PDA

View Full Version : Is it the players or the coach???


Blake
11-09-2008, 07:13 PM
I read post game interviews each year, each week, after every loss and am getting confused on who the loss is on.

Players such as Chester Pitts say its not the coaches that play on the field and its their fault.

Then you have Kubiak pipe up saying it is on him and its his fault.

So whos fault is it???

Norg
11-09-2008, 07:14 PM
its everybodys fault the hole francise sucks

Brando
11-09-2008, 07:18 PM
I read post game interviews each year, each week, after every loss and am getting confused on who the loss is on.

Players such as Chester Pitts say its not the coaches that play on the field and its their fault.

Then you have Kubiak pipe up saying it is on him and its his fault.

So whos fault is it???

Both.

Mr. White
11-09-2008, 07:40 PM
I'll go with the coach. It's easier to replace one coach than 53 players.

Especially when a team has this many problems.

ObsiWan
11-09-2008, 07:48 PM
I'll go with the coach. It's easier to replace one coach than 53 players.

Especially when a team has this many problems.

We don't need to replace all 53, just about 40 of them

Hervoyel
11-09-2008, 07:56 PM
I read post game interviews each year, each week, after every loss and am getting confused on who the loss is on.

Players such as Chester Pitts say its not the coaches that play on the field and its their fault.

Then you have Kubiak pipe up saying it is on him and its his fault.

So whos fault is it???


Kubiak can only speak in "Coach-Speak" which pretty much means that Sage Rosenfels could go out there and throw 12 interceptions and Kubiak would shuffle up to the podium, thump it a few times, stare at his feet, and then say it was on him. Then he'd call everyone in the locker room "good guys" and say that "our boys" played their tails off.

In short he's useless as a source of information.

On the other hand Chester Pitts is a big fat cream puff who does just about anything he can to keep from speaking a negative word about his coaches, teammates, or even Toro. Literally he could come home and find Toro mounting his wife doggy-style and he'd come to work the next day and tell the world that Toro was his favorite mascot in the NFL and that it was Chesters fault that his wife and Toro had hooked up.

In short he's useless as a source of information.

THe truth is that the Texans organization is sort of "poisoned" (I don't go in for the term "cursed") and so there are many levels of fault at play here. The players aren't getting it done but hey, some of them are lousy players. At the same time the coaches are a mixed bag and quite a few of them are clearly incompetent. Hoke and Smith are just lousy at what they do. Kubiak has demonstrated time and time again that he's just about clueless at clock management and in-game decisions. Shanahan Jr. calls a pretty questionable game (I mean, they ran the ball 16 times last week and only 15 times this week. WTF is that all about?). Are they bad coaches or are they trying to coach bad players? Where do these bad players come from? Rick Smith goes out and gets them and I have to assume that Gary, Rick, and whoever else is involved go to Bob McNair to get whatever over-the-hill, washed up, tub of lard they want to give a bunch of money to and then his stupid ass says "Ok, as long as he's a good family man who loves Jesus" or something along those lines.

I guess my answer is "I don't know" but this team's pretty screwed up IMO.

beerlover
11-09-2008, 07:57 PM
no commitment to running the ball so the pass is not expected or neccesary every damn time. I'm going to lay the brunt of my expectations on Gibbs who selected his tackle in the 1st then Slaton in the 3rd yet does not run anything close to what I would expect from a ZBS. there are no cutback lanes, the blocking is defused @ the line of scrimmage & its pass first run second.

in a nutshell the running game has been very disapointing- all around :foottap:

Mr. White
11-09-2008, 07:59 PM
We don't need to replace all 53, just about 40 of them

Then that's on the coach too. He's had 3 years to get his guys on the roster.

If he can't get them to produce, then that's a coaching issue.

ObsiWan
11-09-2008, 08:17 PM
Count me out of the swap-coaches-every-3-yrs-just-so-we-can-start-aaaall-over-again crowd.

