down some in 2004 and Wells played, and the 2004 team didn’t have the advantage of having a Mathis or Jones on special teams at all. The coaching alone should be worth a couple of games.

If the Texans don’t get on a little roll and finish with 9 or 10 wins, there are some questions in my mind. Was the 2004 team better than they have received credit for? Is this current team underachieving? Is the talent and/or coaching really not much better now?


2004----------------------------------2007
7-9-------------------------------------?-?

Offense

Carr----------------------------------Schaub

Davis---------------------------------Green
Wells---------------------------------Dayne

Norris---------------------------------Leach

Wand---------------------------------Salaam
Pitts----------------------------------Pitts
McKinney----------------------------------------------------McKinney/Flanagan
Wiegert-------------------------------Weary
Wade---------------------------------Winston

Miller----------------------------------Daniels
Breuner--------------------------------Putzier

Johnson-------------------------------Johnson
Bradford-------------------------------Walter
Gaffney--------------------------------Jones

Defense

Walker--------------------------------Weaver
Payne---------------------------------Johnson
---------------------------------------Okoye
Smith ---------------------------------Williams

Babin----------------------------------Clark
Sharper--------------------------------Ryans
Wong
Peek----------------------------------Greenwood

Robinson------------------------------Robinson
Glenn----------------------------------Faggins
Coleman-------------------------------Brown
Brown---------------------------------Hutchins

Special Teams

Stanley--------------------------------Turk
Brown----------------------------------Brown
Moses----------------------------------Jones
----------------------------------------Mathis
Pittman---------------------------------Pittman

Coaches

Capers----------------------------------Kubiak
Palmer/Pendry---------------------------Sherman
Fangio----------------------------------Smith/Bush

mexican_texan
10-17-2007, 10:22 PM
The team from Weeks 1-3 were the best Texans team ever.

Fox
10-17-2007, 10:37 PM
I agree we're more talented and we have better coaching, the simplest translation would be more wins right? But I think we need to look deeper before jumping to any conclusions after a quick look at the W - L columns. In 2004 the Titans went 5-11, the Jags went 9-7, and the Colts went 12-4. Our division this year appears from the outset to be much stronger than it was then, due in large part to a surging Titans team. Win totals are inflated or deflated based on strength of division just like they are inflated or deflated by a weaker (NFC) or stronger (AFC) conference.

If things continue as they do and we only finish 7-9, I'll still see this team as much better than the one in 2004 because of the circumstances in which they were playing.

TheRealJoker
10-17-2007, 10:41 PM
When AJ is playing this team is by far the best it has ever been.

Runner
10-17-2007, 10:53 PM
I agree we're more talented and we have better coaching, the simplest translation would be more wins right? But I think we need to look deeper before jumping to any conclusions after a quick look at the W - L columns. In 2004 the Titans went 5-11, the Jags went 9-7, and the Colts went 12-4. Our division this year appears from the outset to be much stronger than it was then, due in large part to a surging Titans team. Win totals are inflated or deflated based on strength of division just like they are inflated or deflated by a weaker (NFC) or stronger (AFC) conference.

If things continue as they do and we only finish 7-9, I'll still see this team as much better than the one in 2004 because of the circumstances in which they were playing.

Interesting point, but with teams like Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, and Oakland on the schedule they aren't play a strong out of division schedule this year either.

It is also a bit of a cop out, I think. To be a winning team and compete for the play-offs, a team has to play and beat good teams.

Fox
10-17-2007, 11:43 PM
We play our divisional opponents twice a piece, a few easier games on the schedule doesn't compensate well. You play a few bad teams out of division every year. Of course from the Texans stand point it would be a cop out to use the division as an excuse for not making the playoffs, but from the stand point of evaluating a 2004 7-9 Texans team and a 2007 7-9 Texans team under the current circumstances, you would be remiss not to take the circumstances of their division into consideration.

