PDA

View Full Version : Question for Kubiak supporters


Mr. White
11-10-2008, 06:32 PM
It's starting to look like this board is on the verge of another board war that reminds me of the "Carr haters" vs. the "Carr homers" or the "Vince camp" vs. the "Reggie camp."

I'll admit that I'm one of those that's seen enough. Largely for the reasons that we're seeing in threads littered throughout the MB. Bad playcalling, clock management, questionable hires, etc, etc...but I'm not really trying to start a bash thread.

My question is why do you like the guy? Why do you feel like he can be successful as a head coach?

Honest question.

powerfuldragon
11-10-2008, 06:45 PM
he needs a much better scouting dept. just ask vinny.

Texan_Bill
11-10-2008, 06:56 PM
First Kubiak was not given a ground level position, meaning that parts and pieces were in place when he took over. If anything, his tenure started in a hole. A deep hole at that. In 2 1/2 seasons, there are only 3 or 4 'originals' left on the squad. That's a whole lot of turnover in a very short amount of time.

Some here, overplay the "I can win with David Carr'' card. I doubt that was anything more than appeasing the owner in an interview. Had no one said what he said, Dom Capers would have been re-hired and Carr might still be here. Who amongst us while interviewing and barely having seen any tape on the guy wouldn't agree??

I feel that the offense can move the ball every week. Sometimes more pass than run, sometimes more run than pass. The starting QB has about 20 starts to his name, so plenty of room for growth there. Is he the answer, maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. Although, I think those Sage lovers are finally figuring out why in Sage's 7 or 8 seasons, he's never landed as a starter.

Who knows for sure if Richard Smith was a Kubiak hire? If so, then Kubiak should nut up and fire his a$$.... sooner rather than later. If it's someone else's hire, they should do the same.... period. This defense is horrendous.

Why do you feel like he can be successful as a head coach?

I think he can be successful, BUT, there must be a new DC for that to happen. I think he can be successful because, again, he was handed a team that was in a deep, deep hole. NOT handed a team that was only a few parts and peices away...

Last, I don't beleive in "push a button for instant results". I beleive in stability. 3 coaches inside a 10 year period speaks of desperation and the owner having no vision for his team. I'd be hard-pressed to find a team that has had 3 separate coaches in less than 10 seasons AND success (except maybe during the Cowboys JJ, Barry Switzer era).

Thats it.... Let the ingrates flame away.

Thorn
11-10-2008, 07:06 PM
Thats it.... Let the ingrates flame away.


Not from me. I think Kubiak will be a great coach someday, but his break in period is taking a bit longer than I expected because the defense is so bad. Our offense, and I've said it before, is only a lineman or two and a bigger RB away from standing up to most anyone. Well, that is with a good QB, so maybe I'll throw that one in there too, but Schaub was doing good things before getting hurt. Again.

Our defense is horrible because of a lack of talent AND coaching. We can eliminate one of those quickly with a good DC and then sign a good free agent or two and a couple of draft picks, and we are suddenly competitive.

76Texan
11-10-2008, 07:17 PM
Not from me. I think Kubiak will be a great coach someday, but his break in period is taking a bit longer than I expected because the defense is so bad. Our offense, and I've said it before, is only a lineman or two and a bigger RB away from standing up to most anyone. Well, that is with a good QB, so maybe I'll throw that one in there too, but Schaub was doing good things before getting hurt. Again.

Our defense is horrible because of a lack of talent AND coaching. We can eliminate one of those quickly with a good DC and then sign a good free agent or two and a couple of draft picks, and we are suddenly competitive.
I can't believe you are that upbeat, Thorn, LOL!

Thorn
11-10-2008, 07:21 PM
I can't believe you are that upbeat, Thorn, LOL!


If we had a better DC, we'd probably be looking at a better team that didn't quit, and quite possibly another 8-8 season instead of the mess we got now.

I don't mean to imply we could be good enough for the playoffs, that's silly, but we can be and should be better than we are.

DiehardChris
11-10-2008, 07:45 PM
It's starting to look like this board is on the verge of another board war that reminds me of the "Carr haters" vs. the "Carr homers" or the "Vince camp" vs. the "Reggie camp."

I'll admit that I'm one of those that's seen enough. Largely for the reasons that we're seeing in threads littered throughout the MB. Bad playcalling, clock management, questionable hires, etc, etc...but I'm not really trying to start a bash thread.

My question is why do you like the guy? Why do you feel like he can be successful as a head coach?

Honest question.

Big Kubiak supporter, here.

Let me just get this out of the way - YES I know there are a lot of problems. But, I look at it like this. Gary has always been an offensive mind, and he's offense-focused. He's made our offense into one of the best in the NFL. Yes, I know - turnovers. Yes, I know - red zone problems. It's debatable how much you can blame a coach for the turnovers, when he's repeatedly made it a HUGE focus in the off-season and in practice.

Red zone problems? Yes, totally on Kubiak. Same with questionable play-calling (which I don't think is nearly as horrible as so many do), and same with the clock management (which is totally inexcusable).

Before I give up on Kubiak, I want to see what this team can do with a defense that causes turnovers, and a defense that isn't buttery soft like this one is. I want a new defensive coordinator, and I want it now (actually I wanted it a year ago like so many others, but I'll take NOW).

Again - for those that are about to hammer me for what I just said - I understand that the play-calling and clock-management issues are on him, and that they're often inexcusable... but after only 2.5 years, and with an offense that's SO CLOSE to being an elite one - I don't want to quit on him.

But he HAS to realize that Richard Smith needs to go. Right now, it doesn't really matter who's to blame - Smith needs to go to show the fans that the organization realizes there's a HUGE problem, and that something needs to change... because result-wise, really what's going to be the difference between he or Frank Bush running the D? It sure couldn't get any worse.

CloakNNNdagger
11-10-2008, 08:15 PM
This evening on the Kubiak 610 show, Kubiak was asked, even though we all know that he is very involved with the running of the offense, how involved was he on the running of the defense side of the ball? He unhesitantly answered that he was VERY involved.

It certainly gave me pause.............and certainly failed to convey confidence to me as to his oversight ability, competence or vision as to the way to redirect this team.

Lucky
11-10-2008, 08:15 PM
Before I give up on Kubiak, I want to see what this team can do with a defense that causes turnovers, and a defense that isn't buttery soft like this one is. I want a new defensive coordinator, and I want it now (actually I wanted it a year ago like so many others, but I'll take NOW).
Who is this miracle worker than can turn the defense, and the team, around? Kubiak swung and missed with Richard Smith (note to Texan Bill: Smith was a Gary Kubiak hire). Why are we so sure that this great defensive coordinator will come to work under Gary Kubiak?

If there is a defensive coordinator who can come in and turn this team around, Bob McNair should hire him as head coach. WCO playcallers are a dime a dozen in this league. And anyone who thinks the Texans are a near elite offense after watching the games versus the Steelers, Titans, and last Sunday's debacle has totally redefined the term "elite". Putting up stats versus losing teams is akin to scoring TDs in garbage time. In essence, the rest of this season is garbage time.

There are coaches who do more with less. And there are coaches who do less with more. This staff falls in the latter category. The entire staff.

Silver Oak
11-10-2008, 08:34 PM
This evening on the Kubiak 610 show, Kubiak was asked, even though we all know that he is very involved with the running of the offense, how involved was he on the running of the defense side of the ball? He unhesitantly answered that he was VERY involved.

It certainly gave me pause.............and certainly failed to convey confidence to me as to his oversight ability, competence or vision as to the way to redirect this team.

that's interesting, but probably just his way of covering for Smith?

I like what I've seen out of Kubiak to this point. Sure there are shortcomings, but what NFL coach doesn't have some? They are human afterall.

