Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Broncos Fans' Take on the Texans and Kubiak

Good stuff, very entertaining to see Denver fan's take on our situation. I saw a lot more positive things about Kubiak than "McD" in that thread.

Countdown to this thread turning into another Fire Kubiak/Keep Kubiak thread in 3.....2......1......
 
I kind of like this guy's take on it.

Kubiak took over a team that was 2-14 the previous season and never having had a winning season and has gone 6-10, 8-8, 8-8 and 9-7. Stellar? No, but improving? Yes.

McD took over a team that went 8-8 the previous season with a horrid defense and missed the playoffs by one game and went 8-8 with a vastly improved defense and missed the playoffs by two games. Horrendous? No. Improving? No.

I know I was in the Fire Kubiak crowd, but still I think this post makes sense.
 
I'm sure people will look at Kubiak's body of work here and would desire him as a HC if he were fired, no problem.
 
I kind of like this guy's take on it.



I know I was in the Fire Kubiak crowd, but still I think this post makes sense.

Thorn, more to the point, is that McDaniels fired the DC he hired last year, despite the dramatic improvement on that side of the ball. As long as we talk about Kubiak's humility, patience and generosity being weaknesses, it should be pointed out when those traits can be strengths. If McDaniels had a little humility and patience, Nolan would still be the DC there- and he certainly should be. Watch how bad the Broncos are next year!
 
Thorn, more to the point, is that McDaniels fired the DC he hired last year, despite the dramatic improvement on that side of the ball. As long as we talk about Kubiak's humility, patience and generosity being weaknesses, it should be pointed out when those traits can be strengths. If McDaniels had a little humility and patience, Nolan would still be the DC there- and he certainly should be. Watch how bad the Broncos are next year!

No matter what us posters here take out of this season, Kubiak is back next year and I wish him the best of luck. I'm hoping he is what some of yall say he is, and he takes us to the playoffs next year.

I still think the home town boy makes good is a great story and a good thing for Houston, if Kubes can pull it off.
 
I stopped reading that thread two sentences in. Characterizing the Texans 2010 playoff chances as "unlikely" is incredibly dumb.
 
Reading the Broncos forum (since I live in Colorado), and came across an interesting thread where they hope/predict that Kubiak gets fired after next season and comes back to Denver to take over for McD. Interesting to see that the outsiders take on Kubiak's tenure here is about the same as ours.

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=161505

Those are Broncos fans that love the guy. When I look across other forums around the web that has fans from all teams, they don't look at Kubiak like that at all. Most fans that I read stuff from thought he was going to be fired and thought he should have been fired.
 
I stopped reading that thread two sentences in. Characterizing the Texans 2010 playoff chances as "unlikely" is incredibly dumb.

Why? They haven't gotten there before. As Vinny has said around here, every year is a separate year and there is no rhyme or reason as to what happens from one to the other. The Texans were 9-7 with a good schedule and a healthy Schaub for 16 games. Next year the schedule looks hard and you never know who will get hurt, who will go up or down, etc. So I'm sure that poster is just going on random odds based on records before. He may be wrong but it isn't stupid.

There was some good discussion mixed in there with positive and negative
 
Last edited:
The flaw in the discussion is that people are assuming that the owner of the Broncos may fire McDaniels after two seasons. He may not. He may keep him for a third or fourth season. We don't know.
 
So I'm sure that poster is just going on random odds based on records before. He may be wrong but it isn't stupid.

There was some good discussion mixed in there with positive and negative

I agree. It's also a possiblity we could go 11-5, and miss the play-offs. I can understand firing Kubiak if we miss the play-offs because we got swept by the Colts again. But if we split the games, & Indy goes 12-4... I don't think that's a good reason to fire Kubiak.

Of course, if we miss the play offs because one of those 4 losses came in the final weeks of the season, again I'm on board with the hatchet job, so don't get me bent (not you frog, but anyone who reads this), thinking my standards are too low.

There are just too many variables involved when getting into the play-offs is concerned.

