Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Build Team To Beat Texans?


Case

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If Manning's back we're the top dogs in the AFC South, they need to focus on beating us.

The Texans, for years, have been given way more credit then they deserve. I worry about Tennessee more.

You're much more insightful than 95% of any other poster on here.I'm also thrilled that your grammar and creative writing style is very good!Keep it up!

P.S.Exactly right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Manning's back we're the top dogs in the AFC South, they need to focus on beating us.

The Texans, for years, have been given way more credit then they deserve. I worry about Tennessee more.

I don't remember the Texans ever receiving credit for anything up until this year when they got a free-pass into their first playoff game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be built to beat everyone but ourselves.

This. The Texans, Jags, and Titans have been doing this for years and have never had more than short term success. The Texans made the right move in just doing what they do best without any matchup in mind. They are flexible enough to beat anyone, not just the Colts. Building a team to win your division sounds good, but that's merely 6 of 16 games, and you usually don't meet those guys in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't build a team to beat another team. We only play the Texans twice a year. We have 10 other teams and 14 other games to worry about. We can smoke the Texans and still go 2-14, and they can go 14-2 and win the division. No thank you. The Texans don't matter.

Only our roster matters. You build the best team you can, run the best systems on offense and defense for the talent you have, and you adjust as necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't build a team to beat another team. We only play the Texans twice a year. We have 10 other teams and 14 other games to worry about. We can smoke the Texans and still go 2-14, and they can go 14-2 and win the division. No thank you. The Texans don't matter.

Only our roster matters. You build the best team you can, run the best systems on offense and defense for the talent you have, and you adjust as necessary.

I disagree. If you identify a staunch threat within your division, you'd better be prepared for them via player/scheme match-ups.

Houston did this in concern to us. They new that they'd never have true success unless they could stand toe-to-toe with Peyton. So they brought in Wade and his defensive excellence. They drafted Mario instead of Reggie. They invested in FA DB's.

Also, strategically speaking, if you are built to whip the best team in your division, then you should stand well against any other team. Again, I'll discuss how Houston addressed us;

Their biggest threat within the division was the Indianapolis Colts. A team that not only owns the AFC South, but had a record setting string of regular season wins in respect to the entire league. Common sense says.....if you build your team to beat a team like that (Colts), then you should be able to have great success across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. If you identify a staunch threat within your division, you'd better be prepared for them via player/scheme match-ups.

Houston did this in concern to us. They new that they'd never have true success unless they could stand toe-to-toe with Peyton. So they brought in Wade and his defensive excellence. They drafted Mario instead of Reggie. They invested in FA DB's.

Also, strategically speaking, if you are built to whip the best team in your division, then you should stand well against any other team. Again, I'll discuss how Houston addressed us;

Their biggest threat within the division was the Indianapolis Colts. A team that not only owns the AFC South, but had a record setting string of regular season wins in respect to the entire league. Common sense says.....if you build your team to beat a team like that (Colts), then you should be able to have great success across the board.

Same as the my question to another poster concerning the Bears. I can nearly guarantee you the Texans did not build their team to beat the Colts. But for the sake of argument let's say they did. How has that worked for them? And now what do they do since the Colts are cleaning house and therefore are not the team they were in 2010? WHo are they built to beat now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same as the my question to another poster concerning the Bears. I can nearly guarantee you the Texans did not build their team to beat the Colts. But for the sake of argument let's say they did. How has that worked for them? And now what do they do since the Colts are cleaning house and therefore are not the team they were in 2010?

Think of it as operating upon a template for success. This is a league of parity. The Colts had tremendous success with their formula....if the Texans concentrate their efforts on building a team that can consistently beat the Colts, then they have their template for success.

WHo are they built to beat now?

Theoretically, the winning-est team in the NFL over the last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jets have been doing this for the past few years trying to get the division from Brady and the Pats. They should be worrying more about the remaining 14 games they play and thats where they have fallen short often. You can still build around your QB and if you can get a few playmakers on D and ST via the draft more than free agency, that seems to pay more dividends, IMO. I look at all the playmaking done in the playoffs recently - Hayden and Sanders in 2006, Tuck and Webster in 2007, Santonio Holmes in 2008, Tracy Porter in 2009, Sam Shields and a lot of first contract draftees for the Packers in 2010, it seems like almost a formula to me.

