PDA

View Full Version : Cold Hard Football Facts on the Houston Texans


Texans_Chick
01-08-2009, 08:05 PM
Here's an interview you might want to check out:

The 'Cold, Hard Football Facts' on the Houston Texans (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/01/the_cold_hard_football_facts_o_1.html)

I did an interview with the founder of The Cold Hard Football Facts site and asked him about the team. Interesting stuff, at least to me.

TimeKiller
01-08-2009, 08:20 PM
To bring it around to the example of the Texans, they learned full well the difficulty of scheduling this year: the Texans faced nine Quality Opponents this year, more than any other team in the AFC. Obviously, playing the Titans and Colts four times is quite a challenge. But Houston also faced Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Miami, Minnesota and Chicago. That's a tough, tough slate to overcome. The Texans were 3-6 in these nine games."

What I found most interesting, besides the part where we make everyone look like Joe Montana flinging the pigskin.

IlliniJen
01-08-2009, 08:35 PM
Good interview. I found this bit to be interesting:

The big team-wide issue, however, makes we wonder about Gary Kubiak himself. We measure the offensive and defensive efficiency of each team with our Scoreability and Bendability Indices. The key to these stats is that they don't measure individual units in a vacuum because, quite frankly, individual units (offense, defense, special teams) don't play in a vacuum. The success of one is impacted by the success of the other.

So our indices take all these team-wide factors into consideration, and the Texans here don't measure up particularly well. The Texans were 25th in our Scoreability Index and 27th in our Bendability Index in 2008.

Generally, what you find when teams fare poorly in this efficiency categories, is that they have some combination of the following: a lot of penalties, a bad turnover differential, poor red zone offense and/or defense and poor special teams. I bet if you look at Houston this past year, they struggled in most of these areas. In other words, one unit often made life difficult for the other this year.

[Steph note: The Texans have bad turnover differential, poor red zone offense and defense, average special teams and usually aren't overly penalized.]

And that spells trouble and that's often a reflection of poor fundamentals and/or poor coaching. The team needs to tighten up its act and play together better to become a contender

Of course, y'all know I'm the lone "fire Kubiak" campaigner, but that sums up a lot of what's at issue.

Interesting indexes/ways of measuring football success on Cold Hard Facts.

Texans_Chick
01-08-2009, 08:45 PM
What I found most interesting, besides the part where we make everyone look like Joe Montana flinging the pigskin.

Those two parts I thought were particularly interesting.

Texans_Chick
01-08-2009, 08:55 PM
Good interview. I found this bit to be interesting:



Of course, y'all know I'm the lone "fire Kubiak" campaigner, but that sums up a lot of what's at issue.

Interesting indexes/ways of measuring football success on Cold Hard Facts.

Have you ever seen Kubiak give a speech in person?

The reason I ask is that I found that people who have seen him speak in person tend to be bigger fans than those who watch a thump the podium presser.

His players from most reports really seem to like and respect him, and if you see him speak in person, you can see why. He isn't the most smooth or slick speaker in the world, but he comes across as a genuine guy who would like nothing more than bringing a Super Bowl trophy to his home town. His desire might not be enough, but you have to acknowledge some progress with this team.

People who hear him speak want to run through a brick wall for him. I saw his first public speech to a large group. It was the draft luncheon after the Texans picked Mario. The crowd was packed, most of those people thought when they bought the tickets that they were going to be hearing about Reggie Bush.

He was able to get that group of people, most of them shocked or mad about the Mario choice, on his side, not being able to wait for the season to begin.

It's something for someone in the coaching bidness to have never been fired. An accomplishment of a sort. Bronco fans still love Kubiak, which a lot of fans can't say about their offensive coordinators or ex-players.

For example, check out this fan article about Kubiak....who wore the number...8!!!!! (http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/7/10/569209/the-greatest-broncos-of-al)

IlliniJen
01-08-2009, 09:21 PM
Have you ever seen Kubiak give a speech in person?

The reason I ask is that I found that people who have seen him speak in person tend to be bigger fans than those who watch a thump the podium presser.

His players from most reports really seem to like and respect him, and if you see him speak in person, you can see why. He isn't the most smooth or slick speaker in the world, but he comes across as a genuine guy who would like nothing more than bringing a Super Bowl trophy to his home town. His desire might not be enough, but you have to acknowledge some progress with this team.

People who hear him speak want to run through a brick wall for him. I saw his first public speech to a large group. It was the draft luncheon after the Texans picked Mario. The crowd was packed, most of those people thought when they bought the tickets that they were going to be hearing about Reggie Bush.

He was able to get that group of people, most of them shocked or mad about the Mario choice, on his side, not being able to wait for the season to begin.

It's something for someone in the coaching bidness to have never been fired. An accomplishment of a sort. Bronco fans still love Kubiak, which a lot of fans can't say about their offensive coordinators or ex-players.

For example, check out this fan article about Kubiak....who wore the number...8!!!!! (http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/7/10/569209/the-greatest-broncos-of-al)

Kubiak might be a great GUY. But a great HEAD COACH? My jury is still out on that one. He's made plenty of bone-headed decisions during games that have nothing to do with how affable he is.

DiehardChris
01-08-2009, 09:24 PM
Have you ever seen Kubiak give a speech in person?

The reason I ask is that I found that people who have seen him speak in person tend to be bigger fans than those who watch a thump the podium presser.

His players from most reports really seem to like and respect him, and if you see him speak in person, you can see why. He isn't the most smooth or slick speaker in the world, but he comes across as a genuine guy who would like nothing more than bringing a Super Bowl trophy to his home town. His desire might not be enough, but you have to acknowledge some progress with this team.

People who hear him speak want to run through a brick wall for him. I saw his first public speech to a large group. It was the draft luncheon after the Texans picked Mario. The crowd was packed, most of those people thought when they bought the tickets that they were going to be hearing about Reggie Bush.

He was able to get that group of people, most of them shocked or mad about the Mario choice, on his side, not being able to wait for the season to begin.

It's something for someone in the coaching bidness to have never been fired. An accomplishment of a sort. Bronco fans still love Kubiak, which a lot of fans can't say about their offensive coordinators or ex-players.

For example, check out this fan article about Kubiak....who wore the number...8!!!!! (http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/7/10/569209/the-greatest-broncos-of-al)

Do not try to change Jen's mind about Kubiak!

She will stab you! :D

Texans_Chick
01-08-2009, 09:28 PM
Kubiak might be a great GUY. But a great HEAD COACH? My jury is still out on that one. He's made plenty of bone-headed decisions during games that have nothing to do with how affable he is.

I can say that the jury is still out on how Kubiak will be as a head coach. His team seems to rally behind him, which isn't a bad thing. Having the jury out on something is different than suggesting he needs to be canned.

For the work I do on FanHouse, we have a NFL googlegroup where we call stories. First one to call a story gets it. And we also joke and complain in the thread.

It is interesting to hear from fans of other NFL franchises. Everyone seems to beyotch about their coach's clock management and various boneheaded decisions.

IlliniJen
01-08-2009, 09:29 PM
Do not try to change Jen's mind about Kubiak!

She will stab you! :D

In the face. WITH FIRE.

Texans_Chick
01-08-2009, 09:30 PM
In the face. WITH FIRE.

Seems a little redundant.

Bring it. :texans chick:

eriadoc
01-08-2009, 09:33 PM
I can say that the jury is still out on how Kubiak will be as a head coach. His team seems to rally behind him, which isn't a bad thing. Having the jury out on something is different than suggesting he needs to be canned.

For the work I do on FanHouse, we have a NFL googlegroup where we call stories. First one to call a story gets it. And we also joke and complain in the thread.

It is interesting to hear from fans of other NFL franchises. Everyone seems to beyotch about their coach's clock management and various boneheaded decisions.

Surely ours is the worst! /sarcasm

Honoring Earl 34
01-08-2009, 09:36 PM
QUOTE=Texans_Chick;1094171]Seems a little redundant.

Bring it. :texans chick

:fridge: Cat Fight

DiehardChris
01-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Thing is - I don't even disagree with Jen - I just don't think he should be fired.

In the face. WITH FIRE.

See... now that's just awesome. LOLOL

TexansFanatic
01-08-2009, 09:43 PM
It is interesting to hear from fans of other NFL franchises. Everyone seems to beyotch about their coach's clock management and various boneheaded decisions.

Right. If you watch enough football you'll see boneheaded moves everywhere. Even the best teams make them.

noxiousdog
01-08-2009, 10:30 PM
It is interesting to hear from fans of other NFL franchises. Everyone seems to beyotch about their coach's clock management and various boneheaded decisions.

