PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Belichick Interview


smell the glove
12-31-2009, 11:00 AM
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2009/12/30/bill-belichick-q-a-1230/

I think what’s probably most impressive about the Texans is the kicking game

Not sure if serious? :winky:

Vinny
12-31-2009, 11:04 AM
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2009/12/30/bill-belichick-q-a-1230/

I think what’s probably most impressive about the Texans is the kicking game

Not sure if serious? :winky:
talk about a backhanded compliment.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 11:07 AM
I remember when he talked about the Texans in Week 1 on that
radio show. In his mind, there was no excuse for the Texans to look
so inept facing a Rex Ryan defense. He said that the Jets' defensive
scheme is a "Xerox" copy of the Ravens defense.

False Start
12-31-2009, 11:09 AM
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2009/12/30/bill-belichick-q-a-1230/

I think what’s probably most impressive about the Texans is the kicking game

Not sure if serious? :winky:

I saw that too.......:ok:

Thorn
12-31-2009, 11:10 AM
i believe he was talking about when we are punting or kicking off. Our coverage has been pretty good this year.

Cjeremy635
12-31-2009, 11:11 AM
Well, I take it they are coming to win. I like it like that. I want us to have to win our way into the playoffs against a team trying their best (granted, we need luck as well with other teams losing). Belichick said some nice things about our players, good to hear his positive comments.

smell the glove
12-31-2009, 11:16 AM
Well, I take it they are coming to win. I like it like that. I want us to have to win our way into the playoffs against a team trying their best (granted, we need luck as well with other teams losing). Belichick said some nice things about our players, good to hear his positive comments.

From the things he said about Casey it made me think that they might have been thinking hard about drafting him too

Goatcheese
12-31-2009, 11:28 AM
Is Bill a secret Texans Homer? :dancer:

GP
12-31-2009, 11:30 AM
i believe he was talking about when we are punting or kicking off. Our coverage has been pretty good this year.

Joe Marciano seems to be able to coach HIS unit into consistent patterns of positive performance. Always has.

Marciano is an unsung hero in my book. Verrrry good special teams coach.

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 11:38 AM
I remember when he talked about the Texans in Week 1 on that
radio show. In his mind, there was no excuse for the Texans to look
so inept facing a Rex Ryan defense. He said that the Jets' defensive
scheme is a "Xerox" copy of the Ravens defense.

& How did he do against his division rival in week 2?

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 11:47 AM
BB: Well, I think when you watch another team play or you compete against them you have a respect for the players are. And I think — in all honesty — you take a look at stats a lot more than we do. We watch the players play and you know who’s a good player and who isn’t regardless of what their stats are, where as I’m not sure if everybody else watches the players play. They look at the stats and try to make a determination on what the players play is based on numbers versus actually watching the guy play.

Interesting quote from the article.

JB
12-31-2009, 11:54 AM
& How did he do against his division rival in week 2?

NYJ-16
High powered NE- 9

Hardcore Texan
12-31-2009, 12:00 PM
[They have] a real explosive offense, great receivers, good quarterback, productive tight ends, solid offensive line

Is that just coach speak?

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 12:00 PM
NYJ-16
High powered NE- 9

Ewww.. kinda looked unprepared. he only scored 2 more points than the Texans.

Cjeremy635
12-31-2009, 12:02 PM
Is that just coach speak?

Well I doubt he would have said that when we were giving up 70+ sacks, coach speak or not.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 12:20 PM
& How did he do against his division rival in week 2?

They lost a close one 16-9, then destroyed them later in the season, 31-14.
They didn't get swept by two teams in their division, or lose 5 straight
division games. The Patriots also didn't get swept by an AVERAGE-AT-BEST
divisional team like the Jaguars. They also managed to go 4-2 in their division,
something we're still waiting on under the current regime.

Sunday will tell us if the Texans have taken the "next step", or just managed
to clinch an 8-8 season early in Week 16.

Apples to apples, my friend. Not apples to kumquats.

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 12:41 PM
They lost a close one 16-9,

Apples to apples, my friend. Not apples to kumquats.

Then lets try to keep it apples to apples. We're not talking about division records, or destroying a team the second time you play them.

We're talking about getting pwned by a rookie HC & a rookie QB.

My point is if it can happen to the genius that is Belichick, give Kubiak a little slack.

Every body knew Rex Ryan gets after the QB, but to come in and be so relentless.... Belicheck & Fisher didn't see it coming either.

kiwitexansfan
12-31-2009, 01:11 PM
Is that just coach speak?

You don't throw the ball as well as we do without a decent o-line, now if your talking about our line in the running game specifically, I don't think he would say solid.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 01:51 PM
Then lets try to keep it apples to apples. We're not talking about division records, or destroying a team the second time you play them.

We're talking about getting pwned by a rookie HC & a rookie QB.

My point is if it can happen to the genius that is Belichick, give Kubiak a little slack.

Every body knew Rex Ryan gets after the QB, but to come in and be so relentless.... Belicheck & Fisher didn't see it coming either.

Let's not talk about the things that matter, huh? Division records, getting
swept by a scrub team like the Jags, or the fact that our coach can't
put a winning season together to save his life, Opening Week 14 at 5-7
every damn year, just to make his miraculous 3-1 finish to save his job,
etc...

Understand now. Thank you for enlightening me....
:sarcasm:

mexican_texan
12-31-2009, 02:03 PM
Is that what good journalism is like? I've never read an interview like that with Kubiak.

Yankee_In_TX
12-31-2009, 02:07 PM
Joe Marciano seems to be able to coach HIS unit into consistent patterns of positive performance. Always has.

