PDA

View Full Version : For all the Doubters


TexansFan#80
01-07-2005, 01:18 PM
It has finally bothered me to the point where I feel like this needs to be said. Just because we lose to Cleveland doesn't mean the Texans have lost all progression and will start off next season as an expansion team. If the sucky teams were supposed to lose all the time, then why did the Titans whoop up on the Packers? Why did Miami beat SB champs New England? Any given Sunday. On any given Sunday, any team can beat any team in the NFL.

hou059
01-07-2005, 01:38 PM
It has finally bothered me to the point where I feel like this needs to be said. Just because we lose to Cleveland doesn't mean the Texans have lost all progression and will start off next season as an expansion team. If the sucky teams were supposed to lose all the time, then why did the Titans whoop up on the Packers? Why did Miami beat SB champs New England? Any given Sunday. On any given Sunday, any team can beat any team in the NFL.


God Damn it! Thank You so much for posting this dude! You're absolutley right, On any Given Sunday any team can beat any team! That's why we play the games! Oh **** I guess the Patriots are set back a year for losing to the Dolphins...hell according to some folks here, why should the Texans even show up next season...afterall we lost to the Browns! How do you think the Jag's feel or Titans feel losing to us, think their fans are saying **** like our's are? Heck no! I bet they don't think they lost progression because they lost to a third year team!

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 01:39 PM
It has finally bothered me to the point where I feel like this needs to be said. Just because we lose to Cleveland doesn't mean the Texans have lost all progression and will start off next season as an expansion team. If the sucky teams were supposed to lose all the time, then why did the Titans whoop up on the Packers? Why did Miami beat SB champs New England? Any given Sunday. On any given Sunday, any team can beat any team in the NFL.

The loss to Cleveland should bring us back to reality. What it shows is that we can't get by without addressing our weaknesses. I believe we felt that "The Team" could make the playoffs next year despite our weak offense and bad rushing defense after it beat Chicago and Jax on the road. The Cleveland game proved otherwise. It's that simple. Because of that, we must knock our expectations down a level because, now that we realize we can't get by without making some changes, there is no way of knowing if those changes will actually be made -- not to mention if they will be successful even if the changes do come to pass. Thus, expectations based on the Browns game must drop back to where they were this year going into Game 16. The fact is that "The Team" failed to reach the expectations we had going into the final game and we can't expect to reach the next level until we reach the goal -- which is a step below playoff contention. Let us also remember that some of the players this year were actually talking about making the playoffs. Does that mean that, since "The Team" failed to reach that goal, that this season is a failure? Realistic goals and realistic expectations are important when rating a team's success. They cannot be too lofty or else we will rush to judgment without exercising patience and yank the cake out of the oven before it's baked.

hou059
01-07-2005, 01:43 PM
The loss to Cleveland should bring us back to reality. What it shows is that we can't get by without addressing our weaknesses. I believe we felt that "The Team" could make the playoffs next year despite our weak offense and bad rushing defense after it beat Chicago and Jax on the road. The Cleveland game proved otherwise. It's that simple. Because of that, we must knock our expectations down a level because, now that we realize we can't get by without making some changes, there is no way of knowing if those changes will actually be made -- not to mention if they will be successful even if the changes do come to pass. Thus, expectations based on the Browns game must drop back to where they were this year going into Game 16. The fact is that "The Team" failed to reach the expectations we had going into the final game and we can't expect to reach the next level until we reach the goal -- which is a step below playoff contention. Let us also remember that some of the players this year were actually talking about making the playoffs. Does that mean that, since "The Team" failed to reach that goal, that this season is a failure? Realistic goals and realistic expectations are important when rating a team's success. They cannot be too lofty or else we will rush to judgment without exercising patience and yank the cake out of the oven before it's baked.


Man you have a conservative way of thinking....who are you? Is this Dom Capers? Geeze! :hairpull:

MichaelMC
01-07-2005, 01:53 PM
I only expected them to go 7-9 this season (now they did loose some that I thought the would when *cough*last week*cough*, but they also won some I thought they would loose) so I guess they met my goals and I thought after their 7-9 season this year next year would be playoff contenders next year, and since they met my expectations this year I don't have to lower my expectations in 05. :coolb:

P.S. players saying they are not eliminated from the playoffs is a lot different that saying they expected to make the playoff or setting that goal for the 05 season. :listening

Guess I'm just stealing your water cause mine is half full and yours is half empty.

hou059
01-07-2005, 01:59 PM
ROCK ON! :coolb:

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:09 PM
I only expected them to go 7-9 this season (now they did loose some that I thought the would when *cough*last week*cough*, but they also won some I thought they would loose) so I guess they met my goals and I thought after their 7-9 season this year next year would be playoff contenders next year, and since they met my expectations this year I don't have to lower my expectations in 05. :coolb:

P.S. players saying they are not eliminated from the playoffs is a lot different that saying they expected to make the playoff or setting that goal for the 05 season. :listening

Guess I'm just stealing your water cause mine is half full and yours is half empty.

My expectations were 7-9 as well going into the season but by week 16 I had adjusted them up a notch after they beat Chicago and Jax on the road. I felt that they were on a roll and were better than I thought they were. I was brought back to reality in week 17. But to think that a 7-9 team will make the jump to playoff contention is unrealistic. Heck, they've never even reached 8-8! There are tons of teams that get stuck at 8-8 for years! Not to mention that "The Team" has never had a winning season and you expect playoffs next year? Sure, some teams like the Steelers made the jump. But the Steelers have been around a lot, lot longer than the Texans -- heck, the Steelers coach has been around longer than the Texans franchise! SD made the big jump this year, but remember they've been around a lot longer than the Texans -- including a visit to the Super Bowl. For someone to say that SD and Pitt made the jump in just one year is a huge misnomer. And SD had a heckuva lot of mediocre seasons out of the playoffs -- the last nine, as I recall -- before reversing the tide. To expect the Texans to make the playoffs next year after going 7-9 is actually a disservice to "The Team." You are expecting way, way too much from them.

gwallaia
01-07-2005, 02:11 PM
Everyone needs to read aj's latest Voice of the Fan right here on the Texans website.

hou059
01-07-2005, 02:12 PM
Hell I already read it and I loved it. I think all the nay-sayers ought to read that article.

infantrycak
01-07-2005, 02:14 PM
SD made the big jump this year, but remember they've been around a lot longer than the Texans -- including a visit to the Super Bowl.

LOL--yeah the fact that the Chargers went to the superbowl after the 1994 season (is there anyone on the team from that team still?) has tons to do with their improvement from last year to this--rationalize much?

Doug
01-07-2005, 02:18 PM
Everyone needs to read aj's latest Voice of the Fan right here on the Texans website.
I thought it was the best one of the year myself.

Marcus
01-07-2005, 02:20 PM
Well, if you want to take the glass half-full approach, which should recommended to all:

The loss to Cleveland prevents players, coaches, and especially the fans from going into next season with a false sense of security. I can just see it very clearly. If we had rolled over the Browns to go 8-8 with a 3 game win streak, there would be many that would have the mistaken belief that we had, in Capers words, "taken that last step" to be a consistantly winning playoff contender.