Our problems are lack of talent first and foremost, and while I'm not a football expert, I think our defense needs an overhauling...starting at the coach/es.

houstonhurricane
11-10-2008, 08:41 PM
From an investment standpoint, I think McNair should/will give Kubiak one more season to get things turned around. Changing coaching staffs at a time when we appear to have at least developed a competitive offense would probably lead to more short-term setbacks.

Give him one more season to work with Schaub, hire a new defensive coordinator, and get things turned around on the turnover front. If we are not in contention for a playoff spot in December next year, it will be time to make a change.

Mr. White
11-10-2008, 08:41 PM
This evening on the Kubiak 610 show, Kubiak was asked, even though we all know that he is very involved with the running of the offense, how involved was he on the running of the defense side of the ball? He unhesitantly answered that he was VERY involved.

It certainly gave me pause.............and certainly failed to convey confidence to me as to his oversight ability, competence or vision as to the way to redirect this team.

He also said that he was going to stay the course when they mentioned making coaching changes on defense today. He said something about rewarding loyalty....

Texans_Chick
11-10-2008, 09:19 PM
Who is this miracle worker than can turn the defense, and the team, around? Kubiak swung and missed with Richard Smith (note to Texan Bill: Smith was a Gary Kubiak hire). Why are we so sure that this great defensive coordinator will come to work under Gary Kubiak?

If there is a defensive coordinator who can come in and turn this team around, Bob McNair should hire him as head coach. WCO playcallers are a dime a dozen in this league. And anyone who thinks the Texans are a near elite offense after watching the games versus the Steelers, Titans, and last Sunday's debacle has totally redefined the term "elite". Putting up stats versus losing teams is akin to scoring TDs in garbage time. In essence, the rest of this season is garbage time.

There are coaches who do more with less. And there are coaches who do less with more. This staff falls in the latter category. The entire staff.


Richard Smith was not Kubiak's first choice (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2008/10/why_texans_defensive_coordinat.html). The choices of DCs were very limited during that offseason--there were a ton of coaching changes. I think he was doing the best he could with what was available.

I like Kubiak for the following reasons:

1. I think he does more with less on the offensive side of the ball. He has had to make do with a lot of players while redoing the roster.

2. I think his team plays hard for him. Not always smart, but look at the teams that are totally imploding all over the league. The players on both sides of the ball love playing for him. Coaches like Alex Gibbs and Ray Rhodes called the Texans to be a part of this staff. You can't say that about every coach in the league.

3. I'd like to see what he could do with an actual defensive coordinator. I hope one of those is available. That the Texans went 8-8 with last year's defense and the injuries all over the team actually demonstrates some pretty amazing coaching. (In Football Outsiders' stats, last year's defense was ranked 30th in the league. Their stats are more stark than the regular YPG stats because they measure efficiency compared to the league instead of a measurement that may not judge them relative to their peers.

4. Ultimately, the Texans are Kubiak's dream job. Not a stepping stone to something else. He's a Houstonian and wants Houston to have a winning football team more than anyone. I'm not sure how much of a consideration that is, but I suppose that's worth mentioning.

I'm sure there is other stuff in there. Here's a general synopsis of the Kubiak era to date (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2008/09/on_the_houston_texans_texan_fa.html)that I did back in September that discusses some of the criticisms of the current team.


Overall, I am very sympathetic to anyone building something from scratch. Especially from something as messed up as that 2005 team was. I also don't see any head coaching candidates out there that I'm particularly enthused about getting that would have any interest at all in the Texans job. I think it will be easier to find someone more experienced than Richard Smith to take that role.

DiehardChris
11-10-2008, 09:21 PM
Steph, my thoughts exactly. Good post.

DiehardChris
11-10-2008, 09:26 PM
Also Steph, I would add to your (our) posts:

Right now Kubiak is going through his worst stretch with the team. It's gotten really bad lately, but people shouldn't be so quick to forget that he took this team from 2-14 to 6-10 to 8-8. Yeah, this year poor play, poor coaching, poor everything have knocked them down a couple of notches - but as far as I'm concerned the guy has had TWO FULL SEASONS of good will built up. The BRUTAL schedule, Ike wiping away our first home game, and the terrible first half does not, IMO, supercede the positive upswing of his first 32 games.

Jackie Chiles
11-10-2008, 09:35 PM
I would love to see what the offense would look like if we had a legit defense. When we are on offense it just seems like every single possession is so crucial because we know that even if we are just down, say 3-7, if we don't find the end-zone there is a good chance that turns into 3-14 asap. I can only guess but I think Kubiak would be slightly more conservative in the passing game and he would be more inclined to run the ball with some actual consistency. I think Schaub could succeed in that kind of environment but the running game still can't run when we really have to. Some people could probably argue that nothing would change on offense because Kubiak has made it a point to be super aggressive.

Texans_Chick
11-10-2008, 09:39 PM
I would love to see what the offense would look like if we had a legit defense. When we are on offense it just seems like every single possession is so crucial because we know that even if we are just down, say 3-7, if we don't find the end-zone there is a good chance that turns into 3-14 asap. I can only guess but I think Kubiak would be slightly more conservative in the passing game and he would be more inclined to run the ball with some actual consistency. I think Schaub could succeed in that kind of environment but the running game still can't run when we really have to. Some people could probably argue that nothing would change on offense because Kubiak has made it a point to be super aggressive.


Yeah, Rosenfels before the last game said that he should consider it a sin to punt. But it really is a sin to punt with this defense.

I mean, when you are at a game, do you find yourself truly surprised when the other team's offense has to punt? And it is a rarity when it happens because the Texans forced it. It is usually because the other team gooned. That double pass play on Sunday was so nutty and risky. All I could think of was why don't you run the dang ball for another 6 yards or so?

Runner
11-10-2008, 09:51 PM
First Kubiak was not given a ground level position, meaning that parts and pieces were in place when he took over. If anything, his tenure started in a hole. A deep hole at that. In 2 1/2 seasons, there are only 3 or 4 'originals' left on the squad. That's a whole lot of turnover in a very short amount of time.


I disagree with the rather common sentiment that Kubiak started in a big hole he has been steadily digging out of. Right now he is reaping the results of the extra depth (pun intended, wait for it) he added to the original hole once he was done with his own digging.

When Kubiak got here, he with the help of Sherman brought in a few washed up players with no real future in the league. They might have been good at one time, but they did very little here. They were supposed to bring leadership and "locker room presence", but their main asset was usually that they played for Green Bay or Denver before. There were a couple of exceptions to this, but there was a pattern. The mantra in response to people who questioned this was many times "in Kubes we trust" or a reference to some mythical, all powerful and wise Smithiak creature.

Well these players are no longer with team after contributing very little on the field. They did take the roster spots of younger players the Texans already had though. These younger players could have developed into better players and at least worthwhile depth; the old timers he brought in instead did nothing but continue to slide into the twilight of their careers. Sure there were some duds on the team when he got here. There was some talent worth developing too though.

The Texans were 7-9 two years before Kubiak got here; that is only one game behind Kubiak's best year after two years of improvement and after Smith worked his magic to add all the talent for which he is credited. One game. 7-9 is probably a better record than the Great Smithiak leviathan will produce this year. There was talent on that previous team. Think about it - they were 7-9 with Carr at quarterback - they probably would have broken .500 with an average QB like Schaub.

Now for those of you who are open minded enough to look at things from another direction, think about this:

Maybe the problem is that Kubiak only has a handful of players left from the team he inherited. He did a lot to hurt the development and future depth on this team when he got here. He may have cost himself some starters too.

That's my opinion.

Lucky
11-10-2008, 10:18 PM
Richard Smith was not Kubiak's first choice (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2008/10/why_texans_defensive_coordinat.html). The choices of DCs were very limited during that offseason--there were a ton of coaching changes. I think he was doing the best he could with what was available.
This is a quote from your blog:
Originally, the plan was for Richard Smith to be a co-coordinator with Frank Bush (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4050833)...Co-coordinators? Has that ever been done? It would have been either a genius or asinine move. Wait...if Richard Smith was involved, it's automatically an asinine move.

