Perspective

[thunderkyss]

Texans..... 0.547...... 6..... 10
Titans....... 0.547...... 6..... 10
Cowboys. 0.543...... 6..... 10
Bengals.... 0.539...... 4..... 12
Jaguars.... 0.535...... 8..... 8
Patriots.... 0.531...... 14... 2
Giants...... 0.527...... 10... 6
Redskins.. 0.523...... 6..... 10
Eagles...... 0.520...... 10... 6
Colts....... 0.516...... 10... 6
Browns.... 0.516...... 5..... 11
Ravens..... 0.508...... 12... 4
Lions ........0.508...... 6..... 10
Bears....... 0.504...... 11... 5
Vikings..... 0.504...... 6..... 10
Jets..........0.500.......11....5
Raiders..... 0.500.......8..... 8
Dolphns.... 0.500...... 7..... 9
Bills...........0.500...... 4..... 12
Falcons.... 0.496...... 13... 3
Steelers... 0.492...... 12... 4
Chiefs...... 0.488...... 10... 6
Packers.... 0.488...... 10... 6
Broncos... 0.484...... 4..... 12
Bucs....... 0.480...... 10... 6
Panthers.. 0.477...... 2..... 14
Saints...... 0.469...... 11... 5
49ers...... 0.457...... 6..... 10
Chargers.. 0.453...... 9..... 7
Seahawks 0.453...... 7..... 9
Rams....... 0.449...... 7..... 9
Cardinals.. 0.445...... 5..... 11
===========================================

So what does this mean?

To me, this means the Patriots are either a really, really good team, or they have one hell of a coach (coaching staff)..... I'm thinking it's probably both.

The Colts, are still a pretty good team... or Manning is that good... even with their injuries, they did pretty good against a tough schedule.

I've always thought the Jags & Titans were better than we give them credit for around here. Most everyone has been telling me the Texans aren't as good as I think they are.... this kind of supports that. While I think the goal is to get where the Colts are at, I think the Titans & Jags are a respectable stop on the way. Either they are getting worse, or we're getting better. 6 in one hand.......

I can't believe we lost to a team with a losing record playing against a losing schedule... the Broncos.

I'm glad we aren't fans of one of the 6 teams with losing records against losing schedules. I'm not happy that we are 6-10..... But it's better to be 6-10 against the toughest schedule in the NFL and not 5-11 against the easiest schedule (Arizona) or 2-14 against a sub .500 schedule (the Panthers).

& while I was looking up SOS numbers, I came across an interesting tidbit.

The year the Saints went to the NFC Championship game... the first year of HC Sean Payton..... they had the toughest schedule (.581) Wow.......

[HJam72]

It means the Panthers really suck.

[Jackie Chiles]

Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Found something to compare:
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Draft-Order.php

[Bulluck53]

Might be better to look at updated S.O.S. to take into account opponents' results from this season. Good discussion though

[Bulluck53]

Originally Posted by Jackie Chiles

Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Found something to compare:
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Draft-Order.php

[Dishman]

Five Texans opponents in 2010 represent the bulk of the strength of schedule:* Indianapolis twice at*14-2, San Diego (13-3), and Dallas and Philadelphia at 11-5 each bring a combined won loss record of 63-17 (.788) *to the Texans 2010 opponent's schedule.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/houston-texa...or-texans-2010

We should have beaten Indy both times, whooped Dallas, probably beaten a Chargers team facing a tough, early W-L record. These teams were vulnerable.

[Texan_Bill]

Meh! What it means is that we suck. Our defense is G*D awfull. Garbage, really!!! Our "O", while potent at times was nothing like last season and very inconsistent. It also means our "Special Teams" were anything but "Special"...

As Bill Parcells once opined, (or at least I think it was Parcells) that said "You are what your record says you are" or something to that effect.

[Dutchrudder]

Ok, even if those numbers are incorrect let's extend this line of thinking. During our 9-7 season we had a relatively easy schedule; should that detract the value of one win from it and make it worth 8-8? Maybe 7-9?

You can spin it any way you want to show 'perspective' but the reality is a good team will overcome A tough schedule. Because really, there is no excuse for losing the division this year, we all play nearly the same schedule and this year we had a real shot given how poorly our rivals played.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Jackie Chiles

Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Found something to compare:
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Draft-Order.php

Originally Posted by Bulluck53

Might be better to look at updated S.O.S. to take into account opponents' results from this season. Good discussion though

I wanted to use the S.O.S. from the beginning of the season. That's the one that had everyone going "Oh ****!!" about.

It made sense to me, this years W/L vs last years SOS was probably more relevant.

I mean is Dallas a 6-10 team, or an 11-5 team? If they played the Cardinals schedule, would they still be 6-10?

I don't think so.

The Titans would probably 13-3 had they played the Panther's schedule.....

Bottom line.. I guess... you can't really tell a lot from SOS, or W/L percentages.

[Bulluck53]

Gotcha, you could also compare initial SOS with actual, and go from there. It is cool to see, from JC's link, that only 3 of the twelve playoff teams faced an above-.500 updated SOS, though it makes sense as to why.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

Ok, even if those numbers are incorrect let's extend this line of thinking. During our 9-7 season we had a relatively easy schedule; should that detract the value of one win from it and make it worth 8-8? Maybe 7-9?

