PDA

View Full Version : What if Reeves tells McNair that Dom or Charley . . .


Marcus
12-13-2005, 05:41 PM
. . . are NOT the problem with this football team. What if he tells McNair that the problem with team lies mainly with the players?

Would you accept his analysis? He very well could do that, you know?

Corrosion
12-13-2005, 05:55 PM
Probably not (unless we are talking about the O-line and TE positions) .... I think that they have the CORE group of players that they can build on in Carr , DD , AJ , Robaire , Payne and DRob ..... just weak in a few positions such as CENTER (No , im NOT a fan of Steve McKinney) , O-Guard , Free Safety and across the board at the LB positions . :twocents:

tulexan
12-13-2005, 06:03 PM
I can't see the problem being the players. The team has not changed very much from last year where we were 7-9 and should have been at least 8-8. Also, every game you hear the same thing. "We did not adjust in the second half". That is coaching not the players.

gtexan02
12-13-2005, 06:06 PM
If he told him that, then it would most likely mean that Cass and Capers aren't the problems. In which case thats fine, and we would get some new players. The thing is, Cass and Capers bring the players in, and if they aren't good, then obviously the people bringing them ARE the problems.

YoungTexanFan
12-13-2005, 06:09 PM
I can't see the problem being the players. The team has not changed very much from last year where we were 7-9 and should have been at least 8-8. Also, every game you hear the same thing. "We did not adjust in the second half". That is coaching not the players.

actually, our team lost two starting MLB, had a first year starter at OLB, a new CB, a 6th round pick at SS, and a SS playing F/S, had our top LB put on IR, had our top WR injured, Victor Riley started at LT, RT, RG, Mark Bruner is still our top TE, Cory Bradford is still our #2 reciever.

that, for the most part, is what hurt us this year. We have changed quite a lot from last year.

Tulip
12-13-2005, 06:09 PM
. . . are NOT the problem with this football team. What if he tells McNair that the problem with team lies mainly with the players?

Would you accept his analysis? He very well could do that, you know?

If the problem is the players, then how does Casserly escape?

YoungTexanFan
12-13-2005, 06:10 PM
the coaching is bad too, but it hasnt been a smooth year for us by any means. Changes in the front office are coming, some seem to be falling into place now, but rest assured they are coming soon enough.

Corrosion
12-13-2005, 06:12 PM
If the problem is the players, then how does Casserly escape?


Simply put .... He Does' nt :yahoo:

Tulip
12-13-2005, 06:13 PM
If he told him that, then it would most likely mean that Cass and Capers aren't the problems. In which case thats fine, and we would get some new players. The thing is, Cass and Capers bring the players in, and if they aren't good, then obviously the people bringing them ARE the problems.

Exactly. The players weren't randomly selected through an NFL lottery, nor did they appear from a contest awarding positions to the first 53 people in line.

Runner
12-13-2005, 06:16 PM
actually, our team lost two starting MLB, had a first year starter at OLB, a new CB, a 6th round pick at SS, and a SS playing F/S, had our top LB put on IR, had our top WR injured, Victor Riley started at LT, RT, RG, Mark Bruner is still our top TE, Cory Bradford is still our #2 reciever.

that, for the most part, is what hurt us this year. We have changed quite a lot from last year.

On the offensive side of the ball every starter was available from last year, and Palmer was still here so we could have run his offense again. The coaches chose to install a new offense and install Riley as the left tackle.

The defensive side is another story.

Tulip
12-13-2005, 06:18 PM
On the offensive side of the ball every starter was available from last year, and Palmer was still here so we could have run his offense again. The coaches chose to install a new offense and install Riley as the left tackle.

The defensive side is another story.

I agree. There was no reason, from a personnel standpoint, for the offense to be worse than it was last season.

The defense was gutted. I get that. But the none of the offensive starters from last year were traded or released.

YoungTexanFan
12-13-2005, 06:21 PM
On the offensive side of the ball every starter was available from last year, and Palmer was still here so we could have run his offense again. The coaches chose to install a new offense and install Riley as the left tackle.

The defensive side is another story.


see my next post after that one. I say the coaches are soon to be gone also! :redtowel:

This is, right now, a bad organization period, from top to bottem. We have some core players, but everyone needs role players.

To the poster who made the reference to michael jordan in another post, he would not have been all that he was w/out pippen, kukoch (sp), and rodman.

