PDA

View Full Version : Are we really better than 14 teams?


thunderkyss
04-13-2009, 04:04 PM
Just a question I was thinking about.

1. Are we better than the 14 teams we draft behind?

2. Are we more talented than the 14 teams we draft behind?

Detroit Lions
St Louis Rams
Kansas City Chiefs
Seattle Seahawks
Cleveland Browns
Cincinnati Bengals
Oakland Raiders
Jacksonville Jaguars
Green Bay Packers
San Francisco 49ers
Buffalo Bills
Denver Broncos
Washington Redskins
New Orleans Saints

HOU-TEX
04-13-2009, 04:10 PM
In 08, yes. I think we were better than some of the teams that are behind us too. Just to name a few.

Jets
Bears
Buccs
Probably the Fins too

Polo
04-13-2009, 04:11 PM
I'd say yeah...

mexican_texan
04-13-2009, 04:13 PM
The Seahawks with a healthy Matt Hasselbeck could beat us. Of course, with a healthy Matt Schaub, we have a pretty good shot at 31 of 32 teams.

drewmar74
04-13-2009, 04:14 PM
Just a question I was thinking about.

1. Are we better than the 14 teams we draft behind?

2. Are we more talented than the 14 teams we draft behind?

Detroit Lions
St Louis Rams
Kansas City Chiefs
Seattle Seahawks
Cleveland Browns
Cincinnati Bengals
Oakland Raiders
Jacksonville Jaguars
Green Bay Packers
San Francisco 49ers
Buffalo Bills
Denver Broncos
Washington Redskins
New Orleans Saints

Well, some of them yes on both. Some of them yes on one. Some of them no on either.

Like Detroit. I think we're better than Detroit and we have more talent on the roster. Same with Kansas City.

But I'd have a hard time saying that we're better or more talented than Washington or New Orleans.

All that said, I'd like our chances playing any of those teams.

Ryan
04-13-2009, 04:16 PM
I think we are better than most now. I never go into a Sunday during football season KNOWING the Texans are going to lose. This is the year for us to prove it to the rest of the world now.

Hervoyel
04-13-2009, 04:21 PM
The Seahawks with a healthy Matt Hasselbeck could beat us. Of course, with a healthy Matt Schaub, we have a pretty good shot at 31 of 32 teams.

I'd say that with a defense that was twice as good as our own (say right at or just below 10th overall) we're a real threat to go deep in the playoffs. Our defense is our Achilles heal and we've basically been playing without one for the last three years under Kubiak.

Give us a defense between 10th and 15th (closer to 10th hopefully) and we're a force. That's odd to say but it's the truth.

infantrycak
04-13-2009, 04:25 PM
I'd say that with a defense that was twice as good as our own (say right at or just below 10th overall) we're a real threat to go deep in the playoffs. Our defense is our Achilles heal and we've basically been playing without one for the last three years under Kubiak.

Give us a defense between 10th and 15th (closer to 10th hopefully) and we're a force. That's odd to say but it's the truth.

What he said. A decent defense and we are a threat any Sunday.

hadaad
04-13-2009, 04:26 PM
I would say we are not necessarily more talented than all of those teams, but yes, i would say we are better. Not only was our record better, but we played in the AFC South.

We might not be better than New Orleans, Buffalo or Cleveland. It depends on which Browns team shows up.

mexican_texan
04-13-2009, 04:27 PM
With Shannahan calling the plays on offense, I think we can go the Indianapolis Colts route and just outscore everyone.

D_Money85
04-13-2009, 05:01 PM
Any thing can happen any Given Sunday

CharloTex
04-13-2009, 06:46 PM
The Seahawks with a healthy Matt Hasselbeck could beat us. Of course, with a healthy Matt Schaub, we have a pretty good shot at 31 of 32 teams.