Marciano is an unsung hero in my book. Verrrry good special teams coach.

And my wife just won an autographed Coach Marciana hat from the breast cancer awareness game on an NFL.com auction.

He is her favorite Texans coach, partially because of what you just said.

m5kwatts
12-31-2009, 02:09 PM
We're all guilty of taking Joe Marciano for granted. I think thats really who Belichick was paying his compliment to. If anyone thinks special teams is less important than offense or defense look no farther than the Steelers this year. They're a great special teams unit away from being a 10-12 win team right now.

Goatcheese
12-31-2009, 02:12 PM
You've got to love coach Joe. Every time I see him I get the image of him racing down the sideline on a kick return TD, cheering his guys on. You have to admire that kind of passion.

b0ng
12-31-2009, 02:16 PM
Joe Marciano seems to be able to coach HIS unit into consistent patterns of positive performance. Always has.

Marciano is an unsung hero in my book. Verrrry good special teams coach.

Yet at the same time, lots of people want him fired. . . I don't get it.

Ryan
12-31-2009, 02:19 PM
He needs to tell his guys not to hold every time JJ returns the ball, and half the time it's not because of those holds that JJ breaks free.

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 02:24 PM
Let's not talk about the things that matter, huh? Division records, getting
swept by a scrub team like the Jags, or the fact that our coach can't
put a winning season together to save his life, Opening Week 14 at 5-7
every damn year, just to make his miraculous 3-1 finish to save his job,
etc...

Understand now. Thank you for enlightening me....
:sarcasm:

The point, is that the Jets took every body by surprise this year. It wasn't until week 4 until there was enough film on them for the NFL to prepare.

The argument that Kubiak was owned by a rookie HC & QB, so that makes him a bad coach, doesn't hold water, when successful coaches had the same trouble with the NYJets early in the season.

Or has the game left Bellichick & Fisher behind?

Outside of winning the division, what bearing does our division record have now? We're not worried about tie-breakers with Tennessee or Jacksonville now. Kubiak took care of business in week 16. Del Rio & Fisher did not.

I bet they'd trade places with us now for our division records.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 02:34 PM
The point, is that the Jets took every body by surprise this year. It wasn't until week 4 until there was enough film on them for the NFL to prepare.

The argument that Kubiak was owned by a rookie HC & QB, so that makes him a bad coach, doesn't hold water, when successful coaches had the same trouble with the NYJets early in the season.

Or has the game left Bellichick & Fisher behind?

Outside of winning the division, what bearing does our division record have now? We're not worried about tie-breakers with Tennessee or Jacksonville now. Kubiak took care of business in week 16. Del Rio & Fisher did not.

I bet they'd trade places with us now for our division records.

Well, genious, your division games account for 60% of your CONFERENCE
record. Tiebreakers DO matter when it comes to making the playoffs. We lose
head-to-head to the Jets, but the Broncos and Ravens have better conference
records than we do, largely because we lost FIVE division games.

houstonspartan
12-31-2009, 02:48 PM
Well, genious, your division games account for 60% of your CONFERENCE
record. Tiebreakers DO matter when it comes to making the playoffs. We lose
head-to-head to the Jets, but the Broncos and Ravens have better conference
records than we do, largely because we lost FIVE division games.

I'm really shocked that football fans don't know the importance of division games. Those games are the most important games we play.

TheCD
12-31-2009, 02:57 PM
I'm really shocked that football fans don't know the importance of division games. Those games are the most important games we play.

What he's getting at is not the unimportance of division games, but that in this case we're still better off than them.


Despite the Jags and Titans having better division records, they're out of the playoffs. We are still in play. The point he's making is that they'd trade us to at least be in our position this week, rather than to be playing for the offseason.

houstonspartan
12-31-2009, 03:08 PM
What he's getting at is not the unimportance of division games, but that in this case we're still better off than them.


Despite the Jags and Titans having better division records, they're out of the playoffs. We are still in play. The point he's making is that they'd trade us to at least be in our position this week, rather than to be playing for the offseason.

Ah, ok, that makes sense. He just wan't as clear as you are.

I didn't know that Tenn was out of it. I thought they were hanging on by a thin margin like we were. Interesting.

Beer and Metal
12-31-2009, 03:09 PM
Well, genious, your division games account for 60% of your CONFERENCE
record. Tiebreakers DO matter when it comes to making the playoffs. We lose
head-to-head to the Jets, but the Broncos and Ravens have better conference
records than we do, largely because we lost FIVE division games.

It's really funny that you misspelled genius.:fingergun:

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 03:16 PM
It's really funny that you misspelled genius.:fingergun:

lol. I never claimed to be a genious, but he sure posts like HE is.

TheCD
12-31-2009, 03:17 PM
Ah, ok, that makes sense. He just wan't as clear as you are.

I didn't know that Tenn was out of it. I thought they were hanging on by a thin margin like we were. Interesting.

Technically they are still in it. But Earth has to reverse its rotational spin, L. Ron has to make his triumphant return and give Tom Cruise his blessing, the Clippers have to win a championship this year, AND both the Cubs and Mets have to win a World Series in the same year.


Yeah...it could happen...

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 05:03 PM
Well, genious, your division games account for 60% of your CONFERENCE
record. Tiebreakers DO matter when it comes to making the playoffs. We lose
head-to-head to the Jets, but the Broncos and Ravens have better conference
records than we do, largely because we lost FIVE division games.
you're right, I'm getting off track.

tell me that you think Bellichick & Fisher are crappy coaches, & we'll put the Jets win against us to rest.