YoungTexanFan
12-13-2005, 06:26 PM
I agree. There was no reason, from a personnel standpoint, for the offense to be worse than it was last season.

The defense was gutted. I get that. But the none of the offensive starters from last year were traded or released.

This is true. Our offenseive woes are due to a dismal OC who was promoted from his former position on our team, the worst OL coach in the league.

But to my defense, AJ was oft. injured, bradford as still allowed to start. Mathis is still not used to his full potential, in part due to injuries. We did nothing to address our embaressing OL and benched our LT in favor of a journey man career RT. We rid ourselves of our only recieving TE, thus making the position soley an extra lineman, which would not be a terrible idea.

JaguarsFan1
12-13-2005, 06:58 PM
. . . are NOT the problem with this football team. What if he tells McNair that the problem with team lies mainly with the players?

Would you accept his analysis? He very well could do that, you know?



You don't really think Reeves was brought in to evaluate do you? Dan Reeves is going to be the next coach of the Houston Texans.

Tulip
12-13-2005, 07:05 PM
You don't really think Reeves was brought in to evaluate do you? Dan Reeves is going to be the next coach of the Houston Texans.

Maybe I'm naive, but I truly believe that he was brought in to be an independent consultant. I think McNair is wary of wielding his ax with too broad of a stroke.

Ibar_Harry
12-13-2005, 07:26 PM
I replayed the interview from the Texans Web site several times. It was interesting from several perspectives.

1) Most Texans fans were hoping he would evaluate the talent that's there, but Dan says he's probably primarily going to be talking to the coaches,

2) He says he not here to evaluate Casserly or Capers, but pats Capers on the back and says it was a tough game he lost on Sunday and how well he coached the team,

3) Casserly looks gloom the whole meeting and pissed off and Dom seems to relax towards the end of the interview,

4) McNair when speeking at the end is grinning like a Chesiar Cat saying we need to find what's wrong and fix it in the organization,

5) Reeves says he's never done this kind of thing before.

I've stated many times its time for the coaches to go, except perhaps for Marciano. I would like to see Reeves run the team with substitute coaches and I bet he could find some to help him while he does personnel evaluations and sees players in action until the end of the season. If the players play the same way as they have been, then we have a player and coaching problem. If the players suddenly start playing and winning and we begin to develop as a team, then its strictly a coaching problem. What bothers me more is that this move should have been made long ago. Is this a move simply to white wash what has happened? Is Reeves being used? He's really in a difficult position, because if your not here to evaluate the coach and you are not here to evaluate the general manager - and then you say you are here to evaluate the organization and try to help all the Texan's do a bette job - something has a fishy smell to it. There certainly are a lot of contradictions.

Oh, yes, and McKinney was quoted as saying he liked Reeves being here. He's always at the forefront isn't he.

keyfro
12-13-2005, 09:37 PM
bottom line is dan reeves will be the new GM of the texans...i don't think he'll be the next head coach...i think he doesn't want to put in the hours it takes to do that...but be in a comfy position as the GM and sit in the press box with his buddy mcnair during the season...why not...he can't do any worse than casserly

KYColtsFan
12-13-2005, 10:35 PM
Dan Reeves, reguardless of whether he's just a consultant, becomes GM, or (dare to dream) becomes the head coach, will get this team on the right track.

y'all almost had it last year, and i thought this year the South would be one of the strongest conferences in the league, with the Colts, the Jags, and the Texans. sadly, and i hope you don't mind an outsider sayin' this, your coachin' staff is a joke.

David Carr (with good protection) will win you a lot of games. Dominick Davis is a beast even without a decent O-Line. imagine if you guys can get some good offensive linemen in the upcomin' draft? he'll be runnin' wild.

your offense is there except a few pieces. i think this offseason, your defense is what should be addressed the most. get a new coach, one that's a proven defensive mind. hand him an already good offense at the core, have Reeves help plug the holes there, and let the coach build his defense. it worked in In-D.

then what? the AFC South becomes the division to beat (three viable teams for it) for those rings.
i can feel it, good times a comin'.

royce1054
12-13-2005, 10:45 PM
Dan Reeves, reguardless of whether he's just a consultant, becomes GM, or (dare to dream) becomes the head coach, will get this team on the right track.

y'all almost had it last year, and i thought this year the South would be one of the strongest conferences in the league, with the Colts, the Jags, and the Texans. sadly, and i hope you don't mind an outsider sayin' this, your coachin' staff is a joke.