Let me guess, are the Houston Texans the 32nd team we don't have a good chance to beat? :shades:

TimeKiller
04-13-2009, 06:50 PM
Any thing can happen any Given Sunday

win a supa bowl and drive off in a hyundai

I think this is a team with it's arrow pointed up. If a couple pieces were added on defense this is going to be a team other teams look at and just know, we're in for a hell of a game playing those Houston Texans!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thorn
04-13-2009, 06:55 PM
We are not a bad team like we used to be. We have to be taken seriously these days. Not that we can consistently beat good teams yet, but if those good teams are not having a good day, we can take 'em.

It is my hope that starting this year we finally graduate from the average to the above average. Or higher. Higher would be nice. :D

Silver Oak
04-13-2009, 07:04 PM
Give us a defense between 10th and 15th (closer to 10th hopefully) and we're a force. That's odd to say but it's the truth.


are you talking 10-15 based on points allowed or total yards allowed? Tenn. had the 7th ranked defense, but gave up fewer points than the 3rd ranked defense of Philly.

scant little difference between the 10th-15th ranked d's in terms of yards allowed.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=2008&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go

Texanmike02
04-13-2009, 07:31 PM
I'm the biggest homer on this board... a real rah rah guy. So naturally I say yes. We're definately a top 18 team in the league.

Ok now seriously.

YES.

I think, going into the draft... for the first time in our history, the list of teams better than us is shorter than the list of teams that we're better than.

NE
INDY
TENN
PITT
SD
DAL
NYG
PHIL
ATL

That's the list that strikes me. ARI had a good run, but come play in the AFC SOUTH and I think you have a different year. Problem is that two of the teams better than us are in our division.

That is a 2 second look at the teams. But before even looking at the team I thought we were 12ish... I wouldn't have a problem if you put us at 14 or 10 really... but I think thats about right.

Wow, spec never thought he'd see the day.

Mike

ObsiWan
04-13-2009, 09:02 PM
Just a question I was thinking about.

1. Are we better than the 14 teams we draft behind?

2. Are we more talented than the 14 teams we draft behind?

Detroit Lions
St Louis Rams
Kansas City Chiefs
Seattle Seahawks
Cleveland Browns
Cincinnati Bengals
Oakland Raiders
Jacksonville Jaguars
Green Bay Packers
San Francisco 49ers
Buffalo Bills
Denver Broncos
Washington Redskins
New Orleans Saints

Depends on which version of the Texans shows up.

The Texans that play the home games are definitely better than all those teams.

The road team/charity ball (tip of the hat to Mike Singletary) version of the Texans probably aren't better than all those teams. Specifically, the Niners, Saints, Redskins, and even the Bills would worry me if we were playing them on the road with the Texans offense that give the ball away 2-3 times/game

pbat488
04-13-2009, 09:25 PM
Let me guess, are the Houston Texans the 32nd team we don't have a good chance to beat? :shades:

Actually, we beat ourselves more often than other teams do by stupid mistakes. Turnovers, blown coverages, sloppy routes, bad assignments, trying to make a heroic 1st down by jumping over the defenders..

The way we truly improve and become as good as or better than the other teams is to not beat ourselves first, and then the rest will fall into place.

Texanmike02
04-13-2009, 09:54 PM
are you talking 10-15 based on points allowed or total yards allowed? Tenn. had the 7th ranked defense, but gave up fewer points than the 3rd ranked defense of Philly.

scant little difference between the 10th-15th ranked d's in terms of yards allowed.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=2008&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go

This BRILLIANT, GREAT LOOKING, AMAZING guy posted something about ranking defenses one time. I'll just quote him because I think I'm all of the above :D:tiphat:

This was born in another thread when Relianttexan asked me "If your going to judge the colts run defense on how they played in the playoffs then why not judge our defense in yds allowed the last 13 games of the season in which they were ranked 12th not 23rd.Or how bout we judge them the last 10 games of the season in which they were a top 10 D." I had pretty much ignored that "fact" because I didn't think it was possible that it was true. So this whole post is basically an answer to that question, but because of the scope it entails, I felt it was worthy of its own thread. This post will probably come in several parts because I see it being a lengthy but worthy read.

