PDA

View Full Version : Don Banks: Kubiak appears to be out of answers


Vinny
10-15-2013, 05:15 PM
In a remarkable NFL coaching career that spanned from Kennedy to Clinton, Don Shula managed to lose 156 regular-season games in his record-breaking 33-year run on the sideline. The most telling statistic that illustrates his success and explains his longevity? Only eight times during his memorable multi-decade run did his teams suffer through a losing streak of at least three games, or roughly once every four years on average.

Shula never experienced even a three-game losing skid with the Baltimore Colts from 1963-69, and his Miami Dolphins had just one three-game slump in his first five years in South Florida. That's 12 seasons, one three-game losing streak. The Dolphins would go on to experience five more three-gamers in his final 21 seasons, and even uncharacteristically dropped five in a row on two occasions. But that's it. Eight legitimate losing streaks in 33 seasons.

Did he have great quarterbacks for the majority of those years? You bet he did. Unitas, Griese and Marino are all Hall of Fame names. But Shula also had an extraordinary ability to fix problems and make corrections midseason, rarely letting his team's little flaws grow into a big, season-killing crisis. Bar none, that's the most vital part of a head coach's skill set, because when things go wrong and the sky starts falling, that's when they really earn their money. Or should anyway.



Which brings us to Gary Kubiak. The beleaguered Houston head coach is still in the first half of his eighth season with the Texans. But he's currently working on his ninth career losing streak of at least three games, with two-time defending AFC South champion Houston (2-4) dropping its past four games after a mirage-like 2-0 start to the season.

Let that sink in for a moment. In less than seven and a half seasons, Kubiak has already caught and passed Shula, at least in that one dubious distinction. In a fraction of the time, his Texans have already endured more prolonged slumps than Shula's teams did in three-plus decades. That's not a statistical milestone likely to be churned out in the pregame notes by Houston's public relations staff, but it's part of his record and it speaks volumes about what I think is the Texans' biggest underlying problem.

Kubiak's team is free-falling and he doesn't know where the cord is to pull the chute. Logic tells us a soft landing isn't likely.


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20131015/gary-kubiak-houston-texans-matt-schaub/#ixzz2hpc5k8Gr

Double Barrel
10-15-2013, 05:48 PM
NFL Films did one of their "A Football Life" episodes on Shula this season. It was AMAZING.

I've always respected him, but never knew some of the details. He NEVER had a losing season in 33 years as a head coach in the NFL. That one blew my mind. (edit: just looked at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Shula), and it says he had two losing seasons. NFL Films got that one wrong, but still very impressive record!)

I know Bob McNair wanted Kubiak to be his Tom Landry or Don Shula. And I cannot blame the man for trying.

But you cannot will a coach to greatness. They either posses the potential or they don't.

Kubiak gives me a Norv Turner vibe. Great coordinator, and competent enough to put together teams that can make playoff runs. But by the same token, they do not seem to have that so-called "it factor" that inspires teams to do great things.

sandmanx
10-15-2013, 05:48 PM
Hopefully Bob reads that article. I've never seen a coach get less out of this much talent, with the possible exception of Jim Schwartz(who managed to take 12-4 talent to 4-12 last year.)

Mr teX
10-15-2013, 05:54 PM
Good read......8 years is enough...time to upgrade from flip phone kubiak to an i phone caliber coach!!! Make it happen bob!

dalemurphy
10-15-2013, 06:02 PM
Hopefully Bob reads that article. I've never seen a coach get less out of this much talent, with the possible exception of Jim Schwartz(who managed to take 12-4 talent to 4-12 last year.)

That is extremely hyperbolic. He hasn't been overflowing with talent until the last couple years- at which time, they won back to back division titles and two playoff games. That doesn't make him Lombardi, but it also doesn't put him at the bottom of the head coaching list. Let's see how the season plays out. Certainly, he should be held accountable if he can't get this team into the playoffs. This team does have a lot of talent... Not only that but it is primarily his offensive system/side of the ball that is costing the team these games.

paycheck71
10-15-2013, 06:15 PM
While I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, I think it's unfair to compare coaches from the 60's, 70's, and 80's to present day coaches.

Salary cap and revenue sharing are the great equalizer, and it's more difficult to stay great, or even good, for extended periods of time in present day NFL.

Corrosion
10-15-2013, 06:51 PM
When you have hitched your wagon to an immobile noodle armed QB .... designed the offense to protect him and give him easy throws and he starts throwing them to the opponent .... you are screwed.


I take this back to the Texans redzone issues .... It starts and ends with Schaub. He cant make tight throws , he cant extend plays , they settle for FG's instead of TD's.


Either Gary catches lightning in a bottle with Keenum .... or he's likely taking a long vacation , unless Bob is willing to give him a shot with a QB out of the draft.

otisbean
10-15-2013, 06:53 PM
Solomon pointed out Kubiak's losing streaks in an article earlier this week. He compared Kubes to Belichek. In 14 years Belichek has had 3 3 game losing streaks, 2 of which were in his first year. I realize Belichek is the best coach in the league but Kubes isn't anywhere close at this point. I was in favor of keeping him several years ago, hoping he would grow as a coach but I just don't see it. I really like Kubiak, but I think ultimately he'll end up like Capers, a great coordinator and mediocre HC.

Surreal McCoy
10-15-2013, 07:02 PM
Solomon pointed out Kubiak's losing streaks in an article earlier this week. He compared Kubes to Belichek. In 14 years Belichek has had 3 3 game losing streaks, 2 of which were in his first year. I realize Belichek is the best coach in the league but Kubes isn't anywhere close at this point. I was in favor of keeping him several years ago, hoping he would grow as a coach but I just don't see it. I really like Kubiak, but I think ultimately he'll end up like Capers, a great coordinator and mediocre HC.

I count three in his first season alone. Solomon never one to mix too many facts into his blog posts.

thunderkyss
10-15-2013, 07:10 PM
I know Bob McNair wanted Kubiak to be his Tom Landry or Don Shula. And I cannot blame the man for trying.

But you cannot will a coach to greatness. They either posses the potential or they don't.


Kubiak takes a business like approach to running the whole organization. In a business, not only do you have to find the right people, but you've got to develop them as well. I'm sure it's that approach that endeared Kubiak to Bob's heart. Because it's something he understands, something he's done.

Kubiak built this organization on that model & looking on the past two seasons I'm sure Bob thinks it worked.

