PDA

View Full Version : McNair interview (part 2)


Lucky
03-29-2009, 09:46 PM
I was going to add this to the previous McNair thread, but that morphed into a thread on the possible expanded season. In part II of Brooke Bentley's interview (on houstontexans.com (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5199)), McNair lays out the Texans draft and expresses his impatience regarding the lack of playoff appearances.

Brooke Bentley: Finally, a lot of people are saying this is the Texans year to get over the hump. How much pressure is on this team to go to the playoffs?

Bob McNair: I don’t know how much pressure there is on us to do it. But I can just tell you, from our standpoint, we are very impatient about it. It’s what we fully expect, so I guess we put the pressure on ourselves. We need to improve our defense. Our offense was number three in the league; our defense was 22nd. We jus(t) need to step up what we are doing on the defensive side of the ball. (Defensive coordinator) Frank Bush is our new coordinator there and he has a lot of enthusiasm. He is going to be very aggressive and I think fans are going to like the way we play defense with Frank. We were very close last year and there is no reason why with a little luck and the way the ball might bounce this year that we will go a long ways, and that’s what we expect to do. I’m looking forward to it. I’m ready and I know our fans are ready. I’m tired of not being in the playoffs. When the playoffs start, I want us still to be playing.I hear ya, Bob.

CloakNNNdagger
03-29-2009, 11:19 PM
I was going to add this to the previous McNair thread, but that morphed into a thread on the possible expanded season. In part II of Brooke Bentley's interview (on houstontexans.com (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5199)), McNair lays out the Texans draft and expresses his impatience regarding the lack of playoff appearances.

I hear ya, Bob.


I get the distinct feeling that McNair's comments were not soley directed to the fans.

mattieuk
03-30-2009, 07:26 AM
I get the distinct feeling that McNair's comments were not soley directed to the fans.

Agreed....from what I read there it sounded like a pretty thinly veiled call for the coaches and players (especially on the defensive side of the ball) to step up, and do things now, or that is going to be it. From his expectations, Bush is in now to make the defense more impactive and achieve more big plays, and if that doesn't work out, then some heads are going to roll.

He is right in what he says though, the offense is great, but the defense needs to meet them to get us over the large AFC South sized hump.

mussop
03-30-2009, 07:31 AM
We need to improve our defense. Our offense was number three in the league; our defense was 22nd.


SIGH!!!!!! :gun:

I know the offense was pretty good last year and should only get better but no way in hell we are the 3rd best offense in the NFL. Our offense needs depth at nearly every position. Look at our backup OL, TE and RB's. Any injury to any of our starters at those positions and we are in deep dodo.

I know our defense needs to improve bigtime but we cannot just ignore the offense and pass on a better player because our defense was so bad. I really hope we dont fall into that trap. If we do I fear we will regret it in the long run. We need to stick to the plan that has gotten us this far and take the BPA.

Texans_Chick
03-30-2009, 09:23 AM
We need to improve our defense. Our offense was number three in the league; our defense was 22nd.


SIGH!!!!!! :gun:

I know the offense was pretty good last year and should only get better but no way in hell we are the 3rd best offense in the NFL. Our offense needs depth at nearly every position. Look at our backup OL, TE and RB's. Any injury to any of our starters at those positions and we are in deep dodo.

I know our defense needs to improve bigtime but we cannot just ignore the offense and pass on a better player because our defense was so bad. I really hope we dont fall into that trap. If we do I fear we will regret it in the long run. We need to stick to the plan that has gotten us this far and take the BPA.


I think you are right. Though the Texans offense was 3rd in the league with some metrics, on other metrics they are more like 10-12th overall. However, the defense though 22nd measured by some metrics, is more like 30th judging from other ones. In just about every key defensive stat, the Texans were among the worst in the league and have been that way for the last 4 years.

I think the offense has confidence that with more seasoning and a player here or there they can get better. Because they have. I think their defensive plan is to throw as many bad mofos on that side of the ball until they just have to get better.


As for the interview, my thoughts about the most interesting parts of it is here:

Bob McNair talks Texans draft needs (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/03/bob_mcnair_talks_texans_draft.html)

That McNair wants to be in the playoff is no surprise. Like the coaches and the fans. He is just like one of us--a fan--just a fan with a boatload more money.

ArlingtonTexan
03-30-2009, 09:49 AM
I think you are right. Though the Texans offense was 3rd in the league with some metrics, on other metrics they are more like 10-12th overall. However, the defense though 22nd measured by some metrics, is more like 30th judging from other ones. In just about every key defensive stat, the Texans were among the worst in the league and have been that way for the last 4 years.

I think the offense has confidence that with more seasoning and a player here or there they can get better. Because they have. I think their defensive plan is to throw as many bad mofos on that side of the ball until they just have to get better.


One adiitional thing to consider is that the Texans have also done a better job in finding offense players who either meet or exceed expectations in both the draft or FA. They have figured out how to add the Daniels, Walter and Slation for minimal investment. If this continues, adding a 3 or 4 mid to late round offensive players probably will help with the depth issues.

The defense has 4 1st rounders, a high 2nd and two starting money free agents and has not approached mediocrity. The defense should be better than it is just based on the relative investment in the unit that the team has made. Assuming the draft falls where the Texans can add the high pick LB and DB they seems to desire, pure talent should not be at issue. Putting the correct players in the correct places (see the offense) to succeed is the larger concern.

El Tejano
03-30-2009, 10:30 AM
I wonder if there is anyone that picks after us that is looking for a LB.

ChampionTexan
03-30-2009, 11:11 AM
One adiitional thing to consider is that the Texans have also done a better job in finding offense players who either meet or exceed expectations in both the draft or FA. They have figured out how to add the Daniels, Walter and Slation for minimal investment. If this continues, adding a 3 or 4 mid to late round offensive players probably will help with the depth issues.

The defense has 4 1st rounders, a high 2nd and two starting money free agents and has not approached mediocrity. The defense should be better than it is just based on the relative investment in the unit that the team has made. Assuming the draft falls where the Texans can add the high pick LB and DB they seems to desire, pure talent should not be at issue. Putting the correct players in the correct places (see the offense) to succeed is the larger concern.

It's interesting to note that if you go to In the Bullseye, and add up the Offensive, Defensive, and Special Teams salary cap hit in 2009 per their unofficial information, you discover that 49.83% of the cap is going to offense, 37.06% towards defense, 2.92% towards special teams, and 10.19% towards dead money. If you allocate the dead money to the applicable units (which factors in the Weaver and the Greenwood investments), you come up with 53.22% to the offense, 43.81% to the defense, 2.92% to special teams, and .05% unidentified. Even with the big money failures factored in, we've spent significantly more on the offense than the defense.

Their info. is up to date through the Orlovsky signing, and includes the tender amounts for all RFA's, and the franchise amount for Dunta.

Based on this, the relative performance of the two units isn't surprising. With somewhere from $10 - $15 Million of cap space apparently left, it will be interesting to see how the two units compare in terms of dollars committed as we enter the 2009 season.

El Tejano
03-30-2009, 11:44 AM
It's interesting to note that if you go to In the Bullseye, and add up the Offensive, Defensive, and Special Teams salary cap hit in 2009 per their unofficial information, you discover that 49.83% of the cap is going to offense, 37.06% towards defense, 2.92% towards special teams, and 10.19% towards dead money. If you allocate the dead money to the applicable units (which factors in the Weaver and the Greenwood investments), you come up with 53.22% to the offense, 43.81% to the defense, 2.92% to special teams, and .05% unidentified. Even with the big money failures factored in, we've spent significantly more on the offense than the defense.

Their info. is up to date through the Orlovsky signing, and includes the tender amounts for all RFA's, and the franchise amount for Dunta.

Based on this, the relative performance of the two units isn't surprising. With somewhere from $10 - $15 Million of cap space apparently left, it will be interesting to see how the two units compare in terms of dollars committed as we enter the 2009 season.

So basically you are saying that if we want a better defense we need to spend the money on the defense.

I wonder if all the offensive money has to do with the fact we once had an offense that couldn't convert a 3 and 1 though.

ArlingtonTexan
03-30-2009, 11:46 AM
It's interesting to note that if you go to In the Bullseye, and add up the Offensive, Defensive, and Special Teams salary cap hit in 2009 per their unofficial information, you discover that 49.83% of the cap is going to offense, 37.06% towards defense, 2.92% towards special teams, and 10.19% towards dead money. If you allocate the dead money to the applicable units (which factors in the Weaver and the Greenwood investments), you come up with 53.22% to the offense, 43.81% to the defense, 2.92% to special teams, and .05% unidentified. Even with the big money failures factored in, we've spent significantly more on the offense than the defense.

Their info. is up to date through the Orlovsky signing, and includes the tender amounts for all RFA's, and the franchise amount for Dunta.

Based on this, the relative performance of the two units isn't surprising. With somewhere from $10 - $15 Million of cap space apparently left, it will be interesting to see how the two units compare in terms of dollars committed as we enter the 2009 season.

I would need to look at a number like that in comparison to the rest of the league, before drawing any conclusion. QBs are often the single highest player on an NFL team and usually among the top 10 except in the rarest of cases. My guess just because the QB position alone most offenses have a similair distribution of $$$ to the defense.

mussop
03-30-2009, 06:05 PM
I wonder if all the offensive money has to do with the fact we once had an offense that couldn't convert a 3 and 1 though.

I wasnt aware that was a thing of the past.

Double Barrel
03-30-2009, 06:17 PM
We were very close last year and there is no reason why with a little luck and the way the ball might bounce this year that we will go a long ways, and thatís what we expect to do.

Actually, we were not that close. We were four games out of the playoffs (an 11-5 team didn't make the cut in the AFC last season), which is not even close to being close. I know he needs to rah-rah and rally the troops, but hoping for a little luck and bouncy balls won't do the trick.

I'm just splitting hairs. I'm sure he desires a winning season and playoff spot as much as anyone, perhaps even more than any of us could imagine. He's got over a billion reasons for hoping as much.

Will Kubiak & Co. survive another .500 season? I'm not sure how to read McNair. He's good at keeping an even mood about these things.

Kaiser Toro
03-30-2009, 07:38 PM
It's interesting to note that if you go to In the Bullseye, and add up the Offensive, Defensive, and Special Teams salary cap hit in 2009 per their unofficial information, you discover that 49.83% of the cap is going to offense, 37.06% towards defense, 2.92% towards special teams, and 10.19% towards dead money. If you allocate the dead money to the applicable units (which factors in the Weaver and the Greenwood investments), you come up with 53.22% to the offense, 43.81% to the defense, 2.92% to special teams, and .05% unidentified. Even with the big money failures factored in, we've spent significantly more on the offense than the defense.

Their info. is up to date through the Orlovsky signing, and includes the tender amounts for all RFA's, and the franchise amount for Dunta.

Based on this, the relative performance of the two units isn't surprising. With somewhere from $10 - $15 Million of cap space apparently left, it will be interesting to see how the two units compare in terms of dollars committed as we enter the 2009 season.

I very much love your take being steeped in method via quasi-financial instruments as I am very pro that-shat. :)

However, one needs to look at it from a 3-5 year outlook standpoint for future cap obligations. In 2010, Mario's cap hit goes to something like 16m from 2009's 5+m. Pretty big swing which could change that mix YoY significantly, and consequently make a one year look into unit cost % mix directionally correct, but will not hold true.

What Keith's site does is give us a look into estimations through 2010 and then we can make reasonable assumptions thereafter. Only the team knows what there obligations are, but I doubt they take a one year view to deduce who they draft at the top.

