View Single Post
Old 10-16-2013   #41
sandman
All Pro
 
sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London, England
Age: 44
Posts: 502
Rep Power: 45127 sandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respectedsandman is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: Don Banks: Kubiak appears to be out of answers

Quote:
Originally Posted by eriadoc View Post
Not to knock down your straw man or anything, but do you remember what the vibe was around here after the 2011 season? A loss in the playoffs and people were optimistic and hopeful. Contrast that with the 2012 season and people knew it was over before they even got to the playoffs. The point behind that is people recognize the subtleties of the situation. The Texans have been a mediocre team for almost all of Kubiak's regime. Take away the 12-4 season and what record does he have? 49-53. I'm not saying 12-4 meant nothing, and I'm happy it happened, even though the previous season was actually better. What I'm saying is 12-4 is an outlier. It's a deviation from the norm. If you look at the team's record since they were 11-1 last season, they're 3-7.

So which is it? We have a consistent winning team, or we have a team that overachieved for a short period of time? It's sure looking like the latter, and the math backs it up.
You and I are trying to make completely different points. I am not trying to argue that the Texans are a consistently successful team. I am merely pointing out two observations that tend to be at odds with one another:

1. The overall general consensus on this MB that division titles and wildcard wins are not acceptable moving forward. This team must make it to Super Bowls to be considered successful.

2. Then this abomination of a season started happening, and interpretation of which other teams in the league are judged as "consistently successful" changed to being based on them "having a shot" at being a Super Bowl contender, as opposed to a proven track record of consistently getting there.

No one can argue that the Saints, Packers, Colts and Ravens haven't been consistently successful franchises from a win-lose and divisional championship perspective. But from a getting to the Super Bowl perspective? Not even close when you add the word "consistent".

In the five years with Rodgers, the Packers have gotten past the divisional round once, in their SB year. In the 10 years before that with Favre, they made one NFC title game. In 13 years with Manning, the Colts got through the divisional round THREE times, even though they consistently racked up 12 win seasons. The Ravens made the AFC championship game once in the 12 years between their Super Bowls.

But I guess because they have the mythical and highly subject "shot" to get there, that allows Texan Fan to say they are "consistently" successful while declaring their hometown team is a failure unless they actually get there.

Again, this is not to say that I think the Texans are consistent, consistently successful, or consistently "have a shot". Just pointing out the moving goalposts when people want to compare them to other teams.
sandman is offline   Reply With Quote