That 'last step" will be the hardest, most difficult one to take. Welcome back to that cruel, cold world of reality.

Doug
01-07-2005, 02:24 PM
I don't see what a team being around longer has to do with much considering personnel changes yearly and it's not like san diego's players have been around forever. Seems their younger players put it together stepped it up and made this year happen just as ours will do next year.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:25 PM
Well, if you want to take the glass half-full approach, which should recommended to all:

The loss to Cleveland prevents players, coaches, and especially the fans from going into next season with a false sense of security. I can just see it very clearly. If we had rolled over the Browns to go 8-8 with a 3 game win streak, there would be many that would have the mistaken belief that we had, in Capers words, "taken that last step" to be a consistantly winning playoff contender.

That 'last step" will be the hardest, most difficult one to take. Welcome back to that cruel, cold world of reality.

Right on! :jam:

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:27 PM
LOL--yeah the fact that the Chargers went to the superbowl after the 1994 season (is there anyone on the team from that team still?) has tons to do with their improvement from last year to this--rationalize much?

Um, the fact that they have been there and went through all kinds of hades before getting back into the playoffs has nothing to do with 2004-5? Tell that to Junior Seau.

MichaelMC
01-07-2005, 02:30 PM
My expectations were 7-9 as well going into the season but by week 16 I had adjusted them up a notch after they beat Chicago and Jax on the road. I felt that they were on a roll and were better than I thought they were. I was brought back to reality in week 17. But to think that a 7-9 team will make the jump to playoff contention is unrealistic. Heck, they've never even reached 8-8! There are tons of teams that get stuck at 8-8 for years! Not to mention that "The Team" has never had a winning season and you expect playoffs next year? Sure, some teams like the Steelers made the jump. But the Steelers have been around a lot, lot longer than the Texans -- heck, the Steelers coach has been around longer than the Texans franchise! SD made the big jump this year, but remember they've been around a lot longer than the Texans -- including a visit to the Super Bowl. For someone to say that SD and Pitt made the jump in just one year is a huge misnomer. And SD had a heckuva lot of mediocre seasons out of the playoffs -- the last nine, as I recall -- before reversing the tide. To expect the Texans to make the playoffs next year after going 7-9 is actually a disservice to "The Team." You are expecting way, way too much from them.

So now your telling me that after one win against a mediocre team in chicago and a great performance in a divisional rivalry that we were a step closer to the playoffs. Does that mean that Miami is a step closer because they beat thier division rilvals the PATs. So you changed your expectaions based on that principal and are now disappointed because they only met your original expectations and not your new found hope based on 8 quarters of football. but 4 quarters is enough to get you dicouraged and say we have barely progressed. One bad last game of the season you did a complete 180 on your expectation.

Hey a bandwagon is coming by better jump on!!!!!! :bouncey:

infantrycak
01-07-2005, 02:31 PM
Um, the fact that they have been there and went through all kinds of hades before getting back into the playoffs has nothing to do with 2004-5? Tell that to Junior Seau.

Square peg in the round logic hole there scooter. The fact that the Chargers were in the SB in 1995 has zero, zip, nada to do with their transformation from 4-12 to 12-4.

And pssst--Seau was released, he didn't choose to leave the Chargers out of disgust.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:32 PM
I don't see what a team being around longer has to do with much considering personnel changes yearly and it's not like san diego's players have been around forever. Seems their younger players put it together stepped it up and made this year happen just as ours will do next year.

Experiencing the ups and downs of the NFL and realizing how hard it is and how long it takes to move from level to level is very relevant. It took the Chargers a long, long time to go from mediocrity to success. It was a slow, slow process -- not just a one-season turnaround. And here some of us are, talking about playoffs in just our fourth year after getting whipped by the worst team in the NFL at home less than a week ago?

infantrycak
01-07-2005, 02:34 PM
Experiencing the ups and downs of the NFL and realizing how hard it is and how long it takes to move from level to level is very relevant.

Who had this oh so relevant experience, the mascot? There is noone there from the 1994 team.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:36 PM
Square peg in the round logic hole there scooter. The fact that the Chargers were in the SB in 1995 has zero, zip, nada to do with their transformation from 4-12 to 12-4.

And pssst--Seau was released, he didn't choose to leave the Chargers out of disgust.

Simplistic reasoning again -- and even that's a little flawed. You make it sound like presto, change-o, 4-12 to 12-4 -- it was that easy! But you fail to recognize that it took nine long years to go from the heights and then plummet to the dregs and slowly climb out again. It takes a long, long time to go from level to level in the NFL -- something a lot of folks around here seem to have a problem fathoming. And as for Seau, it wasn't like he was released because he couldn't cut it anymore, now, was he?

Grid
01-07-2005, 02:40 PM
eh.. we were supposed to have taken a step towards becoming a contender at the end of the season. Remember all the pretty qoutes after the Jags game? Our offense and defense has really come together.. our defense is finally understanding how the system works.. we arent good enough to take anyone lightly.. so on and so forth. Here we are on an 11 quarter streak with no opponent scoring a TD and only one of them scoring a field goal.. and we buckle.

The browns game just showed that we were no where near where we claimed to be.

Vinny
01-07-2005, 02:42 PM
Simplistic reasoning again -- and even that's a little flawed. You make it sound like presto, change-o, 4-12 to 12-4 -- it was that easy! But you fail to recognize that it took nine long years to go from the heights and then plummet to the dregs and slowly climb out again. It takes a long, long time to go from level to level in the NFL -- something a lot of folks around here seem to have a problem fathoming. And as for Seau, it wasn't like he was released because he couldn't cut it anymore, now, was he?It takes about 3 years to turn an existing franchise around. I think it takes about 5 years to totally build one from scratch. We are going into year 4. We are right on pace.

Seau was released because he wasn't cutting it anymore? Yes, that is pretty accurate. He lost a step and was part of why the Chargers defense was getting old and exploited. His big complaint his last years at SD was he busted his assignments too often trying to do too much and he wasn't the player he was before so the results were not the same.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:44 PM
So now your telling me that after one win against a mediocre team in chicago and a great performance in a divisional rivalry that we were a step closer to the playoffs. Does that mean that Miami is a step closer because they beat thier division rilvals the PATs. So you changed your expectaions based on that principal and are now disappointed because they only met your original expectations and not your new found hope based on 8 quarters of football. but 4 quarters is enough to get you dicouraged and say we have barely progressed. One bad last game of the season you did a complete 180 on your expectation.

