PDA

View Full Version : Texans have 5th easiest schedule next year...


AndyWin
02-08-2013, 07:10 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000137115/article/2013-nfl-strength-of-schedule-released?campaign=Facebook_news

Opponent's record: 120-134-2

Seeing the Jaguars and Titans twice a year, sure does help... :kitten:

thunderkyss
02-08-2013, 08:29 PM
The Colts are one of the 4 teams with an easier schedule.

So, we both play the West, NFC & AFC........ We both play the Jags & the Titans twice.

We play the Patriots & the Ravens, they play the Dolphins & the Bengals....

The Broncos have an even easier schedule; It's going to be interesting.

I know a lot of people don't put a lot of stock in this, but I guarantee Cincy is going to have a hard time getting back to the play offs, So will the Ravens & the Packers. Not saying they won't, but they won't win 12 games.

Big Lou
02-09-2013, 12:03 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000137115/article/2013-nfl-strength-of-schedule-released?campaign=Facebook_news

Opponent's record: 120-134-2

Seeing the Jaguars and Titans twice a year, sure does help... :kitten:

The Jags, KC and Titans skew the number. A pure W-L-T total for teams played is not an accurate metric to determine strength of schedule, since playing a 1-15 team and a 15-1 equal an 8-8 opponent average. Facing two 8-8 opponents would mean a 12-4 team should win both games, when in actuality they should plan to be 1-1 after those 2 games.

ThaShark316
02-09-2013, 12:22 PM
Fully expect this thread to blow up when the Texans are 8-2 or something. Never fails. "No wonder they are doing so well!!" Just like the end of 2011, 2012 after losses, etc.

badboy
02-09-2013, 01:35 PM
5,000 yards, 45 TDs signed Matt "the arm" Schaub.

thunderkyss
02-09-2013, 02:11 PM
The Jags, KC and Titans skew the number. A pure W-L-T total for teams played is not an accurate metric to determine strength of schedule, since playing a 1-15 team and a 15-1 equal an 8-8 opponent average. Facing two 8-8 opponents would mean a 12-4 team should win both games, when in actuality they should plan to be 1-1 after those 2 games.

Why would that be? An 8-8 team is, or should be capable of beating a 12-4 team. The 8-8 team has demonstrated that it can put together a win. if we were facing two 2-14 teams we should expect to beat them both. If we're facing a 1-15 team & a 15-1 team, we should expect to be 1-1.

infantrycak
02-09-2013, 06:39 PM
This is why these types of lists are meaningless. Texans 7 games against playoff teams including the SB winner. Carolina has 5 games against playoff teams. Opposite ends of the easiness scale.

Big Lou
02-09-2013, 11:00 PM
Why would that be? An 8-8 team is, or should be capable of beating a 12-4 team. The 8-8 team has demonstrated that it can put together a win. if we were facing two 2-14 teams we should expect to beat them both. If we're facing a 1-15 team & a 15-1 team, we should expect to be 1-1.

Any given team can beat another, I just meant that a 12-4 team is ussually expected to beat a 1-15, or ussually 8-8 team for that matter. I knew I conveyed that wrong. I just meant that several 12 loss teams really make a schedule look easy when in reality it pulls your average down. Plus a 1-15 team in your division is a tougher game than playing a 1-15 team from anityer division.

Showtime100
02-10-2013, 03:38 AM
Remember in 2004 when we went 7-9, which at the time was a ground-breaking season for a fledgling franchise and we had hopes of .500 or better the next year?

I fear a big setback is on the horizon. Certainly not 2-14 as was experienced in 2005, but an unacceptable setback (per fans after the fact).

Please Texans, give me something. This offseason reminds me of other Houston teams too happy with the pards that came close but didn't quite do it. The solution was to keep these good, milk-drinking, talented guys together because they "can do it."

Meanwhile in other parts of Gotham ...............

TejasTom
02-10-2013, 09:13 AM
Why would that be? An 8-8 team is, or should be capable of beating a 12-4 team. The 8-8 team has demonstrated that it can put together a win. if we were facing two 2-14 teams we should expect to beat them both. If we're facing a 1-15 team & a 15-1 team, we should expect to be 1-1.