It took Tom Landry 5 full years to get a .500 season.

you show me a coach that had success in his first 2-3 yrs and I'll show you a team that already had a good foundation when he got there.

....I'll wait.

J-Russ
11-09-2008, 08:19 PM
Count me out of the swap coaches every 3 yrs so we can start over again crowd.

It took Tom Landry 5 full years to get a .500 season.

you show me a coach that had success in his first 2-3 yrs and I'll show you a team that already had a good foundation when he got there.

....I'll wait.

MIA was a one big, lucky play from being 0-16 last year.... ATL was a mess when Mike Smith got there as well.

Blake
11-09-2008, 08:42 PM
MIA was a one big, lucky play from being 0-16 last year.... ATL was a mess when Mike Smith got there as well.

Also the team that just smashed us was 5-11, got a new HC and a rookie QB and they can put together an impressive win.

We have a 3rd year HC, 2nd year vet QB and can only beat teams that are worse than us this year.

My question would be, why can other teams turn their record around in 1 year and we are stuck in the cellar year after year?

We've tried a seasoned HC, but with a new franchise he couldn't make it work.

We've tried an "up and coming" rookie HC who can't get the job done.

Maybe we should think about getting a seasoned HC and give him a team that has 7-8 years under their belt.

Or we could just stand behind Kubiak and pray that he does something to turn this franchise around.

texanhead08
11-09-2008, 08:46 PM
This is not the same league as when Tom Landry was coaching. Free Agency, a salary cap, and a 7 round draft for starters. If you can't get it turned around faster than 3yrs in todays game you won't be around to turn it around.

Mr. White
11-09-2008, 08:46 PM
Count me out of the swap-coaches-every-3-yrs-just-so-we-can-start-aaaall-over-again crowd.

It took Tom Landry 5 full years to get a .500 season.

And it took Jimmy Johnson 4 years to win a Super Bowl.

That line of thinking worked 40 years ago. Nowadays it just doesn't wash. Job security in the NFL ain't what it used to be.

If you hire a coach that can't keep showing improvement every year after completely tearing down the old regime, then you're going to get passed up by the teams that do improve.

texanhead08
11-09-2008, 08:55 PM
There was no cap and limited free agency when JJ turned around the evil empire. Its not easy to find a team to trade 13 players for 1 either. That helped the rebuilding more than anyone wants to remember.

Mr. White
11-09-2008, 08:58 PM
There was no cap and limited free agency when JJ turned around the evil empire. Its not easy to find a team to trade 13 players for 1 either. That helped the rebuilding more than anyone wants to remember.

I knew someone would jump on this.

The fact is that it's the same logic as "it took tom Landry 5 years to get to .500."

It's just as irrelevant.

hradhak
11-09-2008, 09:43 PM
Just because the turnover for coaches is high in the NFL doesn't make it right. Jeff Fisher's first 5 seasons had 1,7,8,8,and 8 wins. I remember thinking some of his playcalling was fairly boneheaded the first few years. Things look a lot worse when your team is bad and fingers start pointing everywhere. The only way we're going to get some sort of consistency is to have a coach that sticks around longer than 3 years before we keep dismantling and rebuilding from scratch. It's frustrating to watch, but the end product is getting better.

Our offense is still moving the ball, unlike the prior regime. We get 300+ yards a game on one of the best defenses in the league. The problem is both our QBs turn it over especially when we're about to score. It seems to me that Kubiak did what he was brought here to do. He kick started our offense, we just need to find a QB who won't cough it up and the points'll start coming.

The1ApplePie
11-09-2008, 09:44 PM
I think the ownership is the problem and it goes from their on down.

McNair doesn't know a damn thing about football except it makes him money

Texan Asylum
11-09-2008, 09:54 PM
Is it the players or the coach???