David Carr (with good protection) will win you a lot of games. Dominick Davis is a beast even without a decent O-Line. imagine if you guys can get some good offensive linemen in the upcomin' draft? he'll be runnin' wild.

your offense is there except a few pieces. i think this offseason, your defense is what should be addressed the most. get a new coach, one that's a proven defensive mind. hand him an already good offense at the core, have Reeves help plug the holes there, and let the coach build his defense. it worked in In-D.

then what? the AFC South becomes the division to beat (three viable teams for it) for those rings.
i can feel it, good times a comin'.

/SIGNED

awtysst
12-13-2005, 11:10 PM
Now we all know the Texan's horrendous record, but lets look at some of the losses:

10/2: 16-10
11/6: 21-14
11/27: 33-27
12/4: 16-15
12/11: 13-10

What do all of these games have in common? They are all games the Texans could have won. For whatever reason the Texan did not. Had we won these games our record would be 6-7 and have a chance to hit .500 for the season.

In essence if you look at it, it has been coachign mistakes. Either going into superconservatie offense, or going into prevent defense, etc. This is an issue with the coaching. The Texans are not as bad as the record indicates and next year will be a big surprise for a lot of people.

royce1054
12-13-2005, 11:11 PM
Now we all know the Texan's horrendous record, but lets look at some of the losses:

10/2: 16-10
11/6: 21-14
11/27: 33-27
12/4: 16-15
12/11: 13-10

What do all of these games have in common? They are all games the Texans could have won. For whatever reason the Texan did not. Had we won these games our record would be 6-7 and have a chance to hit .500 for the season.

In essence if you look at it, it has been coachign mistakes. Either going into superconservatie offense, or going into prevent defense, etc. This is an issue with the coaching. The Texans are not as bad as the record indicates and next year will be a big surprise for a lot of people.

I know we tanked 1 game.... referees helped on 2.

tulexan
12-13-2005, 11:49 PM
Now we all know the Texan's horrendous record, but lets look at some of the losses:

10/2: 16-10
11/6: 21-14
11/27: 33-27
12/4: 16-15
12/11: 13-10

What do all of these games have in common? They are all games the Texans could have won. For whatever reason the Texan did not. Had we won these games our record would be 6-7 and have a chance to hit .500 for the season.

In essence if you look at it, it has been coachign mistakes. Either going into superconservatie offense, or going into prevent defense, etc. This is an issue with the coaching. The Texans are not as bad as the record indicates and next year will be a big surprise for a lot of people.

You're right, we could've easily been 6 or 7 games better than we are right now. I blame that on coaching too. There were some games where we looked absolutely pathetic, but there were a lot of games where we were neck and neck with the team in the 1st half or later and then just collapsed. And then you would listen to the players talk about the game and they would say the same thing. "we didn't adjust in the second half". Then there are the most recent games when we would play not to lose rather than to win late in the game. We were settling too much and being too conservative rather than putting the foot on their throats and ending the game. Then there were the two weeks where Fangio made polar opposite decisions. First ultra conservative then ultra aggressive.

We are a lot better than our record shows. We just need a new coach to come in and clean us up so we can show everyone what we really look like.

touttail
12-14-2005, 05:56 AM
.... just weak in a few positions such as CENTER (No , im NOT a fan of Steve McKinney)


Me too!!!!!!!!!!


Bobby 119C:brickwall

sakebomb
12-14-2005, 07:12 AM
We gave up a lot of picks for two defensive players who are very average at best. That to me sounds like the people in charge don't know what they are doing. I can understand missing on a guy every now and then. It happens. But we are constantly bringing players in here who are average, or at least can't play in our systems.

Runner
12-14-2005, 08:32 AM
We gave up a lot of picks for two defensive players who are very average at best. That to me sounds like the people in charge don't know what they are doing. I can understand missing on a guy every now and then. It happens. But we are constantly bringing players in here who are average, or at least can't play in our systems.

We seem to have a problem with overpaying for average (or below talent), and that is certainly not good. However, half the players in the league are below average at their position. A team made up of lots of average players with a sprinkling of very good to superstar players will be successful.

You just have to pay people appropriate to their worth and avoid too many below average positions, both of which seem easier said than done.