I don't think it is fair, to make that part of the equation, when considering Kubiak's future. If we are an 11-5 team... dominating on both sides of the ball... it don't make sense to fire Kubiak because of a technicality.
 
Why? They haven't gotten there before. As Vinny has said around here, every year is a separate year and there is no rhyme or reason as to what happens from one to the other. The Texans were 9-7 with a good schedule and a healthy Schaub for 16 games. Next year the schedule looks hard and you never know who will get hurt, who will go up or down, etc. So I'm sure that poster is just going on random odds based on records before. He may be wrong but it isn't stupid.

There was some good discussion mixed in there with positive and negative

The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule. They had one of the tougher schedules in the league, despite everyone thinking otherwise at the beginning of the season. This team has improved every season and is arguably *very close* to being a perennial playoff contender given the undeniable talent on the team's roster. The team is still quite young and gaining experience with each tough win and heartbreaking loss.

Yes, characterizing a playoff appearance next year as "unlikely" is a very stupid statement because it ignores these facts in favor of the fallacy that says a Texans playoff appearance won't happen because it hasn't happened before. Well, Matt Schaub hadn't started a full sixteen game season, either....but he did this year and he proved the naysayers wrong.

This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year. Yeah, injuries can happen next season...but they also happened this year. The team lost two starters on the OL, a Pro Bowl caliber TE, and the starting running back to injuries. And experienced S Eugene Wilson. Regardless, they were fighting for a playoff spot on the last day of the regular season.

No matter how you slice it, that is a stupid adjective to use when discussing the Houston Texans 2010 playoff campaign.
 
The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule. They had one of the tougher schedules in the league, despite everyone thinking otherwise at the beginning of the season. This team has improved every season and is arguably *very close* to being a perennial playoff contender given the undeniable talent on the team's roster. The team is still quite young and gaining experience with each tough win and heartbreaking loss.

Yes, characterizing a playoff appearance next year as "unlikely" is a very stupid statement because it ignores these facts in favor of the fallacy that says a Texans playoff appearance won't happen because it hasn't happened before. Well, Matt Schaub hadn't started a full sixteen game season, either....but he did this year and he proved the naysayers wrong.

This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year. Yeah, injuries can happen next season...but they also happened this year. The team lost two starters on the OL, a Pro Bowl caliber TE, and the starting running back to injuries. And experienced S Eugene Wilson. Regardless, they were fighting for a playoff spot on the last day of the regular season.

No matter how you slice it, that is a stupid adjective to use when discussing the Houston Texans 2010 playoff campaign.

Your reasoning is no more "right" than his..lol. All of the bolded is just as much a guess on your part as it is on his. As I said, the team can be good or bad, there is no rhyme or reason from one season to the next. Schaub making 16 games this year means he didn't get hurt this year. It has nothing to do with proving anything or that it won't happen another year. 8-8, 8-8, 9-7 is improving every year to you, while to others it is being stuck in neutral with more talent. I'm not saying it plays out like he says, I'm just saying that your dream scenario is just as "stupid" to some looking at the records over 3 years than his "stupid" comment. They can be 12-4 or 4-12 and it doesn't take away from the discussion in the thread.
 
Last edited:
This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year.

I understand where you are coming from, & I do believe the improvement on this team is night and day, from 2008 to 2009.

But.. this is another area we've got to get better at. It's not like other teams don't miss field goals, and still win.... that second Tenn game is an example there. Bironas missed a field goal as well.

Indy could was 14-0 despite the fact that Manning threw 13 INTs this season.

I used to think this team needs to get better, and get out of it's own way. I've since changed my view, expecting them to be perfect is unrealistic. Instead, they need to get good enough that they can overcome fumbles, INTs, bad calls, and a busted play here and there.

Nobody is perfect...
 
The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule. They had one of the tougher schedules in the league, despite everyone thinking otherwise at the beginning of the season. This team has improved every season and is arguably *very close* to being a perennial playoff contender given the undeniable talent on the team's roster. The team is still quite young and gaining experience with each tough win and heartbreaking loss.