Get the primary QB and offensive weapons around him. Identify and keep just a key handful of pieces on O and D re-signed, then draft for the rest again. The two handful 10 player philosophy long term, draft for the rest short term :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can all laugh at Chinadoll all we want but I remember the boards not taking the Texans all that seriously (majority)in the past. To be honest, with Peyton Manning, I was never worried about the big bad Texans. Heck we beat them once this season. They have some very good players but again for some reason they don't scare me. I have a feeling they may implode before they figure it out. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it as operating upon a template for success. This is a league of parity. The Colts had tremendous success with their formula....if the Texans concentrate their efforts on building a team that can consistently beat the Colts, then they have their template for success.

No they don't. The have a template for beating the Colts and that's it. If they are built to beat the Colts they could possibly get clobbered by the Jags or Titans, then they would be 2-4 in the division.
Theoretically, the winning-est team in the NFL over the last decade.

So, you are saying they have not done a good job of building a team to beat the Colts since they are 3-17 against the Colts lifetime. I would rather build a team based on a philosophy, that whole build a team to beat one team in your division doesn't seem to work very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. If you identify a staunch threat within your division, you'd better be prepared for them via player/scheme match-ups.

Houston did this in concern to us. They new that they'd never have true success unless they could stand toe-to-toe with Peyton. So they brought in Wade and his defensive excellence. They drafted Mario instead of Reggie. They invested in FA DB's.

Also, strategically speaking, if you are built to whip the best team in your division, then you should stand well against any other team. Again, I'll discuss how Houston addressed us;

Their biggest threat within the division was the Indianapolis Colts. A team that not only owns the AFC South, but had a record setting string of regular season wins in respect to the entire league. Common sense says.....if you build your team to beat a team like that (Colts), then you should be able to have great success across the board.

Houston hasn't played us with Wade Phillips' defense, not with Manning running the offense.

And even still, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Gary Kubiak knew that in order to save his job, he needed to improve his cellar-dwelling defense? That's the reason they brought Wade Phillips in, because their defense was terrible, and they needed to improve, and quick.

Going back to when they drafted Mario instead of Reggie, you realize that was six years ago, right? They also drafted a bunch of other good defensive players. They never beat us until last season's opener. And meanwhile, Reggie Bush was looking more and more like a misfit in the NFL, and Mario Williams was establishing himself as one of the best ends in football. It's more appropriate to say that they drafted Mario because it was the better decision, and it's paid off. Still, if they did so in order to catch up with the Colts, it could be easily argued that it didn't work. Up until this season, their defense was still not good, and that's with all the draft picks they spent on defense.

I'm exaggerating with the 2-14/14-2 comment, but you can't build a team just to beat one team. Most divisions don't have a perennial champ like the Colts. Only other team close would be the Patriots. Other than that, every other division has had extreme parity over the last few years.

You build your team to be balanced and flexible, and you should be okay. If you get lucky and become outstanding at any one thing, or maybe two things, then you're good enough to contend for a championship. We were really good at throwing the ball and rushing the passer, and were in the Super Bowl three years ago because of it. The Giants are really good at throwing the ball and rushing the passer. The Niners are really good at running the ball and stopping the run, and get better every week in pass coverage. Just build the best team you can, irrespective of what other teams are doing.

I could see if the Texans were in the middle of a really long streak of success. They've had one good year. Looks like that have a good thing going, and it's going to be one heck of a fight to take the division back, but you don't go hog-wild trying to counteract the Texans. Just get back to having one or two elite units, and that's usually good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it as operating upon a template for success. This is a league of parity. The Colts had tremendous success with their formula....if the Texans concentrate their efforts on building a team that can consistently beat the Colts, then they have their template for success.

...

Theoretically, the winning-est team in the NFL over the last decade.

If you say "build a team that is like the winningest team in the NFL," then I get that. But think about it: What's the recipe for beating the Colts over the years? Pound the ball, take away the big plays. That doesn't work on a team like the Texans. We had a soft defensive front that was susceptible to a power run game, and we could always strike the big play when necessary. The Texans aren't going to let you run on them, and they don't need big plays to score. (Same for the Niners, or the Ravens, etc.)