There is no standard for comparing defenses. You can rank them a number of ways. Ranking them by points allowed doesn't always work because its possible that the team's offense puts them in a bad position. So then you turn to yards. But then you have those bend but don't break situations.

My first inclination, when I read this was to simply take last yearís games, subtract the first 3 games stats from the total stats. Then Divide that number by 13 to get the average of the last 13 games. Then multiply those numbers by 16 to account for a full season. And Yardage wise, I'm proud to announce our Texans would have finished 13th overall in total yards, 14th overall in Rushing yards and an astonishing 11th in passing yards. If only it were that simple.

In some areas of the country, yards do count in the outcome of the game. Certain states will award a win to a team if after an overtime period teams are still tied, they count trips inside the 20 yard line and then total yards to determine the winner of a playoff game. Alas that is H.S. football. In the rest of the football world, the object of the defense is to keep the other team from scoring and if possible score themselves. Since for the most part defensive scores are an anomaly (with a few exceptions) they donít really figure into the quality of the defense (despite what any fantasy football player would tell you) we will disregard them for this discussion. Points canít be that determining factor either though. That is because the defense doesnít play in a vacuum. Some offenses have a tendency to put defenses in a bad situation, or leave them on the field forever. So if you canít look at yards and you canít look at points, what can you possibly look at to give you an accurate measure of a defense?

It was no surprise to me that total yards = points. Mathematically thatís easy to prove. Thatís probably why itís not the most useful stat to break down defenses with. But if you split up yards by total rushing yards and total passing yards rushing yards figure into the equation much more heavily than passing yards, in fact Passing yards is around the threshold of the critical value of r Ė meaning it just barely meets the criteria for a correlation. That is because unlike rushing (in which a failed carry results in negative, or 0 yards) a failed pass attempt doesnít really show up in the passing yardage. Itís just not a very effective way to measure passing effectiveness (or pass defense effectiveness).

This leaves you with yardage. What do you consider? Total yardage? That doesn't make much sense to me. Especially considering that the Ravens had almost 15% fewer plays on defense than the Titans did. I think that leaves you with yards per play. But I had to look to make sure there was a statistical significance between yan yards per play and points. So here is what I did. I took several major categories and from each team for the 06 season and compared them to points against. I then took the correlation coefficient and ranked them to attain the most relevant statistics. Here is a look at what each of the following statistics tells us and its correlation coefficient:

(note. The closer the number to 0 the lower the correlation. )


Total Yards ( .757) - This obviously has a high correlation to points. But like points it really doesnít tell us much. Because total yardage is divided into two separate categories and doesnít measure the importance of run versus pass defense, nor does it tell us what components of each respective aspect of the game are most important. Itís not a bad way to rank total defense but doesnít account for those defenses that give up a lot of yards while not giving up many points.

Rush yards allowed (.549) /Pass yards allowed (.332) Ė The odd thing about this is that passing yards had such a low statistical significance. As a sub discussion of total yards they are helpful, but given the difference in plays from scrimmage on one side of the ball or another which isnít accounted for, they may not be much help either.

Yards / Play (rushing and passing combined) (.772) Ė This was slightly higher than just total yardage. It tells you on each play what a defense yields. It will tell you, overall how the defense faired. What it wonít tell you is how the run defense faired or how the pass defense faired. It is very similar to total yards in that aspect but it also accounts for the fact that some teams had 800 something plays while others had over 1000.

Yards per Carry (.506) Ė I split this up from Yards per pass for a reason. It is kind of like the inverse of the whole completion % problem. Teams that allow a team to run the ball for say 3.4 yards, if they give up more rushes will actually stay on the field longer than a team who gives up 4.4 ypc. The whole 3 yards and a cloud of dust, take time off the clock phenomenon may be playing tricks with the numbers here.

