Originally Posted by Runner
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.
I wasn't taking away from them being Super Bowl winners. Far from it.
I was pointing out the disconnect between the use of "consistently" with the words "good" and "great" for teams that have only gone to one Super Bowl in the last decade.
Because fans around here won't settle for anything less than Super Bowl appearances. Regular season wins, stats, winning the division, winning playoff games. None of that matters if you don't get to the big game.
Unless you are the Ravens. Or Colts. Or Packers. Or Saints. THESE are great teams because they've had a 10% success rate at getting to the Super Bowl over the last decade.