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 05:06 PM
I'm really shocked that football fans don't know the importance of division games. Those games are the most important games we play.

It's not about the importance of division games, he keeps changing the subject of the argument. My comment about division record in that post was contrasting Kubiak to Fisher & Del Rio. We're still in the hunt, they are not, even though they have a better division record.

If we win our next game(or if they both lose their next game), we will finish second in the AFC South, even though we don't have the second best division record.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 05:21 PM
The point, is that the Jets took every body by surprise this year. It wasn't until week 4 until there was enough film on them for the NFL to prepare.

The argument that Kubiak was owned by a rookie HC & QB, so that makes him a bad coach, doesn't hold water, when successful coaches had the same trouble with the NYJets early in the season.

Or has the game left Bellichick & Fisher behind?

Outside of winning the division, what bearing does our division record have now? We're not worried about tie-breakers with Tennessee or Jacksonville now. Kubiak took care of business in week 16. Del Rio & Fisher did not.

I bet they'd trade places with us now for our division records.

I'll give you Fisher and Delrio are finished in the playoff race. However,
I was responding to the question in bold. You're right. We're not worried
about Tennesse or Jacksonville now. Because our division record is so bad,
Denver and Baltimore are in better position to grab that last wildcard. You
wanted know what bearing our division record has outside of the division,
and THERE in lies your answer. If your division record sucks, your
conference record is more likely to suck. Thus, no control over your
wildcard future, and you've placed it in to the hands of Denver and
Baltimore.

I didn't change the subject. I addressed your question, which I've bolded.

thunderkyss
12-31-2009, 05:33 PM
I'll give you Fisher and Delrio are finished in the playoff race. However,
I was responding to the question in bold. You're right. We're not worried
about Tennesse or Jacksonville now. Because our division record is so bad,
Denver and Baltimore are in better position to grab that last wildcard. You
wanted know what bearing our division record has outside of the division,
and THERE in lies your answer.


I didn't change the subject. I addressed your question, which I've bolded.

The question was rhetorical.

People group sentences together to convey a thought. I think they call it a paragraph. All the sentences go together to provide something called context.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 05:45 PM
The question was rhetorical.

People group sentences together to convey a thought. I think they call it a paragraph. All the sentences go together to provide something called context.

Maybe you should number your rhetorical questions, in order, to properly
form the context in which you'd like others to respond.
:sarcasm:

Fair enough.

ObsiWan
12-31-2009, 06:40 PM
i believe he was talking about when we are punting or kicking off. Our coverage has been pretty good this year.

I think that's what he meant too. He was talking about Joe's bunch and how well they cover kicks and return kicks - in fact, he went into some detail about it, mentioning Bentley, J.J., and A.D. by name.

infantrycak
12-31-2009, 07:00 PM
For the record we are 13th on avg kick return and 2nd on avg punt return.

ObsiWan
12-31-2009, 07:21 PM
For the record we are 13th on avg kick return and 2nd on avg punt return.

a 4.3 punt return avg is pretty dang good
way better than last year's 11+ yds/punt return.

Brisco_County
12-31-2009, 08:42 PM
I'm surprised by how well Belichick knows this team. He probably studies up on every player in the league for the purpose of talent acquisition. It also looks like he would've gladly taken James Casey if the Texans hadn't. He likes athletes who can play multiple positions.

I found it funny that he considers Houston's passing game to be superior to Indy and New Orleans. I have a feeling that if Kubiak were ever fired, Belichick would be the first person calling him.

Also, that interview didn't read like someone who plans on sitting his starters in the 3rd quarter.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 08:47 PM
Belichick appears to study the game as if it were chess. He seems to have
intricate knowledge of every phase of the game. A true student of football.
I'd bet he's boring as all hell if he was forced to converse in a non-football
setting.

Switch the subject to the game, and I'd bet he'd light up. So, the
next time anybody wants to compare Kubiak to him, tell them to put a
sock in it. This guy is ALL about football, and little else. Kubiak seems much
more like a well-rounded fella.

infantrycak
12-31-2009, 09:08 PM
Belichick appears to study the game as if it were chess. He seems to have
intricate knowledge of every phase of the game. A true student of football.
I'd bet he's boring as all hell if he was forced to converse in a non-football
setting.

Switch the subject to the game, and I'd bet he'd light up. So, the
next time anybody wants to compare Kubiak to him, tell them to put a
sock in it. This guy is ALL about football, and little else. Kubiak seems much
more like a well-rounded fella.

So your conjecture goes. Go back to his 4th season with Cleveland and he was a coordinator who just couldn't cut it as a HC.

GP
12-31-2009, 09:11 PM
So your conjecture goes. Go back to his 4th season with Cleveland and he was a coordinator who just couldn't cut it as a HC.

Which means Gary Kubiak just might turn out to be the next big thing.

It's written in the stars...

:kitten:

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 09:13 PM
So your conjecture goes. Go back to his 4th season with Cleveland and he was a coordinator who just couldn't cut it as a HC.

I'm speaking of the coach he is NOW. As I'm sure you know, some people
need a swift kick-in-the-ass before they reach their full potential in life.
He HAD to be fired in Cleveland, in order for him to discover what it takes
to become successful. I hope Bob Mcnair's rearing his foot back, in order
to give Kubes the help HE needs.

The Pencil Neck
12-31-2009, 09:13 PM
Which means Gary Kubiak could just turn out to be the next big thing.

:kitten:

If you give him a chance, yes.