Or if we're facing a 2-14 team followed by a 4-12 team we should expect to go deep in to overtime to beat either of them?

EllisUnit
02-10-2013, 09:23 AM
A #2 WR, Cushing back, move Reed inside, find a bigger NT (A New QB "I wish") but all the realistic ones with no major losses to FA and i think we elapse last seasons record and make the AFCCG.

Dont know why everyone is so negative, only real weakness on our team is the QB, i saw the right side of the line improving as the season went on. We have a beast RB and an elite WR who although is aging is still a force to be reckoned with.

If our game managing no audibling, folds under pressure, curls up like a ball if he hears a foot step QB dont not ******* up we will be just fine ;)

Txn_in_FL
02-10-2013, 10:29 AM
Dont know why everyone is so negative

:potkettle:

Oh man... Now my side hurts and I can't even breathe after laughing so hard. A quote like that from you? Priceless.

ThaShark316
02-10-2013, 12:45 PM
A #2 WR, Cushing back, move Reed inside, find a bigger NT (A New QB "I wish") but all the realistic ones with no major losses to FA and i think we elapse last seasons record and make the AFCCG.

Dont know why everyone is so negative, only real weakness on our team is the QB, i saw the right side of the line improving as the season went on. We have a beast RB and an elite WR who although is aging is still a force to be reckoned with.

If our game managing no audibling, folds under pressure, curls up like a ball if he hears a foot step QB dont not ******* up we will be just fine ;)

Folks still buy the fact that Schaub doesn't audible. http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2741/yaocmonson.png

EllisUnit
02-11-2013, 12:54 AM
:potkettle:

Oh man... Now my side hurts and I can't even breathe after laughing so hard. A quote like that from you? Priceless.

hmmm i consider my self one of the more blinded by homerism posters on this board :kitten:

JCTexan
02-11-2013, 01:39 AM
Remember in 2004 when we went 7-9, which at the time was a ground-breaking season for a fledgling franchise and we had hopes of .500 or better the next year?

I fear a big setback is on the horizon. Certainly not 2-14 as was experienced in 2005, but an unacceptable setback (per fans after the fact).

Please Texans, give me something. This offseason reminds me of other Houston teams too happy with the pards that came close but didn't quite do it. The solution was to keep these good, milk-drinking, talented guys together because they "can do it."

Meanwhile in other parts of Gotham ...............

Why do you feel this way? The only notable free agent that could possibly leave Houston is Connor Barwin, and he only had three sacks last year. Houston will have a healthy Brian Cushing, a more experienced O-line (Jones and Brooks) and a boatload of rookies coming in (I believe the Texans have 11 draft picks). Outside of injuries, I don't see many reasons for the Texans to regress next year.

srrono
02-11-2013, 02:11 AM
The Colts are one of the 4 teams with an easier schedule.

So, we both play the West, NFC & AFC........ We both play the Jags & the Titans twice.

We play the Patriots & the Ravens, they play the Dolphins & the Bengals....

The Broncos have an even easier schedule; It's going to be interesting.

I know a lot of people don't put a lot of stock in this, but I guarantee Cincy is going to have a hard time getting back to the play offs, So will the Ravens & the Packers. Not saying they won't, but they won't win 12 games.

BAL will be a sub 500 team next year

handswarmer
02-11-2013, 08:20 AM
BAL will be a sub 500 team next year

Really? what leads you to that conclusion?

thunderkyss
02-11-2013, 08:52 AM
Really? what leads you to that conclusion?

hmmm... what is this thread about? Are you capable of putting 2 & 2 together?

handswarmer
02-11-2013, 09:34 AM
hmmm... what is this thread about? Are you capable of putting 2 & 2 together?

We are in a different thread now- I asked him, not you, what leads him to the conclusion that Baltimore will be sub .500?

If you wat a fight, its not here. I like to discuss.

steelbtexan
02-11-2013, 10:11 AM
In 2010 I said the Texans were not going to do as well as 2009 due to SOS. The majority of this MB said SOS doesn't matter.

