Maybe my battle red colored glasses are too tight, but I dont see how the games we shoulda won in hindsight are viewed in the same way as the games we should have lost in foresight. Freak plays lost us Indy, like freak plays won us Miami. Negated But who had us pegged to lose in Green Bay? there wasnt an occasion in the game where it was a 2 possession deficit, we left 10 points on the field, but we didnt meltdown and they didnt come back. Also, I agree the defense is more aggressive, but not really because of playcalling or a "nothing to lose" mentality. The secondary is getting more games under its belt, the LB's are getting tackles, and the Dline is still the Mario show. Tackling has improved, maybe Richard Smith has something to do with that.
Well, what I meant is that we had 4 turnovers yesterday. When is the last time we (or any other team) had 4 turnovers on the road and still somehow manged to win the game? EDIT: and JayZ750 - not to pick on you because I agree with most of your post, but every team in the league has the majority of their wins against teams with losing records. That's how those teams get losing records in the first place.
I don't care if it's against my high school team; 6-3 is just better than 0-4. Have the Texans ever had a 6-3 stretch? EVER??
Then you're missing out on all the fun! We haven't had too much to be excited about in franchise history. I'll take a 6-3 run. Watched the game with my son yesterday, and we were jumping up and down in the living room. Beat the crap out of the Jags in Battle Red on MNF. Fun stuff.
Its the same story as last year. We are better than our record says. Last year it was injuries, this time it is not finishing games. There is only one thing holding us from making the playoffs and its the same problem every single year: Beat the Titans. Beat the Colts. Its really that simple. Once we figure that out, we will be a playoff team. But going 0-4 or 1-3 against these guys is not going to cut it.
The majority part may be true, but teams with good records also beat other teams with good records. With the Texans it's not just that a majority of our wins have come against bad teams, it's 5/6...almost universal. 1 out of 6 wins against a team with a winning record Team (wins against teams with winning records currently) Giants (5 of 11) Bucs (4 out of 9) Panthers (3 out of 9) Jets (4 out of 8) Patriots (3 out of 8) Steelers (4 out of 10) Ravens (3 out of 9) Titans (4 out of 12) Colts (4 out of 9) Broncos (3 out of 8) Just picking some teams to name a few. Yes, a majority of the wins come against teams with bad records (hence those teams have bad records), but clearly the difference, in most cases, between playoff contenders and not is a few games here or there that you lose against other good teams. Interestingly, of Miami's 8 wins, only 2 are against teams with winning records (including the Pats early in the season and the Broncos, who have been fairly inconsistent). That might speak to the Dolphins capabilities overall (and make the Texans 1 point win over them even less impressive) - though the also beat the Bills twice, who at 6-7 have that losing record because they lost twice to the Dolphins. The Cardinals also only have 2 wins against teams with winning records (and like the Dolphins, I'm personally not at all convinced of their capabilities come playoff time). It would suck if we weren't. And I noted there were many positives. The fact that our loses are against such good teams is encouraging, of course. With the exception of Jacksonville (losing in overtime, on the road, when the other team needed a great 4th down conversion) and Minnesota (bad loss, but all because of boneheaded red zone plays), the other 5 losses are not just against solid teams, but really solid teams (Pittsburgh, Colts twice, Titans, Ravens), and, for the most part, we weren't blown out or anything I just don't get excited about mediocrity. Perhaps it's knowing the joy of NBA championships followed by 11+ years of mediocrity. "2nd place means you're just the first loser" - not entirely true, but I'm not like you jumping for joy quite yet. But to each their own. So yes, the 6-3 stretch is the best they've ever had...and I still get sucked into the games when they're losing anyways, so I'm way more excited about winning then losing. I just thought the thread title was a little strange (I guess someone had to be holding out playoff hopes, but I wasn't), and the giddyness over a 6-3 stretch that includes wins over not just bad teams, but really really (historically) bad teams, is a little too much. But I hope they finish 6-0, like the rest of you!
I'm with ya...I understand all that and certainly don't blame you for feeling that way. I've just really enjoyed these last 2 games, in particular.
Me, neither (cue Craig T. Nelson as Jack Parr: "We keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity!"). I'm with you on that. It's just better than 0-4 is all. I honestly expect 1-2 the rest of the way, though I hope for otherwise. Imagine if they pull off the uber-unlikely upset this Sunday: the first ever 4-game winning streak, and well-positioned for a 5-gamer. "Baby steps," and all.
No doubt. Plus, if they can win the next two, I think the Bears game could be fun. The opportunity to finish 9-7 instead of 8-8, plus there could be playoff implications for the Bears and a chance to play spoiler, which is always fun.
they've been competitive in 10 of their 12 games this year. only the steelers and ravens looked like they were from a different, better planet. you look back at the '04 team, which had everyone's pants so excited back in the day: they were routinely getting blown out by good teams and squeaking by the bad ones that year the slide in '05 was a shock; but i wasn't shocked to find out they weren't as good as they tried to convince us they were. this team is different. the tennessee game ended up being a blow-out, score-wise, but look at the stats - they were not blown out. they moved the ball up and down the field that day. same with losses to indianapolis, jacksonville and minnesota. ultimately, jacksonville aside, turnovers did them in. but this offense can move the football at will; if the defense can catch up; if they can add a few more pieces... given they'll have, on paper, one of the easier schedules in the NFL next year..... i mean, this is where it starts. these are not paper wins or moral victories... these are the baby steps i've been preaching all year.
