Right, @Major. And yet, the the 4th winningest regular season team in the NBA had very nearly the exact same postseason results as the 12th winningest team in the NFL... and we all think the Texans are the supreme disappointment here?... OK.
(I'm pretty sure he was talking to me because I have the gall to think the 1/2-and-done Rockets are every bit as mediocre as the 1/2-and-done Texans....)
I don't really get the point of this argument, but since the entire premise of this thread is completely moot for the foreseeable future....I suppose I can at least drop a hand-grenade and run. Rockets - 2 Conference Final appearances in last 5 years Texans - 0 Conference Final appearances in entire existence Houston Professional Football - 0 Conference Final appearances in the last 40 years Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Rockets on this one.
Man... if Washington doesn't hire Daddy Shanahan in '10, Kubiak likely grooms Baby Shanahan to be his heir apparent. Baby Shanahan had some maturing to do; he may have imploded on himself - but... also: maybe he doesn't...... (deep sigh....)
BoB has more power than ever, what makes you think he is going to make any changes of significance? Dude has made 5 coordinator changes but has never once brought in someone from outside the organization. Grant it Romeo to Vrabel back to Romeo made sense, but promoting Tim Kelly to OC last season was a farce. We'll wait and see how Weaver turns out but this is the exact same move BoB made 2 years ago, almost literally the exact same if Romeo stays on in some AHC or senior advisory role as rumored. BoB is not going to disturb the power structure he has single handedly built the past 6 years, especially not at his pinnacle which is where he is currently standing at the moment.
You see, ima... this all started when a poster held the Astros *and Rockets* up as superior organizations to the Texans. Now, obviously this was before the Astros' situation imploded - but I took exception to that because - and this I will not budge on - the Rockets are not on the same level as the Astros (pre-scandal), in terms of organizational success. The counter was that the Rockets were, in fact, infinitely more successful than the Texans based on two things: sustained regular season success and a phantom championship they did not win (BUT WOULD'VE!) in 2018. Ha! I said. If that's the case, the Texans were a Matt Schaub injury away from playing in the AFC championship game and being a legitimate Super Bowl contender in 2011 (which is... pretty spot-on - they were. But I would never argue that was anything significantly meaningful... unless someone on the internet tried to use the same idea to prop up another local franchise). That then devolved into what's been a fun back-and-forth, pitting the Rockets v the Texans. I maintain that the Rockets may be better... but in the same way someone might celebrate being the skinniest kid at fat camp. The kid is still fat, you know? The narrative on the Texans, especially in the BO'B era, has been very nearly forged in concrete: they'll win 9, 10, 11 games & a soft division but can't get past the second round of the playoffs. Right?? How is that appreciably different than the Rockets, the fourth winningest team in the NBA since 2010 (which is good!) who nonetheless have more first round exits (3) than WCF appearances (2)? Since 2010, the Texans have made the postseason six times; the Rockets 7. And the Texans' record is 4-6 (40%); the Rockets 6-7 (46%). I mean.......
Yeah... I don't see how anything is going to change outside of a fully healthy season that BO'B drives into the ditch. And even then... Well, it might take two of those. As much as I dislike fans insisting (insert owner's name) doesn't care about winning... Turning your franchise over to BO'B feels like a pretty potent argument that Bob/Cal don't care. I don't think BO'B is a *bad* head coach (he is, as I've said a lot lately, fine) - but I think he's a bad general manager/head coach/offensive coordinator and to not seemingly have someone in the building that challenges his authority is downright scary.
Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and let you guys hash this one out. I'll just continue to b**** about BOB (and after the last few weeks, MDA...). I've never been one to scream FIRE THE COACH!!!!!111 after every loss.....but that tenure post I made earlier in this thread is the thing that makes you go hmmmmm. What has BOB done to deserve the longest current coaching tenure in the NFL for a non-Superbowl coach? I know....Doesn't matter, Brian. Division Champs, Brian. I guess the good news is that we can still use that meme for another few years. Because it still makes me laugh.
Your arguments here are just... The Texans play in the equivalent of the Eastern Conference. You think a team that wins it's division in the Eastern Conference, makes the playoffs and gets demolished every year is equivalent to what the Rockets have done. The Rockets are a perennial contender that is in the West and is just never good enough. The Texans are not a contender. Nine years ago they had one season where they might have been good enough but probably weren't. Good grief. Your trashing of the hamstring championship is silly. A team that was the best team in the league the entire regular season and then held a series lead with only 1 more game to win losing their second best player is not the same thing as the Texans. It's certainly not a championship but that is very indicative of how good the Rockets actually were. If the Texans were up 1 touchdown in the 4th quarter against the Patriots in the AFC championship and then Matt Schaub got hurt and the team couldn't score so they lost, that would be equivalent. The Texans are a solidly slightly above average football team. The Rockets are better than that. "Infinitely" is a hyperbolic word, but the Rockets are closer to the Astros than they are the Texans (and there's a big gap between Astros and Rockets.)
