PDA

View Full Version : Actually Agree with Justice Article Today


HoustonFrog
02-01-2006, 07:34 AM
I am not a Richard Justice fan. As we all have talked about on here he is a flip-flopper and pretty much, IMHO, is Skip Bayless light. Likes to stir things up. I did like his opinion today however. I think one thing that has frustrated me about being a Houston fan at times is the that we have owners and teams that have stuck with formulas too long out of a loyalty or other reasons that I can't comprehend. I think McNair needs to be tough during this transition time and let the "Yes Men" go and get some serious evaluation on players. I hope Reeves is doing that. I think Casserly needs to be phased out.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/3627170.html

Jack Bauer
02-01-2006, 07:49 AM
I am not a Richard Justice fan. As we all have talked about on here he is a flip-flopper and pretty much, IMHO, is Skip Bayless light. Likes to stir things up. I did like his opinion today however. I think one thing that has frustrated me about being a Houston fan at times is the that we have owners and teams that have stuck with formulas too long out of a loyalty or other reasons that I can't comprehend. I think McNair needs to be tough during this transition time and let the "Yes Men" go and get some serious evaluation on players. I hope Reeves is doing that. I think Casserly needs to be phased out.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/3627170.html

While I do think this is actually a good article, could you specify your reference to Houston teams that stick with formulas too long? If anything, our owners have had an itchy trigger finger more often than not.

nunusguy
02-01-2006, 07:50 AM
I am not a Richard Justice fan. As we all have talked about on here he is a flip-flopper and pretty much, IMHO, is Skip Bayless light. Likes to stir things up. I did like his opinion today however. I think one thing that has frustrated me about being a Houston fan at times is the that we have owners and teams that have stuck with formulas too long out of a loyalty or other reasons that I can't comprehend. I think McNair needs to be tough during this transition time and let the "Yes Men" go and get some serious evaluation on players. I hope Reeves is doing that. I think Casserly needs to be phased out.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/3627170.html
One thing about guys on the Chronicle like Justice & McClain, since they are
all over the place on any given subject depending on what day of the week it is, sooner or later they will land on the side of the issue that represents your
view.

HoustonFrog
02-01-2006, 08:00 AM
While I do think this is actually a good article, could you specify your reference to Houston teams that stick with formulas too long? If anything, our owners have had an itchy trigger finger more often than not.

Like the situation right now with Bagwell. I know people love the guy and he is an icon but he was losing his ability a couple of years ago and was doing more harm than good. We nicknamed him Senor Popup. I've never seen a guy hit more infield popups with guys in scoring position. You knew something was wrong. I know he had a game winning base knock last year, etc but I really don't see why people are up in arms about the insurance thing. People just swear by some of these athletes. Hakeem started losing it and eventually we had to start over. But up until then we stuck for two years too long with the Rudy combination and with some of the players we had. I think the same thing will eventually happen with a guy like Carr. People swear by him. If he is great, so be it, but I can also see him staying mediocre and people thinking he just needs one more piece. This is just my random observation and I don't want to hijack my own post about what Justice wrote. Of course I'm still the same guy who grew up as a Cowboy fan in the 70s and didn't mind seeing Landry let go when they did.(wasn't done correctly, but it was time)/ Sometimes it is just time.

Jack Bauer
02-01-2006, 08:04 AM
Like the situation right now with Bagwell. I know people love the guy and he is an icon but he was losing his ability a couple of years ago and was doing more harm than good. We nicknamed him Senor Popup. I've never seen a guy hit more infield popups. I know he had a game winning base knock last year, etc but I really don't see why people are up in arms about the insurance thing. People just swear by some of these athletes. Hakeem started losing it and eventually we had to start over. But up until then we stuck for two years too long with the Rudy combination with some of th players we had. I think the same thing will eventually happen with a guy like Carr. People swear by him. If he is great, so be it, but I can also see him staying mediocre and people thinking he just needs one more piece. This is just my random observation and I don't want to hijack my own post about what Justice wrote. Of course I'm still the same guy who grew up as a Cowboy fan in the 70s and didn't mind seeing Landry let go when they did.(wasn't done correctly, but it was time)/ Sometimes it is just time


I won't try to get this thread off-topic, but when I think of Houston pro sports owners, I think of McMullen, Charlie Thomas and Bud. They always changed directions quickly and the course change was usually bad. Thomas tried to get rid of Hakeem. I am glad that failed. I was thinking about past ownership. This is what I grew up with, so I tend to remember being disappointed with these owners. Anyway, carry on...

HoustonFrog
02-01-2006, 08:12 AM
I won't try to get this thread off-topic, but when I think of Houston pro sports owners, I think of McMullen, Charlie Thomas and Bud. They always changed directions quickly and the course change was usually bad. Thomas tried to get rid of Hakeem. I am glad that failed. I was thinking about past ownership. This is what I grew up with, so I tend to remember being disappointed with these owners. Anyway, carry on...

