Originally Posted by sandman
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.
Not saying this to be mean, but you're kind of all over the map here.
As it relates to other teams' consistency:
1.) what is their record over the past 5 years? Consistent winners? Consistently mediocre?
2.) How often do they advance to the playoffs? Anyone in the playoffs technically has a shot, though we know from last year's experience here that some teams are dead man walking going in.
3.) How often does this other team (whoever is being compared) choke when the games are on the line? A loss can be acceptable (Texans 2011 playoff loss), or a loss can be ridiculous (pick one of the many blowouts since the 11-1 start).
As it relates to the Texans:
1.) A Super Bowl win is the goal, of course. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who wasn't optimistic and hopeful after the 2011 playoff loss around here. That disproves the notion that a Super Bowl win is ALL that matters. Progress matters. Good play matters. Not dashing the hopes of your fan base one blowout at a time matters.
2.) As for the nebulous concept of having a shot, fans felt better going into the 2011 playoffs with a 5th round rookie QB than they did going into the 2012 playoffs with a seasoned veteran that was supposedly all that was missing from the 2011 team. Point being, the QB matters a lot. This team has no shot at a Super Bowl with Schaub under center. OK, mathematically, yes they do, but anyone with eyes knows better. Teams that have guys like Brady, Brees, Manning, or Rodgers ALWAYS have a shot. It's just the nature of the NFL these days. The rules changes and evolution of the game unfairly reward those with a great QB, moreso than teams with a great <insert any other position>.
At the end of the day, the Texans actually have been consistent, with just one deviation from that consistency. Now they are reverting to the mean.