They aren't "nearly the exact same postseason results" - one team made multiple conference finals and nearly beat one of the greatest teams ever. The other ... didn't. By whatever measure you look at, the Rockets are vastly superior to the Texans. And it's not remotely close. The Rockets have the 4th best record playing in the tougher of the two conferences (thus a top 15 schedule). Who is the 4th best NFL team over that stretch? Tell me if that team and the Texans are similar. The Texans have the 12th best record playing a bottom-5 overall schedule over the last decade. They've only been in the top HALF of schedule difficulty twice out of the last 10 years. Who is the 12th best team in the NBA over that span? Tell me if that team and the Rockets are similar. Other things to consider: The Rockets' best playoff seasons were better than the Texans' best playoff seasons. The Rockets' single best season got them a #1 seed, within a game of the NBA Finals, and a 3-2 lead over one of the best teams in history. The Texans best single season never had anyone thinking of them as a Superbowl contender. The Rockets have improved over those 10 years - their last 5 are much better than their previous 5. The Texans ... have not. The Rockets have at various points been considered the 2nd best team in the NBA and legitimate title contenders. The Texans ... have never been close. You can look at media picks, Vegas picks, actual records, playoff results, individual best seasons, and on and on. In every case, the Rockets come out superior. Picking the one area where they are almost kind of similar (ignoring that the Rockets made multiple conference finals or the fact they've improved over time) does not void all the other ways the Rockets have been better. Rockets are only "disappointing" in the sense that they were legitimately good and thus had higher expectations. The Texans don't get a pass just because no one ever thought they were good enough to win anything in the first place.
Basketball is such a harder sport to win at too...well not harder as in difficulty...Many great teams and playes never win in the NBA just because of how dynastic it can be. Pretty much 3-4 teams can control an entire decade of basketball, taking turns winning championships, all off the back of one or two players. The NFL and MLB, you can literally just get hot at the right time and win a championship...just the nature of the sports. Just look at the Nationals who became a buzzsaw right at the end of the season. Basketball, nah, you may get hot for a series, but eventually the cream rises to the crop. 7 game series in every round, there is not much chance that something random or fluky happens. If you make it to the playoffs enough in the MLB or NFL...you are bound to get lucky. What's sad is this year for the Texans...THIS WAS IT. THIS WAS THE YEAR. KC drops passes...gets a punt blocked...drops a punt...24-0. The Texans had run into their luck and would have had a chance at a superbowl...but they proceeded in the very next quarter to piss it all away. This was the case of the Texans potentially becoming that buzzsaw, of things just breaking right for them (Watson rolling out of the pocket as his defenders run into each other) and rolling into a Superbowl chance to win it all. The Rockets don't have a championship because and only because (IMO) they ran into a dynastic team in the Warriors...which...is usual in the NBA. There's always dynasty teams every decade in the NBA. Just the nature of the sport. No one calls the Malone-Stockton Jazz a failure, we just realize they ran into Jordan and Hakeem.
Since the Texans came into existence: 9 franchises have won an NBA Championship 11 have won a Super Bowl 12 have won a World Series *Not a whole lot of disparity. Check my math, I may have miscounted by one here or there.
That is true, but the NBA seems to have a lot more dyansties througout its history that just make it harder to win because they either have some generational player or generational team and there is nothing you can do about it but hope you get lucky. You never see a team go from 8th seed to champion, it never happens in the NBA. The closest thing to that are the Rockets 6th seed championship but even then they were the champions the previous year and made a big trade to fix their team. What I am getting at is the Rockets did all they could to win these past few years. Got a generational player, surrounded him with talent, they were just unlucky to run into one of the most stacked teams in the NBA. Rockets are...well...were well run, Pre-Tilman.
WAIT! They NEARLY beat the one of the greatest teams ever? Well! This changes EVERYTHING! I would think the Rockets are disappointing because, you know - they win a lot of regular season games... and don't win a lot of postseason games. I would think the Rockets are disappointing because they have more first round exits in the James Harden era than conference final appearances. I would think the Rockets are disappointing because of all the legitimately good teams since 2010, they have by far been the most underachieving, with the fewest championships, fewest Finals appearances, fewest conference finals appearances... But... I guess all that was distracting me from that one time they were a #1 seed and nearly (but didn't!) beat a great team in the postseason. As I've said, repeatedly, you're essentially claiming the Rockets are the skinniest kid at fat camp. The Texans are indeed probably fatter... but not by much - and the Rockets are still fat. And they sure as hell - current scandal aside - don't belong in the same class as the Astros.
This is foolishness. No the Texans have not been in the same class as the Rockets over the last 7-8 years. The Rockets have been legitimate contenders several time, were an injury away from winning the NBA Finals and being world champions. The Texans have been a middling playoff team without a real chance of advancing far in the playoffs. Even this year they eked past a limited Buffalo team in over time and then had their brains bashed in by the Chiefs. Things change and so do circumstances, but the Texans have been the weakest franchise in the city by far.
