PDA

View Full Version : Kubes on the hotseat????


Pages : 1 [2] 3

Polo
05-15-2009, 11:16 AM
btw, I'm not advocating firing Kubiak. I think that judgement should be reserved until after this next season. He's got a lot riding on 2009, so in that regard, I would say there is some heat under his seat.


Agreed. Then again, I think that pretty much every coach has/or should have some heat under their seat if they did not participate in the Superbowl.

beerlover
05-15-2009, 11:17 AM
sunny-side up http://benedictambrose.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/fried_egg2c_sunny_side_up.jpg club please :texflag:

Mr. White
05-15-2009, 11:20 AM
btw, I'm not advocating firing Kubiak. I think that judgement should be reserved until after this next season. He's got a lot riding on 2009, so in that regard, I would say there is some heat under his seat.

I guess I can sum up all my posts in this thread by agreeing with this sentiment. I don't want the guy fired either. I just want the organization to hold the coaches and players accountable like 90% of the rest of the NFL does.

I guess the "hot seat" means different things to different people. To me it means, if a team regresses next year, then the coach is out.

GP
05-15-2009, 12:54 PM
I think you missed my point. HCs should deserve credit for taking bad teams and turning them around to be playoff teams within a year. Regardless of the circumstances, the point of it all is SCOREBOARD.

Saying that we beat Miami last year so they are not a good team is weak. We also beat the Panthers and took the Patriots to OT the year that they both went to the Super Bowl. What does that mean? Jack squat. We ended with 7-9 and they went to the big game. Any given Sunday, but at the end of the day it comes down to SCOREBOARD for the season.

Hmmm...you think that Capers team that beat the Panthers and took the Patriots to OT was a good Texans team? I don't.

Flukes happen. Teams sleep on their opponent...it happened to us against the Raiders last season (we are better than the Raiders, but we looked awful).

We beat the Dolphins, and they made the playoffs (to continue down this track of "Hey, we beat the Panthers and the Pats that one year") but yet we almost didn't beat the Dolphins because they gave us too much time on the clock, because a RS defense has that famous "bend but don't break" philosophy which allows unfettered yardage between the 20s, and it was only a miracle grab by AJ on 4th down (IIRC) that even gave us a chance to win it. So, that whole game is a real enigma in terms of determining who was better: The Texans or the Dolphins. I'd state that the Texans are the better team, at the end of the day. With the Dolphins benefitting from what I see as being a pretty favorable schedule (I'm not going to go back over their schedule because I did it the NFL section a long time ago).

I want to see what Sporano does THIS season. I expect them to have a bit of a dip in their win total. I think a lot of teams overlooked them, and I think their opponents were weak (even the Patriots because they lost Brady).

OK, OK....here's their schedule from 2008 (http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=MIA&season=2008&seasonType=REG):

week 1: Jets 20 ; Fins 9 (That was an awesome Jets team this year. Not.)

week 2: Fins 10 ; Cards 31 (Well, well, well...no question here, eh?)

week 3: Fins 38 ; Pats 13 (I give the Fins partial credit for the win)

week 4: bye

week 5: Chargers 10 ; Fins 17 (Two big wins in a row. Not too shabby.)

week 6: Fins 28 ; Texans 29 (If they're better, they should've handled us)

week 7: Ravens 27 ; Fins 13 (The better team won)

week 8: Bills 16 ; Fins 25 (It's a win, but it's against the Canada Bills)

week 9: Fins 26 ; Broncs 17 (Bad year for the Broncos, due to defense)

week 10: Seahawks 19 ; Fins 21 (They beat the mighty 'Hawks by 2)

week 11: Raiders 15 ; Fins 17 (Another nail-biter against a poor team)

week 12: Pats 48 ; Fins 28 (That's a better picture of the Fins)

week 13: Fins 16 ; Rams 12 (Wow. Look at the offensive explosion!)

week 14: Fins 16 ; Bills 3 (Sheesh, it actually got WORSE...)

week 15: 49ers 9 ; Fins 14 (Yawn...)

week 16: Fins 38 ; KC 31 (One of Herm's last rodeos)

week 17: Fins 24 ; Jets 17 (Didn't this game feature Favre's famous "If we win we win, if not...no big deal. I hope it works out. FALSE RETIREMENT on three! One, two , three...") Regardless, Favre was busy being a washed up QB trying to do what he obviously cannot do anymore, which is overcome incredibly dumb interceptions with a few miracle tosses to bail his team out. The interception monster won that day. 1 TD ; 3 INT with the last INT on a do-or-die drive for Favre. Again.

The Dolphins made the playoffs. I mean, seriously...can you look at that season and those opponents and their quick exit in round 1, and say that the Dolphins were a better team?

I'd take THIS team, and it's key personnel (Rick Smith and Kubiak) over the Dolphins every time I get the chance. Because I don't buy the Dolphins' chances at long-term success and repeated seasonal performances in terms of consistency and reliability. In short: It was a fluke, and the record and playoff performance is in no shape or form a true indicator of where that team IS and where they are headed.

I think the Dolphins present a pretty good example of what some people on here are talking about when they say "It's not all about the record, or playoffs."

Runner
05-15-2009, 01:23 PM
So GP,

Can you explain why in the same post you say:

1) The Texams lost to the Raiders because flukes happen.

2) The Dolphins lost to the Texans because the Texans are better.

Why not switch the two? Ok, that isn't realistic because the Raiders were really bad.

Why not say the Texans win over the Dolphins was a fluke? That isn't that far fetched.

If the answer boils down to, "because I'm a Texan fan" that's fine. However, that slant doesn't mean much when trying to build a chain of logic why the Dolphins are a flash in the pan and the Texans have better org/team.

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 01:36 PM
Hmmm...you think that Capers team that beat the Panthers and took the Patriots to OT was a good Texans team? I don't.

Flukes happen. Teams sleep on their opponent...it happened to us against the Raiders last season (we are better than the Raiders, but we looked awful).

We beat the Dolphins, and they made the playoffs (to continue down this track of "Hey, we beat the Panthers and the Pats that one year") but yet we almost didn't beat the Dolphins because they gave us too much time on the clock, because a RS defense has that famous "bend but don't break" philosophy which allows unfettered yardage between the 20s, and it was only a miracle grab by AJ on 4th down (IIRC) that even gave us a chance to win it. So, that whole game is a real enigma in terms of determining who was better: The Texans or the Dolphins. I'd state that the Texans are the better team, at the end of the day. With the Dolphins benefitting from what I see as being a pretty favorable schedule (I'm not going to go back over their schedule because I did it the NFL section a long time ago).

I want to see what Sporano does THIS season. I expect them to have a bit of a dip in their win total. I think a lot of teams overlooked them, and I think their opponents were weak (even the Patriots because they lost Brady).

OK, OK....here's their schedule from 2008 (http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=MIA&season=2008&seasonType=REG):

week 1: Jets 20 ; Fins 9 (That was an awesome Jets team this year. Not.)

week 2: Fins 10 ; Cards 31 (Well, well, well...no question here, eh?)

week 3: Fins 38 ; Pats 13 (I give the Fins partial credit for the win)

week 4: bye

week 5: Chargers 10 ; Fins 17 (Two big wins in a row. Not too shabby.)

week 6: Fins 28 ; Texans 29 (If they're better, they should've handled us)

week 7: Ravens 27 ; Fins 13 (The better team won)

week 8: Bills 16 ; Fins 25 (It's a win, but it's against the Canada Bills)

week 9: Fins 26 ; Broncs 17 (Bad year for the Broncos, due to defense)

week 10: Seahawks 19 ; Fins 21 (They beat the mighty 'Hawks by 2)

week 11: Raiders 15 ; Fins 17 (Another nail-biter against a poor team)

week 12: Pats 48 ; Fins 28 (That's a better picture of the Fins)

week 13: Fins 16 ; Rams 12 (Wow. Look at the offensive explosion!)

week 14: Fins 16 ; Bills 3 (Sheesh, it actually got WORSE...)

week 15: 49ers 9 ; Fins 14 (Yawn...)

week 16: Fins 38 ; KC 31 (One of Herm's last rodeos)

week 17: Fins 24 ; Jets 17 (Didn't this game feature Favre's famous "If we win we win, if not...no big deal. I hope it works out. FALSE RETIREMENT on three! One, two , three...") Regardless, Favre was busy being a washed up QB trying to do what he obviously cannot do anymore, which is overcome incredibly dumb interceptions with a few miracle tosses to bail his team out. The interception monster won that day. 1 TD ; 3 INT with the last INT on a do-or-die drive for Favre. Again.

The Dolphins made the playoffs. I mean, seriously...can you look at that season and those opponents and their quick exit in round 1, and say that the Dolphins were a better team?

I'd take THIS team, and it's key personnel (Rick Smith and Kubiak) over the Dolphins every time I get the chance. Because I don't buy the Dolphins' chances at long-term success and repeated seasonal performances in terms of consistency and reliability. In short: It was a fluke, and the record and playoff performance is in no shape or form a true indicator of where that team IS and where they are headed.

I think the Dolphins present a pretty good example of what some people on here are talking about when they say "It's not all about the record, or playoffs."


How can you call the Phins a flash in the pan and say that the Texans were a better team, but they had a better record and went to the playoffs. SOrry, but they out played us for the season and they had been in much worse shape than what we had been in before last season. They simply turned their team around a lot faster. They brought in a QB that had been in the playoffs twice already and made it for his 3rd time. Pennington had an MVP type of season last year with garbage at WR's. Their RB's weren't great either. They just had a very well balanced team and their coaches did a great job. They won the division over the Patriots and and also had a pretty good Jets team in their as well. Their schedule wasn't as weak as you are trying to make it out to be.

With all of that being said, I think the Texans will be better team than them this year, but I won't be surprised if their not after what they did last season. As long as Pennington stays healthy, they'll be a pretty competitive team. Parcells has turned the attitude of that franchise around completely and he knows how to build winners. I won't count out the Dolphins, but I don't think they'll make the playoffs with Brady coming back. I expect the Pats to have the best record in the AFC again this season with Brady healthy.

The Texans don't need to worry about the Dolphins. They need to worry about the Colts, Titans, and Jags and winning our division.

Double Barrel
05-15-2009, 02:52 PM
Hmmm...you think that Capers team that beat the Panthers and took the Patriots to OT was a good Texans team? I don't.

Did I say that? :um:

The answer is: NO

So GP,

Can you explain why in the same post you say:

1) The Texams lost to the Raiders because flukes happen.

2) The Dolphins lost to the Texans because the Texans are better.

Why not switch the two? Ok, that isn't realistic because the Raiders were really bad.

Why not say the Texans win over the Dolphins was a fluke? That isn't that far fetched.

If the answer boils down to, "because I'm a Texan fan" that's fine. However, that slant doesn't mean much when trying to build a chain of logic why the Dolphins are a flash in the pan and the Texans have better org/team.

Exactly. I'd rep you if the system would let me. :howdy:

GP
05-15-2009, 02:53 PM
So GP,

Can you explain why in the same post you say:

1) The Texams lost to the Raiders because flukes happen.

2) The Dolphins lost to the Texans because the Texans are better.

Why not switch the two? Ok, that isn't realistic because the Raiders were really bad.

Why not say the Texans win over the Dolphins was a fluke? That isn't that far fetched.

If the answer boils down to, "because I'm a Texan fan" that's fine. However, that slant doesn't mean much when trying to build a chain of logic why the Dolphins are a flash in the pan and the Texans have better org/team.

Well, everyone wants the playoffs. And/or a better record. So let's look at what one of those looks like, shall we? Not every team that's in the playoffs is in the playoffs because they are all that special...I mean, it's pretty ignorant to pretend that each playoff team is really THAT much better than the next team below it. You can win your crappy division and get into the playoffs, but still be a worse team than a few who were better but missed the playoffs on a tie-breaker, etc.

'08 Dolphins, IMO, show that a team with a good record and a playoff berth is not necessarily all that wonderful. We should have put the Dolphins away that game, but we let them back in it (especially our stupid defense). By the last half of the season, runner, you and I both know that Frank Bush is on record with a fan [here on this board] saying that he and Kubiak handcuffed Richard Smith and basically had some minor form of a shadow government running the defense for the remainder of games...as well as Kubiak admitting that he needed to let Kyle run the offense, which it looks like Kyle was free to call games in the last part of the season. I watched every game. I DVR'd the games. That Texans team in the last half of the season was a different beast than the bunny rabbit that it was in the first half of the season.

Our whole team got on a roll--But the Oak game was not the norm for the Texans down the stretch...everything was out of sync.

Had Kubiak canned Richard Smith in the previous off-season, and had Kubiak allowed Kyle to run the O, I think things would have been marginally better. I don't think it wins us those first few games at the start of the '08 season, but I think it might have cut the losses down right around the middle part of the schedule before we got on that roll.

The part about us beating the Fins was sarcasm, as in "If the Fins are better, and we're going on records and such, then why didn't they beat us?" Answer: Because the Fins benefitted from an easier schedule and the under-the-radar effect of who they were the year before.

No teams sleep on us, I assure you. That was the case in the Capers era and the first year of Kubiak's era. The Dolphins lost their first two games of the '08 season, so how many teams you think really prepared for them after those first two losses? I'm betting that each team the Dolphins faced, for at least the next 4 or 5 games, had early dismissal during the week of prepping for the Dolphins. They won one game the year before and had a new coach, and teams SLEPT on them. Then they had a freaking cake-walk of a schedule there at the end, until the Pats finally decided to wake up and play them like they should have all along. 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Raiders, Chiefs, Bills (twice!)...that's an easy 7 wins right there. But hell, they couldn't even beat the Chiefs who were a laughing stock in '08.

Now let's see what we can do with an easy schedule. We ought to make the playoffs like the Fins did, and even if we did...would we get very far? I don't think we would. It's possible, but I think we're still a season or two away from being a true playoff team who can challenge deep into the playoffs.

Is that we are striving for? A one-and-done playoff appearance to satisfy our thirsts? Fun.

The day of the first playoff game: "Yippee! We're in the playoffs. Boo-ya!"

Later that day: "#$%@! I can't believe this garbage I'm watching! Oh well, at least we made it to the playoffs."

And Kubiak saves his job, I suppose, based on the logic that's being put forth.

It don't mean a thang if you ain't got that zing. Doo whop, doo whop.

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 02:59 PM
Hmmm...you think that Capers team that beat the Panthers and took the Patriots to OT was a good Texans team? I don't.

Flukes happen. Teams sleep on their opponent...it happened to us against the Raiders last season (we are better than the Raiders, but we looked awful).

We beat the Dolphins, and they made the playoffs (to continue down this track of "Hey, we beat the Panthers and the Pats that one year") but yet we almost didn't beat the Dolphins because they gave us too much time on the clock, because a RS defense has that famous "bend but don't break" philosophy which allows unfettered yardage between the 20s, and it was only a miracle grab by AJ on 4th down (IIRC) that even gave us a chance to win it. So, that whole game is a real enigma in terms of determining who was better: The Texans or the Dolphins. I'd state that the Texans are the better team, at the end of the day. With the Dolphins benefitting from what I see as being a pretty favorable schedule (I'm not going to go back over their schedule because I did it the NFL section a long time ago).

I want to see what Sporano does THIS season. I expect them to have a bit of a dip in their win total. I think a lot of teams overlooked them, and I think their opponents were weak (even the Patriots because they lost Brady).

OK, OK....here's their schedule from 2008 (http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=MIA&season=2008&seasonType=REG):

week 1: Jets 20 ; Fins 9 (That was an awesome Jets team this year. Not.)

week 2: Fins 10 ; Cards 31 (Well, well, well...no question here, eh?)

week 3: Fins 38 ; Pats 13 (I give the Fins partial credit for the win)

week 4: bye

week 5: Chargers 10 ; Fins 17 (Two big wins in a row. Not too shabby.)

week 6: Fins 28 ; Texans 29 (If they're better, they should've handled us)

week 7: Ravens 27 ; Fins 13 (The better team won)

week 8: Bills 16 ; Fins 25 (It's a win, but it's against the Canada Bills)

week 9: Fins 26 ; Broncs 17 (Bad year for the Broncos, due to defense)

week 10: Seahawks 19 ; Fins 21 (They beat the mighty 'Hawks by 2)

week 11: Raiders 15 ; Fins 17 (Another nail-biter against a poor team)

week 12: Pats 48 ; Fins 28 (That's a better picture of the Fins)

week 13: Fins 16 ; Rams 12 (Wow. Look at the offensive explosion!)

week 14: Fins 16 ; Bills 3 (Sheesh, it actually got WORSE...)

week 15: 49ers 9 ; Fins 14 (Yawn...)

week 16: Fins 38 ; KC 31 (One of Herm's last rodeos)

week 17: Fins 24 ; Jets 17 (Didn't this game feature Favre's famous "If we win we win, if not...no big deal. I hope it works out. FALSE RETIREMENT on three! One, two , three...") Regardless, Favre was busy being a washed up QB trying to do what he obviously cannot do anymore, which is overcome incredibly dumb interceptions with a few miracle tosses to bail his team out. The interception monster won that day. 1 TD ; 3 INT with the last INT on a do-or-die drive for Favre. Again.

The Dolphins made the playoffs. I mean, seriously...can you look at that season and those opponents and their quick exit in round 1, and say that the Dolphins were a better team?

I'd take THIS team, and it's key personnel (Rick Smith and Kubiak) over the Dolphins every time I get the chance. Because I don't buy the Dolphins' chances at long-term success and repeated seasonal performances in terms of consistency and reliability. In short: It was a fluke, and the record and playoff performance is in no shape or form a true indicator of where that team IS and where they are headed.

I think the Dolphins present a pretty good example of what some people on here are talking about when they say "It's not all about the record, or playoffs."

I have made the same argument, but with the Cardinals. They went to the superbowl, despite going 9-7 in the regular season with one of the easiest schedules. They won all six of their division games (SF, Stl, Sea, all had top ten picks in the draft), and went 3-7 against the rest of the NFL. If Houston was in their division they would have easily had a winning record. The record can't be everything, because Houston had the same record as the Chargers who made the playoffs, and even if the Texans beat Oakland & had the same record as Arizona they would have been out of the playoffs. Sometimes it matters what division you're in & how teams inside your division play.

CloakNNNdagger
05-15-2009, 03:04 PM
I have inside information that McNair has officially put Kubiak on Super Secret Double-Probation:spy:

GP
05-15-2009, 03:05 PM
How can you call the Phins a flash in the pan and say that the Texans were a better team, but they had a better record and went to the playoffs. SOrry, but they out played us for the season and they had been in much worse shape than what we had been in before last season. They simply turned their team around a lot faster. They brought in a QB that had been in the playoffs twice already and made it for his 3rd time. Pennington had an MVP type of season last year with garbage at WR's. Their RB's weren't great either. They just had a very well balanced team and their coaches did a great job. They won the division over the Patriots and and also had a pretty good Jets team in their as well. Their schedule wasn't as weak as you are trying to make it out to be.

With all of that being said, I think the Texans will be better team than them this year, but I won't be surprised if their not after what they did last season. As long as Pennington stays healthy, they'll be a pretty competitive team. Parcells has turned the attitude of that franchise around completely and he knows how to build winners. I won't count out the Dolphins, but I don't think they'll make the playoffs with Brady coming back. I expect the Pats to have the best record in the AFC again this season with Brady healthy.

The Texans don't need to worry about the Dolphins. They need to worry about the Colts, Titans, and Jags and winning our division.

You tell me which team you think is better, in terms of overall talent and off-season and drafting, excluding the records that are you guys' idols around here: Texans or Dolphins?

This is not an exercise in homer'ing. This is about watching the game of football and deciding which team is better on the field. You would take Chad Pennington, who has layers of knee braces and floats balls down the field, and that stupid Wildcat offense, over Matt Schaub, who I don't think is wearing any braces on any appendages yet, and our WCO with all our RBs and TE and WRs?

I think some of you have fallen into a reverse-psychology mode here. "If I refuse to believe this team might be good, maybe they will be good."

LOL. Just looking at the two teams, there is abso-freaking-lutely no way I think the Miami Dolphins are better than the Texans.

GP
05-15-2009, 03:08 PM
I have made the same argument, but with the Cardinals. They went to the superbowl, despite going 9-7 in the regular season with one of the easiest schedules. They won all six of their division games (SF, Stl, Sea, all had top ten picks in the draft), and went 3-7 against the rest of the NFL. If Houston was in their division they would have easily had a winning record. The record can't be everything, because Houston had the same record as the Chargers who made the playoffs, and even if the Texans beat Oakland & had the same record as Arizona they would have been out of the playoffs. Sometimes it matters what division you're in & how teams inside your division play.

Uh oh. Somebody understands what I am saying.

And can articulate it, too. Maybe even better than I did. :heart:

Rep your way.

Runner
05-15-2009, 03:09 PM
We aren't comparing one playoff season to a string of playoff seasons. We are comparing one to none.

1 > 0

But wait! There is a variable. If I remember my algebra correctly...

1 ? 0 + (hopes, wishes, and projections of playoff success)

1 ? 0 + 0

1 ? 0

1 > 0

There. I showed my work.

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 03:14 PM
Well, everyone wants the playoffs. And/or a better record. So let's look at what one of those looks like, shall we? Not every team that's in the playoffs is in the playoffs because they are all that special...I mean, it's pretty ignorant to pretend that each playoff team is really THAT much better than the next team below it. You can win your crappy division and get into the playoffs, but still be a worse team than a few who were better but missed the playoffs on a tie-breaker, etc.

'08 Dolphins, IMO, show that a team with a good record and a playoff berth is not necessarily all that wonderful. We should have put the Dolphins away that game, but we let them back in it (especially our stupid defense). By the last half of the season, runner, you and I both know that Frank Bush is on record with a fan [here on this board] saying that he and Kubiak handcuffed Richard Smith and basically had some minor form of a shadow government running the defense for the remainder of games...as well as Kubiak admitting that he needed to let Kyle run the offense, which it looks like Kyle was free to call games in the last part of the season. I watched every game. I DVR'd the games. That Texans team in the last half of the season was a different beast than the bunny rabbit that it was in the first half of the season.

Our whole team got on a roll--But the Oak game was not the norm for the Texans down the stretch...everything was out of sync.

Had Kubiak canned Richard Smith in the previous off-season, and had Kubiak allowed Kyle to run the O, I think things would have been marginally better. I don't think it wins us those first few games at the start of the '08 season, but I think it might have cut the losses down right around the middle part of the schedule before we got on that roll.

The part about us beating the Fins was sarcasm, as in "If the Fins are better, and we're going on records and such, then why didn't they beat us?" Answer: Because the Fins benefitted from an easier schedule and the under-the-radar effect of who they were the year before.

No teams sleep on us, I assure you. That was the case in the Capers era and the first year of Kubiak's era. The Dolphins lost their first two games of the '08 season, so how many teams you think really prepared for them after those first two losses? I'm betting that each team the Dolphins faced, for at least the next 4 or 5 games, had early dismissal during the week of prepping for the Dolphins. They won one game the year before and had a new coach, and teams SLEPT on them. Then they had a freaking cake-walk of a schedule there at the end, until the Pats finally decided to wake up and play them like they should have all along. 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, Raiders, Chiefs, Bills (twice!)...that's an easy 7 wins right there. But hell, they couldn't even beat the Chiefs who were a laughing stock in '08.

Now let's see what we can do with an easy schedule. We ought to make the playoffs like the Fins did, and even if we did...would we get very far? I don't think we would. It's possible, but I think we're still a season or two away from being a true playoff team who can challenge deep into the playoffs.

Is that we are striving for? A one-and-done playoff appearance to satisfy our thirsts? Fun.

The day of the first playoff game: "Yippee! We're in the playoffs. Boo-ya!"

Later that day: "#$%@! I can't believe this garbage I'm watching! Oh well, at least we made it to the playoffs."

And Kubiak saves his job, I suppose, based on the logic that's being put forth.

It don't mean a thang if you ain't got that zing. Doo whop, doo whop.

First off you're forgetting about one big thing. THE QB POSITION. That is what seperated us from the Dolphins. Pennington was pretty much an MVP candidate and we had a very inconsistent Schaub early on and then we had the Rosencopter episodes. Miami had much better QB play than us, and a much better defense than what we had all season long.

Just because we beat the Dolphins by some Andre johnson heroic catches, doesn't mean we were better than them. Sorry, but you keep acting like they played this pony schedule and that simply is not true. They played quite a few competitive teams and their division had an 11-5 team and a Jets team that was one game away from the playoffs as well. They played better and more efficient than we did throughout the season and their record is proof of that.

Hopefully we can make the playoffs this season. I think that we should. If we do and we're hot going into the playoffs with most of our team healthy than we just might be able to make a run. You never know. No one expected the Cards to but they got hot at the right time. The Cards were just a streaky team last season. THe Cards were lights out the best offense for about 6 or 7 weeks, and then they fell off at the end of the season for about 3 to 4 weeks. Then all of a sudden right as the playoffs started they sizzled and got right back on that hot streak again and their offense started clicking again even without Bolden. And their defense started making all kinds of plays in the post season. If the Texans make the playoffs they can possibly go deep, it just depends on how hot of a team they are at the time, and what kinds of early match ups they get.

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 03:15 PM
We aren't comparing one playoff season to a string of playoff seasons. We are comparing one to none.

1 > 0

But wait! There is a variable. If I remember my algebra correctly...

1 ? 0 + (hopes, wishes, and projections of playoff success)

1 ? 0 + 0

1 ? 0

1 > 0

There. I showed my work.

What is the difference between the Chargers season, and the Texans last year, though? They went to the playoffs with the exact same record as Houston did. Or what's the difference between Arizona's and Houston's? If Houston beat Oakland they would have had the same record as Arizona who went to the superbowl, and still would have missed the playoffs. Can you compare their seasons even though they made the playoffs to Houston's who had the same record?

dalemurphy
05-15-2009, 03:23 PM
We aren't comparing one playoff season to a string of playoff seasons. We are comparing one to none.

1 > 0

But wait! There is a variable. If I remember my algebra correctly...

1 ? 0 + (hopes, wishes, and projections of playoff success)

1 ? 0 + 0

1 ? 0

1 > 0

There. I showed my work.


You guys are arguing different points using the same terminology. The point that GP is making is that the Texans have a higher ceiling and in terms of potential and value apart from all the external variables that affect production are a more talented team with greater ability for near future achievement.

You are arguing that the Texans have been less productive than the Dolphins and have failed to meet your criteria neccessary for them to be called "good" or "better than".


Both of you are right. However, I think many of you arguing the second part refuse to listen to the first argument out of fear, bitterness, or some other emotional turmoil that years of losing have caused you. It seems a little early to be setting up defense mechanisms for the '09 season. Heck, I don't think I did that until we were 3-7 last year.. and, I'm fine now!

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 03:24 PM
You tell me which team you think is better, in terms of overall talent and off-season and drafting, excluding the records that are you guys' idols around here: Texans or Dolphins?

This is not an exercise in homer'ing. This is about watching the game of football and deciding which team is better on the field. You would take Chad Pennington, who has layers of knee braces and floats balls down the field, and that stupid Wildcat offense, over Matt Schaub, who I don't think is wearing any braces on any appendages yet, and our WCO with all our RBs and TE and WRs?

I think some of you have fallen into a reverse-psychology mode here. "If I refuse to believe this team might be good, maybe they will be good."

LOL. Just looking at the two teams, there is abso-freaking-lutely no way I think the Miami Dolphins are better than the Texans.

Is Pennington a better QB than Matt Schaub? Well there is nothing at all to suggest that Schaub is or ever has been better. Before we can even make the comparison, hell we have to see if Schaub can even play a full season. You want to talk about knee braces and all that jiz, but Pennington has led two fairly talented Jets teams to the post season twice and then took a nothing Dolphins team on his back last season where he didn't even get to attend training camp and led them to a post season appearance after a 1-15 season.