So does SOS matter now?

badboy
02-11-2013, 10:38 AM
Why do you feel this way? The only notable free agent that could possibly leave Houston is Connor Barwin, and he only had three sacks last year. Houston will have a healthy Brian Cushing, a more experienced O-line (Jones and Brooks) and a boatload of rookies coming in (I believe the Texans have 11 draft picks). Outside of injuries, I don't see many reasons for the Texans to regress next year.You do not consider Casey and Quin notable FAs that could leave? I think they are regardless if replaced in draft.

thunderkyss
02-11-2013, 11:15 AM
We are in a different thread now- I asked him, not you, what leads him to the conclusion that Baltimore will be sub .500?

If you wat a fight, its not here. I like to discuss.

This thread is about SOS. He doesn't think the Ravens are going to be over .500 because they have a tough SOS. It's not rocket science.

In 2010 I said the Texans were not going to do as well as 2009 due to SOS. The majority of this MB said SOS doesn't matter.

So does SOS matter now?

I'm sure it still doesn't matter to some people. But everyone just knew our defense was going to look worse than our 2011 defense mainly because of the offenses we played in 2012 compared to the offenses we played in 2011.

Personally, I look at SOS & how a team did vs that SOS to gauge how good that team really was. Was the 2012 Giants a much worse team than the 2011 Giants? They finished 9-7 to win their division in 2011 (I think) then went on a run to the Super Bowl. 2012, they finished 9-7 against a tougher schedule. 2012 .547 (toughest in the league) vs 2011 .492 (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/35095/2011-strength-of-schedule) (19th in the league).

Baltimore had a .523 schedule in 2012 & they finished 10-6, which I think is more impressive than the Texans 12-4 vs a .473 schedule in 2012 (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56896/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule).

Denver finished with the #1 seed in the AFC at 13-3 against an even tougher schedule than the Ravens .543...... very impressive.

Of course, we have to look at their 2012 final SoS (http://nfltraderumors.co/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule/) to put it in perspective. This is kind of a catch 22 because their final SoS is affected by that team winning or losing to it's opponent.

So in hindsight, the Atlanta Falcons had the easiest schedule, .422 followed by the Bengals, Colts, Broncos, & Chargers. The Ravens played against a .496 SoS, just like the Texans.

Six teams finished over .500 playing a .500+ schedule. All but the Bears & the Giants were in the play offs. 49ers, Seahawks, Packers, Bears, Vikings, & Giants. So those are some damn good teams. The Cowboys finished 8-8 vs a .500+ schedule, so don't count them out of the mix in 2013. The Rams, Saints, Panthers, Bucs, & Dolphins finished 7-9 against .500+ competition, so we should keep an eye on them as well.

The truly worst team in the NFL of 2012, imo, was the Oakland Raiders finishing with only 4 wins against a .469 schedule followed by the Buffalo Bills, 6-10 @ .480. Well, the Raiders did sweep the Chiefs, so I gotta think about that one some more.

handswarmer
02-11-2013, 12:42 PM
This thread is about SOS. He doesn't think the Ravens are going to be over .500 because they have a tough SOS. It's not rocket science.

Free Agency, draft, retirement, ie., roster changes, coaching changes- none of that figures in? SoS is the only determining factor for success?

I'm sure it still doesn't matter to some people. But everyone just knew our defense was going to look worse than our 2011 defense mainly because of the offenses we played in 2012 compared to the offenses we played in 2011.

Personally, I look at SOS & how a team did vs that SOS to gauge how good that team really was. Was the 2012 Giants a much worse team than the 2011 Giants? They finished 9-7 to win their division in 2011 (I think) then went on a run to the Super Bowl. 2012, they finished 9-7 against a tougher schedule. 2012 .547 (toughest in the league) vs 2011 .492 (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/35095/2011-strength-of-schedule) (19th in the league).

Baltimore had a .523 schedule in 2012 & they finished 10-6, which I think is more impressive than the Texans 12-4 vs a .473 schedule in 2012 (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56896/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule).

Denver finished with the #1 seed in the AFC at 13-3 against an even tougher schedule than the Ravens .543...... very impressive.

Of course, we have to look at their 2012 final SoS (http://nfltraderumors.co/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule/) to put it in perspective. This is kind of a catch 22 because their final SoS is affected by that team winning or losing to it's opponent.

So in hindsight, the Atlanta Falcons had the easiest schedule, .422 followed by the Bengals, Colts, Broncos, & Chargers. The Ravens played against a .496 SoS, just like the Texans.

Six teams finished over .500 playing a .500+ schedule. All but the Bears & the Giants were in the play offs. 49ers, Seahawks, Packers, Bears, Vikings, & Giants. So those are some damn good teams. The Cowboys finished 8-8 vs a .500+ schedule, so don't count them out of the mix in 2013. The Rams, Saints, Panthers, Bucs, & Dolphins finished 7-9 against .500+ competition, so we should keep an eye on them as well.

The truly worst team in the NFL of 2012, imo, was the Oakland Raiders finishing with only 4 wins against a .469 schedule followed by the Buffalo Bills, 6-10 @ .480. Well, the Raiders did sweep the Chiefs, so I gotta think about that one some more.

6 of the 12 Playoff teams played a SoS (determined prior to the Start of the 2012 season) of .500 or better

6 of the 12 Playoff teams played a SoS (determined prior to the Start of te 2012 season) of .499 or less

I glad you included the Fnal SoS in your post- it shows the results after the season ends but I, for one, am unsure how SoS figures into a tams success.

About 2 years ago, I did an informal stufy of SoS; the one continuous was that NE played a sub .500 schedule almost every year. Further study showed not only was the AFC East perennially weak, but that they seemed to catch the other Divisions in cyclical 'down' peroids.

thunderkyss
02-11-2013, 12:58 PM
Free Agency, draft, retirement, ie., roster changes, coaching changes- none of that figures in? SoS is the only determining factor for success?

IMO, I didn't say the Ravens won't be .500, it's all inclusive. When looking at SoS, I'm not only judging the guys on the field, I'm looking at it from an organizational standpoint. The Patriots are going to do well regardless of their schedule, regardless of how they do in the draft (I think they've been struggling here lately) & but will probably do well in FA.

The Cardinals.... couldn't care less what they do in FA, the draft, or whatever. They'll probably suck. The Lions... the Lions (& the Texans) are one of the teams where I think it will make a difference.


6 of the 12 Playoff teams played a SoS (determined prior to the Start of the 2012 season) of .500 or better

6 of the 12 Playoff teams played a SoS (determined prior to the Start of te 2012 season) of .499 or less


& the team that won the whole thing had the hardest schedule of them all.

JCTexan
02-11-2013, 01:04 PM
You do not consider Casey and Quin notable FAs that could leave? I think they are regardless if replaced in draft.

Quin? Yes, but I think he will be the main priority this off-season. I don't think he'll leave. Casey isn't really notable. The Texans could really benefit from having a bruiser at the FB position. If they get a FB more like Vonta Leach than Casey the running game could really benefit.

CretorFrigg
02-11-2013, 01:08 PM
I don't really pay too much attention to SOS. Teams change. Through the draft, free agency, etc, a mediocre team last season could be elite. Just compare the Texans now to 2 years ago. A couple years ago, we'd be ecstatic if we just made the playoffs. Now it's Super Bowl or bust.

My point is the SOS should never be an excuse for anything. Just win games. That's the most important thing.

Wolf
02-13-2013, 07:16 PM
With the parity,I don't really look at SOS anymore. It doesn't mean much.
A team plays 10 games are are the same as your division mates

Do your business within your division and get tickets to the dance and go from there



Or maybe a better motto every week 1-0

Texan_Bill
02-13-2013, 08:33 PM
With the parity,I don't really look at SOS anymore. It doesn't mean much.
A team plays 10 games are are the same as your division mates

Do your business within your division and get tickets to the dance and go from there



Or maybe a better motto every week 1-0

SOS is so overrated!! As has been mentioned, there are so many variables between the end of one season and the beginning of the next (and even during the course of the next season). That is of course we're talking about SOS meaning "same old shyte". Same old shyte with ridiculous off season fodder. ;)