Agree with Bobbythegreat: 2-14, unfortunately, was like tenderized troll meat; the perfect storm for far too many Debbie Downers and pessimists. If you look at the way the team collapsed in 2013, as opposed to the way it won in 2012, the greater disparity between potential and reality was clearly last year. They forced 14 TOs in 16 games, including nine games without a forced turnover. The offense was responsible for allowing 44 points directly - six interceptions/fumbles were returned for TDs last year. When you add special teams, those two units directly gave up 51 points; the defense gave up 377 (which would have placed them 16th, btw, as opposed to 25th – and we’re not discounting however many short fields they had to defend because of TOs or missed FGs - like the opening interception in SD, which resulted, IIRC, in a 1-play, 14-yard TD drive; or the SF game, which, in addition to another pick-6, consisted of three SF scoring drives of less than 40 yards). I could list other egregiously unique implosions but, frankly, it makes my stomach turn. The 2012 team wasn’t fluky, generally, and certainly wasn’t near as fluky as the 2013 team. Plus, if you look at the roster, the Texans have a very good core – a top 10 RB; a top 10 WR; a top 10 LT (if not top 5); the best defensive player in football; a top 10 MLB (when healthy, unfortunately); and two at least average CBs. You look at the other teams in the league with poor records and none of them can boast a core that good; I honestly don’t think BO’B needs to really try and the team can probably win 6-8 games this year.
The problem with your theory is that the collapse actually began in the back half of 2012. You're really underestimating how teams change from year to year in the NFL. Every year we look at the schedule before the season starts and assume rather it's easy or hard but it hardly ever works out that way. 6-8 wins without having to try huh...??? I appreciate your confidence and fandom.
we mailed it in because we lost our qb and I think kubiak didn't want to reveal his weaknesses before the playoffs started.
Things started falling apart in Dec of 2012-13 season. After starting 11-1 the Texans have been won only 3 games since. And there were probably warning signs leading into that December collapse: I remember getting real lucky against Detroit a few weeks before that Patriot game when Forsett got that 81 yard TD that shouldn't have been allowed. They also needed overtime against the 1-9 at the time Jaguars. Two weeks later they got blown out by the Patriots and it's been a dive ever since. I guess I would still say it's 'flukey' to go 2-14 with this team but things were much more fragile than the record would have you believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle I suppose, but if 2-14 is more of a fluke....it's not by much.
Flip both of the Jacksonville and Detroit games, and you're 10-6 and still a playoff team. 2012 was more fragile than the record, that's for sure, but there's a big gap in the level of "fluke" between the two seasons. Everything last year pointed to the Texans being a fairly mediocre team, even with all the injuries, but the ultimate "perfect storm" sent it spiraling out of control. In 2012, even if you want to flip the two games everyone keeps mentioning (and if you do that, I'll also point out that the Indianapolis season-ending loss probably should've been a win), it was still a solid playoff team. There's a sizable difference.
OK - extend it back four games and the story remains relatively the same – unexpectedly poor QB play combined with negligible defensive playmaking doomed the team. The sample size is large enough to certainly suggest that the team was regressing – but not by 10 games. (And....... keep in mind, the Texans were an uncharacteristically - at the time - poor Matt Schaub decision away from being 3-1 with wins over San Diego and Seattle, two playoff teams. How different is the season if Schaub takes the sack against the Seahawks? If they win that game, I think any and all the 2012-related concerns are buried and the Texans challenge for the playoffs. As it actually played out, I think it fed the doubt that crept up in ’12 and accelerated the entire implosion – they lost faith in Schaub, tuned out Kubiak, sustained key injuries... BOOM) It’s almost impossible - barring significant injuries or a massive personnel house-cleaning - to regress as significantly as they did in just one season. It can happen – but the sudden drop-off, assuming the team has had sustained success previously, tends to universally be a one-year anomaly. The Colts 2010-12 jump quickly to mind. No… I’m actually counting on it. You can’t (correctly, IMO) argue that the NFL is a parity-rich pool of unpredictability – and then conveniently apply that to every team BUT the Texans. Other than the Falcons, there’s no other team in football better positioned to be one of those year-to-year swing teams than the Texans. They have a very good nucleus (if healthy and in camp, of course); a seemingly bright, progressive new coaching staff; and have added some legitimately talented new personnel. They’ve vanquished a lot of baggage and will hopefully be a luckier team overall, in terms of turnovers, injuries, bounces, etc.