I loved how Jeff Fisher was the devil after choosing not to kick 50 yards into the wind here in Houston.

Lucky
01-08-2009, 11:32 PM
Have you ever seen Kubiak give a speech in person?
Going to the "Have you ever..." card? Come on. A lot of us don't have the time to go to the luncheons or other Texans events where Kubiak speaks. It's tough enough to make time to watch the team play on Sunday, be it at Reliant or on the tube. And it's still the games that count.

Maybe the team would run through a wall for Kubiak. But if that wall happens to be in the red zone, my money is on the wall. And I've seen the podium thumping Kubiak too many times to completely dismiss the possibility of that side of Gary's persona never showing itself in front of the team.

Good guy? Yes. Loves our city? Absolutely. Has helped this franchise through a very difficult transition period? You betcha. Good head coach? Um...not yet. The cold, hard football fact that interests me is that Gary Kubiak must lead the 2009 Houston Texans into the NFL playoffs. I don't see him talking his way out of that.

Marcus
01-08-2009, 11:52 PM
Going to the "Have you ever..." card? Come on. A lot of us don't have the time to go to the luncheons or other Texans events where Kubiak speaks. It's tough enough to make time to watch the team play on Sunday, be it at Reliant or on the tube. And it's still the games that count.

Maybe the team would run through a wall for Kubiak. But if that wall happens to be in the red zone, my money is on the wall. And I've seen the podium thumping Kubiak too many times to completely dismiss the possibility of that side of Gary's persona never showing itself in front of the team.

Good guy? Yes. Loves our city? Absolutely. Has helped this franchise through a very difficult transition period? You betcha. Good head coach? Um...not yet. The cold, hard football fact that interests me is that Gary Kubiak must lead the 2009 Houston Texans into the NFL playoffs. I don't see him talking his way out of that.

If the team goes 10-6 or 11-5 next year, but still doesn't make the playoffs, like the Patriots did this year, he'll talk his way out of it just fine.

Scooter
01-09-2009, 03:13 AM
steph you are far and away the best sports writer in houston.

mussop
01-09-2009, 03:18 AM
I loved how Jeff Fisher was the devil after choosing not to kick 50 yards into the wind here in Houston.

What are yo talking about???????? He was a saint for doint dat.......

superdave532
01-09-2009, 03:26 AM
If the team goes 10-6 or 11-5 next year, but still doesn't make the playoffs, like the Patriots did this year, he'll talk his way out of it just fine.

Always a possibility in the AFC, especially in the AFC South..

thunderkyss
01-09-2009, 03:51 AM
If the team goes 10-6 or 11-5 next year, but still doesn't make the playoffs, like the Patriots did this year, he'll talk his way out of it just fine.

Who knows..... we may go 8-8 and win our divisions like the Chargers did... then what will we say??

I know the Kubiak I saw chewing out the offense in the first quarter of the Bears game, is the Kubiak I'd like to see addressing the defense.

The offense has made strides, we know that. For GK to become a good(great) head coach, he needs to do the same on the defensive side of the ball. Handing over more and more of "The Reigns" to Jr, is a step in the right direction.


Oh yeah, Steph, great job

TimeKiller
01-09-2009, 08:18 AM
No offense guys, but I think ya'll may be missing the point of the article. The statistical analysis wasn't about how the Kubiak fared in coaching. There wasn't any diagrams about missed challenges or bad playcalls, I think the jist is that our defense was exceptionally rotten.

gtexan02
01-09-2009, 08:40 AM
No offense guys, but I think ya'll may be missing the point of the article. The statistical analysis wasn't about how the Kubiak fared in coaching. There wasn't any diagrams about missed challenges or bad playcalls, I think the jist is that our defense was exceptionally rotten.

On positive side, if yards per attempt are the most telling stat for potent offenses, and a strong indicator of playoff success, its pretty sweet knowing the Texans ranked #4

HOU-TEX
01-09-2009, 10:39 AM
Good interview. I found this bit to be interesting:



Of course, y'all know I'm the lone "fire Kubiak" campaigner, but that sums up a lot of what's at issue.

Interesting indexes/ways of measuring football success on Cold Hard Facts.

Kubiak might be a great GUY. But a great HEAD COACH? My jury is still out on that one. He's made plenty of bone-headed decisions during games that have nothing to do with how affable he is.

So you're saying you want Kubiak fired before your "jury" comes to a decision? Makes sense....:rolleyes:

Coaches do make mistakes you know. Hell, the HOFer coach Gibbs tried to call consecutive timeouts.

Eh, whatev!

Rozelle
01-09-2009, 11:34 AM
I live in Ohio, I really don’t have a favorite team, but watch the Texans play every week and have been since their inception, So I guess you could say I’ve adopted them as my home team so-to-speak. I don’t have the ability of the locals to hear sports talk radio and such to keep abreast of things as much as I’d like, but sometimes that’s a good thing as beat writers and local media tend to make mountains out of mole hills.

So here’s a perspective from an outsider. What I seen in 2008 was a good football team that was its own worst enemy with costly turnovers, especially in the red zone. Totally imploded against Indy in week five, if memory serves should have beat Jax in week three and Minnesota in week nine. I believe Kubiak is a good coach and the right man for the job, however I agree the jury is still out, expectations will be high next year and they should be. The prssure is on him to lead them to the playoffs in 2009 or at the very least be playing for playoff spot in week 17.

In reference to the Scoreability and Bendability Indices, interesting… but they have Minnesota ranked 24th in Bendability and we all know they have a good defense. Injuries need to be accounted for so like everything there are exceptions to the rule. I do some metrics for a website also and I can tell you they don’t always tell the whole story, and at times can be misleading. Sometimes you have to just trust your eyes.

The Texans have a great young core. I believe this team has done an excellent job building thru the draft in recent years. But what has me excited next year is the running game and Slaton specifically. I believe he led the league in 4th quarter rushing yards (464) and his 5.6 rush average was the best of any back with at least 55 4th quarter rush attempts… impressive! Just from watching Slaton, he looks to be one of those rare backs who gets stronger as the game goes on, very powerful runner for his size. I thought he was as impressive as any rookie RB this year. Alex Gibbs is a godsend, the best in the business in terms of zone blocking scheme, so the future looks bright in that respect. They could use a playmaking slot receiver. Walters is serviceable as a #2 guy, but nothing special. On defense the DC hire is critically, they need to get this right. Hearing Marinelli would rather be a DL coach than a DC is cool, hopefully Houston can land him. Even though DCs like to put together their own staff, I don’t think too many DCs would object to having him as their DL coach.

Marcus
01-09-2009, 12:03 PM
Of course, y'all know I'm the lone "fire Kubiak" campaigner . . .

Oh, we all know that you're not the only one, Jen. Lucky just ain't got a big enough pair to fess up to it. :heh:

IlliniJen
01-09-2009, 12:18 PM
So you're saying you want Kubiak fired before your "jury" comes to a decision? Makes sense....:rolleyes:

Coaches do make mistakes you know. Hell, the HOFer coach Gibbs tried to call consecutive timeouts.

Eh, whatev!

Sheesh...I used the wrong turn of phrase there. You and TC, like fat kids on a defenseless cake.

The ol' "coaches make mistakes" excuse is fine if you make a couple mistakes, but not showing a lot of improvement or learning from mistakes is far different from the occasional blown playcall or timeout.

IlliniJen
01-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Oh, we all know that you're not the only one, Jen. Lucky just ain't got a big enough pair to fess up to it. :heh:

Well, that's too bad for Lucky, because I've already made a pillow fort from which to launch a "Fire Kubiak" offensive.

Pillow forts are SWEET.

HoustonFrog
01-09-2009, 12:20 PM
So one thing that stood out Steph is the basic..."improve the secondary, improve the record." Am I right. He said the offense was good and that the most help was needed in the secondary. So the Texans need dbs and safeties...fine by me draft time.

HOU-TEX
01-09-2009, 12:56 PM
Sheesh...I used the wrong turn of phrase there. You and TC, like fat kids on a defenseless cake.

The ol' "coaches make mistakes" excuse is fine if you make a couple mistakes, but not showing a lot of improvement or learning from mistakes is far different from the occasional blown playcall or timeout.

I'm not fat, I just like my cold beer more than the average man. I don't do sweets either. :winky:

Texans_Chick
01-09-2009, 01:28 PM
Going to the "Have you ever..." card? Come on. A lot of us don't have the time to go to the luncheons or other Texans events where Kubiak speaks. It's tough enough to make time to watch the team play on Sunday, be it at Reliant or on the tube. And it's still the games that count.

