DB wise, they are pretty good. They lack linebackers who can cover, and Brice McCain has been trash in coverage all year long since his foot injury. Kareem has been on the bad end of some PI calls, a long with stupid mental mistakes made by the defense at the worst of times. Statistically they have been at the top of the league defensively, so that is where I will rate them.
It is if you're starting an undrafted FA QB who hadn't taken a single snap prior to the KC game. If that happens, I think you've found your QB for the future. Again, I'm not saying we've found him yet, but we'd have 10 starts to judge him by, not just 1 like we do currently. We can't go 7-2 without good QB play. As far as Kubiak is concerned, anything less than an AFC championship game appearance and he should be sacked. The idea is supposed to be you get better every year.
I think the stats don't tell the story at all. This is a team that couldn't get off the field over and over again vs. Alex Smith. They have a very difficult time generating a legit pass rush. Kareem is an idiot. Ed Reed's walker doesn't allow him to move very quickly. Their linebackers aside from Cush are forgettable, at best. They're 25th in the league in terms of points allowed per game. This is not a good defense, and the stats centered around yards are misleading.
If the Texans go 9-7, regardless of the playoffs, and Keenum posts an above 80 QB rating, you have to keep Kubiak. I'm not saying you should pat him on the back, but salvaging this season and having hand-picked and groomed the QB of the future should be worth what amounts to a 2nd get out of jail free card (the 1st one was retaining him after 2010).
KC was a bad matchup against the Texans. Wade's D is vulnerable against short routes against LB's. Wade needs to tone down the aggressiveness and run more zone.
I think the proper answer is "better QB play, generally." I got into it with... Nick, IIRC, about the defense this year - I don't think it's great by any stretch - but I absolutely think it's been handicapped by the offense. Opponents have scored a staggering 75 points this year driving a grand total of 46 yards (all the pick-6s and FR4TDs + 6 drives totaling 46 yards following turnovers on our side of the field). I would never argue this absolutely - but that's an additional 10 points/game. It's... I mean, staggering. I don't think it's any coincidence that our two best defensive performances came in games in which we were mostly clean (Tate's fumble opened the flood gates against Seattle, and then this past weekend against KC) and were able to turn the opponent over (which is much easier to do in games that are close or you're leading). If Schaub had been the Schaub of old... it's worth at least two games, IMO.
I would really like an explanation of how this defense can be this bad while giving up so few yards. Is it because they're constantly in bad field position because of a crappy offense, turnovers, and special teams? Is it because they're so heavily penalized? Is it because the Texans style of play is so slow paced that games have less total yards?
How demoralizing is it for a defense who wants to put the game in cruise control to be losing after not taking the field. Bad qb play leads to low morale.
Take the 49er game - you're coming off an emotional loss to Seattle and before the defense ever steps foot on the field, they're down 7-0 and the team just missed a FG, putting San Fran at their own 35. Every single Texan fan, by then (if not sooner) had more or less conceded the game at that point - the flood gates were open. Hard to imagine the players not feeling the same. I think this offense has been as detrimental to this defense as the defense was to the offense in 2010.
And its why I still think the Texans have a realistic shot of making the playoffs. They now have a QB who sparks energy in to the team. Keenum loves the game, and I think it brings the morale of the team up. Seeing him sprint up the sideline after that perfectly thrown ball to Hopkins had me smiling from ear to ear. The kid wasn't throwing up prayers, the game was not a fluke. Sure teams are going to blitz him on third down like there is no tomorrow, but guys like Keenum seem like the type to make a weakness a strength. And for the people saying he has no arm strength. Where are they now?
Of course, that's a HUGE if. But yeah, I totally agree. And I'm NOT a Kubiak fan. Keenum may just be the enema this team needs. Not saying he IS (before anyone jumps on me for overreacting based on the KC game....), just that if he does guide the team to a 7-2 finish, I don't think you can argue otherwise.
Sure; technically. Sunday was a giant blow to their chances, though. If we had beaten the Chiefs and the Colts had lost to the Broncos... game on. But at 5-2, with seven games remaining against teams with losing records... the Colts are going to have to really implode to do worse than 5-4 - which means the Texans have to go 8-1, or better, to have a chance - and it almost has to include a sweep of Indy... I won't give up hope until the team officially snuffs it out - but... that's a pretty impossibly daunting task right now.
I would move the target for Keenum well above 90. Anything less is fairly pedestrian by today's NFL standards and the absolute *last* thing this team needs to do is saddle us with another year of Kubiak coaching a pedestrian QB. Having said that... I've got at least one foot firmly in the "playoffs or bust" camp for Kubiak and Smith. As I've said, IMO, this would be the third time he failed to make the playoffs in five years with a roster good enough to make the playoffs. A revival under Keenum underscores Kubiak's mistake with Schaub, and a 9-7 finish (which would at least have them likely in the hunt for a playoff spot) would highlight how awful they were when everyone was healthy and they went 2-4.
You realize Keenum is basically a rookie, right? Granted he had last year to practice squad, but the fact he wasn't even on the active roster til last week should not be lost on us. Here's the 1st year starting QB rating for some of the guys that started 10+ games their 1st season (post-2005 rule changes). Andrew Luck: 76.5 Andy Dalton: 80.4 Ryan Tannehill: 76.1 Matt Stafford: 61.0 Matt Ryan: 87.7 Joe Flacco: 80.3 Cam Newton: 84.5 Guys like RG3, Kaepernick, and Wilson had high 90s last year, but have come back down into the mid 80s since the read-option has been accounted for. I think 80 is a solid number to grow on. Mind you, that would be done in a season where he is thrust into a position with one of the worst teams we've had in years, with less than ideal preparation, in an offense that may not exactly be designed around his strengths, among many other factors. 90 is asking him to be the best (non-read-option) rookie QB of the modern era. That's wee bit much, don't you think?
You UH guys are unbelievable. Scale back your expectations. He's played one game... that does not anoint him the QB of the future crown. Matt Flynn had twice the first career start that Keenum had. I will be over the moon happy if he turns out to be a stud, but please... give it some time. I hope as you guys watch him for the rest of the season you don't put him on the pedestal he seems to be on now and blame issues on everyone but him.
I am not a U of H guy, but I saw something that resembled a QB on Sunday. It got me excited, for the reason our team responded well to him.