The Pencil Neck
12-31-2009, 09:14 PM
I'm speaking of the coach he is NOW. As I'm sure you know, some people
need a swift kick-in-the-ass before they reach their full potential in life.
He HAD to be fired in Cleveland, in order for him to discover what it takes
to become successful. I hope Bob Mcnair's rearing his foot back, in order
to give Kubes the help HE needs.

You would have fired Dungy, too, right?

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 09:15 PM
You would have fired Dungy, too, right?

He became a better coach after he left Tampa Bay. Hate to say it, but
it's true.

The Pencil Neck
12-31-2009, 09:17 PM
He became a better coach after he left Tampa Bay. Hate to say it, but
it's true.

I meant while he was at Indy. Lots of people were calling for his head because he couldn't win the big one.

And I think he would have won that SB that Gruden won. That was Dungy's team.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 09:19 PM
I meant while he was at Indy. Lots of people were calling for his head because he couldn't win the big one.

And I think he would have won that SB that Gruden won. That was Dungy's team.

There's a HUGE difference from perennial playoff appearances, and NEVER
sniffing the first round. Gruden ALSO built the Raiders into perennial
PLAYOFF TEAMS.

Kubiak's not in their class. Compare him to coaches in his paygrade like
Mike Shula and Jim Mora, Jr.

Silver Oak
12-31-2009, 09:21 PM
I'm speaking of the coach he is NOW. As I'm sure you know, some people
need a swift kick-in-the-ass before they reach their full potential in life.
He HAD to be fired in Cleveland, in order for him to discover what it takes
to become successful. I hope Bob Mcnair's rearing his foot back, in order
to give Kubes the help HE needs.

as I recall it, Belichick resigned his HC position in Cleveland.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 09:25 PM
as I recall it, Belichick resigned his HC position in Cleveland.

Classy decision by the man. Even HE knew he needed to take a break to
"study up."

GP
12-31-2009, 09:43 PM
If you give him a chance, yes.

Well as long as we're going to connect a few dots here...

Then Gary Kubiak would need to move on and then go take over another team in order to be the next big thing.

Is that what we're dealing with here? Fear of losing a great head coach and having him go somewhere else and be a big hit?

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...The Jets just might make it to the playoffs with a rookie head coach and a rookie QB.

The Ravens might make it to the playoffs for two straight years under their relatively new head coach and 2nd-year QB. Last year's Herculean effort was no joke.

And our only hope is found in combinations of mathematical scenarios.

The Pencil Neck
12-31-2009, 09:50 PM
There's a HUGE difference from perennial playoff appearances, and NEVER
sniffing the first round. Gruden ALSO built the Raiders into perennial
PLAYOFF TEAMS.

Kubiak's not in their class. Compare him to coaches in his paygrade like
Mike Shula and Jim Mora, Jr.

You don't THINK Kubiak's in their class.

Jim Mora, Jr. has had a record that has gotten worse every year. he started off at 11-5, then went 8-8, then went 7-9 (lost that job) and now has gone 5-10. He might be able to turn it around and get himself up to Kubes' level.

Mike Shula, otoh, went 5-11, 3-13, 3-13, 7-9.

If you're comparing Kubiak to Mike Shula then... I can't say anything about that without insulting you.

Gruden had 2 good years with the Buccs and several bad years with them. If you want a guy that's gone 7-9, 5-11, 4-12, and a couple of 9-7 years, then go and get Gruden but even with his SB ring, he's no better than Kubiak. And probably worse. He did help build a good Raider team but it's not like he walked in and turned them into contenders.

And like I said, even with a perennial winner, people were calling for Dungy's head. Just like people in Pittsburgh were calling for Cowher's head before he finally won a big game. I think Kubes is on the verge of turning this team into a perennial winner.

And you think he's Mike Shula? Child, please.

The Pencil Neck
12-31-2009, 09:58 PM
Well as long as we're going to connect a few dots here...

Then Gary Kubiak would need to move on and then go take over another team in order to be the next big thing.

Is that what we're dealing with here? Fear of losing a great head coach and having him go somewhere else and be a big hit?

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...The Jets just might make it to the playoffs with a rookie head coach and a rookie QB.

The Ravens might make it to the playoffs for two straight years under their relatively new head coach and 2nd-year QB. Last year's Herculean effort was no joke.

And our only hope is found in combinations of mathematical scenarios.

How's that rookie head coach working for the Rams? How's that rookie head coach working for the Lions? How's that rookie head coach working for the Buccs? How's that rookie head coach working out for the Chiefs? How did Norv Turner work out for the Raiders? How did Kiffin work out for the Raiders? How did Petrino work out for the Falcons? How did Dennis Green work out in Arizona?

You guys are acting like changing coaches is a sure fire way to improve your team. It isn't. Even getting coaches who've been successful in the past isn't a sure bet that they'll be successful with a new team.

GP
12-31-2009, 10:02 PM
I meant while he was at Indy. Lots of people were calling for his head because he couldn't win the big one.

And I think he would have won that SB that Gruden won. That was Dungy's team.

There's no possible way to know that.

There's the same amount of probability that he DOESN'T take the Bucs to the Super Bowl.

Sometimes people need to move on. Failure is a great teacher.

I just get the feeling that Gary Kubiak isn't progressing or learning here.

Yes, the offense has progressed. Nobody can deny it. But the quality of your offense doesn't directly translate into overall success. It's like watching a really good Elvis impersonator: He reminds you of the Real Deal, but you know you're not watching the Real Deal. It's nice, but it's not the Real Deal.