Yes, characterizing a playoff appearance next year as "unlikely" is a very stupid statement because it ignores these facts in favor of the fallacy that says a Texans playoff appearance won't happen because it hasn't happened before. Well, Matt Schaub hadn't started a full sixteen game season, either....but he did this year and he proved the naysayers wrong.

This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year. Yeah, injuries can happen next season...but they also happened this year. The team lost two starters on the OL, a Pro Bowl caliber TE, and the starting running back to injuries. And experienced S Eugene Wilson. Regardless, they were fighting for a playoff spot on the last day of the regular season.

No matter how you slice it, that is a stupid adjective to use when discussing the Houston Texans 2010 playoff campaign.


You have got to be kidding me.

A tough schedule? St Louis? San Fran? Oakland? Seattle?

Do you realize our schedule next year? It's going to be BRUTAL.

And, no, I don't think "unlikely" is an incorrect statement to make in regards to us making the playoffs. It's fair. Odds are, we will not.

Gary has had four years from which to build a baseline. Based on that baseline, we're looking at AT LEAST 5 division losses. Then we have the NFC East, which will mean AT LEAST two more (and I'm being generous). Then there's one or two games we always bungle.

So, we're looking at roughly 8 losses next year, based on past performance. Of course, I hope I'm wrong. But, odds are, we will not make the playoffs next year. That's a realistic, fair assessment of this football team.
 
Nice juxtaposition of two contradictory arguments.

:rolleyes:

I don't find it contradictory if you read the rest of my statements, including my second post to him. His theory is that 8-8, 8-8 and 9-7, if included with talent, offense, etc should automatically mean another step and playoffs, etc. I just stated that so far it hasn't happened (with more talent, etc.) and every year is different in the injury front, schedule front, etc. So he can't just make that jump.

It isn't like I jumped the guy, I just explained that his fantasy scenario is just as unlikely as the other guys no playoff scenario.
 
:rolleyes:

I don't find it contradictory if you read the rest of my statements, including my second post to him. His theory is that 8-8, 8-8 and 9-7, if included with talent, offense, etc should automatically mean another step and playoffs, etc. I just stated that so far it hasn't happened (with more talent, etc.) and every year is different in the injury front, schedule front, etc. So he can't just make that jump.

It isn't like I jumped the guy, I just explained that his fantasy scenario is just as unlikely as the other guys no playoff scenario.

This I agree with. It's actually the mistake I made going into this year. I put us at 10-6 without even thinking about it.

How did I arrive at 10-6? Via 7th grade logic: I basically said, "Well, we won 8 games last year, and blew two games because of Sage. Sage is gone, and the team has improved, so we should be able to capture those two games."

How juvenile was that? LOL!

Now, when I think about next year, I'm going into it much more realistically and clearly.
 
This I agree with. It's actually the mistake I made going into this year. I put us at 10-6 without even thinking about it.

How did I arrive at 10-6? Via 7th grade logic: I basically said, "Well, we won 8 games last year, and blew two games because of Sage. Sage is gone, and the team has improved, so we should be able to capture those two games."

How juvenile was that? LOL!

Now, when I think about next year, I'm going into it much more realistically and clearly.

co-sign

As much as we want to talk about Kris Brown field goals, or Chris Brown
fumbles....

When we needed ONE inch, at the ONE YARDLINE, against a CONTENDING
TEAM, fighting for its life during the MEAT OF THE SCHEDULE, we still
couldn't get it done in Arizona. When we needed ONE stop, at the end
of the game, against the Jags. They were able to hand the ball off
MORE THAN SEVEN CONSECUTIVE TIMES, for THREE 1ST DOWNS. It
was the final game in which the Texans could have taken control
of their own playoff destiny.

The second Indy game, came down to stopping them from getting into
the endzone, and Joseph Addai was able to hop-step himself into the
endzone from 7+ yards out.

This is the type of thing we've experienced from this regime through all
four years, not just last year. Our only chance to win comes when we're
able to avoid short-yardage situations during key moments of any game.
We seem to fail in those situations, against contending teams, at least
80% of the time. Don't know what the real numbers are against contending
teams in short yardage situations, but I do know it's abysmal.