The Pencil Neck
10-18-2007, 01:34 AM
If you look at that 2004 season, Carr started off LIGHTS OUT. He was playing better statistically than Schaub is now. For the first 8 games of the season (iirc), he was averaging 270 yards per game. We started off 4-4 during that period.

Then the wheels fell off. Carr fell to pieces and he dropped to 170 ypg and we went 3-5. Carr was playing great the first 7 games of the season.

Strangely, Domanick wasn't playing that well during the first part of the season. During the last part of the season is when he really started performing.

Runner
10-18-2007, 05:57 AM
So to summarize so far we have a couple "it's the injuries this year", a single "the 2004 teams was actually decent", and one "it's too hard this year".

My opinion is that the 2004 team was pretty good, but it fell apart from a combination of bad coaching, Carr failing to live up to even his previous mediocre-at-best-and-on-a-good-day play, and maybe some aging/weaknesses in positions where the Texans had not brought in young talent to take over, especially on defense.

If I had a time machine, I'd have liked to see them substitute Schaub for Carr and eliminate Pendry from the equation and see how that 2004 team would have done.

Malloy
10-18-2007, 06:23 AM
...and maybe some aging/weaknesses in positions where the Texans had not brought in young talent to take over, especially on defense.



Very important point! The whole experience vs youth is interesting. An aging veteran míght play as poorly as a inexperienced youngster, but for obvious reasons. What is important (say, if their production on the field is the same) is that the investment in youth might (I'm not saying it will) pay off at a later time.

It's strategy really, what line do you as a coach want to take?

hm... that post turned out to be pretty incoherent... sorry about that :)

Kaiser Toro
10-18-2007, 07:02 AM
I never thought any of the teams under Capers were competitive. Kubiak's first year was the first time a Texans team competed for a whole year and actually resemebled a NFL team. It is night and day to even compare unless and there is an unseen agenda that will surprise us later in this October day.

Moreover, I am very unclear how the strength of schedule is being brought up as the 2003 team and 2006 team finished in very similar positions in the win column and AFC South standings.

Lucky
10-18-2007, 08:05 AM
I attempted to compare the starters and a few key players from the two teams (If I made any errors let me know and I’ll fix the list. I’m not sure about the 2004 safeties for one thing).
For '04, Sharper was a starter at linebacker. Robinson was a starter at RCB. Eric Brown and Marcus Coleman began the season as the safeties. Simmons, Earl, and Marlon McCree worked in as the season went along.

On defense, the major difference between the two would be experience. The Texans had a lot of vets on their last legs (Payne, Sharper, Glenn)...but they still had legs. The defense closed strong at the end of the year, as the Texans had a chance at 8-8 with the final game at home against the hapless Browns. We all know how that turned out.

On offense, the Texans had a healthy Andre Johnson all season. That was a plus. As Pencil Neck pointed out, Davis began the season playing poorly. But, he finished with a very good second half. Carr had some very good games early (including the overtime loss to the Vikings). However he went into the tank when teams stopped blitzing and went into cover 2 defenses. The Texans got very little from the passing game in the second half of the season.

This year's team has had some tough luck with injuries. But, there's no reason why they can't bounce back to their form from the beginning of the season. Schaub has been very good and should get even better. Ahman Green should give the team at threat at RB. The injury to Johnson has given guys like Walter and Andre Davis a chance to gain Schaub's confidence. With Andre coming back, that should make the passing game stronger.

As far as the defense is concerned, I see them getting better as the season goes along. Williams, Ryans, Okoye, and Bennett will only get better with experience. Robinson is now playing at a Pro Bowl level. Sure, there are still some holes, but I expect this Texans team to be the best in franchise history. And have the best record.

Texans Horror
10-18-2007, 08:07 AM
Interesting because of the complete and different overhauls on defense and offense. The offense has a better stable of receivers and backs (including QB), but a much younger menage on defense.