Jeff Fisher and Del Rio both strike me as the typical NFL coach. They will tear your arm off and beat you over your head with it. Then they will throw your arm through a wood chipper and sprinkle the bloody sawdust onto your head. And laugh at you. Repeatedly.

Us? We either spot our opponent the whole first half, or we get a lead in the first half and then take a proverbial knee for the whole 2nd half. You cannot beat teams and make the playoffs with that sort of mentality.

All we needed to do is win half of our divisional games. Just split each series. Or sweep one series (Titans, maybe?) and win only one game from either the Jags or the Colts (more likely we win one from the Jags)...if we do that, we're probably in the driver's seat for the Wild Card spot.

This was the year to do it. This was the year to do it on our own, and to not need friendly math scenarios to occur. We had the favorable schedule. Our other two divisional rivals were weakened this year.

What a golden opportunity.

GP
12-31-2009, 10:07 PM
How's that rookie head coach working for the Rams? How's that rookie head coach working for the Lions? How's that rookie head coach working for the Buccs? How's that rookie head coach working out for the Chiefs? How did Norv Turner work out for the Raiders? How did Kiffin work out for the Raiders? How did Petrino work out for the Falcons? How did Dennis Green work out in Arizona?

You guys are acting like changing coaches is a sure fire way to improve your team. It isn't. Even getting coaches who've been successful in the past isn't a sure bet that they'll be successful with a new team.

You never know unless you try.

I see now that this is certainly what we're dealing with: Fear.

Better to be mediocre and hope things line up some day, I suppose.

DexmanC
12-31-2009, 10:21 PM
You never know unless you try.

I see now that this is certainly what we're dealing with: Fear.

Better to be mediocre and hope things line up some day, I suppose.

Exactly. The certainty of perennial 8-8 seasons is more comforting than
actually STRIVING. Competitive people know that without risk, there is
no reward. The only thing we're guaranteeing here is another 7-9 to 9-7
season, because Club Med/Reliant will stay intact yet another year.
You can see it in our post game interviews, and the pre game videos during
the week. They guys are alway "ho hum" over losses. There isn't a SINGLE
veteran warrior in that locker room, and the management refuses to go
out and get a guy to grab those young "leaders" by the facemask.

What you get is a dog with a lotta bark and no bite. The Texans were
a tripping call, and a botched call on a fumble away from LOSING TO MIAMI.
27-0 leads are NOT safe with this coaching staff, because they can't INSTILL
the ruthlessness you NEED to win in the NFL. Teams like the Colts just wait for their
shot, because they know the Texans can't close them out. Jacksonville handed the
ball off the MJD ELEVEN STRAIGHT TIMES to ice the game, and they got THREE
1ST DOWNS out of it.

It falls on this regime to coach up the players THEY'VE SELECTED, or get players to properly
run what they teach. THEY chose to leave Myers and Brisiel, substandard starters, IN THERE.
THEY must suffer the consequences of THEIR decisions. Ya'll act like losing Brisiel was a big
deal. He's not as talented as his backup! If you look at the replay of the second Titans game,
it was BRISIEL who was BLOWN UP, and TOOK OUT Chester Pitts.

We'd rather not talk about that, though...

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 12:00 AM
There's no possible way to know that.

There's the same amount of probability that he DOESN'T take the Bucs to the Super Bowl.

Sometimes people need to move on. Failure is a great teacher.

I just get the feeling that Gary Kubiak isn't progressing or learning here.

Yes, the offense has progressed. Nobody can deny it. But the quality of your offense doesn't directly translate into overall success. It's like watching a really good Elvis impersonator: He reminds you of the Real Deal, but you know you're not watching the Real Deal. It's nice, but it's not the Real Deal.

Jeff Fisher and Del Rio both strike me as the typical NFL coach. They will tear your arm off and beat you over your head with it. Then they will throw your arm through a wood chipper and sprinkle the bloody sawdust onto your head. And laugh at you. Repeatedly.

Us? We either spot our opponent the whole first half, or we get a lead in the first half and then take a proverbial knee for the whole 2nd half. You cannot beat teams and make the playoffs with that sort of mentality.

All we needed to do is win half of our divisional games. Just split each series. Or sweep one series (Titans, maybe?) and win only one game from either the Jags or the Colts (more likely we win one from the Jags)...if we do that, we're probably in the driver's seat for the Wild Card spot.

This was the year to do it. This was the year to do it on our own, and to not need friendly math scenarios to occur. We had the favorable schedule. Our other two divisional rivals were weakened this year.

What a golden opportunity.

What can I say. There's so much in your post that I disagree with.

If you were a fan of the Titans or the Jaguars, you'd be calling for Fisher and Del Rio's heads. Seriously. You know you would be.

What happened when the Dolphins played the Titans? The Titans jumped all over them and then the Dolphins came back and tied the game. You'd be saying "FIRE FISHER! He's never won a Superbowl and he's never going to win a Superbowl."

Del Rio? In 7 years, he's made the playoffs twice. You want that? How'd he fare against the Dolphins? Lost it by 4? You think he seriously has a chance to win a Superbowl?

You say there's no improvement, and then you say there's improvement but it's not Kubiak that's improving. I think Kubiak is improving.

Yeah, if we had won one more game, we'd be in the 5th seed right now. Doesn't matter if it's a divisional game or not. Doesn't even matter if it's a conference game. If we were sitting at 9-6 right now, we'd be the 5th seed. And we had lots of opportunities to win that game. A play here or a play there and voila, we're in the driver's seat.

