LOL did you watch the video of him losing 40 lbs + training like a super motivated 27 year old who wants a 2nd chance to be a backup NFL QB. what is the few major cons in your opinion (besides possible bad PR)? Ravens did similar "no-risk" contract thing with the LB McClain.
Sorry; your bias is showing. Why are the Texans’ chances of winning the Super Bowl low? Would you have given Baltimore a better than 10% chance of winning the Super Bowl when the playoffs started last year? What about the Giants the year before, who limped in at 9-7 and had to win at Green Bay and at San Fran? Or the Packers, who were more or less counted out after falling to 8-6 in '10 and then had to beat 10-, 11-, 10-, 13-, 11-, and 12-win teams to claim the Lombardi? I'm at a loss why the Texans are being downgraded to "low" when recent history suggests they have as good a chance as any other team as long as they make the postseason. Besides, “risks” don’t inherently make you a better team any more than safe, sound drafting does. JJ Watt was widely considered a safe, non-risky selection in ’11. Perhaps the most risk-adverse team in football - the Pittsburgh Steelers - have won the most, and been to the most, Super Bowls in NFL history. And their boat rocks about as often as one in dry dock. Not to mention, the Texans take risks. Dealing two 2s and handing $48MM to an unproven back-up QB was a GIGANTIC risk; far greater than choosing Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick, who make no money. Handing your defense over to unproven coordinators – twice! – was risky (and stupid). Dragging Wade Phillips off the scrap heap was risky. Turning your offense over to a 14-year old because of nepotism was risky. Drafting Mario Williams over Reggie Bush and Vince Young was risky. Etc., etc. The goal is to make the playoffs. If you do that with consistency, in theory, the ball is going to eventually bounce your way. The degree of entitlement for a team that’s 2-for-11 in playoff appearances is pretty remarkable. Their chances are low? They’re sure as heck-fire better than they were in 2005. We absolutely have to avoid falling into this trap of letting those final six games define the Texans. The team is 24-10 (71%) the past two years, and 8-8 against playoff teams. The Patriots? 28-9 (76%), and 7-7. And New England didn’t play 8 of those games without Tom Brady. It was jarring, and there's reason for concern - but this growing idea that the Texans are suddenly yesterday's news seems wildly premature. We can’t lose sight of the big picture. The Texans are easily one of the two or three best teams in the AFC, and that gives them a very good chance to win the Super Bowl.
He is 27 years old and has never been a good football player or human being They would be better off signing Vince Young
And did you know, other than the three years they won Super Bowls, Tom Brady hasn't won any Super Bowls? I mean, it seems a little silly to arbitrarily decide, oh by the way, we're not going to count the 12-4 season..... Right? Or am I missing something? He’s 34-24 as a starter since 2009 – and you could argue a primary reason the record’s not better (besides missing 6 games in the team’s best collective season) is due in large part to his defense falling off a cliff in 2010. They were 5-6 that year in games where the offense scored at least 23 points. Six losses. In the two years since? 17-3.
Hmmmm wouldn't the fact that you have higher odds of making the playoffs mean you also have higher odds of winning the superbowl?
Yeah, the scenario would look something like, you take the safest approach possible with your own 1st and 2nd round selections, and take the high risk players with all other selections, and treat free agency as a case by case basis. As opposed to going all for one or the other.
It gives them a very good chance to make the playoffs. As this team is currently constructed, they aren't good enough to win a superbowl because of the lack of explosiveness. Statistically speaking the Texans are slightly above average offensively and defensively, and terrible when it comes to special teams. That is not the recipe for a "Super Bowl" winning team. The Texans don't have one single facet of their game that they can without a doubt rely on regardless of the opponent. (IE G.B., N.E., DEN, w/passing; MIN,SF w/running, or SEA w/defense) and until they get one of those qualities, they are going to rely on everyone playing their absolute best game ever in order to win a championship. And no team can do that for 3 straight weeks
You are the king of compiling bull**** stats to show Schaub as something other than what he is. We've heard all the excuses. Schaub needs a running game, got a running game. Schaub needs weapons, he got weapons. Schaub needs an offensive line, he got a line. Schaub needs a defense, not only did he get one he has the DPOY on his team. Now all of a sudden Schaub is 32 years old and we're all wondering where his career went.