Hey a bandwagon is coming by better jump on!!!!!! :bouncey:

We COULD have been a step closer to the playoffs but the Browns game brought me to my senses. Yes, I changed my expectations based on the fact that we were 7-8 and had a home game against a team that had lost nine games in a row, was mailing it in and was a 10-point underdog. Forgive me for expecting a win -- I guess I should have known better after watching this same team get drubbed by the Bengals in their first year after being favored in similar fashion. Yes, one bad last game of the season made me reassess the situation. It's called a dose of reality. You might try one tonight before you hit the hay. :cat:

Doug
01-07-2005, 02:45 PM
Experiencing the ups and downs of the NFL and realizing how hard it is and how long it takes to move from level to level is very relevant.

For who? The owner.....Half the team isn't around after years and years of up and down nor are the coaches or gms for a particular team in today's NFL.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:47 PM
It takes about 3 years to turn an existing franchise around. I think it takes about 5 years to totally build one from scratch. We are going into year 4. We are right on pace.

Seau was released because he wasn't cutting it anymore? Yes, that is pretty accurate. He lost a step and was part of why the Chargers defense was getting old and exploited. His big complaint his last years at SD was he busted his assignments too often trying to do too much and he wasn't the player he was before so the results were not the same.

Uh, three years ago, the Texans franchise wasn't even "existing!" You seem to forget that "The Team" is barely out of its cradle. And even you admit it takes five years to build one from scratch. It seems to me that you are just too impatient. Oh, and the last time I heard, Seau is still in the NFL -- at a pretty nice salary, as I recall.

Vinny
01-07-2005, 02:49 PM
Uh, three years ago, the Texans franchise wasn't even "existing!" You seem to forget that "The Team" is barely out of its cradle. And even you admit it takes five years to build one from scratch. It seems to me that you are just too impatient. Too impatient for what? Do you even know what my position is on this topic? Also, what makes you think I don't know we are an expansion team?

Oh, and the last time I heard, Seau is still in the NFL -- at a pretty nice salary, as I recall. So is Vinny Testaverde. So what?

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:50 PM
Experiencing the ups and downs of the NFL and realizing how hard it is and how long it takes to move from level to level is very relevant.

For who? The owner.....Half the team isn't around after years and years of up and down nor are the coaches or gms for a particular team in today's NFL.

Half the team isn't around, I may grant you that. But half of it IS around. And the coaches who are around are still dealing with both tangibles and intangibles that were there before they came in and were instituted years and years ago. Don't underestimate the history and heritage of a franchise -- it is very relevant to the teams you see on the field today.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 02:54 PM
eh.. we were supposed to have taken a step towards becoming a contender at the end of the season. Remember all the pretty qoutes after the Jags game? Our offense and defense has really come together.. our defense is finally understanding how the system works.. we arent good enough to take anyone lightly.. so on and so forth. Here we are on an 11 quarter streak with no opponent scoring a TD and only one of them scoring a field goal.. and we buckle.

The browns game just showed that we were no where near where we claimed to be.

Right on! :jam:

MichaelMC
01-07-2005, 03:03 PM
We COULD have been a step closer to the playoffs but the Browns game brought me to my senses. Yes, I changed my expectations based on the fact that we were 7-8 and had a home game against a team that had lost nine games in a row, was mailing it in and was a 10-point underdog. Forgive me for expecting a win -- I guess I should have known better after watching this same team get drubbed by the Bengals in their first year after being favored in similar fashion. Yes, one bad last game of the season made me reassess the situation. It's called a dose of reality. You might try one tonight before you hit the hay. :cat:

So if the PATs would have lost to Miami the last game of the season should we have taken them out of the playoffs, the idea of a team that has only been around 3 years brings inconsistancy. Everything about the team is new, they have not had a lot of time to adjust to the system, that is why they shutout a playoff conteder and then loose to the browns. If you did not realize that that would still be happening in the third year of existance you would not have believed at the beginning of the year that they would go 7-9 because we really didn't face 9 teams with better talent. The texans have a lot of talent but they are just inconsistant wich is why they are an EXPANISION team. You saw two games that could very well signal what is to come next year if we can clear away some of the inconsistancies the texans have. then just because they lost to a brows team that was "mailing it in" (I guess in some universe far far away that means the same thing as an interim head coach trying to keep his job, and a team trying not to set a record for most consecutive losses) thier whole season is now a failure. :thud:

disaacks3
01-07-2005, 03:08 PM
Hell I already read it and I loved it. I think all the nay-sayers ought to read that article.Maybe you better re-read it...it sure doesn't paint any kind of "rosy" picture...see "ineptitude for 3-plus hours" or "That’s ineptitude at its finest". I agree with his analysis that a win / loss in the Cleveland game (in and of itself) wasn't that big of a deal one way or the other.

One quote (from VOTF) that puzzled me was this: "The million-dollar question is whether it's scheme, personnel or a combination of both." That sure sounds like we're only talking about the players and leaving no responsibility for any of this on the coaches. This team played absolutely FLAT in 25% of its games this year - that sounds like a coaching issue to me.

Oh well, there's always next year.....

Wolf
01-07-2005, 03:20 PM
eh.. we were supposed to have taken a step towards becoming a contender at the end of the season. Remember all the pretty qoutes after the Jags game? Our offense and defense has really come together.. our defense is finally understanding how the system works.. we arent good enough to take anyone lightly.. so on and so forth. Here we are on an 11 quarter streak with no opponent scoring a TD and only one of them scoring a field goal.. and we buckle.

The browns game just showed that we were no where near where we claimed to be.


The Browns game wasn't the deciding factor on whether or not we were playoff ready. To me it happened the first week of November and I knew we weren't playoff ready. What happened that week? well we went on a streak of 4 out of 5 wins in a row (Oakland,K.C.Tennesse and Jacksonville (lost to Minnesota)) and the media comes out and mentions the dreaded "playoff" word.. Wins sugarcoat things (i.e. lack of passrush,stopping the run, and giving up 3rd down conversions)..and when the media mentioned the "P" word things got buzzing in Houston.. Well we play 2 playoff bound teams in a row at,at their place mind you and get blown out by a combo of 80-27 (denver and indy) ... that is when I knew we weren't playoff ready.. it wasn't just the Browns game

HJam72
01-07-2005, 03:23 PM
I think we're putting way too much emphasis on a single game here, mostly just because it was the last game of the season. I don't think winning 2 more next year is too much to ask. I'm not even asking for play-offs, necessarilly. I just want more wins next year than losses.