Actually I extend it back to when Mr Discount Double Check rolled into town. Green Bay showed me what was up in week 6 of the 2012 season. That was a complete beat down and the Packers didn't even break a sweat. And in practically every game they won after that _ an argument can be made (as some have already done) it was more about luck than the Texans being good (and I believe they got lucky catching Manning early in the season as well). This team was not as good as their record in 2012. Losing 14 straight games is a fluke but even if they would have won 4-5 of those games they would still have a losing record and because of several of their arguably fluke and or lucky wins in 2012 _ being a losing team in 2013 isn't a fluke. Especially when Schaub started falling apart in 2012. The quarterback position hasn't been fixed and the offensive line and defensive line are question marks and we have a head coach who has never done anything in the NFL without Belichick and Brady holding his hand. But I hope you're right, I just don't think you are. And I think Atlanta is going to have a losing record again next year. They're in trouble in that division. Big trouble.
(Sorry for the late respone - been traveling extensively.) Every game? Seven days later, they beat the eventual Super Bowl champions by 30 points. Nothing lucky about it; it was a thorough annihilation. And everyone forgets that six days after the NE debacle, they returned home and thoroughly ripped apart the playoff-bound Colts*, 29-17, while rolling up nearly 500 yards of offense – again, nothing lucky about it. Nor was there anything particularly lucky in their playoff win against Cincinnati – well, the Bengals were lucky the Texans didn’t embarrass them; Houston doubled their yardage and held the Bengals' offense to two FGs. Altogether, the average score in their 12 victories was 30-16, with seven being by at least 12 points. The 2012 Texans were a very good football team. Four wins against four playoff teams by an average score of 31-17. (And it’s that close only because the Broncos scored two garbage 4Q TDs to make that score (31-25) seem much closer than it actually was - the Texans led 31-11 with less than 10 minutes left in that game.) Sure, they ultimately underachieved and thus, it could be argued that they were possibly overrated – but any notion that the 12-win season was flukier than the virtual same team going 2-14 a mere 12 months later just isn’t supported by what actually transpired on the field of play. * - And the Colts were just two games behind Houston with two games left against the Texans before that game. It’s another one of those games everyone just glosses over because of how the season ended – but as bad as the NE loss was, that was a HUGE, clutch win for that team at the time: clinched the division. IIRC. They had two legitimately fluke-y/lucky wins in 2012 – Jacksonville and Detroit. And neither was particularly concerning. Every good team will have a hiccup (remember the Patriots losing their home opener that same year to the eventual 5-11 Cardinals?) and playing on a Thursday morning, on a holiday, on the road, against a salty Detroit team isn’t necessarily a picnic. They caught some lucky breaks, sure – but even great teams need the ball to bounce their way every now and again. I think most of us are firmly in agreement that the regression wasn’t necessarily surprising; just the severity of it. It’s just not that easy to regress by 10 wins in the NFL - unless you’re dealing with a significant injury (Indianapolis, 2011) or total regime/personnel turnover. The Texans have enough talent alone to win 7-9 games. EVERYbody, in every line of work, grows stale - NFL players are no different. And it’s obviously exacerbated by losing (though even winners will experience it – see how often Belicheck turns players over in NE). So I honestly believe that a fresh approach alone will do wonders for the Texans. We saw it happen in 2011 with Wade Phillips; I think we’ll see it this year with Bill O’Brien. I think they all genuinely liked Kubiak; but the players are not entirely different from fans - they grew tired of his act, too. They had heard it for 8 years – it was time for a new message. If this team isn’t as bad as its record indicated – if they’re really and truly talented enough to win at least 6-7 games and just underachieved… I just don’t think pushing them to 8-9 is that tough a task.
I think it can be argued that beating Baltimore was a fluke. Wasn't that around the time Ray Lewis 1st went down. Plus they stumped New England in the playoffs as well. But you make a very good debate. This upcoming season will tell a lot.
I think you could argue the margin of victory was fluke-y; but if you're beating a team 43-13... I mean... And yes - Lewis left the week before, IIRC. Are you going to excuse the GB pasting as a fluke because the Texans lost Cushing the week before it...? I think people are retcon'ing the heck out of the 2012 season because of how it ended and the subsequent disaster last season. That 2012 team was really, really good. I have no idea what happened to Schaub but, man - those two years ('11 and '12) go down with the Astros in '98 and '04 as exceptionally good teams that ultimately came up short.
You left out the part were I said "they also beat New England in the playoffs." I wasn't just speaking of Ray... Losing Cushing can be used as an excuse... But Rodgers is a Bahd Man and they had already won a super bowl. So hard to say if Cush would have been there the results would have been different but it's possible. I believe 2011 was the Texans year. Foster was at his best and they had a complete offensive line. That could have something to do with the fall off.
