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.
Pretty sure his point was not about them just winning it but the fact those teams are generally actual contenders year in and year out. We have not been that. We have been to the playoffs only two years and to be honest we tailspinned rather hard toward the end of last year so it's hard to say we were contenders. No one really gave us a hope and prayer of beating the Patriots for good reason. And if that was his point then he is correct.
Let's not act like we have reached those levels because we haven't. That's taking away from what those franchises have accomplished. It is what we aspire to be at this point. So saying today's market makes it hard to have continued success is partially true but if your organization has the right plan and execution it can happen. It just makes it more difficult for you to win Superbowl after Superbowl. Not be a true contender for one.