There's something else here too. We're looking at this season as if this season should tell us what to expect from this team next year. That's like grading on an extremely friendly curve there. The worse they do, the easier we grade them? I'm not saying they did that bad this year, but I'm looking at what I really think we should expect from a 4th year team (who is supposedly going somewhere), regardless of what they've done the past 3 years. All this year, I was expecting 8 wins, but thought 7 would be exceptable. I really never changed my opinion of that. When they were 4-3, I thought they might to much better (maybe even 10 wins), but I never changed my mind about what I expected. It was always 8, but 7 gets a passing grade. If this team wins 8 games next year, I will not feel like my statements here were wrong. I will feel like my expectations were not met and that this team is not progressing enough to be sure about everyone's job--I mean, if it were up to me, which it's not, anyway, lol. Maybe I'll buy it when I'm a billionaire next year. Yeah, that'd be cool. :hmmm:

If this team had won 5 games this year, I would still expect 9 next year, assuming they kept the GM and All the same coaches (which I would be wailing for them not to do). Year after next, I expect playoffs. Don't matter what they do next year. Playoffs or bust in the 5th year and they better at least compete in the first round, if not win it. It's a five year plan. I expect to have a GOOD team in 5 years time.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 03:31 PM
The Browns game wasn't the deciding factor on whether or not we were playoff ready. To me it happened the first week of November and I knew we weren't playoff ready. What happened that week? well we went on a streak of 4 out of 5 wins in a row (Oakland,K.C.Tennesse and Jacksonville (lost to Minnesota)) and the media comes out and mentions the dreaded "playoff" word.. Wins sugarcoat things (i.e. lack of passrush,stopping the run, and giving up 3rd down conversions)..and when the media mentioned the "P" word things got buzzing in Houston.. Well we play 2 playoff bound teams in a row at,at their place mind you and get blown out by a combo of 80-27 (denver and indy) ... that is when I knew we weren't playoff ready.. it wasn't just the Browns game

I think you are confusing being playoff contenders this year with being contenders next year. Yes, some folks were talking playoffs for this year for awhile. That idea was snuffed out after the Denver, Indy and NYJ games. Then after the Bears and Jax games, we honestly began to think, "Well, maybe NEXT year!" The Browns game did that idea in.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 03:35 PM
I think we're putting way too much emphasis on a single game here, mostly just because it was the last game of the season. I don't think winning 2 more next year is too much to ask. I'm not even asking for play-offs, necessarilly. I just want more wins next year than losses.

There's something else here too. We're looking at this season as if this season should tell us what to expect from this team next year. That's like grading on an extremely friendly curve there. The worse they do, the easier we grade them? I'm not saying they did that bad this year, but I'm looking at what I really think we should expect from a 4th year team (who is supposedly going somewhere), regardless of what they've done the past 3 years. All this year, I was expecting 8 wins, but thought 7 would be exceptable. I really never changed my opinion of that. When they were 4-3, I thought they might to much better (maybe even 10 wins), but I never changed my mind about what I expected. It was always 8, but 7 gets a passing grade. If this team wins 8 games next year, I will not feel like my statements here were wrong. I will feel like my expectations were not met and that this team is not progressing enough to be sure about everyone's job--I mean, if it were up to me, which it's not, anyway, lol. Maybe I'll buy it when I'm a billionaire next year. Yeah, that'd be cool. :hmmm:

If we are putting too much emphasis on it, then so are the players. The players themselves were saying how important a win was before the game on Sunday, how they would go into next season with the taste of that game in their mouths. They are still saying that to this day. So if the players are doing it, I don't see anything wrong with us doing it as well. I personally doubt there are a lot of players walking around talking about playoffs next year after last week's debacle.

wags
01-07-2005, 03:45 PM
I personally doubt there are a lot of players walking around talking about playoffs next year after last week's debacle.

That's pretty much what all the Texan players will be talking about next year. If you are a fan you should be encouraged by that.

jacquescas
01-07-2005, 03:50 PM
Everyone is putting too much weight on the Browns game. We lost a game we were supposed to win, we came out flat. that doesn't mean that the other 15 games meant nothing.

Get over the browns game people it was 1 game. 1 loss. its not the end of the world.

Wolf
01-07-2005, 03:51 PM
I think you are confusing being playoff contenders this year with being contenders next year. Yes, some folks were talking playoffs for this year for awhile. That idea was snuffed out after the Denver, Indy and NYJ games. Then after the Bears and Jax games, we honestly began to think, "Well, maybe NEXT year!" The Browns game did that idea in.

nope, strickly talking this year. the P word was thrown around in Oct. by the media and even heard some mentioned by the Texans. (it was thrown around as in a possiblity and not necessarily that we were going to make it)

At that time Carr was in the top 10 on QB ratings and AJ was kicking some tail.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 04:01 PM
nope, strickly talking this year. the P word was thrown around in Oct. by the media and even heard some mentioned by the Texans. (it was thrown around as in a possiblity and not necessarily that we were going to make it)

At that time Carr was in the top 10 on QB ratings and AJ was kicking some tail.

This year's over and history. Can't do anything about this past year.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 04:04 PM
Everyone is putting too much weight on the Browns game. We lost a game we were supposed to win, we came out flat. that doesn't mean that the other 15 games meant nothing.

Get over the browns game people it was 1 game. 1 loss. its not the end of the world.

It was more than just one loss. It showed that we were weak against a weak team and that we will not be able to hide from our sore spots this coming season. This last game will carry over into training camp -- and it's not me who is saying that, it's the players. This game was much, much bigger than the other 15 games. If you don't believe me, ask the players. They may not say that now because they lost. But look at what they said before the game.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 04:06 PM
That's pretty much what all the Texan players will be talking about next year.

I sincerely doubt that. They may be HOPING to make the playoffs, but I doubt they'll be seriously discussing it. Same for me -- I will be HOPING they make it, but not expecting it.

infantrycak
01-07-2005, 04:21 PM
Simplistic reasoning again -- and even that's a little flawed. You make it sound like presto, change-o, 4-12 to 12-4 -- it was that easy! But you fail to recognize that it took nine long years to go from the heights and then plummet to the dregs and slowly climb out again. It takes a long, long time to go from level to level in the NFL -- something a lot of folks around here seem to have a problem fathoming. And as for Seau, it wasn't like he was released because he couldn't cut it anymore, now, was he?

And you evidently don't try rational reasoning at all--so the only way for a team to make the same results leap the Chargers did is to have had the same 20 years of history before--that is beyond whacked. And no I am not saying it is easy to go from 4-12 to 12-4--what I am saying is there are plenty of examples of improvement like that by teams demonstrate that your assertion that the Browns game proves we should shoot for 8-8 next year and play-offs are completely unrealistic is completely detached from NFL reality.

What the heck is your point with Seau in the 1st place? You acted at first like he left in disgust, which (a) is wrong and (b) has nothing to do with the Chargers' improvement this year.

jacquescas
01-07-2005, 04:28 PM
Wow this is the most negative i've seen this board in a couple years.

you guys are such Debbie Downers...


There is still a draft where we have 4 first day picks... Free agency where we have no major players up for free agency, so the bulk of our team will be back next year.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 04:32 PM
And you have no reasoning at all--so the only way for a team to make the same results leap the Chargers did is to have had the same 20 years of history before--that is beyond whacked.

What the heck is your point with Seau in the 1st place? You acted at first like he left in disgust, which (a) is wrong and (b) has nothing to do with the Chargers' improvement this year.

Um, nothing comes easy in this world or the NFL and for you to expect a team that is just three years removed from its birth to jump from being a 7-9 team that just lost to one of the worst teams in the NFL a matter of days ago into a playoff contender next year presto, change-o is, well, "beyond whacked." And the point I was getting in regards to Seau is he was around for the lean years when he played his heart out for a losing team and knows exactly what it's like to go through the lean, tough years and see the team finally change things around.