I could look back to 2006 and cherry pick assistant coaches who have gone on to become good defensive coordinators. OK, I will. Steve Spagnuolo, Greg Blache, Leslie Frazier. All of these guys were position coaches who couldn't have been blocked by their team for a vertical move to defensive coordinator as none had the assistant head coach title. What these guys didn't have going for them was previously working with Kubiak. The good ol' boy system bit Kubiak in the arse. And what gives so many Texans fans the certainty that Kubiak will get the right defensive coordinator the 2nd time around? Because good things should happen to good people?

And I couldn't disagree more with your opinion of the effort the Texans give Kubiak. In the first 2 1/2 years of the franchise, the Texans played hard for Dom Capers. They overachieved. The Texans under Gary Kubiak have not overacheived. Kubiak's teams have a record of 4-18 versus opponents with plus .500 records. There are certainly some Texans who play hard. Just not enough.

I'd be remiss in not pointing out how Kubiak gives his players less than full effort on gameday. Yesterday saw another display of Kubiak's poor clock management. His indecision on when and where to use timeouts and challenges have cost the Texans dearly. Who looked like a rookie head coach on Sunday, John Harbaugh or Kubiak? The main difference I see between Capers and Kubiak is that Gary doesn't walk the sidlines with a "Oh my gawd, I just swallowed a bee" visage. They are equally baffled as to how to get the team to perform at a winning level.

As I said in another thread, Kubiak's future shouldn't be decided by who is or isn't available to replace him as head coach. He should keep or lose his job based on merit. His merit is recorded as 17-24, to date. Kubiak had a dream, and it was fulfilled when he became the Texans head coach. I have a dream, too. It's to see the Texans have a winning season and make the playoffs. That's not happening this season. Again. Time to move on.

Norg
11-11-2008, 02:01 AM
i was a carr supporter i think he did good with the O line he had besides we never needed a great QB just one who could manage the game

and i was shocked when we let him go after we Finally beat the colts and then Celevand

i mean carr could win us some divison games he beat the jags like 5 + times titans like 2 times and colts once

I dont know schaubs record aganist divison oppents but i dont think its better then David carr's record

Specnatz
11-11-2008, 03:33 AM
Well this thread is interesting and will take some time to respond to.

Who is this miracle worker than can turn the defense, and the team, around? Kubiak swung and missed with Richard Smith (note to Texan Bill: Smith was a Gary Kubiak hire). Why are we so sure that this great defensive coordinator will come to work under Gary Kubiak?

If there is a defensive coordinator who can come in and turn this team around, Bob McNair should hire him as head coach. WCO playcallers are a dime a dozen in this league. And anyone who thinks the Texans are a near elite offense after watching the games versus the Steelers, Titans, and last Sunday's debacle has totally redefined the term "elite". Putting up stats versus losing teams is akin to scoring TDs in garbage time. In essence, the rest of this season is garbage time.

There are coaches who do more with less. And there are coaches who do less with more. This staff falls in the latter category. The entire staff.

You listed 3 teams that are tops in the league in Defense. A good defense will improve an offense more than anything in the world. If a team can not shut anyone down that means the offense becomes one dimensional. Why are you so sure that he will not get one? I mean if you want to play the guessing game then lets play it from both ends or is that not allowed? When you say this team does less with more, I am curious this whole more thing. I mean before Kubiak we had how many WR that anyone thought more of than a silent fart.

I disagree with the rather common sentiment that Kubiak started in a big hole he has been steadily digging out of. Right now he is reaping the results of the extra depth (pun intended, wait for it) he added to the original hole once he was done with his own digging.

Well these players are no longer with team after contributing very little on the field. They did take the roster spots of younger players the Texans already had though.These younger players could have developed into better players and at least worthwhile depth; the old timers he brought in instead did nothing but continue to slide into the twilight of their careers. Sure there were some duds on the team when he got here. There was some talent worth developing too though.

The Texans were 7-9 two years before Kubiak got here; that is only one game behind Kubiak's best year after two years of improvement and after Smith worked his magic to add all the talent for which he is credited. One game. 7-9 is probably a better record than the Great Smithiak leviathan will produce this year. There was talent on that previous team. Think about it - they were 7-9 with Carr at quarterback - they probably would have broken .500 with an average QB like Schaub.

Now for those of you who are open minded enough to look at things from another direction, think about this:

Maybe the problem is that Kubiak only has a handful of players left from the team he inherited. He did a lot to hurt the development and future depth on this team when he got here. He may have cost himself some starters too.

That's my opinion.

You disagree that Kubiak started in a big whole leans to say this team was loaded with talent after the C&C crappy drafting factory and bad contract machine were done screwing up more drafts than Matt Millen. I will not deny that Richard Smith has done exactly jack-shit with improving players but you can not sya that on the offensive side of the ball. If not Cook would still be here.

Yes 2 years before Kubiak got here the team was 7-9 and the year before he got here they were 2-14. Or did you completely forget about that season? Please tell us what this so called talent was on the team before Kubiak got here. I will give you that the defense is crap. But the notion that the team had al this talent is total BS, other wise Greenwood and Weaver would not have been singed to the craptastic contracts.

Please tell what this handful of talent that you speak of he had inherited, because I simply can only think of two names and two is not a handful.


I could look back to 2006 and cherry pick assistant coaches who have gone on to become good defensive coordinators. OK, I will. Steve Spagnuolo, Greg Blache, Leslie Frazier. All of these guys were position coaches who couldn't have been blocked by their team for a vertical move to defensive coordinator as none had the assistant head coach title. What these guys didn't have going for them was previously working with Kubiak. The good ol' boy system bit Kubiak in the arse. And what gives so many Texans fans the certainty that Kubiak will get the right defensive coordinator the 2nd time around? Because good things should happen to good people?

As I said in another thread, Kubiak's future shouldn't be decided by who is or isn't available to replace him as head coach. He should keep or lose his job based on merit. His merit is recorded as 17-24, to date. Kubiak had a dream, and it was fulfilled when he became the Texans head coach. I have a dream, too. It's to see the Texans have a winning season and make the playoffs. That's not happening this season. Again. Time to move on.

So please tell me what gives you the idea he will get it wrong? Are you saying that he and Smith (GM) are both dumb and can not figure out You say time to move on, but San Fran changes OC every year and now look at them? They are crap team going no where fast. You have to have some stability or you will be the New Orleans Saints or Arizona Cardinals for as long as they have.

I will add that I think Kubiak needs to give up the play calling on Sunday and concentrate on game management. Of course the DC needs to be replaced as well as secondary coach.

Runner
11-11-2008, 07:03 AM
You disagree that Kubiak started in a big whole leans to say this team was loaded with talent after the C&C crappy drafting factory and bad contract machine were done screwing up more drafts than Matt Millen. I will not deny that Richard Smith has done exactly jack-shit with improving players but you can not sya that on the offensive side of the ball. If not Cook would still be here.



You either need to read more carefully or not twist my words to mean something you want to make points against.

I disagree with the rather common sentiment that Kubiak started in a big hole he has been steadily digging out of. Right now he is reaping the results of the extra depth (pun intended, wait for it) he added to the original hole once he was done with his own digging.


I didn't say the team was loaded with talent. I didn't say it didn't have a lot of bad players. I didn't say Kubiak hasn't improved parts of the offense. I disagree with the statement that Kubiak constantly improved it. He started out by digging the hole deeper. The Bedell, Flanagan, and Black signings did NOTHING to improve the o-line, but did make sure we didn't spend a couple of years developing young players. Then the single injury to Weary sets the line back to its normal below average status again. Not being prepared to replace an injured guard or aging center (McKinney) does lie, in part, on Kubiak decisions.