Carr Bombed
10-18-2007, 08:13 AM
It was turnovers.........back in 2004 wasn't our D close to the top in forcing turnovers? I think we were close in leading the league in interceptions, since that year we have always been near the bottom in picks and forcing TOs.

That team wasn't better, they were just making bigger plays........if that makes any sense. That was the year that everybody thought John Hoke was a genius DB coach............since then................not so much.

hot pickle
10-18-2007, 08:33 AM
we also had a good young running back... remember those games against the jaguars when DD/DW ran all over there D... oh the good ole days... lol

real
10-18-2007, 09:09 AM
Can't compare records from year to year...

The difference between 7-9 and 11-5 can litterally have come down to 5 or 6 plays that did or didn't go your way...

You have to look at competition...You have to look at injuries....You have to look at how they lost games....

Even if we go 8-8 this year, there is really no one that can convince me that the 2004 Texans and the 2007 Texans were on the same level...Atleast not talent wise...

Texans Horror
10-18-2007, 09:25 AM
It was turnovers.........back in 2004 wasn't our D close to the top in forcing turnovers? I think we were close in leading the league in interceptions, since that year we have always been near the bottom in picks and forcing TOs.

That team wasn't better, they were just making bigger plays........if that makes any sense. That was the year that everybody thought John Hoke was a genius DB coach............since then................not so much.

There was a good thread about big plays and how they affect the outcome of the game. Sorry but I can't remember when it was. The idea, though, was that not just turn-overs but big plays - blocked kicks, etc. was a great litmus test for who would win. The team that continues to make the big plays will win, not necessarily the one with the most yards.

Can't compare records from year to year...

The difference between 7-9 and 11-5 can litterally have come down to 5 or 6 plays that did or didn't go your way...

You have to look at competition...You have to look at injuries....You have to look at how they lost games....

Even if we go 8-8 this year, there is really no one that can convince me that the 2004 Texans and the 2007 Texans were on the same level...Atleast not talent wise...

A little non sequitur, but along these lines, I have too often stayed up at night wondering what would (not) have happened to the team if in 2005 a few plays bounced our way and Chris Brown made a couple more decisive field goals...

Fox
10-18-2007, 09:26 AM
Moreover, I am very unclear how the strength of schedule is being brought up as the 2003 team and 2006 team finished in very similar positions in the win column and AFC South standings.

You play tougher opponents, you win less games. Makes sense to me.

I just don't think you can evaluate how good a team is from 2004 with one now based on the W-L record, you have to watch the games and form your opinion.

real
10-18-2007, 09:36 AM
A little non sequitur, but along these lines, I have too often stayed up at night wondering what would (not) have happened to the team if in 2005 a few plays bounced our way and Chris Brown made a couple more decisive field goals...

Football is litterally a game of inches...

A team can have gotten their tail whipped all day long and only lose by a field goal...

And like us against the Jags, a team could have played better than the score indicated...



That's why coaches stress perfection...Because even if you are the worse team in the leauge talent wise, you can still win some games just from playing better football than your opponents....

There are so many factors that go into wins and losses that it's hard to look at records alone and compare teams...sometimes the better team loses...

Double Barrel
10-18-2007, 09:57 AM
The 2004 Texans are the best team we've had until proven otherwise, IMO. :howdy:

When we were 2-0, I was sipping koolaide with the rest of us and hoping that this year was, by far, our best team.

But after the last three games....'eh, not so much. Our defense has gone vanilla and are left out there too long, so they don't have much in the tank by the 4th qtr. Our offense cannot generate TDs in the red zone and our running game is virtually non-existent.

I think we've upgraded individual positions. Obviously QB, WR, and TE are quality right now. On defense, I'm not so sure. We have three first round picks on the line but they don't seem to generate much consistent pressure and they have suddenly become porous against the run. Our coverage is worse with D.Rob being our only true talent right now. At LB, Sharper was getting old, but it's probably close to even with a 2nd year DeMeco (who will obviously get better with experience).