Goldeagle
12-14-2005, 08:45 AM
Probably not (unless we are talking about the O-line and TE positions) .... I think that they have the CORE group of players that they can build on in Carr , DD , AJ , Robaire , Payne and DRob ..... just weak in a few positions such as CENTER (No , im NOT a fan of Steve McKinney) , O-Guard , Free Safety and across the board at the LB positions . :twocents:


I agree with this post 100%

Marcus
12-14-2005, 09:42 AM
Some food for thought for the pink soap club.

Except for each of their records, Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold. They think alike, and have the same philosophy in regards to personnel, game planning, etc. If you're sick of the "we failed to execute" line that Capers hands out after every loss, if Reeves gets the HC job, don't plan on getting 'well' soon. Go to the Broncos and Falcons message boards and ask them if you don't believe me.

When Ch. 13's Bob Allen interviewed Capers after the announcement, he asked him if he felt uncomfortable with what McNair, did. His reply went something like, "Not when I found out it was Dan Reeves." Now, of course you wouldn't expect him to say anything else, but I think he was being sincere.

I won't be surprised if I'm wrong, but I also won't be surprised if events turn out this way. When Reeves gets through with his 'investigating' and makes his 'report' to McNair, he'll have Capers' back, and throw Casserly under the bus. And I see Capers telling McNair that with Reeves as GM, they both will truly be on the same page in regards to evaluating talent and who to draft, and what free agents to pursue.

And if it indeed turns out this way, then they will have sold it that Casserly and the scouting department are to blame for past mistakes.

_________________________

HJam72
12-14-2005, 09:46 AM
We're 1-12. I really think it's Casserly AND Capers fault.

Porky
12-14-2005, 09:59 AM
. . . are NOT the problem with this football team. What if he tells McNair that the problem with team lies mainly with the players?

Would you accept his analysis? He very well could do that, you know?

You have a fatal flaw in your thinking.

If he tells him it's the players, ie., they are not talented enough - that's Casserly's job, with a hand from Capers.

If he tells them they have talent, but aren't "coached up" enough, well that's Capers and company.

If he tells them they have given up, or are not giving max effort, well that's Dom's responsibility.

If he tells them the schemes, plays, etc., are not utilizing the talent properly, well again, that's Dom's area.

Maybe you can enlighten me on what it is "about the players" that wouldn't lead back to Dom, Charlie, or both?

Tulip
12-14-2005, 10:31 AM
You have a fatal flaw in your thinking.

If he tells him it's the players, ie., they are not talented enough - that's Casserly's job, with a hand from Capers.

If he tells them they have talent, but aren't "coached up" enough, well that's Capers and company.

If he tells them they have given up, or are not giving max effort, well that's Dom's responsibility.

If he tells them the schemes, plays, etc., are not utilizing the talent properly, well again, that's Dom's area.

Maybe you can enlighten me on what it is "about the players" that wouldn't lead back to Dom, Charlie, or both?

Great illustration. It's not possible. There are only two components to the formula. It can't be "neither".

touttail
12-14-2005, 10:36 AM
We seem to have a problem with overpaying for average (or below talent), and that is certainly not good. However, half the players in the league are below average at their position. A team made up of lots of average players with a sprinkling of very good to superstar players will be successful.

You just have to pay people appropriate to their worth and avoid too many below average positions, both of which seem easier said than done.

The texans seem to want to lock in mediocre players for alot of money. They seem to lock them in for a lengthly time period so they won't have to deal with them in a couple of years or get someone else.

Bobby 119C:brickwall

Vinny
12-14-2005, 10:38 AM
The texans seem to want to lock in mediocre players for alot of money. They seem to lock them in for a lengthly time period so they won't have to deal with them in a couple of years or get someone else.

Bobby 119C:brickwall It's pretty simple really...."Free" agents are "free". Bad teams have to overpay for talent. Why else would someone who is competitive and wants to play in a Super Bowl want to play for a start up franchise or a bad team that needs to be rebuilt and is several years away? Also (for instance), why in the heck would any WR want to come here and not get thrown to? Agents watch game film too.

touttail
12-14-2005, 10:44 AM
Yep, that make sense!

Bobby 119C:brickwall

humbleone
12-14-2005, 11:49 AM
It's pretty simple really...."Free" agents are "free". Bad teams have to overpay for talent. Why else would someone who is competitive and wants to play in a Super Bowl want to play for a start up franchise or a bad team that needs to be rebuilt and is several years away? Also (for instance), why in the heck would any WR want to come here and not get thrown to? Agents watch game film too.