Yes.

threetoedpete
11-09-2008, 10:06 PM
no commitment to running the ball so the pass is not expected or neccesary every damn time. I'm going to lay the brunt of my expectations on Gibbs who selected his tackle in the 1st then Slaton in the 3rd yet does not run anything close to what I would expect from a ZBS. there are no cutback lanes, the blocking is defused @ the line of scrimmage & its pass first run second.

in a nutshell the running game has been very disapointing- all around :foottap:

Agreed Beerlover. I'm no ZBS expert. I came from the Dickie Maggle center three runs and punt school. But you are dead on on our cut blocks and cut back lanes. There aren't any. As bad as they suck...they did execute today about the best screen pass play I've seen since the Lorenzo White days in Houston. Got called back but they did get out in space and make some blocks. I'm assuming here just from the lessons of Frye days past...that Studdard and Chriss White are pretty worthless also or else they would make some kind of adjustment. You are correct. This is the Guru's hemlock and he is taking a big swig right now.

I thought the choice of not letting Jacoby Jones having a second bite at the apple on the punt return was a big slap in the face to him by Kubiak. No matter what he says on Monday he just told J.J. in front of the whole football world, you suck and I have zero faith in you. On any level pretty bad coaching, IMHO.

threetoedpete
11-09-2008, 10:53 PM
And it took Jimmy Johnson 4 years to win a Super Bowl.

That line of thinking worked 40 years ago. Nowadays it just doesn't wash. Job security in the NFL ain't what it used to be.

If you hire a coach that can't keep showing improvement every year after completely tearing down the old regime, then you're going to get passed up by the teams that do improve.

Why ? Why shouldn't we hold on to Kubiak and let him adjust ? He's making some mistakes. some big ones. After we've paid the price for these mistakes, why would you dump him out of hand just to watch the next guy make similar mistakes. The contracts will sort out the coaches. McNair isn't a football man. Not yet any way. He's trusted people and their expertise and so far he's gotten screwed. But expecting him, Mr McNair to pay off all of these guys with two and a half years remaining on a five year deal with an option is a bit much. Kubiak will improve or they run him. It's that simple. Assumption is that better, riskier, more inventive coaching will improve the product. I don't think that is necessarily true. I think Weaver, Greenwood and the rest of the dead wood is trying just as hard as they can to make a play. They get no pressure from the front seven, in spite of the improvement from Bullman and Cockeran, which exasperates the lack of talent-athleticism-experience in the back four.

They gambled on Reeves, Duane Brown and Okoye making a jump. And so far they missed on all three of these personnel moves. So which would you rather have....not giving Mario a new deal and letting him walk. Or slumming by one more season ? As I remember it, they were on the border with twenty three million before they resigned Mario....that left them thirteen or so to do what they did. So excuse the hell out of me runner... there is still culpability for Capers and CC here. They ate what they could out of the cap disaster left behind by those two. As I remember it everyone and I mean everyone on this board was behind the switch to the four three. Did you think those DE's and LBs were going to be miracled to you by Jesus ? You gotta pay for those guys.

But beyond all of that, you can't have your QBs being the head waters of a turn over well and expect to make progress. And it won't matter who the coaches are until they fix that. Everyone on Kirby knows what the problems are. That's on Kubiak and Gibbs. The only question now is are we playing the rest of the season for a draft slot. Or are they going to do some of that guru chit and do something about it this season ? I believe Bob McNair will pay this lot off when I read it. My money and if I was him I'd leave them to stew in the sewer swill they've made for themselves the fourth year. I wouldn't save them by paying them off. I'd feed it to them by the bucket fulls. Why should Mr McNair and the fans be the only ones who are miserable ?

atxlaurie
11-10-2008, 12:48 AM
I think there'd be a big difference if we had a QB that could stay healthy and not throw interceptions. Look what the Ravens were able to do with a game manager like Flacco who didn't make the big mistakes and look at what the Dolphins have done with Pennington staying healthy. Both pretty crappy teams recently that now have winning records because of QB play.

We should have raced harder in the Brett Favre sweepstakes and gotten him.