Maybe the team would run through a wall for Kubiak. But if that wall happens to be in the red zone, my money is on the wall. And I've seen the podium thumping Kubiak too many times to completely dismiss the possibility of that side of Gary's persona never showing itself in front of the team.

Good guy? Yes. Loves our city? Absolutely. Has helped this franchise through a very difficult transition period? You betcha. Good head coach? Um...not yet. The cold, hard football fact that interests me is that Gary Kubiak must lead the 2009 Houston Texans into the NFL playoffs. I don't see him talking his way out of that.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean this in a "better fan" card way. I meant it as sort of an observation. I've noticed that people who have seen him in person tend to have more favorable opinions of him than those who haven't.

But yeah, win-losses and playoffs are the bottom line. Most coaches are hired to be eventually fired.

Specnatz
01-09-2009, 01:37 PM
Well, that's too bad for Lucky, because I've already made a pillow fort from which to launch a "Fire Kubiak" offensive.

Pillow forts are SWEET.

Where's :devilpig: when you need him. Cause he will huff and puff and ........

TimeKiller
01-09-2009, 01:48 PM
...set it on fire?

nero THE zero
01-09-2009, 03:14 PM
So one thing that stood out Steph is the basic..."improve the secondary, improve the record." Am I right. He said the offense was good and that the most help was needed in the secondary. So the Texans need dbs and safeties...fine by me draft time.

We ranked 24th in "hogability" as well. So, the secondary isn't our only issue on defense. Rather, defense is our issue.

We can only hope the changing of the guard and the subsequent change in personnel will change that.

The Pencil Neck
01-09-2009, 03:26 PM
And, I'd just like to point out something which may be only too painfully obvious to everyone, BUT... if we improve our defense and get more 3 and Outs and more turnovers, then that just gives the ball back to our offense and gives our offense more opportunities to work. With more opportunities, our offense begins to look even better. We're already 5th in TOP with a crappy defense, imagine if our defense was good enough to actually shut some people down.

Yankee_In_TX
01-09-2009, 05:19 PM
If Kubes truly has handed the OC reigns to Lil Shanny, I think Kubes will be a much better game manager this coming season.

Polo
01-09-2009, 05:21 PM
Hopefully lil Shanny doesn't get beside himself and allows Kubiak to maintain that trust.

Lucky
01-09-2009, 09:49 PM
Lucky just ain't got a big enough pair...
Which begs the question, how would Marcus know?

For the record, if I were the owner of the Houston Texans, Gary Kubiak would have been fired following the 2008 season. But let's get the record straight: Prior to the debacle of the opening 2/3's of this season, no one outside the Kubiak household was a bigger supporter of Gary Kubiak as the Texans head coach than I.

I was totally behind Bob McNair's decision to hire Gary Kubiak. I supported Kubiak's decision to keep David Carr (OK, it wasn't really Kubiak's decision. Just play along). I supported Kubiak's decision to draft Mario, though I had been a Bushman prior to the draft.

I supported Kubiak's decision to dump Carr following the '06 season. I supported Kubiak's decision to sign Ahman Green. I supported Kubiak's decision to trade for Matt Schaub. I supported Kubiak's decision to draft Amobi Okoye (though I said it was a gutsy move that might be more beneficial to the 2009 Texans than the 2007 Texans). Yes, I sported the "In Kubes We Trust" sig.

I supported Gary Kubiak's gameday coaching during the 2006 and 2007 seasons. He's learning. Every coach makes mistakes. The team is improving. They will get better and the head coach will get better with them. Just wait until this team has a healthy Andre Johnson for 16 games.

I supported Kubiak's decision to go with a rookie left tackle. I supported Kubiak's decision to sign Jacques Reeves. I supported Kubiak's decision to retain Richard Smith as defensive coordinator, despite 2 miserable seasons. This is Kubiak's team, he knows what goes on behind closed doors. He realizes the talent level Smith has to work with. Just wait until this young talent grows in 2008. Kubiak has a plan.

The came the 2008 season. And I watched this team flame out in spectacular fashion over the initial 4 games. After every loss, Gary Kubiak would go before the media and blame himself. And I began to believe him.

Kubiak led his team into Pittsburgh completely unprepared and overmatched. His indecisiveness led to a Titan 1st half score in week 2, from which the team never recovered. Another tentative moment led to a Jags special teams score in week 3. Yes, the Rosencopter in week 4 was horrendous. But, the Texans still had the lead. It was Gary Kubiak that called for another rollout on the following drive.

Yes, the Texans had a historic 3 game win streak after that. Remember, we turned the corner? Only to find the all too typical 3 game losing streak. Followed by the monumental 4 game win streak (that's 2 David Carr haircuts). Hey, all good teams have bad days, like the Oakland game. Did you get the memo, Lucky? The Texans knocked the Chicago Bears out of the playoffs. This is a better 8-8 team than the 2007 8-8 Houston Texans squad. Can't you see that?

Yeah, I got the memo. In triplicate. But let me ask my fellow sports fans this question: What if this team had started out 5-1, but closed with a 3-7 finish? Would everyone be so polloyannishly positive over this team's chances in 2009 and Gary Kubiak's future? How many NFL head coaches in the post salary cap era get to keep their jobs after 3 non-winning seasons? Eric Mangini didn't keep his, and he went to the playoffs in 2006. Mike Shanahan got the boot, and he's coached 2 Super Bowl winners and 7 playoff teams. But, it's outlandish to suggest that this organization would be better off without Gary Kubiak as the head coach?

I've seen enough over the course of 3 seasons to believe that Gary Kubiak is not the coach to lead the Houston Texans to a championship. But, I very, very, very much want to be proven wrong. I don't think I will be. And I very much believe that Gary Kubiak is extremely fortunate to coach for an owner as meek and indecisive as he is.

Tailgate
01-09-2009, 10:20 PM
But let me ask my fellow sports fans this question: What if this team had started out 5-1, but closed with a 3-7 finish? Would everyone be so polloyannishly positive over this team's chances in 2009 and Gary Kubiak's future?

It would absolutely have a different feel right now. Why? If we did happen to come out of that ridiculous beginning 5-1? It would have meant we were a very very good team. I am comfortable saying that I feel only an extremely ready playoff team could have come through that part of our schedule with all things considered... basically unscathed like that. And It would have taken alot more explaining on how a free fall after that legit start could have happened. Versus what actually did happen and the reality of it.

No offense, but I think you maybe jumped too soon. You may end up right one day... but still, next year is the year when its all out on the table for Kubiak imo.

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2009, 02:13 AM
But let me ask my fellow sports fans this question: What if this team had started out 5-1, but closed with a 3-7 finish? Would everyone be so polloyannishly positive over this team's chances in 2009 and Gary Kubiak's future? How many NFL head coaches in the post salary cap era get to keep their jobs after 3 non-winning seasons? Eric Mangini didn't keep his, and he went to the playoffs in 2006. Mike Shanahan got the boot, and he's coached 2 Super Bowl winners and 7 playoff teams. But, it's outlandish to suggest that this organization would be better off without Gary Kubiak as the head coach?

I've seen enough over the course of 3 seasons to believe that Gary Kubiak is not the coach to lead the Houston Texans to a championship. But, I very, very, very much want to be proven wrong. I don't think I will be. And I very much believe that Gary Kubiak is extremely fortunate to coach for an owner as meek and indecisive as he is.

First, I haven't supported every one of Kubiak's decisions. But I've disagreed more with some than with others. I thought Smith should have been gone last offseason, I don't care how many injuries he had on his squad last year. But I was fine with the Mario pick even though I was in the trade-down+get-Brick school.

If Kubes had ended 3-7, I might be saying to get rid of him. Why? Because it's not how you start, it's how you finish and for his team to finish that poorly (barring a rash of injuries to key players) would be inexcusable. Now whether you keep a coach who's had a three non-winning seasons really depends on a lot of things. Unlike you, I believe that Kubiak CAN get us to the promised land and I think he's a very good coach. Fisher is an example of someone who started his career with a lot of non-winning seasons and he's now the longest tenured coach in the league... and he's never won a Super Bowl. Cowher is a great coach. How long did it take him to win a Super Bowl?

