2-0 Jake!

[strife]

They actually look pretty good! Fitz isn't that bad, although he's not being asked to do a whole lot and beating the Raiders & Redskins isn't exactly world beating... but still. JJ WATT TD!

[Jakensama]

Yeah, I was at the first game last week when we lit up RG3.

Should be a respectable year I think, our schedule is one of the easiest in the NFL.

[Vllad]

Eventually you will figure out Fitz is just as likely to blow up in your face as he is to win you some games. He will out Romo, Romo.

[TinStar]

Eventually you will figure out Fitz is just as likely to blow up in your face as he is to win you some games. He will out Romo, Romo.

I don't think there is any doubt about that which is why the Texans aren't giving him many opportunities to blow up. The Texans aren't throwing the ball much and when they do it's typically a short pass. It has shown that the Texans don't have confidence in Fitzpatrick leading the team to victory, but he has done a good job so far of doing exactly what he has been asked. And for Fitz to "out Romo, Romo" he would have to start taking crazy risks, and as long as the Texans are running the ball and calling short passes and playing controlled, he won't get that opportunity.

[strife]

Ya he is being limited. He was 14 for 19 last game and 14 for 22 the week before. As long as Foster is healthy they are going to ride him. It will be interesting to see how he does when the Texans need him to pass more... hopefully he's learned why he's been moved around the league so much.

[Vllad]

And for Fitz to "out Romo, Romo" he would have to start taking crazy risks

That is exactly what will happen when you play teams that get up on you. Fitz is batshit crazy. You will see the impossible done with him some of the time and then the other times he will drive you mad.

[TinStar]

And for Fitz to "out Romo, Romo" he would have to start taking crazy risks

That is exactly what will happen when you play teams that get up on you. Fitz is batshit crazy. You will see the impossible done with him some of the time and then the other times he will drive you mad.

Yeah but as long as the Texans defense is playing well it won't matter. That's the thing (and I know we have gone back and forth on this before but I don't care), the Texans have a pretty damn good defense and it is better than any team that Fitz has been a part of so as long as the defense keeps the game low scoring, Fitz will be fine. Romo feels he has to make plays, where so far Fitz hasn't been put into that situation and if he started to press I have confidence that O'Brien will just point out Mallet and Savage on the sidelines and let him know that those guys are waiting for him to screw up.

[Jakensama]

After watching the first game of the Cowgirls this year, it is going to be pretty fucking hard to out-romo Romo.

Going to see the Texans play up here Sunday - about the only thing that can force me to go to fucking Jersey.

[Jakensama]

Well there you go Vllad, and impressive Schaub imperssion from Fitzpatrick.

[Vllad]

Well there you go Vllad, and impressive Schaub imperssion from Fitzpatrick.

hah, Yep, that was Fitz. Fitz is better than Schaub though. Well... at least 50% of the time anyway. Fitz is more frustrating. He truly is really good sometimes. Then he can be truly awful. It will make more sense once you have a bigger sample size. As long as you have Fitz you have a chance to beat anyone in the league and a chance to lose to anyone in the league.

He will truly make you appreciate the Alex Smith's of the world.

[strife]

Ya was thinking about you a bunch yesterday Vllad... He's got a decent arm and good judgment of when to, and willingness to, tuck the ball and run... but he definitely missed a couple throws and it hosed him. Still way better than Schaub though, especially his mobility.

[Jakensama]

The frustrating part about that was that I had to go to New Jersey to see it.

[TinStar]

Yeah but we all knew that is what would happen when the Texans couldn't run the ball. I wonder how much correlation there was with Fitz sucking and Foster being injured.. The thing was that even when the Texans could run the ball, Schaub still sucked the last couple of seasons.

[Vllad]

I wonder how much correlation there was with Fitz sucking and Foster being injured.

None. You will learn eventually that Fitz has the ability to pass you to victory as much as he can pass you to an L even if you can run the ball.

Just check out the Buffalo 2012 opener against the Jets. They know Fitz is schizo after the previous 4 years so they say they are gonig to limit Fitz and run the ball A LOT. They run for 195 yards and Fitz multi pick 6's them to a loss. He only threw 24 or 25 passes that day and 3 of them were picks.

The next week I think they play the Chiefs, Fitz is brilliant with I think less than 20 attempts and they rush for over 200. A week after that they play the Pats, they run for well over 100 yards and Fitz blows up for 4 picks.


Fitz doesn't need more than 20 pass attempts to get you blown out of a game. However that Chief game in 2012 was a great game with less than 20 attempts.

Welcome to Fitzland. Right before kick-off you might as well shake a Crazy 8 and ask "will my QB play well today?"

[TinStar]

Yeah I think up until last game (granted it was only 2 games) Fitz had the 2nd highest passer rating in the NFL.

