Show me when I've thrown an "f-bomb" on my own team or have called them any names like you have. Show me. You still don't see it. You're here calling them names instead of supporting them. THIS: doesn't count. Wow. You should be a cheerleader with that much excitement.
The Texans aren't good enough to where they "should" be beating bad teams convincingly... I'm sorry, they just aren't. However, this is a far cry from just over a year ago when they weren't expected to beat anybody, anywhere. For the first time in their history, they've had sustained progress. I know people will scoff at it because its year 7, and they should have won 3 super bowls by now, but when u have a team that has made as many mistakes as a franchise (an expansion franchise, nonetheless) as this one... I'll take whatever progress I can get. (note, I'm not saying everybody must pledge their undying loyalty and support to the Texans again... just happy to see any sort of progress).
I think a little less of this team than swoly-cheerleader and a little more of this team than msn. Remember... 8-8 may very well get a wildcard berth this year. Hell, maybe even a home game. I know it's still early, but so far the AFC is down this year. Look at the Pats, Chargers, Colts, Browns and Jags all struggling to get out of the gate. These are teams that were supposed to keep us out of the playoffs this year and only 1 is above .500 right now. Would anyone have predicted that a few months ago?
but nobody is arguing they're good; we're not even arguing they're better than their record, or the best 2-4 team in football. our position is rather simple: this is not, on paper, a very good football team; specifically on defense. offensively, they have a few too many untested parts to expect consistent winning football. if you've watched every game this year - and if you don't listen to the monster of the midday or read richard justice, et al - you'd see genuine progress and giant strides being made on both sides. if you'd rather continue to focus on the negative (or maybe, at this point, it's simply a pavolvian response), OK - but i think you're missing out on being a part of something headed in the right direction. there will be stumbles and bumps. taking a step back a year after taking a step forward is not uncommon. they've had a brutal schedule and a hurricane. they've blown two games where literally two plays - one in each - would have changed the outcome. so record-wise, 2008 may wind up disappointing you. but if this all continues to progress they way it has so far, 2009 will be the first year in this team's history that i'll actually have expectations. i didn't fall for it in 2004; i didn't fall for it last year. but this is a better team than last year. add three more impact players on defense (might not be possible in one offseason), hope brown, slaton, jones and chaub continue to develop and pray for health and i think they'll in the playoff hunt/10-win range next year.
i can count to nine, now i can count to ten, it took me a year, i've made progress. progress is nice, but its not unfair for some to want a good team by now.
it's understandable. but increasingly, it feels like we're dealing with a "damned if they do..." fanbase that's never satisfied. everyone was up in arms with how terrible they looked in pittsburgh and tennessee. "i at least expect them to be competitive... etc." when they look not better but like a completely different team in jacksonvile, it's "but they still lost..." and i know the colt game was a massive swallow but it was more of the same - the first 56 minutes weren't the least bit encouraging, especially given we were starting our back-up QB on short notice? nope. apparently an L is an L, even among those who complained the steeler and titan Ls were not merely Ls; they were reason for firing every single texan, and i don't just mean employees of the team - i'm talking every living person statewide. now they've weathered a brutal stretch, have gotten better and better, and even started winning. and the response? "they're not winning by enough." i've never dismissed anyone's frustrations. but i cleaned my slate in 2006. the casserly/capers era no longer registers with me. in fact, who's casserly and capers? in my world, it's year 3. a rebuilding project of this magnitude usually takes 4-5 years. the oilers couldn't do it any quicker, and that was before the salary cap (though, admittedly, prior to free agency, too). they have 8 players left from the 2005 team - that's an 85% turnover in just 3 years. and one of those 8 (bruener) contributes 0 to the team. to expect 45 new guys to come together, like, automatically and become good is asking a lot. they're very young: 12 of their starters have 3 or fewer years experience. this takes time.
1. i'd like to pretend it's year 3, too, but i paid for tickets for the first 4 seasons, so it's a bit more difficult for me; 2. how long do you give them, ric, before your expectations rise? when do you get to being disappointed in the results?