Yards per Pass Attempt (.612) Ė Think of these as the WHIP of football. Statistically almost as significant as total yards by themselves they give you a better idea of what a team does on a per play basis. Ideally you would be able to split them up to where they happen but that involves a ton of work just to collect the numbers. Because yards/catch is so similar among teams Yards/Pass attempt winds up with an almost identical number to comp%.

Comp% (.615) is a little different number. But every bit as valid. Maybe more so. Most teams in the league will rank about the same in completion percentage that they would YPA since most teams are with in 2.5 yards per reception. Completion % though was a huge difference.

There will always be people who rank defenses differently. It is an inherently subjective ranking. You can argue that injuries, or a few bad games, or a few good games will skew the numbers. Between eras it becomes even more difficult. With the passing game having evolved as it has over the last 50 years more plays get run in a game. If you were going to ask me to use two barometers to to rank defenses within a certain year (2006 specifically) I would use the rushing yards against and completion% against numbers. They are specific enough to tell you something about the two different aspects of the defense while being broad enough to be categorized. An example of a stat that doesn't do that would be the yards per catch against. It doesn't take into account the completion% which since each team has a pretty close yards per completion average, is a stat that definitely figures into the effectiveness of any passing game.

I havenít run the numbers yet to see where the Texans stand in those categories (to eliminate bias when I finally answer the question) but I will in the morning and then Iíll finally answer the question I started out trying to answer.

Mike

dalemurphy
04-13-2009, 10:02 PM
I think we're better than 22-24 teams frankly. More than that, IMO, only Pittsburgh, NYGiants, and New England strike me as teams that are going to be (likely)significantly better than the Texans. Otherwise, I'd put us in a group of teams like:
Indy
Tenn
SD
Phillie
Carolina
Arizona
Baltimore
Dallas

So, I'm on record, clearly I expect to see the Texans in the playoffs.

Texans Pride
04-13-2009, 10:12 PM
I'd say that with a defense that was twice as good as our own (say right at or just below 10th overall) we're a real threat to go deep in the playoffs. Our defense is our Achilles heal and we've basically been playing without one for the last three years under Kubiak.

Give us a defense between 10th and 15th (closer to 10th hopefully) and we're a force. That's odd to say but it's the truth.

Herv I agree with you, but I think it has to be couple with two other things.

1. Stop the turnovers on offense
2. Score more touchdowns in the red zone.

thunderkyss
04-13-2009, 10:24 PM
Actually, we beat ourselves more often than other teams do by stupid mistakes. Turnovers, blown coverages, sloppy routes, bad assignments, trying to make a heroic 1st down by jumping over the defenders..

The way we truly improve and become as good as or better than the other teams is to not beat ourselves first, and then the rest will fall into place.

I think this is the most significant post so far. Nothing against other posts, they were all good reads. But this one, hit home with me.

Are we out there, doing what we're taught to do, or not. With parity what it is in this league, the difference between a good team, and a bad team is the amount of mistakes they make. When we were out there, doing what we do, we were standing toe to toe with the Colts, and getting the better end of the deal. Then we made some mistakes.

There are times, seems like mostly on the road, when we start making those mistakes, they tend to feed on themselves, one leads to another, and another, and antoher.

Offensively, it's not so bad, because we have playmakers who can make up for those mistakes. Andre dropped a ball..... no biggie, when he get's 10 yac. Shuab missed an open reciever..... no biggie, when he's probably got the best completion percentage of any QB in the league, when throwing the ball 20 yards or more. OD, K-Dub, SS...... all playmakers.

On defense, we've got Mario, and Demeco....... & they can't atone for everybodies mistakes, including their own. If Dunta returns to form, that would be one more Playmaker for the D. But we need more.

IMHO, are we better than those 14 teams? I don't know. But like PBat said, we've got to stop beating ourselves, then we can find out.

