The Best Texans Team

[hollywood_texan]

My analysis is really just comparing the issues that were around during the Capers era and now in the Kubiak era. Comparing talent level of previous teams to me seems a little pointless.

Therefore, in my opinion, the bottom line is, the Texans still have many of the same problems they have had since 2005 with the exception of the QB position.

Those problems are:

1. Scoring TDs (the issue this year seems to really revolve around the AJ injury),

2. Suspect play calling and poor clock management by the coach staff,

3. Anemic pass ruch,

4. Suspect coverage by the defensive secondary, and

5. Inconsistent running game, if that.

At this point, for Kubiak to get some serious traction and cement his job, it seems very clear they need to get Schaub as much talent on the offensive side of the ball as soon as possible because he appears to be that good.

I would just forget about the defense to a certain extent for the next draft and free agency season. The Texans have put a lot of investment on the defensive line with marginal improvement.

You really want the Schaub investment to pay off? Get him some tier talent! We have a QB that can make those investments pay off.

Do that in the next draft and free agency, that will probably be the best Texans team if you want to go through that analysis.

All of you who think this team still has the same problems will be proven wrong.

It may or may not show up in the record, but you will be proven wrong.

[Double Barrel]

I think the biggest difference between Kubiak's team and those of Capers is that we seem to have heart now. You don't see guys quitting when we make mistakes and get behind. They keep fighting until 0:00, which is a far cry from any previous version of the team.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Runner

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago asking if the members of this board would be happy with an 8-8 season. I thought wow – the Texans were 7-9 without Kubiak, Schaub, and several other upgrades. The Texans are supposed to have more depth now too.

If the Texans don’t get on a little roll and finish with 9 or 10 wins, there are some questions in my mind. Was the 2004 team better than they have received credit for? Is this current team underachieving? Is the talent and/or coaching really not much better now?

IMO, this year team has the best talent and depth that we've ever had.

If we don't incur any more major injury, anything less than 8-8 will mean that this team underachieve (JMO).

3-3 is exactly where I think the team would be.
If we've had had A.J. PLUS either JJ or Mathis healthy, I would have expected 4-2.

[Runner]

Originally Posted by Kaiser Toro

I never thought any of the teams under Capers were competitive. Kubiak's first year was the first time a Texans team competed for a whole year and actually resemebled a NFL team. It is night and day to even compare unless and there is an unseen agenda that will surprise us later in this October day.

Moreover, I am very unclear how the strength of schedule is being brought up as the 2003 team and 2006 team finished in very similar positions in the win column and AFC South standings.

Unseen agenda? I'm hurt.

It's more I'm just messing around and trying to find something different to talk about.

As I said, I started thinking about this post when I saw how satisfied many would be with an 8-8 season. I also notice how emotions fluctuate wildly when expectations crash into the regular season.

I think during the 2004 season - especially in the early part - the fans thought the Texans could win games as they took the field, and expectations for the future were that big things were just around the corner. People may think they “knew all along” that team was destined to crash and burn, but that wasn’t the majority feeling at the time. It is just hindsight. There are similar feelings now, so I thought I’d try a comparison.

I chose the 2004 Texans for comparison (maybe I should say contrasting because they have different strengths and weaknesses) mainly because the posters on this board, including me, are far more familiar with them than say, the 1987 Giants or 1962 Bears or whatever. (I just threw those years and teams out there – let’s not debate them too). They are also still the watermark for the Texans as far as won/loss record.

I’ve been mentally comparing the teams unit by unit when I am working out and looking for a distraction. Then I try to put a wag on how many “games” each unit is better. This is certainly not quantifiable and is just a very rough measurement for discussion. I know none of this is provable, but it may provide some entertainment beyond “why don’t the Texans have a running attack” and “what did Vince Young have for breakfast”.

Coaching. The 2007 team has far superior coaching. There may be some blips in the current staff – Kubiak/Sherman approaches possibly clashing, Smith as defensive coordinator, possibly conservative play calling. However, the 2004 coaches were abysmal. 2007 gets a +2 games for coaching alone.

Quarterback. No discussion needed. 2007 gets a +2 games.

Running back. This one is a little tougher. I’d take Davis/Wells over Green/Dayne, especially since Green hasn’t been 100%. However, going into the season we didn’t know that. I’d even say I liked Wells then a lot better than Dayne now.

Wide receivers. Better this year, but the QB has a lot to do with that. 2007 +.5

Tight ends. Same as above. +.25

Offensive line. The 2007 unit pass blocks better, but I think that has more to do with Schaub than the line. However, the 2004 line was easily more effective run blocking. 2007 gets a -1.5 game here since they can’t run short yardage when needed. That costs first downs and points.