And this is the first time we've ever been able to say that in our existence. And that's progress. And that's why we're keeping Kubiak.

buddyboy
01-01-2010, 12:08 AM
Well, genious, your division games account for 60% of your CONFERENCE
record. Tiebreakers DO matter when it comes to making the playoffs. We lose
head-to-head to the Jets, but the Broncos and Ravens have better conference
records than we do, largely because we lost FIVE division games.

lol, I hate being the internet spelling police as much as the next guy, but the irony is too funny.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 12:08 AM
You never know unless you try.

I see now that this is certainly what we're dealing with: Fear.

Better to be mediocre and hope things line up some day, I suppose.

Better than shooting yourself in the head every two years. How's that working for the Lions, Redskins, and Raiders?

I'd rather have a shot at the playoffs than a shot at the first pick in the draft.

buddyboy
01-01-2010, 12:15 AM
Exactly. The certainty of perennial 8-8 seasons is more comforting than
actually STRIVING. Competitive people know that without risk, there is
no reward. The only thing we're guaranteeing here is another 7-9 to 9-7
season, because Club Med/Reliant will stay intact yet another year.
You can see it in our post game interviews, and the pre game videos during
the week. They guys are alway "ho hum" over losses. There isn't a SINGLE
veteran warrior in that locker room, and the management refuses to go
out and get a guy to grab those young "leaders" by the facemask.

What you get is a dog with a lotta bark and no bite. The Texans were
a tripping call, and a botched call on a fumble away from LOSING TO MIAMI.
27-0 leads are NOT safe with this coaching staff, because they can't INSTILL
the ruthlessness you NEED to win in the NFL. Teams like the Colts just wait for their
shot, because they know the Texans can't close them out. Jacksonville handed the
ball off the MJD ELEVEN STRAIGHT TIMES to ice the game, and they got THREE
1ST DOWNS out of it.

It falls on this regime to coach up the players THEY'VE SELECTED, or get players to properly
run what they teach. THEY chose to leave Myers and Brisiel, substandard starters, IN THERE.
THEY must suffer the consequences of THEIR decisions. Ya'll act like losing Brisiel was a big
deal. He's not as talented as his backup! If you look at the replay of the second Titans game,
it was BRISIEL who was BLOWN UP, and TOOK OUT Chester Pitts.

We'd rather not talk about that, though...

I wasn't aware that we are CERTAIN that the Texans are stuck in 8-8 seasons. It's absolutely comical that you would talk in absolutes like that, especially when we're not even 8-8 THIS year yet.

Sounds like someone really doesn't want the Texans to win on Sunday just so that his CERTAINTY that they'll be 8-8 forever will be true.

The Third Man
01-01-2010, 12:48 AM
I wasn't aware that we are CERTAIN that the Texans are stuck in 8-8 seasons. It's absolutely comical that you would talk in absolutes like that, especially when we're not even 8-8 THIS year yet.

Sounds like someone really doesn't want the Texans to win on Sunday just so that his CERTAINTY that they'll be 8-8 forever will be true.

:clap:
I get that feeling, as well.

thunderkyss
01-01-2010, 01:59 AM
Belichick appears to study the game as if it were chess. He seems to have
intricate knowledge of every phase of the game. A true student of football.
I'd bet he's boring as all hell if he was forced to converse in a non-football
setting.

Switch the subject to the game, and I'd bet he'd light up. So, the
next time anybody wants to compare Kubiak to him, tell them to put a
sock in it. This guy is ALL about football, and little else. Kubiak seems much
more like a well-rounded fella.

Even though he blew a call on 4 & 2 that cost him a game...... this year.

thunderkyss
01-01-2010, 02:34 AM
There's no possible way to know that.

There's the same amount of probability that he DOESN'T take the Bucs to the Super Bowl.

Sometimes people need to move on. Failure is a great teacher.

I agree... but the point is, that was Dungy's team. They had hit a plateau, and were moving past the prime years of many of the players they "developed".

Gruden did a great job of coming in & motivating Dungy's guys to a Super Bowl. But he could not repeat, he couldn't even repeat the success he created for the Raiders by resurrecting the career of a forgotten FA QB. There were a lot of things that synergistically worked together for Gruden to be successful.

Dungy followed a simple formula. Draft good players, develop good players, & get good at playing football. Dungy developed a perenial play-off team, not Gruden.

Had Dungy stayed in TB, they may never have won a Super Bowl. & the Colts may not have either. But the Bucs would be a good team today, dominating the NFC South, winning 12 games a year, every year.

I just get the feeling that Gary Kubiak isn't progressing or learning here.

Fair enough. We're breaking team records every other day, making first time accomplishments every other month... I don't understand how you come to that conclusion.

Jeff Fisher and Del Rio both strike me as the typical NFL coach. They will tear your arm off and beat you over your head with it. Then they will throw your arm through a wood chipper and sprinkle the bloody sawdust onto your head. And laugh at you. Repeatedly.

First & foremost, how would you feel if you were treated that way? Is that the way you want to be treated of not?

Secondly, how is that working out for them? Neither are sniffing a play-off this year.

Third, have you ever seen Dungy act like that?

All we needed to do is win half of our divisional games. Just split each series. Or sweep one series (Titans, maybe?) and win only one game from either the Jags or the Colts (more likely we win one from the Jags)...if we do that, we're probably in the driver's seat for the Wild Card spot.

I get that. We missed that opportunity. But it's done, and we've got another opportunity right in front of us, to still do something this team has never done before.... go 9-7. With some help, we'll can possibly also get our first play-off berth, & possibly win a play-off game before the Cowboys.