Texanmike02
04-13-2009, 10:25 PM
I don't know that its where the defense ranks as much as it is what they do. I've been working (rather slowly) on an offensive efficiency rating. Something that combines, proportionally, the efficiency of the run game, the ability to sustain drives/time of posession, passing efficiency and turnovers and points all into the equation. Unfortunately, someone (my soon to be ex-wife) broke in and took my computer. So I might have to start from scratch. The bottom line is I don't think the rankings we use today measure the real performance of a defense. Thus I think we need a performance range (allow 3 fewer ppg or so) we can dramatically increase our win total. The other alternative, which would coincide with point reduction you would think, would be to get the offense one more posession per game. Getting off the field wears the other teams defense out... I dunno, I'll get back in the lab at some point and see if I can recreate what I was working on.

bottom line, we need to do more than finish in x place. We need to do predetermined things... hit certain benchmarks... then we've got a better idea.


Mike

Hervoyel
04-13-2009, 11:01 PM
are you talking 10-15 based on points allowed or total yards allowed? Tenn. had the 7th ranked defense, but gave up fewer points than the 3rd ranked defense of Philly.

scant little difference between the 10th-15th ranked d's in terms of yards allowed.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=2008&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go


I didn't put much thought in the details there, I was just thinking that we've been between 22-24 for the last three years under Richard Smith and that if we could move up even half way to the top then we'd be making a difference on that side of the ball instead of just trying to slow the pace of the other team scoring a bit.

And to answer Texans Pride, "Absolutely. Fewer mistakes would do a world of good for us and maybe go a little bit toward helping the defense move up in the rankings. It sure would be nice to see the offense stop putting the defense in bad field position or back on the field through a turnover before they've even had a chance to get some gatorade.

Wolf
04-13-2009, 11:22 PM
how do I think "better"?
between the 20's I think our offense can do wonders, But what stalls us is our inability to punch it in..

I know captain obvious there..

defensively.. we could reach for the sky if we could just shut people down from time to time.

ArlingtonTexan
04-13-2009, 11:37 PM
The texans have moved in to the really large middle class of the NFL. Depending on a couple things swinging one way or another they will probably finish bewteen 10/6 and 6/10 like about 20 other teams in the league. There are only 5 or so who are cleary better or 5 or clearly worse. Assuming the 2009 offense looks a lot like the 2008 offense then those who are saying that the Texans only need to get into the top 1/2 understand that will be enough to push an extra couple wins in 2009 and more than likely into realistic playoff contention.

Norg
04-14-2009, 01:03 AM
Detroit Lions-Uhhh yea but they gave us a harder time then say cinccy
St Louis Rams-Yup
Kansas City Chiefs-this team in the past has given us troubles has well
Seattle Seahawks-i see this team also giving us trouble
Cleveland Browns-We can handle the browns
Cincinnati Bengals-Y
Oakland Raiders-Y
Jacksonville Jaguars- Umm no its up in the air IMO every year when we face divison foe
Green Bay Packers-if they played like they did last year then YES
San Francisco 49ers
Buffalo Bills
Denver Broncos
Washington Redskins
New Orleans Saints

infantrycak
04-14-2009, 11:45 AM
I don't know that its where the defense ranks as much as it is what they do. I've been working (rather slowly) on an offensive efficiency rating. Something that combines, proportionally, the efficiency of the run game, the ability to sustain drives/time of posession, passing efficiency and turnovers and points all into the equation. Unfortunately, someone (my soon to be ex-wife) broke in and took my computer.

Rather than recreating the wheel, take a look at the Aikman efficiency ratings. They are real solid predictors on who wins games.

thunderkyss
04-14-2009, 12:40 PM
Rather than recreating the wheel, take a look at the Aikman efficiency ratings. They are real solid predictors on who wins games.

ouch........ according to the AER, we aren't a very good football team in terms of efficiency.

Double Barrel
04-14-2009, 01:02 PM
I'd say that with a defense that was twice as good as our own (say right at or just below 10th overall) we're a real threat to go deep in the playoffs.

I want to believe that, and parts of me do believe it.

