This thought process is extremely flawed. The Texans have been well below the league average for the vast majority of their existence. There are two seasons where they actually came somewhat close to contending for the AFC (and they still weren't that close). The Astros sucked for 4-5 years with the intentional plan of rebuilding. And they have succeeded at that plan. They sucked for those years, built the best farm system in baseball, and now are one of the top 5 teams in baseball. Sure, they haven't won a WS yet, but they are infinitely closer to winning a WS than the Texans currently are to winning a SB. And the Astros front office has proven competency in their drafting (one or two missed picks in a 5 year span is not at all uncommon in the MLB) and their FA decisions. Crane and Luhnow came up with a plan for the team to become a legit contender and (so far) they have successfully executed that plan. The same cannot be said for the Texans. It has been known for the last four seasons that the Texans are most likely only a good QB away from being a SB contender. And yet Rick Smith and McNair have dropped the ball on getting that QB time and time again. I'm not saying that all hope is lost for the Texans. They can still very well find their future QB this draft. But it should be quite apparent that the Astros (and the Rockets for that matter) both have more competent and effective front offices.
He had below avg QB play for 8 years of his career. 5 below avg years of Carr, first season of Schaub, last season of Schaub and one season of Fitz.
He only played 4 years with Carr. Schaub was an above average quarterback (by almost every measure was fantastic in 2009 and 2011 before he got hurt) from 2007-2012 for six years. Schaub was awful in 2013, and Fitzpatrick was actually above average in 2014. People here act like Andre Johnson played with the Browns all his career. He had above average to great QB play for more than half of his career. Only thing the Texans didn't do a favor for him in terms of his career legacy is that he didn't get a lot of end zone looks, but you can hardly blame them since they had Arian freaking Foster.
Elway really has a bad case of sour grapes for any QB who doesn't choose Denver. Romo played through pain and injury for the Cowboys in pursuit of a super bowl. Nobody can question the dude's heart. http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/artic...all_in_on_super_bowl_pursuit/s1_8061_23639710
Ok well Schaub was never and should never be considered a great QB. He had one great year. And he had a couple very good years. As far as Fitzpatrick, there is no way that a QB who averages 204 ypg in a season can be above average. So sure, Andre had a few seasons with above average quarterback play. But the point remains the same, he had several years of his career where his QB was not a good QB. And that if he had a QB even similar to the level of someone like Alex Smith or Ryan Tannehill rather than those awful years of Carr and below avg year of Fitz, he would've put up even gaudier numbers.
Seriously? Alex Smith or Tannehill? You do realize Smith's ypg for his career is 197 right? Alex Smith or Tannehill can't even dream of achieving Matt Schaub's 6 year stretch from 2007-2012.
But his last five years he's averaged well over 210 per game. Not saying that's some huge impressive statistic. But it would definitely be an improvement over Carr (who only once in his time with HOU averaged over 175 ypg). I'm not talking about Smith/Tannehill replacing Schaub. I'm talking about either of those guys replacing David Carr. Obviously I know they weren't around yet when Carr was our QB, but if we had a QB closer to their level that would've been a great improvement.
That's actually not true. Since 2007, the Texans' overall record is 82-78, which ties them with Carolina for the 15th-best record, a game behind Cincinnati and San Diego. Again, I'm not arguing that's *good* - it's spot-on average - but it's certainly not "well below the league average." That would be one more than the Astros and Rockets, combined, since 2011. The Texans were among the last 8 teams eliminated last year from Super Bowl contention. The Astros didn't make the postseason. I mean....... I get that the Astros have a bright future - but everyone here is acting like this is the 2005 version of the Texans. You even go on to say, "It has been known for the last four seasons that the Texans are most likely only a good QB away from being a SB contender." When, in the last four years, have the Astros or Rockets been a player away from being championship contenders? Maybe 2015 for both - it sure as hell hasn't been the past four consecutive years. So, by your own admission, the Texans have built a Super Bowl-caliber roster around the QB.... and you don't think they'd rate as a competent and/or effective FO?... Again, the record speaks for itself: since 2011, they've enjoyed more overall success than the Astros (this is undeniable) and as much success - and it could be argued more success - than the Rockets, who, other than their WCF trip two years ago, have not outperformed the Texans. Will the Texans still have that advantage five years from now? No idea; but that's not the point. The Texans' track record recently has been better.