Exactly...which is why all that "we will fill our holes (OL, LB, DL, CB, TE etc...) through FA's" is not realistic. This team will improve its roster through the draft or not at all and contrary to Casserly's famous quote ("our scouts are better than Kiper's)...I actually would rather have Mel Kiper and his "scouts" picking for us than CC and his guys.:twocents:

abbest
12-14-2005, 11:59 AM
If he told him that, then it would most likely mean that Cass and Capers aren't the problems. In which case thats fine, and we would get some new players. The thing is, Cass and Capers bring the players in, and if they aren't good, then obviously the people bringing them ARE the problems.Who chose the players. Blames shifts back to C&C Get them outta here

abbest
12-14-2005, 12:05 PM
Some food for thought for the pink soap club.

Except for each of their records, Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold. They think alike, and have the same philosophy in regards to personnel, game planning, etc. If you're sick of the "we failed to execute" line that Capers hands out after every loss, if Reeves gets the HC job, don't plan on getting 'well' soon. Go to the Broncos and Falcons message boards and ask them if you don't believe me.

When Ch. 13's Bob Allen interviewed Capers after the announcement, he asked him if he felt uncomfortable with what McNair, did. His reply went something like, "Not when I found out it was Dan Reeves." Now, of course you wouldn't expect him to say anything else, but I think he was being sincere.

I won't be surprised if I'm wrong, but I also won't be surprised if events turn out this way. When Reeves gets through with his 'investigating' and makes his 'report' to McNair, he'll have Capers' back, and throw Casserly under the bus. And I see Capers telling McNair that with Reeves as GM, they both will truly be on the same page in regards to evaluating talent and who to draft, and what free agents to pursue.

And if it indeed turns out this way, then they will have sold it that Casserly and the scouting department are to blame for past mistakes.

_________________________Sounds like extreme butt kissing to me .

Grid
12-14-2005, 12:10 PM
I dont MIND Capers as HC.. not if we do some extreme recruiting for OC and DC (Al Saunders and Wade Phillips for example)

Double Barrel
12-14-2005, 12:21 PM
Except for each of their records, Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold.

yeah...except for those NINE Superbowl appearances and two NFL championship rings (as a player and as a coach) that Reeves has on his resume... :ok:

Texan Asylum
12-14-2005, 12:24 PM
yeah...except for those NINE Superbowl appearances and two NFL championship rings (as a player and as a coach) that Reeves has on his resume... :ok:
and a winning record

Marcus
12-14-2005, 02:39 PM
yeah...except for those NINE Superbowl appearances and two NFL championship rings (as a player and as a coach) that Reeves has on his resume... :ok:

:um: Not to be a smartass or anything, but . . . what is it about . . .

Except for each of their records, Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold.

. . . that you don't understand?

Texan Asylum
12-14-2005, 03:08 PM
Excuse my post, as I guess I should learn to read a little better. You know a mind is a terrible thing to waste just like draft picks traded.

Double Barrel
12-14-2005, 03:39 PM
:um: Not to be a smartass or anything, but . . . what is it about . . .

Except for each of their records, Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold.

. . . that you don't understand?


Then we have a difference of opinions on definitions.

What I call resume, you refer to as "records".

But to me, records means:

Dom Capers - 47-78 (wins/losses)

Dan Reeves - 190-165-2 (wins/losses/ties)

If you look up "records", it gives you raw numbers.

If you look up "resumes", it gives you in depth background to a person's career.

And not to be a smartass or anything, but you do honestly believe the tripe that Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold?!

yeah, if championships mean nothing to you. :rolleyes:

Whatever. You've been in love with Capers all season, so don't jump off his bandwagon now. :ok:

Marcus
12-14-2005, 04:01 PM
WOW DD, just a second there, I thought maybe you were someone I could have a decent conversation with about a particular topic.

Thanks for setting me straight.:(

eriadoc
12-14-2005, 04:34 PM
:um: Not to be a smartass or anything, but . . . what is it about . . .

Except for each of their records, Capers and Reeves are cut from the same mold.

. . . that you don't understand?