TexansFan#80
01-07-2005, 04:35 PM
Um, nothing comes easy in this world or the NFL and for you to expect a team that is just three years removed from its birth to jump from being a 7-9 team that just lost to one of the worst teams in the NFL a matter of days ago into a playoff contender next year presto, change-o is, well, "beyond whacked."
Look at what the Panthers AND the Jaguars did in their early years as an expansion team. And you're saying the Texans can't do the same?

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 04:36 PM
Wow this is the most negative i've seen this board in a couple years.

you guys are such Debbie Downers...


There is still a draft where we have 4 first day picks... Free agency where we have no major players up for free agency, so the bulk of our team will be back next year.

It is NOT a negative statement to say I don't expect the team to jump from 7-9 three years removed from its birth after losing to the worst team in the league at home less than a week ago into the playoffs in one year! In fact, to say that they WILL make that jump could be VERY detrimental to the team and its future. After all, using the Berkleyan philosophical approach, if everybody were to unrealistically expect that and it didn't happen, then Capers would be fired before the cake was baked and we'd have to start all over again. It is a very dangerous game to set expectations too high.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 04:40 PM
Look at what the Panthers AND the Jaguars did in their early years as an expansion team. And you're saying the Texans can't do the same?

Umm, look at one of the lead stories on this website. Capers -- who coached the Panthers to that achievement, by the way -- is NOT looking for that same kind of quick move. He has always looked for slow, steady growth and that's the way he is approaching it. And if you will recall, following the Panthers and Jags brief appearance in the playoffs, they collapsed for several years before they began to emerge out of the muck just recently. Those were also the days that the two expansion teams got sweetheart draft deals from the league -- something neither the Browns nor the Texans ended up getting in their first drafts.

HJam72
01-07-2005, 05:55 PM
Umm, look at one of the lead stories on this website. Capers -- who coached the Panthers to that achievement, by the way -- is NOT looking for that same kind of quick move. He has always looked for slow, steady growth and that's the way he is approaching it. And if you will recall, following the Panthers and Jags brief appearance in the playoffs, they collapsed for several years before they began to emerge out of the muck just recently. Those were also the days that the two expansion teams got sweetheart draft deals from the league -- something neither the Browns nor the Texans ended up getting in their first drafts.

Most of us don't even need to look at it to know that you're right about that, but 9 wins next year is still something I expect. 8 wins next year is TOO slow. Eventually, this team WILL regress for a while, so they need to get somewhere before that starts to happen. If you only win one extra game every year, it takes way too many of those years to get where you want to be. Let's try to do it while Carr isn't retired yet.

trijcomm
01-07-2005, 07:17 PM
Most of us don't even need to look at it to know that you're right about that, but 9 wins next year is still something I expect. 8 wins next year is TOO slow. Eventually, this team WILL regress for a while, so they need to get somewhere before that starts to happen. If you only win one extra game every year, it takes way too many of those years to get where you want to be. Let's try to do it while Carr isn't retired yet.

Um, if they improve their record by one game every year, they hit nine wins by 2006. That's just one year later than this coming season. That isn't bad at all.

HJam72
01-08-2005, 07:47 AM
9 wins in the fifth year of a 5 year plan? :hairpull: I think Jerry Glanville could've done better. :thud:

trijcomm
01-08-2005, 10:30 PM
9 wins in the fifth year of a 5 year plan? :hairpull: I think Jerry Glanville could've done better. :thud:

We're talking the first five years of a team's existence -- starting from SCRATH!

HoustonFan
01-08-2005, 11:23 PM
I would have loved to see the Texans go 500, unfortunately they came up short. The plus side, they are 2 games better than last year, and 3 better from the 1st season. They are definitely on the up. I play it in my head all the time w/ games they should have won this season - I figured them at 11-5. And it's like the guy that started the thread said, Any given Sunday any one can be beat.

El Tejano
01-10-2005, 11:15 AM
Either way, we improved in three different areas I wanted to see us improve in. That is we won two in a row and we did it quite a few times this season, We also had two more wins than last year and we went 4-2 in our division in which we swept two division opponents. I am going to stick to that and hope the team fixes the other little problems like the Oline and Dline.

trijcomm
01-10-2005, 12:14 PM
I would have loved to see the Texans go 500, unfortunately they came up short. The plus side, they are 2 games better than last year, and 3 better from the 1st season. They are definitely on the up. I play it in my head all the time w/ games they should have won this season - I figured them at 11-5. And it's like the guy that started the thread said, Any given Sunday any one can be beat.

BZZZZ!!! Time for a reality check! The next time you think about 11-5, think "Cleveland." That should bring you back to reality. The next time you think "they are definitely on the up," think about the six sacks the Texans suffered at home from a team that had only 26 in their first 15 games and had lost 9 straight games and were just playing out the string. Yep, on any given Sunday, it has been proven that a team like the Browns can beat the Texans. So how in the world do you come up with 11-5? You should expect 8-8 and have a party if they get their next year.

bckey
01-11-2005, 01:05 AM
It takes about 3 years to turn an existing franchise around. I think it takes about 5 years to totally build one from scratch. We are going into year 4. We are right on pace.

Seau was released because he wasn't cutting it anymore? Yes, that is pretty accurate. He lost a step and was part of why the Chargers defense was getting old and exploited. His big complaint his last years at SD was he busted his assignments too often trying to do too much and he wasn't the player he was before so the results were not the same.

Vinny, you keep repeating over and over that it takes 5 years to build an NFL team from scratch. And 3 years to turn an existing franchise around? I respectfully disagree with you. I think it can be done in 3 years and 1 to 3 years. The latter depends on a lot of variables. Each situation would be different. The same goes for building a team from scratch. Different approaches will yield different results. We obviously didn't put the offensive line high on our priorities. Please don't bring up Boselli.

blockhead83
01-11-2005, 01:46 AM
Vinny, you keep repeating over and over that it takes 5 years to build an NFL team from scratch. And 3 years to turn an existing franchise around? I respectfully disagree with you. I think it can be done in 3 years and 1 to 3 years. The latter depends on a lot of variables. Each situation would be different. The same goes for building a team from scratch. Different approaches will yield different results. We obviously didn't put the offensive line high on our priorities. Please don't bring up Boselli.

I'll agree that it depends on the situation as far as how long it takes to build a franchise, however our faculty as said from the outset they their plan spanned 5 years. That's not to say that they wouldn't have a chance to go to the playoffs sooner, but they have been making personnel decisions based on a plan that should make us serious contenders in our fifth year. You can't fault them until that plan has obviously failed, IMO, which will take two more years.

brickmantexanfan
01-11-2005, 03:47 AM
2005 will be agreat year to be a Texans fan,I believe we have improved every year,that is my stand,has been my stand,and will be my stand until someone can prove me wrong,and proving me wrong would have to be the opposite of this definition of progress:pro·gress

n [pró grèss, prō grèss]
1. improvement: gradual development or improvement of something
2. motion toward something: movement forward or onward
3. (plural pro·gress·es) royal tour: an official royal tour (archaic)


v [prə gréss, prō gréss] (past pro·gressed, past participle pro·gressed, present participle pro·gress·ing, 3rd person present singular pro·gress·es)
1. vi improve: to develop or advance continuously
2. vi move along: to move forward or onward
3. vt help complete something: to bring something toward completion


[15th century. From Latin progressus , the past participle of progredi “to go forward,” from gradi “to walk.”]