However, there are some differences between a football team & a Fortune 500 company. For one, Wall Street only wants to see improvement year over year. Beating estimates by $0.05 boosts investor confidence, & why not, you've got all the time in the world.

Football... you don't get that long. Careers are much shorter & finding that perfect mix of talent, chemistry, coaching needed to achieve that singular goal is difficult when you're dealing with free agency & the scavenging of coaching talent once you've demonstrated success. So when you get it right, you've got to take your shot.

This team needs to evolve, we're past expansion team, way past it. & they need to take that next step & stop acting like one. Not only the field, but from the very top all the way down. McNair's got to expect more than incremental improvement, Gary's got to demand the best from his staff & if they aren't able to deliver, he's got to find someone who can & Rick's got to get that salary cap thing figured out & figure out the trade thing & FA thing.

otisbean
10-15-2013, 07:11 PM
I may have misquoted. It looks like he had 2 4 game losing streaks in 2000, but they won the SB the next year.

When you factor our record against playoff teams (not so good), our record in nationally televised games (not so good) and the losing streaks mentioned above and I think it's time for us to move on. I really like Kubes and want him to succeed but as I mentioned earlier I think he'll end up being a strong OC and a mediocre HC. Sucks for us

Wolf
10-15-2013, 07:19 PM
Not defending Kubiak. But free agency and salary cap have really changed the dynamics Of the league.

Better have a great QB .

Runner
10-15-2013, 07:39 PM
While I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, I think it's unfair to compare coaches from the 60's, 70's, and 80's to present day coaches.

Salary cap and revenue sharing are the great equalizer, and it's more difficult to stay great, or even good, for extended periods of time in present day NFL.

During the 8-8, 9-7, and 6-10 seasons, the incremental improvement, baby step, build the "right way" (haha) approach was praised by Kubiak's supporters. They claimed that was how Landry, Noll, Cowher and other legends did it, and it guaranteed a decade of playoff appearances for the Texans once that milestone was reached. We just had to be patient so Kubiak could add his name to the coaching legends list.

The argument that the league had changed as you describe above, as well as the need for faster progress, was not received well.

Therefore I find your post ironic.

PapaL
10-15-2013, 07:40 PM
Gee thanks for pointing out that Gary isn't a HoF coach. Think that's pretty damn obvious by the dazed and confused look on the sidelines. Guess that's why they pay Don Banks the big bucks!

Dishman
10-15-2013, 08:06 PM
Not defending Kubiak. But free agency and salary cap have really changed the dynamics Of the league.

Better have a great QB .

Kubiak hand-picked the man managing free agents and the cap for this team. Kubiak's fingerprints are everywhere.

DocBar
10-15-2013, 09:52 PM
That is extremely hyperbolic. He hasn't been overflowing with talent until the last couple years- at which time, they won back to back division titles and two playoff games. That doesn't make him Lombardi, but it also doesn't put him at the bottom of the head coaching list. Let's see how the season plays out. Certainly, he should be held accountable if he can't get this team into the playoffs. This team does have a lot of talent... Not only that but it is primarily his offensive system/side of the ball that is costing the team these games.What team have you been watching?

Perki-Perk
10-15-2013, 10:13 PM
While I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, I think it's unfair to compare coaches from the 60's, 70's, and 80's to present day coaches.

Salary cap and revenue sharing are the great equalizer, and it's more difficult to stay great, or even good, for extended periods of time in present day NFL.

Tell that to the Packers, Patriots, Colts, and Steelers...Ravens....Etc, etc...

thunderkyss
10-15-2013, 11:42 PM
During the 8-8, 9-7, and 6-10 seasons, the incremental improvement, baby step, build the "right way" (haha) approach was praised by Kubiak's supporters. They claimed that was how Landry, Noll, Cowher and other legends did it, and it guaranteed a decade of playoff appearances for the Texans once that milestone was reached. We just had to be patient so Kubiak could add his name to the coaching legends list.
.

Season isn't over yet.

SAMURAITEXAN
10-16-2013, 03:34 AM
Kubiak and Wade + Rick did changed this team from losing to winning team. However, just winning is not enough anymore. We need a team that compete for SB. I think this start from replacing QB that can leads us to SB or at least competing for it.

PockyAF
10-16-2013, 05:36 AM
http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k478/daniel78753/dumbkubes_zps9c453a31.png

UH OH

#suck4chuck

sandman
10-16-2013, 07:09 AM
Tell that to the Packers, Patriots, Colts, and Steelers...Ravens....Etc, etc...

Packers = 2 SB wins in the 20 years of Favre/Rodgers

Patriots = Haven't won a SB in almost a decade

Colts = 1 SB win in the entire Payton Manning era

Steelers = Closest argument with two SB wins in last decade, but like the Giants, they either go big or go home. And both teams really, really, REALLY suck right now.

Ravens = 1 SB win in the last decade

Let's add the always-compared-to Saints with one SB win in the last decade.


Take away the one SB win from the Colts, Packers and Ravens, and these teams are the exact same thing that the Texans have been for the last few years: winning record, getting to the playoffs, getting a few playoff wins.

I guess I don't understand the logic of ONE Super Bowl win in a decade making these other teams "consistently better" than the Texans.

After all, the ultimate litmus test is winning it all, right? Winning records and a few playoff wins don't mean jack, right? Isn't that the standard that we hold the Texans to?

Once a decade does not make a consistently great team. Unless of course we are going to rate them on a different scale to support our desire to change regimes.

Runner
10-16-2013, 07:42 AM
Packers = 2 SB wins in the 20 years of Favre/Rodgers

Patriots = Haven't won a SB in almost a decade

Colts = 1 SB win in the entire Payton Manning era

Steelers = Closest argument with two SB wins in last decade, but like the Giants, they either go big or go home. And both teams really, really, REALLY suck right now.

Ravens = 1 SB win in the last decade

Let's add the always-compared-to Saints with one SB win in the last decade.


Take away the one SB win from the Colts, Packers and Ravens, and these teams are the exact same thing that the Texans have been for the last few years: winning record, getting to the playoffs, getting a few playoff wins.

I guess I don't understand the logic of ONE Super Bowl win in a decade making these other teams "consistently better" than the Texans.

After all, the ultimate litmus test is winning it all, right? Winning records and a few playoff wins don't mean jack, right? Isn't that the standard that we hold the Texans to?