Not to add to a pissing match or anything, but IMO it's faulty logic to exclude a condition like that. I mean, as a Texans fan, all I care about is championships. I don't necessarily like Capers' game plans, but if he took us to three Super Bowls in a decade, I'd be 100% on board. I think Reeves has had some success with that type of play because he's acquired and utilized personnel accordingly, while it can probably be argued that Capers' people either don't fit his scheme or he doesn't utilize them appropriately. If Casserly, Capers, Palmer (now Pendry for this reason, I think), and Fangio were all 100% on the same page, then I think this might be more of a team effort. Lack of synergy almost certainly plays a part in our 1-12 record.

I think there are too many other factors involved to make that blanket statement (Fangio's failure elsewhere, Casserly's deals, Capers' lack of overall success, etc.), but I think there's a bit of truth to it.

Hervoyel
12-14-2005, 04:46 PM
. . . are NOT the problem with this football team. What if he tells McNair that the problem with team lies mainly with the players?

Would you accept his analysis? He very well could do that, you know?

I don't think this is possible. If Reeves comes back and tells Bob that the coach isn't the problem then we've been drafting lousy players and that means Charlie is the problem in all likelyhood. If he comes back and tells Bob that the players are fine then that means Dom and his staff are the problem.

If he comes back and tells Bob that neither Dom nor Charlie are the problem then where is the problem? If it is the players then that can't mean Charlie is off the hook. What else could it be? The staff? Maybe he's going to recommend that they fire the coordinators though I don't see that happening. They won't make Dom fire everyone (or most everyone) under him but then leave him as the HC.

Dom is gone, Charlie is either gone or about to be moved out of the talent finding business. Reeves is going to recommend people who have worked well with him in the past and it's anyones guess what Bob will end up doing.

Bobo
12-14-2005, 06:27 PM
I don't think this is possible. If Reeves comes back and tells Bob that the coach isn't the problem then we've been drafting lousy players and that means Charlie is the problem in all likelyhood. If he comes back and tells Bob that the players are fine then that means Dom and his staff are the problem.

If he comes back and tells Bob that neither Dom nor Charlie are the problem then where is the problem? If it is the players then that can't mean Charlie is off the hook. What else could it be? The staff? Maybe he's going to recommend that they fire the coordinators though I don't see that happening. They won't make Dom fire everyone (or most everyone) under him but then leave him as the HC.

Dom is gone, Charlie is either gone or about to be moved out of the talent finding business. Reeves is going to recommend people who have worked well with him in the past and it's anyones guess what Bob will end up doing.

A.) I wouldn't say Dom is gone. He has had three good, strong years and one stinker. Cowher had a stinker too a couple years ago. That's three good reasons to keep him. B.) Reeves wasn't called in to evaluate Dom or Charlie anyway. After all, Reeves has coached against Capers on many occasions. He knows how good a coach Capers is. C.) A blood-letting isn't always the best remedy for a bad season -- especially when basically the same team finished within one game of .500 the previous year.

Bobo
12-14-2005, 06:30 PM
Not to add to a pissing match or anything, but IMO it's faulty logic to exclude a condition like that. I mean, as a Texans fan, all I care about is championships.

Don't you think that's a little much to expect for a team that has only been in existence for four years?

Vinny
12-14-2005, 06:34 PM
Don't you think that's a little much to expect for a team that has only been in existence for four years?No, we don't expect them tomorrow either. Championships are the reason they play the game....they don't play just to play, and we don't root for ties or losses.

real
12-14-2005, 06:40 PM
Probably not (unless we are talking about the O-line and TE positions) .... I think that they have the CORE group of players that they can build on in Carr , DD , AJ , Robaire , Payne and DRob ..... just weak in a few positions such as CENTER (No , im NOT a fan of Steve McKinney) , O-Guard , Free Safety and across the board at the LB positions . :twocents:
Robaire, Payne ? they are on their way out and you call them building blocks ?

Double Barrel
12-14-2005, 06:56 PM
WOW DD, just a second there, I thought maybe you were someone I could have a decent conversation with about a particular topic.

Thanks for setting me straight.:(

I wasn't trying to "set you straight", bro'. I was just pointing out the difference in our opinions on what "records" mean to each of us. You had a way of pointing out my "misunderstanding" that did not seem conducive towards decent conversation, if that was your original point. But that's cool, I wasn't trying to get in a pissing match or anything.

