PDA

View Full Version : Rick Gosselin's NFL rankings: Texans 9th


ArlingtonTexan
06-15-2010, 12:10 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/cowboys/stories/061410dnspogosselinnflrankings.3a223bc.html


9. Houston

The Texans have never made the playoffs in their eight years of existence. But Houston has strung together three consecutive nonlosing seasons, highlighted by a 9-7 finish in 2009. The Texans have a Top 5 offense, featuring the game's best WR in Andre Johnson, and some defensive standouts in DE Mario Williams, LBs DeMeco Ryans and Brian Cushing and SS Bernard Pollard.

JB
06-15-2010, 12:18 PM
I am a bit surprised he has NO at #8 and NE at #11.

False Start
06-15-2010, 12:29 PM
I am a bit surprised he has NO at #8 and NE at #11.

Thats a good thing, we are now being ranked up there with the big boys. :cool:

HOU-TEX
06-15-2010, 12:30 PM
Thats a good thing, we are now being ranked up there with the big boys. :cool:

Now, if we can only play like the big boys. :winky:

No More 8-8's
06-15-2010, 12:40 PM
With big press, comes big responsibilities. Take care of business.

And for the people, who are saying "its just one journalists opinion" keep in mind that Gosselin is one of the most highly regarded football writers in America.

False Start
06-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Now, if we can only play like the big boys. :winky:

That's what I'm hoping/praying for, lol.

Thorn
06-15-2010, 12:45 PM
Interesting reading his take on all the teams. Doesn't mean much though.

As to the Texans being ranked 9th (or really the ranking of any team) it's to early. Indy being predicted to take it all this year makes me laugh. The Forehead only has one SB ring. Other than the Colts owning us, I don't believe in the magical powers of Manning anymore until he gets a few more rings.

beerlover
06-15-2010, 01:15 PM
Rick needs to take a closer look at the Texans schedule.

#1 Indianapolis (Twice)
#2 Dallas
#3 Baltimore
#5 San Diego
#10 Jets (who beat Texans badly @ home in last seasons opener, this time in NY)
#13 NY Giants
#14 Tennessee (Twice)
#16 Philadelphia

let's just imagine the Texans sweep the rest of schedule, which is harder than it appears that's six wins & split w/teams #10-#16 thats another couple wins which = 8. to reach 10 W's the Texans must at least split with #1 Colts & beat either Dallas, Baltimore or San Diego.

anything is possible but I don't think its very realistic, hope I'm wrong & he's right :tiphat:

IDEXAN
06-15-2010, 01:46 PM
As we know the best team in each of their respective conference doesn't necessarily make it to the SB. For example, isn't it accurate to say that most would feel the Vikings were better than the Saints last year but the home-field advantage was the margin for the Saints ? That and the Vikings mistakes, because they practically dominated the game.
Regarding his prediction for the Texans, I sure hope he's right but that seems very generous to me ? Who knows though, maybe some of us Texans
fans have been so use to having a team that does not succeed that we don't recognize a playoff team when it's under our own noses ?

infantrycak
06-15-2010, 02:04 PM
The Cowboys will need all of that to survive a schedule that includes games at Indianapolis, Green Bay, Houston and Minnesota.

Yeah we have a tough schedule but we are finally at the point where we are on other teams' oh crap list for tough games.

No More 8-8's
06-15-2010, 02:28 PM
I know this is somewhat unrelated, but i think its a real nice sign that the Texans are being picked for National TV games on the ROAD. It used to be the only reason, primetime games would come here was because of Reliant, now they want us because of the level of competition we play.

Second Honeymoon
06-15-2010, 03:03 PM
Now, if we can only play like the big boys. :winky:

totally agree
put up or shut up time for the whole organization

drs23
06-15-2010, 03:05 PM
As we know the best team in each of their respective conference doesn't necessarily make it to the SB. For example, isn't it accurate to say that most would feel the Vikings were better than the Saints last year but the home-field advantage was the margin for the Saints ? That and the Vikings mistakes, because they practically dominated the game.
Regarding his prediction for the Texans, I sure hope he's right but that seems very generous to me ? Who knows though, maybe some of us Texans
fans have been so use to having a team that does not succeed that we don't recognize a playoff team when it's under our own noses ?

Yeah, that!:kingkong:

thunderkyss
06-15-2010, 03:25 PM
Now, if we can only play like the big boys. :winky:

We finished 9-7 just like the Jets, Ravens, Steelers, and Falcons.
:kitten:

Just sayin

dalemurphy
06-15-2010, 03:37 PM
Rick needs to take a closer look at the Texans schedule.

#1 Indianapolis (Twice)
#2 Dallas
#3 Baltimore
#5 San Diego
#10 Jets (who beat Texans badly @ home in last seasons opener, this time in NY)
#13 NY Giants
#14 Tennessee (Twice)
#16 Philadelphia

let's just imagine the Texans sweep the rest of schedule, which is harder than it appears that's six wins & split w/teams #10-#16 thats another couple wins which = 8. to reach 10 W's the Texans must at least split with #1 Colts & beat either Dallas, Baltimore or San Diego.

anything is possible but I don't think its very realistic, hope I'm wrong & he's right :tiphat:

This is confused thinking. He is rating teams from best to worst. That list has nothing to do with scheduling. He's not predicting records. Certainly a team can be the 9th best but finish with the 11th best record. Or, a team with the best record could conceivably not be the best team in the league.

b0ng
06-15-2010, 03:53 PM
Rick Gosselin is okay by me.

Jagsbch
06-15-2010, 04:18 PM
With big press, comes big responsibilities. Take care of business.

And for the people, who are saying "its just one journalists opinion" keep in mind that Gosselin is one of the most highly regarded football writers in America.

It is way too early to be formulating power rankings, especially ones that have the Texans ahead of the Patriots to the point of taking the Patriots out of the top 10. Really? With this Grusome schedule, and with your DROY suspended for the first 4 games of the season?

The Huge reason why the Texans have not made it to the play-offs is because they have been in one of the knarliest divisions in the league. In the past 5 years only one division has had 3 teams with 10 wins or more, you guessed it the AFC South.

Check out this article

The best division in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406271-the-best-division-in-the-nfl)

HOU-TEX
06-15-2010, 04:32 PM
We finished 9-7 just like the Jets, Ravens, Steelers, and Falcons.
:kitten:

Just sayin

And have we beaten those teams recently? Nope! As a matter of fact, we had our ass handed to us by those teams.

How many teams with a winning record did we beat this past season?