Once a decade does not make a consistently great team. Unless of course we are going to rate them on a different scale to support our desire to change regimes.

I don't understand why you "just take away" the Super Bowl wins from teams to prove they are just like the Texans. Why don't we just "add a couple" of Super Bowl wins to the Texans to prove the Texans have had more success?

I don't think the Kubiak Texans should be considered a consistent playoff team yet. They consistently finish around .500 with their two 8-8 and one 9-7 seasons. They did fall off to 6-10 one year, which is nicely offset by the 10-6 season and their first playoff appearance. They had one very good year at 12-4 last year.

Looking at the Kubiak era, the Texans are more of an average team with one big spike at 12-4 than a consistent playoff contender. At 2-4 over a third of the way into the season, this season will likely be mediocre rather than playoff contending too.

thunderkyss
10-16-2013, 07:47 AM
Derek Newton & Duane Brown talk about the QB situation on the Duane Brown show, check out the podcast (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/houston-texans-official-podcast/id279409851)

BullNation4Life
10-16-2013, 08:00 AM
Gary Kubiak never had the answers. Guys like Sean Peyton, the Brothers Haurbaugh, even Pete Carroll have the answers.


and just when you think Kubiak has finally gotten the answers, the NFL changes the questions and he falls farther behind...

It is beyond sad to watch happen...

Hookem Horns
10-16-2013, 08:02 AM
Kubiak ran out of answers (IMO he never had answers) the season before Wade was hired. As I have posted here several times over, he admitted it on his show. When that season was ending he was asked on his show "What do you think you can do to fix this thing?". He flat out said "I don't know, I don't have the answer right now".

It was like he knew he was being fired, gave up and was just being honest at that point.

Instead of firing him, McNair threw Wade at him. That did get the team to the "next level" (a playoff win) however as we have seen that is as far as that was going to go.

IMO, the greater problem with this team is McNair. Kubiak should have been gone after that season. McNair's personal affection for people keeps setting this team back. First it was David Carr, now it's Kubiak.

bOODRO87
10-16-2013, 08:12 AM
Wade is easily the best thing that happened to the Texans and Gary. He completely changed the defense and picked up Watt. He was pretty much the turning point. That just goes to show how much he saved Kubiak's job. I am in no way condoning him for HC, by the way. I just remember when Wade was hired for DC how pissed I was initially because I knew Kubiak was going to be still around. Looks like my gut was right all along. Stupid gut.

Hookem Horns
10-16-2013, 08:26 AM
Wade is easily the best thing that happened to the Texans and Gary. He completely changed the defense and picked up Watt. He was pretty much the turning point. That just goes to show how much he saved Kubiak's job. I am in no way condoning him for HC, by the way. I just remember when Wade was hired for DC how pissed I was initially because I knew Kubiak was going to be still around. Looks like my gut was right all along. Stupid gut.

Agreed 100%. I wasn't happy either but was willing to play the "wait and see" game. To me it was an experiment to see if 2 solid coordinators (minus a head coach) could win.

I think we can say "limited success" is the result. The conclusion is you MUST have a good head coach to go far no matter how good the coordinators are.

Gary needs to go back to just being a coordinator somewhere and take some time off before that to come up with some new material because what he's got now is predictable and played out.

BigBull17
10-16-2013, 08:27 AM
Kubiak may be out of answers, but who here actually believes that McNair will fire Gary at the end of the year? We'll have an awful season, 5-11 or 6-10 or a run vs some of our softer opponents to get to 7-9 and Bob will say "blah blah injuries blah blah he's our guy blah blah on the right track". Our off season will be an offensive linemen heavy draft with a 4th round TJ Schaub type QB. Marciano will be the scape goat for the bad season and be **** canned. We'll sign a FA or 2 to fill some gaps. Matt will start the season with Gary calling plays. Nothing will change. We'll beat Sister Mary's school for the blind and choke/wet the bed against good teams. We'll have to sit through at least two more seasons like this one before Gary gets the Ax.

Rey
10-16-2013, 08:29 AM
Packers = 2 SB wins in the 20 years of Favre/Rodgers

Patriots = Haven't won a SB in almost a decade

Colts = 1 SB win in the entire Payton Manning era

Steelers = Closest argument with two SB wins in last decade, but like the Giants, they either go big or go home. And both teams really, really, REALLY suck right now.

Ravens = 1 SB win in the last decade

Let's add the always-compared-to Saints with one SB win in the last decade.


Take away the one SB win from the Colts, Packers and Ravens, and these teams are the exact same thing that the Texans have been for the last few years: winning record, getting to the playoffs, getting a few playoff wins.

I guess I don't understand the logic of ONE Super Bowl win in a decade making these other teams "consistently better" than the Texans.

After all, the ultimate litmus test is winning it all, right? Winning records and a few playoff wins don't mean jack, right? Isn't that the standard that we hold the Texans to?

Once a decade does not make a consistently great team. Unless of course we are going to rate them on a different scale to support our desire to change regimes.

It's a lot easier on the fans when you feel like you've always got a shot at winning a Super Bowl. Some teams have built those reputations to where the fans 'know' they'll get back to being a really good team pretty soon. Some teams feel like if they just get into the play-offs they have a good chance at running the tables.

I've had true excitement going into the play-offs 1 time. And that was the year Yates started. The unknown, our first play-off run, defense was balling.

Others than that, for me personally, the texans haven't given me much reason to be optimistic. I was not excited for this season at all.

So while those teams may "only " have 1 or 2 superbowls in the last few years, they have at least built something. They have laid a foundation for winning. This team is so slow reacting and methodical that by the time they think they have something figured out, the rest of the nfl is pulling their hands away saying "sike!".

Kubiak either needs to change and evolve at a faster pace or he needs to go. There is nothing about him or his teams that make me believe he'll eventually get up that hill no matter how many times he utters "I think I can".

HOU-TEX
10-16-2013, 08:32 AM
http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k478/daniel78753/dumbkubes_zps9c453a31.png

UH OH

#suck4chuck

As much as we'd like that to be true, Rodney Harrison knows diddly about this team/organization. Huge grain of salt

deucetx
10-16-2013, 08:35 AM
Packers = 2 SB wins in the 20 years of Favre/Rodgers

Patriots = Haven't won a SB in almost a decade

Colts = 1 SB win in the entire Payton Manning era

Steelers = Closest argument with two SB wins in last decade, but like the Giants, they either go big or go home. And both teams really, really, REALLY suck right now.