The big money spent on Moulds and Green was for the most part wasted too. Weaver's big contract is out of line with what he brings to the field. The list goes on.


Yes 2 years before Kubiak got here the team was 7-9 and the year before he got here they were 2-14. Or did you completely forget about that season? Please tell us what this so called talent was on the team before Kubiak got here. I will give you that the defense is crap. But the notion that the team had al this talent is total BS, other wise Greenwood and Weaver would not have been singed to the craptastic contracts.


This is the reading/twisting problem again.

Sure there were some duds on the team when he got here. There was some talent worth developing too though.


Again, I didn't say the team is loaded with talent. However, I could probably make an argument that there are as many duds on the current team as there were on the 2004 team.

Yes, I remember 2-14. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm stupid. Again, I didn't say the team is loaded with talent. I did point out that they weren't 2-14 forever before Kubiak got here. The fall from 7-9 to 2-14 wasn't because the talent level suddenly dropped. It had much more to do with:

1) bad coaching decisions (including refusing to fire some of the coaching staff during the off-season)
2) the continued melt down of the QB position by the quarterback designate
3) the players giving up

Does any of this ring a bell? We are seeing another fall from average to bad this year - does this mean the talent level has fallen off that much again? I see the same problems.

In the words of George Santayana:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

ObsiWan
11-11-2008, 08:34 AM
Richard Smith was not Kubiak's first choice (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2008/10/why_texans_defensive_coordinat.html). The choices of DCs were very limited during that offseason--there were a ton of coaching changes. I think he was doing the best he could with what was available.

I like Kubiak for the following reasons:

1. I think he does more with less on the offensive side of the ball. He has had to make do with a lot of players while redoing the roster.

2. I think his team plays hard for him. Not always smart, but look at the teams that are totally imploding all over the league. The players on both sides of the ball love playing for him. Coaches like Alex Gibbs and Ray Rhodes called the Texans to be a part of this staff. You can't say that about every coach in the league.

3. I'd like to see what he could do with an actual defensive coordinator. I hope one of those is available. That the Texans went 8-8 with last year's defense and the injuries all over the team actually demonstrates some pretty amazing coaching. (In Football Outsiders' stats, last year's defense was ranked 30th in the league. Their stats are more stark than the regular YPG stats because they measure efficiency compared to the league instead of a measurement that may not judge them relative to their peers.

4. Ultimately, the Texans are Kubiak's dream job. Not a stepping stone to something else. He's a Houstonian and wants Houston to have a winning football team more than anyone. I'm not sure how much of a consideration that is, but I suppose that's worth mentioning.

I'm sure there is other stuff in there. Here's a general synopsis of the Kubiak era to date (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2008/09/on_the_houston_texans_texan_fa.html)that I did back in September that discusses some of the criticisms of the current team.


Overall, I am very sympathetic to anyone building something from scratch. Especially from something as messed up as that 2005 team was. I also don't see any head coaching candidates out there that I'm particularly enthused about getting that would have any interest at all in the Texans job. I think it will be easier to find someone more experienced than Richard Smith to take that role.

That sums it all up for me in that one sentence.

I've posted this in other threads before - and, BTW, no one has offered a rebuttal.

We have two studs on defense and one stud (AJ) and two emerging studs (Daniel, Winston) on offense. That's it. Slaton has promise but I'm afraid he might be hitting the rookie wall...

Long story short:
How many of our starters would be starters for so-called "playoff caliber" teams? Maaaybe 4-5 of them. Yet we've been competitive nearly every week. And would maybe have more wins if "Un-Sage" Rosenfels made better decisions and better throws.

I'll say what we all know, once again. We're in every game until the screw ups happen. We don't have the defense that can make up for screw ups.

Thorn
11-11-2008, 08:41 AM
Titans 4-12:
Gee, I wonder why Bud didn't panic and fire Jeff Fisher? Maybe he's finally learned that stability is crucial to building a winner??

there you have it folks... The teams some of you point to as having turned things around in a season or two, actually had a decent core team as evidenced by the records in preceding seasons. We didn't have that base of core players. AND we were in salary cap hell to boot.

Great post! I repped ya for it. :cool:

Texan_Bill
11-11-2008, 08:45 AM
Maybe the problem is that Kubiak only has a handful of players left from the team he inherited. He did a lot to hurt the development and future depth on this team when he got here. He may have cost himself some starters too.




2005 Houston Texans
Head Coach: Dom Capers

LB Charlie Anderson
RB Jason Anderson
WR Derick Armstrong
LB Jason Babin
QB Tony Banks
CB Jason Bell
WR Corey Bradford
S C. C. Brown
K Kris Brown
G Milford Brown
TE Mark Bruener
CB Phillip Buchanon
QB David Carr
LB Frank Chamberlain
S/CB Marcus Coleman
RB Domanick Davis
DT/DE Jerry DeLoach
S Glenn Earl
LB Troy Evans
CB Demarcus Faggins
WR Jabar Gaffney
LB Morlon Greenwood
C Drew Hodgdon
RB Tony Hollings
DT Junior Ioane
WR Andre Johnson
DT Travis Johnson
DE Alfred Malone
WR Jerome Mathis
CB Chris McKenzie
G/C Steve McKinney
RB Vernand Morency
WR Donovan Morgan
TE Matt Murphy
FB Moran Norris
LB Shantee Orr
DT Seth Payne
LB Antwan Peek
TE Bryan Pittman
T Chester Pitts
LB DaShon Polk
T Victor Riley
TE Marcellus Rivers
CB Dunta Robinson
CB/S Lewis Sanders
CB Jason Simmons
DE Robaire Smith
P Chad Stanley
T Todd Wade
DE Gary Walker
S Ramon Walker
T Tyson Walter
T Seth Wand
G/T Todd Washington
G Fred Weary
RB Jonathan Wells
T Zach Wiegert
LB Kailee Wong


2006 Houston Texans
Head Coach: Gary Kubiak

CB Roc Alexander
LB Charlie Anderson
WR David Anderson
LB Jason Babin
G/T Brad Bedell
S C. C. Brown
K Kris Brown
TE Mark Bruener
CB Phillip Buchanon
QB David Carr
DE Earl Cochran
FB Jameel Cook
DT Lional Dalton
TE Owen Daniels
RB Ron Dayne
S Glenn Earl
LB Troy Evans
CB Demarcus Faggins
C Mike Flanagan
RB Samkon Gado
CB Kevin Garrett
LB Morlon Greenwood
C Drew Hodgdon
CB Von Hutchins
WR Andre Johnson
CB Derrick Johnson
DT Thomas Johnson
DT Travis Johnson
DE N. D. Kalu
DT Cedric Killings
RB Vonta Leach
WR Derrick Lewis
RB Wali Lundy
DT Anthony Maddox
DE Alfred Malone
LB Roy Manning
WR Jerome Mathis
CB Dexter McCleon
G/C Steve McKinney
RB Vernand Morency
WR Eric Moulds
LB Shantee Orr
DT Seth Payne
LB Antwan Peek
TE Bryan Pittman
T Chester Pitts
LB DaShon Polk
TE Jeb Putzier
CB Dunta Robinson
QB Sage Rosenfels
LB DeMeco Ryans
T Ephram Salaam
CB/S Lewis Sanders
S Guss Scott
WR Edell Shepherd
CB Jason Simmons
T Charles Spencer
P Chad Stanley
CB Michael Stone
RB Chris Taylor
WR Kevin Walter
G Fred Weary
DE Anthony Weaver
T Zach Wiegert
DE Mario Williams
T Eric Winston
LB Kailee Wong
CB Dexter Wynn


Runner, (not being a S/A or anything), but looking back at Capers last season v. Kubiak's first season - I'm not seeing a lot of talent that could have been developed. Especially offensively. Johnathon Wells? Morency? Hollings? I liked Derrick Armstrong, but he was who he was.