I think a lot of owners pull the trigger too quickly on coaches. It kills me that Bud Adams of all owners has realized that even good coaches sometimes need some time to rebuild/reload and even good teams sometimes don't win as many games as you'd like. But there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time you lose more games than you think you should. Even though i personally think Mangini isn't a very good coach, I think he was given a raw deal and I think that the Jets are probably going to go through some lean years because they're reacting like fans instead of like owners.

Now, Shanahan is a different issue. Shanny is a good coach but he's not a good GM. And that was his downfall. It's been several years since his team was in the Super Bowl and his teams have gotten worse and worse over the past few years. The owner gave him an ultimatum on firing a defensive coordinator and when Shanny refused, that gave the owner the pretext he needed to go in a new direction. It will be interesting to see how that ends up over the next few years.

So, I hope that McNair gives Smithiak time and understanding. Yeah, yeah, we all want to win a Super Bowl. But the first step is to build a team that's a perennial powerhouse and is in the playoffs (or in the hunt for the playoffs until the last week of the season) consistently.

infantrycak
01-10-2009, 09:18 AM
Unlike you, I believe that Kubiak CAN get us to the promised land and I think he's a very good coach. Fisher is an example of someone who started his career with a lot of non-winning seasons and he's now the longest tenured coach in the league... and he's never won a Super Bowl. Cowher is a great coach. How long did it take him to win a Super Bowl?

I think a lot of owners pull the trigger too quickly on coaches. It kills me that Bud Adams of all owners has realized that even good coaches sometimes need some time to rebuild/reload and even good teams sometimes don't win as many games as you'd like. But there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time you lose more games than you think you should.

I haven't spent the time to confirm this, but isn't the AFC South the most stable coaching division in football during the existence of the Texans? None of the other 3 teams have changed coaches and we have once. I don't think any other division has had 2 much less 3 coaches in place from 2002 to present. That illustrates your patient owner statement and also highlights we came into a bear of a division.

Thorn
01-10-2009, 12:30 PM
I haven't spent the time to confirm this, but isn't the AFC South the most stable coaching division in football during the existence of the Texans? None of the other 3 teams have changed coaches and we have once. I don't think any other division has had 2 much less 3 coaches in place from 2002 to present. That illustrates your patient owner statement and also highlights we came into a bear of a division.

Indy and the Titans have had the same coach during the Texans existence, Jack Del Rio started coaching the Jags in 2003. So, you're right, quite a stable existence for coachs in this division.

It would take more work than I'm interested in doing to compare that to the other divisions.

Specnatz
01-10-2009, 01:12 PM
Indy and the Titans have had the same coach during the Texans existence, Jack Del Rio started coaching the Jags in 2003. So, you're right, quite a stable existence for coachs in this division.

It would take more work than I'm interested in doing to compare that to the other divisions.

AFC East:
Buffalo - 3 Coach
Miami - 4 Coach, plus 1 interim
NE - Same Coach
NYJ - 3 Coach (With next hire)

AFC North:
Baltimore - 2 Coaches
Cincinnati - 2 Coaches
Cleveland - 3 Coaches and 1 interim
Pittsburgh - 2 Coaches

AFC West:
Denver - Going on 2nd coach
KC Chiefs - 3 coaches (3rd yet to be hired)
Oakland - 4 coaches and 1 interim, soon to hire 5th coach
San Diego - 2 Coaches

AFC South:
Indianapolis - 1 Coach (could be two if Dungy walks away)
Jacksonville - 2 Coaches
Houston - 2 Coaches
Tennessee - 1 Coach

NFC East:
Dallas - 3 Coaches, but with JJ that could change any day now.
NY Giants - 2 Coaches
Philly - 1 Coach
Washington - 3 Coaches

NFC North:
Chicago - 2 Coaches
Detroit - 4 Coaches and 1 interim (once they make their next hire)
Green Bay - 2 Coaches
Minnesota - 2 Coaches

NFC South:
Atlanta - 4 Coaches, 2 interim coaches
Carolina - 1 Coach
New Orleans - 2 Coaches
Tampa Bay - 1 Coach

NFC West:
Arizona - 3 Coaches
San Francisco - 4 Coaches (No Interim since Mike was given the job full time)
Seattle - 2 Coaches (2009 Mora Jr. takes over for Holmgren)
St Luis - 2 coaches and 2 interim coaches at current, no clue about a coach in 2009. (could be 3rd)

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2009, 03:22 PM
I haven't spent the time to confirm this, but isn't the AFC South the most stable coaching division in football during the existence of the Texans? None of the other 3 teams have changed coaches and we have once. I don't think any other division has had 2 much less 3 coaches in place from 2002 to present. That illustrates your patient owner statement and also highlights we came into a bear of a division.

Going further with the Patient Owner idea, look at the teams who've had a single coach during the Texans existence:

Colts - Winning season and playoffs every year, one superbowl
Titans - They're hot now, but they had 3 non-winning seasons in a row and the owner stuck by Fisher
Patriots - Only missed the playoffs once in this period (finished 9-7)
Broncos - 3 years in the playoffs, 4 years out and was in the running for the playoffs this year but was fired this year.
Eagles - Only 2 non-winning/non-playoff seasons in this period. Got to the SB once.
Panthers - 4 out of 7 seasons were non-winning but the owner stuck by Fox and has gotten to the SB one time and has a good shot this year.
Buccs - Gruden won the SB his first year. Since then, he's had some rough seasons and overall he's been out of the playoffs 4 out of 7 years. His job may or may not be in jeopardy next year but you have to give the Buccs ownership credit for patience: Wyche, Dungy, and then Gruden since 1992.
Seahawks - Only missed the playoffs twice in this tenure but prior to that, he had 3 bad years (2000-2002) but the owner stuck with him and got to a SB because of it. This year probably shouldn't count because everyone knew he was retiring AND he had an insane number of injuries.

Marcus
01-10-2009, 03:36 PM
Which begs the question, how would Marcus know?

For the record, if I were the owner of the Houston Texans, Gary Kubiak would have been fired following the 2008 season. But let's get the record straight: Prior to the debacle of the opening 2/3's of this season, no one outside the Kubiak household was a bigger supporter of Gary Kubiak as the Texans head coach than I.

I knew, just from the tone of your posts regarding Kubiak, that was indeed how you felt. But when I created the "Do you want Kubiak fired, and why?" thread, except for responding to other posters' viewpoints, you never really gave your take. Your post here would have been perfect for that thread. (And Jen wouldn't have felt so lonesome.:))

Yeah, I got the memo. In triplicate. But let me ask my fellow sports fans this question: What if this team had started out 5-1, but closed with a 3-7 finish? Would everyone be so polloyannishly positive over this team's chances in 2009 and Gary Kubiak's future? How many NFL head coaches in the post salary cap era get to keep their jobs after 3 non-winning seasons? Eric Mangini didn't keep his, and he went to the playoffs in 2006. Mike Shanahan got the boot, and he's coached 2 Super Bowl winners and 7 playoff teams. But, it's outlandish to suggest that this organization would be better off without Gary Kubiak as the head coach?

To be perfectly honest with you, I would have been on the "Fire him" bandwagon too. To start off so well, against that level of competition, and then do so bad against lesser teams, without significant injury, would have meant they were regressing, and he had lost the team.

But that's not how it happend, and it makes a big difference. For the players to go all out, after knowing they were out of the playoffs, tells me that the players want to play for him.

Regarding the "playoffs or bust" requirement for next year, considering how the Patriots 11-5 record wan't even good enough, I think "winning record or bust" would be a fairer standard. If they don't have a winning record next year, it's time to get someone else.

Vinny
01-10-2009, 03:43 PM
Regarding the "playoffs or bust" requirement for next year, considering how the Patriots 11-5 record wan't even good enough, I think "winning record or bust" would be a fairer standard. If they don't have a winning record next year, it's time to get someone else.This is dangerously close to the infamous quote by 'franchise QB', who said that the next game isn't a 'must win" but a "must play well" game. :) :headhurts:

Rex King
01-10-2009, 03:58 PM
At the risk of being Captain Obvious, those 4 coach teams (soon to add Dallas) share something in common: poor or unstable organization at the top. It may not be the coaches' fault, but they're the first to go.

I think McNair suffered from being a rookie owner, but at least he is able and humble enough to admit his mistakes and try to correct them, knowing his own limitations on the footballing side.

Kubiak is still learning, too. He learned, as McClain always says, that if you're too loyal, you'll get canned. Clearly if he had confidence in Smith and Hoke, he wouldn't have brought in Bush and Rhodes. But he was willing to give them another year because by all accounts, that's the kind of guy he is.