Vinny
01-11-2005, 09:52 AM
Vinny, you keep repeating over and over that it takes 5 years to build an NFL team from scratch. And 3 years to turn an existing franchise around? I respectfully disagree with you. I think it can be done in 3 years and 1 to 3 years. The latter depends on a lot of variables. Each situation would be different. The same goes for building a team from scratch. Different approaches will yield different results. We obviously didn't put the offensive line high on our priorities. Please don't bring up Boselli.
I do think it takes about 4 drafts & FA signings to field a playoff team from scratch. Most drafts produce one to three starters. There are 22 starters on a football team plus you need high caliber reserves to man your special teams. This isn't the NBA where you can get 2 players and remake your team completely, or MLB where you can sign 2 pitchers and a slugger and turn your team around on the field.

If you think the 2003 Texans had talent on par with any of the playoff teams you are sadly mistaken. We had no depth at all, had journeymen starters at several positions, and still needed to upgrade at least a dozen roster spots. No way you can compete in two years from scratch, unless you get incredibly lucky or have a free agent situation like the Panthers had several years ago. In 2004 we are statistically middle of the pack in many key areas. In three years we have built a team that is good as half the NFL. I'm pretty ok with that.

nunusguy
01-11-2005, 10:38 AM
I think the best way to measure a teams progress is how they compete on
the road against a good team, good being defined for this purpose as
a team with a winning record. So when you examine our efforts against the
Broncos, Colts, & Jets you get a pretty good feel of where we are and it looks like we got a lot of work ahead of us.

brickmantexanfan
01-11-2005, 11:02 AM
I think the best way to measure a teams progress is how they compete on
the road against a good team, good being defined for this purpose as
a team with a winning record. So when you examine our efforts against the
Broncos, Colts, & Jets you get a pretty good feel of where we are and it looks like we got a lot of work ahead of us.


Gee did you forget the jags?or do you have your own definition of a winning record also.I am not sure where you got your measuring tape,but progress is defined by the dictionary we read it from,and nothing else.Sure we need more work,but that doesn't nullify the progress being made along the road,don't forget patience is a virtue,i believe it does take more than 3 years to put together a competittive NFL team from scratch.Bronco's,colts,&jets were dissapointing losses on the road.But since the colts lost at arrowhead,and the broncos lost at arrowhead,I just can't find any reasoning in your arguement,I mean we beat the chiefs at arrowhead,so i will stick with the definition i grew up reading as progress. :whew

nunusguy
01-11-2005, 12:07 PM
Gee did you forget the jags?
You got me good man, because I did completely forget about the road
game against the Jags. I dunno, they do have a winning record (is it 9-7?),
some how they just don't seem like a good team. So let me weasel out of
my origional premise and amend it to this - our progress is defined as to how
we perform against playoff teams. But you can't include the Vikes, a team
that we had a strong second half comback against - the NFC conference
doesn't count it's so lousy, the Sooners could play the NFC tough. Is that
still too arbitrary ? Yea, but it's fun to make up you're own rules.
We did play so much better last year against playoff teams - split with the
SB teams. That effort was not there this year, even with few injuries.

disaacks3
01-11-2005, 01:02 PM
2005 will be agreat year to be a Texans fan,I believe we have improved every year,that is my stand,has been my stand,and will be my stand until someone can prove me wrong,and proving me wrong would have to be the opposite of this definition of progress:pro·gress Fine, I'm up to your "challenge":

J.J. Moses - Punt return average 2003 = 8.6 /Punt return average 2004 = 8.6
Kickoff return average 2003 = 22.1 / Kickoff return average 2004 = 22.1
No progression = no progress

Texans Sacks allowed / yds. - 2003 = 36/186.....2004 = 49/301

Texans Defense 3rd Down % (allowed) - 2003 = 40.1%.....2004 = 43.4%

Texans Defensive penalties / yds - 2003 = 96/767.....2004 = 123/979
Regression = no progress :thud:

The Texans overall record improved, no doubt, but are you really trying to convince us that the Texans played with the heart they did last year? They were far healthier this year than last, and did less with it, especially against some of the worst defenses in the league! I was appalled to see this team obviously "give up" this year in at least 1/4 of our schedule.

Thank goodness we've got free agency & another draft to look forward to.

brickmantexanfan
01-11-2005, 02:20 PM
Fine, I'm up to your "challenge":

J.J. Moses - Punt return average 2003 = 8.6 /Punt return average 2004 = 8.6
Kickoff return average 2003 = 22.1 / Kickoff return average 2004 = 22.1
No progression = no progress

Texans Sacks allowed / yds. - 2003 = 36/186.....2004 = 49/301

Texans Defense 3rd Down % (allowed) - 2003 = 40.1%.....2004 = 43.4%

Texans Defensive penalties / yds - 2003 = 96/767.....2004 = 123/979
Regression = no progress :thud:

The Texans overall record improved, no doubt, but are you really trying to convince us that the Texans played with the heart they did last year? They were far healthier this year than last, and did less with it, especially against some of the worst defenses in the league! I was appalled to see this team obviously "give up" this year in at least 1/4 of our schedule.

Thank goodness we've got free agency & another draft to look forward to.
ok thats your view,here is what i have right now:The Texans had 300 first downs, 63 more than a season ago. Their number of three-and-out series decreased by 27. Houston’s rushing game churned out 117.6 yards per contest, 14 more than in 2003. The Texans threw for 37 more yards per game

For the first time, Houston could boast both a 1,000-yard rusher and receiver. Running back Domanick Davis set club records with 1,188 yards and 13 touchdowns. Ditto wide receiver Andre Johnson, whose 79 catches, 1,142 yards and six touchdown receptions earned a trip to the Pro Bowl – a first for a Texans player on offense.

Houston improved from 31st in the league in total offense to 19th, averaging 52 yards more per outing.


Carr had easily his best season as a pro, setting career marks in yards (3,531), completion percentage (61.2) and passer rating (83.5). And for the first time in three seasons, he threw more touchdowns (16) than interceptions (14). Carr clearly has more command in the huddle, the product of absorbing the offense for 44 starts before his 26th birthday.

I have more if you want it.I think that is progress :hmmm:

infantrycak
01-11-2005, 02:38 PM
FThey were far healthier this year than last, and did less with it, especially against some of the worst defenses in the league! I was appalled to see this team obviously "give up" this year in at least 1/4 of our schedule.