If you build a team to beat the Texans, you'll beat teams like the Texans, but you'll be vulnerable against teams like the Saints or Patriots or Packers. And vice versa. Maybe you'll win ten games a year, but when you play a team with a great passing game and you have to rely on your quarterback to throw touchdowns in the fourth quarter, you're going to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't. The have a template for beating the Colts and that's it. If they are built to beat the Colts they could possibly get clobbered by the Jags or Titans, then they would be 2-4 in the division.

So, you are saying they have not done a good job of building a team to beat the Colts since they are 3-17 against the Colts lifetime. I would rather build a team based on a philosophy, that whole build a team to beat one team in your division doesn't seem to work very well.

The mistake you're making is you're drawing upon too many definites when you hear the term "built to beat X". It's a far more pliable philosophy than just to narrow ones scope to exclude all other teams.

Lemme try a different way of explaining the way I see it.

If a teams goal is to win the division and then subsequently win the SB, their first order of business should be to figure out how to build their team to win the division. Considering the Colts winning the AFC South wasn't a 1 time thang, rather, a perennial occurance....well they have identified their target for parity.

No, its not wise to pick a team in your division and build your entire franchise specifically to beat them, and only them. Thats setting your team up for a disaster. But the Colts haven't been an average team, not at all. We all know the success they've had. It was the Colts success in the passing game specifically that the Texans wished to build to answer.

Offensively I think they made an effort to emulate the Colts, but there would be no sense in them trying to copy-cat us in every respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston hasn't played us with Wade Phillips' defense, not with Manning running the offense.

And even still, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Gary Kubiak knew that in order to save his job, he needed to improve his cellar-dwelling defense? That's the reason they brought Wade Phillips in, because their defense was terrible, and they needed to improve, and quick.

Going back to when they drafted Mario instead of Reggie, you realize that was six years ago, right? They also drafted a bunch of other good defensive players. They never beat us until last season's opener. And meanwhile, Reggie Bush was looking more and more like a misfit in the NFL, and Mario Williams was establishing himself as one of the best ends in football. It's more appropriate to say that they drafted Mario because it was the better decision, and it's paid off. Still, if they did so in order to catch up with the Colts, it could be easily argued that it didn't work. Up until this season, their defense was still not good, and that's with all the draft picks they spent on defense.

I'm exaggerating with the 2-14/14-2 comment, but you can't build a team just to beat one team. Most divisions don't have a perennial champ like the Colts. Only other team close would be the Patriots. Other than that, every other division has had extreme parity over the last few years.

You build your team to be balanced and flexible, and you should be okay. If you get lucky and become outstanding at any one thing, or maybe two things, then you're good enough to contend for a championship. We were really good at throwing the ball and rushing the passer, and were in the Super Bowl three years ago because of it. The Giants are really good at throwing the ball and rushing the passer. The Niners are really good at running the ball and stopping the run, and get better every week in pass coverage. Just build the best team you can, irrespective of what other teams are doing.

I could see if the Texans were in the middle of a really long streak of success. They've had one good year. Looks like that have a good thing going, and it's going to be one heck of a fight to take the division back, but you don't go hog-wild trying to counteract the Texans. Just get back to having one or two elite units, and that's usually good enough.

Why are you inferring that they obviously haven't been trying to commit to parity just because they failed to achieve their goal? The fact that they fudged it up is irrelevant, they have been ATTEMPTING to out fox us on defense since their inception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say "build a team that is like the winningest team in the NFL," then I get that. But think about it: What's the recipe for beating the Colts over the years? Pound the ball, take away the big plays. That doesn't work on a team like the Texans. We had a soft defensive front that was susceptible to a power run game, and we could always strike the big play when necessary. The Texans aren't going to let you run on them, and they don't need big plays to score. (Same for the Niners, or the Ravens, etc.)

If you build a team to beat the Texans, you'll beat teams like the Texans, but you'll be vulnerable against teams like the Saints or Patriots or Packers. And vice versa. Maybe you'll win ten games a year, but when you play a team with a great passing game and you have to rely on your quarterback to throw touchdowns in the fourth quarter, you're going to lose.