ObsiWan
11-11-2008, 08:51 AM
Point out a team that sucked as much as ours did in 2005 and is having continued success three years later. I'll save you some time...

Saints 3-13:
'05 was their Katrina/locker room drama year - between 02 and 04 they were a .500 team. Point is, they weren't as bad as we were. Once they expelled the drama queens and got a real QB, they had a good year (I suspect some of their wins were due to other teams' underestimating them too)

Jets 4-12:
In two of the three preceding years, the Jets had a winning record; 9-7 in '02 and 10-6 in '04. They weren't as bad off as we were.

Packers 4-12:
Yeah, I'd forgotten that the Pack sucked in '05 too. And they HAD a pro bowl QB! The two previous years they posted 10-6 records so winning personnel was there. I think Sherman had "lost" the locker room and had to go.

Raiders: 4-12:
They still suck. ...bad example.

49ers 4-12:
They made big splashy F/A signings and drafted a QB #1 overall (just like some of you want to do). Few of the F/As have panned out and that #1 QB has been benched. They are an example of what would probably happen to the Texans if we follow the recommendations of some of you and hit the panic button.

Titans 4-12:
Gee, I wonder why Bud didn't panic and fire Jeff Fisher? Maybe he's finally learned that stability is crucial to building a winner??

there you have it folks... The teams some of you point to as having turned things around in a season or two, actually had a decent core team as evidenced by the records in preceding seasons. We didn't have that base of core players. AND we were in salary cap hell to boot.

Wolf
11-11-2008, 09:22 AM
I am lost for words and all I can think of is meanwhile, Atlanta ****ing Falcons is sitting at 6-3 (dolphins 5-4) and this team is struggling with a defense with no identity and we are discussing our coaching with a 3-6 record


I am not directing that statement but that is playing in my mind right now

Runner
11-11-2008, 09:29 AM
My point isn't that the 2005 team had a bunch of untapped Probowlers on it. My point is that the team had young players that could have been brought along and "coached up" as the team rebuilt. The good ol' boys that the coaches brought in instead offered nothing to the long term health of the Texans. Some offered no immediate benefits either.

Texan_Bill
11-11-2008, 09:51 AM
2005 (capers) TE lineup: Mark Bruener, Marcellus Rivers, Matt Murphy and Bryan Pittman.

2006 Kubiak immediately brought over Jeb Putzier and drafted Owen Daniels to add to Mark Bruener and Pittman. Did Putzier stick? No, but still an upgrade over the previous roster.

Runner
11-11-2008, 11:06 AM
Geez people. I didn't say all his moves were bad. I just said he made some bad moves. I guess that is just going too far.

Let's look at it from that angle then. The 2004 team had an utterly useless roster and went 7-9. After all of Smihiak's astute and error free moves, the team improved one game. They'll probably give at least that game back this year.

So, they have far superior coaching and far superior talent and will probably finish with the same 7-9 record as the 2004 team at best. To me there is a disconnect somewhere.

Specnatz
11-11-2008, 11:07 AM
My point isn't that the 2005 team had a bunch of untapped Probowlers on it. My point is that the team had young players that could have been brought along and "coached up" as the team rebuilt. The good ol' boys that the coaches brought in instead offered nothing to the long term health of the Texans. Some offered no immediate benefits either.

You never answered my question what talent you are ta;ling about because if they were young and could develop then another team did, right?

It is not twisting your words if I put a question mark meaning this is the way I take what you said and made my point based on that and then put the "?" so as to get your response. Instead I get I am twisting it and not making a comment. If you do not want to clarify that is fine up to you.

Second Honeymoon
11-11-2008, 11:15 AM
the fact is that Kubiak has proven that his teams cant win on the road, can't win against physical teams, and he can't get a team prepared and motivated to play football. that has been a constant for almost 3 full years.

you can make all the excuses in the world for the guy but didn't we learn anything about making excuses during the previous regime. its this stubborn attitude that has retarded the growth of our franchise.

it seems that most of the kubiak homers are teh same guys that made excuse after excuse for Carr. its just not in their blood to have an honest assessment of their team and feel more comfortable making a laundry list of excuses and asking for more patience.

well I say Kubiak sucks and i think his record (especially against decent teams) speaks for itself. the next good team he beats will be the first. winning against teams sitting half their roster or with nothing to play for in Week 17 don't count in my book.

just bring someone in who has proven he can build a winner. kubiak has only proven that he can continue to build a loser.

give me Marty or a Cowher. someone who can get the job done and not look like a confused moron on the sideline.

texanhead08
11-11-2008, 11:22 AM
The main problem I have for us on offense is the turnovers commiting 2 turnovers a game is costing us 6-14 pts a game. Thats just not cutting it with a defense that forces less than 1 a game. If our defense could get us at break even we might be able to live with that but what are we -11 and its barely the mid year point. Teams that are -10 or -20 in turnover ratio are usually picking in the top 5. There is a reason Marty Shottenheimer has only had 2 losing seasons in his career his teams are usually top 5 in turnover ratio. We have to get better at this and not next year the next game would be better.

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 11:25 AM
the fact is that Kubiak has proven that his teams cant win on the road, can't win against physical teams, and he can't get a team prepared and motivated to play football. that has been a constant for almost 3 full years.

you can make all the excuses in the world for the guy but didn't we learn anything about making excuses during the previous regime. its this stubborn attitude that has retarded the growth of our franchise.

it seems that most of the kubiak homers are teh same guys that made excuse after excuse for Carr. its just not in their blood to have an honest assessment of their team and feel more comfortable making a laundry list of excuses and asking for more patience.

well I say Kubiak sucks and i think his record (especially against decent teams) speaks for itself. the next good team he beats will be the first. winning against teams sitting half their roster or with nothing to play for in Week 17 don't count in my book.

just bring someone in who has proven he can build a winner. kubiak has only proven that he can continue to build a loser.

give me Marty or a Cowher. someone who can get the job done and not look like a confused moron on the sideline.


The Texans offense and special teams has performed way over league average.

The defense has performed in the bottom three for the last four years.

The best defensive teams in the league--the Giants and Titans--have very good defenses. The defenses can hold up even when the offense is having an off day.

Marty is old and Cowher will have no interest in this job. He has no ties to the area at all, and other teams that he does have ties to would be interested in him.

It is easier to get a defensive coordinator than a proven head coach. Given that the obvious problem with the Texans is the defense and its lack of direction and focus, and the players love playing for Kubiak but do not like the DC, I think it is an easier call.

Texan_Bill
11-11-2008, 11:26 AM
Geez people. I didn't say all his moves were bad. I just said he made some bad moves. I guess that is just going too far.

Let's look at it from that angle then. The 2004 team had an utterly useless roster and went 7-9. After all of Smihiak's astute and error free moves, the team improved one game. They'll probably give at least that game back this year.

So, they have far superior coaching and far superior talent and will probably finish with the same 7-9 record as the 2004 team at best. To me there is a disconnect somewhere.

Didn't mean for it to seem like I was attacking your posts.....

Anyway, maybe the disconnect could be answered defensively. They weren't world beaters in 2004, but on that roster were Jamie Sharper, Aaron Glenn, Kailee Wong, Marcus Coleman, etc... Again, not world beaters but they could stop someone every once in a while, long enough to let Davey "and his bangin' hair" dink and dunk his way down for a couple of scores...

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 11:27 AM
The main problem I have for us on offense is the turnovers commiting 2 turnovers a game is costing us 6-14 pts a game. Thats just not cutting it with a defense that forces less than 1 a game. If our defense could get us at break even we might be able to live with that but what are we -11 and its barely the mid year point. Teams that are -10 or -20 in turnover ratio are usually picking in the top 5. There is a reason Marty Shottenheimer has only had 2 losing seasons in his career his teams are usually top 5 in turnover ratio. We have to get better at this and not next year the next game would be better.

Random theory alert// I think the offense is pressing because they know that the defense can't hold up.