But, teams have to learn to win consistently. And this franchise still has to break the .500 benchmark. So until that happens, I'm not going to even taste the playoff koolaide.

Hervoyel
04-14-2009, 01:13 PM
I want to believe that, and parts of me do believe it.

But, teams have to learn to win consistently. And this franchise still has to break the .500 benchmark. So until that happens, I'm not going to even taste the playoff koolaide.


I know, and we're in the learning stage but hear me out for a moment.

When your defense sucks as much as ours does your offense presses. They have to. They know that the defense isn't going to get it done and that they'll need to hang 30 points on the other team in order to stand a chance to win the game.

When they do that they make mistakes. Pressing too hard is bad for everybody. The offense plays tight and they try too hard to make plays sometimes and they turn the ball over on downs or through picks and fumbles.

Then the defense is doubly screwed because now not only are they not very good but they're in a hole and trying to defend a 30 yard field while they're tired and frustrated. They know that no matter how hard they try the offense is just going to go down the field and throw a pick or go three and out. So the defense presses too and that makes them even less effective than they already are.

Somebody has to step up and get it right from the start. Somebody has to take that first step. I think the offense did that last year over the second half and particularly when Matt Schaub came back and played his ass off. I think that all the defense has to do is answer that with a step forward of their own and then we're in 9-7 to 10-6 range and getting into the playoffs like those old Jerry Glanville era Oilers when they finally got all the young guys pulling mostly in the same direction.

That's with a step forward. If it turns out that Frank Bush has something going for him and wasn't just a feel-good name change hire AND we get a quality starter with one or two picks from the draft AND Antoine Smith works out then we're not just taking a step. We're making strides.

ObsiWan
04-14-2009, 01:13 PM
ouch........ according to the AER, we aren't a very good football team in terms of efficiency.

That's not news. We've all been complaining about Red-Zone effectiveness for the life of the team. This ranking puts a number to it (and thanks Infantry, I hadn't heard of it).

BigBull17
04-14-2009, 02:38 PM
I'm the biggest homer on this board... a real rah rah guy. So naturally I say yes. We're definately a top 18 team in the league.

Ok now seriously.

YES.

I think, going into the draft... for the first time in our history, the list of teams better than us is shorter than the list of teams that we're better than.

NE
INDY
TENN
PITT
SD
DAL
NYG
PHIL
ATL

That's the list that strikes me. ARI had a good run, but come play in the AFC SOUTH and I think you have a different year. Problem is that two of the teams better than us are in our division.

That is a 2 second look at the teams. But before even looking at the team I thought we were 12ish... I wouldn't have a problem if you put us at 14 or 10 really... but I think thats about right.

Wow, spec never thought he'd see the day.

Mike

I think with both Indy and Tenn the gap has closed a little. We are a Sage boner and Richard Smith away from sweeping Indy. Minus Haynesworth the Titans should be a different team.

Atlanta is more of a flash in the pan and could go either way.

Dallas could potentially be back to normal or win 6 games. I don't buy the Addition by Subtraction theory.
T.O >>>> Roy Williams.

As long as Norv is the coach, the odds of under achieving are there. S.D is another iffy one.

Vinny
04-15-2009, 03:46 PM
I don't know about "better than" but we are "as good as" any team in the league plus or minus about 5 -8 franchises.

dalemurphy
04-15-2009, 03:53 PM
I don't know about "better than" but we are "as good as" any team in the league plus or minus about 5 -8 franchises.

Reading stuff like this from Vinny can only mean one thing: reality has finally caught up with my optimism!! Yes!

"We're going to the playoffs!
We're going to the playoffs!
We're going to the playoffs!
We're going to the playoffs!", in sing-song voice.

Vinny
04-15-2009, 03:56 PM
Reading stuff like this from Vinny can only mean one thing: reality has finally caught up with my optimism!! Yes!