So is Richard Smith's job safe? Didn't want to open another thread but seems like the D is holding up in recent games.
Just thinking the same thing. The D has been playing a lot better, but I still want the Texans to evaluate Smith and if there's an upgrade, we should do it. I really don't want to give Smith a free pass just because we're playing better against bad teams and now that the season is pretty much loss. Can't forget about how bad the defense was the first half of the season.
I am an Aggie. If you think I am happy with losing every game and then beating the Longhorns, you need to put the crackpipe down.
They went 7-9 in 2004. 6 of their 7 wins were by double digits. This year, 3 of their 6 are. Of their 9 losses, 4 were by double digits. This year, 3 of their 7 are. The 2004 team suffered 3 blowout losses (out of 9), same as this year (out of 7 losses). I defined blowout losses as more than 2 possessions (14pts). This year's team is being outscored by 1.92 pts/game on average. The 2004 team was outscored by 1.87 pts/game. Taking out their 2 best & worst games to account for outliers, the 2004 team was outscored 1.08 pts/game. This year's team is being outscored by 2pts/game.
They had a veteran defense in 2004... that was just about nearing the end of their good years. However, the offense has improved by leaps and bounds now. In 2004, they still couldn't block with any sort of consistency, and had to change the entire offense to account for that. Now, their biggest problem is red zone turnovers..... in 2004, they still had enough trouble simply getting into the red zone.
Certainly - that team had major problems. But it wasn't getting blown out by the good teams or squeaking by the bad ones. It may have been performing with smoke and mirrors, but it was pretty good at getting wins out of it's talent level.
i judge teams - well, the texans - by how competitive they are with better teams; that's the standard - beat the bengals, 35-3, all you want (and i'll certainly enjoy it): i'm more concerned with how you measure up against the titans or the colts or... in 2004, i wrote after the season that the team had been beaten routinely and quite well by the NFL's elite, and that i didn't think they were ready to take the next step. my memory may have failed some of the finer details but, overall, my contention was/is still correct: in 2004, they were good enough to beat bad teams, nowhere near good enough to contend with good teams. they were 4-3 in 2004 with wins against the chiefs (7-9), raiders (5-11), titans (5-11), jaguars (9-7). their next 6 games: 13-31, broncos (10-6) 14-49, colts (12-4) 13-16, packers (10-6) (another win against the titans) 7-29, jets (10-6) 14-23, colts (12-4) in those 5 losses, all to playoff teams (iirc), they were outscored 148-61 (30-12), and were only competitive in the packer game. if you look at their last 5 games against (probable) playoff teams this year, they lost to the colts by 4, beat miami, lost to the vikings by 7, were wiped out by the ravens, and lost to the colts by 6. 3.5 of those games were with their back-up QB; they should have beaten indianapolis the first time; and only the raven game was a complete blow-out. that's a vast improvement, in terms of being competitive with the league's elite. and no, i'm not discounting the steeler or titan games from the start of the year. they were going to lose that steeler game 100 out of 100 times; that didn't bother me too much - when they're good and in the playoffs every year, they're probably going to lose that game then, as well - very few teams walk into pittsburgh on opening day and play well, let alone win. the titan game ended up being a rout, score-wise, but they were not blown away that day. in fact, they were at the titan 4 with 2 minutes left, down 24-12, when schaub threw a pick that tennessee returned for a TD. they knocked on tennessee's door all game long but kept giving the ball away. and remember, johnson dropped a sure-thing TD and another, harder TD catch that an elite WR should make. they've also, overall, shown a week-to-week improvement. after the tennessee game (which came on the heels of ike), they play markedly better against jacksonville and even better (without schaub) the next week against the colts. and then when they had every reason to quit on their season, blowing a lead to the dolphins after starting 0-4, they picked themselves up off the canvas and have really only played one out-and-out bad game. they're 6-3 since the colt game.
^^ Ric, I applaud your eternal optimism...even when/if you are writing that they aren't as good as some would think (apparently at the end of 2004), on this board, you have generally been always optimistic about the team. Or at least, with an optimistic tone in your posts, even when pointing out flaws - I don't know if that makes sense. But it doesn't matter how you define mediocrity - you can be mediocre all season, great half the season and the craps half the season, crappy a few games, great a few games, crappy a few games, great a few games... at the end of the day, it is mediocrity. don't get me wrong, i still watch, i still hope for the best, but i'm just pointing out the obvious. hindsight is always 20/20. IMO, the Texans have as much (if not more) of a likelihood of being mediocre at best again next year than they do of making the playoffs (and next year it will be different problems). i hope for the best, but just pointing out the obvious...guess i'm not an uber-fan, then, but oh well.