But the thing is, I think we may have a good team and we just don't know it yet. We've played well enough to win the last 4 games. The fact that we lost two of them is, in some ways, more frustrating to me than if we'd been blown out, but I do see progress. The t*** and steelers, who kicked our asses in the first 2 games, have a combined 11-1 record. But the other side of the coin is, that Indy game...MAN, that one still feels like a kick to the groin. I don't blame a lot of fans for having what little faith they had crushed by that one. I don't blame them one bit. It's going to take a few quality wins to erase that one.
That's the problem when some people have expectations based simply on how long the franchise has been around. Look at some established teams that haven't won anything of significance in DECADES, let alone being built from an expansion franchise that made critical mistakes in player choices that they couldn't afford to make. I can't speak for Ric, but for me... my expectations are based on the product I see on the field. The team that finished 8-8 last year was still largely a product of a weaker schedule down the stretch, with their backup QB making some pretty bad mistakes. It was still progress... but they were still pretty inconsistent from game to game. Thus, I wasn't jumping up and down and screaming playoffs this year... not with how things don't tend to go as an easy planned progression very often in the NFL (see the Cowboys this year). The team that started off in Pittsburgh was god-awful... against a pretty damn good team. They've shown improvement since... with 3 out of the 5 games being against possible playoff teams. For the first time, as someone watching this team, they can actually dictate a tempo on offense from game to game (not the occasional good game, mired by 2 WTF ones). The o-line actually dominated an opponent for the first time in history last week (even if it was just the Lions... a team that was just as bad when we were hammered by them 3 years ago). Nobody should fault anybody for buying tickets in years 1-3.... the novelty of the franchise was there, and there was a chance they could be another fast-track developing team like Carolina/Jacksonville. They weren't (as wasn't Cleveland), and needed a reset (as did Cleveland). Likewise, I don't blame anybody for holding off on spending money until they see some real improvement... no sense in being a diehard fan of a team that hasn't been around that long, and hasn't shown anything of significance. I am, however, finding their games entertaining. They won't sting when they lose (like the Oilers did), but I am in quite a good mood when they win... which means they are interweaving their way into my sports DNA.... slowly but surely.
The only point i'm making is that its all subjective. there are things I look at that i see as progress also. mainly the texans have an offense that can move the ball from week to week. that being said, they could move the ball last season so its really not that much progress, but it does make for a more enjoybable experience knowing your offense is competent (not including turnovers) but the ultimate progress is wins. they may have set their bar too high last with the strong finish, but there is no reason you can not be a better team this year, bottom line. your defense has taken a step back, for whatever reason. schaub has been inconsistent. I can understand schaub, my expectations of him aren't that high to begin with, but i don't understand what's going on with this defense. and that's a little fustrating.
ok, so someone please let me know when it's acceptable to be disappointed! if i magically forget they've been here 7 years...and ignore the examples of teams that have rebuilt and managed a winning record in far less time...then i can be happy about the Texans!!! man, they should start an advertising campaign with that tagline!
I'm so conflicted on that. We are making progress. This is the first time in a long time where I feel like the Texans can win any game they play, but I definitely feel like they haven't done enough in the last 6 years to really give us the product we deserve/want/expect. On one hand, the organization has had plenty of time to give us a winner. It doesn't take that long to build a solid base, but the Texans have drafted horribly. As much as I hear about needing a QB or wanting another 1st round CB, I also hear people talking about how well we have drafted. Really? I think our drafts have sucked. True we've made some good decisions, and we've gotten lucky sometimes, but if you look at our draft classes as a whole you start to see a different picture: 1. Stars - They've only drafted three pro bowlers - Andre Johnson, Jerome Mathis, and DeMeco Ryans. Granted, Mario Williams is probably going to be a pro bowler (prob. should have been last year), and Dunta has played at near that level, but if you want to add them to those ranks, I think I'm justified in saying that Jerome Mathis is not a successful pick. 2. David Carr, Dave Ragone, Drew Henson, BJ Symons, Alex Brink - Drafting quarterbacks to me is somewhat of a necessary evil. I haven't done any real research or analysis, but it seems to me that QB is the hardest position to project correctly. If that's truly the case, you'd almost never want to draft a QB, instead relying on veteran free agents. It's been proven time and time again that you don't need a superstar at QB, you just need a capable QB who doesn't turn the ball over. Believe it or not, there are guys that in free agency who can do