Just sayin

Jackie Chiles
06-15-2010, 04:43 PM
It is way too early to be formulating power rankings, especially ones that have the Texans ahead of the Patriots to the point of taking the Patriots out of the top 10. Really? With this Grusome schedule, and with your DROY suspended for the first 4 games of the season?
The best division in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406271-the-best-division-in-the-nfl)

My prediction for the first 4 games before the Cushing suspension was 2-2. After Cushing its still 2-2 so even though I'm pissed he can't play I don't think it impacts our record at the end of the day. Obviously I could be wrong and we do worse but I'd say there is opportunity to be 3-1 after those first 4 as well.

nero THE zero
06-15-2010, 04:47 PM
It is way too early to be formulating power rankings, especially ones that have the Texans ahead of the Patriots to the point of taking the Patriots out of the top 10. Really? With this Grusome schedule, and with your DROY suspended for the first 4 games of the season?

The Huge reason why the Texans have not made it to the play-offs is because they have been in one of the knarliest divisions in the league. In the past 5 years only one division has had 3 teams with 10 wins or more, you guessed it the AFC South.

Check out this article

The best division in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406271-the-best-division-in-the-nfl)
Uh? The same Patriots that we beat handily in week 17 of last year? I don't see why it's so absurd for us to be ranked ahead of them, considering the trajectory of the two teams.

I know they have the reputation, but reputation doesn't win games for them anymore.

thunderkyss
06-15-2010, 06:10 PM
Rick needs to take a closer look at the Texans schedule.

#1 Indianapolis (Twice)
#2 Dallas
#3 Baltimore
#5 San Diego
#10 Jets (who beat Texans badly @ home in last seasons opener, this time in NY)
#13 NY Giants
#14 Tennessee (Twice)
#16 Philadelphia


If we come out of that shedule, with 10 wins, would you think the Texans are the 9th best team in the league?

Kick out the two games against Indy, and replace them with two games against Detroit. Kick out the Dallas & Baltimore game, and replace them with Buffalo and San Francisco.

Oakland (x2)
Buffalo
San Francisco
#5 San Diego
#10 Jets (who beat Texans badly @ home in last seasons opener, this time in NY)
#13 NY Giants
#14 Tennessee (Twice)
#16 Philadelphia

If we finish with 10 wins against this group, would that make us the 9th best team in the league?

thunderkyss
06-15-2010, 06:27 PM
And have we beaten those teams recently? Nope! As a matter of fact, we had our ass handed to us by those teams.

How many teams with a winning record did we beat this past season?

Just sayin

How many teams with a winning record did the Jets beat?
They lost to Miami Twice, they lost to the Jags, they lost to Atlanta, they lost to Buffalo.

Baltimore lost twice to the Bengals,

There's something wrong when teams doing the same thing we are doing are considered better.

thunderkyss
06-15-2010, 06:33 PM
Uh? The same Patriots that we beat handily in week 17 of last year? I don't see why it's so absurd for us to be ranked ahead of them, considering the trajectory of the two teams.

I know they have the reputation, but reputation doesn't win games for them anymore.

I think the "trajectory" argument is valid. However, I wouldn't throw that "handily beat" argument out there. IMHO, it's kinda like the Jags beating us after Schaub sat for a possession (of two)... not really the same thing.

Pollardized
06-15-2010, 06:55 PM
I must call BS on this guy's total ranking system. It becomes invalid the moment he ranks the assclown cowgirls #2!

sometexansfan
06-15-2010, 06:57 PM
More useless rankings? Man I can wait for September. :fans:

Indy Skinnz
06-15-2010, 07:10 PM
Uh? The same Patriots that we beat handily in week 17 of last year? I don't see why it's so absurd for us to be ranked ahead of them, considering the trajectory of the two teams.

I know they have the reputation, but reputation doesn't win games for them anymore.

Handily beat the Pats? Really? I think you are excercising some revisionist history. The Texans won by 7, had to score the last 21 points of the game in the 4th quarter, faced Brady for only half the game, against a team who really was not trying to win.

On topic - the rankings seem decent to me and Gosselin is a respected writer. I can see how he has Houston ahead of the Pats but it has nothing to do with what happened week 17 of last year.

Jagsbch
06-15-2010, 07:11 PM
Uh? The same Patriots that we beat handily in week 17 of last year? I don't see why it's so absurd for us to be ranked ahead of them, considering the trajectory of the two teams.

I know they have the reputation, but reputation doesn't win games for them anymore.

"Patriots WR Wes Welker left in the first quarter with a knee injury and did not return. ... New England played its starters for most of the game, resting them only at the end of each half." NFL.com

Texans came back from behind at the end of the second half, after Brady was already on the bench for the game. What was the score at one point in the 4th quarter? 27-13 Patriots? It took 20 minutes for the Texans to even score in the second half against the Patriots.

My prediction for the first 4 games before the Cushing suspension was 2-2. After Cushing its still 2-2 so even though I'm pissed he can't play I don't think it impacts our record at the end of the day. Obviously I could be wrong and we do worse but I'd say there is opportunity to be 3-1 after those first 4 as well.

Colts, Redskins, Cowboys and Raiders? WOW these are going to be some awesome games.

So you're not going to miss Dunta Robinson either?

pbat488
06-15-2010, 07:13 PM
So you're not going to miss Dunta Robinson either?

Not as much as Reggie Wayne, Kenny Britt, and Mike Sims-Walker.

Jagsbch
06-15-2010, 08:47 PM
:goodpost:

devo-x
06-15-2010, 09:30 PM
Texans All-Time Records

Ravens: 0-3 (Last Game: L 41-13 on Nov 9, 2008 at Houston, TX)
Jets: 0-4 (Last Game: L 24-7 on Sep 13, 2009 at Houston, TX)

Not good :(- Do the Texans have the talent to finally defeat these two teams on the road this year?

TheRealJoker
06-15-2010, 09:35 PM
Texans All-Time Records

Ravens: 0-3 (Last Game: L 41-13 on Nov 9, 2008 at Houston, TX)
Jets: 0-4 (Last Game: L 24-7 on Sep 13, 2009 at Houston, TX)

Not good :(- Do the Texans have the talent to finally defeat these two teams on the road this year?

Good 3-4 teams are our kryptonite. It has nothing to do with talent so much as what beats Kubiak's scheme.

See our games under the Ravens, Jets, and Steelers under Kubiak. Every team has their matchup problems. It's just a matter of making the necessary adjustments to win in spite of our disadvantages. To date we have been unable to do this...