Right now Schaub isn't even allowed to be compared to any Qb that has done that in his career because in Schaub's career the facts are that he's been a back up under the likes of Mike Vick and since he became a starter in Houston he hasn't managed to stay on the field. So Pennington pretty much blown Schaub out of the water in that regard. No Schaub is not a better QB. No QB that's only been a starter for two seasons and been hurt for practically half of both of them could be compared to a QB that was just an MVP candidate and 3 post season appearances. Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

dalemurphy
05-15-2009, 03:37 PM
Is Pennington a better QB than Matt Schaub? Well there is nothing at all to suggest that Schaub is or ever has been better. Before we can even make the comparison, hell we have to see if Schaub can even play a full season. You want to talk about knee braces and all that jiz, but Pennington has led two fairly talented Jets teams to the post season twice and then took a nothing Dolphins team on his back last season where he didn't even get to attend training camp and led them to a post season appearance after a 1-15 season.

Right now Schaub isn't even allowed to be compared to any Qb that has done that in his career because in Schaub's career the facts are that he's been a back up under the likes of Mike Vick and since he became a starter in Houston he hasn't managed to stay on the field. So Pennington pretty much blown Schaub out of the water in that regard. No Schaub is not a better QB. No QB that's only been a starter for two seasons and been hurt for practically half of both of them could be compared to a QB that was just an MVP candidate and 3 post season appearances. Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous.


Perfect example of what I was talking about!

Carson Palmer hasn't won a playoff game and has missed a lot of time due to injury, perhaps Pennington is better than Palmer as well?

Or, perhaps Gale Sayers, Bo Jackson can't be compared favorably to Warrick Dunn because they missed so much time due to injury. For someone to see them play and say they are good would be crazy! After all, how can they be good and then get injured too?

Runner
05-15-2009, 03:59 PM
...If Houston beat Oakland they would have had the same record as Arizona ...

I have two answers for this:

1) This is why record is important. They didn't beat Oakland.

2) If number 1 doesn't fly, I can play the same game: if the Titans lose the second game against the Titans they are 7-9 yada yada yada. Spin goes both ways.

drewmar74
05-15-2009, 04:09 PM
So Pennington pretty much blowed Schaub out of the water in that regard.

Fixed it for you.

Regards,

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/56/115356-004-676E0A7D.jpg

Runner
05-15-2009, 04:15 PM
Both of you are right. However, I think many of you arguing the second part refuse to listen to the first argument out of fear, bitterness, or some other emotional turmoil that years of losing have caused you. It seems a little early to be setting up defense mechanisms for the '09 season. Heck, I don't think I did that until we were 3-7 last year.. and, I'm fine now!

Hey - thanks for the psychoanalysis! I think your assumptions about what is "wrong" with me are incorrect though. Setting up defense mechanisms about the Texans record? Please.

I would ask what you think is mentally wrong with the people who argue the first part and refuse to listen to the second part. I think I know the answer though - as true believers they are inherently "right".

=============================

Many people are telling me what I am missing and what I don't understand. What I think is that the Texans have shown some continuous improvement - I have never said they haven't. They might continue to improve. Here is my heresy though - I also see that they might not. The longer the process takes, the more likely an Andre Johnson, Matt Schaub, Mario Williams, etc. becomes a step slower, injured badly, whatever. There are subtractions as well as additions each year.

===============================

What I find amazing is how much people can spin records and numbers and beliefs to prove that the Texans are more successful than other teams that were, well, more successful. Does anyone truly believe that the Texans were more successful than the Cardinals last year?

===============================

Which would you prefer next year:

A) The same improvement as last year, a 10-6 record, no play-offs, and a future that no one really knows.

B) Career years from Dunta, Schaub, and Okoye that may or not be one year flashes in the pan, a 12-4 record, a trip to the conference finals, and a future no one really knows.

I'll take B, because I accept that my hopes and projections for the future aren't necessarily reality.

Second Honeymoon
05-15-2009, 04:50 PM
You tell me which team you think is better, in terms of overall talent and off-season and drafting, excluding the records that are you guys' idols around here: Texans or Dolphins?

This is not an exercise in homer'ing. This is about watching the game of football and deciding which team is better on the field. You would take Chad Pennington, who has layers of knee braces and floats balls down the field, and that stupid Wildcat offense, over Matt Schaub, who I don't think is wearing any braces on any appendages yet, and our WCO with all our RBs and TE and WRs?

I think some of you have fallen into a reverse-psychology mode here. "If I refuse to believe this team might be good, maybe they will be good."

LOL. Just looking at the two teams, there is abso-freaking-lutely no way I think the Miami Dolphins are better than the Texans.

just because a player plays on the Texans doesn't make them automatically better. the dolphins have just as much talent as the Texans. you know why i know that? BECAUSE THEY WON MORE GAMES CONSISTENTLY AND MADE THE PLAYOFFS!! it's not open for debate either. we were better than them one sunday when we faced head to head and we pulled out that game. goody freaking two shoes. The Dolphins won more games than us and made the playoffs....just because you know our team more and are more familiar with our players does NOT make them better.

Texans were better than the Dolphins on one sunday. The Dolphins were better than the Texans over the course of an entire season. The season is all that matters. Playing well for a week or two or pulling a game out of your rear doesn't make you better. it just doesn't no matter.

It's no surprise that the Sunshine Club is mostly comprised of the same champions of losing football that made excuse after excuse for David Carr failing year after year...while the the intelligent and objective group is comprised of those that questioned David's viability as a NFL starting QB. I guess now its time to get in line to make excuses for Gary in case he continues to be a losing head coach. You would think some people would learn....obviously not.

Gary must win but the organization is so carebear that he will probably get re-signed to the maximum contract and then fail again and be fired...just like Carr was. Loyalty is for wussies and losers. Loyalty isn't something you get its something you earn and what has Gary done to earn the loyalty? Be a losing head coach? If that is called earning it, then blow it out your posterior.

Kaiser Toro
05-15-2009, 06:04 PM
This thread gives me a bad case of.... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIaTOVLNgzU&feature=related)

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 06:18 PM
I have two answers for this:

1) This is why record is important. They didn't beat Oakland.

2) If number 1 doesn't fly, I can play the same game: if the Titans lose the second game against the Titans they are 7-9 yada yada yada. Spin goes both ways.

Wow. Missed my point? My point was they could have won that game and had the same record as Arizona AND still missed the playoffs, or Arizona could have lost their last game and went 8-8 AND still would have made the playoffs. Either way just because a team made the playoffs doesn't make them a better team.

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 06:33 PM
Perfect example of what I was talking about!

Carson Palmer hasn't won a playoff game and has missed a lot of time due to injury, perhaps Pennington is better than Palmer as well?

Or, perhaps Gale Sayers, Bo Jackson can't be compared favorably to Warrick Dunn because they missed so much time due to injury. For someone to see them play and say they are good would be crazy! After all, how can they be good and then get injured too?

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but if you're trying to compare Schaub to Gale Sayers as far as greatness when they've played then I'm not sure you've capable of having a discussion like this IF THAT IS WHAT YOU"RE SAYING. And for the record, Gale Sayers career was very over rated. Go look at his numbers and he only had like two HUGE seasons. Dunn has had a better career than Gale Sayers as far as successful seasons.

I'm not sure what Palmer even has to do with this discussion.

The bottom line though is that the only football fans around the league that would say any of these comments like Schaub is a top 10 QB or some big time QB are Texans homers that like him simply because he's Texan because Schuab hasn't even played a full season once and hasn't done anything extraordinary. He's been very good at times, and also very bad. Hot and cold basically. He's not mobile at all, so he has to have very good blocking to be successful. If he gets great blocking then he can be very good, but if not well...............Schaub to me is just like Kurt Warner. Good arm, but no mobility. Give him great blocking and he can be great. If not then he's more of your so so average type of QB.

With all that being said, if he stays healthy I think he can have a really good season. I think our O line will continue to improve this season, and if he stays on the field he should have a nice season.

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 06:35 PM
Hey - thanks for the psychoanalysis! I think your assumptions about what is "wrong" with me are incorrect though. Setting up defense mechanisms about the Texans record? Please.

I would ask what you think is mentally wrong with the people who argue the first part and refuse to listen to the second part. I think I know the answer though - as true believers they are inherently "right".

=============================

Many people are telling me what I am missing and what I don't understand. What I think is that the Texans have shown some continuous improvement - I have never said they haven't. They might continue to improve. Here is my heresy though - I also see that they might not. The longer the process takes, the more likely an Andre Johnson, Matt Schaub, Mario Williams, etc. becomes a step slower, injured badly, whatever. There are subtractions as well as additions each year.

===============================

What I find amazing is how much people can spin records and numbers and beliefs to prove that the Texans are more successful than other teams that were, well, more successful. Does anyone truly believe that the Texans were more successful than the Cardinals last year?

===============================

Which would you prefer next year:

A) The same improvement as last year, a 10-6 record, no play-offs, and a future that no one really knows.

B) Career years from Dunta, Schaub, and Okoye that may or not be one year flashes in the pan, a 12-4 record, a trip to the conference finals, and a future no one really knows.

I'll take B, because I accept that my hopes and projections for the future aren't necessarily reality.

More successful? No. Were they the same during a 16 game regular season? Yes.

What about option C:

C) Going 9-7 and everyone else in the division chokes and picks in the top 10. The Texans win all 6 of their division games, makes the playoffs, goes on a winning string and lose in the superbowl because of a lucky run.

Yes, I would pick that over going 8-8, but is that really any different then they played last year? After all it's pretty much the same 16 game stretch the Texans had. The Texans didn't do any worse then the Cardinals this past season. The Cardinals would have won their division going 8-8. Their last game was really meanless, since they made the playoffs already. They could have had the same record and still would have been in the superbowl. Record doesn't mean everything.

Another point: Dallas went 9-7 last year. Were they worse then the Cardinals because they missed the playoffs, though they had the same record?

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 06:36 PM
Wow. Missed my point? My point was they could have won that game and had the same record as Arizona AND still missed the playoffs, or Arizona could have lost their last game and went 8-8 AND still would have made the playoffs. Either way just because a team made the playoffs doesn't make them a better team.

Uuuuum yes it does when that team runs through 3 straight teams and goes to the SB and almost beats the Steelers as well.

Now I hear what you're saying though. The Chargers weren't hardly a better team than the Texans were in my opinion last season. They got lucky to be in an easier division and they will be in an easier division this season as well.

Double Barrel
05-15-2009, 06:43 PM
The old run & shoot Oilers used to have the best team in the world...on paper. But, they could never win a playoff game.

Comparing the Texans - a franchise without a winning season, much less a playoff berth - to the defending NFC Champions because of "ifs" and "could haves" is pointless.

IF a my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't, so she's not. And by the same token, the Texans are what they are. That doesn't make me a hater to be pragmatic and accept reality for what it is at the end of the day. I still hope for the best, but I'm not going off the Cliff of Delusion to convince myself that they are as good as one of the Super Bowl teams because of could've/should've/would've scenarios.

Runner
05-15-2009, 06:53 PM
This thread gives me a bad case of.... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIaTOVLNgzU&feature=related)


I'd tell you to lighten up, but it sounds like you already have.

Lucky
05-15-2009, 07:09 PM
You tell me which team you think is better, in terms of overall talent and off-season and drafting, excluding the records that are you guys' idols around here: Texans or Dolphins?
The Texans. Hands down. To be fair, the Texans were in year 3 of the latest regime. That was year one of the Parcells/Sparano Project. Not that we're ever fair to other NFL team's success around here.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Texans had superior talent to the Dolphins in 2008. Yet, the Dolphins were 11-5. The Texans went 8-8. Which team had the superior coaching in 2008?

I feel like Michael Corleone. "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 07:15 PM
More successful? No. Were they the same during a 16 game regular season? Yes.

What about option C:

C) Going 9-7 and everyone else in the division chokes and picks in the top 10. The Texans win all 6 of their division games, makes the playoffs, goes on a winning string and lose in the superbowl because of a lucky run.

Lucky run? Talk about sounding like a straight Texans homer. I bet if the Texans made that run you'd be saying it was one of the best runs in history or something crazy like that, but since it was the Cards, it was just some pathetic "lucky run." They beat the Panthers, Eagles, and the Falcons. 3 teams whom all had very good defenses. All 3 of those teams came out of the best divisions as well. If that was a lucky run then I guess every team that has gone to the SB had a lucky run and that means the champions from the season before.

Yes, I would pick that over going 8-8, but is that really any different then they played last year? After all it's pretty much the same 16 game stretch the Texans had. The Texans didn't do any worse then the Cardinals this past season. The Cardinals would have won their division going 8-8. Their last game was really meanless, since they made the playoffs already. They could have had the same record and still would have been in the superbowl. Record doesn't mean everything.

So I guess the Texans just went 7-9 the season before last when they beat the Jags when they were already in the playoffs right? If record doesn't mean everything then why do we even have team records that establish the playoffs? Why even have wins and losses? We might as well all argue for our teams and say "We played better than our record and we deserve to be there in the playoffs because we were just as good as all the other great teams. Just look at how we played." I mean hell using your rationale we might as well just do bowl games like they do in college.

Another point: Dallas went 9-7 last year. Were they worse then the Cardinals because they missed the playoffs, though they had the same record?

Yes they were. They didn't make the post season and they had plenty of chances. They lost their last few games to get in, and got embarrassed at home. They had their shot and CHOKED. The Cards had a good season where they had two hot stretches and one of them just so happened to be in the post season where you want them to me and they almost took it all. Good for them. They did their thing.Maybe if the Texans would have handled their business early on we could have been in that position in the post season to make a run as well, BUT we didn't. End of story. No ifs, ands, or buts, will change that.

thunderkyss
05-15-2009, 07:17 PM
How can you call the Phins a flash in the pan and say that the Texans were a better team, but they had a better record and went to the playoffs. SOrry, but they out played us for the season and they had been in much worse shape than what we had been in before last season. They simply turned their team around a lot faster. They brought in a QB that had been in the playoffs twice already and made it for his 3rd time. Pennington had an MVP type of season last year with garbage at WR's. Their RB's weren't great either. They just had a very well balanced team and their coaches did a great job. They won the division over the Patriots and and also had a pretty good Jets team in their as well. Their schedule wasn't as weak as you are trying to make it out to be.

With all of that being said, I think the Texans will be better team than them this year, but I won't be surprised if their not after what they did last season. As long as Pennington stays healthy, they'll be a pretty competitive team. Parcells has turned the attitude of that franchise around completely and he knows how to build winners. I won't count out the Dolphins, but I don't think they'll make the playoffs with Brady coming back. I expect the Pats to have the best record in the AFC again this season with Brady healthy.

The Texans don't need to worry about the Dolphins. They need to worry about the Colts, Titans, and Jags and winning our division.

Insane........ Insanity......

Just take a wild freak'n, pull a number out of your but guess, what our record would have been if we played..
NYJ, Ari (without the effects of Hurricane Ike), New England (two games after Brady went down), SanDiego, Miami, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Seattle, Oakland, New England, St Louis, Buffalo, San Fran, KC, NYJ

Then take a guess at what Miami's record would have been, had they played...
Pitts on the road, Tennessee on the Road, Jacksonville on the road, Indy, Houston, Detroit, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Baltimore, Indy, Cleveland, Jax, GB, Tenn, Oakland, & Chicago.

We're a much better team than the fins.

Runner
05-15-2009, 07:18 PM
Wow. Missed my point?

I have learned in this thread that I misunderstand a lot, miss points, and most troubling have set up a defense mechanism in my head to protect myself from being crushed by Texan losses. It's weird that I get the first two types of comments from people I don't think understand my point of view or are missing my points.

In reality, I think a lot of the problem may be I'm not au fait with techniques that prove the Texans are one of the best, most successful teams in the league.

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 07:19 PM
The Texans. Hands down. To be fair, the Texans were in year 3 of the latest regime. That was year one of the Parcells/Sparano Project. Not that we're ever fair to other NFL team's success around here.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Texans had superior talent to the Dolphins in 2008. Yet, the Dolphins were 11-5. The Texans went 8-8. Which team had the superior coaching in 2008?

I feel like Michael Corleone. "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

That is what I meant to point out earlier. If people want to make this argument that we had so much more talent which is debatable by the way since the Phins had a much better defense than we did, and they had a better record by 3 games, I guess you can put that on coaching and that's exactly why Kubes is a candidate for the HOT SEAT. If one coach can come in and take a 1-15 team to the post season with a team with far less talent than what we currently have the problem right there would be coaching then. They made the point for the thread just by pointing that out.

Second Honeymoon
05-15-2009, 07:20 PM
Kubiak is under pressure. Whether that means he is on the 'hot seat' is all subjective to everyone's own interpretation of the word 'hot seat'.

I think Kubiak is under pressure to win and I feel if he goes 6-10 or worse, Kubiak could end up losing his job. I think 7-9 buys him a lameduck year or *shudder* a rewarding contract for a losing coach, but I think the magic number is 6 for their to be real pressure on Gary losing his job.

thunderkyss
05-15-2009, 07:23 PM
... but Pennington has led two fairly talented Jets teams to the post season twice and then took a nothing Dolphins team on his back last season where he didn't even get to attend training camp and led them to a post season appearance after a 1-15 season.

So we agree then, the Texans are better than the Dolphins?

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 07:25 PM
Insane........ Insanity......

Just take a wild freak'n, pull a number out of your but guess, what our record would have been if we played..
NYJ, Ari (without the effects of Hurricane Ike), New England (two games after Brady went down), SanDiego, Miami, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Seattle, Oakland, New England, St Louis, Buffalo, San Fran, KC, NYJ

Then take a guess at what Miami's record would have been, had they played...
Pitts on the road, Tennessee on the Road, Jacksonville on the road, Indy, Houston, Detroit, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Baltimore, Indy, Cleveland, Jax, GB, Tenn, Oakland, & Chicago.

We're a much better team than the fins.

Yes, were so much better of a team. I'm insane to think that we weren't better than a team that won 3 more games than us. After all all you need to do is use your imagination and say what our records would have been and call it FACT even though it never happened.

After all we had two QB's last season that didn't exactly measure up to pro bowl material, and the other team had a QB that was an MVP candidate and another player that was a defensive player of the year candidate. It's just sooooo out of this world to think that a team that won 3 more games than us was ACTUALLY better than us. After all we're the Texans and when we're homers we can say that we're better than anyone no matter what. All we have to do is just say it and that makes it true. :spit:

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 07:29 PM
Kubiak is under pressure. Whether that means he is on the 'hot seat' is all subjective to everyone's own interpretation of the word 'hot seat'.

I think Kubiak is under pressure to win and I feel if he goes 6-10 or worse, Kubiak could end up losing his job. I think 7-9 buys him a lameduck year or *shudder* a rewarding contract for a losing coach, but I think the magic number is 6 for their to be real pressure on Gary losing his job.

If we go 8-8 or worse he should be fired. THERE I said it. I could care less how many homers that get bothered by that. I actually care about a winning team, and watch every team in the NFL and not just the Texans. I want to see us winning and making the post season. in any coach's 4th season he should have his team in the post season, so if we're not 10-6 at least I hope he's gone.

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 07:52 PM
Uuuuum yes it does when that team runs through 3 straight teams and goes to the SB and almost beats the Steelers as well.

Now I hear what you're saying though. The Chargers weren't hardly a better team than the Texans were in my opinion last season. They got lucky to be in an easier division and they will be in an easier division this season as well.

So you understand my point with the Chargers, but not with the Cardinals? Confusing. Would 4 games against the Rams & Seahawks make them better then 4 against the Titans & Colts? The Texans went 1-3 against the Titans & Colts, the Cards went 4-0 against the Rams & Seahawks. I honestly don't think the Cardinals would have won 7 games inside the Texans division. They won all six games inside their division. I don't believe they would have had the same luck with the Titans and Colts on their schedule.


The old run & shoot Oilers used to have the best team in the world...on paper. But, they could never win a playoff game.

Comparing the Texans - a franchise without a winning season, much less a playoff berth - to the defending NFC Champions because of "ifs" and "could haves" is pointless.

IF a my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't, so she's not. And by the same token, the Texans are what they are. That doesn't make me a hater to be pragmatic and accept reality for what it is at the end of the day. I still hope for the best, but I'm not going off the Cliff of Delusion to convince myself that they are as good as one of the Super Bowl teams because of could've/should've/would've scenarios.

And so is saying Arizona is a better team then Houston. How do you know Houston would not have had the same success had they made the playoffs? They were the same during a 16 game season. Am I the only one who sees that? :thinking:

thunderkyss
05-15-2009, 08:02 PM
So, let me ask the doom & gloomers this.

If...... and I know it's just an if, but if the AFC was a much weeker division, and the Texans went 8-8 in the AFC South, and every other team went 7-9 or worse, would you feel better about the Texans "success", having won the division, and making the play-offs?

Would you think we were a better team?

thunderkyss
05-15-2009, 08:03 PM
And so is saying Arizona is a better team then Houston. How do you know Houston would not have had the same success had they made the playoffs? They were the same during a 16 game season. Am I the only one who sees that? :thinking:

No JC, you aren't the only one who sees this. GP, Lucky, Polo...... and several others see, understand, comprehends, and agree with your logic.

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 08:04 PM
I never called anything fact..... I implied that our schedule was more difficult...... which if we go through add up the W-L of our opponents, I'm sure we'll see that it is fact..... and I implied we went through more turmoil than they did.... merely pointing to influences beyond the coaches realm of influence that can affect a teams W-L record.

No you called it insanity to think otherwise which is basically implying that it's a fact. ANd why would we go up and measure the other team's record to try and prove something? Didn't you just get through saying several times that W-L record doesn't hardly matter in most cases? On one point you don't want team records to mean something if it involves the Texans, but on another you do. Pick a way to argue your position and stick with it, instead of changing it up.

At the end of the day, Runner and I are arguing with facts why you're arguing with what ifs, woulda, coulda, and shoulda's and speculated arguments. We weren't one game away from the Dolphins record wise, we were THREE.

I'm going to come right out and say it. You don't have a clue what you're looking at on Sundays. I'm glad you enjoy the game, I'm glad you support the Texans, but you should just sit down and look pretty while those of us who understand the game discuss these matters.

Who are you referring to by saying "those of us". You mean people like yourself who can't be considered credible because you love the Texans and think they're the best because that's who you root for. Lol! Sorry, but I have my top team that I root for but I watch all the teams around the league. I enjoy the sport of football and as a fan of the Texans, I'm not to PROUD or PRIDEFUL to admit where there short comings are or that other teams are better than them especially when they were 8-8 and have never been batter than 8-8.

What homerish fans like yourself don't seem to get or understand is that no one else around the league even hardly mentions the Texans and still consider them practically an expansion team. And why wouldn't they? The Texans have never had a season record over 8-8. They've NEVER even ALMOST made the playoffs. They've never scared anyone or been considered potential contenders for the SB. But yet in your little homer land, we're going to win it every season and the rest of the teams suck. I mean, if you could actually talk to other fans around the country that follow their teams and other teams, trust me they'd laugh at you and wouldn't hardly consider anything you say as being credible. The stuff you say reminds me of what a lot of Cowboys fans say.

I feel so confident in what I'm saying, that I'll bet you whatever you want, right here, right now..... the Dolphins will not win 10 games next season, and the Texans will.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Personally I really don't care. I'm not a Dolphins fan. I won't be rooting for them. I'll be rooting for the Texans and hoping that they can finally have a winning season.

I don't for a second believe that means the Texans is a better team. I do believe the Texans are, but I don't think the W-Ls of next season will be the proof.

Well again, by your logic there is now way to even argue or even debate anything with you. I mean after all wins and losses don't count. You just said it. It's all about what you think you see on the field and the score board doesn't matter.

I haven't even seen the Dolphins schedule..... it might be easier than last years, but I'm playing the odds. It can't possibly be.

So decide on what the ante will be, I'm in.

I haven't seen their schedule. My guess would be that the Dolphins probably finish around 8-8 to 9-7 without looking at their schedule. I don't think they have a ton of great players as far as their play makers but their over all CORE is pretty good, and certain guys may step up. Maybe their defense gets even better. They weren't to shabby last season. With Brady back I think the Pats will easily take that division and go 12-4 easily. It really all depends on if Pennington can stay healthy. He's had injury issues before, and he could go down and if that happens well they're most likely going to be toast. But they're obviously a very well coached team with one of the best GM's around the league. But yes, I'm sure you think that Smith is much better than Parcells at doing his job so I won't even go there.

Texecutioner
05-15-2009, 08:06 PM
So, let me ask the doom & gloomers this.

If...... and I know it's just an if, but if the AFC was a much weeker division, and the Texans went 8-8 in the AFC South, and every other team went 7-9 or worse, would you feel better about the Texans "success", having won the division, and making the play-offs?

Would you think we were a better team?

I guess according to you if you're not a homer that says the Texans are the best you're a doom and gloomer. :spit:

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 08:14 PM
Lucky run? Talk about sounding like a straight Texans homer. I bet if the Texans made that run you'd be saying it was one of the best runs in history or something crazy like that, but since it was the Cards, it was just some pathetic "lucky run." They beat the Panthers, Eagles, and the Falcons. 3 teams whom all had very good defenses. All 3 of those teams came out of the best divisions as well. If that was a lucky run then I guess every team that has gone to the SB had a lucky run and that means the champions from the season before.



So I guess the Texans just went 7-9 the season before last when they beat the Jags when they were already in the playoffs right? If record doesn't mean everything then why do we even have team records that establish the playoffs? Why even have wins and losses? We might as well all argue for our teams and say "We played better than our record and we deserve to be there in the playoffs because we were just as good as all the other great teams. Just look at how we played." I mean hell using your rationale we might as well just do bowl games like they do in college.


Yes they were. They didn't make the post season and they had plenty of chances. They lost their last few games to get in, and got embarrassed at home. They had their shot and CHOKED. The Cards had a good season where they had two hot stretches and one of them just so happened to be in the post season where you want them to me and they almost took it all. Good for them. They did their thing.Maybe if the Texans would have handled their business early on we could have been in that position in the post season to make a run as well, BUT we didn't. End of story. No ifs, ands, or buts, will change that.

Sorry. I guess 'lucky' wouldn't be right. My main point there was that they made the playoffs and then went on an amazing run to get to the superbowl. Would the Texans have done that? I don't know, but they had the same type of regular season where they could have if they were given the chance.

Would you say the Cardinals were better then the Patriots, though the Patriots had the better record? Record means something, but not everything. Were the Chargers better then the Texans, because they made the playoffs? Were the Cards better then the Cowboys because they went to the playoffs, though they had the same record? I am not for the bowls in college football, and wouldn't want it in the NFL, but you can't tell me the Cardinals were a better football team during the 2008 regular season.

Yes, good for them. I was honestly rooting for the Cardinals in that game. I honestly don't think the Cardinals would have made the playoffs in the AFC South, or the NFC East, though. They went on an incredible run during the playoffs, but would not have been given the chance had they been in one of the two divisions I mentioned.

thunderkyss
05-15-2009, 08:22 PM
I haven't seen their schedule. My guess would be that the Dolphins probably finish around 8-8 to 9-7 without looking at their schedule. I don't think they have a ton of great players as far as their play makers but their over all CORE is pretty good, and certain guys may step up. Maybe their defense gets even better. They weren't to shabby last season. With Brady back I think the Pats will easily take that division and go 12-4 easily. It really all depends on if Pennington can stay healthy. He's had injury issues before, and he could go down and if that happens well they're most likely going to be toast. But they're obviously a very well coached team with one of the best GM's around the league. But yes, I'm sure you think that Smith is much better than Parcells at doing his job so I won't even go there.

Now, we're on the same page, we're saying the same things. There are things outside of the W-L column that can be used to judge a teams progress.

Brady coming back, doesn't affect whether the Dolphins are better or worse, they're the same team, regardless if Brady ever plays again. But Brady playing can affect the Dolphins W-L. But regardless what that W-L is, they are no better, and no worse, than what they are.

They are a better team with Pennington. Should the coach be fired, if Pennington can't play a full schedule? Has Pennington ever played a full schedule, prior to last season? Seriously, I love the guy, I love his story....... he's a fighter, and a gamer, I love to watch him play.

I agree, their coach is top notch. I agree Parcells is one of if not the best talent evaluators in the league.... Do I believe Parcells & Sparano are a better combination than Kubiak/Smith... I think it's too early to tell. If they'll continue with the Wildcat, and draft players to fit that system..... Pat White... then we'll see, Tony Sparano will have to prove that he can continue to have success with that system.

But I think we struck gold with Kubiak & Smith. I agree that Kubiak has a lot to learn, but I'm confident he can, and I believe he'll be one of the better coaches in this league for a long time.

Why fire him/them now, and roll the dice again?

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 09:31 PM
No JC, you aren't the only one who sees this. GP, Lucky, Polo...... and several others see, understand, comprehends, and agree with your logic.

Thank you. I guess I don't understand how you can have the same record during a 16 game season and not be at least equal to them. Do I think the Texans ware better then the Steelers, Titans or Colts this year? No, but I think they were then the Cards who won 1 more game despite playing the 49ers, Rams & Seahawks 6 times last year. Thanks for pointing that out to me, though. :tiphat:

thunderkyss
05-15-2009, 09:40 PM
I guess according to you if you're not a homer that says the Texans are the best you're a doom and gloomer. :spit:

This discussion can't progress, if you continue to ignore what I say, and put words in my mouth.

I never said the Texans were the best. I said they were better than the Dolphins. Totally different.

Unless you think the Dolphins are the best

Runner
05-15-2009, 10:12 PM
Which would you prefer next year:

A) The same improvement as last year, a 10-6 record, no play-offs, and a future that no one really knows.

B) Career years from Dunta, Schaub, and Okoye that may or not be one year flashes in the pan, a 12-4 record, a trip to the conference finals, and a future no one really knows.

I'll take B, because I accept that my hopes and projections for the future aren't necessarily reality.


I'm still waiting for people to weigh in and tell me what they would pick if they could guarantee the Texans to have one of these options next year. No third options, no ifs or buts - of these two, which do you want to see.

I expect to see a bunch of people say they'd love to see the Texans make a four game improvement and pick B. I do!

I expect a bunch of people to say they would like to maintain the slow and steady pace, because it is the right way to do things and select A.

===================

The reason I want the answers is because I'm sure if the Texans make an incremental improvement, I still won't be happy.

I also imagine that if the Texans blow up and go 12-4 next year, most of the people who picked A will change their tune.

====================

I just want it in writing. :)

JCTexan
05-15-2009, 10:44 PM
I'm still waiting for people to weigh in and tell me what they would pick if they could guarantee the Texans to have one of these options next year. No third options, no ifs or buts - of these two, which do you want to see.

I expect to see a bunch of people say they'd love to see the Texans make a four game improvement and pick B. I do!

I expect a bunch of people to say they would like to maintain the slow and steady pace, because it is the right way to do things and select A.

===================

The reason I want the answers is because I'm sure if the Texans make an incremental improvement, I still won't be happy.

I also imagine that if the Texans blow up and go 12-4 next year, most of the people who picked A will change their tune.

====================

I just want it in writing. :)

Okay. I guess I thought you were making a point with those options. I will easily take option B. No matter what the Texans record is I want the playoffs.

Specnatz
05-16-2009, 12:33 AM
Kubiak is under pressure. Whether that means he is on the 'hot seat' is all subjective to everyone's own interpretation of the word 'hot seat'.

I think Kubiak is under pressure to win and I feel if he goes 6-10 or worse, Kubiak could end up losing his job. I think 7-9 buys him a lameduck year or *shudder* a rewarding contract for a losing coach, but I think the magic number is 6 for their to be real pressure on Gary losing his job.

The only guy not under pressure to win immediately is the new coach of the Detroit Lions. Every coach needs to win or have the team improve.

dc_txtech
05-16-2009, 12:44 AM
I don't understand all the Texans><Dolphins talk.

There is only one way to determine who is the best team. Win/Loss record, schedule, injuries are all completely erroneous. What matters is when two teams line up on the field and see who scores more points.

On October 9th 2008 the Texans were the better team.

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 01:08 AM
I have learned in this thread that I misunderstand a lot, miss points, and most troubling have set up a defense mechanism in my head to protect myself from being crushed by Texan losses. It's weird that I get the first two types of comments from people I don't think understand my point of view or are missing my points.

In reality, I think a lot of the problem may be I'm not au fait with techniques that prove the Texans are one of the best, most successful teams in the league.

How did I miss your point? All I responded to was you saying "1 playoff > 0". I responded by asking what the difference was to the Chargers playoffs to Houston's 8-8. I guess I misunderstood your point, though?

Runner
05-16-2009, 07:11 AM
How did I miss your point? All I responded to was you saying "1 playoff > 0". I responded by asking what the difference was to the Chargers playoffs to Houston's 8-8. I guess I misunderstood your point, though?

You aren't the only one posting on this thread.

Anyway, sometimes I am just ignoring "points" or dismissing them as erroneous. I am no more required to address all points made by a poster than anyone else is required to do more than highlight a couple of lines in a long post of mine and jump on them.

In fact, if you take that paragraph in its entirety rather than just the last line, I was showing that many people on both sides of an argument do the same things, so it isn't wise to throw stones. This is why context is important. I was trying not to make a lecture about it so I guess I wasn't clear.

=========================

In addition to that, if a poster unfamiliar with the term looks up "au fait" or the idiom "be au fait with" they might discover an interesting or amusing phrase. I do stuff like that for levity, to take the edge off, or out of boredom.

=========================

I guess to draw the complete picture, I should state that sometimes I don't just misunderstand arguments, I disagree with them.

thunderkyss
05-16-2009, 10:22 AM
I'm still waiting for people to weigh in and tell me what they would pick if they could guarantee the Texans to have one of these options next year. No third options, no ifs or buts - of these two, which do you want to see.

I expect to see a bunch of people say they'd love to see the Texans make a four game improvement and pick B. I do!

I expect a bunch of people to say they would like to maintain the slow and steady pace, because it is the right way to do things and select A.

===================

The reason I want the answers is because I'm sure if the Texans make an incremental improvement, I still won't be happy.

I also imagine that if the Texans blow up and go 12-4 next year, most of the people who picked A will change their tune.

====================

I just want it in writing. :)

I'll chose B...... I expect Schaub, Dunta, Okoye, TJ, Deljuan, Adibi, Barber, Winston, Duane Brown, everybody who hasn't had a career game. I expect us to host the AFC Championship game.

But I don't expect Kubiak to be fired, if it doesn't happen.

I'm not saying, and I've never said that I expect slow steady incremental changes in the W-L record. I'm just saying I don't think it's a bad thing, or a reflection of how Kubiak is doing as a coach. I wholly expect a huge difference in how we finish next year, because after so many small, incremental improvements, something is going to click, and it will look like overnight success.... it will be an amazing turnaround. Like Jimmy Johnson's Superbowl teams, Like the Colts, like the Patriots,

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 10:59 AM
You aren't the only one posting on this thread.

I know I'm not, and I never said I was the only one. I will admit I haven't read all 14 pages of this thread. I highlighted one post and responded to it.

Anyway, sometimes I am just ignoring "points" or dismissing them as erroneous. I am no more required to address all points made by a poster than anyone else is required to do more than highlight a couple of lines in a long post of mine and jump on them.

Never said you were required to, but if all you want to highlight from my post is the "if's" then go ahead.


In fact, if you take that paragraph in its entirety rather than just the last line, I was showing that many people on both sides of an argument do the same things, so it isn't wise to throw stones. This is why context is important. I was trying not to make a lecture about it so I guess I wasn't clear.

Sorry, if you thought I was throwing stones. I just thought you missed the point of my post entirely.



I guess to draw the complete picture, I should state that sometimes I don't just misunderstand arguments, I disagree with them.

Nothing wrong with disagreements.

HoustonFrog
05-16-2009, 11:10 AM
The old run & shoot Oilers used to have the best team in the world...on paper. But, they could never win a playoff game.

Comparing the Texans - a franchise without a winning season, much less a playoff berth - to the defending NFC Champions because of "ifs" and "could haves" is pointless.

IF a my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't, so she's not. And by the same token, the Texans are what they are. That doesn't make me a hater to be pragmatic and accept reality for what it is at the end of the day. I still hope for the best, but I'm not going off the Cliff of Delusion to convince myself that they are as good as one of the Super Bowl teams because of could've/should've/would've scenarios.

Must spread. Thanks for the reality check in here.

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 11:17 AM
Okay, so what exactly makes Arizona a better team? Is it going to the super-bowl? Just making the playoffs? The Texans would have been out with the same record because of a much stronger division. Is it going 3-7 outside of their division, instead of 6-4? Maybe 6-0 in a much weaker division then 2-4 in a better division? Besides the Cards their division had 13 wins. The Titans by themselves had 13 wins. The Texans division had 30 wins without them. 17 (16 if you count both teams) wins is the difference in the divisions. What exactly makes the Cardinals a better team?

I do realize there are teams better then the Texans. The Colts, Titans, Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Panthers, Falcons & the Ravens to name a few. Just because I don't have the Cardinals there doesn't exactly make me a homer given what I just wrote.

HoustonFrog
05-16-2009, 11:17 AM
Insane........ Insanity......

Just take a wild freak'n, pull a number out of your but guess, what our record would have been if we played..
NYJ, Ari (without the effects of Hurricane Ike), New England (two games after Brady went down), SanDiego, Miami, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Seattle, Oakland, New England, St Louis, Buffalo, San Fran, KC, NYJ

Then take a guess at what Miami's record would have been, had they played...
Pitts on the road, Tennessee on the Road, Jacksonville on the road, Indy, Houston, Detroit, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Baltimore, Indy, Cleveland, Jax, GB, Tenn, Oakland, & Chicago.

We're a much better team than the fins.

Sorry but you can't make that argument in my book. You play who is put in front of you. The Fins played down to comp at times. They had off days but still pulled out wins.....look at Texans excuse for Raiders game.....Either way, they WON their games. They might have won their games with the Texans schedule..it may not have been pretty but maybe they had the right mentality.

I can't believe people are using ifs and all to compare teams and iffing the Texans into the SB/playoffs all because of a tough schedule and some ifs. It IS insanity. You see my MAYBES above?It's the same thing. So to make up a fantasy world where they play different schedules and then proclaim that the Texans were better makes no sense. I'd listen more to the simple argument of "scoreboard." The Texans beat them head to head.
Enough said is a stronger argument. If the Texans were a much better TEAM OVERALL though then they wouldn't have laid eggs in games they should/could have won. The Dolphins went from worst to first. All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book.

Texecutioner
05-16-2009, 11:24 AM
I don't understand all the Texans><Dolphins talk.

There is only one way to determine who is the best team. Win/Loss record, schedule, injuries are all completely erroneous. What matters is when two teams line up on the field and see who scores more points.

On October 9th 2008 the Texans were the better team.

Well if we went by that one game and that logic, then that would mean that the Raiders were better than the Texans last year and I don't believe that was the case. But if you're going to simply use one game as the measuring stick as to who was a better team for the season and not just on that one day, then that would mean that the Raiders were a better team than the Texans were last season.

Runner
05-16-2009, 11:33 AM
Well if we went by that one game and that logic, then that would mean that the Raiders were better than the Texans last year.


I know the answer to this one!

That's different.




Actually, he neatly avoided this conundrum by including the date. He said the Texans were better that day, not last year.

===========================

I still don't know that everyone would apply the same logic to both games though. Some say the Texans just "didn't come to play" against the Raiders, which is somehow better than getting beat.

NitroGSXR
05-16-2009, 12:36 PM
I've got a migraine. Too many stale chips being thrown around in here. I know the chips are stale. I still can't stop putting them in my mouth. They're chips.

FWIW, chips = Texans.

I think some Rockets ball would clear that up. What do you all think?

Texecutioner
05-16-2009, 12:41 PM
I know the answer to this one!

That's different.




Actually, he neatly avoided this conundrum by including the date. He said the Texans were better that day, not last year.

===========================

I still don't know that everyone would apply the same logic to both games though. Some say the Texans just "didn't come to play" against the Raiders, which is somehow better than getting beat.

Yeah, this discussion has definitely gotten pretty predictable. :)

And pretty soon, I'm sure we'll both be told that we're not true fans.

thunderkyss
05-16-2009, 01:13 PM
Sorry but you can't make that argument in my book. You play who is put in front of you. The Fins played down to comp at times. They had off days but still pulled out wins.....look at Texans excuse for Raiders game.....Either way, they WON their games. They might have won their games with the Texans schedule..it may not have been pretty but maybe they had the right mentality.

I can't believe people are using ifs and all to compare teams and iffing the Texans into the SB/playoffs all because of a tough schedule and some ifs. It IS insanity. You see my MAYBES above?It's the same thing. So to make up a fantasy world where they play different schedules and then proclaim that the Texans were better makes no sense. I'd listen more to the simple argument of "scoreboard." The Texans beat them head to head.
Enough said is a stronger argument. If the Texans were a much better TEAM OVERALL though then they wouldn't have laid eggs in games they should/could have won. The Dolphins went from worst to first. All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book.

Which team is better, the 12-4 New York Giants, the 12-4 Carolina Panthers, or the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals?

Are those W-Ls enough information for you to determine who the better team is, or do you need more info?

thunderkyss
05-16-2009, 01:15 PM
I know the answer to this one!

That's different.




Actually, he neatly avoided this conundrum by including the date. He said the Texans were better that day, not last year.

===========================

I still don't know that everyone would apply the same logic to both games though. Some say the Texans just "didn't come to play" against the Raiders, which is somehow better than getting beat.

NO, that proves the best team doesn't always win. & if the best team doesn't always win, the team with the best W-L record isn't necessarily the best team.

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 01:24 PM
Which team is better, the 12-4 New York Giants, the 12-4 Carolina Panthers, or the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals?

Are those W-Ls enough information for you to determine who the better team is, or do you need more info?

I have another one for you. What about the 11-5 Patriots vs. the 9-7 Cardinals? The Patriots didn't make the playoffs, the Cardinals went to the super-bowl. Just helping with your point.

Runner
05-16-2009, 02:02 PM
NO, that proves the best team doesn't always win. & if the best team doesn't always win, the team with the best W-L record isn't necessarily the best team.

I think my Better Championship System (BCS) idea is gaining traction. However, only select Texans fans with their clear, true vision of teams and their relative goodness, should be allowed to vote for who gets to go to the playoff. However, in this system a play-off won't be necessary; the voters will just say who the two best teams are and we'll let them play.

I am working one even more forward thinking plan. This will solve the problem of keeping score on the scoreboard, which leads to all kinds of bad things since the best team doesn't always win. At the end of each play, judges will hold up placards to rate the play! It will be like figure skating, and all controversy will be ended!

Who is with me?

Runner
05-16-2009, 02:16 PM
NO, that proves the best team doesn't always win. & if the best team doesn't always win, the team with the best W-L record isn't necessarily the best team.


I don't care which way a person thinks - the best team doesn't always win or the winner is the best team.

What I find amusing is when single posters will switch back and forth when it is convenient to to do if it "proves" something about how good the Texans are, and stick by that instantiation of the rule for that specific argument no matter what.

=================

Personally, I think the best team usually wins but that certainly isn't an absolute. I also think "not showing up to play" is a bad thing and indicates the team isn't quite as good as was thought.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2009, 02:31 PM
I've got a migraine. Too many stale chips being thrown around in here. I know the chips are stale. I still can't stop putting them in my mouth. They're chips.

FWIW, chips = Texans.

I think some Rockets ball would clear that up. What do you all think?

Are we talking about putting stale Texans bull "chips" in your mouth?? Yuck!:backsout:

Lucky
05-16-2009, 02:50 PM
I have another one for you. What about the 11-5 Patriots vs. the 9-7 Cardinals? The Patriots didn't make the playoffs, the Cardinals went to the super-bowl. Just helping with your point.
An 11-5 team not gaining a playoff berth has happened once in the past 23 seasons. A fluke among flukes.

Many here feel that the Texans record of 8-8 wasn't indicative of their performance on the field. And the Cardinals weren't a quality team because of their record of 9-7 in the regular season. I think one has to dig just a little deeper to find the truth.

After week 11 of the season, the Texans sat at 3-7 and eliminated from playoff contention. In reality, the loss to the Ravens at Reliant the week prior put the nail in the coffin. That the Texans didn't quit on the season, and finished strong, should be applauded. Hopefully, it bodes well for the 2009 season. Though a similarly strong finish in 2007 didn't transfer to 2008.

The Cardinals held a 7-3 record after week 11. They had all but locked up a postseason berth, which they did a couple of weeks later. At times, teams will relax after clinching a playoff spot. And a case can be made that's what happened in Arizona. Because after a postseason that saw Arizona get 3 victories against opponents with superior regular season records, the 2-4 finish to the regular season looks more flukish than the 7-3 start.

When it mattered, the Texans didn't show. When the Cardinals needed to come up big, they did. Big time. There's no question which team was better in 2008. That's Arizona. That doesn't mean they will be a better team than the Texans in 2009. But to attempt to diminish what the Cardinals and their staff did in 2008 looks foolish.

NitroGSXR
05-16-2009, 03:18 PM
Are we talking about putting stale Texans bull "chips" in your mouth?? Yuck!:backsout:
Whatever bag floats your boat. I'm just ready to open a new fresh bag. Problem is... It's not my forte. My NFL knowledge could never come anywhere near what's being discussed. So i've got to piggyback on ideas others come up with.

Texans... I'll read anything that has Texans in it no matter how many times it gets repeated like it has been in this thread. I'm just ready for a new bag.

FWIW, I'm not behind anybody in this thread. I think both sides have had their argument well presented. I like them both. I pretty much agree with what I've been reading in this thread.

This thread has the markings of a monkeys flinging dung sort of thing.

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 03:36 PM
An 11-5 team not gaining a playoff berth has happened once in the past 23 seasons. A fluke among flukes.

Many here feel that the Texans record of 8-8 wasn't indicative of their performance on the field. And the Cardinals weren't a quality team because of their record of 9-7 in the regular season. I think one has to dig just a little deeper to find the truth.

After week 11 of the season, the Texans sat at 3-7 and eliminated from playoff contention. In reality, the loss to the Ravens at Reliant the week prior put the nail in the coffin. That the Texans didn't quit on the season, and finished strong, should be applauded. Hopefully, it bodes well for the 2009 season. Though a similarly strong finish in 2007 didn't transfer to 2008.

The Cardinals held a 7-3 record after week 11. They had all but locked up a postseason berth, which they did a couple of weeks later. At times, teams will relax after clinching a playoff spot. And a case can be made that's what happened in Arizona. Because after a postseason that saw Arizona get 3 victories against opponents with superior regular season records, the 2-4 finish to the regular season looks more flukish than the 7-3 start.

When it mattered, the Texans didn't show. When the Cardinals needed to come up big, they did. Big time. There's no question which team was better in 2008. That's Arizona. That doesn't mean they will be a better team than the Texans in 2009. But to attempt to diminish what the Cardinals and their staff did in 2008 looks foolish.

My goal was not to diminish what the Cardinals did. They were in the biggest game of the year. Every team besides Pittsburgh wishes they were in that game. A 7-3 record is a good start to the year, but six of their nine wins were against teams inside their division. That's teams with 13 wins altogether. Now that's not to diminish what the Cardinals did, they won their division. They beat the teams they played on their way to the super bowl. 30 teams wanted to be where they were at the end of the year, and weren't. My main point is the Texans record wasn't really worse then a team in the super bowl.

The only reason I mentioned the Patriots is because it ruins the opposite argument. If they say the Cardinals were the better team then it proves that record isn't everything. If they say the Patriots were the better team, then what about the Cardinals playoff run? That's the only reason I used them, to see who people think was the better team last year.

Lucky
05-16-2009, 04:30 PM
My main point is the Texans record wasn't really worse then a team in the super bowl.
My point is that if you are to discount a team's record based upon whom they played, you have to consider how a team got there. Yes, the Texans finished 8-8. But their 5-1 finish was in essentially garbage time. Their fate had already been decided. The Cards lost some games to teams fighting for the playoffs. But, they avenged a couple of those losses in the playoffs. And if you want to minimize the Cards wins versus their NFC division foes, remember that the Texans picked on the little sisters of the poor, as well. The Texans victories came against opponents that averaged 6.5 wins.

HoustonFrog
05-16-2009, 04:30 PM
ord isWhich team is better, the 12-4 New York Giants, the 12-4 Carolina Panthers, or the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals?

Are those W-Ls enough information for you to determine who the better team is, or do you need more info?

Definitely more info....my point...."All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book" .....the big picture being many variables such as schedule, overall record, start, finish, injuries, playoff position, division, etc, etc. I'm not sure how that proves your point at all. So you are trying to say that a fantasy scenario where you switch schedules and then look at what the real record was and then make more speculation is more accurate?That is as good as predicting record with the schedule to start a year. Look at Lucky's post. The final fact is that a team like the Cards make the SB so at that point of the season they were better. Saying the Texans were SO much better than the Dolphins when the Dolphins barely lost here on the road and who consistently played and won ALL season says you are off.

BTW, what does this have to do with anything?..for all of us. Kubes is on the hotseat if they don't do well. If you try to add "what ifs" under every coach then you will never get a real picture. Bill Parcells won another SB with the Cowboys a few years back IF Romo didn't drop the snap and IF they would have played well the next round because they were the better team AND IF.............

Also, as I said, I don't expect them not to do well or Kubes to be in trouble. It SHOULD be a good year. I'm not a doom and gloom person. Just a person who can realistically look at sports without muddying it by making situations better than they are. Teams are what they are.

My point is that if you are to discount a team's record based upon whom they played, you have to consider how a team got there. Yes, the Texans finished 8-8. But their 5-1 finish was in essentially garbage time. Their fate had already been decided. The Cards lost some games to teams fighting for the playoffs. But, they avenged a couple of those losses in the playoffs. And if you want to minimize the Cards wins versus their NFC division foes, remember that the Texans picked on the little sisters of the poor, as well. The Texans victories came against opponents that averaged 6.5 wins.

Word!

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 05:21 PM
My point is that if you are to discount a team's record based upon whom they played, you have to consider how a team got there. Yes, the Texans finished 8-8. But their 5-1 finish was in essentially garbage time. Their fate had already been decided. The Cards lost some games to teams fighting for the playoffs. But, they avenged a couple of those losses in the playoffs. And if you want to minimize the Cards wins versus their NFC division foes, remember that the Texans picked on the little sisters of the poor, as well.

I know the Texans wins were in garbage time, and I realize the fast start for the Cardinals, but that fast start could be because they played the 49ers, Dolphins (before they started winning), & Bills... instead of Pittsburgh, Tennessee & Indy.

The Texans victories came against opponents that averaged 6.5 wins.

I have already looked at what the teams did whom both the Texans & Cardinals beat last year. The teams the Cardinals beat had 1 (53 to 52) more win then the teams the Texans beat. That's with the Texans having one more loss and playing the Detroit Lions last year. So seven wins= nine, if we're going there.

Lucky
05-16-2009, 06:02 PM
I know the Texans wins were in garbage time, and I realize the fast start for the Cardinals, but that fast start could be because they played the 49ers, Dolphins (before they started winning), & Bills... instead of Pittsburgh, Tennessee & Indy.
The Bills were 4-0 when the Cardinals gave them their 1st loss of the season. One of the hottest teams in the league. The Dolphins before they started winning? The Texans played Miami just 3 games later.

Let's try to be honest. The Texans weren't beating anyone with the effort they gave in Pittsburgh. Whom they played in that game made no difference. And it's not as if Indy played great in the Rosencopter game. That was completely gift wrapped. That game exemplifies the entire 2008 Texans season. They played well at times. Very well in certain aspects of the game. But, couldn't put it together when it counted. The Texans haven't learned how to win big games. That's why this thread exists and will continue, until this Texans team becomes a winner.

JCTexan
05-16-2009, 06:27 PM
The Bills were 4-0 when the Cardinals gave them their 1st loss of the season. One of the hottest teams in the league. The Dolphins before they started winning? The Texans played Miami just 3 games later.

Let's try to be honest. The Texans weren't beating anyone with the effort they gave in Pittsburgh. Whom they played in that game made no difference. And it's not as if Indy played great in the Rosencopter game. That was completely gift wrapped. That game exemplifies the entire 2008 Texans season. They played well at times. Very well in certain aspects of the game. But, couldn't put it together when it counted. The Texans haven't learned how to win big games. That's why this thread exists and will continue, until this Texans team becomes a winner.

So the Cardinals started the Bills with their losing? Okay. Yes, the Dolphins before they started winning. They didn't start using their wild-cat offense until week three against the Patriots.

I know the Texans came out flat to start the year, but maybe the Cardinals would have too if they played three straight teams that went to the playoffs to start 08. The Cardinals 7-3 start was against SF, Mia, Buf, Dal, Stl, SF & Sea. Out of every team they played during that stretch only Miami & Carolina made the playoffs. I would expect the Texans to beat at least five of those teams, and they beat Miami last year. Again I'm not trying to diminish anything the Cardinals did in the post-season, just that they didn't have a better regular season then the Texans.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2009, 07:01 PM
As has been pointed out so eloquently by Lucky and Frog, many intangibles go into wins and losses. Another significant intangible/tangible that would have to be looked at for each game, is what players were playing in each game.......and for how long...........whether due to injuries, or simply because they were held out near the end of the season, etc.

But also let's be perfectly honest, the standard by which teams and coaches live and die are how far they climb into the playoffs. There is no coincidence to the NFL "Not For Long" label.........and 4years???..............it's time.

thunderkyss
05-16-2009, 07:32 PM
ord is

Definitely more info....my point...."All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book" .....the big picture being many variables such as schedule, overall record, start, finish, injuries, playoff position, division, etc, etc. I'm not sure how that proves your point at all.

That's my point. The W-L record at the end of the season is not the end all be all of how good a team is. It's a factor.... but there are other things that need to be looked at.


So you are trying to say that a fantasy scenario where you switch schedules and then look at what the real record was and then make more speculation is more accurate?

All the what ifs, were just to point out our record would be different with a different schedule. Doesn't prove we would be better, or worse, we'd be the same team, with a different W-L record, that's all.



That is as good as predicting record with the schedule to start a year. Look at Lucky's post. The final fact is that a team like the Cards make the SB so at that point of the season they were better.

Just to be clear, I never said we were better than the Cardinals.



Saying the Texans were SO much better than the Dolphins when the Dolphins barely lost here on the road and who consistently played and won ALL season says you are off.

Again, never said the Texans were soooo much better than the Dolphins because we beat them.

I think we've got more talent than they do. I believe we've got better talent. I believe we've got more depth.

I think our offensive gameplan is more viable than theirs. I think they are a fad, with no lasting power.




Also, as I said, I don't expect them not to do well or Kubes to be in trouble. It SHOULD be a good year. I'm not a doom and gloom person. Just a person who can realistically look at sports without muddying it by making situations better than they are. Teams are what they are.


I'm saying this years 8-8 team is better than the '07 8-8 team. I'm saying Kubiak is not on any hot seat of any kind in '09.

I'm not saying we're the best team in the league, or that we should have won the Super Bowl. We were what we were, I'm not denying that.

The Titans were a better team than we were in '08.... most likely will be in '09. Indy, New England, Pittsburgh, even Baltimore, all better than the '08 Texans.

HoustonFrog
05-16-2009, 08:19 PM
I'm saying this years 8-8 team is better than the '07 8-8 team.
.

I think we are all splitting hairs....I said this same thing in an earlier post. When I first came in here I did say I thought the team should do well and that the 8-8 teams seemed different despite the record. I just think there is a harsh reality that 8-8, after all the variables, ends up being mediocre and that a coach will be on the hotseat if it happens again. There will be questions. That is where we disagree. If learning from your past is something that has to be done in the NFL then letting people slide for mediocre results should not be accepted. So even though this years 8-8 seemed more talented, the reality is they started weakly and didn't get over the hump. There is a time where "ifs" and excuses should not be accepted. To me that is an expansion mentality. They are way beyond that. I think that one area is where people are drawing the line here.