If we expect to make the playoffs, we have to start passing the short-
yardage tests, before calling outside fans "stupid" for realizing we don't
pass the eyeball test in clutch moments against good teams. Stats
don't take you to the playoffs, or having the #1 passing game, the #1
QB, #5 offense, top 15 defense, #1 3-and-out defense, would mean
"CHAMPIONSHIP!" as Marshawn Lynch would say.
 
The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule.

Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.
 
Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.

We ended up with the hardest schedule this year. Tied with the Titans.
 
We ended up with the hardest schedule this year. Tied with the Titans.

Where do you get that from? Playing the Bills, Seahawks, Rams, Niners, and a Patriots team that took their starters in and out all game long wasn't a hard schedule outside of the 6 games of our division. Plus, that first game we played against the Titans was when they were trash and went like 0-6 before VY came in there. The Jags really weren't that good of a team this year either from our division. They weren't easy, but they weren't some really tough team either. They were merely average. Other than that, we played the Jets, Dolphins, those two Colts games, the second Titans game, and had an impressive win against the Bengals when they were playing some good football. Our schedule was not a difficult schedule at all.
 
Where do you get that from? Playing the Bills, Seahawks, Rams, Niners, and a Patriots team that took their starters in and out all game long wasn't a hard schedule outside of the 6 games of our division. Plus, that first game we played against the Titans was when they were trash and went like 0-6 before VY came in there. The Jags really weren't that good of a team this year either from our division. They weren't easy, but they weren't some really tough team either. They were merely average. Other than that, we played the Jets, Dolphins, those two Colts games, the second Titans game, and had an impressive win against the Bengals when they were playing some good football. Our schedule was not a difficult schedule at all.

Not to mention, we got those Dolphins MINUS their MVP, Ronnie Brown. They
weren't able to pound at us with that wildcat.
 
:rolleyes:

I don't find it contradictory ...

It was pretty much a joke. I just thought it was funny to have your first sentence be about past years as a prediction of the future and your second be there is no rhyme or reason between years.

On the difficulty discussion - the Texans played 6 games against playoff teams, 5 of which were played against division winners.
 
It was pretty much a joke. I just thought it was funny to have your first sentence be about past years as a prediction of the future and your second be there is no rhyme or reason between years.

I figured..thus the rolled eyes...but I wanted to explain anyways. My nature..lol. It's hard to tell on here sometimes.
 
Uh, you guys need to look at the schedules many other teams had and then compare them to the Texans. I routinely looked at the strength of schedule rankings on The Red Zone website as the season went on and the Texans finished pretty high on that list, in the top ten and maybe top-five iirc.

I don't think there is any doubt that the AFC South is the toughest division in football, which accounts for six of our games. Add to that games against the Bengals, Dolphins, Cardinals, Jets, and Niners and you understand how my statement about the schedule being tough this year is right on the money.
 
Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

So very wrong.
 
You have got to be kidding me.

A tough schedule? St Louis? San Fran? Oakland? Seattle?

St. Louis and Seattle sucked, but guess what? The Cardinals got four games against those two teams. San Fran was 8-8.

Now Oakland, despite looking terrible on paper, actually deserves more credit than they get because the organization is such a clusterflock right now. The Raiders got their asses handed to them by the Texans, but they also beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals.

I think some of you suffer from the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome.
 
St. Louis and Seattle sucked, but guess what? The Cardinals got four games against those two teams. San Fran was 8-8.

Now Oakland, despite looking terrible on paper, actually deserves more credit than they get because the organization is such a clusterflock right now. The Raiders got their asses handed to them by the Texans, but they also beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals.

I think some of you suffer from the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome.

And you suffer from the homer syndrome of trying to make it seem like the Texans got way unlucky from having such a massive schedule and over achieved when they got lucky with a pretty easy schedule that was easier than any schedule that they had in previous seasons when they had more talent than they've ever had in any season of their existence.

And you're trying to sit here and act like the Raiders was some difficult match up? That's laughable as they've been a door mat of the league for like the past 5 years. This is funny actually.
 