Ravens = 1 SB win in the last decade

Let's add the always-compared-to Saints with one SB win in the last decade.


Take away the one SB win from the Colts, Packers and Ravens, and these teams are the exact same thing that the Texans have been for the last few years: winning record, getting to the playoffs, getting a few playoff wins.

I guess I don't understand the logic of ONE Super Bowl win in a decade making these other teams "consistently better" than the Texans.

After all, the ultimate litmus test is winning it all, right? Winning records and a few playoff wins don't mean jack, right? Isn't that the standard that we hold the Texans to?

Once a decade does not make a consistently great team. Unless of course we are going to rate them on a different scale to support our desire to change regimes.

Pretty sure his point was not about them just winning it but the fact those teams are generally actual contenders year in and year out. We have not been that. We have been to the playoffs only two years and to be honest we tailspinned rather hard toward the end of last year so it's hard to say we were contenders. No one really gave us a hope and prayer of beating the Patriots for good reason. And if that was his point then he is correct.

Let's not act like we have reached those levels because we haven't. That's taking away from what those franchises have accomplished. It is what we aspire to be at this point. So saying today's market makes it hard to have continued success is partially true but if your organization has the right plan and execution it can happen. It just makes it more difficult for you to win Superbowl after Superbowl. Not be a true contender for one.

sandman
10-16-2013, 08:48 AM
Pretty sure his point was not about them just winning it but the fact those teams are generally actual contenders year in and year out. We have not been that. We have been to the playoffs only two years and to be honest we tailspinned rather hard toward the end of last year so it's hard to say we were contenders. No one really gave us a hope and prayer of beating the Patriots for good reason. And if that was his point then he is correct.

Let's not act like we have reached those levels because we haven't. That's taking away from what those franchises have accomplished. It is what we aspire to be at this point. So saying today's market makes it hard to have continued success is partially true but if your organization has the right plan and execution it can happen. It just makes it more difficult for you to win Superbowl after Superbowl. Not be a true contender for one.

While I understand your point, there is a definite overtone to this message board of not settling for "just" winning the division and divisional playoff game. The definition of Successful around these parts has been getting to and winning Super Bowls. Mediocrity has been defined as the last two seasons. Good but not good enough.

And yet, when we point to the franchises that are the model we expect the Texans to emulate, they don't consistently get to the Super Bowl. Only the Patriots and Steelers can talk about being consistent over the last several years, and they didn't win them all.

IMHO, it feels like we are playing moving goalposts. Coming off of last year and the expectations it produced, we were not accepting "having a shot". Now that this season has turned into what it is, now "having a shot" is what defines a consistently good team?

Hey, I'm not happy about this season at all. I am a HUGE stat guy and even I can't spin the numbers this year to mean anything other than the Kubiak/Schaub era is done. I just find it ironic that the great teams have been redefined from "making a Super Bowl" to "having a shot at making a Super Bowl".

Sometimes I think Houston sports fans get the teams they deserve...

sandman
10-16-2013, 08:57 AM
I don't understand why you "just take away" the Super Bowl wins from teams to prove they are just like the Texans. Why don't we just "add a couple" of Super Bowl wins to the Texans to prove the Texans have had more success?

I don't think the Kubiak Texans should be considered a consistent playoff team yet. They consistently finish around .500 with their two 8-8 and one 9-7 seasons. They did fall off to 6-10 one year, which is nicely offset by the 10-6 season and their first playoff appearance. They had one very good year at 12-4 last year.

Looking at the Kubiak era, the Texans are more of an average team with one big spike at 12-4 than a consistent playoff contender. At 2-4 over a third of the way into the season, this season will likely be mediocre rather than playoff contending too.

I wasn't taking away from them being Super Bowl winners. Far from it.

I was pointing out the disconnect between the use of "consistently" with the words "good" and "great" for teams that have only gone to one Super Bowl in the last decade.

Because fans around here won't settle for anything less than Super Bowl appearances. Regular season wins, stats, winning the division, winning playoff games. None of that matters if you don't get to the big game.

Unless you are the Ravens. Or Colts. Or Packers. Or Saints. THESE are great teams because they've had a 10% success rate at getting to the Super Bowl over the last decade.

steelbtexan
10-16-2013, 09:28 AM
While I understand your point, there is a definite overtone to this message board of not settling for "just" winning the division and divisional playoff game. The definition of Successful around these parts has been getting to and winning Super Bowls. Mediocrity has been defined as the last two seasons. Good but not good enough.

And yet, when we point to the franchises that are the model we expect the Texans to emulate, they don't consistently get to the Super Bowl. Only the Patriots and Steelers can talk about being consistent over the last several years, and they didn't win them all.

IMHO, it feels like we are playing moving goalposts. Coming off of last year and the expectations it produced, we were not accepting "having a shot". Now that this season has turned into what it is, now "having a shot" is what defines a consistently good team?

Hey, I'm not happy about this season at all. I am a HUGE stat guy and even I can't spin the numbers this year to mean anything other than the Kubiak/Schaub era is done. I just find it ironic that the great teams have been redefined from "making a Super Bowl" to "having a shot at making a Super Bowl".

Sometimes I think Houston sports fans get the teams they deserve...

I want a team that I feel has a legitimate chance to win a SB every yr and management that will do whatever it takes to win. So far BoB/Rick/Gary haven't given me that vibe. BoB says he wants to emulate the Pats org. Yet Gary is his Belichick and Schaub is his Brady, which is laughable and why BoB needs to clean house in the worst way.

From Bud to Drayton to Les to BoB the fans of Houston sports deserve so much more than they have gotten from ownership in this town over the last 20 yrs. Oh well, atleast it appears the Rockets have finally decide to try to win an NBA title after almost 2 decades.

eriadoc
10-16-2013, 09:32 AM
Because fans around here won't settle for anything less than Super Bowl appearances. Regular season wins, stats, winning the division, winning playoff games. None of that matters if you don't get to the big game.

Unless you are the Ravens. Or Colts. Or Packers. Or Saints. THESE are great teams because they've had a 10% success rate at getting to the Super Bowl over the last decade.