I'll wait until the season is over to attempt to really compare the 2007 Texans with past teams. But based on scoreboard alone, 2004 is our 'high point'.

dskillz
10-18-2007, 11:09 AM
The 2004 Texans are the best team we've had until proven otherwise, IMO. :howdy:

When we were 2-0, I was sipping koolaide with the rest of us and hoping that this year was, by far, our best team.

But after the last three games....'eh, not so much. Our defense has gone vanilla and are left out there too long, so they don't have much in the tank by the 4th qtr. Our offense cannot generate TDs in the red zone and our running game is virtually non-existent.

I think we've upgraded individual positions. Obviously QB, WR, and TE are quality right now. On defense, I'm not so sure. We have three first round picks on the line but they don't seem to generate much consistent pressure and they have suddenly become porous against the run. Our coverage is worse with D.Rob being our only true talent right now. At LB, Sharper was getting old, but it's probably close to even with a 2nd year DeMeco (who will obviously get better with experience).

I'll wait until the season is over to attempt to really compare the 2007 Texans with past teams. But based on scoreboard alone, 2004 is our 'high point'.



I agree with all of that. Especially the part about sipping Kool-Aid at 2-0. I was so high on the team, but now I am almost numb to the team. Not that I don't care, but I just don't want to get my hopes up too much anymore because of the fear of a Jaguars redux. But I will be there every Sunday cheering them on.

hollywood_texan
10-18-2007, 01:41 PM
My analysis is really just comparing the issues that were around during the Capers era and now in the Kubiak era. Comparing talent level of previous teams to me seems a little pointless.

Therefore, in my opinion, the bottom line is, the Texans still have many of the same problems they have had since 2005 with the exception of the QB position.

Those problems are:

1. Scoring TDs (the issue this year seems to really revolve around the AJ injury),

2. Suspect play calling and poor clock management by the coach staff,

3. Anemic pass ruch,

4. Suspect coverage by the defensive secondary, and

5. Inconsistent running game, if that.

At this point, for Kubiak to get some serious traction and cement his job, it seems very clear they need to get Schaub as much talent on the offensive side of the ball as soon as possible because he appears to be that good.

I would just forget about the defense to a certain extent for the next draft and free agency season. The Texans have put a lot of investment on the defensive line with marginal improvement.

You really want the Schaub investment to pay off? Get him some tier talent! We have a QB that can make those investments pay off.

Do that in the next draft and free agency, that will probably be the best Texans team if you want to go through that analysis.

real
10-18-2007, 01:43 PM
All of you who think this team still has the same problems will be proven wrong.

It may or may not show up in the record, but you will be proven wrong.

Double Barrel
10-18-2007, 02:11 PM
I think the biggest difference between Kubiak's team and those of Capers is that we seem to have heart now. You don't see guys quitting when we make mistakes and get behind. They keep fighting until 0:00, which is a far cry from any previous version of the team.

76Texan
10-18-2007, 02:51 PM
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago asking if the members of this board would be happy with an 8-8 season. I thought wow Ė the Texans were 7-9 without Kubiak, Schaub, and several other upgrades. The Texans are supposed to have more depth now too.

If the Texans donít get on a little roll and finish with 9 or 10 wins, there are some questions in my mind. Was the 2004 team better than they have received credit for? Is this current team underachieving? Is the talent and/or coaching really not much better now?IMO, this year team has the best talent and depth that we've ever had.

If we don't incur any more major injury, anything less than 8-8 will mean that this team underachieve (JMO).

3-3 is exactly where I think the team would be.
If we've had had A.J. PLUS either JJ or Mathis healthy, I would have expected 4-2.

Runner
10-18-2007, 05:11 PM
I never thought any of the teams under Capers were competitive. Kubiak's first year was the first time a Texans team competed for a whole year and actually resemebled a NFL team. It is night and day to even compare unless and there is an unseen agenda that will surprise us later in this October day.