Again...you're making the mistake of hearing "built to beat team X" and assuming this means in totality. They built a high powered offense to match the scoring output of teams like the Colts......as well, they built a 3-4 defense with multiple hidden reads meant to pressure even the most intelligent QB, Peyton Manning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you inferring that they obviously haven't been trying to commit to parity just because they failed to achieve their goal? The fact that they fudged it up is irrelevant, they have been ATTEMPTING to out fox us on defense since their inception.

They've been attempting to build a good defense because that's a dang good way to get into the playoffs. It's not just about the Colts. They only play us twice a year. And after last season, when they started off really well, then wilted down the stretch, Kubiak had to do something to save his job. He almost got fired himself. Evidently he convinced McNair and Smith that he'd take some serious steps toward improving the defense, and that's just what he did.

I'm not inferring that they haven't been trying to improve their defense. I'm saying that they have been trying to improve their defense for many and varied reasons, not particularly because they play in the same division as the Colts. They didn't hire Wade Phillips to beat the Colts. They hired Wade Phillips to improve their defense.

And again, they only won the division after we fell apart overnight. With Manning, there's a good chance we win 10 games, and then the division comes down to a tie-breaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again...you're making the mistake of hearing "built to beat team X" and assuming this means in totality. They built a high powered offense to match the scoring output of teams like the Colts......as well, they built a 3-4 defense with multiple hidden reads meant to pressure even the most intelligent QB, Peyton Manning.

The question was "Should the Colts focus on building a team to beat the Texans?" It's really not about what the Texans have been trying to do for several seasons.

But if we want to talk about what the Texans have been trying to do, it's worth noting that they've been consistently incapable of beating us, at all, up until last season. So if they've been trying to beat us for the past several years, they've been failing, and it's a great example of why you don't build a team to beat someone else. Not only were they not beating us, they were only above .500 once before this season.

Beyond that, they hired Wade Phillips and changed their defense because their defense sucked. They hired Gary Kubiak and focused on the offense because the offense sucked (remember Dom Capers and David Carr?) They knew they had to get better in order to contend, so they got better. Their objective was to get better, not to beat the Colts. They could get swept by us every year, but if they won more games than us and won the division, they'd be okay. They wouldn't retool their team to beat us. Nor would we retool our team to beat them; we'd focus on getting better.

That's all I'm saying. Focus on getting better. Identify two aspects that you can improve, hopefully make elite, and then you'll be good enough to get into the playoffs. If you're really good at those two aspects, you might be able to mask other flaws on your roster. And then, the only time it matters whether you can beat Team X or not is if you meet them in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been attempting to build a good defense because that's a dang good way to get into the playoffs. It's not just about the Colts. They only play us twice a year. And after last season, when they started off really well, then wilted down the stretch, Kubiak had to do something to save his job. He almost got fired himself. Evidently he convinced McNair and Smith that he'd take some serious steps toward improving the defense, and that's just what he did.

I'm not inferring that they haven't been trying to improve their defense. I'm saying that they have been trying to improve their defense for many and varied reasons, not particularly because they play in the same division as the Colts. They didn't hire Wade Phillips to beat the Colts. They hired Wade Phillips to improve their defense.

And again, they only won the division after we fell apart overnight. With Manning, there's a good chance we win 10 games, and then the division comes down to a tie-breaker.

I get what you and others are saying.....not buyin in though.

Philosophically speaking, I would think it stupid to not build your team to beat your divisional nemesis. If you win the division, you're in the playoffs. Conversely, if they can't beat Manning, they get nowhere, ever, they stay perma-locked beneath us. Since it appeared unquestionable that a Manning led Colts team would still be in place for another 4 years, I fail to see their error.

I would also add, you have to pick a philosophy with some semblance of a focused scope. In other words the philosophy can't be "We wanna build our team to beat every team in the NFL". Sounds great but .....c'mon man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mistake you're making is you're drawing upon too many definites when you hear the term "built to beat X". It's a far more pliable philosophy than just to narrow ones scope to exclude all other teams.

Lemme try a different way of explaining the way I see it.

If a teams goal is to win the division and then subsequently win the SB, their first order of business should be to figure out how to build their team to win the division. Considering the Colts winning the AFC South wasn't a 1 time thang, rather, a perennial occurance....well they have identified their target for parity.

