Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SilentHill

Houston's Schedule

45 posts in this topic

http://www.houstontexans.com/team/season-schedule.html

I decided to take a look at the schedule of the Texans after that blowout last night.

I was actually very surprised by what I found.

The Texans defense is pretty stout, but let's look at the QB's they faced to get those wins.

Week 1. Ryan Tannehill = W 30-10

Week 2. Blaine Gabbert = W 27-7

Week 3 Peyton Manning = W 31-25

Week 4. Locker / Hasselbeck = W 38-14

Week 5. Mark Sanchez = W 23-17

Week 6. Aaron Rodgers = L 42-24

Week 7 Joe Flacco = W 43-13

Week 9 Ryan Fitzpatrick = W 21-9

Week 10 Cutler / Campbell = W 13-6

Week 11 Gabbert / Henne = W 43-37

Week 12 Matthew Stafford = W 34-31

Week 13 Jake Locker = W 24-10

Week 14 Tom Brady = L 42-14

I don't know, maybe it's just me but these statistics seem encouraging. The Texans have been squeaking out wins by about one score since week 10. Texans haven't really done well against really good QB's except Manning, but he was still rusty at week 3. In 3 separate games this year Texans faced the backup QB off the bench due to injury.

Maybe it's just me, but looking at this on paper, I think the Colts have a much better chance to win than I had originally thought. Now i'm not saying we are a lock to win, that is just foolish, but I think we stand a better chance than most are giving us credit for.

Anyone else find this interesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 3 separate games Texans faced the back-up QB due to injury...This doesn't concern you? Oddly enough, two of those games were against divisional opponents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is interesting, it implies their D isnt as stout as we think. I'm more concerned about our D facing their offense. Another test against a big WR. They also have a very good QB, and top 5 RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that if they Hurt Luck...... We got a Problem.

All I know is that if they Hurt Luck...... We got a Problem.

Yeah if they do hurt Luck....

...WE got a problem

TomB.png

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston has struggled against pass-heavy offenses, which is why I'm not even close to writing off the Colts.

I actually think the Colts can pull off the win this week.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston has struggled against pass-heavy offenses, which is why I'm not even close to writing off the Colts.

I actually think the Colts can pull off the win this week.

true especially explosive pass heavy offenses like ne and greenbay if we could jump out to lead and force schaub to beat us i think we win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We absulutely have to have Davis on Johnson 24/7. After CJ, AJ should be a little refresher haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the Texans to respond with a very good effort against the Colts. They are a good team, they have been very good for two seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.houstonte...n-schedule.html

I decided to take a look at the schedule of the Texans after that blowout last night.

I was actually very surprised by what I found.

The Texans defense is pretty stout, but let's look at the QB's they faced to get those wins.

Week 1. Ryan Tannehill = W 30-10

Week 2. Blaine Gabbert = W 27-7

Week 3 Peyton Manning = W 31-25

Week 4. Locker / Hasselbeck = W 38-14

Week 5. Mark Sanchez = W 23-17

Week 6. Aaron Rodgers = L 42-24

Week 7 Joe Flacco = W 43-13

Week 9 Ryan Fitzpatrick = W 21-9

Week 10 Cutler / Campbell = W 13-6

Week 11 Gabbert / Henne = W 43-37

Week 12 Matthew Stafford = W 34-31

Week 13 Jake Locker = W 24-10

Week 14 Tom Brady = L 42-14

I don't know, maybe it's just me but these statistics seem encouraging. The Texans have been squeaking out wins by about one score since week 10. Texans haven't really done well against really good QB's except Manning, but he was still rusty at week 3. In 3 separate games this year Texans faced the backup QB off the bench due to injury.

Maybe it's just me, but looking at this on paper, I think the Colts have a much better chance to win than I had originally thought. Now i'm not saying we are a lock to win, that is just foolish, but I think we stand a better chance than most are giving us credit for.

Anyone else find this interesting?

Don't find it interesting at all.

1) It is virtually the same schedule the Colts have played.

2) What they have done in the past has no bearing on how the game on Sunday will go.

3) What is relevant are match-ups and the majority of those favor Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't find it interesting at all.

1) It is virtually the same schedule the Colts have played.

2) What they have done in the past has no bearing on how the game on Sunday will go.