:ok: You are way ahead of me. I moved here in 1993 and grew up in Ft. Worth. So I never really paid much attention to ownership in the city until around that time and at that time the Rockets won their 1st championship...good times. Anyways.........I just hope we get the formula right and have a team of guys who will play hard.

Runner
02-01-2006, 08:21 AM
I am not a Richard Justice fan. As we all have talked about on here he is a flip-flopper and pretty much, IMHO, is Skip Bayless light. Likes to stir things up. I did like his opinion today however. I think one thing that has frustrated me about being a Houston fan at times is the that we have owners and teams that have stuck with formulas too long out of a loyalty or other reasons that I can't comprehend. I think McNair needs to be tough during this transition time and let the "Yes Men" go and get some serious evaluation on players. I hope Reeves is doing that. I think Casserly needs to be phased out.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/3627170.html

You make an interesting post about yes-men. However, I would be careful drawing too many parallels with the Seahawks. I'm not sure yes-men have been our problem. I think the coaching staff were more "no-men". They refused to change their approach as the team sank to the depths of the league last year.

The problem I see was that the front office didn’t take more responsibility for forcing the coaching staff’s collective hand on some issues. The change in OC should have been made in the off-season if it was inevitable. I’m pretty sure the coaching staff and front office didn’t agree on which players should be playing, but the front office didn’t force the issue there either. There are a lot of examples where there was no accountability – there was not a firm hand by Capers over his coordinators, the front office over Capers, McNair over the whole group, etc.

I think the signs point to that non-accountability changing. The whole Dan Reeves deal, the firing of the coaches, McNair’s continued involvement, etc. I wouldn’t assume that since Casserly wasn’t fired it means we are sticking with the old system – maybe an engaged owner and better football minds than ours (like Reeves) have made the correct decision and replaced the real culprits.

TEXANRED
02-01-2006, 08:24 AM
Dont tell Justice he wrote a good artical! That might get to his head and the writting might improve!

Just to throw in a little:stirpot: the Seahawks do have the "It" factor in Alaxander.

HoustonFrog
02-01-2006, 08:41 AM
You make an interesting post about yes-men. However, I would be careful drawing too many parallels with the Seahawks. I'm not sure yes-men have been our problem. I think the coaching staff were more "no-men". They refused to change their approach as the team sank to the depths of the league last year.

The problem I see was that the front office didn’t take more responsibility for forcing the coaching staff’s collective hand on some issues. The change in OC should have been made in the off-season if it was inevitable. I’m pretty sure the coaching staff and front office didn’t agree on which players should be playing, but the front office didn’t force the issue there either. There are a lot of examples where there was no accountability – there was not a firm hand by Capers over his coordinators, the front office over Capers, McNair over the whole group, etc.

I think the signs point to that non-accountability changing. The whole Dan Reeves deal, the firing of the coaches, McNair’s continued involvement, etc. I wouldn’t assume that since Casserly wasn’t fired it means we are sticking with the old system – maybe an engaged owner and better football minds than ours (like Reeves) have made the correct decision and replaced the real culprits.

Really good post. I wonder if being a "No Man" though actually makes you a Yes Man because you refuse to change and just go blindly ahead. Food for thought.

Kaiser Toro
02-01-2006, 09:24 AM
You make an interesting post about yes-men. However, I would be careful drawing too many parallels with the Seahawks. I'm not sure yes-men have been our problem. I think the coaching staff were more "no-men". They refused to change their approach as the team sank to the depths of the league last year.

The problem I see was that the front office didn’t take more responsibility for forcing the coaching staff’s collective hand on some issues. The change in OC should have been made in the off-season if it was inevitable. I’m pretty sure the coaching staff and front office didn’t agree on which players should be playing, but the front office didn’t force the issue there either. There are a lot of examples where there was no accountability – there was not a firm hand by Capers over his coordinators, the front office over Capers, McNair over the whole group, etc.

I think the signs point to that non-accountability changing. The whole Dan Reeves deal, the firing of the coaches, McNair’s continued involvement, etc. I wouldn’t assume that since Casserly wasn’t fired it means we are sticking with the old system – maybe an engaged owner and better football minds than ours (like Reeves) have made the correct decision and replaced the real culprits.

Good post Runner. It is my unfounded take that the Peter Principle was full blown the last four years. We had a bunch of people one position higher than they should have been and therefore we had no one with vision and more importantly no one that could execute a vision. Cass maybe the most well paid support person in the NFL and was good with Gibbs, as most others are, and not so good since. McNair, was green and produced a great product but entrusted the operations to the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Kubiak, Reeves and Cass are a great mix to get this thing on the right track.