No, its not wise to pick a team in your division and build your entire franchise specifically to beat them, and only them. Thats setting your team up for a disaster. But the Colts haven't been an average team, not at all. We all know the success they've had. It was the Colts success in the passing game specifically that the Texans wished to build to answer.

Offensively I think they made an effort to emulate the Colts, but there would be no sense in them trying to copy-cat us in every respect.

Okay, let me try it a different way.

TEAMS DO NOT DO THAT. OWNERS DON'T HIRE GMS TO DO THAT, GMs DON'T HIRE HCS TO DO THAT AND HC DO NOT HIRE COORDINATORS TO DO THAT.

They do not build a team to beat another team in their division, they build a team in the hopes of beating ALL teams. They do that because the owner has a type of team he wants in mind so he hires a GM who has a similar vision, the GM hires a coach he thinks can implement that vision and so and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you and others are saying.....not buyin in though.

Philosophically speaking, I would think it stupid to not build your team to beat your divisional nemesis. If you win the division, you're in the playoffs. Conversely, if they can't beat Manning, they get nowhere, ever, they stay perma-locked beneath us. Since it appeared unquestionable that a Manning led Colts team would still be in place for another 4 years, I fail to see their error.

You don't need to beat your divisional nemesis to win the division. They can lose to Manning every single time they play him, and still win the division.

And again, they didn't beat Manning but once. It took him having spinal fusion for them to win the division. If Manning was healthy, there's a chance they still would be looking for their first playoff appearance.

I would also add, you have to pick a philosophy with some semblance of a focused scope. In other words the philosophy can't be "We wanna build our team to beat every team in the NFL". Sounds great but .....c'mon man!

That's not the philosophy. The philosophy is "get better, however you can." Not "beat Team X, however you can."

The Texans needed to get better offensively, so they hired an offensive-minded coach and went and got a better quarterback. Later on, they needed to get better defensively, so they hired a defensive guru and spent a bunch of draft picks on defensive players.

I don't think they said "we want to get better offensively to keep up with the Colts," nor do I think they said "we want to get better defensively to stop the Colts." I think they wanted to get better offensively because their offense sucked, and the same goes for their defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't build a team to beat another team. We only play the Texans twice a year. We have 10 other teams and 14 other games to worry about. We can smoke the Texans and still go 2-14, and they can go 14-2 and win the division. No thank you. The Texans don't matter.

Only our roster matters. You build the best team you can, run the best systems on offense and defense for the talent you have, and you adjust as necessary.

This.

You built a team that you think can win 16 games, not two games. I agree with that if you can beat the Texans you can beat a lot of other teams in the league. But you can't focus on beating one team twice a year because there are 12 other teams to worry about beating. Agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me try it a different way.

TEAMS DO NOT DO THAT. OWNERS DON'T HIRE GMS TO DO THAT, GMs DON'T HIRE HCS TO DO THAT AND HC DO NOT HIRE COORDINATORS TO DO THAT.

They do not build a team to beat another team in their division, they build a team in the hopes of beating ALL teams. They do that because the owner has a type of team he wants in mind so he hires a GM who has a similar vision, the GM hires a coach he thinks can implement that vision and so and so forth.

Maybe less coffee is in order? lol wow, take it down a notch.

You and Superman aren't processing what I'm saying here.

A team cannot devise a template to build from by simply stating that they want to beat every team in the league. They need a philosophy, a template to follow for drafting and schematic purposes. So they must choose one, not all. "All" cannot be done. This is why SB's are most often lop-sided....because we conjoin two teams that rarely play each other and they harbor completely different philosophies. It is also why the respective conferences tend to take turns in roles of dominance. The NFC ruled supreme for eons it seemed, then it was the AFC's turn.....now the pendulum seems to have swung back to the NFC. Why does this happen? Inter-division/inter-conference parity.

Therefor, choosing to form a template by concentrating on the most successful team in your division should lead to success all around. i.e If they're good enough to beat the best, then they should be good enough to beat anyone. It's akin to chasing the dragon in most cases, but it at least provides focus enough to garner a playoff invite.

I know the mantra and its not only cliche, its bullpies. "Our goal is to win the Super Bowl". Yea right. Sounds great, eye on the prize and all that jazz, right? Truth is, y'all ain't going to no dang Super Bowl if you can't match-up with your division leader. It simply won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.