Now that we have elite players like Watt, Cushing, Foster, Andre, Brown, Joseph, etc., we surround them with solid role players to get us over the hump tbh.
I think with the addition of Cushing and Reed and a healthy Brooks Reed and J Joseph (he was never at 100% last year), our defense will be back to it's 2011 form. Hopefully Mercilus can step up and become a consistently good pass-rusher like Barwin was in 2011. Everyone is bellyaching about Schaub and the offense, but no one is talking about the defense. If the defense plays like it did in 2011, we won't need Schaub to be great in order to win a Superbowl.
I don't believe I've ever said a single one of those things, in relation to Schaub; certainly didn't in this thread. I've been saying for, geez - months now that his final six games were terrible and a giant disappointment. I don't know where you could find excuses in that. So... yeah, talk about compiling bull****. Care to exlain why you arbitraily decided his 2012 season didn't count? Great games of his never count; here, an entire season apparently doesn't count. The only games/seasons that matter are the ones where Schaub plays poorly and the team loses. And none of you see how wildly convenient that is. He left a bad taste in a lot of our mouthes with the way the season finished; I certainly understand the angst and impatience. But I'm just not ready to pretend the team is suddenly no good.
Ugh people are so okay with mediocrity in Houston and I'm tired of it. Last year it was "AFC CHAMP GAME OR BUST" .. then we don't make it and it's "that's okay they had a good year!! " We never want to admit there is something wrong with this team. "Our offense isn't looking good and defense has a lot of holes" gets a "so what we are 12-4" response as if record is going to help us in the playoffs or in the future. Kubiak should have been gone years ago. Every year it was "This is the year the Texans break out" by media, fans..everyone. and year after year.. missed the playoffs.. Kubiak still kept his job.. Now people are okay with just making the playoffs
2012 team rankings: Offense - Houston: 7th; Baltimore: 16th Defense - Houston: 7th; Baltimore: 17th Not only were the Texans better than "slightly above average" on offense and defense, they significantly outranked the Super Bowl Champions (and dropped a massive d***-kicking on them, to boot). And most of us consider both units to have played below expectations in 2012. Those six teams have combined to win one Super Bowl since 2005. And collectively, only NE and SF advanced farther than the Texans did last year. What??? LOL... What Super Bowl champion *doesn't* do it? *Every* Super Bowl champion has to win at least 3 games against elite playoff teams, including a conference champion. And look at the last three winners: Baltimore beat 11-, 13-, 12 and 11-win teams, 2 on the road (+ neutral SB site). The Giants beat 10-, 15-, 13-, and 13-win teams, 2 on the road (+ neutral SB site). The Packers beat 10-, 13-, 11- and 12-win teams, ALL on the road (including neutral SB site). And among those teams, none of their offenses or defenses ranked higher than the Texans' dual 7th finishes last year, save for Green Bay's 5th ranked defense in '10. Again, I think everyone is reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the final six games. They were absolutely concerning; the team absolutely needs to upgrade some key positions, solidify others and evolve its offense. But… I’m at a loss how a team that was 11-1 and considered the best in the AFC just *four* months ago, with resounding victories against Denver and Baltimore, has suddenly become non-Super Bowl contenders. It’s mind-bottling.
Going 12-4 and winning a playoff game *IS* a good year. But I've never read a single post on any forum anywhere that was satisfied with how 2012 ended. Actually, *scores* of people have been talking about their holes and issues. Where have you been? The team was a combined 55-89 in it's first nine years, with one winning season. So please understand if some of us, while not wholly satisfied, much prefer 22-10 and the playoffs to playing for the right to (not) draft Reggie Bush. Jeez... the sense of entitlement you people have developed in two freaking years - you're acting like a buncha Red Sox fans.