Your reasoning is no more "right" than his..lol. All of the bolded is just as much a guess on your part as it is on his. As I said, the team can be good or bad, there is no rhyme or reason from one season to the next. Schaub making 16 games this year means he didn't get hurt this year. It has nothing to do with proving anything or that it won't happen another year. 8-8, 8-8, 9-7 is improving every year to you, while to others it is being stuck in neutral with more talent. I'm not saying it plays out like he says, I'm just saying that your dream scenario is just as "stupid" to some looking at the records over 3 years than his "stupid" comment. They can be 12-4 or 4-12 and it doesn't take away from the discussion in the thread.

I don't agree at all. My reasoning *is* more right because it's actually reasoned--i.e. who are the players on the team and what have their past performances shown us w/r/t future results--whereas Mr. Bronco Homer Who Wants Kubiak Back is dismissing the Texans playoff chances on nothing but the basis that it hasn't happened yet. That is not a reasoned analysis, that is just internet prattle.

Of course the defense could regress. Of course major injuries could torpedo the season. That risk applies to every team each year, but if you're asking whether or not the Texans are a playoff team or not, the oddsmakers aren't factoring in the horror of horrors that could happen, nor the crazy fortuitous breaks that could finally go our way, but simply the state of the team on paper.

On paper, there is no doubt that the Houston Texans have a very talented roster of talented players, especially on the offensive side of the football. They also have an apparent superstar linebacker in Brian Cushing lining up next to the proven stud LB DeMeco Ryans. Then, of course, there's Mario Williams and Antonio Smith. We all know where the weaknesses lie, but those weaknesses will probably be addressed through free agency and the draft.

The odds do not favor the Texans regressing. The odds favor the Texans continuing to improve for the simple reason that these young, talented players will benefit from the experiences of the 2009 season.

To reiterate: "unlikely" is a terrible adjective to describe the Texans 2010 playoff chances. I need to hear a better argument than "because it's never happened before."
 
I don't really care about strength of schedule or any of that. Those schedules are set years in advance so you just play each game and see what happens.

There are too many variables in each season for each team.

I guess people can hang their hats on "strength of schedule" and all that but you play what they schedule. You never know from year to year what's going to pan out with any team.
 
And you suffer from the homer syndrome of trying to make it seem like the Texans got way unlucky from having such a massive schedule and over achieved when they got lucky with a pretty easy schedule that was easier than any schedule that they had in previous seasons when they had more talent than they've ever had in any season of their existence.

I didn't say they got unlucky, I said they played a tough schedule. This is a fact. The SOS rankings don't lie. Still, the schedule is the schedule, and there's nothing you can do about it except play who you play. It's unfortunate that the Texans are in the AFC South with probably the GOAT QB named Peyton Manning, but the only remedy for that misfortune is to go out and beat the Colts straight up.

And you're trying to sit here and act like the Raiders was some difficult match up? That's laughable as they've been a door mat of the league for like the past 5 years. This is funny actually.

What's even funnier is someone using the last five years as an argument about this year. Who cares about the Raiders of five years ago? Yes, the Raiders are a poorly run franchise with many problems, but that team was much better at times this year (i.e. with Gradkowski at QB) than they get credit for. Or did you not see them beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals?

The Raiders are not a good team, but they are not close to being as bad as the casual NFL observers believe them to be. They played a lot of good teams close. Remember, they almost pulled that game out in week 17 against the Ravens.
 
And you suffer from the homer syndrome of trying to make it seem like the Texans got way unlucky from having such a massive schedule and over achieved when they got lucky with a pretty easy schedule that was easier than any schedule that they had in previous seasons when they had more talent than they've ever had in any season of their existence.

And you're trying to sit here and act like the Raiders was some difficult match up? That's laughable as they've been a door mat of the league for like the past 5 years. This is funny actually.

Don't you see how you overreact. Mailman laid out a very good argument. You totally misrepresented him and then freaked out.

He didn't say they got "way unlucky" or had a "massive schedule"... In response to you saying that it was an easy schedule, he argued that it was not easy but fairly difficult in relationship to many other schedules. Why this argument would send you on a rampage, I just don't get.