You built a team that you think can win 16 games, not two games. I agree with that if you can beat the Texans you can beat a lot of other teams in the league. But you can't focus on beating one team twice a year because there are 12 other teams to worry about beating. Agree 100%

Building a team to beat a specific team isn't a formula for a 2 win season if the team your wish to match-up with is among the best in the league. Why is this so hard to understand?

Should the Colts build our team to beat the Texans. NO! They aren't worthy of that sort of parity. Should a team build their team to beat the winning-est team in the last 10 years? YES!

Where is the hole in that logic? Point that out and maybe we can end this circular argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see them as that good of a team. We don't need to build to "beat the Texans."

Agreed. But they're advancing fast. They have more talent then our team has had for years. Something just ain't right.

BTW: In case I wasn't clear, I do not think we should build our team to beat the Texans. They aren't worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building a team to beat a specific team isn't a formula for a 2 win season if the team your wish to match-up with is among the best in the league. Why is this so hard to understand?

Should the Colts build our team to beat the Texans. NO! They aren't worthy of that sort of parity. Should a team build their team to beat the winning-est team in the last 10 years? YES!

Where is the hole in that logic? Point that out and maybe we can end this circular argument.

From what I got, people were saying that if we beat the Texans we'll be fine. I may have misinterpreted what people were saying. What I'm saying is that I don't think you should focus on beating one team, winningest or not, to be successful. Plan for all 16 games.

I think we basically have the same argument, but we're just wording it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I got, people were saying that if we beat the Texans we'll be fine. I may have misinterpreted what people were saying. What I'm saying is that I don't think you should focus on beating one team, winningest or not, to be successful. Plan for all 16 games.

I think we basically have the same argument, but we're just wording it differently.

Don't you think, considering the diversity of game-plans and player rosters, that is impossible? To do so one would need to harvest the #1 run game, the #1 pass game, the #1 run defense, the #1 pass defense and the #1 special teams unit. You have to pick your strengths in this age of free-agency and migrating coaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CD..

I think that since Houston has blown us out in the season opener the last 2 years..

...we'd better consider them the No.1 team we have to beat...and get players who can block and beat them...

..Like the Bears gear everything to beating the Packers...

....

The Bears couldn't gear a bicycle.

This hasn't worked out too well for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jags spent years trying to build a team that could beat us. How did it work out?

I think you build a team that you think can win games rather than trying to build it to beat one team. With that said I do think you have to keep your division in mind when you build your team but I don't know if you build it looking at how to beat just one team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can all laugh at Chinadoll all we want but I remember the boards not taking the Texans all that seriously (majority)in the past. To be honest, with Peyton Manning, I was never worried about the big bad Texans. Heck we beat them once this season. They have some very good players but again for some reason they don't scare me. I have a feeling they may implode before they figure it out. JMO.

Laughing with~.Did i miss something?!Since WHEN did the texans become a viable threat to us?We've been beating the crap out-of-them since they came into the league!I think its the media(eagar for our fall) and desperate attempts from fans(texan fans)to pat themselves on the back.Yes,i'm sure the texans may eventually win(i don't count this year for them) the south...once manning retires(just hope that's later rather than sooner).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laughing with~.Did i miss something?!Since WHEN did the texans become a viable threat to us?We've been beating the crap out-of-them since they came into the league!I think its the media(eagar for our fall) and desperate attempts from fans(texan fans)to pat themselves on the back.Yes,i'm sure the texans may eventually win(i don't count this year for them) the south...once manning retires(just hope that's later rather than sooner).

Minus the last two times we went down there and they beat us up pretty bad...

Look you can try to argue however you would like that this year didn't happen or as you said doesn't count but it did happen and it does count and the fact the Texans won the AFC South and were in the running for homefield in the playoffs till the last two weeks of the seaosn and won a home playoff game and gave the Ravens everything could want with their top two QBs on IR, Mario Williams on IR, and Andre Johnson and Foster missing big chunks of the season is impressive. It would be foolish to not view the Texans as a threat. There are already people saying if they come back fully healthy next year they are the team to beat in the AFC next year. That's a good football team they have down there even if Peyton Manning does come back here next year they are going to be the favorites going in in the AFC South.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...