McClain's article is nothing to write home about. The Holmgren/Seahwaks story has been well documented to date.

HoustonFrog
02-01-2006, 09:59 AM
McClain's article is nothing to write home about. The Holmgren/Seahwaks story has been well documented to date.

Hey, it is better than his other drivel.:homer:

Double Barrel
02-01-2006, 10:13 AM
'eh, it's an alright article. Just alright, IMO, and not really worthy of lavish praise, though. Any one of us could have made these speculations, too.

Case in point, after rambling on about what the Seahawks did in one off-season (basically hinting that we could do it, too), he mentions this:

The Seahawks had advantages the Texans don't. They had a good head coach and a solid offense. They had the NFL's best offensive line. They were coming off a 9-7 season.

D'uh! :um: A head coach that's been there since '99, the NFL's best offensive line, and a winning season. What kind of logic jump is Justice trying here? The Seahawks had a basic foundation to build upon, so one off-season could make a difference. We need a couple of off-seasons to even get to a point of having a solid foundation.

And then later Justice mentions:

The Texans need to put a rookie head coach (Gary Kubiak) in position to succeed. They shouldn't allow him to surround himself with assistants who are his buddies.

Why? :confused: Coach Kubiak has not even been given a chance when a fish hack starts questioning his judgement. If Justice was so smart about these things, I figure he'd be making 10 times more working for an NFL team, instead of writing opinion peices in a 2nd rate newspaper.

I take the article with a grain of salt. I've got a lot more respect for many posters in this forum than I do for Chronicle writers these days. :howdy:

HoustonFrog
02-01-2006, 10:17 AM
'eh, it's an alright article. Just alright, IMO, and not really worthy of lavish praise, though. Any one of us could have made these speculations, too.

Again, comparative to other stuff I have seen. I actually agree with the hiring friends thing. This is his first gig so I am excited for him and what he brings to the table but wasn't about 90% of the board up in arms over Capers hiring his buddies and letting them get away with stuff?I haven't been here too long but it seemed that way. As for writers, most, not all are out to stir things up. I prefer people like Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy, who can have fun with it.

Double Barrel
02-01-2006, 10:24 AM
Again, comparative to other stuff I have seen. I actually agree with the hiring friends thing.

I certainly understand this pov, and I admit an initial reservation when I learned he was hiring close friends with little experience. I'm not going to gloss over what my instincts felt. But I feel we should give him the benefit of the doubt, and only time will tell if they work out or not, and (more importantly), will Coach Kubiak make the tough decisions if these guys don't have what it takes.

I just think that an owner tell his new HC that he can only hire specific assistances would put a cloud of doubt over his decisions. Like Justice said, he'll make mistakes, but I just think he needs to make them first before being rectified.

jmerog
02-01-2006, 10:32 AM
Wow! I just read the Justice article and I am surprised to be in agreement with him. Honestly, i dont think he wrote it. I suspect he is ill and got an assistant to fill in and sign his name.,--jk...sort of.

Mcnair is a new owner and has made some rookie mistakes, true.. but i believe he really wants to be successful and will do what it takes. I could be wrong but He seems like a smart,stand up guy to me,I think he will get it right sooner rather than later, ..
I hope



GO TEXANS!!!!

Htown34s
02-01-2006, 11:22 AM
"Their evaluation process moved from an emphasis on pure talent to intangibles such as character and passion."

I have wondered myself why we don't have more of this.

Wharton
02-01-2006, 11:50 AM
The Texans need to be changed in fundamental ways. So far, change has been limited to the coaching staff. An array of poor personnel decisions apparently hasn't been addressed.

Franchises evolve at different speeds. Allen was a long time getting it right with the Seahawks. Once he did decide to change, he found out dramatic change can happen quickly. There's a lesson in there somewhere for the Texans.

I liked the article but this criticism is a little premature. I think changes in personnel are coming (they have too, we were 2-14), but free agency hasn't really started yet and we are still 3 months away from the draft.

Also, dramatic changes are a double edged sword. When they work everybody is happy and say "what a great leader". When they don't work, all hell breaks loose.

Porky
02-01-2006, 12:30 PM
They shouldn't allow him to surround himself with assistants who are his buddies.

Maybe he has been reading this board, because that's exactly what I have been saying, and unfortenetely, it's exactly what he has been doing.

Texans_Chick
02-01-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by Justice
The Texans need to put a rookie head coach (Gary Kubiak) in position to succeed. They shouldn't allow him to surround himself with assistants who are his buddies.

I strongly disagree with this statement. And will give it a big duh. Most coaches in the NFL hire people they know, feel comfortable with, know their system, know their work ethic, trust, and believe in. And they hire those people knowing that their job will be on the line if those people fail. There is a reason why they call it the coaches' fraternity because that is how close you have to be to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Working with people who know how you like to do things, and that you know already, helps you hit the ground running. You have more people who understand your shorthand.