What really hurt Dre more than anything was him missing the majority of 2 seasons in his prime to injury. The 7 years of his prime he had Schaub throwing him the ball which was pretty damn good and after his prime was over he had his numbers propped up by excessive targets. As soon as he left he no longer got those targets and it exposed just how much his game had fallen off. Before that time you had people blaming it on the QB when that really wasn't the case.
Rockets were contenders in 2014-15 and this year Astros last year and this year. That's four, more than the 2 contending years the Texans have had in their entire existence (and they fired the coach who got them there)
I understand what you're saying about them being slightly above average since 2007. Yeah, the Astros didn't make the playoffs last year, but it's still widely known that they are closer to a WS than the Texans are to a SB. And the reason is because in baseball there isn't one position that is vastly more important to the team's success than another position. The same can't be said for football. QB is undoubtedly the most important position in football. And everyone knows that if you don't have a good QB then there is a very low chance of fielding a SB contending team. Yes, it's impressive that the Texans have built a solid roster. But all of that is overshadowed by the fact that they continue to not be able to solve the most important issue in all of football (finding a franchise QB). So, the Astros have built a well rounded team in a sport where one position does not heavily dictate a team's overall success and the Texans have built a good team but have failed to address the most important position in the sport. So, yes, I would say the Astros front office has done a better job than the Texans'. Sure, the Texans have made more playoff appearances than the Astros in the last 5 years. However, not one of those playoff seasons for the Texans did they have any realistic chance of advancing deep into the playoffs (AFC Championship or Super Bowl). Being one of the last 8 teams playing is extremely misleading and overshadows the fact that the Texans played a Derek Carr-less Raider team and then got blown out by the Patriots. Trust me, I'm not comparing this Texans team to the 2005 Texans. But I think I'm in the majority (maybe I'm wrong) when I say that it seems quite obvious that the Astros are better run and have a much brighter future than the Texans. And I would go as far to say that the Astros success over the past two years has been just as good, if not better, than the Texans. Mainly because making the playoffs in a weak division and being blown out consecutive years doesn't strike me as a success.
Exactly. It's not difficult to look at the two teams and see that they are on completely different trajectories. One is on a trajectory to be a top 5 team for the next few years and possibly win a WS (maybe more). And the other team is on a trajectory to continue to finish anywhere from 7-9 to 9-7 and never actually contend for anything that is meaningful.
What you are really arguing here is about what the national narratives are when it comes to the teams more than anything more solid and tangible. Yes, the narrative is that the Texans are terrible even when they are very good and that the Astros are going to win it all when they don't even make the playoffs......I don't see how that matters though
I don't think it's just a national narrative though. I really do think it's pretty obvious that the Texans are a good team who still hasn't addressed the most important position. And that the Astros are a very good team who has made moves and adjustments to realistically contend for a WS for the next 5 years. I'm not trying to bash the Texans. I'm really not. I just don't equate essentially meaningless playoff appearances for the Texans with actually being a really good team.
I'm sure that playoff appearances are good for guys to get some experience in those types of games. But how much meaning is there to a playoff appearance where they were blown out by the Chiefs and then where they beat a very bad Raiders team and got blown out by the Patriots. Sure, it's cool to make the playoffs. But I don't see it being very impressive when all they had to do was go 9-7 in what was the worst division in football both years. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. Sounds like we have very different opinions on what defines a successful NFL team.
Since I'm actually the one who made the point originally: yes, it is. ("The Texans' recent track record is as good - if not better - than the other two organizations in the city.") Note: I never mentioned trajectory or any other future-looking terms. You then set the time frame ("Can't really agree that the track record is better. The only times the Texans were really contenders were 2 years under Kubiak.") So, between 2011 and 2016, which franchise has been the most successful? If you want to argue the Astros and Rockets are better positioned *moving forward*.... OK. I would agree the Astros have the brightest future of the three - but I don't think the Texans' future is bleak, by any means. They have a championship-level defense (that will be adding the best player in football) and a lot of skill and potential on offense.
When you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. No one thought the Ravens had a chance in the playoffs when they won the SB with Average Joe Flacco.....but they got in the playoffs and good things happened for them. I think what you are being influenced by is an overall negative opinion of the Texans even when they are doing well. They could go 14-2 and be in the AFCCG and people would still find a way to talk it down as no big deal. Basically unless the Texans win the SB you'll have a significant portion of the fanbase calling them "mediocre"