Lots of other coaches have done worse with better situations. But the foundations Kubiak is building looks strong. Very strong.

I think some people are "putting the horse before the cart" We are talented. Very talented. But we aren't a good team yet. I don't think we need someone to grab a face mask & get in his kool-aid, to make this a good team. I think All we need is time to gell on both sides of the ball.

This was the year to do it. This was the year to do it on our own, and to not need friendly math scenarios to occur. We had the favorable schedule. Our other two divisional rivals were weakened this year.

What a golden opportunity.

If you look at the Jags & the Titans, then look at the Colts.... the difference between them is night & day. The Jags & Titans never built that base, that foundation that supports years & years of success. The Titans have more so than the Jags.

But you see the Colts at the top of the division (Like the Patriots) year in & year out, while the Titans & Jags, Dolphins & Jets bounce in & out of the play-offs (over a decades time) with 10 & 6 win seasons.

I see Kubiak taking us down the path of the Colts. Changing Coaches (in spite of the success we have had) will put us in the class of the Titans & Jags.

The Colts are still ahead of us.

The Jags & Titans are behind us.

I don't understand why we would want to go back.

wagonhed
01-01-2010, 05:59 AM
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2009/12/30/bill-belichick-q-a-1230/

I think what’s probably most impressive about the Texans is the kicking game

Not sure if serious? :winky:

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I actually agree with this statement.

Our special teams have been absolutely incredible this year, and I was talking about this last Sunday with my brother. Most notably our kick defense has been doing a phenomenal job. As far as I remember, we haven't let a single kick be returned for a TD, and I can't even remember one breaking for more than 20 or so yards.

Not an especially glamorous aspect of a team, but our ST defense is damn solid and I feel really good about that. It's one of those little things that actually makes a big difference.

infantrycak
01-01-2010, 08:34 AM
There's a HUGE difference from perennial playoff appearances, and NEVER
sniffing the first round. Gruden ALSO built the Raiders into perennial
PLAYOFF TEAMS.

Kubiak's not in their class. Compare him to coaches in his paygrade like
Mike Shula and Jim Mora, Jr.

And any credibility slid right off the cracker. The Raiders got to the Super Bowl the next year and were slaughtered. Ever since then they have sucked that little piece of toilet paper that just barely clings to the bowl rather than flushes. They haven't topped 5 wins in 7 seasons since. Get a dictionary on what perennial means. I hear they have them on-line now.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 09:15 AM
And any credibility slid right off the cracker. The Raiders got to the Super Bowl the next year and were slaughtered. Ever since then they have sucked that little piece of toilet paper that just barely clings to the bowl rather than flushes. They haven't topped 5 wins in 7 seasons since. Get a dictionary on what perennial means. I hear they have them on-line now.

The Raiders slid when Gruden left. The Bucs slid when Dungy left. So, what.
Mired in 8-8 is not where I want to be. Houston is a soft ass town on its
mediocre teams, which is why they never push to be GREAT.

TheCD
01-01-2010, 10:30 AM
I agree... but the point is, that was Dungy's team. They had hit a plateau, and were moving past the prime years of many of the players they "developed".

Gruden did a great job of coming in & motivating Dungy's guys to a Super Bowl. But he could not repeat, he couldn't even repeat the success he created for the Raiders by resurrecting the career of a forgotten FA QB. There were a lot of things that synergistically worked together for Gruden to be successful.

Dungy followed a simple formula. Draft good players, develop good players, & get good at playing football. Dungy developed a perenial play-off team, not Gruden.

Had Dungy stayed in TB, they may never have won a Super Bowl. & the Colts may not have either. But the Bucs would be a good team today, dominating the NFC South, winning 12 games a year, every year.


This is a total aside and I'm going to get roasted for this, but I've always thought that Dungy was a completely overrated "defensive-minded" coach. Head coach he was great at, but I think he lacked in the area of defense.

His Tampa team was outstanding, no doubt. But that Colts defense was always in the bottom of the league, requiring the offense to outplay it's mistakes. Yes, I am aware they always drafted for offense, but the defense is extremely responsible for several playoff exits.

Just my opinion, I'm probably alone in that.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 10:38 AM
This is a total aside and I'm going to get roasted for this, but I've always thought that Dungy was a completely overrated "defensive-minded" coach. Head coach he was great at, but I think he lacked in the area of defense.

His Tampa team was outstanding, no doubt. But that Colts defense was always in the bottom of the league, requiring the offense to outplay it's mistakes. Yes, I am aware they always drafted for offense, but the defense is extremely responsible for several playoff exits.

Just my opinion, I'm probably alone in that.

Them hitting on Derrick Brooks and Warren Sapp in '95 had a LOT to do
with the development of that defense.

Hopefully, something similar happens with the Mario Willams and Demeco
Ryans draft of '06.

thunderkyss
01-01-2010, 11:26 AM
The Raiders slid when Gruden left. The Bucs slid when Dungy left. So, what.
Mired in 8-8 is not where I want to be. Houston is a soft ass town on its
mediocre teams, which is why they never push to be GREAT.

Can you please back of the "mired in 8-8" talk until after Sunday?

It's only a couple of more days away.

Silver Oak
01-01-2010, 11:30 AM
The Raiders slid when Gruden left. The Bucs slid when Dungy left. So, what.
Mired in 8-8 is not where I want to be. Houston is a soft ass town on its
mediocre teams, which is why they never push to be GREAT.

I don't think 8 years is enough of a sample size to declare this as being true.

