Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Houston most complete team i have seen in awile?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
reckless123


Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 11256
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You could say so. Theyre more complete than the 49ers. The funny thing is, the 49ers have the better offensive weapons particularly at WR but that means nothing when your QB is average. At least schaub is pretty good.

i also dont think theyre the most complete team ive seen in a while.
_________________


"Champagne"..."Mountain Range"..."Hugs".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DreDay80


Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 1999
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reckless123 wrote:
You could say so. Theyre more complete than the 49ers. The funny thing is, the 49ers have the better offensive weapons particularly at WR but that means nothing when your QB is average. At least schaub is pretty good.

i also dont think theyre the most complete team ive seen in a while.


How do they have better weapons? I understand Vernon Davis but the rest of their receiving corps are just a bunch of average #2s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingshomer


Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Posts: 2228
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PurpleMugen wrote:
G3RMANATOR wrote:
PurpleMugen wrote:
2009 Vikings. But this Texans team is in the conversation, too (edge to the '09 Vikings, though).


Negative, Vikings didn't have close to a defense that the Texans have.


You're right. And the Texans don't have close to the offense the Vikings did.
This is about the most complete team, not who had the best offense/defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AntiSuperstar


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 4444
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reckless123 wrote:
You could say so. Theyre more complete than the 49ers. The funny thing is, the 49ers have the better offensive weapons particularly at WR but that means nothing when your QB is average. At least schaub is pretty good.

i also dont think theyre the most complete team ive seen in a while.


You must really overrate the 49ers receivers to think this.
_________________
Stop slobbering over Brian Dawkins
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mozwanted


Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 16953
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

c0insnap wrote:
They are outstanding and they are the best team in the NFL... that being said, they have played some scrubs.
did you not see what they did to the broncos?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Jaytrajik


Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 13607
Location: Odessa/Houston
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All this talk of the Texans makes me nervous. I kinda liked it better when we flew under the radar and nobody talked about us. Anxious
_________________


"I don't always throw a TD pass but when i do, it's to the wrong team" - The most interesting man in Houston #8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
JammerHammer21


Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 24415
Location: Anywhere
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reckless123 wrote:
You could say so. Theyre more complete than the 49ers. The funny thing is, the 49ers have the better offensive weapons particularly at WR but that means nothing when your QB is average. At least schaub is pretty good.

i also dont think theyre the most complete team ive seen in a while.


SF's options are just a bunch of #2s at best and VD. HOU has Andre Johnson. Laughing
_________________

Bohlmann20 (On The 95 Cleveland Browns Staff) wrote:
Lombardi - Isn't that the guy the trophy is named after? If so, top 3 coach of all time.

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Catch42


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1052
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jaytrajik wrote:
All this talk of the Texans makes me nervous. I kinda liked it better when we flew under the radar and nobody talked about us. Anxious


I have to say I'm looking forward to your Primetime games the next 2 weeks .

The Texans are pretty balanced. I do agree the 09 Vikings were well balanced, before that the 04 Patriots, and 01 Rams were all solid all around teams.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hieroglyphics


Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 557
Location: University of North Texas
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AntiSuperstar wrote:
reckless123 wrote:
You could say so. Theyre more complete than the 49ers. The funny thing is, the 49ers have the better offensive weapons particularly at WR but that means nothing when your QB is average. At least schaub is pretty good.

i also dont think theyre the most complete team ive seen in a while.


You must really overrate the 49ers receivers to think this.


Yeah, they're awful. So is Smith. I mean they only set a franchise record for offensive yards in a single game. Complete Trash, a bunch of number 2s at best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AntiSuperstar


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 4444
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hieroglyphics wrote:
Yeah, they're awful. So is Smith. I mean they only set a franchise record for offensive yards in a single game. Complete Trash, a bunch of number 2s at best.


Yawn, putting words into my mouth. I can speak for myself I don't need you projecting your own ideas based on the stupid opinions other people have stated. I don't think all of the 49ers receivers are 2s. I actually think that statement doesn't even have a hint of truth in it. Crabtree is a standout player and he could be a #1 on other teams, but none of those other wide receivers are anything special. Calling them 2s would be false, all of them are 3s at best on a good team.
_________________
Stop slobbering over Brian Dawkins
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scar988


FF Fanatic
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 29496
Location: Marietta, GA
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AntiSuperstar wrote:
Hieroglyphics wrote:
Yeah, they're awful. So is Smith. I mean they only set a franchise record for offensive yards in a single game. Complete Trash, a bunch of number 2s at best.


Yawn, putting words into my mouth. I can speak for myself I don't need you projecting your own ideas based on the stupid opinions other people have stated. I don't think all of the 49ers receivers are 2s. I actually think that statement doesn't even have a hint of truth in it. Crabtree is a standout player and he could be a #1 on other teams, but none of those other wide receivers are anything special. Calling them 2s would be false, all of them are 3s at best on a good team.
I think he's being sarcastic...
_________________

Dirty Bird Watch: DL Jonathan Babineaux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
EliteTexan80


Most Valuable Poster
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 38123
Location: Three time Mr. fanTASTic!
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jaytrajik wrote:
All this talk of the Texans makes me nervous. I kinda liked it better when we flew under the radar and nobody talked about us. Anxious


Me too. Sad

Given yesterday's showing, I am quick to put the 49ers ahead of the Texans now; That offense is starting to come to form, and the D has been like that since Mike Singletary was calling the shots. Alex Smith is looking more and more like a #1 pick, he's finally developing as people expected back in 2005. Very scary team, and getting more and more "complete" as Smith progresses.