Sage needs to Rosenchappa because he knows if they punt and the Colts get the ball back they score. Maybe he doesn't think that consciously, but I knew I didn't want the Colts to get the ball back.

Runner
11-11-2008, 11:28 AM
You never answered my question what talent you are ta;ling about because if they were young and could develop then another team did, right?

It is not twisting your words if I put a question mark meaning this is the way I take what you said and made my point based on that and then put the "?" so as to get your response. Instead I get I am twisting it and not making a comment. If you do not want to clarify that is fine up to you.
I was more interested in discussing the topic with reasonable posters. I usually don't bother to reply to people who seem so angry that they are disagreed with that they can't type.

Gaffney has caught passes in the Super Bowl. Ragone should have been allowed to compete with Sage. By Kubiak's own admission Wand was almost the starter in front of Spencer. He was certainly better than Brad Bedell or Jordan Black. Buchannon is playing better than most of the Texans defensive backs. What are some of the dinosaurs that Kubiak used roster spots for doing for the Texans now?

If you'd like to discuss something fine. If you want to continue your Internet rage and bluster, I'm done responding.

Vinny
11-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Random theory alert// I think the offense is pressing because they know that the defense can't hold up.

Sage needs to Rosenchappa because he knows if they punt and the Colts get the ball back they score. Maybe he doesn't think that consciously, but I knew I didn't want the Colts to get the ball back.speaking of that....Rosenfail has stated that a punt is a bad thing. Most coaches tell their QB's that a punt is much superior to a turnover. Punt, give the D a long field to defend and get your ass off the field. I stated before the last game that Rosenfails thinks he is Dan Marino and tries to do too much...his quote about punts being a bad thing points to more bad coaching imo.

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 11:34 AM
Didn't mean for it to seem like I was attacking your posts.....

Anyway, maybe the disconnect could be answered defensively. They weren't world beaters in 2004, but on that roster were Jamie Sharper, Aaron Glenn, Kailee Wong, Marcus Coleman, etc... Again, not world beaters but they could stop someone every once in a while, long enough to let Davey "and his bangin' hair" dink and dunk his way down for a couple of scores...

The reason why the 2005 Texans fell off the map is that the defense was so terrible that year. The 2004 defense wasn't awesome, but it was not the ridiculousness that was the 2005 defense.

BTW, for some of this season, the 2008 defense has performed worse than that 2005 defense.

76Texan
11-11-2008, 11:36 AM
Didn't mean for it to seem like I was attacking your posts.....

Anyway, maybe the disconnect could be answered defensively. They weren't world beaters in 2004, but on that roster were Jamie Sharper, Aaron Glenn, Kailee Wong, Marcus Coleman, etc... Again, not world beaters but they could stop someone every once in a while, long enough to let Davey "and his bangin' hair" dink and dunk his way down for a couple of scores...

Kubiak didn't inherit total trash (team won 7 games in 04), but the team did have significant injuries for 3 years in a row.

Some of the players he let go end up starting or playing as reserves on other teams. But he did have to change the players to fit with the ZBS and the WCO. And on defense, he did have to convert from the 3-4 to 4-3.

Therefore, I really can't write him off yet.

Second Honeymoon
11-11-2008, 11:38 AM
speaking of that....Rosenfail has stated that a punt is a bad thing. Most coaches tell their QB's that a punt is much superior to a turnover. Punt, give the D a long field to defend and get your ass off the field. I stated before the last game that Rosenfails thinks he is Dan Marino and tries to do too much...his quote about punts being a bad thing points to more bad coaching imo.

Rosenfail. oh man, that is just rich.

boy he looked horrible Sunday didn't he. so glad i gave my tickets to charity and watched the game from home.

i think i am breaking out a Fire Richard Smith sign or maybe even a Fire Kubiak sign. i won't go for the paper sack over the head but i have no problem holding up a sign to show my displeasure.

sadly, Kubiak's 3-game reign of terror over the Lions, Raiders, and Dolphins pretty much guarantee that Scrubiak will be back in 09.

one day we will have a team with a quality QB, a quality HC, and a quality defense. it will happen but it sure as hell aint happening with our current coaching staff.

one thing is for sure, i would rather have an honest and objective fan like Vinny agree with me than a homering ostrich like Specnatz.

ObsiWan
11-11-2008, 11:42 AM
My point isn't that the 2005 team had a bunch of untapped Probowlers on it. My point is that the team had young players that could have been brought along and "coached up" as the team rebuilt. The good ol' boys that the coaches brought in instead offered nothing to the long term health of the Texans. Some offered no immediate benefits either.

The fact that few of the players that we let go are starting with someone else - most aren't even still in the league - means that train of thought is without merit.

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 11:43 AM
speaking of that....Rosenfail has stated that a punt is a bad thing. Most coaches tell their QB's that a punt is much superior to a turnover. Punt, give the D a long field to defend and get your ass off the field. I stated before the last game that Rosenfails thinks he is Dan Marino and tries to do too much...his quote about punts being a bad thing points to more bad coaching imo.

No, Sage did not say that punting (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?STORY_ID=4857) is a bad thing.

“Every play I’m up there, I’m going to be wary of trying to be as smart as possible with the ball,” he said. “That might be taking some sacks this week and that might be throwing the ball away, and that’s just going to be fine. Punting is not a sin, and usually if you end a game with all kicks at the end of the possession whether that be field goals, extra points or punts a lot of times you win those games.”

Said that before the Baltimore game. Clearly, he realizes that he needs to be more careful with the ball. And not force stuff. In fact, I thought he looked overly tenative with that sort of thing some at the beginning of the Baltimore game.

But to know something is different than to do something.

Vinny
11-11-2008, 11:45 AM
No, Sage did not say that punting (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?STORY_ID=4857) is a bad thing.



Said that before the Baltimore game. Clearly, he realizes that he needs to be more careful with the ball. And not force stuff. In fact, I thought he looked overly tenative with that sort of thing some at the beginning of the Baltimore game.

But to know something is different than to do something.
I know I saw something where he was discussing the punt being something he considers a bad thing...I'll search for it as well.

Runner
11-11-2008, 12:02 PM
The fact that few of the players that we let go are starting with someone else - most aren't even still in the league - means that train of thought is without merit.

Without merit because "most aren't starters" for other (better) teams? I'd take two quality depth players on this bad team over what Bedell et. al. are contributing today.

It doesn't have to be every player. It doesn't have to be a player that could startfor the Giants.

I guess I'll ask my question again. If I am so wrong about the talent on that team, why will this team in all its superiority struggle to match its record? Note that blaming it all on the defense doesn't rebut the thought, because the defense is part of the team.


Without merit? I guess I disagree with that too.

Texan_Bill
11-11-2008, 12:06 PM
The reason why the 2005 Texans fell off the map is that the defense was so terrible that year. The 2004 defense wasn't awesome, but it was not the ridiculousness that was the 2005 defense.

BTW, for some of this season, the 2008 defense has performed worse than that 2005 defense.

We were talking about the 2004 team... the one that went 7-9. If I said 2005, my bad. In fact, that was sort of my point in that they weren't world beaters, but could stop someone every once in awhile

Texan_Bill
11-11-2008, 12:10 PM
I guess I'll ask my question again. If I am so wrong about the talent on that team, why will this team in all its superiority struggle to match its record? Note that blaming it all on the defense doesn't rebut the thought, because the defense is part of the team.


:d: This defense is pathetic. 2004 was a little better with some old vets that had been around the block a time or fifteen.

Runner
11-11-2008, 12:21 PM
:d: This defense is pathetic. 2004 was a little better with some old vets that had been around the block a time or fifteen.
True, a lot of that defense was getting up there in age. It is ironic that the hated P-Buc is the guy performing elsewhere at a level that would improve this team immediately if they had him.