CloakNNNdagger
05-16-2009, 09:13 PM
If I recollect, we are the only expansion team that has not reached the playoffs by the 4th year. This is our 8th year........our 4th year into this regime...........it's time.

beerlover
05-16-2009, 09:22 PM
If I recollect, we are the only expansion team that has not reached the playoffs by the 4th year. This is our 8th year........our 4th year into this regime...........it's time.

then it will happen.

CloakNNNdagger
05-17-2009, 09:36 AM
A NEW chapter of The Sunshine Club, The ULTRA Sunshine Club, has emerged beyond this board. This grossly unbalanced piece points out every best case scenario explaining what kept us out of the playoffs last year...............and the best case scenario, realistic or not (of course, the one we are all hoping for), for the upcoming season............the AFC championship. [LINK] (http://hou.scout.com/2/865387.html)

GP
05-17-2009, 04:13 PM
The Texans. Hands down. To be fair, the Texans were in year 3 of the latest regime. That was year one of the Parcells/Sparano Project. Not that we're ever fair to other NFL team's success around here.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Texans had superior talent to the Dolphins in 2008. Yet, the Dolphins were 11-5. The Texans went 8-8. Which team had the superior coaching in 2008?

I feel like Michael Corleone. "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

Well, in our head-to-head matchup with the Dolphins, Kubiak was the smarter coach. He allowed the Dolphins to score a TD really quick instead of trying to stop them...which gave us time to run down the field. And Sporano was dumb for not having his team draw it out and kill the clock some more.

The Dolphins spectacular crash in the playoffs was alos a key indication that that team was not any sort of real contender.

I've been trying to say that if you're not a true contender, then you're just a pretender. And that equals a season ender. So big freaking whoop if Kubiak makes it to the playoffs this year. We're easily a ways away from being a true contender. Our defense will be better, but not "deep into the playoffs" better (see, I'm not that much of a homer. I know our limitations).

The Dolphins making the playoffs did nothing for me in terms of comparing it to the Texans. No teams will sleep on the Dolphins this season--Much like the Patriots finally woke up against them in the second '08 meeting.

To hell with making the playoffs. If we don't make it to round 2 of the playoffs, it's a disappointing year. Just getting into the playoffs, and losing in the first round, is the same to me as if we had just missed the playoffs. Off the top of your head, without googling it, name all the first round losers in the last playoffs? See...it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

JCTexan
05-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Well, in our head-to-head matchup with the Dolphins, Kubiak was the smarter coach. He allowed the Dolphins to score a TD really quick instead of trying to stop them...which gave us time to run down the field. And Sporano was dumb for not having his team draw it out and kill the clock some more.

The Dolphins spectacular crash in the playoffs was alos a key indication that that team was not any sort of real contender.

I've been trying to say that if you're not a true contender, then you're just a pretender. And that equals a season ender. So big freaking whoop if Kubiak makes it to the playoffs this year. We're easily a ways away from being a true contender. Our defense will be better, but not "deep into the playoffs" better (see, I'm not that much of a homer. I know our limitations).

The Dolphins making the playoffs did nothing for me in terms of comparing it to the Texans. No teams will sleep on the Dolphins this season--Much like the Patriots finally woke up against them in the second '08 meeting.

To hell with making the playoffs. If we don't make it to round 2 of the playoffs, it's a disappointing year. Just getting into the playoffs, and losing in the first round, is the same to me as if we had just missed the playoffs. Off the top of your head, without googling it, name all the first round losers in the last playoffs? See...it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

Let me try. San Diego, Atlanta, Minnesota, Indy. Is that right?

JCTexan
05-17-2009, 04:50 PM
Let me try. San Diego, Atlanta, Minnesota, Indy. Is that right?

Wow. He just said the Dolphins didn't get past the first round, and they're the only team I missed... SD beat Indy in the first round, so there goes my argument for them being worse then Houston. Indy, Miami, Minnesota & Atlanta lost in the 1st round. I'm disappointed I missed one. :bat:

HoustonFrog
05-18-2009, 08:31 AM
To hell with making the playoffs. If we don't make it to round 2 of the playoffs, it's a disappointing year. Just getting into the playoffs, and losing in the first round, is the same to me as if we had just missed the playoffs. Off the top of your head, without googling it, name all the first round losers in the last playoffs? See...it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

It matters big time. You are in the dance. You never know if you are going to make the second round unless you play the first round...something fans and players alike would be chomping at the bit for. People made the Cards out to be first round fodder and they got to the SB. I know what you are saying...not making it and losing in round 1 is like kissing your mother... but you can't just jump to Rd 2 without playing Rd 1. Losing it someday means you are in the mix and that stinging disappointment is what drives teams and what makes them work harder.

thunderkyss
05-18-2009, 08:39 AM
... but you can't just jump to Rd 2 without playing Rd 1.

If we're the 1 or 2 seed, we don't have to play the first round.


But what I think GP is saying, is if we get to the playoffs, and lose Wild Card weekend..... it's just like not going at all.

Say we were 8-8 like the Chargers.... we lost that first weekend... you know we weren't very good anyway, and that's the point.

GP, like me and some others want the Texans to be a good team, more than just getting to the play-offs. For some, it doesn't matter if we back door in with a 9-7 record, as long as we get there. For others, getting there is just the beginning.

HoustonFrog
05-18-2009, 09:04 AM
If we're the 1 or 2 seed, we don't have to play the first round.


But what I think GP is saying, is if we get to the playoffs, and lose Wild Card weekend..... it's just like not going at all.

Say we were 8-8 like the Chargers.... we lost that first weekend... you know we weren't very good anyway, and that's the point.

GP, like me and some others want the Texans to be a good team, more than just getting to the play-offs. For some, it doesn't matter if we back door in with a 9-7 record, as long as we get there. For others, getting there is just the beginning.

This whole time I've been advocating not accepting 8-8 and taking a harder look at Kubes while you defend the records and say he isn't on the hot seat....now you are saying you want more than just the first round.....two vastly different things and a standard that most have been trying to put on the coach at times. Respectively, I think you are missing the point though. EVERYONE wants the Texans to be good...really good. You are again making up fact scenarios. GP didn't specify whether they were 8-8 and squeaked in to lose a wild card game. He also didn't specify whether not winning was the wild card game or the official "1st round." My point was that many teams made progress over the years and you have to get a taste to improve. I said I got GPs point about it. It's like kissing your mother...you should strive for more. Right. But you use San Diego as an example but they beat Indy. If that was the Texans this past season, the players would be talking about getting back and how they are hungry for more. Sitting here after all of these years and then being picky and saying..screw the start of the playoffs, I want more or it is a bust isn't realistic to me. The NFL is full of parity. The playoffs is the goal. Then you are in the dance and can make some noise. Getting farther should be the goal for everyone but saying that a season is a bust for not winning first round makes no sense to me. What if you are 11-5 in a competitive AFC and you lose?That's real progress. What if there was a rough patch for 4 games because AJ went down but you still fight for 9-7 and make it in...well then you deserve it. Again, there are so many factors.

Just to clairify..I'm not advocating sliding into the playoffs. I'm just saying each year presents different issues but you can't jump from being ok with "better 8-8" seasons and keeping a coach to "I'm not satisfied unless we win a playoff round." They are two opposed standards.

So my two points all along

1) You can't accept an expansion mentality and if you string together a 3rd and 4th 8-8 season, though the team seems to be progressing, it means that someone is not getting the team over the top and usually that is the coach. Expect more..this year playoffs.

2) Having a stepping stone season where you make the playoffs with say a 9-7 record due to certain circumstances over the season isn't a horrible thing if you build on it and it lights a fire because you got a taste. Not going past a round isn't a prereq. Now if you keep accepting the mediocre results that might let you slide in, then you revert to Point #1. I think many teams on the rise have one of these seasons that gives them the taste and then they learn and the goal is SB or bust.

Runner
05-18-2009, 09:07 AM
GP, like me and some others want the Texans to be a good team, more than just getting to the play-offs. For some, it doesn't matter if we back door in with a 9-7 record, as long as we get there. For others, getting there is just the beginning.

This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

Polo
05-18-2009, 09:25 AM
This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

I would not prefer small steps, but I will accept small steps if I think that a big step will eventually come.

Yet, I think that "small step" is defined by the individual.

Personally, I think that this team is monumental steps ahead of where they were 3 years ago. Of course they need to go out and prove that though.

GP
05-18-2009, 10:28 AM
I would not prefer small steps, but I will accept small steps if I think that a big step will eventually come.

Yet, I think that "small step" is defined by the individual.

Personally, I think that this team is monumental steps ahead of where they were 3 years ago. Of course they need to go out and prove that though.

I thought of something over the weekend, and it ties into what you just said.

I think the frequent use of Sparano in this thread has accidentally swerved into an examination of the Dolphins' head coaches since Don Shula.

The Dolphins had an iconic coach in Don Shula. He coached the Fins from 1970-1995, and won only 2 Super Bowls ('72 and '73). He won 5 AFC Championships. Regardless of whether he should have won more SBs, the guy was consistently fielding competitive teams. No team dominates for a span of 25 years. You are bad some years, good some years, and great some years. And some teams like the Bengals and Lions? They've been bad for a loooong time.

But let's examine the HCs for the Dolphins and what they did in the playoffs, since the playoffs seems to be the main attraction here:

1970-1995: Shula coached 31 playoff games and was 17-14 (.548)

1996-1999: Jimmy Johnson coached 5 playoff games and was 2-3 (.400)

2000-2004: Dave Wannstedt coached 3 playoff games and was 1-2 (.333)

2005-2006: Nick Saban went 15-17 in two seasons (.469) & no playoff games

2007: Cam Cameron went 1-15 (.063) & no playoff games

2008: Tony Sparano went 11-5 (.688) & 0-1 in the playoffs

Over the 13 years since Shula, the Dolphins have won 3 out of the 6 playoff games they have played. In the past 13 years, they have had 5 different head coaches which averages about one coach every 2 years.

You can go a long time, and change coaches every 2 or 3 years (searching for that special head coach), and really not make very much noise...even if you make the playoffs.

This is one of the reasons I have said that the NFL is different from other sports. In golf and tennis, there are several championships to play for all year long. In NBA, MLB, and NHL, those teams have "best of" series where you can level out a bad game by winning the next game or two (to advance in the playoffs). In the NFL, and even in NCAA football, it's a one-and-you're-done playoff structure. There are no second chances. So, IMO, the NFL is a cold, hard place for coaches, GMs, and players.

I like who we have. Maybe he can deliver, and maybe he won't. But he's done a solid of job of proving that he's no team wrecker. I guess it's time to step away and just see what we have. I think McNair's trigger finger is not as itchy as it would be if we fell below 8-8 this past season. To me, that was a fairly remarkable job by all personnel involved to salvage the '08 season.

spurstexanstros
05-18-2009, 11:02 AM
I think the slow starts have killed this team, last year was an anomoly for two reaseons: 1. The schedule was by far the toughest opening schedule I have seen. Three out of first 4 teams made the playoffs from the year before. It was almost like Jerry was on the schedule commitee.
2. Ike was a devastating storm to the city of Houston and the Texans. The team had to play three games on the road to start a season, then they get home and have one of the most monumental collapses in NFL history. Ike is not an excuse, but a significant enough reason for the Texans to have a 2 win season. Kubiak pulled the team together and had yet another great finish.

I think if the Texans can put together a great start and split or win some division series they will put themselves in a position for a playoff berth. next years schedule is one of the easiest they have had (as of now) Next year is their time to take the next step and win at least 10 games. If not Kubiak may be under some pressure.

thunderkyss
05-18-2009, 02:04 PM
This whole time I've been advocating not accepting 8-8 and taking a harder look at Kubes while you defend the records and say he isn't on the hot seat....now you are saying you want more than just the first round.....two vastly different things and a standard that most have been trying to put on the coach at times. Respectively, I think you are missing the point though. EVERYONE wants the Texans to be good...really good.

If the Texans go 8-8, I don't believe Kubiak will be going anywhere. I don't think McNair will even consider moving Kubiak, because we went 8-8.

That's one opinion I have. He's not on the hot seat.

I want the Texans to win the Super Bowl in '09. That's not to say that I want Kubiak gone, if we don't.

Again, in my made up scenario, 8-8 isn't the "proof" that a team isn't very good...... going 8-8, then losing Wildcard weekend are two pieces of evidence supporting that the team wasn't very good.

All I ever said, was that the W-L is not the "proof" of whether a team is good or not.

This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

My post said nothing about baby steps vs big steps. Only that I want the team to be good.

I wouldn't have had a problem if we went from 1-15 to 15-1. But I wouldn't think we were a great team, just because we went 15-1.

Like the Saints that went 2-14 in '05. They were a better team than that, but Katrina really kicked their but.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I thought I answered.... I want big steps... I'll be satisfied with small steps. I believe '09 will be a big step, unless there are some unforseen major problems. I don't want to say what they could be, for fear of jinxing our players/team...... I'm just saying if Kubiak is 8-8 in '09 I don't think it will be because we don't have a good team, or because he hasn't caught up to speed with NFL head coaching.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

Again, I've said the results should be tangible. Just that the W-L column is not the only relative stat. We've got the 3rd most prolific offense in the whole league.... We've got three Pro Bowlers. Our OL is avg at worst. Our Rookie RB rushed for more yards than any other Rookie RB this year. Andre Johnson caught more balls than anyone else in the league, and caught for more yards than anyone else in the league...... We cut Greenwood & Weaver.......

Texecutioner
05-18-2009, 02:24 PM
If the Texans go 8-8, I don't believe Kubiak will be going anywhere. I don't think McNair will even consider moving Kubiak, because we went 8-8.

That's one opinion I have. He's not on the hot seat.

I want the Texans to win the Super Bowl in '09. That's not to say that I want Kubiak gone, if we don't.

Again, in my made up scenario, 8-8 isn't the "proof" that a team isn't very good...... going 8-8, then losing Wildcard weekend are two pieces of evidence supporting that the team wasn't very good.

All I ever said, was that the W-L is not the "proof" of whether a team is good or not.


My post said nothing about baby steps vs big steps. Only that I want the team to be good.

I wouldn't have had a problem if we went from 1-15 to 15-1. But I wouldn't think we were a great team, just because we went 15-1.

Like the Saints that went 2-14 in '05. They were a better team than that, but Katrina really kicked their but.

I thought I answered.... I want big steps... I'll be satisfied with small steps. I believe '09 will be a big step, unless there are some unforseen major problems. I don't want to say what they could be, for fear of jinxing our players/team...... I'm just saying if Kubiak is 8-8 in '09 I don't think it will be because we don't have a good team, or because he hasn't caught up to speed with NFL head coaching.


Again, I've said the results should be tangible. Just that the W-L column is not the only relative stat. We've got the 3rd most prolific offense in the whole league.... We've got three Pro Bowlers. Our OL is avg at worst. Our Rookie RB rushed for more yards than any other Rookie RB this year. Andre Johnson caught more balls than anyone else in the league, and caught for more yards than anyone else in the league...... We cut Greenwood & Weaver.......


The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?

You want to see who the best defense is? Look at how many points teams average against them every week.

I remember years and years ago one of those Eagles teams that went to the NFC championship was getting dogged throughout the season on their defense because of how many yards they gave up every game, but it was a pretty abusrd criticism by some of the ESPN analysts, because the Eagles had by far the best Red Zone defense in the league that year and were like in the top 3 of all defenses for what teams would average against them as far as the score board.

It's nice to see us up there in yards and categories like that, because it does show very nice signs of improvements but we had some awful red zone issues that stopped a lot of potential points from being on the score board for us.

We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

GP
05-18-2009, 02:47 PM
The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?

You want to see who the best defense is? Look at how many points teams average against them every week.

I remember years and years ago one of those Eagles teams that went to the NFC championship was getting dogged throughout the season on their defense because of how many yards they gave up every game, but it was a pretty abusrd criticism by some of the ESPN analysts, because the Eagles had by far the best Red Zone defense in the league that year and were like in the top 3 of all defenses for what teams would average against them as far as the score board.

It's nice to see us up there in yards and categories like that, because it does show very nice signs of improvements but we had some awful red zone issues that stopped a lot of potential points from being on the score board for us.

We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

That's on Richard Smith then.

I wailed and gnashed (sp?) my teeth about how there was NO way that Richard Smith could have been "the" best candidate for d-coord when Kubiak hired him on as our d-coord. I questioned the spending (like thereof, actually) by McNair and was skewered on here by the very ones who are griping about how Kubiak (a) chose him in the first place and (b) kept him on a lot longer than he should have.

The reason I was skewered? The short answer: "There was really nobody else out there at the time..." That was it. Debate over. The reason I was given by the majority of posters around here was that RS was all there was at the time, and the other heavily favored candidates were taken or weren't interested...or, as I theorized, were not heavily tempted by McNair's offer. Nonetheless, it couldn't possibly be because McNair was a tightwad. He spent millions upon millions to bring football back, and a lot of posters here stopped just short of asking me to turn in my keyboard because I dared to say "I think Kubiak didn't get a better d-coord than RS because BM's tight purse strings."

Now? He's a dunce for (a) choosing him in the first place, and (b) keeping him longer than he did. I agree with Kubiak keeping RS a season longer than he should have, but to his credit...he gave RS a fighting chance and a long period of time to show he could stick around. While we most certainly suffered for it, via the whole "scoreboard" thing, it is what it is.

People are worried that Bush is RS version 2.0, and they are worried that Antonio Smith is Weaver version 2.0, and they are worried that Barwin is Babin version 2.0, and they don't like the familial style of having Shanny Jr. and then two Gibbs on our staff, etc. I think that's playing a huge part of the edgy mood of some of the posters around here. It's been building, and the draft just added fuel to the fire.

We are easily one of the best offenses in the NFL, but our defense had been too awful to really make it count for anything. Nothing has my attention more than the defense this year. We're virtually loaded and ready to fire on the offense, and I am anxious to see if Bush is all talk or if we're going to see it flesh itself out on the field.

GP
05-18-2009, 03:00 PM
Remember that Kubiak tried to make David Carr fit into the system, and Kubiak gave him a full season to live up to McNair's hopes. That's when you saw Rick Smith and Gary Kubiak pull the trigger on acquiring Matt Schaub. The jury is still somewhat "out" on Matt because of health/injury concerns, but it was obviously a better route than to stick with Carr. So, Kubiak tried it McNair's way and he exchanged one part (Carr) for another part (Schaub).

Kubiak, in my speculative opinion, was really hog-tied with the selection of Richard Smith as d-coord. I seriously doubt that RS is who Kubiak wanted all along, but he tried to make it work. I think there was a similar "deal" worked out with Kubiak and McNair as was worked when Kubiak was saddled with Carr: "Hey, Gary. Just try it and see. If it fails, cut bait and we'll get who you want." So, Kubiak tried it (theoritically) with Richard Smith and he has now exchanged that part (Smith) for another part (Bush).

Side note: Is it possible that McNair refused to let Gary have who he wanted for d-coord, in essence taking a GM-type role and selecting "his guy" for Kubiak to work with for a certain period of time before allowing Kubiak to choose his own d-coord? I mean, I just cannot begin to believe that Gary Kubiak would choose Richard Smith. There HAD to be something else going on. And remember, Rick Smith was not yet GM when Richard Smith was hired...that was still down the road, a bit, from Kubiak's selection of his coaching staff. I just have a hunch that Richard was McNair's effort to control some aspect of the team; some sort of attempt to influence one side of the team in case Kubiak couldn't deliver on the offense.

What I see developing is this: McNair sees that Kubiak is open to giving people a chance, maybe TOO much of a chance. I think Kubiak has played ball with McNair more than most coaches would with their owner(s). And I think that's earned Kubiak a certain level of rapport with McNair. It's not a big stretch to see that this team is way more competitive than Capers' 2-14 disaster. There's signs of real improvement, and I don't even think you could call it "baby steps" in terms of overall competitiveness between the best of Capers' team(s) and the current Kubiak team.

And I think that's why there is no hot seat. It would take a Capers'esque debacle for there to be a hot seat.

barrett
05-18-2009, 03:26 PM
Go Texans.

You guys type alot.

thunderkyss
05-18-2009, 04:38 PM
The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?


We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

I agree.... never said other wise. But it is a stepping stone, and something for this team/franchise/fans.... to feel good about.

just in case I wasn't clear...... prolific is not synonymous with best.

Texecutioner
05-18-2009, 04:44 PM
I agree.... never said other wise. But it is a stepping stone, and something for this team/franchise/fans.... to feel good about.

just in case I wasn't clear...... prolific is not synonymous with best.

Cool. Believe me, I was very happy to see the improvements with our offense last year for sure, it's just that so many people keep saying that we had the third best offense in the NFL and that just wasn't true.

We made some great strides though and were able to do it with our back up QB playing almost half of the season, so that right there is something to hang our hats on. I think we'll get better this season as well, but we've got to get those RZ issues out of the way, and that isn't as easy as some people seem to think it is. Getting 60 yards down the field sometimes can be a lot easier than getting positive gains when the field is so much shorter, and that was our problem last season.

I really hope that we're able to use this Casey guy in a lot of ways like some people think we will. Hopefully a good bruising RB becomes available for us to pick up as well. :)

thunderkyss
05-18-2009, 05:07 PM
....but we've got to get those RZ issues out of the way, and that isn't as easy as some people seem to think it is.

Agreed, and this is one of the things, I'll be watching.... IMHO, this is one area that Kubiak has got to improve on, regardless how we finish the season, we've got to improve here. The overall percentage has to go up, and we've got to do well against good defensive teams.

If our numbers go up..... & we're extremely good against bad teams, and extremely bad against good teams, IMHO, we didn't improve at all.

The Pencil Neck
05-18-2009, 05:18 PM
This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

I look at this viewpoint as like saying "do you like to breath?" Well... duh?

Would I prefer to see our team take a big step and win a Super Bowl next year as opposed to going 9-7 and losing the first round of the playoffs? Well... duh? Of course.

I prefer a team that goes 8-8 for 4 straight years to a team that goes 4-12 for 4 straight years. And of course, I'd really prefer to win the SB 4 years in a row.

Every single fan would love to go 19-0 next year and then every year after that. But as a fan, you really can't expect that. PLAYERS should strive for that. They shouldn't be happy with any losses. But as fans, we aren't players.

If we make incremental changes every year, it doesn't make a difference unless we see those changes showing up in the play of the team and eventually the record. And eventually this strategy should lead to a perennial power house that is challenging every year for the title, like the Steelers. But if you get upset that things aren't changing fast enough, there's a possibility that you'll throw the baby out with the bathwater and turn into the Lions and be a perennial loser as opposed to being the Falcons or Dolphins and having a huge turnaround. By going for the big name and making the big changes, you're taking a big risk and that risk is that you're going to have a team that implodes and is crap. If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it.

I really won't be that upset if we finish 9-7 and miss the playoffs next year. I won't be that upset if we finish 8-8 and make the playoffs. That doesn't mean that I don't want us to go 19-0, I just don't expect it.

Runner
05-18-2009, 05:50 PM
I look at this viewpoint as like saying "do you like to breath?" Well... duh?



Well... duh. Now you see my frustration in the beginning of this thread. Many people say the Texans are building the "right way" because they are going slow and immediately throw stones at teams that make big improvements (Atlanta, Miami for instance). They state fast movers are going to crash and burn and the Texans are guaranteed years of success. My point has always been that neither side is guaranteed anything, so take success when you can get it.

I'm trying to point out that the minute the Texans make a big leap in record - which may be this year - that will suddenly become "the right way". This "slow moving as the right way of doing things" bromide only works in hindsight.

=================
Would I prefer to see our team take a big step and win a Super Bowl next year as opposed to going 9-7 and losing the first round of the playoffs? Well... duh? Of course.


If people are so convinced that slow building is the right way of doing things, than the answer shouldn't be so "well... duh? Of course". (Note that I didn't add Super Bowl to my scenario, where the team comes up a little short). If the Texans make a big leap, isn't that tantamount to sacrificing a future with a stable high level of play?

===================


But if you get upset that things aren't changing fast enough, there's a possibility that you'll throw the baby out with the bathwater and turn into the Lions and be a perennial loser as opposed to being the Falcons or Dolphins and having a huge turnaround.

There is an equal possibility that if a team stays the course year after year with no meaningful improvement outside of stats and woulda coulda shouldas, they could waste a lot of time. Key players could get injured or leave the team, other teams leapfrog them, etc.

Fox
05-18-2009, 05:53 PM
I look at this viewpoint as like saying "do you like to breath?" Well... duh?

Would I prefer to see our team take a big step and win a Super Bowl next year as opposed to going 9-7 and losing the first round of the playoffs? Well... duh? Of course.

I prefer a team that goes 8-8 for 4 straight years to a team that goes 4-12 for 4 straight years. And of course, I'd really prefer to win the SB 4 years in a row.

Every single fan would love to go 19-0 next year and then every year after that. But as a fan, you really can't expect that. PLAYERS should strive for that. They shouldn't be happy with any losses. But as fans, we aren't players.

If we make incremental changes every year, it doesn't make a difference unless we see those changes showing up in the play of the team and eventually the record. And eventually this strategy should lead to a perennial power house that is challenging every year for the title, like the Steelers. But if you get upset that things aren't changing fast enough, there's a possibility that you'll throw the baby out with the bathwater and turn into the Lions and be a perennial loser as opposed to being the Falcons or Dolphins and having a huge turnaround. By going for the big name and making the big changes, you're taking a big risk and that risk is that you're going to have a team that implodes and is crap. If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it.

I really won't be that upset if we finish 9-7 and miss the playoffs next year. I won't be that upset if we finish 8-8 and make the playoffs. That doesn't mean that I don't want us to go 19-0, I just don't expect it.

Must spread rep, great post. I want us to take big steps every season. I'm not going to jump on the fire the staff band wagon if we make less than big progress next season, as long as we're still showing some progress.

thunderkyss
05-18-2009, 06:22 PM
Well... duh. Now you see my frustration in the beginning of this thread. Many people say the Texans are building the "right way" because they are going slow and immediately throw stones at teams that make big improvements (Atlanta, Miami for instance). They state fast movers are going to crash and burn and the Texans are guaranteed years of success. My point has always been that neither side is guaranteed anything, so take success when you can get it.

I do not disagree.

I'm trying to point out that the minute the Texans make a big leap in record - which may be this year - that will suddenly become "the right way". This "slow moving as the right way of doing things" bromide only works in hindsight.


To throw another wrench in there for you.......

I was never one that said the Texans' plan is to build slowly but surely. I'm sure Kubiak would have loved to be playing for the division title by now, but things just didn't work out that way.

I for one, thought 2006 was going to end better, that our offense was just going to start clicking, and we'd be hosting the AFC Championship game.

It wasn't till the end of 2007, that I realized how bad we really were.

But if we're going to take big steps, we're going to have to be more active in going after big name free agents. With our approach to FA, it's going to take time.

Runner
05-18-2009, 06:27 PM
I do not disagree.


To throw another wrench in there for you.......

I was never one that said the Texans' plan is to build slowly but surely.

Not everyone does say that; some are very vocal about it though. It is kind of amazing how dense those of us who don't agree are. :cool:

However, I'm finding they aren't so vocal about preferring a slow improvement in the coming year. :)

Lucky
05-18-2009, 07:38 PM
Brooke Bentley gets on the Sunshine Club's bad side during a HT.com live chat (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/LiveChat.asp):

raven casey - Richmond, TX, US: is it true if u dont make the playoffs it layoffs for the coaching staff

Brooke Bentley: Hi Casey,
The Texans are a trendy pick this year as a team that can make a splash in the playoffs. The expectations are high in Reliant Stadium, and the pressure is on the coaches to make sure the team lives up to those expectations. But I can't make a blanket statement like "playoffs or pink slips" - too much happens during the course of an NFL season to make that claim. Let's just say that the pressure is on, and if the team doesn't make the playoffs heads could roll.