ArlingtonTexan
03-30-2009, 08:07 PM
I very much love your take being steeped in method via quasi-financial instruments as I am very pro that-shat. :)

However, one needs to look at it from a 3-5 year outlook standpoint for future cap obligations. In 2010, Mario's cap hit goes to something like 16m from 2009's 5+m. Pretty big swing which could change that mix YoY significantly, and consequently make a one year look into unit cost % mix directionally correct, but will not hold true.

What Keith's site does is give us a look into estimations through 2010 and then we can make reasonable assumptions thereafter. Only the team knows what there obligations are, but I doubt they take a one year view to deduce who they draft at the top.

Also, remember that $$$ should follow production, except in the top portion of the draft's first round. (this is why paying FA top money is a dangerous game, you are paying premium prices for anticipated production or production from another team). In the Texans' case, the offense has been a more productive unit so it should be higher paid. Guys like Pitts, winston and AJ have a 2nd contract, while Daniels, Walter and Slaton are on hold for thier money. As the more productive unit the offense should be higher paid than the defense. I think that draft picks are more on target for true investment...i.e. relative low cost asset which you want to increase in value overtime.

TexanSam
03-30-2009, 08:08 PM
What does McNair do if the Texans go 10-6 or 11-5 but don't make the playoffs? Does he keep Kubiak?

Lucky
03-30-2009, 08:59 PM
Putting the correct players in the correct places (see the offense) to succeed is the larger concern.
I think given the same players, a top defensive coach could fielded a good defense. Not great, but good. And regarding the investment in the defense, the expenditure in draft choices is as important, if not more so, than the actual salary cap allocation. Teams with better defenses have invested less and gotten back more.

What does McNair do if the Texans go 10-6 or 11-5 but don't make the playoffs? Does he keep Kubiak?
A team missing the playoffs after an 11-5 season has happened once in 23 years. That's like expecting lightning to strike twice in the same spot. I'm extremely confident that an 11-5 Texans team would be playoff bound. And if not, they should have gone 12-4.

The Pencil Neck
03-31-2009, 12:37 AM
What does McNair do if the Texans go 10-6 or 11-5 but don't make the playoffs? Does he keep Kubiak?

If we get 9 wins or better, I think Kubiak stays. If we get 7-8 wins, I think it will depend on some other factors. Less than 7 wins, and Kubes is gone.

ObsiWan
03-31-2009, 06:44 AM
What does McNair do if the Texans go 10-6 or 11-5 but don't make the playoffs? Does he keep Kubiak?

Yes.
Why would you fire a guy that brought you the first winning season in the history of the franchise? If we get 10 wins in, arguably, the toughest division in football (outside of maaaybe the NFC East) I think he keeps his job and gets at least one more chance to make the playoffs. To get fired after going 10-6, we'd have to lose all our division games or something weird like that.

And who would you replace him with?
Please don't say Bill Cowher. It took him 15 yrs to win a championship even though Chuck Knoll left him a pretty damn solid squad in a weak division. I don't believe in Cowher like some folks seem to.

So I ask again, who would you replace him with? ...and not start all over again.

Kaiser Toro
03-31-2009, 08:57 AM
Yes.
Why would you fire a guy that brought you the first winning season in the history of the franchise? If we get 10 wins in, arguably, the toughest division in football (outside of maaaybe the NFC East) I think he keeps his job and gets at least one more chance to make the playoffs. To get fired after going 10-6, we'd have to lose all our division games or something weird like that.

And who would you replace him with?
Please don't say Bill Cowher. It took him 15 yrs to win a championship even though Chuck Knoll left him a pretty damn solid squad in a weak division. I don't believe in Cowher like some folks seem to.

So I ask again, who would you replace him with? ...and not start all over again.

Chuck Knoll from 1984 through 1991 averaged less than 8 wins per year, and in 1991 was 7-9. From most of his career he was less than average based on results. From 1972-1979 he may been unparalleled.

Cowher had three losing seasons.