3) What is relevant are match-ups and the majority of those favor Houston.

agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me in the agree column as well. Explain to me blocking scheme we will implement to slow down JJ Watt. Last week we basically had no answers in the first half for the Titans rush. Sometimes you just have to admit the other team is better. Houston does not want to go back to New England so the home field incentive is huge. New England destroys everyone in there house. What did the Colts do there? Lets just take the two New England contest for comparisons. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't find it interesting at all.

1) It is virtually the same schedule the Colts have played.

2) What they have done in the past has no bearing on how the game on Sunday will go.

3) What is relevant are match-ups and the majority of those favor Houston.

Exactly.

I'm sure if the original poster looked at who the Colts have played and how often they have been managing to, as he put it, 'squeak out wins by one score', then he would take a step back as well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way we have a chance is if we manage to keep it close at the end. In there house/division on the line/ after a blowout.

I got the texans winning this game

They are better than we are at pretty much every position. I just hope we are competitive this game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turnovers will determine if we can stay in this game...

pulling for the Colts, but after the beatdown.. I see Houston winning this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words why I don't like playing Houston in Houston....Ron Dayne !

I still see him running all over our defense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

I'm sure if the original poster looked at who the Colts have played and how often they have been managing to, as he put it, 'squeak out wins by one score', then he would take a step back as well.

That is true. But the Colts aren't supposed to be winning, aren't rated very high, and aren't considered a SB contender. Although I don't really think this analysis shows us much, I think the point you made is just what the OP was trying to say: based on these games and these numbers Houston looks as good, or as beatable, as the Colts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is interesting, it implies their D isnt as stout as we think. I'm more concerned about our D facing their offense. Another test against a big WR. They also have a very good QB, and top 5 RB.

It's not. The Dline is still very good but the LBers and secondary are kinda struggling. The injury bug is catching up to them on D, if we can shut down Foster we have a good chance. While Houston on the other hand is looking at our Oline and lack of RBs as our biggest weakness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see him running all over our defense!

Yes and the problem is that the Texans had never beaten us until that game so like a duckling imprinting on the mother duck their institution memory since that game is that when they beat us they do it by running all over us (as they did in the opener last year). For sure they'll believe they can run right thru us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and the problem is that the Texans had never beaten us until that game so like a duckling imprinting on the mother duck their institution memory since that game is that when they beat us they do it by running all over us (as they did in the opener last year). *For sure they'll believe they can run right thru us.*

This is a horse of a different color though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only interesting part is the nature of the Texans games. They don't blow teams out, and the Colts win close games.

Texans apparently do more pass defense at the line than in the secondary.

I'm not counting on anything other than a difficult 60 minutes, but the Colts aren't buried yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a horse of a different color though.

The Texans don't know that yet (but hopefully after Sunday they will).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

I'm sure if the original poster looked at who the Colts have played and how often they have been managing to, as he put it, 'squeak out wins by one score', then he would take a step back as well.

I don't think the point was that the Texans aren't good, certainly not that they aren't better than the Colts. What I got from it was just that, even though they're good and have been winning, they've been in close games. It's possible that this game could be close, and we do a pretty good job in one score games.

In other words, don't write the Colts off just yet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texans don't know that yet (but hopefully after Sunday they will).

We better though, what I've been hearing is their passing offense greatly depends on Foster being successful on the ground, they can not just rely on Schabb passing the ball. That might sound cliche but many passing offenses don't need to be set up by the run, I guess Houston is extremely dependent on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

I'm sure if the original poster looked at who the Colts have played and how often they have been managing to, as he put it, 'squeak out wins by one score', then he would take a step back as well.

No, actually I was well aware, the point is that we WIN the one score games, losing just one all season on last second TD that we fell apart on.

If we keep it close we have a very good chance to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a horse of a different color though.

Now that I think about it the horse is still blue but it's a different shade of blue on the d-line.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.houstonte...n-schedule.html

I decided to take a look at the schedule of the Texans after that blowout last night.

I was actually very surprised by what I found.

The Texans defense is pretty stout, but let's look at the QB's they faced to get those wins.

Week 1. Ryan Tannehill = W 30-10

Week 2. Blaine Gabbert = W 27-7

Week 3 Peyton Manning = W 31-25

Week 4. Locker / Hasselbeck = W 38-14

Week 5. Mark Sanchez = W 23-17

Week 6. Aaron Rodgers = L 42-24

Week 7 Joe Flacco = W 43-13

Week 9 Ryan Fitzpatrick = W 21-9

Week 10 Cutler / Campbell = W 13-6

Week 11 Gabbert / Henne = W 43-37

Week 12 Matthew Stafford = W 34-31

Week 13 Jake Locker = W 24-10

Week 14 Tom Brady = L 42-14

I don't know, maybe it's just me but these statistics seem encouraging. The Texans have been squeaking out wins by about one score since week 10. Texans haven't really done well against really good QB's except Manning, but he was still rusty at week 3. In 3 separate games this year Texans faced the backup QB off the bench due to injury.