"We're going to the playoffs!
We're going to the playoffs!
We're going to the playoffs!
We're going to the playoffs!", in sing-song voice.
yeah, for the record this is the first year I honestly project us into the playoffs....up till now you guys have always thought I wasn't optimistic enough, but I've been right till now for the most part. Hopefully I'm not gonna be wrong this year!

TEXANRED
04-15-2009, 04:00 PM
yeah, for the record this is the first year I honestly project us into the playoffs....up till now you guys have always thought I wasn't optimistic enough, but I've been right till now for the most part. Hopefully I'm not gonna be wrong this year!

Are you really John McClain?

Vinny
04-15-2009, 04:04 PM
Are you really John McClain?
no, because I'm usually more on-target with my insight and I tend to think for myself when it comes to NFL opinion. I cherish credibility more than popularity. That right there should stop the speculation. :smiliedance:

HOU-TEX
04-15-2009, 04:16 PM
yeah, for the record this is the first year I honestly project us into the playoffs....up till now you guys have always thought I wasn't optimistic enough, but I've been right till now for the most part. Hopefully I'm not gonna be wrong this year!

If you are wrong then it's your fault we didn't go to the playoffs. :winky:

ObsiWan
04-15-2009, 04:23 PM
yeah, for the record this is the first year I honestly project us into the playoffs....up till now you guys have always thought I wasn't optimistic enough, but I've been right till now for the most part. Hopefully I'm not gonna be wrong this year!

I ask again:
who ARE you people and what did you do with my usual & customary msg board friends???

ObsiWan
04-15-2009, 04:24 PM
If TexanMike chimes in with a playoff-bound prediction, I'm checking everyone's meds.
:foottap:

Ole Miss Texan
04-15-2009, 04:25 PM
Re: Are we really better than 14 teams?

Absolutely we are.

dalemurphy
04-15-2009, 06:01 PM
If TexanMike chimes in with a playoff-bound prediction, I'm checking everyone's meds.
:foottap:

I'm right here! I'm the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So, naturally, if Vinny and company are predicting playoffs, I may have to come up with a thesis for why we will be in the Superbowl.

By the way, you haven't been paying attention, because Texanmike has been posting all kinds of positive stuff the past few weeks. I'm going to go track some down right now for you.

ObsiWan
04-15-2009, 06:44 PM
I'm right here! I'm the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So, naturally, if Vinny and company are predicting playoffs, I may have to come up with a thesis for why we will be in the Superbowl.

By the way, you haven't been paying attention, because Texanmike has been posting all kinds of positive stuff the past few weeks. I'm going to go track some down right now for you.

yes, yes, I know. You're always so disgustingly positive. Even at income tax time. its the rest of them that worry me.
:)

hmmm..... perhaps this is just typical pre-season/pre-draft optimism and I'm over-reacting to it.
yes. ...yes.... that must be it.
:thinking:

Texanmike02
04-16-2009, 12:49 AM
I'm right here! I'm the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So, naturally, if Vinny and company are predicting playoffs, I may have to come up with a thesis for why we will be in the Superbowl.

By the way, you haven't been paying attention, because Texanmike has been posting all kinds of positive stuff the past few weeks. I'm going to go track some down right now for you.

I have been optimistic for the last two years. My optimism has just been for the future rather than the next game. I see the direction of the team and year by year, we've been improving. The great thing about it has been that we're doing it in house. Our first run at respectability, was mostly with vets from other organizations. Look at our roster from 04. Our defense was aging and our leaders were prior free agents or expansion draftees.

This time we're built different. We aren't assuming that several 29+ year olds are going to get better. We're looking at productive players that have been drafted for the last few years to improve. Young players are becoming leaders as we shed the "vets" we brought into mentor them. Look at carolina and Jags. Both had short term success with other teams players. Then it all fell apart. Since that time both organizations have built solid organizations by drafting well and growing players.

That is why I've been all optimistic. I'm not ready to call for playoffs yet. I need to see the draft. But I will say this. You'll know where we stand after the draft. This team is a piece or two away from the playoffs. Next year, we're either a 6-10 team or a 10-6 team.

