I think Osweiler looked better than Week 1. The OL seems to be able to pass block even if they still aren't much at run blocking. They have to figure out some Red Zone plays that will click and depend less on Novak for points.

Somebody order Ervin not to run out kicks from the end zone or field punts inside the 10. The way the rules are now, the odds are better to just catch the ball securely and take a knee.

It is so much fun watching all Crennel's weapons (well, except Cushing) creating havoc all over the field. The idea of going to New England and putting that on a rookie or a guy just brought into camp on a short week is going to be fun because we can send the heat from so many directions.

We have a two-game lead over the Colts and the "surprising" Jaguars. This game was a guaranteed L and now we have a legit shot at winning it so tell the guys to pin their ears back and just have fun with it.

Brisket is going to be dead meat by the time we're done.

Bob, do you still think Fuller is Jacoby Jones 2.0?

Yes, he damn near dropped that long pass play with no defender causing it to happen. Take that away and he had a pretty ordinary day. But I was going to take the high road this week until you brought it up.

I also noted another defensive foul on Kareem "Holding, Defense, Number 25" Jackson, but, again was trying to take the high road.

Thanks, Barrett, for reminding me. ;)

"If you don't count his great plays it turns out he's pretty average."

Speaking of average, the only can't win I saw on the schedule when it was announced was on the road in New England. If the Texans can't go up there and beat the Patriots' version of TJ Yates then they really aren't going anywhere anyway. I wonder if they'll bring Gronk back for the game. I haven't really been following that.

So you're just going to keep doubling down on how wrong you are? I don't know what's more funny between that and you thinking that not mentioning Fuller was gracious.

I will give you this Bob, Fuller and Jacoby Jones have the same number of 100 yard receiving games in their career.

Found this in another forum but have no reason to doubt it to be true:

So, that is the trend the Texans have to overcome if they are to leave Foxboro with the W.....

All things NFL suffer from small sample size because of the tiny amount of games, so statistical analysis in the NFL suffers compared to other sports. Additionally, NE's overall record since 2001 is 182-58, which is better than 12-4 on average. And under Brady they are 92-15 at home.

So in a very small sample size of 12 games, NE is slightly better as a home dog than they are overall, and they are slightly worse than they are at home overall.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. Using your numbers:

182-58 = 75.8% win percentage

12-4 = 75% win percentage

92-15 (Brady@home) = 86% win percentage

Yes, 11-1 or 10-2 are small sample sizes but they do represent trends. 5-3 or 12-10 or 148-127 are not really trends - those are more like coinflip results.....My point is, people will wager large amounts of money on trends and trend bettors will be all over New England on Thursday....

And I guess another factor here is most of New England's recent outstanding numbers have been compiled with Brady and Belichick running the show. Garoppolo was looking like he could carry the load no problem but now, we will probably see Brissett and his numbers are essentially 0-0 (with a nice relief job yesterday)....

I wasn't totally dismissing the numbers, just pointing out that they are basically equally great at home no matter what the point spread says.

Now if you are betting the line, than the 11-1 ATS is a huge deal since being better than .500 ATS is tough. If you are trying to pick a winner, all you need to know is NE at home.

Plus the small sample size like I said. We are talking about 12 total games spread across 16 seasons, and with Brady out, there is not a single player from over half of those teams playing in this game. So you would be picking winners of Thursday's game based on things Willie McGinest and Deon Branch did a decade ago.

Bottom line is NE is hard to beat at home, but obviously a 3rd string QB makes that easier.

Aside from needing to account from the expectation that the Texans offense should improve as the season continues, it should be much easier to beat the Patriots in Foxboro in September than in January.

As it looks now, granted just two weeks into the season, regardless of Thursday's outcome, these are very likely two of the AFC's playoff teams. A Texans win could serve to not only improve their playoff seeding (beating a conference opponent) but also might help them stay away from that road trip back there in the playoffs.

The offense has been interesting to watch... lots of 3-WR shotgun sets. With all the new players that are key to making it work (Osweiler, Lamar, Fuller, even Jeff Allen), I have optimism this unit will become very productive once they become more cohesive and comfortable with the system. And I have to hope that Duane Brown will someday return healthy (remember back in the spring when he said he would be ready week 1??) and solidify the pass pro and improve the rushing to the left side.

Sure, no disagreement here. I think the trend bettor just sees the fact that 11 out of 12 times as a home dog, historically, the New England organization has got the job done. And 10 out of 12 times, they've walked away the straight up winner - a trend the Texans will have to overcome. So, just sayin', it will be a big fat ostrich feather in their cap if they (the Texans) can pull it off....

One thing to add to this.

I was listening to the radio today and they mentioned that this is only the 3rd time since 2006 that NE has been a home underdog. The other two were against Peyton Manning's 1st Broncos team, and against the Bengals after NE was killed by KC in 2014 (the famous "on to Cincinnati" game). So the other 10 games in the 10-2 trend are all over a decade old.