Maybe it's just me, but looking at this on paper, I think the Colts have a much better chance to win than I had originally thought. Now i'm not saying we are a lock to win, that is just foolish, but I think we stand a better chance than most are giving us credit for.

Anyone else find this interesting?

yea, same here, i am starting to get more confidence than I had about a week to a week and a half ago. I was desperatly worried about how our moral would take a kick in the pants if we got slaughtered in Houston, now it's still a possibility but there is a lot of pride at stake and I think the Colts will play as hard as they can because a playoff birth is at stake. Oh wait, did I say steak/stake, time to go to the van and eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't have more plays where Luck rolls out he is going to be on his back all day long. I hope he survives this game. I think we are going to lose big and we need him against KC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, actually I was well aware, the point is that we WIN the one score games, losing just one all season on last second TD that we fell apart on.

If we keep it close we have a very good chance to win.

So I'm just going to come out and ask the question...

Since Houston has only lost 2 games, and neither were close... Wouldn't that leave them undefeated in close games?

I'm not sure the OP's point is entirely relevant in this game. Since the Colts haven't blown anyone away, of course I'd prefer a close game (so you're saying there's a chance) over getting romped... but the Texans are pretty darned good in close games too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be more relevant to suggest we discard the first few games for the Colts (as too green), and compare what's happened since to the Texans' results...

Sweep Titans... check

Win in a shoot out over the Lions... check

Get blown out by the Patriots... check

Beat down the Jags on the road... check

Hold court with the Fins and Bills... check

These 2 teams may now be more equal than many think. All our rookies aren't really so rookie-esque any more, and we've been seeing better play on the road (except in NE).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me in the agree column as well. Explain to me blocking scheme we will implement to slow down JJ Watt. Last week we basically had no answers in the first half for the Titans rush. Sometimes you just have to admit the other team is better. Houston does not want to go back to New England so the home field incentive is huge. New England destroys everyone in there house. What did the Colts do there? Lets just take the two New England contest for comparisons. Case closed.

Seriously? Following that logic, we should have written off these Colts in a vast majority of our games. Obviously the Texans are a "better" team, both record wise and matchup wise. That is totally irrelevant though. I mean our 2-14 Colts last year beat the Texans when we were at a significant disadvantage. I'll concede all day that they're a "better" team, but that doesn't mean I dont think we can go into Houston and smack them in the face. This is football, not basketball where certain players just decide to turn it on and the other team has no chance. It requires a complete team effort. Now that is not to say that I think a victory in Houston is likely; however, not many of our wins this year have been likely. Now if you really want to compare something in our favor, let's talk clutch factor. We know how to win ugly, the Texans don't (unless you count the Jags game haha). They haven't really been tested by a ton of teams this year until recently, and the ones they have been tested by have blown them out. The Jags and Detroit almost beat the Texans and we have far more heart than them. Just because the advantages we own over the Texans aren't quantifiable does not mean that they are any less significant to the outcome of the game. If we keep Luck upright, then we have as good a chance as anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winning ugly only gets so far. Matchups are the most important in the NFL and we do not match up well. Are running back is not even close to theirs. Our blocking schemes will not stop JJ Watt the way New England did. When you just get down to basic fundamental football, the knowledgeable realistic football fan understands why Houston is favored. That does not mean the Colts cannot beat them. The fact is more times than not the better team wins. It is sometimes tough to swallow, but at this point it is definitely a huge challenge for the Colts to defeat the Texans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winning ugly only gets so far. Matchups are the most important in the NFL and we do not match up well. Are running back is not even close to theirs. Our blocking schemes will not stop JJ Watt the way New England did. When you just get down to basic fundamental football, the knowledgeable realistic football fan understands why Houston is favored. That does not mean the Colts cannot beat them. The fact is more times than not the better team wins. It is sometimes tough to swallow, but at this point it is definitely a huge challenge for the Colts to defeat the Texans.

I agree. The Colts should just forfeit. 2-0. KC next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we keep it close we have a very good chance to win.

lol. thats really going out on a limb.