Honestly, this is the first time in our history that I think we have a real opportunity to build a very good team and begin a dynasty. In 2 or 3 years we will look back at this draft and talk about how it changed the course of the franchise.


There you have it. Mr. Smith. Make the right move, and you will be able to attract solid free agents going into the prime of their careers instead of the 30 something running backs looking for one last hoorah..


There you have it folks. Why am I optimistic? We've never been at this point as Texans fans. Welcome to the NFL people.


Mike

HJam72
04-16-2009, 02:29 AM
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but I think Rosencopter (and a few of Schaub's fumbles) made our D look even worse. Rosenfel's was fun to watch and our offens-ers loved him, but our D has to be relieved to see him go. We also got rid of Richard Smith and D. Faggins, along with some additions. If Schaub, AJ, etc. stay healthy, we might be better than about 27 or so teams in this league. Who knows? Maybe they should've waited one more year to say, "The time is now." We all wonder how our "talented D," with all the high picks on it, can be so bad, but I saw a lot of stupid turnovers by our O and a D coordinator who wanted to read first, react later, and worry about crushing the QB after the fact. Let's let the O react 2 D-lineman and a LB in the backfield.

threetoedpete
04-17-2009, 02:06 AM
Absolutely we are.

You are what your record says you are....But I agree to an extent....go back and watch the Cleveland game and the green bay game....and most certainly the Miami game, either one of those could of went the other way. Heck saw a rumor this week that Barylon Edwards was being shopped around. I'm not in the room and I don't know.....but if he is it is a direct result of how bad he played in that game. He dropped alot of passes all year....but that game....he definitely had the yipes.

We got depth. We got a decent QB.....and if the defense can become more productive....this time next year, we might be saying we got to pick way to high. We'll see what the record says we are after '09.

Very nice post Mike. I'm with ya. If we get beat down again so be it. But, I'm not going to bash the 12-4 posters this season....we definalty got a chance if we can keep healthy. Still alot of if's and buts....

ObsiWan
04-17-2009, 07:17 AM
I have been optimistic for the last two years. My optimism has just been for the future rather than the next game. I see the direction of the team and year by year, we've been improving. The great thing about it has been that we're doing it in house. Our first run at respectability, was mostly with vets from other organizations. Look at our roster from 04. Our defense was aging and our leaders were prior free agents or expansion draftees.

This time we're built different. We aren't assuming that several 29+ year olds are going to get better. We're looking at productive players that have been drafted for the last few years to improve. Young players are becoming leaders as we shed the "vets" we brought into mentor them. Look at carolina and Jags. Both had short term success with other teams players. Then it all fell apart. Since that time both organizations have built solid organizations by drafting well and growing players.

That is why I've been all optimistic. I'm not ready to call for playoffs yet. I need to see the draft. But I will say this. You'll know where we stand after the draft. This team is a piece or two away from the playoffs. Next year, we're either a 6-10 team or a 10-6 team.

Honestly, this is the first time in our history that I think we have a real opportunity to build a very good team and begin a dynasty. In 2 or 3 years we will look back at this draft and talk about how it changed the course of the franchise.


There you have it. Mr. Smith. Make the right move, and you will be able to attract solid free agents going into the prime of their careers instead of the 30 something running backs looking for one last hoorah..


There you have it folks. Why am I optimistic? We've never been at this point as Texans fans. Welcome to the NFL people.


Mike

Good post. I agree. If we can plug in the last couple of pieces to the defense, acquire some quality depth for the front lines, and get a quality #2 RB so we don't burn out Slaton in a year or two we will be a force to be reckoned with for some time to come. We can get out of rebuild mode and become one of those teams that reload from year to year.

But I'm still skeptical about going 12-4 or 13-3 this season. I think anywhere from 9-7 to 11-5 is probable.

BigBull17
04-17-2009, 09:21 AM
Are you really John McClain?

Why hurl such insults? That's harsh my friend.