PDA

View Full Version : Houston Texans 2009 grades


2slik4u
01-06-2010, 07:32 PM
Here are the grades for the AFC according to ESPN. Texans did pretty good with a B+.

check it out

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4799143

Errant Hothy
01-06-2010, 08:02 PM
I really don't understand how the Raiders can be a D and the Chiefs an F, but maybe that's just me.

AS for the Texans grade, ok i guess.

mexican_texan
01-06-2010, 08:03 PM
Playing his first 16-game season, Matt Schaub developed into a top-level quarterback, throwing for 4,770 yards and 29 touchdowns. General manager Rick Smith continues to draft wisely on defense and pulled in his second Defensive Rookie of the Year -- linebacker Brian Cushing -- to work with Pro Bowl linebacker DeMeco Ryans.

Jeez. You'd think ESPN could hire a fact-checker.

Ndevine7
01-06-2010, 08:03 PM
I really don't understand how the Raiders can be a D and the Chiefs an F, but maybe that's just me.

AS for the Texans grade, ok i guess.

What do u think they deserved?

mexican_texan
01-06-2010, 08:05 PM
What do u think they deserved?
In what ways were the Raiders worth a D but not the Chiefs?

Ndevine7
01-06-2010, 08:06 PM
In what ways were the Raiders worth a D but not the Chiefs?

The Raiders beat multiple talented teams Cinn Pitt Eagles while what did the chiefs do beat the falling broncos

Errant Hothy
01-06-2010, 08:18 PM
What do u think they deserved?

I would have flipped them. The Chiefs have a much better offense, to the tune of 97 more points over the course of the season. Also Clayton seems to give them an F for rebuilding the D, and while KC's D needs some work the offense seems to be rounding into shape nicely and Oakland's O needs a lot more work then KC's D.

FYI, the Chiefs also beat Pitt.

Ndevine7
01-06-2010, 08:20 PM
I would have flipped them. The Chiefs have a much better offense, to the tune of 97 more points over the course of the season. Also Clayton seems to give them an F for rebuilding the D, and while KC's D needs some work the offense seems to be rounding into shape nicely and Oakland's O needs a lot more work then KC's D.

FYI, the Chiefs also beat Pitt.

Ok i see your point, idk IMO Oakland is a more dangerous team(neither i would ever call dangerous) but i can see your agruement that they both should be D's

TexCanada
01-06-2010, 08:50 PM
We shouldn't be better than the Ravens since they made playoffs and we didn't. I think both teams should be a B.

imatexan
01-06-2010, 09:18 PM
can someone please tell me why Andre Johnsons name is in an ESPN poll of "least deserving Pro Bowlers"!?!?!

Not to mention they hae two other Texans on the list.

Pathetic.

Ryan
01-06-2010, 09:41 PM
can someone please tell me why Andre Johnsons name is in an ESPN poll of "least deserving Pro Bowlers"!?!?!

Not to mention they hae two other Texans on the list.

Pathetic.

Are you serious? If so, WTF.

TheIronDuke
01-06-2010, 09:54 PM
Are you serious? If so, WTF.

He's referring to this.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=46&sCat=931

I for one am surprised at Mario and DeMeco getting Pro Bowl nods but AJ and Cush obviously deserve it.

Ryan
01-06-2010, 10:18 PM
Wow, ESPN is full of dipsh*ts. Yeah, the leading receiver in the NFL doesn't deserve to get into the Pro Bowl, give me a ^$%^$ break.

TheRealJoker
01-06-2010, 10:20 PM
The Raiders beat multiple talented teams Cinn Pitt Eagles while what did the chiefs do beat the falling broncos

Its a shame they couldn't add the Ravens to that list :(

Goatcheese
01-07-2010, 05:12 AM
can someone please tell me why Andre Johnsons name is in an ESPN poll of "least deserving Pro Bowlers"!?!?!

Not to mention they hae two other Texans on the list.

Pathetic.

They couldn't just put Tom Brady on the list by himself. They needed filler.

wagonhed
01-07-2010, 05:16 AM
He also gave the Jets a B+. That makes me question everything he says.

wagonhed
01-07-2010, 05:28 AM
He's referring to this.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=46&sCat=931

I for one am surprised at Mario and DeMeco getting Pro Bowl nods but AJ and Cush obviously deserve it.
Bunch of ******* idiots. 5 people on the list and 3 of them are Texans. ESPN can ******* shove it.

Section516
01-07-2010, 10:22 AM
Typically, I'd say all this is us being sensitive ect. But man, that's pretty jacked. AJ being on there, period, is absurd. Ryans had an incredible year. Only one i can say shouldn't be there in Pro Bowl terms, is Mario. And thats because he doesn't have OMG sacks. However, he does have the QB pressures and hits..

Le Sigh.

BIG TORO
01-07-2010, 10:36 AM
can someone please tell me why Andre Johnsons name is in an ESPN poll of "least deserving Pro Bowlers"!?!?!

Not to mention they hae two other Texans on the list.

Pathetic.

Well it is redicoulous, but when you vote it shows only 2% said andre, while 44% voted tom brady should not be there which I think is dead right Matt schaub should be in, instead of Brady

Porky
01-07-2010, 11:46 AM
I can see Mario being on the list because he was borderline. Ryans deserved it and AJ was not only pro-bowl, but easily All Pro calibur. That one in particular is pathetic. What, they couldn't find one other player less deserving?

PapaL
01-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Yet again, our division ranks out the toughest.

ChampionTexan
01-07-2010, 12:30 PM
I would have flipped them. The Chiefs have a much better offense, to the tune of 97 more points over the course of the season. Also Clayton seems to give them an F for rebuilding the D, and while KC's D needs some work the offense seems to be rounding into shape nicely and Oakland's O needs a lot more work then KC's D.

FYI, the Chiefs also beat Pitt.

The grade seems to be for the 2009 season in a vacuum, rather than including franchise direction and potential. I'll agree with the grader that in 2009, Oakland's suckage was a better brand of bad than K.C.'s. However, if you're predicting who's going to be better over the next five years, and comparing Clark Hunt/Scott Pioli/Todd Haley to Al Davis/Al Davis/Tom Cable (with significant direction from Al Davis), I think the Chiefs get a higher grade hands down. Doesn't necessarily mean they'll be good, just that the Raiders are virtually guaranteed to continue to be bad.

Errant Hothy
01-07-2010, 12:39 PM
The grade seems to be for the 2009 season in a vacuum, rather than including franchise direction and potential. I'll agree with the grader that in 2009, Oakland's suckage was a better brand of bad than K.C.'s. However, if you're predicting who's going to be better over the next five years, and comparing Clark Hunt/Scott Pioli/Todd Haley to Al Davis/Al Davis/Tom Cable (with significant direction from Al Davis), I think the Chiefs get a higher grade hands down. Doesn't necessarily mean they'll be good, just that the Raiders are virtually guaranteed to continue to be bad.

If Clayton was taking this season asif it was in a vacuum then the rebuilding comment makes less sense. I'm sorry but there is no way that Oakland sucked less then the Chiefs, just look at the numerous games where Russell didn't even reach triple didgits in passing yards. The only team that I think is currently worse then the Raiders is the Rams, and that'll probably change after the 2010-2011 easeon.

Would you rather be a Chiefs fan or a Raiders fan?