Defensive Line. This is tough. I guess the current line is better, but they should be a lot better. I’ll say +.5.

Linebackers. Ryans is the difference here. Everyone else are just players. 2007 +.25 games.

Defensive backs. I’ll have to go with the veterans on the 2004 team. 2007 -1 game.

Special teams. The Texans didn’t have a Mathis or a Jones in 2004. Problem is, the 2007 team doesn’t have them either. We have to ignore that at this point in the calculation though. How much is good special teams play worth? 2007 +1 game.

To total up: Coaching, QB, WR, TE, DL, LB, ST= 2007 gets a +6.5 games

OL and DB cost the 2007 unit -2.5 games.

That nets out to a + 4games. The Texans should be 11-5 according to this, um, unusual methodology.

Intangibles. If a game is subtracted because of injury, that is 10-6. Even if another game is subtracted because the division is tougher (which I don’t agree with), that is 9-7. I don’t like to subtract that last game, because for the Texsans to be good, they should beat the teams they are supposed to, split within this division, and maybe steal one somewhere.

8-8 and won’t cut it. 9-7 is marginal; less than that and I think they are underachieving. However, given the better coaching and the development of on-field leadership, I don’t think that will continue. The 2007 team will improve; they won’t crash and burn.

I realize this isn’t scientific in the least. It is just a thought experiment I’ve been having fun with. Have at it.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Runner

Unseen agenda? I'm hurt.

It's more I'm just messing around and trying to find something different to talk about.

As I said, I started thinking about this post when I saw how satisfied many would be with an 8-8 season. I also notice how emotions fluctuate wildly when expectations crash into the regular season.

I think during the 2004 season - especially in the early part - the fans thought the Texans could win games as they took the field, and expectations for the future were that big things were just around the corner. People may think they “knew all along” that team was destined to crash and burn, but that wasn’t the majority feeling at the time. It is just hindsight. There are similar feelings now, so I thought I’d try a comparison.

I chose the 2004 Texans for comparison (maybe I should say contrasting because they have different strengths and weaknesses) mainly because the posters on this board, including me, are far more familiar with them than say, the 1987 Giants or 1962 Bears or whatever. (I just threw those years and teams out there – let’s not debate them too). They are also still the watermark for the Texans as far as won/loss record.

I’ve been mentally comparing the teams unit by unit when I am working out and looking for a distraction. Then I try to put a wag on how many “games” each unit is better. This is certainly not quantifiable and is just a very rough measurement for discussion. I know none of this is provable, but it may provide some entertainment beyond “why don’t the Texans have a running attack” and “what did Vince Young have for breakfast”.

Coaching. The 2007 team has far superior coaching. There may be some blips in the current staff – Kubiak/Sherman approaches possibly clashing, Smith as defensive coordinator, possibly conservative play calling. However, the 2004 coaches were abysmal. 2007 gets a +2 games for coaching alone.

Quarterback. No discussion needed. 2007 gets a +2 games.

Running back. This one is a little tougher. I’d take Davis/Wells over Green/Dayne, especially since Green hasn’t been 100%. However, going into the season we didn’t know that. I’d even say I liked Wells then a lot better than Dayne now.

Wide receivers. Better this year, but the QB has a lot to do with that. 2007 +.5

Tight ends. Same as above. +.25

Offensive line. The 2007 unit pass blocks better, but I think that has more to do with Schaub than the line. However, the 2004 line was easily more effective run blocking. 2007 gets a -1.5 game here since they can’t run short yardage when needed. That costs first downs and points.

Defensive Line. This is tough. I guess the current line is better, but they should be a lot better. I’ll say +.5.

Linebackers. Ryans is the difference here. Everyone else are just players. 2007 +.25 games.

Defensive backs. I’ll have to go with the veterans on the 2004 team. 2007 -1 game.

Special teams. The Texans didn’t have a Mathis or a Jones in 2004. Problem is, the 2007 team doesn’t have them either. We have to ignore that at this point in the calculation though. How much is good special teams play worth? 2007 +1 game.

To total up: Coaching, QB, WR, TE, DL, LB, ST= 2007 gets a +6.5 games

OL and DB cost the 2007 unit -2.5 games.

That nets out to a + 4games. The Texans should be 11-5 according to this, um, unusual methodology.

Intangibles. If a game is subtracted because of injury, that is 10-6. Even if another game is subtracted because the division is tougher (which I don’t agree with), that is 9-7. I don’t like to subtract that last game, because for the Texsans to be good, they should beat the teams they are supposed to, split within this division, and maybe steal one somewhere.