Javier - Houston, TX, US: Hello Brooke my question to you is if coach Gary Kubiak does not take the texans to the playoffs this upcoming season. do you think he will be on the hot seat to keep his job when the 2009 season is over.

Brooke Bentley: Hi Javier,
If the Texans don't make the playoffs this year, I think everyone in Reliant Stadium will be on the hot seat. Even the team's cafeteria crew. Owner Bob McNair is setting the bar at playoffs this year and he doesn't want to be let down.
Brooke, you just don't get it. This is not a must win season. It's a must improve season.

JCTexan
05-19-2009, 12:47 AM
Well... duh. Now you see my frustration in the beginning of this thread. Many people say the Texans are building the "right way" because they are going slow and immediately throw stones at teams that make big improvements (Atlanta, Miami for instance). They state fast movers are going to crash and burn and the Texans are guaranteed years of success. My point has always been that neither side is guaranteed anything, so take success when you can get it.

I'm trying to point out that the minute the Texans make a big leap in record - which may be this year - that will suddenly become "the right way". This "slow moving as the right way of doing things" bromide only works in hindsight.

=================


If people are so convinced that slow building is the right way of doing things, than the answer shouldn't be so "well... duh? Of course". (Note that I didn't add Super Bowl to my scenario, where the team comes up a little short). If the Texans make a big leap, isn't that tantamount to sacrificing a future with a stable high level of play?

===================




There is an equal possibility that if a team stays the course year after year with no meaningful improvement outside of stats and woulda coulda shouldas, they could waste a lot of time. Key players could get injured or leave the team, other teams leapfrog them, etc.

Atlanta and Miami has had good teams, though. Atlanta was in the playoffs a couple of years ago when they had Vick. They lose their QB they start going downhill. Once they got their QB in Ryan they're back in the playoffs. Maybe that had something to do with it. Miami's case? I don't know, maybe they started building their team the right way? Taking Long with the first pick was the smartest thing they could have done, IMO. I still don't think the Dolphins will win their division this year with Brady coming back, though.

The Texans had little talent when Kubiak became the coach. They have gotten rid of every player except 4 or 5. The Texans aren't the laughing stock in the league like they were when Kubes took over. Is slow building the right way? It is when you get rid of almost every player in three years. Kubiak now has the players he wants on this team. I expect them to make the big leap this year. 10-6 or 11-5 is what I would predict. I don't think 9-7 gets us into the playoffs, so anything less then 10-6 & I will be disappointed.

Runner
05-19-2009, 05:09 AM
Brooke, you just don't get it. This is not a must win season. It's a must improve season.

I think the target audience for her piece must be the less insightful fan. Maybe the term I'm looking for is "less inciteful".

In any case, we all know the old saying, "Mediocrity breeds success".



Note that this post was a joke.

Thorn
05-19-2009, 07:19 AM
THE OFFSEASON IS KILLING ME. I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS THE UNPREDICTABLE TEXANS FUTURE ANYMORE. I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS ANYMORE. I DON'T EVEN WANT TO KEEP POSTING THIS **** ANYMORE.

I just want to watch football. That is all. Thank you for your attention. :)

dalemurphy
05-19-2009, 08:09 AM
The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?
You want to see who the best defense is? Look at how many points teams average against them every week.
I remember years and years ago one of those Eagles teams that went to the NFC championship was getting dogged throughout the season on their defense because of how many yards they gave up every game, but it was a pretty abusrd criticism by some of the ESPN analysts, because the Eagles had by far the best Red Zone defense in the league that year and were like in the top 3 of all defenses for what teams would average against them as far as the score board.

It's nice to see us up there in yards and categories like that, because it does show very nice signs of improvements but we had some awful red zone issues that stopped a lot of potential points from being on the score board for us.

We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Total yards being used as the primary barometer for ranking offenses and defenses is quite silly. That being said, I think using points is a bad barometer for judging defense and not the best barometer for offense either. Efficiency on either side of the ball is largely dependent on the goals. A ball control offense could be highly efficient and successful but not score that many points. Similarly, an aggressive on a team that has a bad running game, is going to give up a lot of points. Also, a team with a high-powered offense is always going to give up more yards and points than it would if the offense struggled.

I bring this up not to be argumentative but because, as Texan fans, I think the following list are the things we need to be looking for dramatic improvement in, on both sides of the ball.

1. 3rd down efficiency
2. turnovers
3. sacks
4. red zone efficiency

If we end up doing well on offense and defense in these categories, we are going to be a very, very good team- regardless of YPG or PPG rankings.

Specnatz
05-19-2009, 08:28 AM
Brooke Bentley gets on the Sunshine Club's bad side during a HT.com live chat (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/LiveChat.asp):

Brooke, you just don't get it. This is not a must win season. It's a must improve season.

Of course you forget about the gray area where if you win and do not make the playoffs.

I am not saying, I just saying.

GP
05-19-2009, 09:34 AM
Brooke Bentley gets on the Sunshine Club's bad side during a HT.com live chat (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/LiveChat.asp):

Brooke, you just don't get it. This is not a must win season. It's a must improve season.

So it's come down to an effort to triangulate David Carr, mediocre, and Gary Kubiak? Bill Clinton would be proud of the attempt.

LOL. Are you seriously trying to make that connection? David had zero ability to make any progress and subsequently help the team improve, and Gary Kubiak has easily done just that by his (and Rick Smith's) decision-making.

David was rationalizing his poor play by saying we needed to play well; that winning wasn't the goal but that playing well was the goal.

Sherman went bye-bye, and enter Kyle Shanahan who I think is doing a fine job thus far.

Richard Smith is gone. Enter Frank Bush who is more in line of what an NFL defense should do: No read-and-reaction; just get to the ball.

Weaver is gone. Enter Antonio Smith, and with no crazy cap-hell contract. In fact, there hasn't been a bad contract since Rick Smith showed up.

We drafted heavy on defense, specifically in the first two rounds. The help that people said DeMeco needed? It's here!

We have a great ZBS coach in Gibbs--We had tried some Sherman run blocking, but Gibbs turned the run game into something viable for a change. Now we have his son as the DB coach, and I think that's going to make a difference.

None of our offensive players left the team, so we're ready to go right from the start.

Dunta was tagged, esnuring that we get something of value in case he leaves.

Keeping Richard Smith for last season, IMO, is really the only big knock on Gary Kubiak in terms of being mediocre. Maybe the Ahman Green situation is also another knock on Kubiak. There are plenty of moves that show that he isn't satisfied with mediocre.

I still think that we have a situation here, on this board, where some fans are really upset at Gary Kubiak for not going after the big guns (in terms of coaching staff) and so a few people think that it will be his undoing. They don't like the Denver connections, they don't like the promoting from within for d-coord, and they don't like the "family" style of having Alex and David Gibbs on staff. In short: It all seems a bit "campy" and not high-profile enough to really win in today's NFL, and so the long knives are already out for Kubiak.

Thorn's post cracked me up! He needs our support right now. Someone drop by his house and check on him. See if the vanilla, mouth wash, and airplane glue is still there.

Thorn
05-19-2009, 12:29 PM
Thorn's post cracked me up! He needs our support right now. Someone drop by his house and check on him. See if the vanilla, mouth wash, and airplane glue is still there.

LOL.

My supply of airplane glue is getting a tad low.........

Double Barrel
05-19-2009, 03:03 PM
Brooke Bentley gets on the Sunshine Club's bad side during a HT.com live chat (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/LiveChat.asp):

Brooke, you just don't get it. This is not a must win season. It's a must improve season.

And "improvement" is relative and subject to individual perception. :thinking:

http://www.bcch.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/images/home/sunshineClub.jpg

Lucky
05-19-2009, 07:40 PM
So it's come down to an effort to triangulate David Carr, mediocre, and Gary Kubiak? Bill Clinton would be proud of the attempt.
Not even close. It had nothing to do with the Houston Texans head coach (who I believe is very aware of the temperature of his seat) and everything to do with the apologizers for said head coach. AKA, the Sunshine Club.

To his credit, the Houston Texans head coach has not attempted to undersell the importance of this season. His groupies? Well, that's another story.

Runner
05-19-2009, 07:55 PM
Not even close. It had noting to do with the Houston Texans head coach (who I believe is very aware of the temperature of his seat) and everything to do with the apologizers for said head coach. AKA, the Sunshine Club.

To his credit, the Houston Texans head coach has not attempted to undersell the importance of this season. His groupies? Well, that's another story.

I hadn't noticed just how Carresque that philosophy is. I thought the quote was great: straight to the point, funny, mean... it's got it all!


If I was one of those guys who said such things, I'd say "Must spread rep yada yada yada".

Lucky
05-19-2009, 08:34 PM
I hadn't noticed just how Carresque that philosophy is.
It could just be a case of an accidental intermingling of two random clubs (Sunshine and Mickey Mouse, respectively).

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.fanhouse.com/media/2008/03/david-carr-is-mr-mittens.jpg

GP
05-20-2009, 09:49 AM
Not even close. It had nothing to do with the Houston Texans head coach (who I believe is very aware of the temperature of his seat) and everything to do with the apologizers for said head coach. AKA, the Sunshine Club.

To his credit, the Houston Texans head coach has not attempted to undersell the importance of this season. His groupies? Well, that's another story.

I'd rather be an apologizer than to be someone who loathes the:

1. baby steps

2. slow progress

3. no playoffs

4. a mediocre 8-8 season

5. and generally anything else that can be conjured up to prove that Gary Kubiak's firing is imminent. The axe is an inch from his neck! GASP!

The sunshine club is really just a bunch of fans who are more pleased with this team than at any other point in the team's BRIEF history. We're not the ones who are inventing imaginary, theoritical hot seats and trying to forecast how many years he has left, what conditions of failure have to exist for him to get axed, and then trying to convince others that there even is a hot seat in the first place.

In professional sports, the so-called hot seat is always warm and ready to get pretty hot over any number of things. So I'm not buying the whole idea that Kubiak is scrambling any more than he normally would be--He wants to succeed more than any of us do. And I don't buy the idea that he's a failure if we don't get to the playoffs this year. Heck, the record is even subject for strict interpretation.

To me, it's apparent that some of you guys here (the rain cloud club) are tired of the Kubiak era, and are ready to move on. Your tired of the Denver connections (as evidenced by all the snotty threads about it) , a lot of the rain cloud gang thinks Kubiak goofed up by hiring Bush as d-coord (yet they smooth it over by saying "I'll take a wait-and-see approach") , and I sense that the overall consensus by most of the rain cloud club is that Kubiak doesn't have what it takes because great coaches get it done by now.

You can say you're taking a wait-and-see approach, trying to not be too much of a homer, etc., but in reality (IMO) you've already given up and you're trying to foretell the future that you want to see occur. And at the same time, you take pot-shots at those who don't fall into line with it. Typical message board bullcrap. Let's remember who started the name-calling. I think "sunshine club" was the first shot of the battle, correct? Up until that point, IIRC, the thread was fairly civil and free of tags and labels. But when one side starts to lose a handle on things, it turns to an ad hominem situation where it escalates to name-calling and labeling and making fun of people.

This team is doing great. I love it. Sue me.

The great philosopher Vinny once said: Wake me up when it's August.

GP
05-20-2009, 09:56 AM
It could just be a case of an accidental intermingling of two random clubs (Sunshine and Mickey Mouse, respectively).

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.fanhouse.com/media/2008/03/david-carr-is-mr-mittens.jpg

I think this thread is done. It's spiraled downward into kindergarten name-calling and shamefest.

As always.

:locked:

gtexan02
05-20-2009, 11:08 AM
:popcorn:

Texecutioner
05-20-2009, 12:04 PM
:fridge:

GP
05-20-2009, 12:51 PM
Well I've got to admit GP, I have found it rather peculiar about some of these posts of yours where you're defending Kubiak to the death, when just last season you were ready to take his heart out like you were Hannibal Lector. I was actually going to ask you about that earlier, because I seemed to find this 180 thing a little confusing.

And I'm not saying any of this as an insult or anything like that because I think you're a very good poster and I firmly remember a lot of this because you and I had the same position on this subject for a good amount of time. I think you have made some points and all in this thread, even though I still happen to disagree with a lot of them.

I hear what you're saying about the team starting to look better and I've been a little more open minded about Kubes than I was last season myself, but I still don't think a guy in his 4th season should be in the hot seat if he hasn't made the post season yet, and this year we have all agreed that it is pretty attainable. Kubes has a good enough team to do it without question, so now it's time to simply DO IT. If he has a season where there really isn't any progression record wise, then I don't see the point in keeping a guy to coach the team that just keeps us average. If he gets us to 10-6 or 11-5 and we get to the playoffs, then those baby steps look more and more like they're working. We all want the same thing here, so let's hope that Kubes makes it happen. :fans:

I've always enjoyed your posts and commentary, so again I don't want you to think that I'm trying to go back and forth in here in an argument, but only in friendly debate my man.

Thank you. We're all going to get it wrong from time to time. And my whole point in this thread is that I think some people are refusing to believe that this whole bag is a good thing and should be continued whether we hit the magical benchmarks that we're all applying to this team and its future under Kubiak.

I have never ducked from my previous views. It's just that it was a lot easier to be shaky about the Kubiak era back in the middle of the '08 season, even right through the Lions and Bengals games, because we had always seemed to (a) beat the easy teams and (b) stink it up at the end, only to win that last game of the year. But the last half of the season, specifically after the Bengals/Lions, was the type of team that I expected under Kubiak. It just didn't materialize until then.

Chalk that up to a combination of these factors: A rough opening schedule, a hurricane that screwed up our teams' emotions and bye week, Rosencopter, Schaub figuring out how to avoid the injury-causing hits, a ZBS scheme and Slaton who worked well with one another, the handcuffing of Richard Smith by Kubiak and Bush, Kubiak's ability to finally admit that he needed to let Kyle run the offense, and the way the team closed out GB at Lambeau on a really Lambeau'ish day and the Bears when the Bears were playing for the playoffs. That's a lot to happen in a season (for THIS team, at least).

The fact that we can even argue about making or missing the playoffs, to me, is an indication that the HC, GM, and owner have done a good job of turning this thing around. I don't remember an off-season under Casspers where we felt we even had a shot at playoffs, though we'd pretend we did!

To me, it was more of a "sunshine" philosophy back in '07 than it is now. But that's just me. Thank you for the input. If Kubiak's contract really is up at the end of this season, which I think I read that it was, then I can't see McNair not extending him at least one more year or something along the same lines that doesn't lock Kubiak into long-term dollars. That'd make '10 a very stressful year for all of us fans, including myself.

HOU-TEX
05-20-2009, 01:18 PM
I like Kubiak





:includeme:

Texecutioner
05-20-2009, 01:39 PM
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Total yards being used as the primary barometer for ranking offenses and defenses is quite silly. That being said, I think using points is a bad barometer for judging defense and not the best barometer for offense either. Efficiency on either side of the ball is largely dependent on the goals. A ball control offense could be highly efficient and successful but not score that many points. Similarly, an aggressive on a team that has a bad running game, is going to give up a lot of points. Also, a team with a high-powered offense is always going to give up more yards and points than it would if the offense struggled.

I bring this up not to be argumentative but because, as Texan fans, I think the following list are the things we need to be looking for dramatic improvement in, on both sides of the ball.

1. 3rd down efficiency
2. turnovers
3. sacks
4. red zone efficiency

If we end up doing well on offense and defense in these categories, we are going to be a very, very good team- regardless of YPG or PPG rankings.

Good post Dale, and I think that you're right on quite a few counts here. Those line items right there are where we had a lot of issues last season and if we can improve on those OUR POINT averages should bu higher than what they were last season.

Runner
05-20-2009, 01:49 PM
The name of this thread is unfortunate. Just because I don't like the slow progress that the team is making doesn't mean I am looking for ways to say I want Kubiak fired. He seems to be an all right guy (as did Dom) and the players seem to like him (as they did Dom for some seasons). Kubiak is more inspirational...but I digress.

For me this discussion is about success and expectations, not about firing the coach. I want to see real success, not an interpreted version of why the Texans are so darn good. I'm pretty sure the players and coaches want real success too. When Andre does his wokouts in Miami, I doubt he uses, "but we are a damn fine 8-8" when he and his peers are talking about their seasons and careers.

Lucky put it pretty starkly with his "This isn't a must win season, it's a must improve season". I don't want to be happy with expectations that are a straight paraphrase of one of Dave's worst moments as a Texan. What did he say? Something like "It's not a must win game, it's a must play well game".

I still grin every time I see it put that way.

Polo
05-20-2009, 02:00 PM
When Andre does his wokouts in Miami, I doubt he uses, "but we are a damn fine 8-8" when he and his peers are talking about their seasons and careers.

I bet he does.

If guys try to rag on him, I can imagine him saying something like "don't let the record fool you bro".

To me it sounds like you're suggesting that when guys rag on him for being on an 8-8 team he just bows down and says "yeah, you're right...we suck"...

By him being a player on the team, I guarantee his thought process is more in line with the exact opposite of how you and lucky are viewing it.

I seriously doubt he thinks that Kubiak should be anywhere close to a hotseat.

Polo
05-20-2009, 02:09 PM
Lucky put it pretty starkly with his "This isn't a must win season, it's a must improve season". I don't want to be happy with expectations that are a straight paraphrase of one of Dave's worst moments as a Texan. What did he say? Something like "It's not a must win game, it's a must play well game".

I still grin every time I see it put that way.

This is where you guys lose me.

If you play well, often times you will win. Sometimes though, there are situations in which a team can play well but still not get the win.

Kubiak's job involves a multitude of tasks and priorities. The results on the field ultimately boil down to what kind of a job he and the GM are doing. I don't see how you can imply that the only way to judge him boils down to one aspect--Wins and Loses. I just don't think it's that clear cut.

The Dolphins won a bunch of games last year, but to me that doesn't mean that Sporano is a great or even good coach.

I think that there are some that are looking at the total package of how Kubiak has transformed the team and then there are some that only want to quantify success in W's and L's. JMO.

Runner
05-20-2009, 02:18 PM
I bet he does.

If guys try to rag on him, I can imagine him saying something like "don't let the record fool you bro"

Andre has been part of successful football teams and has been a success in life. I doubt he compromises his definition of success that much.

He may do the "wait until you see us year" thing though. But again, he'd be expecting real success.

But who knows, maybe he does brag up the Texans.

Runner
05-20-2009, 02:24 PM
This is where you guys lose me.

If you play well, often times you will win. Sometimes though, there are situations in which a team can play well but still not get the win.

Kubiak's job involves a multitude of tasks and priorities. The results on the field ultimately boil down to what kind of a job he and the GM are doing. I don't see how you can imply that the only way to judge him boils down to one aspect--Wins and Loses. I just don't think it's that clear cut.

The Dolphins won a bunch of games last year, but to me that doesn't mean that Sporano is a great or even good coach.

I think that there are some that are looking at the total package of how Kubiak has transformed the team and then there are some that only want to quantify success in W's and L's. JMO.

So if the Titans go 8-8 next year and the Texans go 11-5, do you agree with the Titans fans who spin things (just a legitimately as Texans fans do) their way, point to a stable head coach and past success, and say they are still better than the Texans?

I think wins and losses would have a new allure for some people here if that happened next year.

GP
05-20-2009, 02:25 PM
I bet he does.

If guys try to rag on him, I can imagine him saying something like "don't let the record fool you bro".

To me it sounds like you're suggesting that when guys rag on him for being on an 8-8 team he just bows down and says "yeah, you're right...we suck"...

By him being a player on the team, I guarantee his thought process is more in line with the exact opposite of how you and lucky are viewing it.

I seriously doubt he thinks that Kubiak should be anywhere close to a hotseat.

I think it's plausible that AJ knows that he and this team are better now than they ever have been. I think he respects Kubiak for giving Carr that golden last chance, but being able to cut him loose and move onto a better QB scenario. Then again, AJ tends to make any QB look pretty good.

I think if any player has lost faith, it's Dunta. He's not happy, and I don't know if it's money, team, both, or a whole lot more than just those two variables. Dunta is a guy that I think is a lost cause for this team.

GP
05-20-2009, 02:34 PM
So if the Titans go 8-8 next year and the Texans go 11-5, do you agree with the Titans fans who spin things (just a legitimately as Texans fans do) their way, point to a stable head coach and past success, and say they are still better than the Texans?

I think wins and losses would have a new allure for some people here if that happened next year.

I think they got to the Super Bowl with Fisher, as well as a few playoff games (including this past season), and it's hard for them to see clearly. To me, it's a borderline Shanahan/Broncos situation where the HC had done well for a long period of time, but they can't win a SB. the only difference is that Shanahan has accomplished it and Fisher hasn't. I would bet there are a lot of Titans fans from that SB appearance year that are ready to move Fisher along, even though he's done a fairly steady job under what must be depressing circumstances to operate as an HC under Bud Adams.

Fisher, IIRC, now has the longest running tenure of a HC. Right? And I seem to recall that people had used Fisher's first 3 or 4 years' W-L record as a barometer to guage Kubiak's first 3 years or so. I think the comparison was fairly close to one another, which makes for a good argument as to why a team needs to re-sign its HC if he's showing that he's not a total team wrecker.

If we had Kubiak for 10 years, and we had four mediocre seasons, and the remaining six were a mix of playoff games and a Super Bowl win or a very close loss in the SB, I'd be OK. You have to be realistic, and the list of dynasty-type coaches is a short one. Heck, even Coughlin finally stumbled upon a SB title. There's too many variables, IMO, to make the HC debate even a really legitimate debate.

When we talk of dynasty-type coaches, the list is pretty short. Otherwise, you're looking at stumbling upon a SB appearance (and maybe a win at the SB) at a less-than-thrilling clip. And the idea of rolling a new head coach into the position every 3 or 4 years, regardless of what progress or stability he brought to the team, is (for me) less than exciting.

I think there's a chance it becomes Capers version 2.0 more than it would become a deal of getting us into the promised land. Then we're right back where we started. No mistake about it, the hardest fan gig in the world is to be a fan of an NFL team. Short season, no "best of" playoff series, and seasons that can hinge upon a single injury to one or two key players.

Double Barrel
05-20-2009, 03:04 PM
The great philosopher Vinny once said: Wake me up when it's August.

You must sleep before you can be woken up. :thinking:

Runner
05-20-2009, 03:08 PM
I think they got to the Super Bowl with Fisher, as well as a few playoff games (including this past season), and it's hard for them to see clearly. To me, it's a borderline Shanahan/Broncos situation where the HC had done well for a long period of time, but they can't win a SB. the only difference is that Shanahan has accomplished it and Fisher hasn't. I would bet there are a lot of Titans fans from that SB appearance year that are ready to move Fisher along, even though he's done a fairly steady job under what must be depressing circumstances to operate as an HC under Bud Adams.



Lots of verbiage there so I'll try to boil it down. In the first paragraph you seem to indicate that in fact if the Texans have the best w/l record that is what matters, and have even started to provide anti-spin arguments to what the Titans fans would say.

I'd like to say something witty about contradictions here, and I've started to do so three times. I find I'm speechless though.

thunderkyss
05-20-2009, 05:42 PM
For me this discussion is about success and expectations, not about firing the coach. I want to see real success, not an interpreted version of why the Texans are so darn good. I'm pretty sure the players and coaches want real success too. When Andre does his wokouts in Miami, I doubt he uses, "but we are a damn fine 8-8" when he and his peers are talking about their seasons and careers.


So at the end of the season, if we are 15-1, and we only played one team with a winning record...... you'd feel we made progress?

& If I were Andre, I'd talk about starting in a pro-bowl, & being the #1 receiver no matter what way you look at it.

thunderkyss
05-20-2009, 05:59 PM
..... No mistake about it, the hardest fan gig in the world is to be a fan of an NFL team. Short season, no "best of" playoff series, and seasons that can hinge upon a single injury to one or two key players.

Deep






deep......

Runner
05-20-2009, 06:59 PM
So at the end of the season, if we are 15-1, and we only played one team with a winning record...... you'd feel we made progress?


15-1 is very successful.

You've made two posts on this thread - a bad 15-1 team and a 4-12 Texans team that has improved from last year. Such strawmen are OK to make a point, but can you list a few examples of such teams so I know what you are talking about? I'm especially interested in the bad 15-1 teams.



& If I were Andre, I'd talk about starting in a pro-bowl, & being the #1 receiver no matter what way you look at it.

So we're agreed - he's not bragging on how good his 8-8 team is. Thanks for your support.

thunderkyss
05-20-2009, 07:43 PM
15-1 is very successful.

You've made two posts on this thread - a bad 15-1 team and a 4-12 Texans team that has improved from last year. Such strawmen are OK to make a point, but can you list a few examples of such teams so I know what you are talking about? I'm especially interested in the bad 15-1 teams.





So you're saying regardless of the oponent, as long as we're 15-1 we're a good team?

If that's the case, why direct your ire at Kubiak? Instead, lets put the schedule makers on the hot seat, if we don't have a winning season in '09.

My point isn't that there are bad 15-1 teams out there, but that the record at the end of the season only tells part of the story. To fire a head coach who appears to be doing everything right... IMHO, simply because of that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If we're not where McNair thinks we should be at the end of the year.... then Kubiak should be on the hot seat regardless of his record.

If injuries prevent us from having a winning record, then I would say Kubiak is on the hot seat, because that is an issue we've struggled with since before he got here.

If we're 9-7, and one game out of the play-offs, and we lost 6 games by 3 points or less, Kubiak should be on the hot seat, if he elected to go for it one third down instead of kicking the field goal in 2 of those losses.

If our pass rush is still not respectable, and we go 13-3 on the strength of our offense, Kubiak should still be on the hot seat.

If we've got 4 first round picks in the front 7, & two of them are pro-bowlers, and we still can't stop anybody on third down.... Kubiak should be on the hot seat, even if we're better than 9-7... he should be gone, if we're worse than 7-9.

But if we're 2-14 because the President of the United States blew up the levee and flooded our City, then refused to help until the death tole became unsurmountable..... I would hope McNair would give the man a little leeway.

But all things considered, with the schedule we have this year, if we don't get ten wins, I would be surprised. & I think Kubiak will be on the hot seat for 2010.

Runner
05-20-2009, 07:53 PM
My point isn't that there are bad 15-1 teams out there, but that the record at the end of the season only tells part of the story. To fire a head coach who appears to be doing everything right... IMHO, simply because of that doesn't make a lot of sense.



I knew there weren't any bad 15-1 teams out there without even looking. You know how I knew? The record told me they weren't a bad team!

Runner
05-20-2009, 08:14 PM
To me it sounds like you're suggesting that when guys rag on him for being on an 8-8 team he just bows down and says "yeah, you're right...we suck"...



I didn't say he said that; those are your words.

If you can find where I've said the Texans suck, please quote me on it so I can retract it. There is a difference between not great and suck. The worst I've called them is mediocre.

What I have said is that the Texans aren't a great team with a fake 8-8 record. They are about average. I also think wins and losses are very important. I think scoring points is more important than racking up yards (and I think they'll solve that issue this year). I think stepping up and beating teams is more successful than blaming losses on the schedule.

I think the Texans fans should try to be a little realistic in evaluating their team - they should look at them with the same set of rules they use to evaluate other teams in the league.

Runner
05-20-2009, 08:26 PM
I think it's plausible that AJ knows that he and this team are better now than they ever have been.

I have no doubt he knows that. The "best Texans team ever" may be deemed faint praise though.

huckdabuck
05-20-2009, 08:57 PM
DIE THREAD DIEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Seriously. :gun:

hollywood_texan
05-20-2009, 09:44 PM
DIE THREAD DIEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Seriously. :gun:

I believe this is the request...


:locked::locked::locked::locked::locked:


Seems reasonable to me.

Lock it up!

NitroGSXR
05-20-2009, 09:49 PM
Lock it up!

Please do.