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2009, 09:38 PM
This is dangerously close to the infamous quote by 'franchise QB', who said that the next game isn't a 'must win" but a "must play well" game. :) :headhurts:

There's a huge difference between what WE can say/believe and what THE TEAM can say/believe.

We, as fans, can look ahead and overlook teams. We can look at the schedule and figure wins and losses. Getting a good record is good enough not to fire the entire coaching staff and we, as fans, can acknowledge that.

But... to the team, every game should be a must win game. They can't afford to look past teams. They need to take the season one week at a time. They can't really look at the schedule and mark games down as wins and losses before hand.

It's OK for US to say that a particular game is a "must play well" game but that's not OK for any player or coach.

The Pencil Neck
01-10-2009, 09:41 PM
But he was willing to give them another year because by all accounts, that's the kind of guy he is.

Another point in keeping Smith last year was the horrible rash of injuries his defense had to endure the year before. An argument could have been made that Smith couldn't really be blamed by the poor defense in 2007 because of all the chaos with having to deal with all those injuries. I personally wouldn't have considered that a good argument but I have to acknowledge the validity of it.

Vinny
01-10-2009, 10:24 PM
There's a huge difference between what WE can say/believe and what THE TEAM can say/believe.

We, as fans, can look ahead and overlook teams. We can look at the schedule and figure wins and losses. Getting a good record is good enough not to fire the entire coaching staff and we, as fans, can acknowledge that.

But... to the team, every game should be a must win game. They can't afford to look past teams. They need to take the season one week at a time. They can't really look at the schedule and mark games down as wins and losses before hand.

It's OK for US to say that a particular game is a "must play well" game but that's not OK for any player or coach.don't take me that seriously. I'm just poking Marcus

Texan Asylum
01-10-2009, 10:26 PM
I haven't spent the time to confirm this, but isn't the AFC South the most stable coaching division in football during the existence of the Texans? None of the other 3 teams have changed coaches and we have once. I don't think any other division has had 2 much less 3 coaches in place from 2002 to present. That illustrates your patient owner statement and also highlights we came into a bear of a division.



Wow, nice points Cak! I never gave that a thought.

Lucky
01-10-2009, 10:46 PM
If Kubes had ended 3-7, I might be saying to get rid of him. Why? Because it's not how you start, it's how you finish and for his team to finish that poorly (barring a rash of injuries to key players) would be inexcusable.

Yeah, yeah, we all want to win a Super Bowl. But the first step is to build a team that's a perennial powerhouse and is in the playoffs (or in the hunt for the playoffs until the last week of the season) consistently.
Right now, the Texans are a perennial also-ran. They've been "building" for 7 years. How about making the playoffs one time? When will it be OK to demand that?

I'm not really following the logic of why it's not how you start, it's how you finish. If your start takes you completely out of the playoff picture, your finish is irrelevant. What momentum did the Texans gain after achieving winning records in December of '06 & '07? I could make the argument that Kubiak has this team playing tight until all hope is lost. Then, he has the Texans playing like champs (at least against the weak sisters of the league). What does it matter how the Texans got to 8-8, when 8-8 is not good enough?

I haven't spent the time to confirm this, but isn't the AFC South the most stable coaching division in football during the existence of the Texans?

Going further with the Patient Owner idea, look at the teams who've had a single coach during the Texans existence:

Well yeah, the AFC South teams have had stable coaching situations. The Colts have made the playoffs over the entire span of the Texans' existence. The Titans have gone in 4 out of the 7 seasons. The Jags twice (and from the looks of it, Del Rio just opened his 2nd envelope). If you're taking your team to the playoffs, it's difficult to get fired.

So does winning come from having a stable organization? Or are organizations stable because they win? Hey, I'm all for having a stable organization. As long as the team is winning.

HoustonFrog
01-10-2009, 10:47 PM
We ranked 24th in "hogability" as well. So, the secondary isn't our only issue on defense. Rather, defense is our issue.

We can only hope the changing of the guard and the subsequent change in personnel will change that.

I was really going off of these quotes

http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/01/the_cold_hard_football_facts_o_1.html


But here's the problem, Steph: the Texans simply could not stop anybody through the air. Houston ranked a dreadful 26th against the pass this year as measured by our preferred indicator, Defensive Passer Rating (92.3).

To put that 92.3 Defensive Passer Rating into perspective, consider that Joe Montana's career passer rating was 92.3. In other words, the Texans were so bad on pass defense this year that they made opposing passers look like the immortal Joe Montana himself each week...................

But the fact of the matter is that the Texans need help everywhere on defense to become a competitor. In fact, they can win with their below-average defense. They really need to find a way to stop the pass and, coupled with their offensive capabilities, they can become a formidable team."

infantrycak
01-10-2009, 11:03 PM
So does winning come from having a stable organization? Or are organizations stable because they win? Hey, I'm all for having a stable organization. As long as the team is winning.

No doubt there is a chicken and egg to it. Fact is the Texans came into a very tough division.

Specnatz
01-10-2009, 11:53 PM
So does winning come from having a stable organization? Or are organizations stable because they win? Hey, I'm all for having a stable organization. As long as the team is winning.

No doubt there is a chicken and egg to it. Fact is the Texans came into a very tough division.

I would say it is both. It is not a black and white, it is or it is not type of thing. Look at what I posted about teams who change so often versus those that don't. Of course you have to see production and improvement other wise your Detroit keeping Millen around. Baltimore has had stability and also change when you see stagnation.

The Pencil Neck
01-11-2009, 01:39 PM
Right now, the Texans are a perennial also-ran. They've been "building" for 7 years. How about making the playoffs one time? When will it be OK to demand that?


You're either a fan of a team or you aren't. If you "demand" something that means that you're going to stop being a fan if they don't do the thing that you're demanding. So, you can demand anything you want whenever you want to and then when you don't get it, you can walk away. Demanding that any team get to the playoffs or win a Super Bowl is like demanding that the sun rise in the West.

Now, by making this powerless "demand", what do you think is going to happen? We've been an also ran for 7 years, do you think that gutting the coaching staff and starting from scratch is going to be a good strategy for meeting your demand? If McNair listens to you and accedes to your demand and changes everything, do you think that will get us to the playoffs any quicker... especially in our division? Personally, I think this staff has us closer to the playoffs than we've ever been and I think that we'll be there soon.

It's very rare for a coaching staff to take over a team and not have the performance initially suffer. Even though we had a couple of big turn-arounds this year, those are very, very rare and we couldn't expect that sort of thing if we fire everyone and start fresh.


I'm not really following the logic of why it's not how you start, it's how you finish. If your start takes you completely out of the playoff picture, your finish is irrelevant. What momentum did the Texans gain after achieving winning records in December of '06 & '07? I could make the argument that Kubiak has this team playing tight until all hope is lost. Then, he has the Texans playing like champs (at least against the weak sisters of the league). What does it matter how the Texans got to 8-8, when 8-8 is not good enough?



If you start strong and finish weak, that means that you've probably lost the team. Look at Marinelli and the Lions. 2007, they started off 6-2 and were looking square at the playoffs and then went 1-7 over the end of 2007 and then 0-16 for 2008. He started strong but ended weak and it carried over into the next year.

That's not saying that you can't end hot, not make the playoffs, and still come back weak, but at least ending the season on a high point leaves a better taste in everyone's mouths. And frankly, the past 2 years, we've been mathematically in the playoff hunt into December and that's a step in the right directly. Sometimes being mathematically in it is all you need, just look at the Eagles this year.



Well yeah, the AFC South teams have had stable coaching situations. The Colts have made the playoffs over the entire span of the Texans' existence. The Titans have gone in 4 out of the 7 seasons. The Jags twice (and from the looks of it, Del Rio just opened his 2nd envelope). If you're taking your team to the playoffs, it's difficult to get fired.

So does winning come from having a stable organization? Or are organizations stable because they win? Hey, I'm all for having a stable organization. As long as the team is winning.

Part of my point there is that most of those coaches have gone through some losing seasons and if the owner had pulled the trigger on them, they probably wouldn't have enjoyed the successful years that they've had.

8-8 is not a bad record. Many years, someone makes it into the playoffs with an 8-8 record.

You might be frustrated that we've never gotten into the playoffs, hell, I'm frustrated that we've never gotten to the playoffs, but as a fan, I want my team to construct itself so that it gets to the playoffs on a consistent basis. And I think that given time, Smithiak is on the right road to doing that. It really sucks that they're having to do it in a division that is currently very strong. If this team was in some other divisions, I think we'd be in the playoffs. I think, as it stands now, this is a playoff-caliber team that's just had some bad luck. And I think that changing the coaching staff at this point would most likely be counter productive and would just delay our eventual entry into the playoffs.

Lucky
01-11-2009, 03:23 PM
I think, as it stands now, this is a playoff-caliber team that's just had some bad luck.
This is not a playoff caliber team. They were nowhere near the playoffs. And your reasoning in that the team was still "mathematically" in playoff contention in December is laughable. Look at the final NFL standings (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/). It would have taken 11 wins to make the playoffs as a wild card. The Texans were 3-6 following a week 10 home loss to Baltimore. So in reality, the Texans were eliminated from playoff contention on November 9th.

Yes, the AFC South is a tough division. For the Texans. It's not as tough for the Colts and the Titans. Because they get to play the Texans twice a year. Playoff teams hold their own versus good teams and clean up on the bad teams. The Texans record in the Kubiak era versus winning teams is 6-18 (1-5, 2-7, 3-6). Hey, they're trending upward. Maybe by 2010 the Texans will start beating good teams? Maybe? It doesn't really matter how tough the division or conference is or isn't. The Texans play in the AFC South. If Gary Kubiak can't deal with that reality, the Texans need to bring in a coach who can.

It's very rare for a coaching staff to take over a team and not have the performance initially suffer. Even though we had a couple of big turn-arounds this year, those are very, very rare...
That concern is unfounded. Since 2006 (when Kubiak took over in Houston), there have been 22 changes at head coach in the NFL. Of those 22, 14 have produced more victories than the previous regime. Including Gary Kubiak in 2006.

The Pencil Neck
01-11-2009, 05:23 PM
This is not a playoff caliber team.

Did an 8-8 team make the playoffs this year? Do 8-8 teams frequently make the playoffs?

Uh. Yeah, they do.

Therefore, this team is good enough to be in the playoffs.



They were nowhere near the playoffs. And your reasoning in that the team was still "mathematically" in playoff contention in December is laughable. Look at the final NFL standings (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/). It would have taken 11 wins to make the playoffs as a wild card. The Texans were 3-6 following a week 10 home loss to Baltimore. So in reality, the Texans were eliminated from playoff contention on November 9th.


Being mathematically alive means that a lot of things would have needed to fall just right for us to make it in. Those things didn't happen. But that's not relevant to the point. There was a possibility that we could have been in the playoffs at that point. It was remote, but it was there. LAST year, with a worse team, we were in a better position wrt playoffs in December.

It's very rare to get double digit wins and not get into the playoffs and frequently one or two teams make it in with 8-9 wins. By that measure, we're much closer than you seem to think. And this gets back to what I was saying about being patient. You've got a good team and you want to ruin it.


Yes, the AFC South is a tough division. For the Texans. It's not as tough for the Colts and the Titans. Because they get to play the Texans twice a year. Playoff teams hold their own versus good teams and clean up on the bad teams. The Texans record in the Kubiak era versus winning teams is 6-18 (1-5, 2-7, 3-6). Hey, they're trending upward. Maybe by 2010 the Texans will start beating good teams? Maybe? It doesn't really matter how tough the division or conference is or isn't. The Texans play in the AFC South. If Gary Kubiak can't deal with that reality, the Texans need to bring in a coach who can.


Good luck with finding a coach that's going to come in and suddenly make the Titans, Jags, and Colts worse teams.

Yes, the Texans need to start beating good teams. They need to get better on the road. It would be great if they could go 19-0 along the way. It would be great to be a fan of a team that does all that. And hopefully, that will start next year. Hopefully, we're not going to be the Saints or the Cards or the Lions or the Bengals or one of those teams that goes for 20-30 years without winning anything.


That concern is unfounded. Since 2006 (when Kubiak took over in Houston), there have been 22 changes at head coach in the NFL. Of those 22, 14 have produced more victories than the previous regime. Including Gary Kubiak in 2006.

How many of those coaching changes went better than 11 wins? I mean, that's your standard, right? Getting into the playoffs this year as a wild card? And needed 11 wins? So how many of those 14 coaches had winning records and how many went to the playoffs?

Lucky
01-11-2009, 06:07 PM
Did an 8-8 team make the playoffs this year? Do 8-8 teams frequently make the playoffs?

Uh. Yeah, they do.
It's occurred 4 times since the league expanded to 32 teams. This season was the first time in the AFC since 1991 (NY Jets). If that's your definition of "frequently", then OK. 8-8 teams are frequent playoff participants.

Uh? You're giving me an "Uh"?

Good luck with finding a coach that's going to come in and suddenly make the Titans, Jags, and Colts worse teams.
I just want a coach that will make the Texans a better team than the Titans, Jags, and Colts. This makes me a bad, unreasonable, or uninformed fan?

So how many of those 14 coaches had winning records and how many went to the playoffs?
7, or half of the coaches took their teams to the playoffs. Is that "rare"? I get a little confused by your use of the terms "rare" and "frequently".

Yes, the Texans need to start beating good teams.
That's all I'm saying. And if Gary Kubiak can't get that done (and I've seen no evidence he can), he needs to be replaced. I'm not going to celebrate 1st downs, anymore.

This reminds me of an argument about religion. You base your beliefs on either reason or faith. Admittedly, I've been a faith-based fan for the first 6 years of the Texans existence. But, the cold, hard facts have caused me to lose faith. Make no mistake, I want it back. I just don't see that happening with Gary Kubiak as the Texans head coach.

Norg
01-11-2009, 06:25 PM
AFC East:
Buffalo - 3 Coach
Miami - 4 Coach, plus 1 interim
NE - Same Coach
NYJ - 3 Coach (With next hire)

AFC North:
Baltimore - 2 Coaches
Cincinnati - 2 Coaches
Cleveland - 3 Coaches and 1 interim
Pittsburgh - 2 Coaches

AFC West:
Denver - Going on 2nd coach
KC Chiefs - 3 coaches (3rd yet to be hired)
Oakland - 4 coaches and 1 interim, soon to hire 5th coach
San Diego - 2 Coaches

AFC South:
Indianapolis - 1 Coach (could be two if Dungy walks away)
Jacksonville - 2 Coaches
Houston - 2 Coaches
Tennessee - 1 Coach

NFC East:
Dallas - 3 Coaches, but with JJ that could change any day now.
NY Giants - 2 Coaches
Philly - 1 Coach
Washington - 3 Coaches

NFC North:
Chicago - 2 Coaches
Detroit - 4 Coaches and 1 interim (once they make their next hire)
Green Bay - 2 Coaches
Minnesota - 2 Coaches

NFC South:
Atlanta - 4 Coaches, 2 interim coaches
Carolina - 1 Coach
New Orleans - 2 Coaches
Tampa Bay - 1 Coach

NFC West:
Arizona - 3 Coaches
San Francisco - 4 Coaches (No Interim since Mike was given the job full time)
Seattle - 2 Coaches (2009 Mora Jr. takes over for Holmgren)
St Luis - 2 coaches and 2 interim coaches at current, no clue about a coach in 2009. (could be 3rd)

so this might prove that having a stable coach = More W's

but the bad teams have some many coaches because well there bad and have yet to find the right guy

there is some exception tho CLE had a somewhat steller year 2 years ago but pullled the trigger on there coach

same with NYJ and WSH tho i think the coach change to washington was bad

and whoever said about us aganist our divison coach stat wise i think if we keep kubes we canstay strong

I think we matchup well aganist JAX

we have finally beat The TITANS

and should have gone even with the colts if it was not for the sage meltdown

and how much longer is Dungy going to be coaching ?????????

The Pencil Neck
01-11-2009, 08:13 PM
It's occurred 4 times since the league expanded to 32 teams. This season was the first time in the AFC since 1991 (NY Jets). If that's your definition of "frequently", then OK. 8-8 teams are frequent playoff participants.

Uh? You're giving me an "Uh"?


Actually, by my calculations, it's happened 3 times since the league went to 32 teams. That's 3 times in 7 years or 42% of the time. Almost 50% of the time is fairly frequently, yes.

And... yeah... you got uh'd. :smiliedance:



I just want a coach that will make the Texans a better team than the Titans, Jags, and Colts. This makes me a bad, unreasonable, or uninformed fan?


Changing coaches doesn't assure that at all.


7, or half of the coaches took their teams to the playoffs. Is that "rare"? I get a little confused by your use of the terms "rare" and "frequently".


OK. This wasn't want I expected at all, so I decided to actually pull up the numbers.

By my calculations (which doesn't really jibe with yours), there have been 36 coaching changes since the inception of the Texans. 25 of those coaching changes resulted in an improved record. 11 of the 36 coaching changes had the team that made the change making the playoffs the next year.

Now, a LOT of those "improved" records are examples of teams going from a bad record to an almost equally bad record (4-12 to 6-10, 4-12 to 5-11, 2-14 to 4-12, etc.)

Many of the playoff teams aren't really a surprise and few represent real turnarounds.

Of those 11 playoffs:
1. Ravens this year. This was a huge surprise but they were only one year removed from being a very good team under Billick.
2. Cowboys, 2x. One time was Parcells really being a better coach and the other was Phillips taking over an already good team.
3. Chiefs. Vermiel finished 10-6 and out of the playoffs and the next year, Herm Edwards finished 9-7 and MADE the playoffs. I think this one is interesting.
4. Dolphins - Sparano, huge surprise.
5. Jets - Magini had that great first year and now he's gone.
6. Steelers - Tomlin taking over for Cowher. This was already a good team that had recently won a superbowl.
7. Chargers - Turner took over a great team from Schottenheimer.
8. Falcons - Mora's first year and now Smith's huge surprise year.

A really good coach COULD come in and bring the right chemistry to get this team into the playoffs. But there's an even bigger chance that they won't.


That's all I'm saying. And if Gary Kubiak can't get that done (and I've seen no evidence he can), he needs to be replaced. I'm not going to celebrate 1st downs, anymore.

This reminds me of an argument about religion. You base your beliefs on either reason or faith. Admittedly, I've been a faith-based fan for the first 6 years of the Texans existence. But, the cold, hard facts have caused me to lose faith. Make no mistake, I want it back. I just don't see that happening with Gary Kubiak as the Texans head coach.

Well, I think that sums it up. I think we're on the right track and you don't. And that's cool.

I look at it like when you're stuck in traffic and you see the lane next to you moving so you change lanes. Then the lane you switched to stops and then lane you came from starts to go. Unless you've got a real reason to change lanes, you're probably better just staying put.

DocBar
01-12-2009, 12:05 AM
Right now, the Texans are a perennial also-ran. They've been "building" for 7 years. How about making the playoffs one time? When will it be OK to demand that?

I'm not really following the logic of why it's not how you start, it's how you finish. If your start takes you completely out of the playoff picture, your finish is irrelevant. What momentum did the Texans gain after achieving winning records in December of '06 & '07? I could make the argument that Kubiak has this team playing tight until all hope is lost. Then, he has the Texans playing like champs (at least against the weak sisters of the league). What does it matter how the Texans got to 8-8, when 8-8 is not good enough?

Well yeah, the AFC South teams have had stable coaching situations. The Colts have made the playoffs over the entire span of the Texans' existence. The Titans have gone in 4 out of the 7 seasons. The Jags twice (and from the looks of it, Del Rio just opened his 2nd envelope). If you're taking your team to the playoffs, it's difficult to get fired.

So does winning come from having a stable organization? Or are organizations stable because they win? Hey, I'm all for having a stable organization. As long as the team is winning.
The Texans had one of the hardest schedules this season AND had Ike. Their bye week was week 2. This years squad was quite a bit better than last years. Being an "end results" oriented person is OK, but you have to consider the reality of the situations to be fair. We were 2 drives removed ( 1 on O and 1 on D) from being 10-6 and were only thoroughly throttled in a couple of games ( Pitt and OAK). The problems on O are imminemtly fixable by coaching players up. The problems on D will become fewer once we get a new DC in place who can actually formulate a sensible game plan.

Lucky
01-12-2009, 12:25 AM
By my calculations (which doesn't really jibe with yours), there have been 36 coaching changes since the inception of the Texans.
I actually said 22 changes since 2006. Not that it matters, the numbers show that change isn't as scary as many here believe it to be.

8-8 teams to make playoffs since NFL went to 32 teams:
2004 Vikings: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round
2004 Rams: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round
2006 Giants: Lost in the wild card round
2008 Chargers: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round

As I said 4 teams. But, there were 22 other 8-8 teams since 2002 that watched the playoffs on TV. So the actual percentage of 8-8 teams reaching the playoffs over that time period is 15%.

Now if you still believe that 8-8 is a good record, then Gary Kubiak is your man. I don't think it is. And while I think Kubiak is a really good guy and a really good offensive coordinator, I don't see him leading a team to a championship.

Titans - They're hot now, but they had 3 non-winning seasons in a row and the owner stuck by Fisher 4, actually.

Here's an interesting list of NFL head coaches in the salary cap era who began their stints with 3 or more non-winning seasons:

Gary Kubiak Houston (2006-2008) - Kept his job
Dick Jauron Buffalo (2006-2008) - Kept his job
Rod Marinelli Detroit (2006-2008) - Fired after his 3rd season
Mike Nolan (2005-2008) - Fired during his 4th season
Dennis Green Arizona (2004-2006) - Fired after his 3rd season
Dom Capers Houston (2002-2005) - Fired after his 4rd season
Dave McGinnis Arizona (2001-2003) - Fired after his 3rd season
Gregg Williams Buffalo (2001-2003) - Fired after his 3rd season
Dave Campo Dallas (2000-2002) - Fired after his 3rd season
George Seifert Carolina (1999-2001) - Fired after his third season
Mike Riley San Diego (1999-2001) - Fired after his third season
Bruce Coslet Cincinnati (1997-2000) - Fired during his 4th season
Mike Ditka Chicago (1997-2000) - Fired after his third season
Ted Marchibroda Baltimore (1996-1998) - Fired after his third season
Dennis Erickson Seattle (1995-1998) - Fired after his 4rd season
Jeff Fisher Tennessee (1995-2008) - Began 7-9 in his initial full season as a head coach, followed by 3 consecutive 8-8 marks. His teams went to the playoffs in 6 of the following 10 seasons.

Obviously, Fisher is a success story for sticking with a coach. As I said in a previous post, it's pretty rare for an organization to stand pat after 3 non-winning seasons. Maybe Kubiak is the next Jeff Fisher. But, he could just as easily become like one of the other 14 coaches on the list. Most of whom could be best described as good coordinators who couldn't cut it as head coaches.

Lucky
01-12-2009, 12:36 AM
The Texans had one of the hardest schedules this season AND had Ike. Their bye week was week 2.
The Ravens had their bye in week 2. The Ravens had a tough schedule. The Ravens had a rookie QB. And a rookie head coach. The Ravens are playing for the AFC Championship next Sunday.

This team should change its name to the Houston Excuses. Always a handy excuse for not getting the job done. I guess after 7 seasons, I've finally reached my tolerance level for excuses. Gary Kubiak is fortunate to work for an owner who has a much higher tolerance level.

Runner
01-12-2009, 12:37 AM
Sobering post (the long one), Lucky. Sobering post.

barrett
01-12-2009, 12:39 AM
that's the most discouraging stat i've seen in some time.

go texans. go Kubiak.

Runner
01-12-2009, 12:42 AM
The Texans had one of the hardest schedules this season AND had Ike. Their bye week was week 2. This years squad was quite a bit better than last years. Being an "end results" oriented person is OK, but you have to consider the reality of the situations to be fair. We were 2 drives removed ( 1 on O and 1 on D) from being 10-6 and were only thoroughly throttled in a couple of games ( Pitt and OAK). The problems on O are imminemtly fixable by coaching players up. The problems on D will become fewer once we get a new DC in place who can actually formulate a sensible game plan.


Hurricane Ike stopped the Texans from being 0-5 to start the year. The last thing the Texans needed after facing the Pittsburgh defense was to face Baltimore's.

As far as being a couple of drives aways from more wins, I'd be willing to wager fans of every team can make that claim. If we got those two magic wins everyone else would too, and we'd be in the same relative spot.

Lucky
01-12-2009, 01:03 AM
Sobering post (the long one), Lucky. Sobering post.
I can't believe that I'm the one writing this. Look up the word "Homer" in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of me following this:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/frank_deford/12/19/frank.deford/t1_babe_ruth.jpg

And this:
http://ejcross.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/homer_simpson_doh_02.gif


Actually, I look eerily similar to the 2nd guy.

So many can see the winning streaks. All I can remember is the lifeless team that was 3-6 after the Ravens game. That's just where I'm at as a fan. It will get better. I'll watch the college allstar games. And the combine. I'll be watching the wire when free agency opens. I'll get all geeked up for the draft. But, it will be difficult for me to shake off the belief that this should have been our year.