Jackie Chiles
06-16-2010, 03:15 AM
Handily beat the Pats? Really? I think you are excercising some revisionist history. The Texans won by 7, had to score the last 21 points of the game in the 4th quarter, faced Brady for only half the game, against a team who really was not trying to win.

On topic - the rankings seem decent to me and Gosselin is a respected writer. I can see how he has Houston ahead of the Pats but it has nothing to do with what happened week 17 of last year.

No idea why Nero would say we "handily" beat the Pats but fyi Brady played way more than a half. Not every team throws in the towel when they have their playoff spot locked up. Just sayin.

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 09:59 AM
How many teams with a winning record did the Jets beat?
They lost to Miami Twice, they lost to the Jags, they lost to Atlanta, they lost to Buffalo.

Baltimore lost twice to the Bengals,

There's something wrong when teams doing the same thing we are doing are considered better.

Texans All-Time Records

Ravens: 0-3 (Last Game: L 41-13 on Nov 9, 2008 at Houston, TX)
Jets: 0-4 (Last Game: L 24-7 on Sep 13, 2009 at Houston, TX)

Not good :(- Do the Texans have the talent to finally defeat these two teams on the road this year?

Devo pretty much answered for me. It doesn't matter who those teams lost to. If they easily whoop our asses then I consider them better teams.

Again, to be considered a "big boy" we must compete with them on a regular basis. We've yet to do that.

GP
06-16-2010, 11:21 AM
Finally! Someone gives us some love .

On a more serious note: Power Rankings are perhaps THE most idiotic piece of filler material. Ever.

I mean, this is essentially someone's way of affixing NCAA Football rankings to the pro game. It makes not one bit of sense. It's a waste of everyone's time. It's as important as the stoopid player ratings on Madden video games. Some person decides upon rankings and ratings. Laughable.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth: Teams in the NFL are on a playoff system, meaning W-L record is what matters, and then in the playoffs it's a friggin' crap shoot as to what happens. So exactly what do we do with these magical power rankings? Oh, I remember: We ***** about how "our team"--which means every fan of every other team is supposed to ***** about this--is getting disrespected because "our team" should be ranked higher than what we are. Then we have the pleasure of saying, "Yeah, but look over at this website where Tom Dingledork has us ranked higher than Joe Gooberstick's website. That Gooberstick has always been a Houston hater, so it doesn't surprise me one bit."

The whole thing is almost as laughable as a Fantasy Football "Guru" who has a weekly "Start 'Em and Sit 'Em" system that we're supposed to heed when we make our roster each Sunday morning. If I had always followed the "Guru's" advice, I would be worse than I am. Because no person can factor in how well a player will do. It's the height of lunacy. But because he's got a name and a website, then he must know what the crap he's talking about. Right?

A very close third place finisher, IMO, is when the TV sports media analysts try to predict who will make the playoffs and who will win the Super Bowl. When will this crap end? I'm only 34 and I'm sick of it.

:ANGER:

GP
06-16-2010, 11:32 AM
[continued sarcasm] BTW, I can't stand Rick Gosselin because of how he treated his wife, Kate, and their 13 children on that reality show of theirs. [/continued sarcasm]

ChampionTexan
06-16-2010, 11:56 AM
Finally! Someone gives us some love .

So exactly what do we do with these magical power rankings? Oh, I remember: We ***** about how "our team"--which means every fan of every other team is supposed to ***** about this--is getting disrespected because "our team" should be ranked higher than what we are. Then we have the pleasure of saying, "Yeah, but look over at this website where Tom Dingledork has us ranked higher than Joe Gooberstick's website. That Gooberstick has always been a Houston hater, so it doesn't surprise me one bit."

:ANGER:

Gotta disagree with you on this GP, I don't know if this makes us different, or if it does, if being different makes us better, but we have a vocal minority who ***** that we're overrated, haven't fared well against several teams ranked below us, and more informed and educated website have us solidly in the bottom half of the league.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Indy Skinnz
06-16-2010, 12:48 PM
No idea why Nero would say we "handily" beat the Pats but fyi Brady played way more than a half. Not every team throws in the towel when they have their playoff spot locked up. Just sayin.

The Pats did there. I am convinced they wanted the # 4 seed in the playoffs and pulled players because of that. I don't care if Brady played more than a half, the fact is he was not in the game at the end.

thunderkyss
06-16-2010, 12:54 PM
And have we beaten those teams recently? Nope! As a matter of fact, we had our ass handed to us by those teams.

How many teams with a winning record did we beat this past season?

Just sayin

How many teams with a winning record did the Jets beat?
They lost to Miami Twice, they lost to the Jags, they lost to Atlanta, they lost to Buffalo.

Baltimore lost twice to the Bengals,

There's something wrong when teams doing the same thing we are doing are considered better.

Texans All-Time Records

Ravens: 0-3 (Last Game: L 41-13 on Nov 9, 2008 at Houston, TX)
Jets: 0-4 (Last Game: L 24-7 on Sep 13, 2009 at Houston, TX)

Not good :(- Do the Texans have the talent to finally defeat these two teams on the road this year?


Devo pretty much answered for me. It doesn't matter who those teams lost to. If they easily whoop our asses then I consider them better teams.

Again, to be considered a "big boy" we must compete with them on a regular basis. We've yet to do that.

Since we don't play those teams on a regular basis, I don't know how we can properly gauge how we compare to them, without using the W-L record, and record against common opponents, like Miami, Cincinnati, and the Jags.

I also believe the team that finished the 2009 season is not the same team that lost to the Jets to start the 2009 season. I know for sure, it is a totally different team from the 2008 team.

IMHO, you have to be able to look past "all-time" records, or one season's record, and judge the players & coaches by their performance, before you can say whether the team is any good or not.

The Giants are 2 seasons removed from the SuperBowl, did they get that bad that fast? The Steelers finished 9-7... but were the Super Bowl champs before the season started. The Saints were 8-8 in 2008, but nigh unbeatable in 2009, they won the Super Bowl. If they go 8-8 in 2010, are they a bad team?

We've got to figure out how to win games, I'm not denying that. But when I say the 2009 squad was as good as any team in the NFL, I mean it.

I think it is totally plausible to say one team is better than another, and actually rank them based off that opinion.

But I also know the better team doesn't always win. If that was the case, St Louis wouldn't have won a game, & Detroit wouldn't have won 2, and Tampa Bay couldn't have won 3, or Kansas City won 4.

beerlover
06-16-2010, 01:36 PM
If we come out of that shedule, with 10 wins, would you think the Texans are the 9th best team in the league?

