Can't really agree that the track record is better. The only times the Texans were really contenders were 2 years under Kubiak. The success has been mainly due to playing in a bad division, equivalent to getting the 8th seed in the East. The Astros and rockets are currently contending. I don't disagree McLane mismanaged them at the end, but the new ownership has been impressive. The rockets under morey have almost always been good except for last year.
Kapernick made Harbaugh. 49ers spiral downward came from the GM, key players leaving and 2 no experience coaches. 49ers want to keep him, but Kaep wants no part of the 49ers. He will win games with the Texans having all the offense parts.
Honestly,I'm fine with the whole situation. Good for him. I would have done the same thing. It would have been silly for any team to trade for a guy that might turn around and retire. I'm fine with Savage starting, but I would like to see what Cutler could do here. I'd like Mahomes or Webb, too. Bring it on.
When have the Astros and Rockets been contenders over the course of two years?? Since 2011, the Astros had a four-year stretch in which they lost 416 games ('11-'14), followed by what are essentially 8-8 seasons with one playoff appearance (which they chocked away after choking away the division). And they're 8-1,257 against the Rangers the past two years. The Rockets, meanwhile, failed to make the playoffs once; finished .500 another season, were the 8-seed twice and have been first round fodder three of their last four postseason appearances. You think those track records are better than the Texans'??? None of them should be throwing parades - but the Texans have been better. A track record generally looks at *past* accomplishments. The Astros and Rockets are both well-positioned... but so are the Texans. I'm not minimizing the ease of finding a competent QB - but the general consensus is that if they can, the Texans are leading contenders in the AFC.
If Kap made Harbaugh, why couldn't he make 2 other coaches? Their GM blew but that had nothing to do with him losing his job to Blaine Gabbert. Also, Chip had more experience than Harbaugh did when he took over.
By track record I'm also talking about moves they make for the future, not just things like winning divisions that may be weak. I don't think the Texans are really better positioned. Super Bowl 52 odds- Texans 21st (just outside of the bottom 10) at 60-1, and this is being in the worst division NBA Championship odds- Rockets 6th at 20-1 World Series odds- Astros 6th at 10-1 We have no QB and our best player is trying to return from a serious injury. To top it off, our coach was threatening to leave DURING the playoffs last year and no one knows what the GM does.
And what do you think the Texans' odds would've been had they landed Tony Romo? The later is irrelevant and only a concern for a small segment of fans who think it's important (it's not). The former is bullshit.
Not much different. As you pointed out, if Romo wanted to be a broadcaster then his heart maybe isn't into playing anymore. He's also injury prone and our OL is terrible. But the odds would receive a slight bump. But what do you think the odds would be if the Rockets get Gordon Hayward or the Astros get a stud SP? Any of these teams can improve, but the Texans don't seem to know how. I think it's important that the FO is dysfunctional? They've been playing the blame game in the media since Brock was exposed as a terrible signing.
People defending the regime performance and leadership of Bob McNair and Rick Smith? Hilarious. I guess it takes all types.
Stockholm/battered wife syndrome. Losing the Oilers mad Houstonians such p*****s when it comes to holding their teams accountable.
You're a revisionist; the general consensus was that Romo would've made them a strong contender - their odds would've jumped significantly. The Texans have improved all across their roster with the obvious exception at QB. But the Rockets, who you think have a better track record than the Texans, wandered in the forest of mediocrity for YEARS looking for the NBA-equivalent of a QB (the superstar) until they landed Harden. And even then, they made a bad decision that killed three of Harden's prime years by bringing in Dwight Howard. No; people have been openly speculating about it and making **** up to fit their narrative. Again, no one should throw the Texans a parade - but any suggestion they're lagging behind the other two franchises is bias. They're all roughly on the same level with roughly the same upside.
But they didn't get Romo. And the Rockets didn't get Durant and the Astros didn't get Sale. Ultimately they are judged on what they did. The Rockets wandered for years? We got Harden about 2 years after Yao retired. We made the WCF with Dwight 2 years ago. It's been 4 years (and counting) since the Texans have had good QB play. The Texans FO is a mess, no comparison to what the Astros and Rockets have built in their front offices. I don't see how that's debatable.
Killed three years of Harden's prime? The Rockets made it to WCF..... further than the Texans have EVER gotten. People haven't been speculating, it is as clear as day. The Texans front office is mediocre AT BEST. No 9-7 meaningless division championships are going to change that.
Yeah.... excusing mediocrity every year by saying "hey we won the division!" is eventually meaningless and an excuse used by the Texans to defend being mediocre. The Texans are 29-35 the last 4 seasons while playing in a terrible division. They have still not addressed their QB situation.