Not to knock down your straw man or anything, but do you remember what the vibe was around here after the 2011 season? A loss in the playoffs and people were optimistic and hopeful. Contrast that with the 2012 season and people knew it was over before they even got to the playoffs. The point behind that is people recognize the subtleties of the situation. The Texans have been a mediocre team for almost all of Kubiak's regime. Take away the 12-4 season and what record does he have? 49-53. I'm not saying 12-4 meant nothing, and I'm happy it happened, even though the previous season was actually better. What I'm saying is 12-4 is an outlier. It's a deviation from the norm. If you look at the team's record since they were 11-1 last season, they're 3-7.

So which is it? We have a consistent winning team, or we have a team that overachieved for a short period of time? It's sure looking like the latter, and the math backs it up.

silvrhand
10-16-2013, 09:46 AM
I'm not saying 12-4 meant nothing, and I'm happy it happened, even though the previous season was actually better. What I'm saying is 12-4 is an outlier. It's a deviation from the norm. If you look at the team's record since they were 11-1 last season, they're 3-7.

So which is it? We have a consistent winning team, or we have a team that overachieved for a short period of time? It's sure looking like the latter, and the math backs it up.

100% agree, great point.

Runner
10-16-2013, 09:48 AM
Not to knock down your straw man or anything, but do you remember what the vibe was around here after the 2011 season? A loss in the playoffs and people were optimistic and hopeful. Contrast that with the 2012 season and people knew it was over before they even got to the playoffs. The point behind that is people recognize the subtleties of the situation. The Texans have been a mediocre team for almost all of Kubiak's regime. Take away the 12-4 season and what record does he have? 49-53. I'm not saying 12-4 meant nothing, and I'm happy it happened, even though the previous season was actually better. What I'm saying is 12-4 is an outlier. It's a deviation from the norm. If you look at the team's record since they were 11-1 last season, they're 3-7.

So which is it? We have a consistent winning team, or we have a team that overachieved for a short period of time? It's sure looking like the latter, and the math backs it up.

Leaving the 12-4 in, Kubiak has a 52% (rounding up) regular season winning percentage. Adding in his 2-2 playoff record leaves his overall winning percentage at a rounded 52%. That is far, far closer to perfectly average than consistent winner. The Kubiak Texans are not consistent winners like some of the other teams listed.

houstonspartan
10-16-2013, 10:32 AM
Bob McNair is going to have to chose between Gary Kubiak and JJ Watt.

No way Watt's agents and advisors are going to suggest he re-sign here with Kubiak as the head coach. The guy is building a national profile, and will have other teams after him.

And before everyone says, "But JJ is a good guy! He'll want to stay here!" I'll say this: yes, he's a "good guy" but he's also very savvy. He may like Houston, but, he wants to win more.

ChampionTexan
10-16-2013, 10:36 AM
Bob McNair is going to have to chose between Gary Kubiak and JJ Watt.

No way Watt's agents and advisors are going to suggest he re-sign here with Kubiak as the head coach. The guy is building a national profile, and will have other teams after him.

And before everyone says, "But JJ is a good guy! He'll want to stay here!" I'll say this: yes, he's a "good guy" but he's also very savvy. He may like Houston, but, he wants to win more.

When exactly do you feel this issue is going to force itself?

BullNation4Life
10-16-2013, 10:38 AM
Bob McNair is going to have to chose between Gary Kubiak and JJ Watt.

No way Watt's agents and advisors are going to suggest he re-sign here with Kubiak as the head coach. The guy is building a national profile, and will have other teams after him.

And before everyone says, "But JJ is a good guy! He'll want to stay here!" I'll say this: yes, he's a "good guy" but he's also very savvy. He may like Houston, but, he wants to win more.

Yup, I know they can franchise him for a couple of years but after that, if the Texans have not changed status qoe, the Milkman will be headed out the door.

No way is he gonna spend his career like Andre Johnson has and be loyal to an organization that isn't loyal to building a franchise to win.

sandman
10-16-2013, 10:47 AM
Not to knock down your straw man or anything, but do you remember what the vibe was around here after the 2011 season? A loss in the playoffs and people were optimistic and hopeful. Contrast that with the 2012 season and people knew it was over before they even got to the playoffs. The point behind that is people recognize the subtleties of the situation. The Texans have been a mediocre team for almost all of Kubiak's regime. Take away the 12-4 season and what record does he have? 49-53. I'm not saying 12-4 meant nothing, and I'm happy it happened, even though the previous season was actually better. What I'm saying is 12-4 is an outlier. It's a deviation from the norm. If you look at the team's record since they were 11-1 last season, they're 3-7.

So which is it? We have a consistent winning team, or we have a team that overachieved for a short period of time? It's sure looking like the latter, and the math backs it up.

You and I are trying to make completely different points. I am not trying to argue that the Texans are a consistently successful team. I am merely pointing out two observations that tend to be at odds with one another:

1. The overall general consensus on this MB that division titles and wildcard wins are not acceptable moving forward. This team must make it to Super Bowls to be considered successful.

2. Then this abomination of a season started happening, and interpretation of which other teams in the league are judged as "consistently successful" changed to being based on them "having a shot" at being a Super Bowl contender, as opposed to a proven track record of consistently getting there.

No one can argue that the Saints, Packers, Colts and Ravens haven't been consistently successful franchises from a win-lose and divisional championship perspective. But from a getting to the Super Bowl perspective? Not even close when you add the word "consistent".

In the five years with Rodgers, the Packers have gotten past the divisional round once, in their SB year. In the 10 years before that with Favre, they made one NFC title game. In 13 years with Manning, the Colts got through the divisional round THREE times, even though they consistently racked up 12 win seasons. The Ravens made the AFC championship game once in the 12 years between their Super Bowls.

But I guess because they have the mythical and highly subject "shot" to get there, that allows Texan Fan to say they are "consistently" successful while declaring their hometown team is a failure unless they actually get there.

Again, this is not to say that I think the Texans are consistent, consistently successful, or consistently "have a shot". Just pointing out the moving goalposts when people want to compare them to other teams.

eriadoc
10-16-2013, 11:02 AM
You and I are trying to make completely different points. I am not trying to argue that the Texans are a consistently successful team. I am merely pointing out two observations that tend to be at odds with one another:

1. The overall general consensus on this MB that division titles and wildcard wins are not acceptable moving forward. This team must make it to Super Bowls to be considered successful.