Kick out the two games against Indy, and replace them with two games against Detroit. Kick out the Dallas & Baltimore game, and replace them with Buffalo and San Francisco.

Oakland (x2)
Buffalo
San Francisco
#5 San Diego
#10 Jets (who beat Texans badly @ home in last seasons opener, this time in NY)
#13 NY Giants
#14 Tennessee (Twice)
#16 Philadelphia

If we finish with 10 wins against this group, would that make us the 9th best team in the league?

last season in the NFL 10 teams had 10 wins or more so based off those numbers its close. New England 10-6 Cincinnati 10-6 & Arizona 10-6 tied & those teams finished #8 -#10 all three of which the Texans faced beating Patriots & Bengals but losing to Cardinals so based off last years wins vs. losses its not that hard to project the Texans #9 with a 10 win record.

except that strength of schedule needs to be accounted for which I don't believe Rick Gosselin factored in his formula?

Jackie Chiles
06-16-2010, 02:11 PM
The Pats did there. I am convinced they wanted the # 4 seed in the playoffs and pulled players because of that. I don't care if Brady played more than a half, the fact is he was not in the game at the end.

Well I'm convinced Sage Rosenfels didn't want to win that game against you guys either but a win is a win. Brady threw twice as many passes as Hoyer and its probably a good thing for us that he did because Hoyer outplayed him. I can see its going to be next to impossible to change an Indy fans mind about this game though so I'm dropping it.

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 02:31 PM
Since we don't play those teams on a regular basis, I don't know how we can properly gauge how we compare to them, without using the W-L record, and record against common opponents, like Miami, Cincinnati, and the Jags.

I also believe the team that finished the 2009 season is not the same team that lost to the Jets to start the 2009 season. I know for sure, it is a totally different team from the 2008 team.

IMHO, you have to be able to look past "all-time" records, or one season's record, and judge the players & coaches by their performance, before you can say whether the team is any good or not.

The Giants are 2 seasons removed from the SuperBowl, did they get that bad that fast? The Steelers finished 9-7... but were the Super Bowl champs before the season started. The Saints were 8-8 in 2008, but nigh unbeatable in 2009, they won the Super Bowl. If they go 8-8 in 2010, are they a bad team?

We've got to figure out how to win games, I'm not denying that. But when I say the 2009 squad was as good as any team in the NFL, I mean it.

I think it is totally plausible to say one team is better than another, and actually rank them based off that opinion.

But I also know the better team doesn't always win. If that was the case, St Louis wouldn't have won a game, & Detroit wouldn't have won 2, and Tampa Bay couldn't have won 3, or Kansas City won 4.

I want proof, not excuses. I'm done reaching for excuses as to why, I want them to prove to me they can hang with the top tier teams. They've yet to do so no matter what theories you come up with.

thunderkyss
06-16-2010, 02:43 PM
last season in the NFL 10 teams had 10 wins or more so based off those numbers its close. New England 10-6 Cincinnati 10-6 & Arizona 10-6 tied & those teams finished #8 -#10 all three of which the Texans faced beating Patriots & Bengals but losing to Cardinals so based off last years wins vs. losses its not that hard to project the Texans #9 with a 10 win record.

except that strength of schedule needs to be accounted for which I don't believe Rick Gosselin factored in his formula?

No.

My point is the team is as good as it is. The best team in the league may only have 10 wins in 2010... based on S.O.S.

If we are the 9th best team in the league, it shouldn't matter who is on our schedule.

I think you're confusing "best team" with "best record"

In Gosselin's summation, he thinks the Texans are the 9th best team in the league. He's making no assumption about how many wins we will have.

infantrycak
06-16-2010, 02:47 PM
I want proof, not excuses. I'm done reaching for excuses as to why, I want them to prove to me they can hang with the top tier teams. They've yet to do so no matter what theories you come up with.

I guess it depends on what you mean by hang. You seem to mean win. I consider playing down to the wire against Indy twice hanging with a top tier team. They could have gone 16-0 last year if they had chosen. I consider hanging to be within a realistic position to win mid fourth quarter. We were in pretty much every game but the Jets last year. At the same time it is time for them to transform hanging in there to wins.

thunderkyss
06-16-2010, 02:50 PM
I want proof, not excuses. I'm done reaching for excuses as to why, I want them to prove to me they can hang with the top tier teams. They've yet to do so no matter what theories you come up with.

I'm not making excuses. And I'm not putting them with the top tier teams, that would be San Diego, Indy, New England.

I'm putting them with the teams that are slightly above average. The 9-7 teams of 2009.

NY Jets & Baltimore being 2 of them.

The Jets, haven't done anything but go 9-7 the last two years. They added some talent for 2010, but you're not asking them to prove anything. You're just anointing them for some odd reason.

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 03:08 PM
I guess it depends on what you mean by hang. You seem to mean win. I consider playing down to the wire against Indy twice hanging with a top tier team. They could have gone 16-0 last year if they had chosen. I consider hanging to be within a realistic position to win mid fourth quarter. We were in pretty much every game but the Jets last year. At the same time it is time for them to transform hanging in there to wins.

Totally agree with this when dealing with Indy and other division foe. But, we haven't shown we can consistently compete against upper echelon teams outside of the division. We were beaten handedly by Pitt and Balt. Sure, it was in 08, but until we beat them (or even hang with them) it's unproven that we fit with the "big boys".

I'm not making excuses. And I'm not putting them with the top tier teams, that would be San Diego, Indy, New England.

I'm putting them with the teams that are slightly above average. The 9-7 teams of 2009.

NY Jets & Baltimore being 2 of them.

The Jets, haven't done anything but go 9-7 the last two years. They added some talent for 2010, but you're not asking them to prove anything. You're just anointing them for some odd reason.

I'm not annointing anyone. They whooped our ass. To me, that means they're better than us until proven otherwise.

Indy Skinnz
06-16-2010, 04:00 PM
Well I'm convinced Sage Rosenfels didn't want to win that game against you guys either but a win is a win. Brady threw twice as many passes as Hoyer and its probably a good thing for us that he did because Hoyer outplayed him. I can see its going to be next to impossible to change an Indy fans mind about this game though so I'm dropping it.

Agree - a win is a win. But you don't really believe that Houston was better off with Brady in the game, do you?

Like you said, no sense in trying to change my mind because I know what I know and what I know is the Pats did not give their best effort to win that game. Arguing otherwise is pointless.

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 04:07 PM
Agree - a win is a win. But you don't really believe that Houston was better off with Brady in the game, do you?