Even then, our "relatively easy schedule" was still a tough schedule. Just not as tough as our 2008, or 2010 schedule. The Houston Texans have never had to play a losing schedule.

2002, .503
2003, .533
2004, .500
2005, .504
2006, .523
2007, .504
2008, .547
2009, .506
2010, .547

Originally Posted by Dutchrudder

You can spin it any way you want to show 'perspective' but the reality is a good team will overcome A tough schedule. Because really, there is no excuse for losing the division this year, we all play nearly the same schedule and this year we had a real shot given how poorly our rivals played.

Also, I'm not using this to say, look we aren't as bad as 6-10.... I'm saying at least we didn't go 6-10 (or worse) against an easy schedule like some teams (who some here thought were good teams) did.

& yes, the good teams, The Patriots & the Colts will overcome a tough schedule....

I even mentioned as much, using the Saints 10-6 record & NFC Championship game appearance when they had the toughest schedule (.583, tougher than any schedule we've had).

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Bulluck53

Gotcha, you could also compare initial SOS with actual, and go from there. It is cool to see, from JC's link, that only 3 of the twelve playoff teams faced an above-.500 updated SOS, though it makes sense as to why.

So that brings us back to the discussion.

How do you know you've got a good team, like the Patriots & Colts, or if you're playing with smoke & mirrors, like the Cowboys & Cardinals?

Where are the Lions? are they any better today than they were 4 years ago? The Raiders going 8-8 against a .500 schedule Is that not impressive knowing where they were? Is it less impressive that their schedule turned out to be .469? Is that team not better than the Jamarcus Russell or even Dante Culpepper led versions?

[Bulluck53]

Watched a segment on CNN last night with Max Kellerman and he said something I've heard before, and makes a little sense.

Something along these lines:
"Most teams in the NFL fall within 8-8; some of those teams get a little lucky and end up 10-6 and some face some adversity and finish 6-10. Then you've got a handful of teams at both ends of the spectrum (meaning teams we know will be very good or very bad)."

To an extent, I agree with him, the way the schedule is structured undoubtedly has an effect. It is a crapshoot for a handful of teams each year.
--------------

To answer your question, I don't think it's smart to look at SOS as the end all, be all for success; especially comparing different years. A semi-educated football fan, as I'd label most people on internet message boards, can judge for themselves if those teams have improved. The record is one part of that evaluation.

[GNTLEWOLF]

PERSPECTIVE!!!---- I don't give a rip what our strength of schedule was or is. I don't care what any other team has or has not accomplished. All I know is that under Klue-lessbiak this team has sucked and finished this season having regressed. I'm not sure why we don't do what Cincinatti did with Lewis and give Loserbiak another extension.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by GNTLEWOLF

PERSPECTIVE!!!---- I don't give a rip what our strength of schedule was or is. I don't care what any other team has or has not accomplished. All I know is that under Klue-lessbiak this team has sucked and finished this season having regressed. I'm not sure why we don't do what Cincinatti did with Lewis and give Loserbiak another extension.

Plenty of other piss on Kubiak threads around here if that's the discussion you wish to have. This isn't about "how good we are, let's keep Gary" this is about SOS, how all the teams have done versus their SOS, and what we can decipher from that.

If that's all you get after looking at the data (or contributing your own data) fine....... but don't start off "I don't give a rip..... "

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

So what does this mean?

It means the Texans are the best 6-10 team in the NFL!!!

Originally Posted by Jackie Chiles

Is this the preseason SOS? Where did you get these numbers? Right off the top of my head I know they aren't accurate because we are not picking last in the draft out of the 6-10 teams.

Oh no! The Texans aren't the best 6-10 team in the NFL.

Please stop trying to make a Cadillac out of a Pinto. The 2010 Texans sucked. Period. Many will get an undeserved opportunity for redemption in 2011. Hip-hip-hooray!

How's that for some perspective.

[JB]

Originally Posted by Lucky

It means the Texans are the best 6-10 team in the NFL!!!


Oh no! The Texans aren't the best 6-10 team in the NFL.

Please stop trying to make a Cadillac out of a Pinto. The 2010 Texans sucked. Period. Many will get an undeserved opportunity for redemption in 2011. Hip-hip-hooray!

How's that for some perspective.

Pretty spot on actually.

[thunderkyss]

It's a shame the only one that wants to talk football on the Texanstalk.com forum is a feak'n Tack (no offense Bullock53).

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

It's a shame the only one that wants to talk football on the Texanstalk.com forum is a feak'n Tack (no offense Bullock53).

You misrepresented statistics to make a bogus point. How is that football related? That the Texans sucked on the football field is related to football.

Because you start a thread, doesn't mean you own it. The topic was perspective. Your post lacked perspective because it contained erroneous information. Others helped put that in perspective. Cry all you want about what happened to the thread, but as they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Lucky

You misrepresented statistics to make a bogus point. How is that football related? That the Texans sucked on the football field is related to football.

Because you start a thread, doesn't mean you own it. The topic was perspective. Your post lacked perspective because it contained erroneous information. Others helped put that in perspective. Cry all you want about what happened to the thread, but as they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

The Stats weren't misrepresented or erroneous.

I wasn't trying to make any point, much less a bogus point....