Moreover, I am very unclear how the strength of schedule is being brought up as the 2003 team and 2006 team finished in very similar positions in the win column and AFC South standings.

Unseen agenda? I'm hurt.

It's more I'm just messing around and trying to find something different to talk about.

As I said, I started thinking about this post when I saw how satisfied many would be with an 8-8 season. I also notice how emotions fluctuate wildly when expectations crash into the regular season.

I think during the 2004 season - especially in the early part - the fans thought the Texans could win games as they took the field, and expectations for the future were that big things were just around the corner. People may think they ďknew all alongĒ that team was destined to crash and burn, but that wasnít the majority feeling at the time. It is just hindsight. There are similar feelings now, so I thought Iíd try a comparison.

I chose the 2004 Texans for comparison (maybe I should say contrasting because they have different strengths and weaknesses) mainly because the posters on this board, including me, are far more familiar with them than say, the 1987 Giants or 1962 Bears or whatever. (I just threw those years and teams out there Ė letís not debate them too). They are also still the watermark for the Texans as far as won/loss record.

Iíve been mentally comparing the teams unit by unit when I am working out and looking for a distraction. Then I try to put a wag on how many ďgamesĒ each unit is better. This is certainly not quantifiable and is just a very rough measurement for discussion. I know none of this is provable, but it may provide some entertainment beyond ďwhy donít the Texans have a running attackĒ and ďwhat did Vince Young have for breakfastĒ.

Coaching. The 2007 team has far superior coaching. There may be some blips in the current staff Ė Kubiak/Sherman approaches possibly clashing, Smith as defensive coordinator, possibly conservative play calling. However, the 2004 coaches were abysmal. 2007 gets a +2 games for coaching alone.

Quarterback. No discussion needed. 2007 gets a +2 games.

Running back. This one is a little tougher. Iíd take Davis/Wells over Green/Dayne, especially since Green hasnít been 100%. However, going into the season we didnít know that. Iíd even say I liked Wells then a lot better than Dayne now.

Wide receivers. Better this year, but the QB has a lot to do with that. 2007 +.5

Tight ends. Same as above. +.25

Offensive line. The 2007 unit pass blocks better, but I think that has more to do with Schaub than the line. However, the 2004 line was easily more effective run blocking. 2007 gets a -1.5 game here since they canít run short yardage when needed. That costs first downs and points.

Defensive Line. This is tough. I guess the current line is better, but they should be a lot better. Iíll say +.5.

Linebackers. Ryans is the difference here. Everyone else are just players. 2007 +.25 games.

Defensive backs. Iíll have to go with the veterans on the 2004 team. 2007 -1 game.

Special teams. The Texans didnít have a Mathis or a Jones in 2004. Problem is, the 2007 team doesnít have them either. We have to ignore that at this point in the calculation though. How much is good special teams play worth? 2007 +1 game.

To total up: Coaching, QB, WR, TE, DL, LB, ST= 2007 gets a +6.5 games

OL and DB cost the 2007 unit -2.5 games.

That nets out to a + 4games. The Texans should be 11-5 according to this, um, unusual methodology.

Intangibles. If a game is subtracted because of injury, that is 10-6. Even if another game is subtracted because the division is tougher (which I donít agree with), that is 9-7. I donít like to subtract that last game, because for the Texsans to be good, they should beat the teams they are supposed to, split within this division, and maybe steal one somewhere.

8-8 and wonít cut it. 9-7 is marginal; less than that and I think they are underachieving. However, given the better coaching and the development of on-field leadership, I donít think that will continue. The 2007 team will improve; they wonít crash and burn.

I realize this isnít scientific in the least. It is just a thought experiment Iíve been having fun with. Have at it.

Fox
10-18-2007, 05:20 PM
Unseen agenda? I'm hurt.

It's more I'm just messing around and trying to find something different to talk about.