Like you said, no sense in trying to change my mind because I know what I know and what I know is the Pats did not give their best effort to win that game. Arguing otherwise is pointless.

Maybe not, but we were when Mario knocked the piss out of him which ending up gettin his pass picked off.

thunderkyss
06-16-2010, 04:18 PM
I'm not annointing anyone. They whooped our ass. To me, that means they're better than us until proven otherwise.

Oh... they beat up on the Houston Texans (who you have very little respect for) and they are a top tier team.

Makes much more sense now.

ChampionTexan
06-16-2010, 04:23 PM
Totally agree with this when dealing with Indy and other division foe. But, we haven't shown we can consistently compete against upper echelon teams outside of the division. We were beaten handedly by Pitt and Balt. Sure, it was in 08, but until we beat them (or even hang with them) it's unproven that we fit with the "big boys".



I'm not annointing anyone. They whooped our ass. To me, that means they're better than us until proven otherwise.

So who's better - us or Tennessee?

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 04:43 PM
Oh... they beat up on the Houston Texans (who you have very little respect for) and they are a top tier team.

Makes much more sense now.

I have little respect for the Texans now? Wanting them to prove they can consistently compete against the best is considered a lack of respect? Good grief! Let's say it is, what have they done to earn that respect?

It was the last game of the season. I'm pretty sure Brady and a few others would've played a complete game if it was a must have situation.

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 04:45 PM
So who's better - us or Tennessee?

That's a good question, champion.

ChampionTexan
06-16-2010, 05:17 PM
That's a good question, champion.

Okay, then another good question might be who's better - Cincy or Baltimore? The Dolphins or the Jets?

HOU-TEX
06-16-2010, 05:48 PM
Okay, then another good question might be who's better - Cincy or Baltimore? The Dolphins or the Jets?

Baltimore and Jets have had better records and more playoff appearances over the past few years.

I've been questioning our ability to hang with better teams outside our own division. Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, Patriots (previous to the last game of the season), Jets, etc

thunderkyss
06-16-2010, 07:00 PM
Baltimore and Jets have had better records and more playoff appearances over the past few years.

I've been questioning our ability to hang with better teams outside our own division. Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, Patriots (previous to the last game of the season), Jets, etc

Gosselin is saying the team we field in 2010, is the 9th best team in his opinion. He's got the Ravens ranked #3, the Jets ranked 10th, the Steelers ranked 18th.

Thats a good thing, we are now being ranked up there with the big boys. :cool:

Now, if we can only play like the big boys. :winky:

We finished 9-7 just like the Jets, Ravens, Steelers, and Falcons.
:kitten:

Just sayin

I'm just saying we do play like they do. We win some, we lose some.

And have we beaten those teams recently? Nope! As a matter of fact, we had our ass handed to us by those teams.

How many teams with a winning record did we beat this past season?

Just sayin

How many teams with a winning record did the Jets beat?
They lost to Miami Twice, they lost to the Jags, they lost to Atlanta, they lost to Buffalo.

Baltimore lost twice to the Bengals,

There's something wrong when teams doing the same thing we are doing are considered better.

I'm offering more "proof" to the fact that we play like they do. We beat some of the teams they had difficulty beating. They lost to the same teams we lost to... even the 7-9 Jags.

My point, is that you give the Jets & the Ravens more credit than you give the Texans, even though there is very little difference to the way they played in 2009 (as far as the final W-L is concerned.).

Now, at first, I wasn't sure that you were saying the Jets & the Ravens are the "big boys" I was fishing with my first post. But every subsequent post you've made, made it clear, that the Jets & the Ravens are in the "big boy" club, and the Texans are scrubs & duds.

I understand the 8 year history of the Texans... & I understand where the Jets & the Ravens have been the previous 8 years. But I'm talking about how the Texans played in 2009. Gosselin is talking about what he expects from our Texans in 2010.

Do we belong in the same group as the Jets & the Ravens? I think so. As proof, I offer that there was no question who was the better team, every time we've played the Bengals, who swept the Ravens in 2009. & though it has been a struggle, we've beat Miami every time we've played. The Dolphins, who happened to have swept the Jets in 2009. & lastly, I conclude that we ended 2009 with the same W-L as the Jets & the Ravens.

Yu want to put the Jets on a higher tier, because they beat us.. (which is like saying the Dolphins are better than the Jets because they beat them twice, and we're better than the Dolphins since we beat them, consistently, so we're better than the Jets)... whatever.

Yu want to put the Ravens on a higher tier than us, because they beat us 2 years ago... (which is like saying the Bengals are better than the Ravens because they beat them twice, and we are better than the Bengals, because we have consistently beat them)... whatever.

Excuse me.

In my defense, let me say I don't think the Texans are better than what they are. Personally, I think the Jets & the Ravens need to be knocked down a notch. I don't think they are the "big boys." & yes, I am offended when Texans fans think the team the Jets had in 2009, or the team the Ravens fielded in 2009, are better than the team the Texans fielded in 2009.

b0ng
06-16-2010, 07:01 PM
We haven't played the Steelers or the Chargers in about 3 years or so. I believe the make-up of each team is has changed dramatically (Especially Pittsburgh) and it would be folly to assume that we would automatically lose to either (San Diego probably, unless they are planning on going without Vjax or McNeil this season).

I really think that right now as a team we are in a position to beat any team on any Sunday. We can also lose to any team, where we are at.

GP
06-16-2010, 10:56 PM
I'm just so excited to see power rankings.

I haven't been this excited since I collected baseball cards and would get the pricing magazines so I could see my investment rise or fall by literally PENNIES each week!

(In my best Jim Gaffigan voice) "Hey, mister...I collected baseball cards. Still do. You're just a fuddy-dud who bought bad cards, and now you're angry about it."

:rankingsRdumm:

Texan_Bill
06-16-2010, 11:46 PM
The Pats did there. I am convinced they wanted the # 4 seed in the playoffs and pulled players because of that. I don't care if Brady played more than a half, the fact is he was not in the game at the end.

I normally respect your takes. However, your full of shite here....

steelbtexan
06-16-2010, 11:55 PM
And have we beaten those teams recently? Nope! As a matter of fact, we had our ass handed to us by those teams.

How many teams with a winning record did we beat this past season?

Just sayin

Stop it with the dose of realism. Dale and TK are going to have a coronary. LOL

J/K

infantrycak
06-17-2010, 12:28 AM
How many teams with a winning record did we beat this past season?

Just sayin

Two, both 10-6 teams.