Second Honeymoon
11-11-2008, 12:33 PM
defense was much better under Capers regime. much much better even with Asserley making so many boneheaded moves.

our team used to have a defensive identity and we won most of our early games in spite of our anemic and pathetic offense during the Carr-Capers-Casserley era. things are so much different now. our offense is still flawed and inconsistent but its a million times better than the Carr-Capers-Casserley era yet we still can't find a way to win because we went on the cheap with our defensive coaching and our investments in our defense have not paid off. Okoye looks like he is out of sorts and lost. Weaver is just bad. Mario can't beat decent Left Tackles and gets the overwhelming majority of his sacks and pressures when he is matched up against RBs and TEs. He was totally owned the past two weeks if anyone paid attention. He is a good player but he needs to step it up and play with more emotion and not just show it when he gets a sack and does that stupid Mario dance (even when we were 0-4)

Some positives I have seen is that it looks like we have finally found a ballhawking safety in Wilson. Too bad he is getting up there in age and doesn't have great speed, and Cochran and Bulman have both looked great and play with fire and emotion. I would venture to say that both of those guys have played better lately than any of our more highly touted DL. Its also nice seeing Dunta back but he has not gotten to 100% and has been burned since his return. I also think that Nick Ferguson has shown some life too. Thankfully these guys will get a new coach next year and maybe a coach that has grown a pair. To have teh Ravens offense beat our defense with a rookie QB at the helm was an embarassment to our franchise and our fans much less the team itself. We should have sent the kitchen sink at Flacco but we were content on covering no one in particular in zone coverage so Flacco could have time to make a sandwich, eat it, and then pick apart our defense in the pocket. Total fail by the defense. FAILURE.

Man, I just want to win. I also want this team to show more of a commitment to winning and not just 'competing'. Kubiak is the epitome of the moral victory type coach and that is just a fancy of way of saying 'loser'.

Texan_Bill
11-11-2008, 12:58 PM
True, a lot of that defense was getting up there in age. It is ironic that the hated P-Buc is the guy performing elsewhere at a level that would improve this team immediately if they had him.

Ironic alright... :bat:

You're right about the aging defense. I'll admit that I was extremely hot when they let Sharper go. I can also admit, that they were actually right about him, too...

Jackie Chiles
11-11-2008, 01:15 PM
Mario can't beat decent Left Tackles and gets the overwhelming majority of his sacks and pressures when he is matched up against RBs and TEs. He was totally owned the past two weeks if anyone paid attention. He is a good player but he needs to step it up and play with more emotion and not just show it when he gets a sack and does that stupid Mario dance (even when we were 0-4)

It seems like he is really relying on the outside speed rush way too much for someone his size. Yes he is a freakish athlete but when he gets going its just too much weight and its impossible to make the necessary cuts required to turn the corner with as much regularity and success as the smaller guys. He needs to run someone over, screw the finesse. Or at least limit the amount of space he travels on his outside moves, he runs himself away from the QB in order to beat the tackle. Its just unnecessary.

ObsiWan
11-11-2008, 08:03 PM
Without merit because "most aren't starters" for other (better) teams? I'd take two quality depth players on this bad team over what Bedell et. al. are contributing today.

It doesn't have to be every player. It doesn't have to be a player that could startfor the Giants.

I guess I'll ask my question again. If I am so wrong about the talent on that team, why will this team in all its superiority struggle to match its record? Note that blaming it all on the defense doesn't rebut the thought, because the defense is part of the team.


Without merit? I guess I disagree with that too.

okay "without merit" was a bit much.
Sorry.
My point is that while we have improved over the past two seasons, the simple fact is that we were really the pits when Kubiak took over. The only "superiority" we have reached is over who we were.

As I tried to point out earlier in this thread, if you look at the history of the teams that seemed to have "turned things around" none of them - not a one - had to dig out of as deep a talent hole as we had to.

Two things, IMHO, bear this out. (1) Out of all the guys we've cut, I can only think of 3 or 4 that are consistently making meaningful contributions to other teams: J. Gaffney, P. Bucc, Aaron Glenn, and, if you want to stretch it, Mr. Mittens. I might have missed a couple, but not many more than a couple. And as I recall, there were several posters who were glad to see P. Bucc and Gaffney leave town. So if its better coaching that's needed here, a close look says only those two guys actually responded to "better coaching". Aaron Glenn should never have been let go. The fact that he has something to offer at his age, and playing his position, says he could have really helped the young guys we have - probably more than Coach Hoke seems to have.
(2) Of the guys that make up our current roster, only about half dozen could make any of the 6 or 7 truly playoff caliber teams out there. Tell me who besides AJ, Winston, Daniels, Ryans, Mario, and KW could make a playoff team's starting squad.

All that to say that the fact that Kubiak & Co. has this team in position to snag a win - most of the time - with talent that we all know still needs upgrading tells me, it ain't da head coach that needs replacing.

I will concede this much though; it wouldn't hurt for Kubiak to be more demanding of his staff. He could use a little Singletary-style intensity (just a little) and a lot of Parcells-type accountability in his make-up. But that doesn't mean he needs to be fired. Dungy and Lovie Smith get the job done without all that Jon Gruden-like screaming.
But then, they have better players.

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 09:20 PM
We were talking about the 2004 team... the one that went 7-9. If I said 2005, my bad. In fact, that was sort of my point in that they weren't world beaters, but could stop someone every once in awhile

Nah, I was making the point of what a big difference a really bad defense can make to your overall record.

That the 2004 team's defense was not ridiculous. And the 2005 defense was.

The 2005, 2006 and 2008 defenses had ridiculously bad starts to their seasons. The 2006 and 2008 teams had enough offense to have more than two wins with that sort of defense.

ObsiWan
11-11-2008, 09:48 PM
let's seeee...

2005 defensive (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2005_roster.htm) line-up (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2005_roster.htm)
LDE Gary Walker (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WalkGa00.htm)
NT Seth Payne (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PaynSe20.htm)
RDE Robaire Smith (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitRo21.htm)
LOLB Shantee Orr (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/O/OrrxSh20.htm)
LILB DaShon Polk (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PolkDa20.htm)
LILB Kailee Wong (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WongKa20.htm)
RILB Morlon Greenwood (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GreeMo20.htm)
ROLB Antwan Peek (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PeekAn20.htm)
LCB Demarcus Faggins (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FaggDe20.htm)
LCB Phillip Buchanon (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BuchPh20.htm)
LCB Dunta Robinson (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RobiDu20.htm)
SS C.C. Brown (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrowC.20.htm)
SS Glenn Earl (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/EarlGl20.htm)
FS Marcus Coleman (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/ColeMa20.htm)
FS C.C. Brown (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrowC.20.htm)

2004 defensive line-up (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2004_roster.htm)
LDE Gary Walker (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WalkGa00.htm)
NT Seth Payne (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PaynSe20.htm)
RDE Robaire Smith (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitRo21.htm)
LOLB Jason Babin (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BabiJa20.htm)
LILB Jay Foreman (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/ForeJa20.htm)
RILB Jamie Sharper (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SharJa20.htm)
ROLB Kailee Wong (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WongKa20.htm)
LCB Aaron Glenn (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GlenAa00.htm)
RCB Dunta Robinson (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RobiDu20.htm)
SS Glenn Earl (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/EarlGl20.htm)
FS Marcus Coleman (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/ColeMa20.htm)
FS Jason Simmons (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SimmJa20.htm)

Doesn't seem like that many changes were made. But a lot of experience went out the door with Sharper, Glenn, and Foreman.

Lucky
11-11-2008, 10:23 PM
The Texans offense and special teams has performed way over league average.
I just can't go along with this. The Texans offense was over matched in the games versus Pittsburgh, Tennessee, and Baltimore. Yes, those are outstanding defenses. But a "way over league offense" wouldn't fold like WAMU when facing an outstanding defense. Nor would such an offense lead the league in interceptions. Some in epic fashion. That the Texans have, at times, feasted over some mediocre defenses doesn't infer greatness. Hey, I'm not saying it's a bad offense. Just not a winning offense.