[Vllad]

I didn't see Monday's game not have I been keeping up on what is going on around the league other than bay area sports. How is Houston doing lately?

[TinStar]

Fitzmagic was at it again on Monday heh.. (although in all honesty, he was only partially to blame..)

[strife]

Fitz wasn't the reason we lost. But he's definitely not the future. The Texans either need to turn it around and make a push, or shit the bed and start getting Mallet or Savage some playing time.

[Jakensama]

No QB on our roster is the answer for the future. We've had close games, both cowgirls and colts.. if we stopped shooting ourselves in the foot we could easily be 5-2 instead of 3-4.

But then again we had lots of close games last year.

[Vllad]

Losing that Pittsburg game is going to hurt your wild card chances. If you win the Cinncy and Cleveland games and since you already beat Buffalo you have most of the head to head advantages for that last wildcard slot. Assuming San Diego or Denver are going to get the other wildcard slot.

You also have a bunch of divisions games coming.

It looks like you guys are a 7-9 to 9-7 team which is quite an improvement over last year.

[TinStar]

It looks like you guys are a 7-9 to 9-7 team which is quite an improvement over last year.

Yeah but honestly, 7-9 isn't that great of an improvement over last year. The Texans had a much better team than the record showed with a handful of games that they lost on the last play of the game etc. So you won't see anyone in Houston feeling great if they can only get 7 wins and I can assure you, I personally won't feel that it is an improvement.

[Vllad]

It looks like you guys are a 7-9 to 9-7 team which is quite an improvement over last year.

Yeah but honestly, 7-9 isn't that great of an improvement over last year. The Texans had a much better team than the record showed with a handful of games that they lost on the last play of the game etc. So you won't see anyone in Houston feeling great if they can only get 7 wins and I can assure you, I personally won't feel that it is an improvement.

You are what your record says you are. How you look and when you technically lose the games doesn't count and is the fandom/land of greater wishes getting the better of you. If you were better than a 2 win team you would have won more than 2 games. 2 win teams blow leads, make mistakes and lose games they shouldn't. That is what makes them a 2 win team.

Plus if you are going to use that criteria to judge your team I hope you are using how you "look" when you win. You won some games in 2012 you had no business of winning and should have been an 8-8 or 9-7 team at best. You did win them however so in 2012 you were a 12 win team.

If you think 7-9 (which is over 300% better) isn't a huge improvement, how would like 10 more years of 2 to 4 wins? Raider fans would die for a 7 or 8 win season.

[TinStar]

It looks like you guys are a 7-9 to 9-7 team which is quite an improvement over last year.

Yeah but honestly, 7-9 isn't that great of an improvement over last year. The Texans had a much better team than the record showed with a handful of games that they lost on the last play of the game etc. So you won't see anyone in Houston feeling great if they can only get 7 wins and I can assure you, I personally won't feel that it is an improvement.

You are what your record says you are. How you look and when you technically lose the games doesn't count and is the fandom/land of greater wishes getting the better of you. If you were better than a 2 win team you would have won more than 2 games. 2 win teams blow leads, make mistakes and lose games they shouldn't. That is what makes them a 2 win team.

Plus if you are going to use that criteria to judge your team I hope you are using how you "look" when you win. You won some games in 2012 you had no business of winning and should have been an 8-8 or 9-7 team at best. You did win them however so in 2012 you were a 12 win team.

If you think 7-9 (which is over 300% better) isn't a huge improvement, how would like 10 more years of 2 to 4 wins? Raider fans would die for a 7 or 8 win season.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just saying if you think a 7-9 season is going to be a reason to celebrate, then you are mistaken. The Texans were a favorite to play in the Super Bowl last year and injuries and poor QB play ruined that. This year the Texans are much healthier (Arian Foster is reason enough) and you can't argue that our QB play is any worse than you would have expected from Schaub so winning 7+ games this year is what is expected. Looking at their schedule they should absolutely beat the Titans, Titans, Jaguars and Jaguars again which puts them at 7 wins. That leaves them playing the Eagles, Bengals, and Ravens at home, with their only tough matchups away being against the Colts and Browns. Eagles will win unless the Texans get to Foles, I think the Bengals and Ravens lose and I could see the Texans beating the Browns as well. I would say there is no way they beat the Colts in Indy but for some reason those games are always crazy. Now granted, I'm not saying the Texans go 11-5, but anything less than 8-8 is still a pretty big disappointment in my opinion.

[Vllad]

So all you need is that one win in Cincy and you have a shot at a wildcard.

[bonestomper]

To make some of you feel better they were looking at stats in baseball and the chances of a weaker team winning a seven game series.

And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/15/whos-for-a-269-game-world-series-anyone-anyone/">http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/ ... ne-anyone/</a><!-- m -->

So when you lose a close one it might really just be bad luck as opposed to your team sucking.