The Patriots beat 3 winning teams last year - all 9-7 teams.

The Jets beat 3 including us and the week 17 Colts.

The Ravens beat 1 team with a winning record.

steelbtexan
06-17-2010, 12:45 AM
Two, both 10-6 teams.

The Patriots beat 3 winning teams last year - all 9-7 teams.

The Jets beat 3 including us and the week 17 Colts.

The Ravens beat 1 team with a winning record.

When is the last time the Texans have defeated any of these 3 teams?

Nawzer
06-17-2010, 01:14 AM
I think it's time for the Texans to play in a Super Bowl.

b0ng
06-17-2010, 01:24 AM
When is the last time the Texans have defeated any of these 3 teams?

We beat the Patriots last year week 17.

infantrycak
06-17-2010, 02:07 AM
When is the last time the Texans have defeated any of these 3 teams?


Well the accurate answer is we are the last of these four teams to defeat one of the others.

More importantly to return to the original point, I was illustrating 9-7 and 10-6 teams don't tend to have lots of wins against winning teams. They beat poor teams, give marginal teams their non-winning seasons and beat a couple winning teams. But hey y'all can act like we aren't a decent team until we win 6 games against winning teams, which by the way would have made us 13-3 last year.

littlecat
06-17-2010, 04:12 AM
Congratulations!! Just go go !!

Indy Skinnz
06-17-2010, 09:12 AM
I normally respect your takes. However, your full of shite here....

I don't recall the exact circumstances but I do know that the # 3 & # 4 seeds were up in the air on the last week of the season and I really do believe the Pats felt they were better served with the lower seed. It is not the first time they pulled this either. The Doug Flutie drop kick was a similar end of the year situation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2277308

Even if you think I am full of it, and I suspect my explanation will not change your mind, Brady not playing the entire game was certainly an aid to the Texans.

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 09:29 AM
Stop it with the dose of realism. Dale and TK are going to have a coronary. LOL

J/K

Reality is that the Jets, Ravens, & Steelers weren't all that in 2009. They are the "big boys" & their season was awefully similar to ours.

Bottom line.

dalemurphy
06-17-2010, 09:53 AM
I don't recall the exact circumstances but I do know that the # 3 & # 4 seeds were up in the air on the last week of the season and I really do believe the Pats felt they were better served with the lower seed. It is not the first time they pulled this either. The Doug Flutie drop kick was a similar end of the year situation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2277308

Even if you think I am full of it, and I suspect my explanation will not change your mind, Brady not playing the entire game was certainly an aid to the Texans.


Considering that we lost out on the playoffs to the Jets, who were given their final two wins against Indy and Cincy, it's hardly worth noting that Brady only played about 75% of the snaps while the rest of their starters played the entire game.

dalemurphy
06-17-2010, 09:55 AM
Reality is that the Jets, Ravens, & Steelers weren't all that in 2009. They are the "big boys" & there season was awefully similar to ours.

Bottom line.

The Steelers lost "must-win" games late last season to:

KC
Oakland
Cleveland

that is a real embarrassment!

nero THE zero
06-17-2010, 10:04 AM
No idea why Nero would say we "handily" beat the Pats but fyi Brady played way more than a half. Not every team throws in the towel when they have their playoff spot locked up. Just sayin.

Poor choice of wording, I guess. It was a good, come from behind victory for us in which we really turned it on in the fourth quarter. Perhaps I should have said "impressive win" instead.

Regardless, my point remains the same. Considering the trajectory of the two teams, and the result of the latest match-up between the two teams, there's no absurdity in ranking us ahead of them.

Indy Skinnz
06-17-2010, 10:19 AM
Poor choice of wording, I guess. It was a good, come from behind victory for us in which we really turned it on in the fourth quarter. Perhaps I should have said "impressive win" instead.

Regardless, my point remains the same. Considering the trajectory of the two teams, and the result of the latest match-up between the two teams, there's no absurdity in ranking us ahead of them.

I think anyone with an ounce of football intellect can realistically see how the Texans can potentially be better than the Pats this year. There is a reasonable argument to make with that claim.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2010, 10:22 AM
Reality is that the Jets, Ravens, & Steelers weren't all that in 2009. They are the "big boys" & there season was awefully similar to ours.

Bottom line.

The reality is Jets, Ravens and Steelers have all been to multiple playoffs in recent years. They've also beaten the crap out of us in recent years.

Look, I think I'm painting a poor picture of what I think of our team. Especially if steelbtexan agrees with me (heh, heh, jk).

I DO think we're getting better and I DO feel optimistic about the future of this team. But, as I-Cak mentioned yesterday, we've got to learn to finish games where we have the lead going into the 2nd half. Our coaches need to have the players ready to play those good 3-4 teams that have whooped us in the past.

b0ng
06-17-2010, 10:26 AM
The reality is Jets, Ravens and Steelers have all been to multiple playoffs in recent years. They've also beaten the crap out of us in recent years.

Look, I think I'm painting a poor picture of what I think of our team. Especially if steelbtexan agrees with me (heh, heh, jk).

I DO think we're getting better and I DO feel optimistic about the future of this team. But, as I-Cak mentioned yesterday, we've got to learn to finish games where we have the lead going into the 2nd half. Our coaches need to have the players ready to play those good 3-4 teams that have whooped us in the past.

Not just 3-4 teams, any teams. Preparation has been one of the downfalls of this regime (unless we are preparing for the Dolphins, for some reason).

HOU-TEX
06-17-2010, 10:30 AM
Not just 3-4 teams, any teams. Preparation has been one of the downfalls of this regime (unless we are preparing for the Dolphins, for some reason).

True, but the 3-4 teams that run over load blitzes and other Ryan and Lebeau type blitzing really eat our lunch.

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 10:37 AM
Look, I think I'm painting a poor picture of what I think of our team. Especially if steelbtexan agrees with me (heh, heh, jk).

I DO think we're getting better and I DO feel optimistic about the future of this team. But, as I-Cak mentioned yesterday, we've got to learn to finish games where we have the lead going into the 2nd half. Our coaches need to have the players ready to play those good 3-4 teams that have whooped us in the past.

I completely agree. My only point is that those reasons do not take us out of the group of "good teams." The teams everyone easily agree are good team, the Ravens, the Jets, the Steelers, the Giants, the Falcons, the Patriots... all have those same (or similar) issues.

And that's ok.

Nobody's perfect.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2010, 10:50 AM
I completely agree. My only point is that those reasons do not take us out of the group of "good teams." The teams everyone easily agree are good team, the Ravens, the Jets, the Steelers, the Giants, the Falcons, the Patriots... all have those same (or similar) issues.