All I know is that if they Hurt Luck...... We got a Problem.

We have Mr. Irrelevant. I'm not worried.

Put me in the agree column as well. Explain to me blocking scheme we will implement to slow down JJ Watt. Last week we basically had no answers in the first half for the Titans rush. Sometimes you just have to admit the other team is better. Houston does not want to go back to New England so the home field incentive is huge. New England destroys everyone in there house. What did the Colts do there? Lets just take the two New England contest for comparisons. Case closed.

^ l iike this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me in the agree column as well. Explain to me blocking scheme we will implement to slow down JJ Watt. Last week we basically had no answers in the first half for the Titans rush. Sometimes you just have to admit the other team is better. Houston does not want to go back to New England so the home field incentive is huge. New England destroys everyone in there house. What did the Colts do there? Lets just take the two New England contest for comparisons. Case closed.

Not sure I understand. The Colts actually didn't look as bad as the Texans looked. We even led on a couple of occasions. The Texans were beat in the first quarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right you do not understand.

Thanks for explaining. Now I get it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For whatever reason, my last few films have been controversial ones. I didn't plan it that way. It just sort of happened, but I will admit that I have always been drawn to provocative subjects ever since I can remember. My latest review called "Confirmation" a 2016 political drama directed by Rick Famuyiwa slides right into that hot button territory as well. I promise to behave myself here & only establish broad brush strokes that the director portrays in this 1 hour & 50 minute piece of cinema, but it will be extremely difficult to restrain my true feelings since I graduated from high school in 1991 & remember very well the US Senate Hearings on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas on TV & the sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill, a former subordinate under Thomas's supervision at the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.]   In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna be honest with my audience & say that I believed Miss Hill's testimony back then & I never thought Mr. Thomas should have been confirmed to replace Thurgood Marshall either & the director has this same slant or bias in this production too. Watching this flick took me right back to 1991 during the George H.W. Bush Administration who submitted Thomas's name for consideration to the highest judicial office in the land. It was almost bizarre to see younger versions of anchormen Tom Brokaw & Dan Rather, Andrea Mitchell, & footage of Peter Jennings & Tim Russert, former host of "Meet The Press" both deceased now. The picture does a nice job of blending fictional testimony scenes from Hill & Thomas with archival news footage from CBS, NBC, ABC, & CNN. It's odd to see the primitive nature of TVs & computers back then long before iPhones & iMacs were present in every office in America.    In a nutshell, the movie is divided between 2 sides: Those who believed that Clarence Thomas is being railroaded by groups like NOW [Natl. Organization Of Women] simply because he leans toward the Conservative side on issues & Those on the Progressive side who believed that Anita Hill was sexually harassed by her boss who made several unwanted advances & lewd sexual references toward her based solely on her appearance & physical attractiveness as he saw it refusing to change his behavior after numerous requests to do so.    Plotline: The year is 1991 & Clarence Thomas [Wendell Pierce] has been nominated to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The chairmen of these Senate Hearing is Joe Biden [Greg Kinnear] from Delaware. The process appears to going along smoothly for Thomas until a current professor of law at The University of Oklahoma named Anita Hill [Kerry Washington] decides to reluctantly testify before Congress in the Senate. I won't bore my audience with Congressional names or the staffers who work on their behalf on both sides of the DC aisle other then to say this: The bulk of this film focuses on the testimony of Hill & how Thomas reacts to the allegations leveled against him.    Clarence Thomas's supporters somehow convince Biden to deliver his testimony first & while giving his opening remarks Thomas claims that these sexual harassment allegations are false, unfounded, & that he treated all his female employees with respect. When Anita Hill is allowed to testify before the Senate, she tells the body assembled there in a long, prepared, typed statement that Mr. Thomas constantly tried to ask her out socially, bragged about the size of his organ, talked about several adult films he had seen despite making her feel very uneasy, & that on 1 occasion he made a deplorable joke about hair from a private region of his body being found on the aluminum can itself. As you listen to Hill say these words out loud, it dawns on you that all the members in these judiciary hearings are men with zero women in elected office at this point. Think about that reality for a second.    