Texecutioner
05-21-2009, 11:44 AM
My point isn't that there are bad 15-1 teams out there,

What? You can go 15-1 and be a bad team? Sorry, but that is crazy as anything I've ever heard. Any NFL player will tell you that there are no easy weaks in the NFL. There is so much talent and parody around the league and you can be beat on any given Sunday.

And it would be impossible for any 15-1 team to only play one winning team as well. There has NEVER been a bad 15-1 team and there is no argument to ever say that there ever has been. That's almost perfection for god sakes.

Marcus
05-21-2009, 01:02 PM
I'd rather be an apologizer than to be someone who loathes the:

1. baby steps

2. slow progress

3. no playoffs

4. a mediocre 8-8 season

5. and generally anything else that can be conjured up to prove that Gary Kubiak's firing is imminent. The axe is an inch from his neck! GASP!

The sunshine club is really just a bunch of fans who are more pleased with this team than at any other point in the team's BRIEF history. We're not the ones who are inventing imaginary, theoritical hot seats and trying to forecast how many years he has left, what conditions of failure have to exist for him to get axed, and then trying to convince others that there even is a hot seat in the first place.

In professional sports, the so-called hot seat is always warm and ready to get pretty hot over any number of things. So I'm not buying the whole idea that Kubiak is scrambling any more than he normally would be--He wants to succeed more than any of us do. And I don't buy the idea that he's a failure if we don't get to the playoffs this year. Heck, the record is even subject for strict interpretation.

To me, it's apparent that some of you guys here (the rain cloud club) are tired of the Kubiak era, and are ready to move on. Your tired of the Denver connections (as evidenced by all the snotty threads about it) , a lot of the rain cloud gang thinks Kubiak goofed up by hiring Bush as d-coord (yet they smooth it over by saying "I'll take a wait-and-see approach") , and I sense that the overall consensus by most of the rain cloud club is that Kubiak doesn't have what it takes because great coaches get it done by now.

You can say you're taking a wait-and-see approach, trying to not be too much of a homer, etc., but in reality (IMO) you've already given up and you're trying to foretell the future that you want to see occur. And at the same time, you take pot-shots at those who don't fall into line with it. Typical message board bullcrap. Let's remember who started the name-calling. I think "sunshine club" was the first shot of the battle, correct? Up until that point, IIRC, the thread was fairly civil and free of tags and labels. But when one side starts to lose a handle on things, it turns to an ad hominem situation where it escalates to name-calling and labeling and making fun of people.

This team is doing great. I love it. Sue me.

The great philosopher Vinny once said: Wake me up when it's August.

:tiphat:

Kudos GP!!!! Best post you've ever written.

GP
05-21-2009, 03:10 PM
:tiphat:

Kudos GP!!!! Best post you've ever written.

Well, you and I hardly agree on anything. So, I'll take it. Thanks.

One thing that I can say that you were right about it: It has more to do with the level of talent that's on the field than it does with coaches and schemes.

I didn't always buy into that, but the thing that I think has made Kubiak and Rick Smith turn this team around from 2-14 to 8-8, and a shot at the next level, is more of a function of their ability to locate and position the right players in the right spots.

With Capers and Casserly, it always felt "forced" and not as if it were natural, in terms of the scheme, the players, and where they played and what they were asked to do. In fact, there was a lot of Fangio in Richard Smith and his squad of coaches...which led to the d-coord (IMO) doing all the wrong things with all the wrong players. It was just a repeat of the Capers days on the defense side of the ball: Read-n-react, bend-but-don't-break, go very vanilla on your pre-snap look, etc. Not too hard to bring a no-talent guy into that defense and get him up-to-speed on what to do. That's why a guy like Dunta stayed so pissed off all the time: He probably thought he was on a junior college team all those years.

Getting better talent has taken a lot of pressure off Gary Kubiak, IMO.

Second Honeymoon
05-21-2009, 04:47 PM
Well, you and I hardly agree on anything. So, I'll take it. Thanks.

One thing that I can say that you were right about it: It has more to do with the level of talent that's on the field than it does with coaches and schemes.

I didn't always buy into that, but the thing that I think has made Kubiak and Rick Smith turn this team around from 2-14 to 8-8, and a shot at the next level, is more of a function of their ability to locate and position the right players in the right spots.

With Capers and Casserly, it always felt "forced" and not as if it were natural, in terms of the scheme, the players, and where they played and what they were asked to do. In fact, there was a lot of Fangio in Richard Smith and his squad of coaches...which led to the d-coord (IMO) doing all the wrong things with all the wrong players. It was just a repeat of the Capers days on the defense side of the ball: Read-n-react, bend-but-don't-break, go very vanilla on your pre-snap look, etc. Not too hard to bring a no-talent guy into that defense and get him up-to-speed on what to do. That's why a guy like Dunta stayed so pissed off all the time: He probably thought he was on a junior college team all those years.

Getting better talent has taken a lot of pressure off Gary Kubiak, IMO.

We have had plenty of talent since Day One even under Capers. Carr sank Capers almost singlehandedly and our defense has sucked ever since. Kubiak has turned the offense around ever since Carr left, but his team's defenses have been woefully poor and he has been pitifully slow to react and then we he finally fires the failure Richard Smith, he hires from within and gives the job to someone who is far less qualified than many of the possible replacements out there in league circles.

Why Kubiak hires Denver defensive coaching, I will never know...Marinelli was out there, Gregg Williams, Rivera, to name just a few. What has Bush done during his time with the defense to merit him keeping his job much less being promoted to Defensive Coordinator? I just don't see it...and it seemed like either a cheap move by the front office/ownership or just a failure of a job by Kubiak to recruit truly the best guy for the job. Was he worried about hiring someone out of the loop that would challenge his 'vast' defensive acumen or his defensive scheme preferences?

That being said, this thread has probably run its course. We all pretty much agree that Kubiak has to do a good job in order to keep his job and not be on the 'hot seat'. Some of us just have different ideas on the definition of 'good job' and 'hot seat' and its causes division amongst basically likeminded fans on this issue.

8-8 probably brings a little heat but probably not enough to be look at as serious. Worse case would be no contract extension and enter 2010 as lame duck. 7-9 or worse, all bets are off due to his contract situation.

I don't think that is unreasonable or doom and gloom. It's just NFL reality.

dalemurphy
05-21-2009, 07:13 PM
We have had plenty of talent since Day One even under Capers. Carr sank Capers almost singlehandedly and our defense has sucked ever since. Kubiak has turned the offense around ever since Carr left, but his team's defenses have been woefully poor and he has been pitifully slow to react and then we he finally fires the failure Richard Smith, he hires from within and gives the job to someone who is far less qualified than many of the possible replacements out there in league circles.

Why Kubiak hires Denver defensive coaching, I will never know...Marinelli was out there, Gregg Williams, Rivera, to name just a few. What has Bush done during his time with the defense to merit him keeping his job much less being promoted to Defensive Coordinator? I just don't see it...and it seemed like either a cheap move by the front office/ownership or just a failure of a job by Kubiak to recruit truly the best guy for the job. Was he worried about hiring someone out of the loop that would challenge his 'vast' defensive acumen or his defensive scheme preferences?

That being said, this thread has probably run its course. We all pretty much agree that Kubiak has to do a good job in order to keep his job and not be on the 'hot seat'. Some of us just have different ideas on the definition of 'good job' and 'hot seat' and its causes division amongst basically likeminded fans on this issue.

8-8 probably brings a little heat but probably not enough to be look at as serious. Worse case would be no contract extension and enter 2010 as lame duck. 7-9 or worse, all bets are off due to his contract situation.

I don't think that is unreasonable or doom and gloom. It's just NFL reality.


I agree with some of what you are saying. I think Kubiak was a year late in ridding us of Richard Smith. However, I appreciate that he wanted to give the guy a fair opportunity, which didn't exist until 2008... 2006 because of a horrid lack of talent and dramatic scheme change and 2007 because of injuries.

Now, regarding Kubiak's choice in Bush as DC. I am willing to rake him over the coals if it doesn't work out but I don't think his selection has anything to do with being threatened. After all, the guy has hired Alex Gibbs, Ray Rhodes, and Mike Sherman (who actually had a different vision of the offense).

As far as the team having talent, clearly the defense underachieved last season. That being said, the talent level of this team has been atrocious. In 2003 and 2004, we had some decent talent on the defensive side of the ball, but it was old and breaking down. By 2005, the Texans were one of the least talented NFL teams I've ever seen.

Runner
05-21-2009, 09:13 PM
I will sat that they certainly have given David Gibbs some interesting pieces to work with in lieu of Dunta not being around, which judging from this OTA, isn't necessarily a bad thing. We're getting a chance to look at some of the young talent we've got on the back end of the defense.


I think this paragraph clears up the Dunta situation. Dunta has always been a team leader, and I think he knew these young CBs needed as many reps as possible. He has sacrificed his good name with the fans by "holding out" (wink, wink) to ensure the secondary improves. The team and its fans owe him their gratitude.


p.s. I like this bright side stuff! If the optimism works out, I'll consider changing my username to Dr. Pangloss.

steelbtexan
05-21-2009, 09:22 PM
I agree with some of what you are saying. I think Kubiak was a year late in ridding us of Richard Smith. However, I appreciate that he wanted to give the guy a fair opportunity, which didn't exist until 2008... 2006 because of a horrid lack of talent and dramatic scheme change and 2007 because of injuries.

Now, regarding Kubiak's choice in Bush as DC. I am willing to rake him over the coals if it doesn't work out but I don't think his selection has anything to do with being threatened. After all, the guy has hired Alex Gibbs, Ray Rhodes, and Mike Sherman (who actually had a different vision of the offense).

As far as the team having talent, clearly the defense underachieved last season. That being said, the talent level of this team has been atrocious. In 2003 and 2004, we had some decent talent on the defensive side of the ball, but it was old and breaking down. By 2005, the Texans were one of the least talented NFL teams I've ever seen.

Agreed

I think that Mr. McNair/FO have tied Kubes hands on how much money is in the budget for asst. coaches and a good portion of that money was spent on A.Gibbs.

dalemurphy
05-22-2009, 12:20 AM
Agreed

I think that Mr. McNair/FO have tied Kubes hands on how much money is in the budget for asst. coaches and a good portion of that money was spent on A.Gibbs.

I wasn't trying to suggest that. I don't think Kubiak's decision on the Bush hire is anything beyond the fact that he really believes in the guy and thinks he'll do a great job.

Assembling a coaching staff goes way beyond simply grabbing the biggest names. The pieces have to fit together. I don't have any problem with Kubiak deciding to go with Bush. I don't think any fans are close enough to the organization to know if Kubiak's hiring methodology is flawed. We simply don't know all that went on in the process. Having said that, you can't spend the majority of your FA resources and draft resources on a defense that continues to fail. If Bush can't turn these guys around, then Kubiak will certainly have to answer for back to back DC failures, probably with his job.

GP
05-22-2009, 07:57 AM
We have had plenty of talent since Day One even under Capers. Carr sank Capers almost singlehandedly and our defense has sucked ever since. Kubiak has turned the offense around ever since Carr left, but his team's defenses have been woefully poor and he has been pitifully slow to react and then we he finally fires the failure Richard Smith, he hires from within and gives the job to someone who is far less qualified than many of the possible replacements out there in league circles.

Why Kubiak hires Denver defensive coaching, I will never know...Marinelli was out there, Gregg Williams, Rivera, to name just a few. What has Bush done during his time with the defense to merit him keeping his job much less being promoted to Defensive Coordinator? I just don't see it...and it seemed like either a cheap move by the front office/ownership or just a failure of a job by Kubiak to recruit truly the best guy for the job. Was he worried about hiring someone out of the loop that would challenge his 'vast' defensive acumen or his defensive scheme preferences?

That being said, this thread has probably run its course. We all pretty much agree that Kubiak has to do a good job in order to keep his job and not be on the 'hot seat'. Some of us just have different ideas on the definition of 'good job' and 'hot seat' and its causes division amongst basically likeminded fans on this issue.

8-8 probably brings a little heat but probably not enough to be look at as serious. Worse case would be no contract extension and enter 2010 as lame duck. 7-9 or worse, all bets are off due to his contract situation.

I don't think that is unreasonable or doom and gloom. It's just NFL reality.

We have not had plenty of talent since day one, SH.

It was easily one of the worst Expansion Draft classes EVER. Our QB got exposed pretty quickly, which makes that opening win against the Cowboys so laughable: How we won that game is still a mystery to me. And, throw in the running back crop that we went through before landing Domanick Davis and our offense was right up there with Southwest Central Oklahoma Junior College. I mean, those Capers teams looked decent on the practice field and all, but the game day product was a far cry from that of a real NFL team.

Also, outside of landing some no-miss first rounders in Dunta and AJ, there's nothing special about the drafting job that Capers and Casserly did. There was the epic reach on Babin, the Bennie Joppru experiment, the Buchanon acquisition, the list goes on.

Even if Kubiak entered 2010 without a deal, it doesn't make him a lame duck coach. That term describes someone that nobody on the team will follow. Kubiak could finish 2010 on a huge mountain top, that sort of 11-5 or playoff benchmark that's been assessed as the measuring stick around here, and get a long-term deal from it. So even in the worst-case scenario, it's not like 2010 would be a 4-12 year where players are texting on the sideline and just goofing around.

GP
05-22-2009, 08:02 AM
Agreed

I think that Mr. McNair/FO have tied Kubes hands on how much money is in the budget for asst. coaches and a good portion of that money was spent on A.Gibbs.

I've been an advocate of that view for a long time. I probably took it to an extreme, though. It's my belief that Richard Smith was a checkbook hire for McNair, and with Kubiak steadily improving this team each season...McNair is opening up the wallet and spending a little more coin than he had been willing to do after 2-14.

I think McNair wanted to see what Kubiak could do without blowing out the Texans' bank. And I think Gibbs is a good example of McNair seeing that Kubiak can coach, and therefore he gave him Gibbs when Kubiak asked for him.

Just my opinion, though. I don't think McNair had a very trusting heart of anything after 2-14. He placed so much confidence in Casserly, and he saw where it got him.

BigBull17
05-22-2009, 08:08 AM
We have not had plenty of talent since day one, SH.

It was easily one of the worst Expansion Draft classes EVER. Our QB got exposed pretty quickly, which makes that opening win against the Cowboys so laughable: How we won that game is still a mystery to me. And, throw in the running back crop that we went through before landing Domanick Davis and our offense was right up there with Southwest Central Oklahoma Junior College. I mean, those Capers teams looked decent on the practice field and all, but the game day product was a far cry from that of a real NFL team.

Also, outside of landing some no-miss first rounders in Dunta and AJ, there's nothing special about the drafting job that Capers and Casserly did. There was the epic reach on Babin, the Bennie Joppru experiment, the Buchanon acquisition, the list goes on.

Even if Kubiak entered 2010 without a deal, it doesn't make him a lame duck coach. That term describes someone that nobody on the team will follow. Kubiak could finish 2010 on a huge mountain top, that sort of 11-5 or playoff benchmark that's been assessed as the measuring stick around here, and get a long-term deal from it. So even in the worst-case scenario, it's not like 2010 would be a 4-12 year where players are texting on the sideline and just goofing around.

And to talk about hiring poor coaches, Capers had Vic Fanggio, Joe Pendry, ect... They ran Palmer off, even though he was alot better of an offensive coordinator. We had little to no talent, cutting vets to make room for untalented youth. We drafted horribly, shown by the fact that we have cut very little of our draft picks since Kubiak took over. Our depth wouldn't have made it at USC, let alone in the NFL. The difference in talent from then to know is night and day. We were a laughing stock, now we're on the cusp of being a play-off team.

jshabang
05-22-2009, 10:49 AM
I believe this is the request...


:locked::locked::locked::locked::locked:


Seems reasonable to me.

Lock it up!

I am the OP.........and I approve this message.....

seriously...I cant believe this thing is still going like the energizer bunny.....wow

El Tejano
05-22-2009, 11:22 AM
So...Kubes...hot seat or no hot seat?

Lucky
05-25-2009, 07:20 AM
I think that Mr. McNair/FO have tied Kubes hands on how much money is in the budget for asst. coaches and a good portion of that money was spent on A.Gibbs.

I've been an advocate of that view for a long time. I probably took it to an extreme, though. It's my belief that Richard Smith was a checkbook hire for McNair...
Wow! Who saw this coming? Bob McNair is responsible for the Richard Smith hiring. That has to be the ultimate Houston Texans head coach apologist take. Does nothing stick to this man? Does he walk on water, too?

Of course, the fact that there is zero.zero evidence to suggest McNair vetoed any assistant head coach hiring based on money or any other criteria isn't relevant. We know that the Houston Texans head coach can do no wrong. So we'll just make stuff up that lifts the blame for an atrocious hire and places it on the owner. Without any supporting proof. Well done.

Marcus
05-25-2009, 11:10 AM
Wow! Who saw this coming? Bob McNair is responsible for the Richard Smith hiring. That has to be the ultimate Houston Texans head coach apologist take. Does nothing stick to this man? Does he walk on water, too?

Of course, the fact that there is zero.zero evidence to suggest McNair vetoed any assistant head coach hiring based on money or any other criteria isn't relevant. We know that the Houston Texans head coach can do no wrong. So we'll just make stuff up that lifts the blame for an atrocious hire and places it on the owner. Without any supporting proof. Well done.

lol:

Batten down the hatches folks. Someone's about to go on one of his infamous 'Teflon man" rants.

steelbtexan
05-25-2009, 11:19 AM
Wow! Who saw this coming? Bob McNair is responsible for the Richard Smith hiring. That has to be the ultimate Houston Texans head coach apologist take. Does nothing stick to this man? Does he walk on water, too?

Of course, the fact that there is zero.zero evidence to suggest McNair vetoed any assistant head coach hiring based on money or any other criteria isn't relevant. We know that the Houston Texans head coach can do no wrong. So we'll just make stuff up that lifts the blame for an atrocious hire and places it on the owner. Without any supporting proof. Well done.

I'm not a Kubes apologist.

I believe he has made many mistakes. The biggest one being the resigning of HWNSNBM.

I also belive Mr. McNair has him on a budget, just like any good business owner would have a manager on a budget.

steelbtexan
05-25-2009, 11:20 AM
lol:

Batten down the hatches folks. Someone's about to go on one of his infamous 'teflon man" rants.

lol

Runner
05-25-2009, 12:33 PM
Wow! Who saw this coming? Bob McNair is responsible for the Richard Smith hiring. That has to be the ultimate Houston Texans head coach apologist take. Does nothing stick to this man? Does he walk on water, too?

Of course, the fact that there is zero.zero evidence to suggest McNair vetoed any assistant head coach hiring based on money or any other criteria isn't relevant. We know that the Houston Texans head coach can do no wrong. So we'll just make stuff up that lifts the blame for an atrocious hire and places it on the owner. Without any supporting proof. Well done.

Of course there is no evidence. That is the difference between belief and knowledge. The belief system just has to be self-consistent. The central belief is that Kubes has made no major mistakes. The obvious conclusion then is that McNair, the weather, or the NFL conspiracy to keep the Texans down made him have a bad defensive coordinator.

The central belief could be that Kubes is infallible, but the believers want to be able to show they are being fair by saying there was one time he should have called a time out, he had the wrong personnel in, etc. Of course when any such minor mistake is admitted, an example of Don Shula missing a time out opportunity in 1970 is used to show that Kubes has a perfect season ahead. A perfect logical chain, as long as the belief system is internalized.

Lucky
05-25-2009, 01:13 PM
I'm not a Kubes apologist.

I believe he has made many mistakes. The biggest one being the resigning of HWNSNBM.
It is just as absurd to assign blame for the re-signing of Carr on the Texans head coach as it is to hold McNair responsible for the selection of Richard Smith as defensive coordinator. The re-signing of David Carr was all McNair. Sure, the Texans head coach said he could work with Carr. He was wrong. No one could have or has since. The Texans head coach gave it his very best shot, and you can make a case that Carr played his best football under his tutelage.

On the positive (or sunny) side, I give you an A+ for consistency.

Note: Thanks Marcus, for another wonderful contribution to the conversation.

GP
05-25-2009, 03:43 PM
Wow! Who saw this coming? Bob McNair is responsible for the Richard Smith hiring. That has to be the ultimate Houston Texans head coach apologist take. Does nothing stick to this man? Does he walk on water, too?

Of course, the fact that there is zero.zero evidence to suggest McNair vetoed any assistant head coach hiring based on money or any other criteria isn't relevant. We know that the Houston Texans head coach can do no wrong. So we'll just make stuff up that lifts the blame for an atrocious hire and places it on the owner. Without any supporting proof. Well done.

I have stated over and over that it's my opinion, so you can stop the melodramatic "NO PROOF! NO PROOF!" yelling and screaming.

If McNair was dumb (or perhaps "not educated enough") to hire Casserly and Capers, and then to demand that Carr be given one more year at $8 million dollars while saddling his new head coach (Kubiak) with such a move...then I would easily say that I hold the belief that McNair also forced the Richard Smith hire onto Kubiak.

Wouldn't surprise me if one day we find out that Kubiak even had Sherman forced on him by McNair. Once Rick Smith came in (a friend of Kubiak's) and once McNair saw the improvement, I think Smithiak leveraged it toward getting the people that they had really wanted: Gibbs, Bush, etc.

BTW, why do you suddenly come back to this thread and dredge it all up again when it was just about to die? Let it go, for crying out loud. It's beginning to stink like a 5-day dead possum on this topic. Sheesh.

ObsiWan
05-25-2009, 03:47 PM
If I recollect, we are the only expansion team that has not reached the playoffs by the 4th year. This is our 8th year........our 4th year into this regime...........it's time.

sorry CnnnD, I'm catchin' up
:)

I direct you to the history of the Dallas Cowboys and the Minnesota Vikings, the expansion teams of the 60s. Neither earned a playoff berth in their first 4 yrs of existence. The Cowboys, as everyone here knows, didn't even get to .500 until their 6th yr in the league; they made the playoffs for the first time the next year (1966). Wonder how the Cowboys would have turned out had they fired Tom Landry after those first four losing years...??

The Vikings' first year in the NFL was 1961. Their first playoff appearance wasn't until '68. However, in the interest of full disclosure, they did post one winning season before that to earn 2nd place in their division. That was pre-Super Bowl so wild cards were non-existent.


I can't believe this thread has lasted this long.
:)
Of course Kubiak's on the hot seat. All coaches are.
Like Bum said, "there's two kinds of coaches, them's that's been fired and them's that's gonna be." ...or something like that

JCTexan
05-25-2009, 03:51 PM
I have stated over and over that it's my opinion, so you can stop the melodramatic "NO PROOF! NO PROOF!" yelling and screaming.

If McNair was dumb (or perhaps "not educated enough") to hire Casserly and Capers, and then to demand that Carr be given one more year at $8 million dollars while saddling his new head coach (Kubiak) with such a move...then I would easily say that I hold the belief that McNair also forced the Richard Smith hire onto Kubiak.

Wouldn't surprise me if one day we find out that Kubiak even had Sherman forced on him by McNair. Once Rick Smith came in (a friend of Kubiak's) and once McNair saw the improvement, I think Smithiak leveraged it toward getting the people that they had really wanted: Gibbs, Bush, etc.

BTW, why do you suddenly come back to this thread and dredge it all up again when it was just about to die? Let it go, for crying out loud. It's beginning to stink like a 5-day dead possum on this topic. Sheesh.

Didn't Kubiak want Bush when he first became the coach, but Arizona wouldn't let him come here? I honestly thought Richard Smith was the last option when he was hired.

ObsiWan
05-25-2009, 03:52 PM
It is just as absurd to assign blame for the re-signing of Carr on the Texans head coach as it is to hold McNair responsible for the selection of Richard Smith as defensive coordinator. The re-signing of David Carr was all McNair. Sure, the Texans head coach said he could work with Carr. He was wrong. No one could have or has since. The Texans head coach gave it his very best shot, and you can make a case that Carr played his best football under his tutelage.

On the positive (or sunny) side, I give you an A+ for consistency.

Note: Thanks Marcus, for another wonderful contribution to the conversation.

Careful.

You keep making statements like that, we'll have to make you an honorary Sunshine Club member.
:D

Fox
05-25-2009, 03:56 PM
Kubiak's Denver connection with Richard Smith and A&M connection with Sherman makes it seem unlikely to me that McNair pushed them on him considering Kubiak's hiring history. He seems to enjoy working with people he, or at least people in his inner circle, has history with. I don't think Bush is necessarily the primary one he wanted all along either, I seem to remember hearing about Richard and Frank at the same time when it surfaced that Kubiak wanted them both as co-Defensive coordinators at the outset of his tenure.

It's mostly conjecture, I just don't interpret any of this as Kubiak being financially handcuffed, all things considered. He was definitely given a tough situation when he took on the job. Worst team in the NFL with a very expensive failure as the face of the franchise, but I don't think McNair has made his climb any steeper since he took over.

GP
05-25-2009, 05:33 PM
McNair strikes me as a guy who started off with a hand-picked GM and HC that he thought would be just super duper awesome, and 2-14 came along and showed him how wrong he was.

Kubiak being saddled with Carr for one more year was a last-gasp effort by McNair to show that he didn't get everything wrong. And again, that big idea fell flat.

Regardless of who was in charge of the Richard Smith experiment, the fact remains that he's gone and the core of the offense coaches are still standing. There had to be a reason why Richard Smith was brought along in the first place, and I definitely do not think it was because of the Denver connection or because he was the best man for the job. We fans don't know all that goes on, but you could smell a rat when Carr was extended...and we ought to sense that same stink when Richard Smith was hired AND retained for so long.

If that's Kubiak trying to muscle Richard Smith and will him to succeed, I'd be surprised. He didn't flinch and beg Sherman to stay when Sherman was interviewing for the A&M job, and the same goes for our previous offensive coordinator whom Kubiak didn't seem too concerned about when he went after the Air Force HC job (IIRC). Kubiak gave Carr one year. He didn't try to retain Sherman or the OC. But he holds onto Richard Smith? I'm not buying.

I think Kubiak accepted the job with a few restrictions involved, which was McNair's way (in my own freaking opinion) of trying to stay involved in the aspects of running the show.

There was probably a large dose of skepticism on McNair's behalf after 2-14, and you couldn't blame an owner from imposing some limitations on an HC who wants to bring in his own guys right away. I could see McNair saying "Hold on there, cowboy. I've been down THAT road before. Let's just see what you can do on offense, and here's some guys you'll be bringing in for the beginning of your tenure. Show me what you have, and then we'll talk about expanding your freedom."

3 seasons later, I think it's apparent that Kubiak has turned the offense into something that doesn't resemble anything that Capers could have thrown out on the field. Now it's the defense's turn to get the make-over.

Lucky
05-25-2009, 07:06 PM
BTW, why do you suddenly come back to this thread and dredge it all up again when it was just about to die? Let it go, for crying out loud. It's beginning to stink like a 5-day dead possum on this topic. Sheesh.
Then you proceed to post twice more? The GP doth protest too much, methinks.
I have stated over and over that it's my opinion, so you can stop the melodramatic "NO PROOF! NO PROOF!" yelling and screaming.
If you post in an internet forum, you run the risk of encountering an opposing view. It happens. I just wanted to point out that your McNair-Richard Smith conspiracy theory was a complete Fig Newton of your Imaginabisco. That's all.
Careful.

You keep making statements like that, we'll have to make you an honorary Sunshine Club member.
:D
Hey, I'm a full-fledged member of the 19-10 Truth Movement. The truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

So help me Toro. :texans:

Runner
05-25-2009, 07:15 PM
McNair strikes me as a guy who started off with a hand-picked GM and HC that he thought would be just super duper awesome, and 2-14 came along and showed him how wrong he was.


Don't forget we had some years of constant improvement before that though!

Runner
05-25-2009, 07:18 PM
BTW, why do you suddenly come back to this thread and dredge it all up again when it was just about to die? Let it go, for crying out loud. It's beginning to stink like a 5-day dead possum on this topic. Sheesh.