that for you. Of course, star quarterbacks are great to have, and you don't really find them through free agency. When teams find stars, whether they were #1 picks, or 6th round stunners, they are inevitably tied to the franchise. If you want a star QB, you have to draft him and cultivate him yourself. It's always been my opinion that the route to go is to find a QB through free agency, whether it be a veteran pushed out of a job by a first rounder, or a backup who has been sitting behind a star. Once you find one that can handle not turning the ball over, and has an arm strong enough to throw the ball 25+ yards, then you can think about drafting a young QB, and grooming him properly. I think the evidence is pretty clear that if you have a few years to prepare your young QB behind a veteran that he will have a much higher chance of success (Steve McNair vs Vince Young?). I've always been of the opinion that drafting David Carr with our first pick was a mistake, not because David Carr was terrible - which he was, but because with an expansion team you are going to have such a young, inexperienced team that any veteran leadership you can have will really help. I'm not sure there are many, if any at all rookie QBs who could lead a team full of rookies and has-beens, while also learning and developing at the pace necessary to keep fans happy. Stick the same promising rookie behind Chris Chandler/Kerry Collins/Drew Bledsoe/etc. and you might be looking a totally different result. Also, it's fun to imagine how different it would be if we had Julius Peppers instead of the original #8. 3. Antwan Peek, Jason Babin, Travis Johnson - As we all know now, the 3-4 was a failure. Was it a failure because we drafted these guys? Was it a failure because these are the guys you have to draft to play the 3-4? I don't know, but it seems to me that a traditional 4-3 defense is much easier to build from scratch. College teams don't play the 3-4, so every lineman and linebacker you pick is purely based on speculation, and in a game where the odds are already stacked against you, minimizing your chances to make mistakes is paramount. The Texans took a big risk on what amounts to a gimmick, and failed. 4. Jonathan Wells, Domanick Davis, Jammal Lord, Vernand Morency, Wali Lundy - A team's inability to find a #1 RB virtually eliminates them from being competitive. It really did seem like they struck gold with Davis, but between injuries and the fact that he's crazy, he didn't pan out. That's probably a little bad luck on the Texans side, but either way, we've been stuck without a running game until this year. On the other hand, although the organization as a whole has failed, the 2008 team is so much better. We really are just two plays away from 4-2, and those of us that have been in Houston for a while might remember a certain 1-4 team from 1993. That team had it's starting RB go down, and a young RB step up in his place to run for 1000+ yards. Many of us still try and block that season out because of the way it ended, but sometimes Montana happens right? I'm not saying that I think the Texans are going to run the table and win 12 straight, but we all know it's possible. It's not going to take a double digit win streak to make this a fun team to watch for the rest of the year, and I'm just glad that we finally have a team that we can expect more out of. I knew it was a good sign after the Colts game when I was so upset about the loss. The last times Houston had an NFL team lose, and it disappointed us like that was back in January of 1992 and 1993. It was because we all knew that we had the better team and shouldn't have lost those games. So far in the Texans history, when we lost close games it really felt more like we almost stole a game. I think that's finally changed.
eric281 -- come on, eric!! you're being unfair!! sure, we've screwed up drafts...but we've made up for it in free agency by picking up kevin walter....and.....well, kevin walter!
oh please. 4 years? really? no offense but boo frickin' hoo. i mean... i know tickets are expensive but you knew what you were paying for - they were an expansion team, for heaven's sake. and even if there was still a justification for lingering bitterness: nearly every single person - almost literally - who had ANYthing to do with those first 4 years is gone. isn't it maybe time to move on?..... what nick said. plus, depends. they have a lot of young/inexperienced players still trying to figure things out. i have no idea how slaton and brown will develop; i still have some issues with schaub, including his ability to stay healthy; they need at least 3 additional playmakers on defense, not to mention dunta returning to full health... if those things continue to progress positively this year, then i think they should be expected to make the leap next year. their model is tennessee - not in terms of personnel or certianly not style, but look what they did: bottomed out in 2003, had two losing seasons ('04 and '05), went 8-8 in year 3 and were in the playoffs in year 4. this year, they're the best team in football (record-wise). i can live with that. this is year 3. in the short-term, i'll be disappointed if they don't beat cincinnati and if they don't at least give minnesota a game (though, i think they can beat minnesota) and then continue to be competitive the rest of the way. they're building and moving forward - continue that through the rest of the year and i'll be satisfied, regardless of the record. i don't care about W/L unless they sneak into playoff contention.