Sometimes hiring your buds helps, and sometimes it doesn't. It is like anything in life--but it ain't unusual having the good ol' boy network saying who you hire because the reality of NFL coaching is that you spend tons of effort and energy and time working with these people and you want them to be people that you trust, like and respect, and know that you are on the same page.

The Capers/Palmer matchup was a bad one. Well regarded HC and a well regarded OC--didn't mesh philosophically.

This situation reminds me of a satellite office I used to work in as low paid minion. It was a national company that was trying to put together a smaller office in a city that they had never had an office in. And they hired various superstar employees from that city that had never worked together before. And it turned out to be among the most dysfunctional places I ever worked--kinda creepy, and nobody really worked well together. I got out of there as soon as I could, and after a few years, they closed that office down.

As for the Seahawk/Steeler way of keeping coaches through tough times, that's hard to do too. Everybody WANTS to do it, it is the ideal, but you stare at enough non-good records, and it is hard to do it. That being said, Bob McNair has often said how much he admires the Steelers organization, and you could tell how much it pained him that Capers did not work out. (BTW, and completely off-point, I find Green Bay's off-season coaching changes baffling).

El Tejano
02-01-2006, 03:24 PM
What the heck? This dude barely became coach last week (as in week after AFC championship last week) and Houston reporters are already on him? At least give the guy a season to say what he needs to do.

Kaiser Toro
02-01-2006, 03:25 PM
I hearken back to a Walter Lippmann quote that has always made sense on any new or existing endeavor I take - Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.

As long as we get some new blood on the defensive side of the ball for our current offensive-centric staff I have zero problems.

blockhead83
02-01-2006, 03:39 PM
I strongly disagree with this statement. And will give it a big duh. Most coaches in the NFL hire people they know, feel comfortable with, know their system, know their work ethic, trust, and believe in. And they hire those people knowing that their job will be on the line if those people fail. There is a reason why they call it the coaches' fraternity because that is how close you have to be to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Working with people who know how you like to do things, and that you know already, helps you hit the ground running. You have more people who understand your shorthand.

Sometimes hiring your buds helps, and sometimes it doesn't. It is like anything in life--but it ain't unusual having the good ol' boy network saying who you hire because the reality of NFL coaching is that you spend tons of effort and energy and time working with these people and you want them to be people that you trust, like and respect, and know that you are on the same page.

The Capers/Palmer matchup was a bad one. Well regarded HC and a well regarded OC--didn't mesh philosophically.

This situation reminds me of a satellite office I used to work in as low paid minion. It was a national company that was trying to put together a smaller office in a city that they had never had an office in. And they hired various superstar employees from that city that had never worked together before. And it turned out to be among the most dysfunctional places I ever worked--kinda creepy, and nobody really worked well together. I got out of there as soon as I could, and after a few years, they closed that office down.

As for the Seahawk/Steeler way of keeping coaches through tough times, that's hard to do too. Everybody WANTS to do it, it is the ideal, but you stare at enough non-good records, and it is hard to do it. That being said, Bob McNair has often said how much he admires the Steelers organization, and you could tell how much it pained him that Capers did not work out. (BTW, and completely off-point, I find Green Bay's off-season coaching changes baffling).

I agree completely with this sentiment. If I were in Kubiak's shoes I wouldn't go looking for the biggest names to hire, ala the Redskins. I would decide on what my goals were, and go look for the people who I knew could best help me achieve those goals. That doesn't mean I wouldn't look at coaches I didn't know, just like I'm pretty sure Kubiak atleast considered some of the coaches he eventually passed on.

There's alot more to finding a good DC than:
"We're looking to play the 4-3 this year, let's look at all of the available DC's who've had success running the 4-3 and pick one who's got a good reputation."

Whatever system Kubiak decides to run, I'm sure he's looking for a coach who will be on the same page with him and know how to implement that system the best.


An aside about Kyle Shanahan, I really don't understand the fuss. I never swam past high school, but I can still pick up on mistakes and deficiencies in swimmer's techniques who're swimming at a much higher level than I ever did. Extrapolate that to Kyle Shanahan, someone who's been around football (and coaching) his whole life, played all through college, and has had a year of helping offenses in the NFL. He's a 26 year old man, give him a shot before ripping him because he looks young in his picture. Besides, the WR coach is hardly going to make or break this staff. Andre Johnson knows how to run routes and catch balls. So does Jabar Gaffney. So does Derick Armstrong. These guys' success is going to depend on our coaches ability to put them in a position to succeed more than what drills Shanahan has them running in practice.

I'm excited to see Kubiak giving some fresh faces a chance to shine. He knows what's required to be succesfull, I trust his judgement.