2. Then this abomination of a season started happening, and interpretation of which other teams in the league are judged as "consistently successful" changed to being based on them "having a shot" at being a Super Bowl contender, as opposed to a proven track record of consistently getting there.

No one can argue that the Saints, Packers, Colts and Ravens haven't been consistently successful franchises from a win-lose and divisional championship perspective. But from a getting to the Super Bowl perspective? Not even close when you add the word "consistent".

In the five years with Rodgers, the Packers have gotten past the divisional round once, in their SB year. In the 10 years before that with Favre, they made one NFC title game. In 13 years with Manning, the Colts got through the divisional round THREE times, even though they consistently racked up 12 win seasons. The Ravens made the AFC championship game once in the 12 years between their Super Bowls.

But I guess because they have the mythical and highly subject "shot" to get there, that allows Texan Fan to say they are "consistently" successful while declaring their hometown team is a failure unless they actually get there.

Again, this is not to say that I think the Texans are consistent, consistently successful, or consistently "have a shot". Just pointing out the moving goalposts when people want to compare them to other teams.

Not saying this to be mean, but you're kind of all over the map here.

As it relates to other teams' consistency:

1.) what is their record over the past 5 years? Consistent winners? Consistently mediocre?

2.) How often do they advance to the playoffs? Anyone in the playoffs technically has a shot, though we know from last year's experience here that some teams are dead man walking going in.

3.) How often does this other team (whoever is being compared) choke when the games are on the line? A loss can be acceptable (Texans 2011 playoff loss), or a loss can be ridiculous (pick one of the many blowouts since the 11-1 start).

As it relates to the Texans:

1.) A Super Bowl win is the goal, of course. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who wasn't optimistic and hopeful after the 2011 playoff loss around here. That disproves the notion that a Super Bowl win is ALL that matters. Progress matters. Good play matters. Not dashing the hopes of your fan base one blowout at a time matters.

2.) As for the nebulous concept of having a shot, fans felt better going into the 2011 playoffs with a 5th round rookie QB than they did going into the 2012 playoffs with a seasoned veteran that was supposedly all that was missing from the 2011 team. Point being, the QB matters a lot. This team has no shot at a Super Bowl with Schaub under center. OK, mathematically, yes they do, but anyone with eyes knows better. Teams that have guys like Brady, Brees, Manning, or Rodgers ALWAYS have a shot. It's just the nature of the NFL these days. The rules changes and evolution of the game unfairly reward those with a great QB, moreso than teams with a great <insert any other position>.

At the end of the day, the Texans actually have been consistent, with just one deviation from that consistency. Now they are reverting to the mean.

thunderkyss
10-16-2013, 11:51 AM
http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k478/daniel78753/dumbkubes_zps9c453a31.png

UH OH

#suck4chuck

Listen to it on 790, about 25 minutes in (http://www.sports790.com/media/podcast-proper-gentlemen-podcast-propergentlemen/wednesday-october-16th-2013-1-23846668/)

houstonspartan
10-16-2013, 12:19 PM
When exactly do you feel this issue is going to force itself?

Good question, since JJ contract is, I think, up at the end of next season. I'm guessing that's when it'll go down. If I had to guess, I'm betting that the Texans (who sill still have Kubiak leading it) will try and make a deal with JJ, and his people will say, "No."


No way will he waste his career here unless changes are made.

ChampionTexan
10-16-2013, 12:37 PM
Good question, since JJ contract is, I think, up at the end of next season. I'm guessing that's when it'll go down. If I had to guess, I'm betting that the Texans (who sill still have Kubiak leading it) will try and make a deal with JJ, and his people will say, "No."


No way will he waste his career here unless changes are made.

See, this is why I hate this particular issue being brought up, as most of the time the folks bringing this up don't point out the realities of his contract situation.

His current contract is up at the end of 2014, but there's a unilateral one year option that the Texans can exercise at an amount well below what JJ's market value will be. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that as the 11th pick in 2011, that 5th year for JJ will be considerably less expensive than if he'd been a top 10 pick. After that, there are two years that JJ can be franchised at reasonable amounts. The first year will be whatever the DE franchise amount is (in 2013 it was just north of $11 Million), and the second year it will be 120% of the first year amount. That second franchised year (2017) will admittedly be expensive, but it's likely still less than market value, and less than you'd be willing to let him walk for (even with the possibility of a compensatory pick).

So my point is the folks who are concerned about this either don't understand the situation, or are worrying about something that likely won't happen for another 4 1/2 years.

Coolhand_Luke
10-16-2013, 01:23 PM
Kubiak is a mediocre HC who has no guts, swagger and often has been out coached by many. Base on those two things alone leads me to believe he can't handle high expectation and failing miserably. His decision to have Schaub as our QB has sunk down the entire ship and yalw know it. On top of the personel making regarding assitance coaches...it's embarrassing. Our D has played well enough all season until they got the life sucked out of them bc of the pathetic under achieve offense. I think this season is as good as gone for us. Unless Kubiac has nine lives, I don't see him coming back next year(which ironically would be his 9th season). My wish is to make Wade the interim HC and start a different QB and find a new HC and QB next year. But we all know that's just wishful thinking :((

drs23
10-16-2013, 01:40 PM
Good read Vinny, thanks for posting. Depressing as hell but the truth sometimes hurts. Not so much in the comparing of Shula's coaching career vs. Kubiak's because as has been pointed out many times it's a different game and league today but seeing Kubiak's stark numbers can't be whitewashed.

I've been a sipper, I've been a gulper, I've been a Kool-Aid colored glasses wearer and a SunShine Pumper. Those days are behind me.

I want what's best for my team and they're not wearing the headsets on the sidelines right now. Will McNair have the bollocks to eat a year of contract and search for a new head coach in earnest? I truthfully don't know. I want to say he will but I've got this creepy, slithering clammy feeling that he won't. I don't know how much it would have to do with having to eat year of salary for the HC that couldn't or if he really thinks his HC can "pull it together".

It's past time for a change. If we end up losing who'll more than likely go down as the best interior D-lineman in NFL history I would be way past livid!

Good read......8 years is enough...time to upgrade from flip phone kubiak to an i phone caliber coach!!! Make it happen bob!