name them. i've (repeatedly) challeneged you on this: teams may have experienced one-year bumps but none of them - save for tennessee - have won consistently long-term (or were perpetual losers prior to "turning it around"). one-year bumps, almost universally, are anomalies. some, like green bay and new orleans, suffered a fluke losing season; others, like cleveland and the jets, sandwiched a winning season in the middle of lots of continued losing. if you want a one-year anomaly, have at it - the texans are trying to build something better and that takes time. and there are SCORES of examples for that.
1. wasn't asking you to feel sorry for me for buying tickets...and i'm not the least bit bitter about it. had a blast at those games with my oldest son and my wife. simply saying that pretending we're not at year 7 is ridiculous. your argument for this is simply to wish it to be so...but it's not so. 2. i get the sense if this team finished with 6 wins next season...and the next...you'd still be here preaching patience and mocking those who expect more
the first regime took four years to find two pro bowlers. there's a chance the '06 draft alone will yield 4 this year. and even if it doesn't, at some point, williams, winston and daniels will be pro bowlers alongside ryans. they found a big-play offensive weapon, a promising LT, a starting OLB who looks raw but encouraging, a CB that might be able to play, and used two picks to get a QB who looks like he's going to be ok - not worth 2 picks, but they won't have been wasted. kubiak and smith have turned their draft record on its head. it's been light years better. it's like going from adam everett to miguel tejada...
Oh, I never said you throw them at your team. You throw them at your fellow fans who dare say anything remotely negative--even if it's accurate--about the Texans. No, you still don't see it. I haven't called anyone any names. "Suck" is a verb and it speaks to performance. By the numbers, the Texans suck. I'm sorry that very simply fact escapes your reasoning. Secondly, I'm here. I want to see a win every week. I care enough to be royally ticked off for ten days when Rosenfumble gives the game away to a team we had beat. I care enough to wonder if Richard Smith will figure his crap out in time for the team to maybe win games against better opponents. Kudos to you for being able to work yourself into a frenzy over a bad football team. Thumbs down, however, for prancing around here like you're better than everyone else. I never said things like "The Texans are dead to me" or whatever the whiners were saying. I'm here. I'm not going anywhere. And I'm going to be honest about my favorite team's performance. They suck, Swoly. Seriously--you were jumping up and down with this same act during the 2-14 year. They're not a good football team yet. Waaaaaa. Get over it. Nick, your commentary in this thread is well-reasoned and I have to agree with you. In harping on the fact that this team simply isn't very good, I am remiss if I dismiss the progress that has been made. I certainly wish they could be better, but they have made progress, indeed. Go Texans.
frankly, so is choosing not to recognize the near total turnover of the franchise. you're holding... some 90% of the organization responsible for things they had 0.0 to do with. again, depends. what if they lose schaub and/or johnson and/or williams and/or ryans for significant stretches?.... it's never black and white, MM; you focus too much of the bottom line of record. i can sincerely tell you that if they finish 6-10 this year, but continue to play like they have these past 4 weeks, i'll consider '08 a more successful season than '07, if for no other reason than 6-10 means they're going to finish 6-6 after one of the most brutal opening schedules in nfl history. if the progress continues, i can live with that.
You're setting up a straw man...because other than the Pats, I can't think of a franchise that has put up consistent winning seasons without stinkers in between in this era of football. I'm talking about being competitive in any given year...yeah, I'd trade the Browns one year of success and playoff berth for our zero years. The Texans are building for something better?? Please. You can excuse away all the examples as you wish. But there are examples of teams that have dramatically better seasons from season to season in the NFL. We have 7 years and zero examples of that. Unless you close your eyes and wish real hard that the first 4 years really never happened...and sprinkle some pixie dust on it.