Despite the fact that Anita Hill is well educated, well read, articulate, a credible witness, & very bright; the following doubts & allegations are brought against her testimony: Why did it take her so long to bring these sexual harassment charges forward? Why did she continue to have contact with Thomas? Why didn't she just talk about misconduct sooner & bring formal charges against him? Is she just looking for simple fame, fortune, & publicity? Was she secretly attracted to him & Thomas declined her advances so therefore she wants revenge now? Did she get some of her crazy harassment allegations from books like "The Exorcist?" Did she develop a secret, sexual crush on Thomas known as erotomania like she's some sort of mental deviant?    As you watch the absurd theories cast against Miss Hill by senators who believe this is an unfair witch hunt against Clarence Thomas, it makes you upset or it made me furious rather than none of these male Congressmen ever considered the possibility that men in positions of authority could use their stature & influence to manipulate the situation to their advantage thru unwanted advances or even intercourse because they write evaluations on their subordinates that they oversee, they determine a women's future thru promotions or recommendations; they can blackball or prevent females from working at other law firms or any law firm rather ever again. Could a women studying law really saw no to her boss's advances back in 1991 with the 'boys will be boys' mentality? Sadly no, not really. Not if you wanna advance or climb up the legal ladder anyway. In addition, this really ticked me off. Anita Hill's claims of harassment weren't taken seriously in the Senate chamber because she was a black woman instead of a white woman stating these allegations against Thomas. What?!! That's absurd! Why should the color of the woman's skin even matter. That's freaking ridiculous & very insulting.    You wanna know how Clarence Thomas refutes these unsettlingly serious allegations? He calls the whole backlash situation against him a "high tech lynching." Excuse me? You have got to be joking. So let me get this straight, a former employee under your supervision who happen to be black just like you has committed a vile act of racist cruelty against Thomas simply because he was asked several times to stop engaging in lewd conversations about her appearance & Clarence claims that what Anita did to him by testifying is the equivalent to a hate crime? I'm about ready to smack you sir. And the worst part is that nobody in the Senate challenges Thomas on such ludicrous remarks at all. Unbelievable.    Hill even agrees to take a lie detector test to prove that she is telling the truth. However, many who oppose her assertions claim that the results are meaningless because testers can make anybody pass polygraphs if they want. Ah no, first you establish a base line with false responses & then you monitor a person's heart rate & breathing patterns for erratic fluctuations. The only individuals who can pass a polygraph are psychopaths & serial killers with no appreciation for right or wrong & no impulse control. Lie detector tests are almost impossible to fake as long as the professional examiner knows what the hades they are doing.    The picture ends with Miss Hill returning back to Oklahoma. She is tired of fighting against unfounded innuendo about her reputation & character assassination tactics. Once back teaching, she takes comfort & solace in all the letters she receives from women who thank her for opening their eyes against sexual harassment. Clarence Thomas becomes a Supreme Court Justice as we all know.    This film does make think twice about what you say to your female colleagues in the workplace as it should. Can you say some looks nice today without it coming across as inappropriate? I guess it depends on a person's tone, sincerity, & maintaining eye contact without visually wondering to other sections of a co-workers anatomy I guess. Lets roll with a B- on "Confirmation" because Hill & Thomas's performances were quite good & we never see Clarence believe he ever did anything wrong, even though he claims that he can't look his son in the eye anymore while undergoing the confirmation process anyway.    If I ever said anything that made a woman feel uncomfortable about her appearance or attractiveness, I'm sorry.        "Who's to say what's for me to say...be...do
      Cause a big nothing it'll be for me
      The land of opportunity
      The golden chance for me
      My future looks so bright
      Now I think I've seen the light"  
    • He has enough money if he has that big of a problem with this country he can fund a ticket to any country of his choice that he cares enough to stand up for. I am sure he has a passport so it's just a matter of taking care of his finances and get on a jet and fly the hades out of here.
    • You pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. It's hard for me to comprehend why he chose this way to made his voice be heard.
    • I believe they have amended the rules to 'touching the passer'......
  • Welcome New Members

    • Hi And Welcome! You can create a thread after you have 10 approved posts.  When you first join, you can post 5 replies per 24 hours so, it takes 48 hours at minimum before you can post.   Apologies for the inconvenience but it keeps our drive by trouble making to a minimum.
    • Hello Colts Nation   I am a long time reader of this forum but never really participated in comments but hope to join in this season.   Been a Colts fan since the 'move' when i lived in Carmel.  Actually liked the Colts before that when i was younger but it was the uniform that appealed to me.    I am wondering how do I start a topic in a forum?  Do I have to have so many replies before approved?  I tried to find the rules topic on this but no luck.   Thanks   Edit: I finally found the section on the rules to posting.  :-)
  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.