Hey back off! Other than my flipper not holding a charge for over 3 days now vs. 5'ish when new "She's a trooper!" :D

paycheck71
10-16-2013, 02:36 PM
During the 8-8, 9-7, and 6-10 seasons, the incremental improvement, baby step, build the "right way" (haha) approach was praised by Kubiak's supporters. They claimed that was how Landry, Noll, Cowher and other legends did it, and it guaranteed a decade of playoff appearances for the Texans once that milestone was reached. We just had to be patient so Kubiak could add his name to the coaching legends list.

The argument that the league had changed as you describe above, as well as the need for faster progress, was not received well.

Therefore I find your post ironic.

It may very well be ironic, but I'm not one of the people who was comparing Kubiak to Landry and others. Even so, football bypasses even the most legendary coaches, like Landry. OTOH, if you think you have a coach or a GM with a vision, then why not give him an extended opportunity? McNair obviously thought Kubiak was one of those people.

Tell that to the Packers, Patriots, Colts, and Steelers...Ravens....Etc, etc...

This particular subthread has sort of taken off in a direction that I didn't intend. I didn't say it was impossible to have extended stretches of success, I just said it was more difficult. There is still a right way to develop your franchise, it's just very different from what it was in the Schula era, so the comparison is incorrect, IMO.

Lucking into a great QB seems to make a lot of average coaches good, and a lot of good coaches great. That is the main road to success these days. Even Belichick needed to get lucky with a QB to fully realize his own potential.

Ravens and Steelers from your list above are the only ones that can sort of meet the standard of prolonged success. The other three teams have had great QB's to build around, which makes things much simpler.

thunderkyss
10-16-2013, 02:38 PM
I've been a sipper, I've been a gulper, I've been a Kool-Aid colored glasses wearer and a SunShine Pumper. Those days are behind me.

I want what's best for my team and they're not wearing the headsets on the sidelines right now.

One things for sure, they don't play well, when people expect them to. Now, since they probably won't be favored to win anything but the Jags game (I bet Indy is a 3 point favorite at home after the bye), they'll probably surprised a few people.

bckey
10-17-2013, 05:27 AM
IMO, the greater problem with this team is McNair. Kubiak should have been gone after that season. McNair's personal affection for people keeps setting this team back. First it was David Carr, now it's Kubiak.

I agree with this. I think he also had a horse named after Dom Caper's wife. His personal affection clouds his judgement. Unfortunately for the overall good of the franchise that affection has been directed at the people that have the highest probability to influence the team's success.

sandman
10-17-2013, 07:19 AM
Not saying this to be mean, but you're kind of all over the map here.

As it relates to other teams' consistency:

1.) what is their record over the past 5 years? Consistent winners? Consistently mediocre?

2.) How often do they advance to the playoffs? Anyone in the playoffs technically has a shot, though we know from last year's experience here that some teams are dead man walking going in.

3.) How often does this other team (whoever is being compared) choke when the games are on the line? A loss can be acceptable (Texans 2011 playoff loss), or a loss can be ridiculous (pick one of the many blowouts since the 11-1 start).

As it relates to the Texans:

1.) A Super Bowl win is the goal, of course. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who wasn't optimistic and hopeful after the 2011 playoff loss around here. That disproves the notion that a Super Bowl win is ALL that matters. Progress matters. Good play matters. Not dashing the hopes of your fan base one blowout at a time matters.

2.) As for the nebulous concept of having a shot, fans felt better going into the 2011 playoffs with a 5th round rookie QB than they did going into the 2012 playoffs with a seasoned veteran that was supposedly all that was missing from the 2011 team. Point being, the QB matters a lot. This team has no shot at a Super Bowl with Schaub under center. OK, mathematically, yes they do, but anyone with eyes knows better. Teams that have guys like Brady, Brees, Manning, or Rodgers ALWAYS have a shot. It's just the nature of the NFL these days. The rules changes and evolution of the game unfairly reward those with a great QB, moreso than teams with a great <insert any other position>.

At the end of the day, the Texans actually have been consistent, with just one deviation from that consistency. Now they are reverting to the mean.

Lete me see if I can try this another way:

Texan fan says, "This team can't get beyond a Divisional playoff game! Why can't they be successful like the Packers/Ravens/Colts/Saints??"

To which I was pointing out, none of those teams have any history over the last decade of consistently making it beyond a Divisional playoff game. Manning has done it only three times in his entire career, for Christ's' sake.

After only two years of getting to Divisional games, Texan Fan is stating that getting to Divisional games isn't good enough anymore. Then points to teams that rarely make it past Divisional games themselves.

It just seems like some people on here keep using the wrong model (teams) to express their expectations of what this team should be.

Talk about the Patriots. Talk about the Steelers. Focus on the organization, and not the QB that they wish the Texans had instead of Schaub.

Runner
10-17-2013, 08:18 AM
Lete me see if I can try this another way:

Texan fan says, "This team can't get beyond a Divisional playoff game! Why can't they be successful like the Packers/Ravens/Colts/Saints??"

To which I was pointing out, none of those teams have any history over the last decade of consistently making it beyond a Divisional playoff game. Manning has done it only three times in his entire career, for Christ's' sake.

After only two years of getting to Divisional games, Texan Fan is stating that getting to Divisional games isn't good enough anymore. Then points to teams that rarely make it past Divisional games themselves.

It just seems like some people on here keep using the wrong model (teams) to express their expectations of what this team should be.

Talk about the Patriots. Talk about the Steelers. Focus on the organization, and not the QB that they wish the Texans had instead of Schaub.

I don't know who said the Texans have to get to the divisional playoff game every year to be successful; it wasn't me anyway. The original discussion was about being a consistent winner or threat. To summarize the record of the Kubiak Texans for his seven complete seasons:

Mean (average wins): 8.4 less than half of a game above .500
Median: 8 wins.
Mode (most common records): two each for 6-10 and 8-8.

This has been an average team, and this season is trending toward 8-8 or worse. It isn't about making the divisional playoffs for me. A successful team should be above average, or I don't understand how "successful" is being used. All of the win/loss stats point to just average and usually missing the playoffs. That is not a successful regime, even though they had a very successful season last year.

In defending the team, many say the Texans were "better than their record" for several of the seasons they missed the playoffs. To me, being a perennial underachiever is even more of a condemnation of the coaching. Any way it is sliced average results are average results.

All spin and homerism aside, the Texans are 2-4 right now with a tough schedule ahead. They are unlikely to get 10 wins or to the playoffs this year, which will really make the 12-4 record stand out as an anomaly. Are two playoff appearances in eight years - 25% - the mark of a successful franchise? I don't think it makes the Texans stand out as such.