And that's ok.

Nobody's perfect.

Okay, so if we're going to put the Texans in the same group as those you listed, can't we at least consider ourselves as the red-headed step-child? At least until we put a whoopin on a few of them.

b0ng
06-17-2010, 10:54 AM
Are the Bengals considered "a good team" because nobody ever wants to bring them up even though they beat plenty of so called "good teams" in their season. I'm just trying to get a handle on where the line is for "good team" and "lol".

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 12:39 PM
Okay, so if we're going to put the Texans in the same group as those you listed, can't we at least consider ourselves as the red-headed step-child? At least until we put a whoopin on a few of them.

As a franchise, I agree with you 100%. We are not in that group.

But our 2009 team, and our 2010 team... IMO are equal to those teams I listed.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2010, 12:50 PM
As a franchise, I agree with you 100%. We are not in that group.

But our 2009 team, and our 2010 team... IMO are equal to those teams I listed.

Hmm, I think we're almost getting to the point where we can both agree. You think we're already there. I think we're getting there, but want a little more proof that we belong there. Either way, with the schedule we have this year it'll either prove it or we'll lose it. Right?

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 01:00 PM
Hmm, I think we're almost getting to the point where we can both agree. You think we're already there. I think we're getting there, but want a little more proof that we belong there. Either way, with the schedule we have this year it'll either prove it or we'll lose it. Right?

My biggest point, this whole time, is that the Jets & Ravens aren't there. I also believe there is evidence that would support an argument that the Steelers, and Patriots are leaving "there".

I think "there" is where the Colts are, and have been for a long, long time, where the Steelers & Patriots have been for a long time as well, in recent history.


& yes, this season, this schedule, and how we do against this schedule will put a lot of things to rest.

HOU-TEX
06-17-2010, 02:42 PM
My biggest point, this whole time, is that the Jets & Ravens aren't there. I also believe there is evidence that would support an argument that the Steelers, and Patriots are leaving "there".

I think "there" is where the Colts are, and have been for a long, long time, where the Steelers & Patriots have been for a long time as well, in recent history.


& yes, this season, this schedule, and how we do against this schedule will put a lot of things to rest.

Right on, not sure about the rest, but right on with the last statement.

/End Thread/ for HOU-TEX, at least

DexmanC
06-17-2010, 04:35 PM
As much as we like to toss out our 9-7 record, and compare it to other
10-6 and 9-7 teams, we finished 1-(and freaking)-5 in the AFC South.

The Bengals, who finished 10-6, SWEPT one of the toughest divisions
in the AFC 6-0. The ONLY reason they made the playoffs, was because
they took care of their division.

Divisional play. That's the key. Beat the teams you play TWICE A YEAR,
EVERY YEAR. The Texans do that, and ALL the talk about whether-or-not
they are contenders will fade away. The Tacks, Colts, and Jags bring
the same thing to the table as the Bengals, Steelers, (I'll give ya the Browns),
as a group. No excuse for finishing 1-5 if you expect to see postseason.

b0ng
06-17-2010, 04:49 PM
The ONLY reason they made the playoffs, was because
they took care of their division.


Bzzzzzzzt! They had the best record in their division (out of all 16 games mind you) which is what put them in the playoffs. 10-6 was still 10-6 no matter who the wins and losses came against.

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 05:07 PM
As much as we like to toss out our 9-7 record, and compare it to other
10-6 and 9-7 teams, we finished 1-(and freaking)-5 in the AFC South.


No excuse for finishing 1-5 if you expect to see postseason.

Do you think Rick Gosselin took that into account when he ranked our team as the 9th best in the league?

infantrycak
06-17-2010, 06:16 PM
As much as we like to toss out our 9-7 record, and compare it to other
10-6 and 9-7 teams, we finished 1-(and freaking)-5 in the AFC South.

The Bengals, who finished 10-6, SWEPT one of the toughest divisions
in the AFC 6-0. The ONLY reason they made the playoffs, was because
they took care of their division.

Divisional play. That's the key. Beat the teams you play TWICE A YEAR,
EVERY YEAR. The Texans do that, and ALL the talk about whether-or-not
they are contenders will fade away. The Tacks, Colts, and Jags bring
the same thing to the table as the Bengals, Steelers, (I'll give ya the Browns),
as a group. No excuse for finishing 1-5 if you expect to see postseason.

Oh good, this rant again after a season where any of the seven losses turned into wins would have put us in the playoffs OR we could have even traded our one division win for a win against the Jets and made the playoffs at 9-7. Horribly timed argument.

DexmanC
06-17-2010, 06:18 PM
Bzzzzzzzt! They had the best record in their division (out of all 16 games mind you) which is what put them in the playoffs. 10-6 was still 10-6 no matter who the wins and losses came against.

10-6 is INCLUDING their 6-0 division record.
You can NOT discount a SINGLE WIN in their division,
because a loss would have taken THEM out of the playoffs
and put the Steelers in. They were 6-0 in their division (which
gave them all tiebreakers against the Ravens and Steelers),
and 4-6 against everyone else.

DexmanC
06-17-2010, 06:19 PM
Do you think Rick Gosselin took that into account when he ranked our team as the 9th best in the league?

Most definitely. 2010 should be a year of change. This should be the
year the Texans play like we all know they can.

ChampionTexan
06-17-2010, 06:21 PM
10-6 is INCLUDING their 6-0 division record.
You can NOT discount a SINGLE WIN in their division,
because a loss would have taken THEM out of the playoffs
and put the Steelers in. They were 6-0 in their division (which
gave them all tiebreakers against the Ravens and Steelers),
and 4-6 against everyone else.

And yet, the Jets are everyone's darling having only gone 2-4 in their division last year.

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 06:22 PM
Most definitely. 2010 should be a year of change. This should be the
year the Texans play like we all know they can.

You're such a better person when you don't dwell on spilled milk.

DexmanC
06-17-2010, 06:22 PM
Oh good, this rant again after a season where any of the seven losses turned into wins would have put us in the playoffs OR we could have even traded our one division win for a win against the Jets and made the playoffs at 9-7. Horribly timed argument.

No need to be mad at me. I still believe 2009 was subpar, due to this
team underachieving. I KNOW the Texans can be a serious contender,
I just want to SEE it. As for my argument being "horribly timed," I
LMAO.

Training camp is A MONTH AWAY! If now ain't the time, I don't know
when there is a better time. Again... LMAO

:fans::fans::fans:

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 06:24 PM
I still believe 2009 was subpar, due to this
team underachieving. I KNOW the Texans can be a serious contender,
I just want to SEE it.