JMO, but this sentiment is more a result of expectation than reality. And while they faced some of the "worst" defenses the Texans also faced all the best offenses including Indy twice--if you are going to factor one in you have to factor both into evaluating the team.

On the stats you give--are you really saying PR & KR are serious indicators of progress/regression? Sacks I will give you and that is the #1 off-season issue to be addressed in some fashion IMO.

How about some serious stats though:

Scoring offense: 2003 15.9 ppg 29th, 2004 19.3 ppg 20th
Scoring defense: 2003 23.8 ppg 27th, 2004 21.2 ppg 16th
Turnover margin: 2003 -5 25th, 2004 +5 12th

At the end of the day turnovers are the single greatest stat indicator for winning and regardless of the yards produced or given up the score matters more. In all of these categories the Texans made significant strides forward.

Could they have played better this year?--sure. Let's put a healthy DD from the 2nd half of the season in with the pass protection the OL gave in the 1st half of the season that mysteriously dissappeared in the 2nd half, along with the D from the 2nd half of the year and the season would have turned out even better. But the fact that things could have gone even better doesn't mean there was no progress or that there was regression.

HJam72
01-11-2005, 03:23 PM
JMO, but this sentiment is more a result of expectation than reality. And while they faced some of the "worst" defenses the Texans also faced all the best offenses including Indy twice--if you are going to factor one in you have to factor both into evaluating the team.

On the stats you give--are you really saying PR & KR are serious indicators of progress/regression? Sacks I will give you and that is the #1 off-season issue to be addressed in some fashion IMO.

How about some serious stats though:

Scoring offense: 2003 15.9 ppg 29th, 2004 19.3 ppg 20th
Scoring defense: 2003 23.8 ppg 27th, 2004 21.2 ppg 16th
Turnover margin: 2003 -5 25th, 2004 +5 12th

At the end of the day turnovers are the single greatest stat indicator for winning and regardless of the yards produced or given up the score matters more. In all of these categories the Texans made significant strides forward.

Could they have played better this year?--sure. Let's put a healthy DD from the 2nd half of the season in with the pass protection the OL gave in the 1st half of the season that mysteriously dissappeared in the 2nd half, along with the D from the 2nd half of the year and the season would have turned out even better. But the fact that things could have gone even better doesn't mean there was no progress or that there was regression.

Post of the year! :coolb:

TexansFan#80
01-11-2005, 04:47 PM
JMO, but this sentiment is more a result of expectation than reality. And while they faced some of the "worst" defenses the Texans also faced all the best offenses including Indy twice--if you are going to factor one in you have to factor both into evaluating the team.

On the stats you give--are you really saying PR & KR are serious indicators of progress/regression? Sacks I will give you and that is the #1 off-season issue to be addressed in some fashion IMO.

How about some serious stats though:

Scoring offense: 2003 15.9 ppg 29th, 2004 19.3 ppg 20th
Scoring defense: 2003 23.8 ppg 27th, 2004 21.2 ppg 16th
Turnover margin: 2003 -5 25th, 2004 +5 12th

At the end of the day turnovers are the single greatest stat indicator for winning and regardless of the yards produced or given up the score matters more. In all of these categories the Texans made significant strides forward.

Could they have played better this year?--sure. Let's put a healthy DD from the 2nd half of the season in with the pass protection the OL gave in the 1st half of the season that mysteriously dissappeared in the 2nd half, along with the D from the 2nd half of the year and the season would have turned out even better. But the fact that things could have gone even better doesn't mean there was no progress or that there was regression.

Rock on!!

:jumpbanan

disaacks3
01-11-2005, 05:44 PM
JMO, but this sentiment is more a result of expectation than reality. And while they faced some of the "worst" defenses the Texans also faced all the best offenses including Indy twice--if you are going to factor one in you have to factor both into evaluating the team.
The reality is that the Texans "gave up" in at least 4 games this year. If it's apparent to the coaches, the broadcasters, & the players, I'm on pretty safe ground in that part of my assessment.

On the stats you give--are you really saying PR & KR are serious indicators of progress/regression? Sacks I will give you and that is the #1 off-season issue to be addressed in some fashion IMO. I picked a few stats, with about 30 sec. worth of research, to dispute the "fact" that this team has done nothing but progress this year.

Turnover margin: 2003 -5 25th, 2004 +5 12th

At the end of the day turnovers are the single greatest stat indicator for winning and regardless of the yards produced or given up the score matters more. In all of these categories the Texans made significant strides forward.Using that logic, if turnovers are the most important factor, why weren't the Texans better than 7-9? We made a +10 change in TO margin, but only finished 2 games better?

Better yet, please explain why these teams made the playoffs with WORSE TO margins than the Texans: Atlanta, Minnesota, Denver, Green Bay & St. Louis. That 5/12 playoff teams. Conversely, 2 of the top 5 TO margin teams aren't in the playoffs.

Did the Texans make SOME progress this year? Of course they did! I still question why a team with significantly LESS injuries than the year before, gave up on themselves in so many games. That's an issue that needs to be addressed before we start picking up FA & signing any more draftees! If it's a coaching issue, or lack of trust between players / coaches, then it's a larger issue than the O-Line, or anything else.

:twocents: I'm really NOT into doom & gloom, but I also refuse to "pump sunshine up the arse" to make some really bad items look rosy when they're not.

Vinny
01-11-2005, 05:53 PM
The reality is that the Texans "gave up" in at least 4 games this year. If it's apparent to the coaches, the broadcasters, & the players, I'm on pretty safe ground in that part of my assessment.You mean when we set the 2004 record of holding teams scoreless in consecutive quarters? We must be a pretty powerful team if we gave up and did what no other team could do last season during this period of games. I'm sure you didn't mean last 4 games but I really didn't see us giving up.

disaacks3
01-11-2005, 06:15 PM
You mean when we set the 2004 record of holding teams scoreless in consecutive quarters? We must be a pretty powerful team if we gave up and did what no other team could do last season during this period of games. I'm sure you didn't mean last 4 games but I really didn't see us giving up.Nope, I sure didn't mean LAST 4, I meant AT LEAST 4, which is exactly what I stated.... :dontknowa

If you honestly didn't see the Texans "mail it in" on multiple occasions this year, I'd suggest you re-watch the game footage, it's gruesome. Please see @Denver, @Indy, @NYJ, Cleveland for further reference.

Vinny
01-11-2005, 06:25 PM
Denver, Indy and the Jets are all playoff caliber teams. I don't perceive us as quitting as much as I saw better teams beat an average team. We got whooped by some good teams....just like lots of average teams do.

infantrycak
01-11-2005, 06:27 PM
The reality is that the Texans "gave up" in at least 4 games this year. If it's apparent to the coaches, the broadcasters, & the players, I'm on pretty safe ground in that part of my assessment.

I don't recall a coach or player saying they gave up all year--played poorly, not as well as they should, etc. yes but not gave up. Broadcasters are people paid to fill time--one of the 610 am guys the other day said Joppru was the Texans worst draft pick the other day not because he hasn't played but because the Texans had no need for a TE--yeah, I am respecting their opinion.