Norg
11-10-2008, 02:15 AM
C pitts is drinking to kool aid we cant trust him But we can Cut HIM !!!!

TheRealJoker
11-10-2008, 02:23 AM
I think there'd be a big difference if we had a QB that could stay healthy and not throw interceptions. Look what the Ravens were able to do with a game manager like Flacco who didn't make the big mistakes and look at what the Dolphins have done with Pennington staying healthy. Both pretty crappy teams recently that now have winning records because of QB play.

We should have raced harder in the Brett Favre sweepstakes and gotten him.

Both teams have a good defense (in balt's case...VERY good) and a solid steady running game. That makes a huge difference in QB performance. I'll buy Pennington being successful here. As a matter of fact I think he's one of the better fits for what we want to do since he's ultra accurate, can run the bootleg, and takes care of the football. But a rookie? He's gonna need that defense and running game to take the pressure off of him so he CAN play as a game manager.

We dont currently have that on this football team. We can run against average/poor run defenses but when we face a top 10 front 7 we aren't going anywhere. And our defense? To keep a long rant short...Richard Smith

Vinny
11-10-2008, 03:02 AM
Casserly and Capers were awful so you fire them after they decide to "groom" David Carr for half a decade....so you bring in a first time rookie GM, a rookie coach, with a rookie defensive coordinator and promote a rookie offensive coordinator...each coach a noob in their respective positions and we tie that in with the same talent evaluator heading the scouting department since the year 2000...the same guy that brought us Todd Wade, Charlie Clemons, Stacey Mack Matt Stevens and countless other marginal NFL players and pay them like they will one day play better than they ever have in the past since they are now "Houston Texans!". Brilliant stuff there McNair. Deeds, not words...whatever that means to you.

Norg
11-10-2008, 03:29 AM
thats why we should of kept Carr to focus on onther postions needs but we didnt

now this is why we need to Keep Matt around for another Year and not make the same mastike twice give him 4 years if he still sucks by then Can Him

Man i wish we would of had Brett Farve in a texas Uniform Tho .... that would of been so neat to see

Vinny
11-10-2008, 03:50 AM
thats why we should of kept Carr to focus on onther postions needs but we didnt

kept Carr? You need to find a way to get off of that if you want some credibility...its a ridiculous argument and isn't credible.

Blake
11-10-2008, 09:41 AM
kept Carr? You need to find a way to get off of that if you want some credibility...its a ridiculous argument and isn't credible.

What are you talking about? With Carr and Stacy Mack we would be a formidable foe!

cowbellm00
11-10-2008, 09:56 AM
What are you talking about? With Carr and Stacy Mack we would be a formidable foe!

agreed. Carr sucked because he never had an O line. NEVER! not once. 76 sacks in 10 weeks? not even Aikman in Dallas had to deal with that his rookie year. Carr's carrer was doomed because of Capers. Schaub would be no diffrent if Kubiak didn't adress the O line ( I still think he could have done better, but that's beside the point) like he has.

All that aside, I think our biggest problem is that we throw the ball to much. we need to get back to running 50% of the time, that will lessen our chances of throwing an int.

oh yeah, and our D Line needs to step it up BIGTIME! At the begining of the year that was our big hype. " The Texans D Line is full of 1st rounders. WATCH OUT FOR THEM!" LMFAO! HAHA ... besides Mario, where's our D LINE? when they start applying pressure, you'll see some wins.

dskillz
11-10-2008, 10:12 AM
After our QB threw 4 INTs, 3 of them definitely his fault, all Kubiak can do is talk about how bad our defense is. Week after week Gary talks about how "We moved away fromt he run too fast", but yet does it over and over. We have no time management skills or know when to call a timeout to save tim eat the end of a half.

Players aren't stupid. They see their leaders, the head coach and QBs making the same mistakes week after week and it lowers the bar on their own acountability. If your boss is allowed to screw up week after week, you can't tell me that it isn't going to affect the output of the entire organization. "Why should I improve when no one else has to?" has to be the mindset in that locker room.

