Originally Posted by Rey
This is a prime example of missing the point.
Did you watch all of those games? Do you know how or why those teams lost?
Did you have a bad team stepping up and playing big...
Did you have some fluke plays?
Did the better team come out and play bad?
Were there singular individuals that failed to make plays thus causing the loss?
The point is that despite our record, this team overall has shown some major warts.
I'm happy we are 12-2. I'm not happy with the way we've been playing when it pertains to our superbowl aspirations.
Why is it so hard to distinguish the two?
You can get a win playing lime shyt. Just as long as the other team is worse.
Conversely, you can get a loss playing really well overall. Just as long as the other team is playing at an even higher level.
If someone can't understand that simple concept, then I don't know what to say to you.
If the texans are going to win a superbowl they are going to have to play better than they have been. Offensively and defensively. I don't give a fucc what their record is. They need to play better.
If they go into the play offs playing like they have been, they'll get beat and maybe embarrassed again.
It's really that simple.
I agree, it is that simple. But if the prevailing thought around here is that it's Kubiak's playcalling that's the biggest problem . . . then there is really no foundation to conduct a reasonable discussion.
Until it's ever agreed upon that the so-called "turtle" playcalling is actually smart playcalling, it is pointless.