I picked a few stats, with about 30 sec. worth of research, to dispute the "fact" that this team has done nothing but progress this year.

Didn't realize your point was that not everything had progressed. Even so, if individual stats go down (identifying areas to work on) but the important ones, including the most important one W's v. L's goes up, I have to give the team as a whole a progress check mark. Is that different than what you are saying?

Using that logic, if turnovers are the most important factor, why weren't the Texans better than 7-9? We made a +10 change in TO margin, but only finished 2 games better?

This isn't a matter of logic at all, it is a matter of fact--there is no single stat that better predicts the winner of a game than turnover margin in that game--a single +1 turnover margin in a game predicts the winner over 75% of the time which is way higher than 400 yd passers, 100 yd rushers, or any other stat I have seen. The Texans defied the odds a couple of times this year and lost anyway, but a +10 change is a huge improvement (especially considering starting the season 0-2 despite other pretty good stats but being -7 on TO's) and certainly contributed to the two extra wins this season.

Did the Texans make SOME progress this year? Of course they did! I still question why a team with significantly LESS injuries than the year before, gave up on themselves in so many games. ... I'm really NOT into doom & gloom, but I also refuse to "pump sunshine up the arse" to make some really bad items look rosy when they're not.

I see insufficient evidence to conclude the Texans gave up on themselves but that is a subjective decision everyone gets to make. There are certainly plenty of areas needing serious improvement through conscientious study/work by players, coaching and personnel decisions for serious improvement next year. And I am not here to pump sunshine anywhere, but neither do I let high hopes become expectations, that become frustration when not met--not saying you in particular, but more to a lot of folks around here, especially the ones riding a high after Jax and a low after Cleveland.

Lucky
01-11-2005, 06:35 PM
...I still question why a team with significantly LESS injuries than the year before, gave up on themselves in so many games.
I think that's a significant point. In the previous seasons, you could point to games where the Texans overachieved. I don't think you can say that about this year’s team. They have the record their talent deserves.

My :twocents: would be that the Texans suffered due to the inconsistent effort of some veterans. Some guys became complacent and underachieved. That can spill over into the younger players. I don't know for sure if the Texans agree with me, but I do know that Capers would talk about "consistency" after nearly every loss. And I don't think he was strictly pointing to the younger players ups & downs due to inexperience. As you suggested, this needs to be addressed by the Texans and soon. Determine whether these players can turnaround their effort and performances, or cut bait and go fishin' again.

infantrycak
01-11-2005, 06:39 PM
No the one unit that I still won't say gave up, but went through a huge inexplicable decline in the 2nd half of the off-season. Have no clue why that happened--at the same time they got the run blocking going they pulled out there pass blocking red capes.

disaacks3
01-11-2005, 06:42 PM
Denver, Indy and the Jets are all playoff caliber teams. I don't perceive us as quitting as much as I saw better teams beat an average team. We got whooped by some good teams....just like lots of average teams do.That's part of the point I'm trying to make. We played BOTH SuperBowl contenders last year extremely close, but this year we get our "butts whooped"? I really think the guys last year played beyond what could be hoped for (given the IR stats). This years guys got down and then appeared to "Give Up". If this had happened only once, maybe twice, it wouldn't be as bothersome.

Oh well, everyone is entitled to their own read on this year & I did expect 7-9, so in some ways I'm NOT disappointed.

Wouldn't it be fun the have 'em come out "breathing fire" and play that way for 60 min. though? :coolb:

Lucky
01-11-2005, 06:49 PM
Run blocking is the "fun part" of being an offensive lineman. You get to be the aggressor. You're the hitter rather than the "hittee" (not a word, but it should be). Pass blocking is about technique, discipline, and consistency. It's about taking ownership. I'm concerned about the lack of ownership by some vets.

infantrycak
01-11-2005, 06:57 PM
Run blocking is the "fun part" of being an offensive lineman. You get to be the aggressor. You're the hitter rather than the "hittee" (not a word, but it should be). Pass blocking is about technique, discipline, and consistency. It's about taking ownership. I'm concerned about the lack of ownership by some vets.

Agreed, but why did the ownership degrade/stop in the 2nd half of the season? While it wasn't great in the 1st half it certainly went down with a very dramatic effect on Carr and the offense as you have pointed out.

cronicallyimpared
01-11-2005, 09:30 PM
I sincerely hope the team makes the playoffs next season and if not at least they scare a few more people than this season. I'm satisfied with the little victories the team made this year, and yes I'm disappointed with the setbacks. I know that personnel is an issue for this team. The Texans lack depth on both lines, I had hoped that the off-season acquisitions the team had made in both free-agency and the draft would have lead to some improvement, but astoundingly both groups (in my opinion at least) underperformed. I don’t wish for David Carr to end up like Steve McNair; so beat up that he is considering retirement in his early thirties. Our return teams are a joke. I think the team has made strides in some very important areas and I think it is time to seriously address weaknesses. (offensive line anyone?)

On the plus side, the improvements the team made were spectacular. The combination of Carr, Johnson, and Davis is inarguably the one of the three best young offensive combos in the league. When this team was on this season they were unstoppable. And what about two wins over Tennessee this season? I had been wanting that day to happen since I found out Houston was getting a team and I plan to relish in it at least until August (if not longer). Then my wife and I get BullPen tickets for the Nov 28th game (her wedding gift to me, how about that!) and they come back from 21-3 to win by 10. Then, they go and win in Chicago, in December no less (no playoffs for you), and the very next weak make the Jags look like the expansion team in Jacksonville.

I know we lost to the Browns, lord, do I know it. But I like to think that we are going to be contenders next year. Overoptimistic? Maybe. But I don’t care.

Next season, we beat Indy!!! :howdy:

BTW - This board rocks (so says the FNG)

trijcomm
01-12-2005, 06:09 PM
I think "The Team" has scared just about everybody because I don't think anyone takes them for granted anymore. As far as the playoffs go, I'd love to see "The Team" make them but I'd settle for 8-8 next year -- and that's a shame in a way because a win against Cleveland would have set the goal up a notch to 9-7 next year. But be that as it may, for them to make the playoffs, they would have to find some way to pass Denver or the Jets -- two teams that humiliated them this year on the road. Buffalo came within a game of the playoffs as well and the Ravens are still tough. Cincy is also coming into its own as well. They'd also have to keep it up against Jax and everybody else they beat out this year, including KC. That's a lot of teams they'll have to find a way of passing up as a fourth-year franchise. And that's a lot to ask and expect. Taking all of this into account, 8-8 would be just fine for me.

Texan Gal 312
01-12-2005, 07:06 PM
[U] [B]This team played absolutely FLAT in 25% of its games this year - that sounds like a coaching issue to me.

Oh well, there's always next year.....

That is life in the NFL, part of the overal parity picture. That could be said of everyteam. A few teams (very few) managed to win some of their "flat" games.