Originally Posted by sandman
Packers = 2 SB wins in the 20 years of Favre/Rodgers
Patriots = Haven't won a SB in almost a decade
Colts = 1 SB win in the entire Payton Manning era
Steelers = Closest argument with two SB wins in last decade, but like the Giants, they either go big or go home. And both teams really, really, REALLY suck right now.
Ravens = 1 SB win in the last decade
Let's add the always-compared-to Saints with one SB win in the last decade.
Take away the one SB win from the Colts, Packers and Ravens, and these teams are the exact same thing that the Texans have been for the last few years: winning record, getting to the playoffs, getting a few playoff wins.
I guess I don't understand the logic of ONE Super Bowl win in a decade making these other teams "consistently better" than the Texans.
After all, the ultimate litmus test is winning it all, right? Winning records and a few playoff wins don't mean jack, right? Isn't that the standard that we hold the Texans to?
Once a decade does not make a consistently great team. Unless of course we are going to rate them on a different scale to support our desire to change regimes.
I don't understand why you "just take away" the Super Bowl wins from teams to prove they are just like the Texans. Why don't we just "add a couple" of Super Bowl wins to the Texans to prove the Texans have had more success?
I don't think the Kubiak Texans should be considered a consistent playoff team yet. They consistently finish around .500 with their two 8-8 and one 9-7 seasons. They did fall off to 6-10 one year, which is nicely offset by the 10-6 season and their first playoff appearance. They had one very good year at 12-4 last year.
Looking at the Kubiak era, the Texans are more of an average team with one big spike at 12-4 than a consistent playoff contender. At 2-4 over a third of the way into the season, this season will likely be mediocre rather than playoff contending too.