I was going to post about that statement, but it was so outlandish that I didn't bother. I should have, just to let you reiterate that it is your opinion and based on nothing that has ever happened with the Texans. It was basically made up to support a position of "Kubiak doesn't make big mistakes".

steelbtexan
05-25-2009, 09:27 PM
I'm consistent in my opinion that Mr. McNair gets way too much leeway annd Kubes gets his fair share of blame.

GP
05-25-2009, 10:33 PM
I was going to post about that statement, but it was so outlandish that I didn't bother. I should have, just to let you reiterate that it is your opinion and based on nothing that has ever happened with the Texans. It was basically made up to support a position of "Kubiak doesn't make big mistakes".

Oh, you don't know for sure that my theory isn't true. There's a lot that we will never know for sure. Just because a coordinator or a position coach is hired, doesn't mean it was the head coach's choice--That's a pretty gullible stance to take; the stance that every hire is the HC's choice/decision.

Kubiak makes mistakes, but the position that's being taken is that he's on the verge of being fired if he doesn't make the playoffs this year. There's no PROOF that that's the case, either.

:wheel:

Runner
05-25-2009, 11:53 PM
Oh, you don't know for sure that my theory isn't true. There's a lot that we will never know for sure. Just because a coordinator or a position coach is hired, doesn't mean it was the head coach's choice--That's a pretty gullible stance to take; the stance that every hire is the HC's choice/decision.



So what? I could present the theory that Gary Kubiak is a fan of Richard Hoagland, and hyperdimensional physics proves that the Texans should have a defensive coordinator with a four letter last name. Just because "you don't know for sure that my theory isn't true" doesn't make it any more likely.

As far as I'm concerned, giving credence to theories based on nothing more than conjecture to prove a point is asking for more gullibility than believing Kubiak picked his staff. Kubiak wielded a lot of power when he signed up here. That is based on observations of what went on at the time, not a belief that it would be impossible for Kubiak to pick a bad coach.

GP
05-26-2009, 01:03 AM
So what? I could present the theory that Gary Kubiak is a fan of Richard Hoagland, and hyperdimensional physics proves that the Texans should have a defensive coordinator with a four letter last name. Just because "you don't know for sure that my theory isn't true" doesn't make it any more likely.

As far as I'm concerned, giving credence to theories based on nothing more than conjecture to prove a point is asking for more gullibility than believing Kubiak picked his staff. Kubiak wielded a lot of power when he signed up here. That is based on observations of what went on at the time, not a belief that it would be impossible for Kubiak to pick a bad coach.

Alex Gibbs was hired well after the 1st season. I view that as a Kubiak hire vs. the Sherman hire which smacked of McNair sending a signal that a veteran head coach, with a solid track record, was watching very closely...which then saw the dueling (or perhaps "hybrid") Green Bay run game and Denver run game switching out every other play on the field, precipitating and necessitating the Gibbs hire which was more in line with what Kubiak had probably envisioned since that's what he knows the most.

He even brought in Shanahan Jr. as a wide receivers coach, which I think was a clever strategic move by Kubiak. Get the kid on staff, wait out the forced hirings, and then promote the kid to the OC spot.

Little by little, you can see the changes being made. Why? Why would these little things fall like dominoes? Why wouldn't Shanahan Jr. be brought in immediately as OC once Kubiak got the HC gig in Houston? What the hell is Mike Sherman even doing in Houston in the first place, if not to be that veteran Big Brother making sure that McNair has an eye and an ear on what Kubiak is doing all the time? Then, like a magician's puff of smoke, Sherman is gone. Why? Because he was only there for the simplest of reasons: A Dan Reeves'esque consultant role. Once things started to take shape, he was out of there and onto a HC job. There was no long-term reason for Sherman to be in Houston.

You think that McNair is just going to hand the keys to the team after 2-14? McNair is a shrewd businessman whose franchise remains one of the most profitable franchises in sports today. He operates in black ink, never in red. I don't see Bob McNair, as you have claimed, just rushing Kubiak onto the front lines and saying "Anything you want, it would be my pleasure!"

Gary Kubiak had zero HC experience. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if McNair wanted him more for his skills with helping QBs mature and produce on the field (hello, David Carr reclamation project!) than for the vast HC experience that Kubiak didn't possess.

Was Kubiak the big choice for McNair? Yes. Was he given everything he wanted from the beginning? I highly doubt it. But now, it looks like McNair has been won over. Big time. We've got David Gibbs on staff, Bush was promoted (an obvious Kubiak choice, by far), and now we're talking playoffs with a r-e-a-l chance of it for a change.

Again: Until a tell-all book is written (which it won't be), nobody can say for sure what went down. I can say this: The Texans organization is a tight-lipped and secretive organization as it relates to personnel moves, so it should come as no surprise that we'd never know that Gary did, or didn't, have full reign in that first wave of staff hirings.

GP
05-26-2009, 01:11 AM
It was then that I realized what I was dealing with: A textbook cryptopath.

His use of obscure and nuanced cultural references made it maddening for the layman to understand. He was rife with the sort of savage, yet inventive, dialogue tactics that would prove my foil for years to come.

No matter. This is the way it must be; the way it always should be: The prey laying in wait for its hunter. But oh, the desires to rush in before the hunter had reached his mark! No, only fools rush in. And this was no time to be foolish, for the folly of impatience could spell certain and irreversible doom.

Come forward, hunter. Step once more, and then again, and thrice more. OK, I am tired and going to bed now. I hope it's not cloudy and raining when I wake up...

:sarcasm:

ObsiWan
05-26-2009, 07:34 AM
Hey, I'm a full-fledged member of the 19-10 Truth Movement. The truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

So help me Toro. :texans:

Membership in one org does not automatically exclude one from the other; despite seeming appearances to the contrary.
welcome aboard - wear your Sunshine badge proudly!
:D

ObsiWan
05-26-2009, 07:46 AM
Gary Kubiak had zero HC experience. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if McNair wanted him more for his skills with helping QBs mature and produce on the field (hello, David Carr reclamation project!) than for the vast HC experience that Kubiak didn't possess.

Was Kubiak the big choice for McNair? Yes. Was he given everything he wanted from the beginning? I highly doubt it. But now, it looks like McNair has been won over. Big time. We've got David Gibbs on staff, Bush was promoted (an obvious Kubiak choice, by far), and now we're talking playoffs with a r-e-a-l chance of it for a change.


From Kubiak's own lips (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5289) at a recent luncheon...

"You're going to be told no many, many times," Kubiak said. "You're going to be told many times that you're not good enough or that's not good enough.

"My first interview, I had a man who's passed now (former Cleveland owner Al Lerner) tell me that he had shoes older than me; I wasn't ready. About seven years ago, I interviewed with a man I respect more than anybody in the business, and at the end of the interview, I stood up, shook his hand and he said, 'You're not ready to be a head coach yet.’ I sit here today working for that man; the same guy (McNair).

Seven years ago, sounds like Kubiak was turned down in favor of Capers. Just because he (McNair)reconsidered in '06, doesn't mean McNair gave Kubiak total, unfettered, control. In fact, looking back at Sherman's hiring, I kinda doubt that he did. Maybe Kubiak was initially brought in to save HWWNBN's Texans career. And only after team improvement was demonstrated did McNair take the training wheels off and let him (Kubiak) bring in the guys he really wanted.

like the Toosie Pop commercials used to say: the world may never know

Runner
05-26-2009, 08:49 AM
I would like to point out that it is inconsistent to give Kubiak full credit for all things good and full exoneration for all things bad. However, since those statements fit in nicely with the belief system, I'm sure I'll be told that they aren't inconsistencies as much as they are proof of Kubiak's near infallibility.

Polo
05-26-2009, 09:03 AM
I would like to point out that it is inconsistent to give Kubiak full credit for all things good and full exoneration for all things bad. However, since those statements fit in nicely with the belief system, I'm sure I'll be told that they aren't inconsistencies as much as they are proof of Kubiak's near infallibility.

Agreed.

Kubes has his downfalls just like every other coach throughout the history of mankind.

GP
05-26-2009, 09:57 AM
Seven years ago, sounds like Kubiak was turned down in favor of Capers. Just because he (McNair)reconsidered in '06, doesn't mean McNair gave Kubiak total, unfettered, control. In fact, looking back at Sherman's hiring, I kinda doubt that he did. Maybe Kubiak was initially brought in to save HWWNBN's Texans career. And only after team improvement was demonstrated did McNair take the training wheels off and let him (Kubiak) bring in the guys he really wanted.

like the Toosie Pop commercials used to say: the world may never know

We'll never know because the Texans won't divulge any of that. Even Richard Justice can't find anything other than the same small piece of information he had gathered and recycled over and over.

David Carr's brother, who posted on here as Hulk75, had PM'd me the week of the Williams-Bush-Young draft, and said that David had been told we were going to sign Reggie Bush. Two days later, we had an agreement with Mario Williams. I PM'd him back and asked what happened. He said his brother (David) was clueless as to what happened...he had essentially been misled by the Texans organization.

And that's indicative of the Kubiak regime: You won't know much about what's going on unless it's already happened. One of the first acts by the Kubiak regime was lying to its golden boy QB about who we would select with the first pick. LOL.

That's why I think my theory is plausible. Even Kubiak himself is not going to leak the information that he had coaches forced on him. I say "If he had a player forced on him (Carr), then it's not too bizarre to think he had a coach or two forced upon him, as well."

It's amazing that we had a poster on here, who waited on Frank Bush, and was able to get some valuable intel out of Bush (about how he and Kubiak had handcuffed Richard Smith toward the end of the season). You can see how easy it is to slip and tell someone as innocent as a waiter, and then it spreads on a message board. You can't contain what's already loose and has replicated itself.

TexansSeminole
05-26-2009, 10:16 AM
Man GP, your posts are always so long.

GP
05-26-2009, 11:10 AM
Man GP, your posts are always so long.

No extra charge, either. Your message board dollar goes farther when you read my posts. No teasers. No installments. There are things in my posts that haven't even been mined yet. j/k

I'm like Golden Corral, while others are like gourmet eateries. Wouldn't you desire to spend $7 and eat all you want from food that's been under a lamp all day, and cooked in massive quantities? Or a 2 oz. filet mignon with some swirly sauce and vegetable artwork for $30?

I rest my case. :smiliedance:

thunderkyss
05-26-2009, 11:40 AM
Don't forget we had some years of constant improvement before that though!

Really good point.... which brings up the question, are we really any better than the play-off bound team that went 2-14.

I think we are.

We've got 2 bonafied WRs in Johnson & KDub. Excellent WR depth, with Anderson, Davis, and Jones...... okay, maybe not excellent.

We've got the best receiving TE in the AFC.

We've got a QB who hasn't had the fear of God on a football field instilled in him just yet.

Though I am, and always will be a DD 37 fan, I think SS is a definite upgrade.

Our OL looks good, both running and passing. Sure there is some work to be done there, but no reason for wholesale changes as had been our custom.

We've got a fullback that has been mistaken for a Mack truck a few times.

defensively....... honestly, I think we've taken a step backwards. Hopefully our offense will control the TOP, and we'll get by.

Taking that into account, and the fact that our head coach has a few things to learn about game planning, game management, and mid game adjustments....... we may not finish 8-8 or better.

But I'd still rather assess what the problems are at the end of the season, and see if we can address them instead of just throwing it all out the window, and starting all over again.

HOU-TEX
05-26-2009, 11:47 AM
Man, this thread's like the energizer bunny. It keeps going, and going.......

Texecutioner
05-26-2009, 11:48 AM
We've got the best receiving TE in the AFC.



Was Antonio Gates traded to the NFC over the weekend or something? Daniels is a great receiving TE, but he isn't as good as Gates in the passing game.

Double Barrel
05-26-2009, 03:57 PM
What the hell is Mike Sherman even doing in Houston in the first place, if not to be that veteran Big Brother making sure that McNair has an eye and an ear on what Kubiak is doing all the time? Then, like a magician's puff of smoke, Sherman is gone. Why? Because he was only there for the simplest of reasons: A Dan Reeves'esque consultant role. Once things started to take shape, he was out of there and onto a HC job. There was no long-term reason for Sherman to be in Houston.

Or maybe, just maybe, he was hired for his coaching acumen. Sherman had a working relationship with Kubiak at A&M. Perhaps, and this is just a long shot here, Kubiak actually hired Sherman to coach an offensive line and to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team.

Kinda' crazy to think that this is what could have transpired, because, well...that's what transpired.

No, must be something conspiratorial about it, so carry on with your unanchored opinions and speculation. Off-season can be fun that way.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the historical record and common sense.

CloakNNNdagger
05-26-2009, 04:27 PM
Or maybe, just maybe, he was hired for his coaching acumen. Sherman had a working relationship with Kubiak at A&M. Perhaps, and this is just a long shot here, Kubiak actually hired Sherman to coach an offensive line and to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team.

Kinda' crazy to think that this is what could have transpired, because, well...that's what transpired.

No, must be something conspiratorial about it, so carry on with your unanchored opinions and speculation. Off-season can be fun that way.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the historical record and common sense.

Sherman seemed to have had a significant say in the direction of the Offense, at least the running game. We had a "hybrid" running game. The problem was that they incompatibly ran in opposite directions.

GP
05-26-2009, 06:16 PM
Or maybe, just maybe, he was hired for his coaching acumen. Sherman had a working relationship with Kubiak at A&M. Perhaps, and this is just a long shot here, Kubiak actually hired Sherman to coach an offensive line and to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team.

Kinda' crazy to think that this is what could have transpired, because, well...that's what transpired.

No, must be something conspiratorial about it, so carry on with your unanchored opinions and speculation. Off-season can be fun that way.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the historical record and common sense.

I'll go with "McNair hiring Sherman to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team" for 200, Alex.

All I am doing is theorizing. Is that some freaking crime? You act like I'm betraying the country, or God, or something. As if my thoughts somehow shape anything at all.

It's. Just. An. Opinion.

Lighten up, Francis.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll10/Loki99-photos/Francis.jpg

GP
05-26-2009, 06:29 PM
Sherman seemed to have had a significant say in the direction of the Offense, at least the running game. We had a "hybrid" running game. The problem was that they incompatibly ran in opposite directions.

Which fits pretty well with what I am saying: The run game was a disaster, mostly because you had Sherman and Kubiak attempting a time share. This is the NFL, not a board game where each person gets a turn.

Why would a ZBS guy (Kubiak) hire a Green Bay-style guy like Sherman and then have to split time with the competing (or hybrid) scheme? If Kubiak had all this supposed control from day 1, then why didn't he institute a full-fledged ZBS with the best available ZBS guy who was out there? Hell, hire Terrell Davis or a former Broncos lineman from those glory days for that matter. But instead, he wanted Sherman? Who was gone after a year?

Nobody wants to reply to Obsi's post, just mine. Which proves this has become more about picking me apart than anything else. It's possible that my thoughts are plausible, just as it's possible that Kubiak picked all these losers and had to fire them. I'm just throwing out the chance that this common sense and conventional wisdom that's being ballyhooed might not be the real story. We'll never know, either (gee, that sounds familiar).

It's like that first year was a complete wash, especially with McNair FORCING Kubiak to retain David Carr and give it one last go for $8 million.

I apologize for trying to provide a counter-argument on a message board. I don't know what I was thinking. Silly me.

barrett
05-26-2009, 06:43 PM
Or maybe, just maybe, he was hired for his coaching acumen. Sherman had a working relationship with Kubiak at A&M. Perhaps, and this is just a long shot here, Kubiak actually hired Sherman to coach an offensive line and to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team.

Kinda' crazy to think that this is what could have transpired, because, well...that's what transpired.

No, must be something conspiratorial about it, so carry on with your unanchored opinions and speculation. Off-season can be fun that way.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the historical record and common sense.

rep-ilicious!

Runner
05-26-2009, 07:04 PM
From Kubiak's own lips (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5289) at a recent luncheon...



Seven years ago, sounds like Kubiak was turned down in favor of Capers. Just because he (McNair)reconsidered in '06, doesn't mean McNair gave Kubiak total, unfettered, control. In fact, looking back at Sherman's hiring, I kinda doubt that he did. Maybe Kubiak was initially brought in to save HWWNBN's Texans career. And only after team improvement was demonstrated did McNair take the training wheels off and let him (Kubiak) bring in the guys he really wanted.

like the Toosie Pop commercials used to say: the world may never know

Just be consistent then. If Kubiak had the bad decisions forced on him, then he doesn't get credit for the good decisions either. They were just as likely someone else's too. Makes me wonder why he gets paid so much, since he has no real authority or reponsibility.

I'm starting to think Kubiak is just a puppet and Shanahan is running the team. An astute businessman like McNair would do that rather than have such a young head coach. It makes sense. A lot of the team's improvement happened after Shanny got here.

I think I could come up with a lot of examples why this is true - is it just coincidence Dre had his best year after Shanny became shadow head coach? What about the improvement in the running game?

It is so plausible, I shouldn't feel so silly writing it. I blame the silly feeling on the "critical thinking" portion of my Philosophy of Knowledge class in college.

Runner
05-26-2009, 07:16 PM
It is just as absurd to assign blame for the re-signing of Carr on the Texans head coach as it is to hold McNair responsible for the selection of Richard Smith as defensive coordinator. The re-signing of David Carr was all McNair. Sure, the Texans head coach said he could work with Carr. He was wrong. No one could have or has since. The Texans head coach gave it his very best shot, and you can make a case that Carr played his best football under his tutelage.


IIRC, one of the main reasons it appears that Carr was forced on Kubiak was the length of time that it took the Texans to exercise their option on Carr. Was that the common thinking at the time?

Lucky
05-26-2009, 07:55 PM
Which fits pretty well with what I am saying: The run game was a disaster, mostly because you had Sherman and Kubiak attempting a time share.
The run game was a disaster mostly because Ron Dayne was your best running back.

Nobody wants to reply to Obsi's post, just mine. Which proves this has become more about picking me apart than anything else.

I apologize for trying to provide a counter-argument on a message board. I don't know what I was thinking. Silly me.





Lighten up, Francis.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll10/Loki99-photos/Francis.jpg
You might consider taking your own advice.

Membership in one org does not automatically exclude one from the other; despite seeming appearances to the contrary.
welcome aboard - wear your Sunshine badge proudly!
:D
I've broken far too many of the Sunshine Club's 10 Commandments (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1177045&postcount=70) to be allowed through those shiny gates. My only salvation could come from the Texans head coach, himself, laying his hands on me and removing my sins. Which could happen as soon as tomorrow night's All Access.

Runner
05-26-2009, 07:59 PM
I love this thread.

Lucky
05-26-2009, 08:02 PM
IIRC, one of the main reasons it appears that Carr was forced on Kubiak was the length of time that it took the Texans to exercise their option on Carr. Was that the common thinking at the time?
Anyone taking the Texans head coaching job in 2006 was doing so with the understanding that David Carr was the QB. That was McNair's boy. The new Houston Texans head coach said all the right things about Carr, both to the public and McNair, and got the gig. I could speculate that he was lying through his teeth just to get the job. But, I think the Texans head coach is a straight shooter (What about the injuries, Lucky?) and really believed he could turn Carr around.

thunderkyss
05-26-2009, 08:03 PM
I'll go with "McNair hiring Sherman to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team" for 200, Alex.

For me to buy into this "plausible" line of thinking, what's the connection? We know what the Kubiak-Sherman Connection is. We know what the Kubiak-Gibbs connection is. What is the McNair-Sherman/McNair-Gibbs connection? No doubt in my mind, Kubiak brought them in.

If it was McNair...... why wouldn't he have just hired Sherman, or a more experienced HC to begin with?

It it were McNair.... why is Kubiak still here, and not Sherman? From what I understand, A&M would have preferred Kubiak.

Runner
05-26-2009, 08:05 PM
My only salvation could come from the Texans head coach, himself, laying his hands on me and removing my sins. Which could happen as soon as tomorrow night's All Access.

I've heard of this rite! The "Anointing with Brylcreem".

GP
05-26-2009, 08:18 PM
The run game was a disaster mostly because Ron Dayne was your best running back.

You might consider taking your own advice.

I've broken far too many of the Sunshine Club's 10 Commandments (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1177045&postcount=70) to be allowed through those shiny gates. My only salvation could come from the Texans head coach, himself, laying his hands on me and removing my sins. Which could happen as soon as tomorrow night's All Access.

LOL. I'm not going to bite the bait on this deal by refusing to return your fire. I will say that I think you're taking it a bit too far with the increased use of what some might consider to be borderline sacrilegious comments; it's kinda' being driven into the ground isn't it? We get it: We're dumb sheep following our cultist leader and so on and so forth.

My attitude is great, actually. I think we're going to do awesome. Not all of what has been successful is a direct result of Gary Kubiak's handiwork, but not all of what has gone is his fault, either. Above all, he's done the best job out of the two coaches we've had. I think the fact that we're even talking playoffs, with seriousness, means this team is headed in the right direction. Now the whole team--coaches AND players--have got to come out swinging for the fences on kickoff weekend.

Once again: Nobody is being forced to put there hand on a sacred item and take some sort of loyalty pledge for one side or the other. I've enjoyed this thread, even if it has run its course. It's the off-season, after all.

Runner
05-26-2009, 08:32 PM
Anyone taking the Texans head coaching job in 2006 was doing so with the understanding that David Carr was the QB. That was McNair's boy. The new Houston Texans head coach said all the right things about Carr, both to the public and McNair, and got the gig. I could speculate that he was lying through his teeth just to get the job. But, I think the Texans head coach is a straight shooter (What about the injuries, Lucky?) and really believed he could turn Carr around.

I have no doubt that both statements are true. The new Texans coach had to take Carr, and Kubiak thought he could coach him up.

I was asking about why it took so long for the Texans to exercise their option on Carr. Just dredging up ancient history. Better left alone; I was just reminded of something.

GP
05-26-2009, 08:34 PM
For me to buy into this "plausible" line of thinking, what's the connection? We know what the Kubiak-Sherman Connection is. We know what the Kubiak-Gibbs connection is. What is the McNair-Sherman/McNair-Gibbs connection? No doubt in my mind, Kubiak brought them in.

If it was McNair...... why wouldn't he have just hired Sherman, or a more experienced HC to begin with?

It it were McNair.... why is Kubiak still here, and not Sherman? From what I understand, A&M would have preferred Kubiak.

Well, then let's look at it and see:

Sherman had just been ridden out of Green Bay, correct? Why would you want to hire a coach coming off what easily appeared to be a fading NFL HC career? Isn't it pretty standard business, unless you're one of those elitist NFL coaches, to go down a notch (assume a lesser role somewhere) when you've just been fired from being a HC somewhere? Not many NFL HCs can go from a dying ember to another HC gig right away.

If so, Sherman was available as a coordinator (heck, they even gave him the Assistant Head Coach title, correct?)...McNair might have felt that an old A&M colleague would work OK with Kubiak...and it afforded a veteran voice for the rookie head coach (Kubiak) to have some support for a year or so.

A&M came calling, but Gary had just started the NFL HC job that he had obviously been wanting for for a long, long time. And then there's Sherman, who isn't tied to the Texans because he was probably never anything more than training wheels in the first place...or a good Plan B if the Kubiak experiment went badly all of a sudden. I don't doubt that A&M preferred Kubiak over Sherman, just as I don't doubt that McNair preferred Kubiak over Sherman. But Kubiak didn't go for it. So the bridesmaid got it.

Even if Kubiak was the one who brought Sherman in, it still could have been McNair who said "Look, you are going to need a veteran assistant. Do you have any preferences?" There might have been a list prepared by McNair and the Texans FO, and Sherman was a choice on it. It might have been ONLY Sherman. Who knows?

The telling thing, to me, is that his style of run game was trying to be fused with the ZBS. It wasn't working, and the bigger question is "Why was he even dabbling in the run game anyways?" If it was Kubiak's team, would Kubiak really want to go the Green Bay route with the run game as opposed to what he knew better (the ZBS)?

I think Sherman left on good terms. He wanted to be a HC, he's an A&M guy, and the Aggies didn't get their first pick in Kubiak. Two years in a row, Sherman was at the right spot at the right time it seems.

GP
05-26-2009, 08:42 PM
I have no doubt that both statements are true. The new Texans coach had to take Carr, and Kubiak thought he could coach him up.

I was asking about why it took so long for the Texans to exercise their option on Carr. Just dredging up ancient history. Better left alone; I was just reminded of something.

I wonder myself if Kubiak lied, knowing he wasn't going to be able to coach him up (so he lies to get the gig). Or, if he really felt he could do it.

At the minimum, I think he was ready to give it a shot. At the other end, it's possible that it was something he felt he had to do just to get in the door.

I am sensing that there's some angst for some fans on here if it turns out that he lied to get the gig. To me, I don't care--This isn't Swiss Family Robinson; it's business. You do what you gotta' do, especially if you know that there's a "hook" you have to bite just to even get the job. So IMO, there's equal blame on that sort of deal if that's what transpired.

Lucky
05-26-2009, 08:46 PM
I was asking about why it took so long for the Texans to exercise their option on Carr. Just dredging up ancient history. Better left alone; I was just reminded of something.
Texans_Chick may have written something on this in her Chronic blog, way back when. I believe that Carr couldn't be extended until the new league year (2006) actually began. And the Texans had to wait until that date to exercise a contractual rule that allowed them to allocate $2 million of Carr's $8 million option bonus in the previous year's (2005) salary cap. That's how I'm remembering it.

HoustonFrog
05-26-2009, 08:48 PM
I love this thread.

Love reading it. :wacko:

ObsiWan
05-26-2009, 08:49 PM
I would like to point out that it is inconsistent to give Kubiak full credit for all things good and full exoneration for all things bad. However, since those statements fit in nicely with the belief system, I'm sure I'll be told that they aren't inconsistencies as much as they are proof of Kubiak's near infallibility.

it's flawless, indisputable logic like that that just ruins a good, emotion-filled message board argument.
:D
http://th06.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/352/d/1/__Curse_you__Red_Baron___by_pooterjon.jpg
curse you Red Baron!

The Pencil Neck
05-26-2009, 09:15 PM
I wonder myself if Kubiak lied, knowing he wasn't going to be able to coach him up (so he lies to get the gig). Or, if he really felt he could do it.

My feeling on this was that Kubiak looked at the tape of HWWNBN and saw him making easily fixable mistakes. Then he came in and tried to fix him but Carr would not be fixed. Back in the day, I had said in another thread that if you saw the mistakes that Carr was making in the Oakland game, any coach would think he could fix them. Kubiak came in, tried to fix him, simplified things for him, and was able to increase his completion percentage... but Kubes realized half way through the year that he was wrong. It was going to take too much to fix Carr. If Sage hadn't broken his hand, he would have closed out the season.

If you go back and look at that piece that Baldinger did on Carr during the Raider game, it's amazing. He had two guys open facing him, asking for the ball, but he was afraid of throwing a pick so he pulled the ball down and ran. He was totally broken by that point.

GP
05-26-2009, 09:24 PM
Texans_Chick may have written something on this in her Chronic blog, way back when. I believe that Carr couldn't be extended until the new league year (2006) actually began. And the Texans had to wait until that date to exercise a contractual rule that allowed them to allocate $2 million of Carr's $8 million option bonus in the previous year's (2005) salary cap. That's how I'm remembering it.

And yet there was also a deadline for when it had to be done by, if the Texans choose to exercise the option. I am thinking it had to be done by June (not sure on the exact day, though).

I think I recall a lot of fans on the message board who were praying that the deadline would pass and that it would mean Carr was gone.

There was some real a-n-g-e-r on here when the Texans picked up his option. I was in the "Let's see, now that he and Kubiak are working this thing out, if it was the o-line, the coaching, or the QB."

Didn't the sack total start to steadily decline each year, beginning in that last Carr season? I think I remember it was low in the last Carr season, and then even lower in the first Schaub season.

ObsiWan
05-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Just be consistent then. If Kubiak had the bad decisions forced on him, then he doesn't get credit for the good decisions either. They were just as likely someone else's too. Makes me wonder why he gets paid so much, since he has no real authority or reponsibility.