He didn't say Oakland was a difficult matchup but he just pointed out that they were able to beat quite a few good teams this year.
 
Thanks, Dale.

I apologize for derailing the thread because it's not really about whether the Texans are a playoff team but actually about the view of the team from an outside perspective.

I'll go back and read that thread, but this time I'll skip the first post.
 
I didn't say they got unlucky, I said they played a tough schedule. This is a fact. The SOS rankings don't lie. Still, the schedule is the schedule, and there's nothing you can do about it except play who you play. It's unfortunate that the Texans are in the AFC South with probably the GOAT QB named Peyton Manning, but the only remedy for that misfortune is to go out and beat the Colts straight up.



What's even funnier is someone using the last five years as an argument about this year. Who cares about the Raiders of five years ago? Yes, the Raiders are a poorly run franchise with many problems, but that team was much better at times this year (i.e. with Gradkowski at QB) than they get credit for. Or did you not see them beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals?

The Raiders are not a good team, but they are not close to being as bad as the casual NFL observers believe them to be. They played a lot of good teams close. Remember, they almost pulled that game out in week 17 against the Ravens.

The Raiders were a very bad team, and yes the last 5 years of their poor existence is a factor whether you want to recognize that or not. It's been a pattern for them year after year and they haven't been good at all or gotten any better from year to year. And the Raiders played their best ball when Russell wasn't playing. We played them when Russell was playing and he played completely awful in that game. I was embarrassed for him actually.

We had about 6 tough games on our schedule this season and I listed them earlier for you. The Jags weren't some real tough team to play. The Colts were and the Titans were in one of those games. That's 3 tough games from our division. After that, it was Miami, the Jets, and the Bengals. That's 6 difficult games and it's not like the Bengals or the Phins were world beaters. Beating the Bengals at the time that we did though in Cinci was probably the most impressive win of the season.
 
We had about 6 tough games on our schedule this season

About six as if that six is even in question - they played six games against playoff teams and five of those were against division winners. Those games are given tough games. I'd say playing a team that was 13-3 last season was two more tough games at a minimum.
 
Don't you see how you overreact. Mailman laid out a very good argument. You totally misrepresented him and then freaked out.

Overreact? Any time someone isn't throwing out some sunshine excuse argument for this organization it's overreacting to you. I know what to expect from you just about every time you post.

He didn't say they got "way unlucky" or had a "massive schedule"... In response to you saying that it was an easy schedule, he argued that it was not easy but fairly difficult in relationship to many other schedules. Why this argument would send you on a rampage, I just don't get.

He said it was a very tough schedule. And as far as me overeating or getting off into a rampage you're completely sensationalizing this entire discussion, but keep reaching. Houston Spartan didn't "overreact" either. Him and I both disagreed and I explained why with examples off of the schedule and I stand by the fact that we had about 6 difficult games and the rest of the schedule was pretty easy. And I remember very clearly what the over all consensus was before this season started and the majority of writers and analysts thought the Texans had a very easy schedule and they were pretty much on point.
 
About six as if that six is even in question - they played six games against playoff teams and five of those were against division winners. Those games are given tough games. I'd say playing a team that was 13-3 last season was two more tough games at a minimum.

You'd say that the Titans were a tough game when we played them early in the season when they went 0-6? Sorry, but that team was in disarray. Their entire secondary was atrocious at the time and couldn't cover a snail. They had no offense other than Chris Johnson where we gave him one play where he wasn't even touched or guarded in the slot as well and gave up a ton of points to the Titans in that game and almost lost it actually. I'll give them good credit for turning their season around when they did and how the presence of VY gave them a different momentum. When we played them later on in the season, they were a much different team playing with an edge and with some grit and I included that game in those 6 that I mentioned. We still should have won that game though at Reliant on Monday Night in my opinion. If there was any game that I was sure about us winning it was that one.
 
But, odds are, we will not make the playoffs next year. That's a realistic, fair assessment of this football team.

Not really. You're simply looking at the record as if it stood on it's own. Our record this year, or last year, or the year before has no bearing on How we'll do next season.