Atlanta and Houston is an interesting comparison; Both teams have very efficient, very cerebral QBs in Matty Ice and Matty Fire; Ice has more downfield opportunities with his two big WRs, so any numbers that the two have on tap will always skew towards Ice. Fire has the better run game at his disposal; Even with Michael Turner finding his groove, Arian Foster is a better runner, with a bigger "big play" capability, and a better option in the passing game. #2 RB is a no brainer, as Ben Tate is clearly a better option than Jaquizz Rodgers; Rodgers is a nice 3rd down option, but he doesn't have nearly as much ability to be an in-between runner. A fairer comparison to Rodgers would be the Texans #3 RB, Justin Forsett, and even that might lie with the Texans in terms of who is better. (I am wondering why Jason Snelling isn't getting touches, seemed like a pretty good RB...)

All in all, on that side of the ball...it comes down to personal preference. If you like a team that is very active in the passing game, throwing the ball a lot and making big plays, you pick Atlanta. If you like a TOP controlling offense with an occasional downfield presence, you pick Houston. No real "wrong" answer there, as both offenses are pretty well balanced.

Defensively? Tale of two units, simple as that. If you like having a moderate front seven with a dynamic back four, Atlanta is your choice. Even without Brent Grimes, the CB tandem of Asante Samuel and Dunta Robinson is a fine CB tandem. Both players have seemingly rid themselves of their bad habits (or said bad habits are being hidden by the best S tandem in the NFL) and both are playing good football right now. As said before, I believe that the tandem of William Moore and Thomas DeCoud are so deadly; Both guys are turnover machines, can play the run and the pass well; Both are smart players who find themselves in the right place at the right time. In Atlanta's front seven, Sean Witherspoon is among the best OLBs in the game, but I have a hard time identifying anything else that makes me take notice. I think Jordan Babaneaux is playing good football, John Abraham is playing well considering he's 55 or something years old, but...yeah, nothing really there to hang your hat on.

With the Texans, it's reversed; You have a good secondary, but a fantastic front seven...and it all starts with the only guy who is giving Matty Ice a run for MVP, and that's DE JJ Watt. Can't begin to describe the guy without use of the phrase "DPOY" and I believe it shows with how he's doing. Outside of him, you still have two very fast and active OLBs in Connor Barwin and Brooks Reed, one of the best ILBs in Brian Cushing, and a very stout DE in Antonio Smith. Even with the deficiencies brought on by Bradie James, you have a unit that is stout, from top to bottom. Unlike Atlanta's front seven, you have a standout player in the Texans secondary in Johnathan Joseph, an improving Kareem Jackson, and two vastly underrated S in Glover Quin and Danieal Manning. If Atlanta's S tandem is #1, the Texans duo isn't that far off - maybe 4th, behind the Ravens duo and the Seahawks duo.

Given THAT, I would give the Texans the edge on defense, and I'm sure others would agree. If there is contention, I'd like to hear it.

All in all - I have San Fran ahead of both Houston and Atlanta, and the NE Pats coming up as a unit that can pass both Houston and Atlanta (as NE is starting to develop a run game and defense, which has always held them back from being an absolute powerhouse). However, we're only five games into it (not even 1/3 of the season has been played) so I'm beyond crowning anyone until further notice.
_________________

iPwn, Kempes and Flaccomania: The official sig makers for THE ET80!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
onejayhawk


Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 5653
Location: Waco, Tx
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PurpleMugen wrote:
G3RMANATOR wrote:
PurpleMugen wrote:
2009 Vikings. But this Texans team is in the conversation, too (edge to the '09 Vikings, though).


Negative, Vikings didn't have close to a defense that the Texans have.


You're right. And the Texans don't have close to the offense the Vikings did.

Right. The 2012 Texans are much better than the 2009 Vikings. That Minnesota team was top 10, but not to 5.This Texans team is comfortably top 5 on offense.

J
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
argmanarg


Joined: 26 Nov 2008
Posts: 79
Location: Atlanta
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can Matt Schaub stay healthy is the biggest question concerning the Texans.
_________________

^^
thanks Arem20
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nbanflguy


Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Posts: 628
Location: Minnesota
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

onejayhawk wrote:
PurpleMugen wrote:
G3RMANATOR wrote:
PurpleMugen wrote:
2009 Vikings. But this Texans team is in the conversation, too (edge to the '09 Vikings, though).


Negative, Vikings didn't have close to a defense that the Texans have.


You're right. And the Texans don't have close to the offense the Vikings did.

Right. The 2012 Texans are much better than the 2009 Vikings. That Minnesota team was top 10, but not to 5.This Texans team is comfortably top 5 on offense.

J


It depends on how you grade offense. That Vikings team tied for 1st with 34 passing td's.
It was first in QB rating. 6th in rushing td's and 2nd in the nfl in points.

It was arguably the best offense in the league that year and 2nd at worst.
_________________
"Friends dont let friends be Packer fans"
Vikings Fanatic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group