We all feel the same way. I can't think of one person who feels any different.

DexmanC
06-17-2010, 06:24 PM
And yet, the Jets are everyone's darling having only gone 2-4 in their division last year.

The Jets whipped the Texans on opening day to ELIMINATE them.
Let's not gloss over the importance of divisional play, is all I'm saying.

ChampionTexan
06-17-2010, 06:40 PM
The Jets whipped the Texans on opening day to ELIMINATE them.
Let's not gloss over the importance of divisional play, is all I'm saying.

Exactly - if we'd won that non-division game against the Jets, we're still 1-5 in the division, but also in the playoffs. (This is what the previous poster was telling you when he said they got in because the were 10-6 overall, not because they were 6-0 in the division).

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 07:14 PM
Exactly - if we'd won that non-division game against the Jets, we're still 1-5 in the division, but also in the playoffs. (This is what the previous poster was telling you when he said they got in because the were 10-6 overall, not because they were 6-0 in the division).


Add to that thought, that we could have gone 5-1 in the division, if we were still 9-7, including that loss to the Jets, we still would have been out of the play-offs.

JB
06-17-2010, 07:51 PM
This is an interesting tidbit from Kuharsky

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/12404/key-for-texans-divisional-play

SAMURAITEXAN
06-17-2010, 08:05 PM
Looking at our future or past. I rather look at our future. What ifs, could of, should of? PLEASE.

Go Texans!!!

DexmanC
06-17-2010, 08:47 PM
Add to that thought, that we could have gone 5-1 in the division, if we were still 9-7, including that loss to the Jets, we still would have been out of the play-offs.

My argument is, the Texans have done well the last 3 seasons OUT
of the division. They go 5-1, WHILE MAINTAINING their 7-3, 8-2 type
NON-DIVISIONAL performances, we'd be in post season with no problem.

However, they've been sucking IN the division for the last million years
running, and if they'd go 5-1 in the division, JUST ONCE, I'd be ecstatic.

Yeah, TK. You knew what I was saying all along, but it's part of the
game.

Let's hope the dream comes true in 2010. :texans:

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 09:42 PM
Yeah, TK. You knew what I was saying all along, but it's part of the
game.

Let's hope the dream comes true in 2010. :texans:

Yeah..

b0ng
06-17-2010, 09:57 PM
10-6 is INCLUDING their 6-0 division record.
You can NOT discount a SINGLE WIN in their division,
because a loss would have taken THEM out of the playoffs
and put the Steelers in. They were 6-0 in their division (which
gave them all tiebreakers against the Ravens and Steelers),
and 4-6 against everyone else.

Again, Bzzzzzzzzt! 6 Wins could have come from anywhere else on their schedule and they could've gone 0-6 in division play and guess what? They still would've gone to the playoffs. As long as they were 10-6 they would've been at the top of the division, it doesn't matter if all 10 wins came against the Rams.

But please, continue to talk about how division wins weigh more in the schedule when there were no ties record-wise in the AFCN.

Basically the most important thing is wins. Wins in division, wins in conference, wins against the NFC. Doesn't matter where they come from or how you get them you need wins to go to the playoffs. You can't go 6-0 in the division and 0-10 against the rest of your schedule and expect playoffs just as much as you can go 0-6 in the division and 10-0 against the rest of your schedule and still have a decent shot. The division games are important, but they aren't really any more important than the other 5/8ths of your schedule. It is baffling how we can beat every team on our schedule except the Jets and the Cards and do so crappily against our division, but our play overall in 2009 is what sank us including division games, not singularly because of our division games.

thunderkyss
06-17-2010, 10:05 PM
Again, Bzzzzzzzzt! 6 Wins could have come from anywhere else on their schedule and they could've gone 0-6 in division play and guess what? They still would've gone to the playoffs. As long as they were 10-6 they would've been at the top of the division, it doesn't matter if all 10 wins came against the Rams.

But please, continue to talk about how division wins weigh more in the schedule when there were no ties record-wise in the AFCN.

He understands that. But 1-5 in the division is pretty bad.. pathetic even. 1 more win in the division, against the teams we play the most isn't really asking for a whole lot. Outside the division, our record is plenty good.

Consider only two teams in our division had a winning record. We were one of them.

b0ng
06-17-2010, 10:18 PM
He understands that. But 1-5 in the division is pretty bad.. pathetic even. 1 more win in the division, against the teams we play the most isn't really asking for a whole lot. Outside the division, our record is plenty good.

Consider only two teams in our division had a winning record. We were one of them.

Meh. Last year almost every one of our games was a shootout and that to me is not a great way to play football because a bad (or good) call against you or a shanked FG can lose you the game. We've done well enough in our division that I don't think history is going to repeat itself to a T of last year. Kubiak knows how important each game on the schedule is, and I don't think we're going to have so many problems with the Jaguars this coming up year. Not going to say anybody got lucky, but I do see we have been working on two of the problems we had last year (Kris/Chris Brown) with our divisional foes. Do we split or sweep the Colts this year? I don't think so, but I do think we perform overall better against the Titans and Jags. Transform the 1 to a 3 and I think we'll be fine in divisional play.

Besides, how many times have you seen divisional games in other divisions go completely not the way it should have on paper? Hell even in our division teams burp up a loss for no apparent reason so my thinking is as long as the defense continues on it's improvement then we will have a better handle on the other teams.

thunderkyss
06-18-2010, 05:30 AM
Meh. Last year almost every one of our games was a shootout and that to me is not a great way to play football because a bad (or good) call against you or a shanked FG can lose you the game.

I agree with you, just saying, he has a point.

We've done well enough in our division that I don't think history is going to repeat itself to a T of last year.

I still think this is the toughest division in football. To be where we were last year, 1 play away from being 11-5 or 12-4, and showing obvious maturity issues as the biggest problem(IMHO), I don't think we played as badly as 1-5 suggests.
I don't think we're going to have so many problems with the Jaguars this coming up year.

I think the Jaguars have the potential to surprise a lot of people. There isn't a lot of difference, between a 7-9 team and a 9-7 team. Plus they beat us & they beat the NYJets. I think our division is going to be very competitive this year.
Do we split or sweep the Colts this year? I don't think so, but I do think we perform overall better against the Titans and Jags. Transform the 1 to a 3 and I think we'll be fine in divisional play.

I think the challenges are going to be extremely tough, but I'm very optimistic about 2010.