I just see Reeves and Capers as two completely different coaches, cut from completely different clothes. One is offensive minded, the other defensive. One is willing to change his schemes to fit the players, while the other wants players to fit his schemes. One has played on championship teams, and understands what it takes as a player to be mentally prepared, the other never played pro ball. One coach has been to many championship games, both as a player and a coach, and won as a player and a coach. The other has had a mediocre history of coaching. We could go on and on with resume comparisons, and this was my original point, which, of course, you are free to respectfully agree or disagree with. :)

Bobo
12-14-2005, 06:57 PM
No, we don't expect them tomorrow either. Championships are the reason they play the game....they don't play just to play, and we don't root for ties or losses.

Two words: Baby steps.

real
12-14-2005, 07:12 PM
No, we don't expect them tomorrow either. Championships are the reason they play the game....they don't play just to play, and we don't root for ties or losses.
They are playing just to play now, and some people are rooting for losses, no ties, right now...

Bobo
12-14-2005, 07:19 PM
They are playing just to play now, and some people are rooting for losses, no ties, right now...

If you are rooting for the Texans opponents to win, then you simply aren't a fan of the Texans.

real
12-14-2005, 08:11 PM
How can you say that? How can you define what a fan is? I am one who hopes the Texans lose out, for a better future...heck they aren't playing for anything right now... why would i want them to win..San Fran, Green Bay, and the Jets want them to win...Are they real fans of the Texans?

Hervoyel
12-14-2005, 08:26 PM
If you are rooting for the Texans opponents to win, then you simply aren't a fan of the Texans.


And your definition of what makes a "fan of the Texans" isn't the standard for what makes a Texans fan so your opinion on this matter is duly noted, thanks for playing and we hope you enjoy the Home Edition of "Texans Message Board - The Game".

Hookem Horns
12-14-2005, 08:39 PM
. . . are NOT the problem with this football team. What if he tells McNair that the problem with team lies mainly with the players?

Would you accept his analysis? He very well could do that, you know?

Forgive me if someone else already mentioned this obvious point because I didn't read every reply.

First off, how can you seperate the players from the GM?? Of course the problem is with the players. The GM is not on the field of play on Sundays. However he is responsible for who is. If the problem is with the players on the team then we have a problem with the GM.

Can you picture Dan Reeves saying "Bob, I think you have one heck of a GM, however all the players he has put together on this team really s u c k."?

McNair's appropriate reply would be "Huh?"

Tulip
12-14-2005, 08:52 PM
Forgive me if someone else already mentioned this obvious point because I didn't read every reply.

First off, how can you seperate the players from the GM?? Of course the problem is with the players. The GM is not on the field of play on Sundays. However he is responsible for who is. If the problem is with the players on the team then we have a problem with the GM.

Can you picture Dan Reeves saying "Bob, I think you have one heck of a GM, however all the players he has put together on this team really s u c k."?

McNair's appropriate reply would be "Huh?"

lol:

You're right. You can't separate the players from the GM. Unless they are playing under their talent level. If that occurs, then you can't separate the players from the coach. Casserly and Capers can't both escape blame.

infantrycak
12-15-2005, 09:40 AM
TDan Reeves - 190-165-2 (wins/losses/ties)

If you include playoff games, Reeves goes to 201-174-2--Dom goes to 48-79-0.

Porky
12-15-2005, 09:44 AM
Two words: Baby steps.

Baby steps? Heck, this baby is about 250 pounds, has a beard, and smokes cigars.

eriadoc
12-15-2005, 10:37 AM
Don't you think that's a little much to expect for a team that has only been in existence for four years?

I think you missed my point, slightly. The poster I was quoting stated that Reeves and Capers were cut from the same cloth, except for their records. While it might be a slight exaggeration (to make a point) I was just sort of saying that's analogous to saying I am just like David Carr - except he can play football.

Double Barrel
12-15-2005, 12:32 PM
Don't you think that's a little much to expect for a team that has only been in existence for four years?

Cincinnati Bengals - first season 1968 (AFL) - playoffs 1970 (first year in NFL)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers - first season 1976 - playoffs 1979

Carolina Panthers - first season 1995 - playoffs 1996

Jacksonville Jaguars - first season 1995 - playoffs 1996

Cleveland Browns - first season 1999 - playoffs 2003

So there you go, five expansion teams that went to the postseason within four years of their existence in the past 35+ years. The only team that did not was the Seattle Seahawks (first season 1976 - playoffs 1983), and of course, our Houston Texans.

Chew on that for awhile. :)