As I said, I started thinking about this post when I saw how satisfied many would be with an 8-8 season. I also notice how emotions fluctuate wildly when expectations crash into the regular season.

I think during the 2004 season - especially in the early part - the fans thought the Texans could win games as they took the field, and expectations for the future were that big things were just around the corner. People may think they ďknew all alongĒ that team was destined to crash and burn, but that wasnít the majority feeling at the time. It is just hindsight. There are similar feelings now, so I thought Iíd try a comparison.

I chose the 2004 Texans for comparison (maybe I should say contrasting because they have different strengths and weaknesses) mainly because the posters on this board, including me, are far more familiar with them than say, the 1987 Giants or 1962 Bears or whatever. (I just threw those years and teams out there Ė letís not debate them too). They are also still the watermark for the Texans as far as won/loss record.

Iíve been mentally comparing the teams unit by unit when I am working out and looking for a distraction. Then I try to put a wag on how many ďgamesĒ each unit is better. This is certainly not quantifiable and is just a very rough measurement for discussion. I know none of this is provable, but it may provide some entertainment beyond ďwhy donít the Texans have a running attackĒ and ďwhat did Vince Young have for breakfastĒ.

Coaching. The 2007 team has far superior coaching. There may be some blips in the current staff Ė Kubiak/Sherman approaches possibly clashing, Smith as defensive coordinator, possibly conservative play calling. However, the 2004 coaches were abysmal. 2007 gets a +2 games for coaching alone.

Quarterback. No discussion needed. 2007 gets a +2 games.

Running back. This one is a little tougher. Iíd take Davis/Wells over Green/Dayne, especially since Green hasnít been 100%. However, going into the season we didnít know that. Iíd even say I liked Wells then a lot better than Dayne now.

Wide receivers. Better this year, but the QB has a lot to do with that. 2007 +.5

Tight ends. Same as above. +.25

Offensive line. The 2007 unit pass blocks better, but I think that has more to do with Schaub than the line. However, the 2004 line was easily more effective run blocking. 2007 gets a -1.5 game here since they canít run short yardage when needed. That costs first downs and points.

Defensive Line. This is tough. I guess the current line is better, but they should be a lot better. Iíll say +.5.

Linebackers. Ryans is the difference here. Everyone else are just players. 2007 +.25 games.

Defensive backs. Iíll have to go with the veterans on the 2004 team. 2007 -1 game.

Special teams. The Texans didnít have a Mathis or a Jones in 2004. Problem is, the 2007 team doesnít have them either. We have to ignore that at this point in the calculation though. How much is good special teams play worth? 2007 +1 game.

To total up: Coaching, QB, WR, TE, DL, LB, ST= 2007 gets a +6.5 games

OL and DB cost the 2007 unit -2.5 games.

That nets out to a + 4games. The Texans should be 11-5 according to this, um, unusual methodology.

Intangibles. If a game is subtracted because of injury, that is 10-6. Even if another game is subtracted because the division is tougher (which I donít agree with), that is 9-7. I donít like to subtract that last game, because for the Texsans to be good, they should beat the teams they are supposed to, split within this division, and maybe steal one somewhere.

8-8 and wonít cut it. 9-7 is marginal; less than that and I think they are underachieving. However, given the better coaching and the development of on-field leadership, I donít think that will continue. The 2007 team will improve; they wonít crash and burn.

I realize this isnít scientific in the least. It is just a thought experiment Iíve been having fun with. Have at it.

Well put. My much less well thought out take would be:

We lost 4 games by a touchdown or less in 2004. I think Schaub over Carr and Kubiak over Capers alone is enough to make up a touchdown difference and give us four more wins. That'd put us at a 10-6 - 11-5 team with my half baked theory.

In all honesty I think replacing Carr with Schaub alone makes an enormous difference in how good this team is.

infantrycak
10-18-2007, 05:24 PM
Defensive backs. Iíll have to go with the veterans on the 2004 team. 2007 -1 game.