It is easier to get a defensive coordinator than a proven head coach. Given that the obvious problem with the Texans is the defense and its lack of direction and focus, and the players love playing for Kubiak but do not like the DC, I think it is an easier call.
The Texans haven't had a proven head coach nor a good defensive coordinator in 7 seasons. Looks like both are difficult finds. Gary Kubiak is a proven offensive coordinator. But I would make the exampleless assertion that it's easier to find a WCO coordinator than a proven head coach or a good defensive coordinator.

And I really don't care if the Texans profess their love for Kubiak, after a blowout loss. The 2005 Texans loved Dom Capers. Capers and Kubiak are great guys. Just not great head coaches. I'd prefer the Texans fear their head coach, anyway. I doubt many Patriots love Bill Belichick. But, they love their Super Bowl rings.

Finally, Marty Schottenheimer is old. He just became eligible for Social Security benefits 2 months ago. But, he also was named NFL Coach of the year in 2004, at the age of 61. Maybe his best trait as a head coach is his ability to put together a great staff. Check into Marty's coaching tree. 10 current NFL coaches have been assistants under Schottenheimer.

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 11:55 PM
I just can't go along with this. The Texans offense was over matched in the games versus Pittsburgh, Tennessee, and Baltimore. Yes, those are outstanding defenses. But a "way over league offense" wouldn't fold like WAMU when facing an outstanding defense. Nor would such an offense lead the league in interceptions. Some in epic fashion. That the Texans have, at times, feasted over some mediocre defenses doesn't infer greatness. Hey, I'm not saying it's a bad offense. Just not a winning offense.


The Texans haven't had a proven head coach nor a good defensive coordinator in 7 seasons. Looks like both are difficult finds. Gary Kubiak is a proven offensive coordinator. But I would make the exampleless assertion that it's easier to find a WCO coordinator than a proven head coach or a good defensive coordinator.

And I really don't care if the Texans profess their love for Kubiak, after a blowout loss. The 2005 Texans loved Dom Capers. Capers and Kubiak are great guys. Just not great head coaches. I'd prefer the Texans fear their head coach, anyway. I doubt many Patriots love Bill Belichick. But, they love their Super Bowl rings.

Finally, Marty Schottenheimer is old. He just became eligible for Social Security benefits 2 months ago. But, he also was named NFL Coach of the year in 2004, at the age of 61. Maybe his best trait as a head coach is his ability to put together a great staff. Check into Marty's coaching tree. 10 current NFL coaches have been assistants under Schottenheimer.


It's the Phil Jackson syndrome. Great proven coaches typically don't want to come into difficult situations. There's exceptions to that but basically if two people want to give you a pile of money, you go to the easier situation with the better players and more tradition.

Schottenheimer has had a remarkable career. By all accounts he is enjoying his retirement.

It would be lovely to think that some big name coach is going to come to Houston to rescue everything, but then it is just another huge do-over.

I'd just like to see what would happen if the same offense (with a bit more running) was able to play with a defense that wasn't ranked by efficiency rankings (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef) as:

2006 - 31st in the league
2007 - 30th in the league
2008 - currently 30th in the league

Maybe I'd be more excited about a big name proven head coach coming to Houston if I saw a name I thought was realistic and great. But I haven't.

But it wouldn't take much doing to get a coach better than Richard Smith. Not only is he unproven as a coordinator but he is also unliked as a coach. He is the easy guy to vote off the island.

I think Kubiak is a guy that coaches want to coach for, and players want to play for. Many fans in Denver miss having him as a coach. I don't think the players love him because he treats them nice all the time either. The way they talk about Kubiak is totally different than the way guys talked about Capers.

Lucky
11-12-2008, 12:24 AM
It would be lovely to think that some big name coach is going to come to Houston to rescue everything, but then it is just another huge do-over.
As a fan and ticket buyer, I would prefer a big name. But, that's not a deal breaker for me. I'm not afraid of a do-over, I'm afraid of another year of excuses for losing.

The 4 teams that changed head coaches last offseason are a combined 23-13. Change can be good. And I'm not as down on the Texans talent as you and some other fans are. I think there is more to extract from these players than Kubiak and his staff are getting. A roster that starts with Andre Johnson, Mario Williams, DeMeco Ryans, and Owen Daniels is one that a potential head coach can get excited about.

And I don't want to see the "same offense", next season. These QBs must learn how to protect the ball. It would help if they weren't getting hit so often. By Texans standards, this is a good offensive line. By NFL standards for success, not so good. I don't really care what type of blocking scheme is used, just find a way to run the ball with some consitancy.

Gary Kubiak's favorite word since becoming head coach is "accountability". He cut Carr and it seemed like Gary was a man of his words. But, what about Weaver? And Green? Richard Smith and Jon Hoke? That word accountability rings hollow, now. All I'm asking of the owner is some accountability. Not more excuses.

Specnatz
11-12-2008, 06:10 AM
As a fan and ticket buyer, I would prefer a big name. But, that's not a deal breaker for me. I'm not afraid of a do-over, I'm afraid of another year of excuses for losing.

The 4 teams that changed head coaches last offseason are a combined 23-13. Change can be good. And I'm not as down on the Texans talent as you and some other fans are. I think there is more to extract from these players than Kubiak and his staff are getting. A roster that starts with Andre Johnson, Mario Williams, DeMeco Ryans, and Owen Daniels is one that a potential head coach can get excited about.

And I don't want to see the "same offense", next season. These QBs must learn how to protect the ball. It would help if they weren't getting hit so often. By Texans standards, this is a good offensive line. By NFL standards for success, not so good. I don't really care what type of blocking scheme is used, just find a way to run the ball with some consitancy.

Gary Kubiak's favorite word since becoming head coach is "accountability". He cut Carr and it seemed like Gary was a man of his words. But, what about Weaver? And Green? Richard Smith and Jon Hoke? That word accountability rings hollow, now. All I'm asking of the owner is some accountability. Not more excuses.

There are such things as one year fixes. As in things change for one year then revert back to the way they were. Look at all the teams who have changed coaches prior to this year and say that coach is the man.

Runner
11-12-2008, 06:42 AM
let's seeee...

2005 defensive (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2005_roster.htm) line-up (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2005_roster.htm)
...


2004 defensive line-up (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2004_roster.htm)
...



Doesn't seem like that many changes were made. But a lot of experience went out the door with Sharper, Glenn, and Foreman.



As you've shown, the drop in the Texans performance must of had factors other than personnel. I think this was true on both sides of the ball.

After the bad start in 2005 the Texans finally got around to firing their OC (even though Pendry was the one that should have gone) and the political BS between the coaches and front office finally trumped concerns about on field performance. The players lost interest because of this and the fact that it quickly became clear they were playing for a lame duck coaching staff.

This was the year it became very clear that game performance wasn't the driving factor in playing time at other positions instead of just at quarterback.

I think that team was a classic example of players putting in the time and playing for their checks. They had no belief in the coaches and no hope of being successful. So they weren't.

IMO.

Specnatz
11-12-2008, 08:11 AM
As you've shown, the drop in the Texans performance must of had factors other than personnel. I think this was true on both sides of the ball.

After the bad start in 2005 the Texans finally got around to firing their OC (even though Pendry was the one that should have gone) and the political BS between the coaches and front office finally trumped concerns about on field performance. The players lost interest because of this and the fact that it quickly became clear they were playing for a lame duck coaching staff.

This was the year it became very clear that game performance wasn't the driving factor in playing time at other positions instead of just at quarterback.

I think that team was a classic example of players putting in the time and playing for their checks. They had no belief in the coaches and no hope of being successful. So they weren't.

IMO.

I get this feeling from our defense at times.