8-8 and won’t cut it. 9-7 is marginal; less than that and I think they are underachieving. However, given the better coaching and the development of on-field leadership, I don’t think that will continue. The 2007 team will improve; they won’t crash and burn.

I realize this isn’t scientific in the least. It is just a thought experiment I’ve been having fun with. Have at it.

Well put. My much less well thought out take would be:

We lost 4 games by a touchdown or less in 2004. I think Schaub over Carr and Kubiak over Capers alone is enough to make up a touchdown difference and give us four more wins. That'd put us at a 10-6 - 11-5 team with my half baked theory.

In all honesty I think replacing Carr with Schaub alone makes an enormous difference in how good this team is.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Runner

Defensive backs. I’ll have to go with the veterans on the 2004 team. 2007 -1 game.

The DB's in 2004 had 22 INT's. That was responsible for several of the wins and close losses. I'd give us more like a -3 on that one.

[Runner]

Originally Posted by Fox

In all honesty I think replacing Carr with Schaub alone makes an enormous difference in how good this team is.

It's made a huge difference already. I'm just waiting to see that difference make its way to the scoreboard.

Oh - and I want to beat teams like Atlanta and Miami handily.

[Runner]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

The DB's in 2004 had 22 INT's. That was responsible for several of the wins and close losses. I'd give us more like a -3 on that one.

My brain seems to be very foggy in the 2004 DB section. I guess I know what brain cells were killed recently.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Runner

My brain seems to be very foggy in the 2004 DB section. I guess I know what brain cells were killed recently.

Scotch and cigars will get you every time. Got some for me?

Dunta as a rookie--teams tried to pick on him and got burnt.
Aaron Glenn--who wasn't on his last leg and shouldn't have been let go.
Marlon McCree--not a top guy but made plays like 95 yd INT returns on McNair.
Brown--steady and unspectacular.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Runner

It's made a huge difference already. I'm just waiting to see that difference make its way to the scoreboard.

Oh - and I want to beat teams like Atlanta and Miami handily.

True, Schaub's looked like an all-star between the 20's and a scrub in the red zone but I think that's going to change. He's missing his #1 red zone threat in AJ (who's accounted for 3 of his 5 passing TD's in only 2 games played), and he has not had a running game to help him out down there. If we can get those things going we're gonna score points because we're moving the ball everywhere else.

[Texan Asylum]

Man...I don't know, this is like asking who was the best boxer, Ali or Marciano.

If one could point to a defining quality at determining which one is best, I'd have to say the one with the most heart...

This year's team...IMO...has the heart and drive to win.

[Kaiser Toro]

Originally Posted by Fox

You play tougher opponents, you win less games. Makes sense to me.

I just don't think you can evaluate how good a team is from 2004 with one now based on the W-L record, you have to watch the games and form your opinion.

The statement you quoted and what you are deriving from it are apples and mud flaps.

[Fox]

Originally Posted by Kaiser Toro

The statement you quoted and what you are deriving from it are apples and mud flaps.

Let me know when I run off track.

You said, "Moreover, I am very unclear how the strength of schedule is being brought up as the 2003 team and 2006 team finished in very similar positions in the win column and AFC South standings."

I interpreted that as a nebulous reference to my earlier comment on the 2007 team having a tougher schedule than in 2004. I thought you were trying to say the 2003 and 2006 teams had different SOS's but had similar results, so why does SOS matter?

My reply was meant to respond to that point by saying SOS matters because better teams will beat you more often then bad ones, and that just because 2003 and 2006 had similar results doesn't prove SOS doesn't play a role. The whole correlation does not prove causation thing. Sorry if I just totally misinterpreted that, I can do that at times.

[Texanmike02]

I think when you compare teams, you have to order the strengths and weakness of a team over all by importance. I don't think you really compare positions one for one. With a few exceptions. But for the most part you consider say, the ability to stop the run and ability to run the ball. Positions would be like QB/RB and MLB (the leaders of the teams)


and you have to consider it vs the rest of the league not each team. Then you have an idea of what they are capable of. For example, the passing game has gotten better no doubt but the league is getting better at passing.

Mike

[ChildressTitanMan]

Wow tough thread.

Seriously guys don't torture yourselves like this.

[frequentfliertx]

I'm not satisfied with an 8-8 team. I'll be satisfied when this team finally makes the playoffs (whatever year that'll be.) Enough with this mediocrity year in and year out. This team definitely needs to get on the ball!