The DB's in 2004 had 22 INT's. That was responsible for several of the wins and close losses. I'd give us more like a -3 on that one.

Runner
10-18-2007, 05:27 PM
In all honesty I think replacing Carr with Schaub alone makes an enormous difference in how good this team is.

It's made a huge difference already. I'm just waiting to see that difference make its way to the scoreboard.

Oh - and I want to beat teams like Atlanta and Miami handily.

Runner
10-18-2007, 05:28 PM
The DB's in 2004 had 22 INT's. That was responsible for several of the wins and close losses. I'd give us more like a -3 on that one.

My brain seems to be very foggy in the 2004 DB section. I guess I know what brain cells were killed recently.

infantrycak
10-18-2007, 05:31 PM
My brain seems to be very foggy in the 2004 DB section. I guess I know what brain cells were killed recently.

Scotch and cigars will get you every time. Got some for me?

Dunta as a rookie--teams tried to pick on him and got burnt.
Aaron Glenn--who wasn't on his last leg and shouldn't have been let go.
Marlon McCree--not a top guy but made plays like 95 yd INT returns on McNair.
Brown--steady and unspectacular.

Fox
10-18-2007, 05:36 PM
It's made a huge difference already. I'm just waiting to see that difference make its way to the scoreboard.

Oh - and I want to beat teams like Atlanta and Miami handily.

True, Schaub's looked like an all-star between the 20's and a scrub in the red zone but I think that's going to change. He's missing his #1 red zone threat in AJ (who's accounted for 3 of his 5 passing TD's in only 2 games played), and he has not had a running game to help him out down there. If we can get those things going we're gonna score points because we're moving the ball everywhere else.

Texan Asylum
10-18-2007, 06:02 PM
Man...I don't know, this is like asking who was the best boxer, Ali or Marciano.

If one could point to a defining quality at determining which one is best, I'd have to say the one with the most heart...

This year's team...IMO...has the heart and drive to win.

:texflag:

Kaiser Toro
10-18-2007, 08:50 PM
You play tougher opponents, you win less games. Makes sense to me.

I just don't think you can evaluate how good a team is from 2004 with one now based on the W-L record, you have to watch the games and form your opinion.

The statement you quoted and what you are deriving from it are apples and mud flaps.

Fox
10-18-2007, 09:26 PM
The statement you quoted and what you are deriving from it are apples and mud flaps.

Let me know when I run off track.

You said, "Moreover, I am very unclear how the strength of schedule is being brought up as the 2003 team and 2006 team finished in very similar positions in the win column and AFC South standings."

I interpreted that as a nebulous reference to my earlier comment on the 2007 team having a tougher schedule than in 2004. I thought you were trying to say the 2003 and 2006 teams had different SOS's but had similar results, so why does SOS matter?

My reply was meant to respond to that point by saying SOS matters because better teams will beat you more often then bad ones, and that just because 2003 and 2006 had similar results doesn't prove SOS doesn't play a role. The whole correlation does not prove causation thing. Sorry if I just totally misinterpreted that, I can do that at times.

Texanmike02
10-18-2007, 10:20 PM
I think when you compare teams, you have to order the strengths and weakness of a team over all by importance. I don't think you really compare positions one for one. With a few exceptions. But for the most part you consider say, the ability to stop the run and ability to run the ball. Positions would be like QB/RB and MLB (the leaders of the teams)


and you have to consider it vs the rest of the league not each team. Then you have an idea of what they are capable of. For example, the passing game has gotten better no doubt but the league is getting better at passing.

Mike

ChildressTitanMan
10-18-2007, 11:48 PM
Wow tough thread.

Seriously guys don't torture yourselves like this.

frequentfliertx
10-19-2007, 07:38 AM
I'm not satisfied with an 8-8 team. I'll be satisfied when this team finally makes the playoffs (whatever year that'll be.) Enough with this mediocrity year in and year out. This team definitely needs to get on the ball!