ChampionTexan
01-12-2009, 12:20 PM
I actually said 22 changes since 2006. Not that it matters, the numbers show that change isn't as scary as many here believe it to be.

8-8 teams to make playoffs since NFL went to 32 teams:
2004 Vikings: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round
2004 Rams: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round
2006 Giants: Lost in the wild card round
2008 Chargers: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round

As I said 4 teams. But, there were 22 other 8-8 teams since 2002 that watched the playoffs on TV. So the actual percentage of 8-8 teams reaching the playoffs over that time period is 15%.

Now if you still believe that 8-8 is a good record, then Gary Kubiak is your man. I don't think it is. And while I think Kubiak is a really good guy and a really good offensive coordinator, I don't see him leading a team to a championship.

4, actually.

Here's an interesting list of NFL head coaches in the salary cap era who began their stints with 3 or more non-winning seasons:

Gary Kubiak Houston (2006-2008) - Kept his job
Dick Jauron Buffalo (2006-2008) - Kept his job
Rod Marinelli Detroit (2006-2008) - Fired after his 3rd season
Mike Nolan (2005-2008) - Fired during his 4th season
Dennis Green Arizona (2004-2006) - Fired after his 3rd season
Dom Capers Houston (2002-2005) - Fired after his 4rd season
Dave McGinnis Arizona (2001-2003) - Fired after his 3rd season
Gregg Williams Buffalo (2001-2003) - Fired after his 3rd season
Dave Campo Dallas (2000-2002) - Fired after his 3rd season
George Seifert Carolina (1999-2001) - Fired after his third season
Mike Riley San Diego (1999-2001) - Fired after his third season
Bruce Coslet Cincinnati (1997-2000) - Fired during his 4th season
Mike Ditka Chicago (1997-2000) - Fired after his third season
Ted Marchibroda Baltimore (1996-1998) - Fired after his third season
Dennis Erickson Seattle (1995-1998) - Fired after his 4rd season
Jeff Fisher Tennessee (1995-2008) - Began 7-9 in his initial full season as a head coach, followed by 3 consecutive 8-8 marks. His teams went to the playoffs in 6 of the following 10 seasons.

Obviously, Fisher is a success story for sticking with a coach. As I said in a previous post, it's pretty rare for an organization to stand pat after 3 non-winning seasons. Maybe Kubiak is the next Jeff Fisher. But, he could just as easily become like one of the other 14 coaches on the list. Most of whom could be best described as good coordinators who couldn't cut it as head coaches.


I don't have a problem with somebody expressing the belief that Kubiak's not the guy, or the belief that he should be gone. I understand it, and it very well may be proven dead-on correct. But I disagree with the vibe I'm getting that that you believe that any other NFL team worth it's salt would have jettisoned Kubiak after year three, or that keeping him is blatantly stupid.

Probably needless to say, your information is accurate, but let's spin it a different way. How many NFL coaches who have won 22 or more games in their first three years were fired after that third year? I don't know the answer to that question, and while I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, I'm guessing it's a pretty small number. Off the top of my head, the only one I can come up with is Mangini (with 23 wins), and he had another HC job in about a week and a half. In the data you present, only 6 coaches won 18 or more games in their first three years (including Kubes), and 5 of those 6 were retained for a fourth year. In terms of what it tells us about the future, when looking at the what those 6 coaches did down the road, one of them was fired, and two of them haven't coached their fourth year yet. Of the three remaining, one of them was a miserable failure in year 4 (Dom Capers), one of them was 8-8 in year 4 and fired (Dennis Erickson), and one of them is Jeff Fisher. I see nothing in that data indicating Kubiak is doomed to fail.

Is my analysis better than yours? No! Is it proof that Kubiak should have a year 4? No! Should Kubiak be retained without clear and indisputable improvement next year? He probably shouldn't be, and he probably won't be! I think it just shows that the Texans are taking a reasonable position in giving him that fourth year, and calling him a "teflon" coach may be taking it a bit far.

The Pencil Neck
01-12-2009, 12:51 PM
I actually said 22 changes since 2006. Not that it matters, the numbers show that change isn't as scary as many here believe it to be.

8-8 teams to make playoffs since NFL went to 32 teams:
2004 Vikings: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round
2004 Rams: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round
2006 Giants: Lost in the wild card round
2008 Chargers: Won in the wild card round, lost in the divisional round

As I said 4 teams. But, there were 22 other 8-8 teams since 2002 that watched the playoffs on TV. So the actual percentage of 8-8 teams reaching the playoffs over that time period is 15%.

Now if you still believe that 8-8 is a good record, then Gary Kubiak is your man. I don't think it is. And while I think Kubiak is a really good guy and a really good offensive coordinator, I don't see him leading a team to a championship.


It's all a matter of how you want to look at the numbers. My point was that 8-8 teams can and do make it into the playoffs. When I used the term "frequently", I wasn't saying that most 8-8 teams get into the playoffs but rather that in many years, an 8-8 team makes it in. Therefore an 8-8 record should qualify as "playoff-caliber."

I think 8-8 is a good record and I think it's a stepping stone to better records in the future.


4, actually.

Here's an interesting list of NFL head coaches in the salary cap era who began their stints with 3 or more non-winning seasons:

Gary Kubiak Houston (2006-2008) - Kept his job
Dick Jauron Buffalo (2006-2008) - Kept his job
Rod Marinelli Detroit (2006-2008) - Fired after his 3rd season
Mike Nolan (2005-2008) - Fired during his 4th season
Dennis Green Arizona (2004-2006) - Fired after his 3rd season
Dom Capers Houston (2002-2005) - Fired after his 4rd season
Dave McGinnis Arizona (2001-2003) - Fired after his 3rd season
Gregg Williams Buffalo (2001-2003) - Fired after his 3rd season
Dave Campo Dallas (2000-2002) - Fired after his 3rd season
George Seifert Carolina (1999-2001) - Fired after his third season
Mike Riley San Diego (1999-2001) - Fired after his third season
Bruce Coslet Cincinnati (1997-2000) - Fired during his 4th season
Mike Ditka Chicago (1997-2000) - Fired after his third season
Ted Marchibroda Baltimore (1996-1998) - Fired after his third season
Dennis Erickson Seattle (1995-1998) - Fired after his 4rd season
Jeff Fisher Tennessee (1995-2008) - Began 7-9 in his initial full season as a head coach, followed by 3 consecutive 8-8 marks. His teams went to the playoffs in 6 of the following 10 seasons.

Obviously, Fisher is a success story for sticking with a coach. As I said in a previous post, it's pretty rare for an organization to stand pat after 3 non-winning seasons. Maybe Kubiak is the next Jeff Fisher. But, he could just as easily become like one of the other 14 coaches on the list. Most of whom could be best described as good coordinators who couldn't cut it as head coaches.

For all those guys, you really have to look at what their record was in their last year and then how the team did after they were replaced.... and I don't have the time to do that right now (Damn work!).

But lots of those guys had bad years in that last year. Seifert was 1-15, iirc. Capers was 2-14. Mike Nolan was pulled early in the season after a bad start. IF the Texans regress next year (or even if they start the year like they did THIS year), then I think Kubiak is gone. But I think it's premature to fire a guy who has improved the team each year he's coached it.

Runner
01-12-2009, 09:27 PM
I can't believe that I'm the one writing this. Look up the word "Homer" in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of me following this:

...

So many can see the winning streaks. All I can remember is the lifeless team that was 3-6 after the Ravens game. That's just where I'm at as a fan. It will get better. I'll watch the college allstar games. And the combine. I'll be watching the wire when free agency opens. I'll get all geeked up for the draft. But, it will be difficult for me to shake off the belief that this should have been our year.

I understand. I was embarrassingly optimistic during and after the 2004 season, but I was cured in short order.

Fox
01-12-2009, 09:48 PM
First off, great posts. Just wanted to point out that I feel that comparing Kubiak with other coaches who began their tenure with "3 non-winning seasons" is misleading due to the variance in quality of, say, an 0-16 season vs an 8-8 season which are both "non-winning seasons." The end result is the same, both teams watch the playoffs on the couch, but as a fan I found our 8-8 seasons much more enjoyable than our 2-14 year. I'd be interested to see how coaches who had + or - 5 Wins from Kubes' over the beginning of their tenure fared.

Frankly in a league as fickle as the NFL I have a hard time trying to lump coaches into statistical categories (interesting as it may be). There are so many variables that go into a winning season, much less a win in one game, and I prefer to evaluate them on an individual basis. Each coach and each situation is an entirely different animal, IMO.