As we find the Texans on the verge of greatness again, I can't help but look around the league at other teams who were able to get past the anticipation and have success on the field. I am interested in the Falcoms this year. I don't follow them closely, but here is a summary. Please correct any errors. They overcame starting completely over at QB due to losing Vick and Schaub and have done well in little time. They also faced some turmoil at head coach, hiring Mike Smith in 2008 after going through three head coches the previous few years. It seems a good hire, seeing as he was the AP coach of the year his first season there. He took a 4-12 team to 11-5 his first year, dropped off to a poor (for them) 9-7 record. This year they stand at 11-2 and are Super Bowl contenders. They are based on solid if unspectacular QB play, a stud RB, and stud receiver. The QB they drafted. They picked up the RB (Turner) via free agency; he was an up and comer rather than an over the hill vet. It was a very good move. Roddy White has developed into a very good receiver who has gotten better every year he's been there. The defense, while weak against the pass at times is good enough to help the team win. I think shrewd off season moves (draft and free agency), the hiring of a new coach that proved successful, and developing their players into better players over time have served the Falcons well. The Texans on the other hand are focused on stability to the point of stagnation, incremental improvement, and building through the draft. Anyone care to compare and contrast how these teams have approached building a winner and the relative merits and success they've had?