I'm starting to think Kubiak is just a puppet and Shanahan is running the team. An astute businessman like McNair would do that rather than have such a young head coach. It makes sense. A lot of the team's improvement happened after Shanny got here.

I think I could come up with a lot of examples why this is true - is it just coincidence Dre had his best year after Shanny became shadow head coach? What about the improvement in the running game?

It is so plausible, I shouldn't feel so silly writing it. I blame the silly feeling on the "critical thinking" portion of my Philosophy of Knowledge class in college.

I'm only saying look at the timeline. As Kubiak progressively showed he could handle the job maybe McNair did step back and take the training wheels off. I don't really believe that Sherman was brought in as a spy, but as a "big brother" who could offer advice when asked..? Why not?

As for the improvement after little Shanny got here, well, I think it was part him and part we got better players, Matt Schaub being the most important one. Does anyone think that call wasn't Kubiak's?

And I agree with Runner when he said, if Kubiak gets credit then he gets blame too. Comes with the title "head coach".

gosh, I hope I didn't just kill this thread or have my Sunshine Club membership revoked

Double Barrel
05-28-2009, 01:49 PM
I'll go with "McNair hiring Sherman to add insight to being a head coach of an NFL team" for 200, Alex.

All I am doing is theorizing. Is that some freaking crime? You act like I'm betraying the country, or God, or something. As if my thoughts somehow shape anything at all.

It's. Just. An. Opinion.

Lighten up, Francis.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll10/Loki99-photos/Francis.jpg

I never said your pure speculation was a crime at all. But you seem to get your panties in a wad anytime someone connects actual dots instead of the dots you seem to see when you hold your breath long enough.

As far as lightening up, I think you're taking yourself much to serious. I'm only offering a perspective that can be supported with what we actually know, instead of wild-eyed conspiracy theories that are created only to make sure the sunlight shines on your daisies.

As thunderkyss mentioned, it is pretty easy to understand the connection between Kubiak and Sherman. They have a friendship based upon working together in the past. It's simply a matter of you comprehending Occam's razor (i.e. The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation).

Runner
05-28-2009, 05:00 PM
I…I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!

Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!

Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!

All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!


http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned?utm_source=b-section

GP
05-28-2009, 06:35 PM
I never said your pure speculation was a crime at all. But you seem to get your panties in a wad anytime someone connects actual dots instead of the dots you seem to see when you hold your breath long enough.

As far as lightening up, I think you're taking yourself much to serious. I'm only offering a perspective that can be supported with what we actually know, instead of wild-eyed conspiracy theories that are created only to make sure the sunlight shines on your daisies.

As thunderkyss mentioned, it is pretty easy to understand the connection between Kubiak and Sherman. They have a friendship based upon working together in the past. It's simply a matter of you comprehending Occam's razor (i.e. The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation).

LOL. This has been reduced to petty in-fighting. Period.

I'm only bringing about a possibility, to counteract the conventional wisdom that is supposed to be accepted as pure fact. General George Patton once said that when "Everybody is thinking the same thing, nobody is thinking."

I wondered how long it would take before you or Lucky or Runner had to come back to this thread and keep it alive.

The thread is dead, and yet you guys keep digging it up. I can hang, so just keep it up. To come back and keep the thread alive, is showing that YOU are taking it wayyyy more personal than I. You're trying to get the last word and make me cow down.

Why don't you attack Obsi, a guy who has shown similar thoughts along the idea that Kubiak might not have had much choice in coaches early on? But it's all directed toward me, which is only making you look petty.

Runner
05-28-2009, 07:05 PM
Taking it personal? I'm keeping this thread alive because it makes me laugh. I like reading what-ifs like "what if the Texans are much improved and go 4-12?" Uhmm, is that really possible? I didn't even take the amateur (I assume) psychoanalysis I received early on in the thread personally.

I've been responding to everyone. I'm not responding to one person specifically if several people share a similar view. I also assume lots of people read my bloviation. I mean c'mon - who doesn't want to read my next installment?

Seems like everyone wants the thread to die...after they get the last word.

Note I also "personally attacked" Thunderkyss by asking, (nay demanding!) he name a bad 15-1 team that he theorized.

This post was in direct response to you, GP. Rest assured it will be the last one that will be. My posts will be directed to the group as a whole.

Lucky
05-28-2009, 07:39 PM
Seems like everyone wants the thread to die...after they get the last word.
Bump

Runner
05-28-2009, 07:40 PM
Dammit Lucky!

GP
05-28-2009, 11:02 PM
Taking it personal? I'm keeping this thread alive because it makes me laugh. I like reading what-ifs like "what if the Texans are much improved and go 4-12?" Uhmm, is that really possible? I didn't even take the amateur (I assume) psychoanalysis I received early on in the thread personally.

I've been responding to everyone. I'm not responding to one person specifically if several people share a similar view. I also assume lots of people read my bloviation. I mean c'mon - who doesn't want to read my next installment?

Seems like everyone wants the thread to die...after they get the last word.

Note I also "personally attacked" Thunderkyss by asking, (nay demanding!) he name a bad 15-1 team that he theorized.

This post was in direct response to you, GP. Rest assured it will be the last one that will be. My posts will be directed to the group as a whole.

Obsi had made the last post. I assumed everyone, including myself, was glad to see it descending down the thread list because it had gone for so long without a reply. That's what we all wanted, because it had run its course.

Rest assured it wasn't me who put this thread back on life support. It was a mod. Which is something a regular poster would have been chastised, by a mod, for doing.

I've enjoyed the posts that dealt with the topic. I'm guilty of swerving into subjective/personally critical avenues a few times, as others are also guilty of doing from time to time.

Aw hell, I am now the last post on this thread. Someone get the thread-killing stake and ram it through its heart already. :hothboy:

Runner
05-28-2009, 11:37 PM
Seems like everyone wants the thread to die...after they get the last word.

Obsi had made the last post. I assumed everyone, including myself, was glad to see it descending down the thread list because it had gone for so long without a reply. That's what we all wanted, because it had run its course.

Rest assured it wasn't me who put this thread back on life support. It was a mod. Which is something a regular poster would have been chastised, by a mod, for doing.



Just to be clear, my post said everyone and they which is what I meant. It doesn't say GP and he.

I would have dredged it up to put in that Onion link if it was still languishing. I'd stop if I had the last word. I am they.

===============

To be absolutely clear, when I refer to the believers I'm talking to a group of posters with similar opinions. You know who you are.

GNTLEWOLF
05-28-2009, 11:38 PM
So..... in summation: I take it from what I/ve read then that there are some who will be content to have mediocraty from now on as long as the team doesn't crash, and the rest of us who believe that if the team doesn't show significant improvement in the won/loss column that Kubiak will certainly be on the hot seat.

Runner
05-28-2009, 11:44 PM
So..... in summation: I take it from what I/ve read then that there are some who will be content to have mediocraty from now on as long as the team doesn't crash, and the rest of us who believe that if the team doesn't show significant improvement in the won/loss column that Kubiak will certainly be on the hot seat.

I think you've missed several subtleties* with your simplification. Would you like me to restate some significant points/inconsistencies/areas for future thought to get this thread moving again?



*I looked it up - this is spelled correctly. It looks weird to me.

steelbtexan
05-29-2009, 12:03 AM
Here's to the Houston Texans winning the Super Bowl in 2010.

Last Post

LOL

GNTLEWOLF
05-29-2009, 12:03 AM
I think you've missed several subtleties* with your simplification. Would you like me to restate some significant points/inconsistencies/areas for future thought to get this thread moving again?



*I looked it up - this is spelled correctly. It looks weird to me.
LOL actually yes..... My simplification was an attempt to weed out many of the wild theories stated as to how a team can stay the same or get worse and at the same time be better. I was really trying to :
a) get to the heart of the matter and
b) get the thread back on track, but

I have truely enjoyed watching you toy with everyone and I love seeing how this thread seems to have a life of its own. So at your pleasure...state away.

Texecutioner
05-29-2009, 12:17 AM
So..... in summation: I take it from what I/ve read then that there are some who will be content to have mediocraty from now on as long as the team doesn't crash, and the rest of us who believe that if the team doesn't show significant improvement in the won/loss column that Kubiak will certainly be on the hot seat.

Kubes is on the hot seat right now if you ask me, and I'm sure that he feels the same way. It's just a matter of how hot is his seat at the beginning of the season as far as what "Mcnair expects" for this entire season and what actually happens at the end of the season. But this is Kubes 4th year now, so it's put up or shut up time to show some real progression and not just the kind of progression where we say that we were a better 8-8 team than we were last season. We have to be a much better team without question.

GNTLEWOLF
05-29-2009, 02:32 AM
Kubes is on the hot seat right now if you ask me, and I'm sure that he feels the same way. It's just a matter of how hot is his seat at the beginning of the season as far as what "Mcnair expects" for this entire season and what actually happens at the end of the season. But this is Kubes 4th year now, so it's put up or shut up time to show some real progression and not just the kind of progression where we say that we were a better 8-8 team than we were last season. We have to be a much better team without question.

I actually agree with what you are saying. My personal feeling is the team has to do better than 9-7 this year. That is my litmus test. But, I'm not so sure McNair sees it that way. I think if he finishes 9-7 or even 8-8 he gets another year.( and the thought of that sickens me) However, after next year if the team is still hoovering at around 500 and have not made the play-offs, I think McNair cans him.

Specnatz
05-29-2009, 02:42 AM
Every coach is on the hot seat every year. Unless you just got hired by the Detroit Lions then yu have at least one year to not get worse.

Or you have won the super Bowl in the last two years or your franchise super stud QB was hurt all of last year.

beerlover
05-29-2009, 03:02 AM
Every coach is on the hot seat every year. Unless you just got hired by the Detroit Lions then yu have at least one year to not get worse.

Or you have won the super Bowl in the last two years or your franchise super stud QB was hurt all of last year.

maybe the Patriots didn't make the playoffs (what 11-5 not good enough) yet they still are the Champions of the NFL in my opinion (Personally I loathe them) they keep manufacturing a competitive product. their drafts are sheer legend as is their tight fisted F/A polices/contract neogotiations (are you listening Dunta). coaching is everything it would seem yet its how they match & blend it into their system that makes it so succesful.

In reference to Texans I think we can all see certain facets come together as if closing a loop. the peices are in place or in very close proximity so that on field success isn't far behind. Kubiak is the best thing to happen to Houston in a long long while.........:)

GNTLEWOLF
05-29-2009, 05:23 AM
Every coach is on the hot seat every year. Unless you just got hired by the Detroit Lions then yu have at least one year to not get worse.

Or you have won the super Bowl in the last two years or your franchise super stud QB was hurt all of last year.

While that is true, there comes a point in time where every coach must fish or cut bait because the front office and/or the fans feel that they deserve better. In my opinion this is that year for Kubiak. My feeling is that the team must do considerably better than 8-8 in order for him to get that contract extension. Now, I have no inside information , nor do I personally know McNair or Rick Smith, so They may see things differently. I however, think that Kubiak is at the crossroads of his Texans career. He either shows he can get it done, or he is (done). But then again, that is just my two cents.

Grams
05-29-2009, 06:02 AM
Enough already guys. Starts something new. Please.

HOU-TEX
05-29-2009, 09:42 AM
I like Kubiak

Runner
05-29-2009, 10:59 AM
I've decided to put myself on ignore for a couple of days. Can someone tell me if I post something worthwhile, or at least interesting?

Thanks.

Specnatz
05-29-2009, 12:07 PM
Enough already guys. Starts something new. Please.

We could start a poll in who is the best GranMa of the Texans you or G'Ma?

GP
05-29-2009, 01:49 PM
I've decided to put myself on ignore for a couple of days. Can someone tell me if I post something worthwhile, or at least interesting?

Thanks.

LOL.

Here's my game plan I've crafted for myself: :banme

I feel like Corporal Klinger trying to get a Section 8 to get out of here.



http://www.smokeysoffice.com/Entertain/MASH/MashPhoto/Cast/Klinger2.jpg

Double Barrel
05-29-2009, 03:48 PM
LOL. This has been reduced to petty in-fighting. Period.


Not at all. You're just making some rather wild accusations and don't like it when others don't share the perspective. This ain't fighting, though. Check out the NSZ for examples of real debates. :ok:

I wondered how long it would take before you or Lucky or Runner had to come back to this thread and keep it alive.

The thread is dead, and yet you guys keep digging it up. I can hang, so just keep it up. To come back and keep the thread alive, is showing that YOU are taking it wayyyy more personal than I. You're trying to get the last word and make me cow down.

Why don't you attack Obsi, a guy who has shown similar thoughts along the idea that Kubiak might not have had much choice in coaches early on? But it's all directed toward me, which is only making you look petty.

In your eyes, you're right. And that's all right with me.

As far as "taking it personal", give me a break, man. Seriously, it's just a conversation. I have absolutely no animosity or negative feelings about this thread or anyone in it. Why you feel the need to make such ludicrous statements is beyond my comprehension, and not something that I'm prone to give any thought towards figuring out.

I like Kubiak

Me, too. But that doesn't change his status on (or not on) the seat of heat. ;)

GP
05-29-2009, 09:40 PM
Not at all. You're just making some rather wild accusations and don't like it when others don't share the perspective. This ain't fighting, though. Check out the NSZ for examples of real debates.

No thanks. I'd rather just go down to the local barber shop and listen to a bunch of guys sit around and solve the world's problems in an hour-and-a-half.

And it has nothing to do with me being pouty when someone doesn't agree with me. On the contrary, this is more about a few grumpy posters who are taking their rabid NSZ forum attitudes and dropping them onto the posters here in the Texans Talk forum. Glad you mentioned the NSZ, since you probably helped me better understand the doggedness and crankiness going on in this thread. :photos:

Double Barrel
05-30-2009, 04:05 PM
I read the NSZ, but I don't post much in there. So put your assumptions in a hot dog bun and eat them. ;)

I think you are failing to understand that Texans - of all people - know bull**** when they see it. :cowboy1:

Just having fun, man, so nothing personal. It's a long off-season this year.

ObsiWan
05-30-2009, 05:41 PM
Enough already guys. Starts something new. Please.

http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/y1p3GVTdYExQGShdnZevB9bMJby0e4l5oWjVhS1wk4gfMvRyuV gMVuaqYpUsbInnZz0dzJTKQJzvxM

the monster, that this thread has become, still lives!

Texecutioner
05-30-2009, 06:10 PM
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e220/nickms/KUbesenergizercopy.jpg

powerfuldragon
05-31-2009, 12:30 AM
whoa... what am i doing in this section?

mexican_texan
05-31-2009, 01:34 AM
And it has nothing to do with me being pouty when someone doesn't agree with me. On the contrary, this is more about a few grumpy posters who are taking their rabid NSZ forum attitudes and dropping them onto the posters here in the Texans Talk forum.
Irony at it's finest.

thunderkyss
05-31-2009, 10:32 AM
Kubes isn't going anywhere for 10 years, win or lose.

Runner
06-03-2009, 09:58 PM
"I play this game of football for only one reason and that's to win," Johnson said Monday. "I don't play it for anything else. When you go over guys' careers (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=555600#), of all the former guys that have played, the first question they ask is how many Super Bowls have they won."

"So that's my goal. To win as many Super Bowls as I can before my time is up."

...


Johnson and Schaub often talk about their goal of making the playoffs, but Johnson said that talk is getting redundant.

"We talk about it, but it doesn't really matter if you don't put it out on the field," Johnson said. "We know what we have to do. It's not a secret. It's crazy to just keep talking about it all the time when it's not happening. It's on both of our minds and we know where we want to be."




http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=555600

Wow. It looks like Dre judges success by success. The guy wants to win! Just as I suspected.

Somebody better send him some fan mail and tell him to be happy with spins of constant improvement. He needs to get jacked up on how 8-8 is better than that other 8-8 and forget about those misleading win/loss columns. I mean, he almost seems dissatisfied with missing the playoffs.



Wait, let me guess! There is another interpretation of his quotes...

The Pencil Neck
06-03-2009, 11:02 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=555600

Wow. It looks like Dre judges success by success. The guy wants to win! Just as I suspected.

Somebody better send him some fan mail and tell him to be happy with spins of constant improvement. He needs to get jacked up on how 8-8 is better than that other 8-8 and forget about those misleading win/loss columns. I mean, he almost seems dissatisfied with missing the playoffs.



Wait, let me guess! There is another interpretation of his quotes...

I've said this before a few times.

What Andre is saying is exactly what players have to say and have to really feel to be great players. As a player, you can't be happy or satisfied with gradual improvement. You can't be happy with a little bit here and a little bit there. Every loss should be a slap in the face.

That's if you're a player.

If you're a fan, you've got to have a different worldview. If you have that player's type of view and you're not satisfied with your team... what can you do? Not buy tickets? Not watch them anymore? Basically stop being a fan? That's unacceptable to me.

Fans have to be able to look at the game and the season differently because their fanhood isn't defined over a few short seasons. It's defined by being a fan when the team sucks as well as when the team does well. If a team gets to the Super Bowl and loses, fans should be happy just to have gotten there and that their team is a winner while a player can't be satisfied with that loss. If a team is perennially in the play-offs and lose there, a fan should be happy while a player should be pissed off. If you're a fan then you've got to realize that there are going to be bad stretches. Every team goes through them. To a player, that's not acceptable.

To a fan, you should be happy if your team wins at least half its games, happier if it makes the play-offs, even happier if it gets to the championship or Super Bowl. To a player, you have to be pissed off unless you win the Super Bowl.

I want my team to win the Super Bowl every year but I'm perfectly fine if that doesn't happen. If my team is continually getting better, I'm happy. If my team is losing, I'm sad but I'm still a fan. If my team is 8-8, I'm not that upset because at least they weren't a losing team.

If you're only going to be happy if your team is winning the Super Bowl every year, then you should change your allegiance every year at the start of the season. And that's just being a fair weather fan and that's not acceptable to me... but that's the mind-set it takes to be a really great player.

Fox
06-03-2009, 11:40 PM
Crap, Andre wants to win? Someone's gonna have to break the news to him..... We've known for months now that Kubiak's incapable of winning more than 8 games!

Runner
06-04-2009, 07:51 AM
Crap, Andre wants to win? Someone's gonna have to break the news to him..... We've known for months now that Kubiak's incapable of winning more than 8 games!


Incapable? Wow, that is a weak claim. Of course, your quote was the first time I've seen that statement on this thread, so I don't know who "we" refers too...

I'm still with Dre even though I'm a lowly fan. I want success in the win/loss column over success in conversation; it is still the real measuring stick. I'm not going to let acceptance of average records build up like adipocerous over my expectations.

The Pencil Neck
06-04-2009, 10:16 AM
I'm still with Dre even though I'm a lowly fan. I want success in the win/loss column over success in conversation; it is still the real measuring stick. I'm not going to let acceptance of average records build up like adipocerous over my expectations.

We all want success. As a fan, all we can do is want it.

If you're a fan, you have to either accept the record they give you or you have to turn your back on the team. Those are your only choices. Your only way to "not accept" a mediocre or losing record is to walk away... or maybe run, in your case. :)

Runner
06-04-2009, 12:17 PM
We all want success. As a fan, all we can do is want it.

If you're a fan, you have to either accept the record they give you or you have to turn your back on the team. Those are your only choices. Your only way to "not accept" a mediocre or losing record is to walk away... or maybe run, in your case. :)

Don't forget the much used option of redefining, in hindsight, success as something other than winning.

My acceptance statement was argued against out of context. I said I wouldn't let acceptance of average seasons lower my expectations. The expectations part is important, although the whole statement is harder to argue against than just the fragment.

I fully accept that the Texans have never had a winning season. I expect better, and I expect changes if things don't get better in the next couple of years or so.

GP
06-04-2009, 02:28 PM
Don't forget the much used option of redefining, in hindsight, success as something other than winning.

My acceptance statement was argued against out of context. I said I wouldn't let acceptance of average seasons lower my expectations. The expectations part is important, although the whole statement is harder to argue against than just the fragment.

I fully accept that the Texans have never had a winning season. I expect better, and I expect changes if things don't get better in the next couple of years or so.

Next "couple" of years "or so."

What's the "or so" about?

I thought Kubiak had this year, and that if it was an 8-8 year (or hell, some say 9-7 or maybe even 10-6 won't cut it) that he would be fortunate to be given one more season which would then be his last chance. That's two years.

What's the "or so" supposed to mean?

Doesn't that indicate a possibility of more than 2 years, which I had ASSumed was totally incompatible with the mindset of some on this thread. It's this year, and MAYBE one more year if McNair is stupid enough to give him an extra year.

Once again, the thread was almost laid to rest...and once again one of the rain cloud club has to dig its stinking corpse up all over again. Maybe we should have cremated it...

GP
06-04-2009, 02:47 PM
I've said this before a few times.

What Andre is saying is exactly what players have to say and have to really feel to be great players. As a player, you can't be happy or satisfied with gradual improvement. You can't be happy with a little bit here and a little bit there. Every loss should be a slap in the face.

That's if you're a player.

If you're a fan, you've got to have a different worldview. If you have that player's type of view and you're not satisfied with your team... what can you do? Not buy tickets? Not watch them anymore? Basically stop being a fan? That's unacceptable to me.

Fans have to be able to look at the game and the season differently because their fanhood isn't defined over a few short seasons. It's defined by being a fan when the team sucks as well as when the team does well. If a team gets to the Super Bowl and loses, fans should be happy just to have gotten there and that their team is a winner while a player can't be satisfied with that loss. If a team is perennially in the play-offs and lose there, a fan should be happy while a player should be pissed off. If you're a fan then you've got to realize that there are going to be bad stretches. Every team goes through them. To a player, that's not acceptable.

To a fan, you should be happy if your team wins at least half its games, happier if it makes the play-offs, even happier if it gets to the championship or Super Bowl. To a player, you have to be pissed off unless you win the Super Bowl.

I want my team to win the Super Bowl every year but I'm perfectly fine if that doesn't happen. If my team is continually getting better, I'm happy. If my team is losing, I'm sad but I'm still a fan. If my team is 8-8, I'm not that upset because at least they weren't a losing team.

If you're only going to be happy if your team is winning the Super Bowl every year, then you should change your allegiance every year at the start of the season. And that's just being a fair weather fan and that's not acceptable to me... but that's the mind-set it takes to be a really great player.

I think hardcore fans go through their own seasons of being able to let stuff go and move on...and then getting very agitated over it at some point...and then maybe some indifference every now and then. I went through that over the past three seasons, and I'm back to thinking that things might actually be OK now.

I still think a lot of people who have been driving the hot seat argument are just trying to be somewhat of a one-upper to the dumbass fans who aren't smart enough to know how this thing called NFL really works. We need their help, they have the truth, and we WILL be told about it over and over and over and over and over.....

Double Barrel
06-04-2009, 02:58 PM
Johnson and Schaub often talk about their goal of making the playoffs, but Johnson said that talk is getting redundant.

:listening yada yada yada

16-0 until proven otherwise, right GP? https://www.embroiderydesigns.com/design_thumbs/small/Embroidery_Patterns/EMPGE00297A.jpg

Runner
06-04-2009, 03:04 PM
First of all, I'm speaking for myself so there is no need to challenge me to answer statements others have made. Attributing words of others to me in an effort to twist my meaning isn't a good argument against me. In fact, I'd say it might be seen as evidence that posters can't attack my post directly. I've seen that twisting by many posters on this thread.

"or so" means give or take a year. I am not one gifted with a crystal ball and can therefore say go 8-8 and fire the coaches this year. Nor am I one that knows for a fact through a different crystal ball that the team is buildng the right way and is guaranteed years of success with Kubiak at the helm. I know many factors must be evaluated; I just think win/loss record is the major component over a period of years. I doubt Kubiak lasts year after year after year with statistical and feel good improvements if they don't translate into wins.

In addition, I don't think I've said much, if anything, about firing Kubiak on this thread. I've been part of the side discussion that success in the NFL is measured in wins. That gets argument enough. There is more to this thread than the Kubiak hot seat, no matter what the title is. Cramming every statement into keep/fire Kubiak boxes is lazy thinking or seems to be done just so the poster can be raged at. My statement that wins are the most important measurement of success in the NFL (especially over time) does not mean "fire Kubiak". Reading my words should give a much better understanding of my points than changing everything to "he's a fire Kubiak guy".

About this thread being a stinking corpse

A) you knew what adipocerous means
B) you looked it up
C) what a coincidence

GP
06-04-2009, 03:04 PM
I'd rather have Gary Kubiak--Heck, I'd even rather have Kyle Shanahan as or head coach than these two bumbling idiots that The Czar talks about: Dumb and Dumber (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9637718/Mangini,-McDaniels-have-much-to-learn)

The two guys in this article are examples of owners playing Head Coach Lotto, and reaping the whirlwind for their attempt to try and get "a name."

Mangini might just be psycho after this latest genius idea he had.

GP
06-04-2009, 03:26 PM
First of all, I'm speaking for myself so there is no need to challenge me to answer statements others have made.

"or so" means give or take a year. I am not one gifted with a crystal ball and can therefore say go 8-8 and fire the coaches this year. Nor am I one that knows for a fact through a different crystal ball that the team is buildng the right way and is guaranteed years of success with Kubiak at the helm. I know many factors must be evaluated; I just think win/loss record is the major component over a period of years. I doubt Kubiak lasts year after year after year with statistical and feel good improvements if they don't translate into wins.

In addition, I don't think I've said much, if anything, about firing Kubiak on this thread. I've been part of the side discussion that success in the NFL is measured in wins. That gets argument enough.

About this thread being a stinking corpse

A) you knew what adipocerous means
B) you looked it up
C) what a coincidence

Uhh...unless I developed amnesia, I never looked up that word. I looked up the Holland painting forger guy you named. You include so many of them in your posts that it would take too long to research them all.

It's cute to try and keep up with your cryptic references. To a point. Then it begins to be a bit condescending, IMO, for people to be spoken to with words that most people stopped using after high school literature class ended.

I'd rather have Gary Kubiak stumble through a few seasons that should have been playoff years if it means that we suddenly take off and become a 10-year (long term) team that is either in the playoffs, AFC championship games, divisional winner, etc.

For example: Bowlen probably had to get rid of Shanahan because that era was just so over and done with for him. He goes out and grabs a name (McDaniels) because its obvious that a coach with the Patriots will better the Broncos. Except McDaniels is a freak just like Weis is, just like Mangini is. Bowlen went and grabbed a name. Yet sometimes a head coach just stumbles upon a great formula and has some weird breaks go his way (the Tom Brady effect, which only happened as early as it did because Bledsoe got hurt). I would have expected Mangini to be honest with himself after his Jets tenure, and realize that he needs to lay off the freak juice a bit...but hell nah. He's back with a vengeance. Is THAT what we want if Kubiak can't get it done? A freak show?

After the way I have seen the HC and GM gamble on a guy (Schaub) who started off weak and has come on strong--and not in the last game, mind you, but in the last 5 or 6 games in their totality, except the Oakland game which was actually a bad game for everyone--and having seen the trade down for Duane Brown and subsequent jackpot on Steve Slaton in the 3rd round, and seeing that Kubiak cut Richard Smith loose and is installing a d-coord who has the opposite philosophy of the guy before him. Having seen us grab some first round help for DeMeco, instead of trading down in a draft that was already a little weak to begin with. Well, that's how I define success: Does the guy in charge have the ability to change course and adjust, or does he keep doing the same thing over and over? I think I've seen Kubiak admit that he couldn't help Carr (instead of trying to be prideful and make him fit somehow). I've seen him refuse to buy the hype of Reggie Bush. I've seen him go out and grab Alex Gibbs and force this team to face the music and be a better running team for a change. There's been lots of success that doesn't always show as soon as we'd like it.

Success is not being the Detroit Lions. Success is not being Kyle Orton. The ultimate success would be Super Bowl. There's a lot of gray area between the Lions and a Super Bowl team.