Use your eyes, look at how we played on both sides of the ball. Then check your gut.. if you still feel we'll lose 8 games next year based on that, fine.

But past history (based on watching our guys play football) does not suggest we'll lose 8 games in 2010.
 
You'd say that the Titans were a tough game when we played them early in the season when they went 0-6? Sorry, but that team was in disarray. Their entire secondary was atrocious at the time and couldn't cover a snail. They had no offense other than Chris Johnson where we gave him one play where he wasn't even touched or guarded in the slot as well and gave up a ton of points to the Titans in that game and almost lost it actually. I'll give them good credit for turning their season around when they did and how the presence of VY gave them a different momentum. When we played them later on in the season, they were a much different team playing with an edge and with some grit and I included that game in those 6 that I mentioned. We still should have won that game though at Reliant on Monday Night in my opinion. If there was any game that I was sure about us winning it was that one.

Referring to the Titan game, is that the one right after they played at Pittsburgh, lost by a FG in a game they should've won and then had 10 days off before playing us? and then they went to New York and barely lost to an undefeated NYJets team. You mean that Titan team?
 
When we played them later on in the season, they were a much different team playing with an edge and with some grit and I included that game in those 6 that I mentioned.

If you are including the 2nd TN game in your 6 games it means you are throwing out a playoff team somewhere and that is just absurd on its face. Frankly this whole thing is a farce if all you are looking at is records. Go ask Peyton Manning if the two games against the Texans were tough for the Colts.
 
If you are including the 2nd TN game in your 6 games it means you are throwing out a playoff team somewhere and that is just absurd on its face. Frankly this whole thing is a farce if all you are looking at is records. Go ask Peyton Manning if the two games against the Texans were tough for the Colts.

What negative effect did those "tough games" have on their season?
None.

That's what "competitive" is. How did you negatively effect the season
of your opponents? We haven't. That's what we all want to see here.
 
We can argue about the scheduling, luck, etc...all day but what we should all be able to agree on is that this team, if it has a good off-season, is in position with its talent to win a lot of football games.

Fact: Texans won 9 games last season
Fact: Texans had a winning record on the road.
Fact: The Texans only lost one game by more than 1 score all season and that was in week 1.
Fact: Texans are the youngest team in the NFL.
Fact: Texans only have 3 UFAs and they can use 2 Tags this year.

Given all that, I think expectations should be very high. I think most of the pink soapers think this team has enough talent to make the playoffs. Most of us in the sunshine club would certainly agree with that. So, perhaps we can meet on common ground as we start the off-season. Then, we can pickup the fight about Kubiak's game management when there is another game to manage. What do you'll think?
 
What negative effect did those "tough games" have on their season?
None.

That's what "competitive" is. How did you negatively effect the season
of your opponents
? We haven't. That's what we all want to see here.

You're right! We should've injured Peyton! Dang it.
 
You're right! We should've injured Peyton! Dang it.

Ummm... Putting a couple L's in their won/loss column, would have helped
us, and hurt them. They wouldn't have been able to take a couple games
off to end the season, as they'd have had seeding ramifications.

....not to mention, we'd CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY.

...let's start there.
 
What negative effect did those "tough games" have on their season?
None.

That's what "competitive" is. How did you negatively effect the season
of your opponents? We haven't. That's what we all want to see here.

Thanks for your non-responsive post. Frankly your absurd non-responsive post as if winning a game means it wasn't tough. That's laughable.
 
Ummm... Putting a couple L's in their won/loss column, would have helped
us, and hurt them. They wouldn't have been able to take a couple games
off to end the season, as they'd have had seeding ramifications.

....not to mention, we'd CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY.

...let's start there.

Bottom line, the team that finished the 2009 season, is it better, or worse than the team that started the 2009 season?
 
Bottom line, the team that finished the 2009 season, is it better, or worse than the team that started the 2009 season?

This sounds like a question the eye doctor would ask.

We've gotten THREE games better, over a FOUR YEAR PERIOD.
Whoopee Do.

Bring on 2010.
 
Back
Top