A season after season expectation over average for this regime is a high expectation indeed.

Rey
10-17-2013, 09:11 AM
Lete me see if I can try this another way:

Texan fan says, "This team can't get beyond a Divisional playoff game! Why can't they be successful like the Packers/Ravens/Colts/Saints??"

To which I was pointing out, none of those teams have any history over the last decade of consistently making it beyond a Divisional playoff game. Manning has done it only three times in his entire career, for Christ's' sake.

That's one of the silliest arguments I've heard and it shows that you still don't get the point. Id rather be in the position of every single tam you named. Phill kept Andy Reid around for all those years because the hope was there. No one knows what's going to happen. But as a fan you want to go into games thinking you have a good shot. You want to go into the playoffs thinking your tea is good enough to win games against tough opponents.

Most fans do not feel that way about the texans. Make me feel good and want to go out to games to support.




Talk about the Patriots. Talk about the Steelers. Focus on the organization, and not the QB that they wish the Texans had instead of Schaub.

So is all really about leave Schaub alone. Makes sense now.

sandman
10-17-2013, 09:49 AM
So is all really about leave Schaub alone. Makes sense now.

Hardly. I don't post much here, but I've been just as vocal (I believe even here in this thread) as the next guy that Kubes and Matty Half-Ear are not the future of this franchise. I wanted them to be. I gave them every opportunity as a fan to be. They have both simply failed to meet expectations and I want the team to go in a different direction from both of them at the end of this year. But nice ad hominem...

steelbtexan
10-17-2013, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=Rey;2231350]That's one of the silliest arguments I've heard and it shows that you still don't get the point. Id rather be in the position of every single tam you named. Phill kept Andy Reid around for all those years because the hope was there. No one knows what's going to happen. But as a fan you want to go into games thinking you have a good shot. You want to go into the playoffs thinking your tea is good enough to win games against tough opponents.

Most fans do not feel that way about the texans. Make me feel good and want to go out to games to support.

Great post, The Texans fans just want to not be embarassed on national TV games. Be it in the regular season or the playoffs. The Texans have been consistently avg for 8 yrs under Kubiak. Remeber the 2009 season when 9-7 was haile as some kind of great success? Then 2010 happened, (Gary missing the combine for an elective surgry after the 2009 season still irks me. Do you think Belichick/Johnson Parcells etc... would've missed the combine like Gary did) The Texans had a 12-4 2012 season and hailed themselves as SB contenders. Now in 2013 they're falling flat on their faces again. Does anybody see s consistent pattern here?

Speaking of consistency, there has only been one thing consistent about Garys teams, the inability of Gary to get his team to play hard for 4 qtrs each game.

nero THE zero
10-17-2013, 10:21 AM
I don't know who said the Texans have to get to the divisional playoff game every year to be successful; it wasn't me anyway. The original discussion was about being a consistent winner or threat. To summarize the record of the Kubiak Texans for his seven complete seasons:

Mean (average wins): 8.4 less than half of a game above .500
Median: 8 wins.
Mode (most common records): two each for 6-10 and 8-8.

This has been an average team, and this season is trending toward 8-8 or worse. It isn't about making the divisional playoffs for me. A successful team should be above average, or I don't understand how "successful" is being used. All of the win/loss stats point to just average and usually missing the playoffs. That is not a successful regime, even though they had a very successful season last year.


I like this exercise. For perspective, over the same period of time:

Pats:
Mean: 12.6 wins
Median: 12 wins
Mode: 12 wins

Colts:
Mean: 10.6 wins
Median: 12 wins
Mods: 12 wins

Packers:
Mean: 10.6 wins
Median: 11 wins
Mode: 11 wins

Ravens:
Mean: 10.3 wins
Median: 11 wins
Mode: 12 wins

Steelers:
Mean: 10.1 wins
Median: 10 wins
Mode: 12 wins

Giants:
Mean: 9.4 wins
Median: 9 wins
Mode: 8, 9, 10 wins (2 each)

Runner
10-17-2013, 10:32 AM
I like this exercise. For perspective, over the same period of time:
...


Thanks for doing the hard work. I didn't realize some of those numbers would be so high.

eriadoc
10-17-2013, 11:12 AM
Thanks for doing the hard work. I didn't realize some of those numbers would be so high.

It certainly brings Kubiak's record into perspective.

dalemurphy
10-17-2013, 11:50 AM
I like this exercise. For perspective, over the same period of time:

Pats:
Mean: 12.6 wins
Median: 12 wins
Mode: 12 wins

Colts:
Mean: 10.6 wins
Median: 12 wins
Mods: 12 wins

Packers:
Mean: 10.6 wins
Median: 11 wins
Mode: 11 wins

Ravens:
Mean: 10.3 wins
Median: 11 wins
Mode: 12 wins

Steelers:
Mean: 10.1 wins
Median: 10 wins
Mode: 12 wins

Giants:
Mean: 9.4 wins
Median: 9 wins
Mode: 8, 9, 10 wins (2 each)


I don't think any view of Kubiak's performance should be lessened by the 2006 season. Frankly, it was one hell of a coaching job to get six wins out of that team he inherited. Between the cap situation they were in and the incredible lack of talent, remove that season from view and then analyze the data.

I think critics of Kubiak have a good point. I don't have too many issues with his performance as head coach through 2009. However, he made a number of costly decisions that directly led to the 2010 cliff- all of them avoidable (and he had plenty of head coaching experience at that point. I thought he did a very good job in 2011, both before Schaub was injured and keeping things moving with Yates. In 2012, he did an average job, IMO, with the talent around him and the circumstances. This year, we are staring at a cliff again. It appears we may waste a great opportunity (this is the healthiest and most talented team we have had). If he doesn't right the ship and get this team playing well and into the playoffs, I do not disagree that he would "deserve" to be fired.

Personally, I am a big fan of Kubiak and don't want it to happen. Still, if the season continues to disappoint, I can't make a good argument on his behalf. I would expect McNair will make the move if that happens. My hope, then, is that McNair does not hire Wade but goes and gets a strong leader with vision. I like Wade as a D.C., but we would be saddled with the same problems... Wade is not a difference-maker on game day, and he does not have the dynamic vision that Kubiak lacks, IMO. Even more important, his coaching circle, from which his staff would be built, is certainly nothing to be excited about either!