The Monday Night Football game with the Jags has all the makings of a Bob McNair embarrassment.

noxiousdog
11-10-2008, 10:41 AM
MIA was a one big, lucky play from being 0-16 last year.... ATL was a mess when Mike Smith got there as well.

Miami has something like 13 new starters.

Atlanta is pretty impressive though alot of it is on Matt Ryan.

Jackie Chiles
11-10-2008, 12:00 PM
agreed. Carr sucked because he never had an O line. NEVER! not once. 76 sacks in 10 weeks? not even Aikman in Dallas had to deal with that his rookie year. Carr's carrer was doomed because of Capers. Schaub would be no diffrent if Kubiak didn't adress the O line ( I still think he could have done better, but that's beside the point) like he has.

All that aside, I think our biggest problem is that we throw the ball to much. we need to get back to running 50% of the time, that will lessen our chances of throwing an int.

oh yeah, and our D Line needs to step it up BIGTIME! At the begining of the year that was our big hype. " The Texans D Line is full of 1st rounders. WATCH OUT FOR THEM!" LMFAO! HAHA ... besides Mario, where's our D LINE? when they start applying pressure, you'll see some wins.

You do realize that the post you responded to was being completely facetious don't you? Put Carr behind this line and the sacks will shoot through the roof. I cannot believe times are so bad that people look back on Carr and try to reinvent the history of his epic failures.

BigBull17
11-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Count me out of the swap-coaches-every-3-yrs-just-so-we-can-start-aaaall-over-again crowd.

It took Tom Landry 5 full years to get a .500 season.

you show me a coach that had success in his first 2-3 yrs and I'll show you a team that already had a good foundation when he got there.

....I'll wait.

I would agree, except he makes the same mistakes every game for the past two years. How hard is it to use time outs properly? Or that passing the ball 38+ times a game with INT prone Qb's is a bad idea? Or only giving Slaton 4 carries? Or running 7 step PA from your one yard line? Or picking project, not ready to play players for the past two years? We continue to get raw, potential, only to have it do nothing. Jacoby, Amobi, Brown, they werent ready to play. Yet, they were all very high draft picks. All on him. The only constant from our last two drafts in the 1st three rounds is Slaton. Thats it. And Bennet is good, but keeps getting yanked for Faggins... Yuck.

Norg
11-10-2008, 01:30 PM
You do realize that the post you responded to was being completely facetious don't you? Put Carr behind this line and the sacks will shoot through the roof. I cannot believe times are so bad that people look back on Carr and try to reinvent the history of his epic failures.

how do u know that we dont becasue carr has never played behind this O line

and he would get less sacks because hes more mobile then Matt thats a FACT no one can disagree with

DBCooper
11-10-2008, 01:32 PM
how do u know that we dont becasue carr has never played behind this O line

and he would get less sacks because hes more mobile then Matt thats a FACT no one can disagree with


Dude, is english your first language?

Jackie Chiles
11-10-2008, 01:35 PM
how do u know that we dont becasue carr has never played behind this O line

and he would get less sacks because hes more mobile then Matt thats a FACT no one can disagree with

How about because the first year of Schaub and Sage behind the same O-line David played behind the sacks dropped by 21? Carr was pretty mobile though, loved watching him run outta bounds just behind the LOS while holding out the ball for those extra couple of inches. Hah, I can't believe I am having this conversation.

ArlingtonTexan
11-10-2008, 03:50 PM
You do realize that the post you responded to was being completely facetious don't you? Put Carr behind this line and the sacks will shoot through the roof. I cannot believe times are so bad that people look back on Carr and try to reinvent the history of his epic failures.

Unfortunately when you still not getting quality NFL QB play you are going to get all types of reactionary stuff. People only forget the Carrs of the world when you win until then....:gun: