So, remote history then. Another way to look at it... the Texans are undefeated vs. the Colts over the last year with T.J. Yates, Brandon Weeden, and Brock Osweiler being their QB's for those games.
because another bye week would look good. The Patriots were the only Super Bowl looking team but still third string QB and well no Gronk. Minny's defense was the only stellar thing about them and they just ran over the Texans without the best RB in the game and newly acquired Bradford. Nothing about that says Super Bowl team to me. Broncos had lost two games in a row and looked vulnerable. Maybe they are a favorite to the AFC championship but they are not good. I say that because the NFL is weak, extremely weak, with only one team that looks like the odds on favorite to make it to the Super Bowl. Also the Texans have been unimpressive in their wins barely beating the bears, colts, titans and lions
And the narrative tells you to ignore the Chiefs game because? And the rest of the narrative tells you that the Texans losses happened against crappy "at the time" teams (that are still poised to make the playoffs based on everything else) that the Texans were supposed to win... and that all the teams left on the Texans schedule are playing amazingly and should be favored. Its really comical to see all the narrowed/heightened context some of you will go into to try and discredit/slight the Texans... vs. the rest of the league's problems. Newsflash... there is a clear AFC leader and clear NFC leader as of now. There's also one clear AFC cellar-dweller (That just happened to only barely get beat by the Titans). The rest of the teams can beat each other at any point... Texans included. The fact that they've beaten all the teams they've supposed to beat is a positive, regardless of how you want to hypercritically dissect it. I've always maintained that they have to play better... and have a lot of room to play a helluva lot better... and yet still be in position to win the games they're supposed to win.
The Texans' position is not weak, especially if they win this weekend in Jacksonville. With H2H wins against the Colts and Titans, that'll give them a 3-win lead in the win column (if the Titans lose to Green Bay) with seven games left. If the Texans can just get to 9 wins - so 4-4 these final 8 weeks, the Colts & Titans would both have to finish 5-2, including must-wins vs. the Texans. The Colts still have games against the Steelers, @ Minnesota and @ Oakland; the Titans Green Bay, Denver and @ Kansas City. And they still have to play each other. Further, both teams are 1-2 in the division; the Texans 2-0. If Houston beats Jacksonville this weekend (to go 3-0), the Colts and Titans would find themselves in an impossible situation of having to sweep their remaining division games - impossible because, again, they play each other so one would be eliminated. It's by no means in the bag - but the Texans position, right now, is very strong.
Why did you leave off Kansas City, who is now 6-2? And the Lions are 5-3 outside of their game with the Texans; they just handed Minnesota a loss - on the road - after we thoroughly made them look bad. The Texans have work to do, no question - but this BCS'ing of their season... I mean, there's *some* value to it - they obviously are not an elite team - but 5-3 is 5-3 and puts them in the driver's seat for winning their division. Why is that a bad thing?
I don't get people. Dude said "barely beating the Colts". lol I'm sure Packers fans are wishing they were able to barely beat the Colts yesterday. The past couple of seasons, the Texans have done much better in the 2nd half and after the bye. 3-5 last year and 4-5 the year before. I'm expecting them to do better this year as well.
I was using it to counter your argument in which you used it. That's why I started a new paragraph and said "besides I don't buy into it." Agreed. Except for the Indy part. I'm not so quick to chalk up a win at a place where we're 1-13 as a franchise. That says as much about the colts as it does about the packers. And so far every team is beatable at home. Unless they play the Texans. You really think the Texans will have more fans there than the Oakland Raiders??? In the end, we're arguing about opinions. I'm just going by what I've seen so far this year. And that's a team that can't even compete on the road. I would be cool with our 5-3 record if any 2 of those 3 losses hadn't basically been over before halftime. But we turned it around (in the regular season) last year, so I suppose anything is possible.
So you don't buy into "at the time" arguments (which I agree with), but you do still look at the 1-13 as being relevant to "this" team, "this" year, without any other context considered? And that's before even looking at how they've played at Indy in the post Peyton Manning era, and the context involved with that. Did you watch the game? I saw the same Colts team that couldn't stop Brock in the 4th and also looked hapless at home against the Chiefs and got outplayed by the Jags. I also saw a very bad Packers team that also has the ability to be much better. In Mexico City? Based on recent trends? Based on proximity? Based on history? There are a lot of variables at play, none of which really skew any team to an overwhelming majority to make it anything more (or less) than a neutral site. So, if they dominate Jacksonville on the road this weekend, will that opinion definitely change? Or will it then be altered to look at how bad Jacksonville really is, and thus they still haven't really done anything of note on the road? (regardless of how good the other teams were?) I agree that a lot can still happen with half the season left. And over the last 2 years, BOB has made enough adjustments to have his teams playing much better after the bye weeks than prior (then again, this is the first time his teams had a winning record at the bye... so there was certainly more room for improvement prior, but there's also room for improvement now).
Left out the Chiefs because it was a unimpressive win against a good team. A much needed win aginast a team that laughed them out the playoffs and at that time I believed it to be a statement game. Never said the Broncos or Patriots are crappy teams so let's not put words in my mouth. Minny On the other hand it was just a matter of time for them to fall off. And it wasn't just losing they got destroyed. It's nice to win games that you should but how about a upset every once in while also IMO they should have beaten the Viking. So you discredit the packers wins but when I discredit the Texans win you get all defensive. Sure there is no ranking in the NFL to get into the playoffs but how they play gives you insight to just how good or bad the team is and the Texans are average. Never said the Texans are not in the divers set to win their division since I've clearly said they have a vice grip on the division race. Winning the division is not the goal. Making the playoffs is not the goal.
Raiders "barely" beat the Bucs last week. All the penalties and required overtime to beat a below .500 Tampa Bay team. They barely won. They didn't look impressive. Did they look impressive last night? The Texans are not built to blow teams out. Maybe against the Jaguars but I'll predict that will still be a two score win at best. Let's also remember they are playing without their starting DT, starting RT, and starting CB (in nickel packages).
I mean, they're 1-3 at home. Does it make me a negative nelly if I say our road problems still concern me even if we compete against the 2-6 jags? Is that the trap you're setting for me?
If you mention the Jags record at home then you should probably mention that the Vikings, Patriots, and Broncos are 3-1, 3-1, and 4-1 respectively. That's the way it works
We are 1-0 against Derek Carr. Chalk that up to a win, I look at the past rather than how they are playing this year.
We had also never beaten Andy Reid until this year, but hey we have no chance against the Colts since we are 1-13 against them in Indy.
Am I allowed to mention Brady, Garappalo and Gronk being out for the NE game? Or does that break the "at the time" rule? This is all so very confusing.
Sure. If you mention that that was JJ Watt's last game and he wasn't close to being healthy. And the Texans went into it without their starting Left Tackle and Center. We could go all day. Maybe we should just count the wins as wins and the losses as losses.