ObsiWan
01-01-2010, 11:35 AM
Them hitting on Derrick Brooks and Warren Sapp in '95 had a LOT to do
with the development of that defense.

Hopefully, something similar happens with the Mario Willams and Demeco
Ryans draft of '06.

Inheriting John Lynch and Hardy Nickerson didn't hurt Dungy's defensive scheme either.

Now we have Pollard and Cushing as two more defensive studs.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 02:10 PM
This is a total aside and I'm going to get roasted for this, but I've always thought that Dungy was a completely overrated "defensive-minded" coach. Head coach he was great at, but I think he lacked in the area of defense.

His Tampa team was outstanding, no doubt. But that Colts defense was always in the bottom of the league, requiring the offense to outplay it's mistakes. Yes, I am aware they always drafted for offense, but the defense is extremely responsible for several playoff exits.

Just my opinion, I'm probably alone in that.

Dungy didn't get that reputation at Tampa Bay. He got that reputation by being a Defensive Coordinator with the Steelers and Vikings as well as being a Defensive Backs coach. So when he went to Tampa Bay, he brought the system he'd already developed and along with Monty Kiffin installed it.

A lot of coaches build a reputation and an expectation of the team they're going to create based on their previous history. But it rarely works out like that. A good coach looks at the players he has and the players he can get and figures out a way to make it work.

When Dungy went to the Colts, Mora had already built a team with a powerful offense and Dungy was smart enough to leave it alone and to keep building on it. When Gruden went to Tampa Bay, he had a team with a great D but not a great offense and he was expected to turn that offense around, he didn't. Brian Billick was expected to create a high-flying passing attack like he'd been a part of in Minnesota... and instead got lucky with the defense.

You can find lots of cases where a coach is expected to improve one side of the ball when he's made the head coach and it just doesn't work out that way.

Lucky
01-01-2010, 02:41 PM
My point is if it can happen to the genius that is Belichick, give Kubiak a little slack.
Bill Belichick has earned all kinds of slack. Please, stop with the comparisons of Gary Kubiak to great coaches. They do not apply.

So your conjecture goes. Go back to his 4th season with Cleveland and he was a coordinator who just couldn't cut it as a HC.
I'm sure you're aware of this, but I want to point out that the Browns were in an unique situation in '95, as a lame duck team. Belichick did take the Browns to the playoffs the previous season.

But, there was a difference in Belichick's two coaching stints. His Browns drafts were poor. His drafts with the Patriots have been good to great. That's why Belichick has had lasting success. That, and he can outcoach just about anyone.


Jim Mora, Jr. has had a record that has gotten worse every year. he started off at 11-5, then went 8-8, then went 7-9 (lost that job) and now has gone 5-10. He might be able to turn it around and get himself up to Kubes' level.

Jim Mora, Jr - 31-32 (1-1 playoffs)
Gary Kubiak - 30-33 (0-0 playoffs)

Kubiak is almost up to Mora, Jr.'s level. That is an appropriate comparison. Good coordinator. Not a good head coach.

And any credibility slid right off the cracker. The Raiders got to the Super Bowl the next year and were slaughtered. Ever since then they have sucked that little piece of toilet paper that just barely clings to the bowl rather than flushes.
That can't be placed upon Gruden. The demise of the Raiders rests solely on His Excellence, Darth Dementia.

I like message boards because I love a good-spirited argument. I'm happy that infantrycak is leaning to the other side of the Kubiak debate, because I like going against the best.

GP
01-01-2010, 03:20 PM
Better than shooting yourself in the head every two years. How's that working for the Lions, Redskins, and Raiders?

I'd rather have a shot at the playoffs than a shot at the first pick in the draft.

Then how do we treat the Falcons who lost Petrino and added a better head coach right after his departure?

Every bad situation is waiting for an opportunistic person to come along and inject life into it. Some teams are very reactionary. This one is NOT.

So I don't see the comparison to how we would end up like the Lions or Redskins if we made a move. Four seasons is a good length of time for a coach to show if he can hang in this league, at this moment in time.

Kubiak's stopped the bleeding. Just like Dungy moved on, and Gruden came in and capitalized off of Dungy's work, some person might come in and do the same with what Gary has built here.

Dungy came in and took over Mora, Sr.'s body of work at Indy, and built upon what Mora, Sr. was constructing there in Indy.

Harbaugh came in and capitalized off of Billick's hard work and foundational efforts with the Ravens.

It happens all the time. There's no need to fear "change" in this sort of manner, IMO. We're set for an opportunistic person to come in and tweak this team to the point of propelling it to a higher standard.

Goldensilence
01-01-2010, 03:41 PM
How's that rookie head coach working for the Rams? How's that rookie head coach working for the Lions? How's that rookie head coach working for the Buccs? How's that rookie head coach working out for the Chiefs? How did Norv Turner work out for the Raiders? How did Kiffin work out for the Raiders? How did Petrino work out for the Falcons? How did Dennis Green work out in Arizona?

You guys are acting like changing coaches is a sure fire way to improve your team. It isn't. Even getting coaches who've been successful in the past isn't a sure bet that they'll be successful with a new team.

Spagnulo took over a pretty bad Rams team. If you're willing to give Kubiak 4 years you got to give Spags the same, as well for for Schwartz(who I think had done good considering what he's been given). Bucs I'll give you, I never thought Raheem was a legit coaching candidate, however, Freeman does look like he's got a future there. Same thing in KC. If you're willing to give Kubiak 4 years you gotta give other guys a chance as well. Most of those guys inherited teams just as bad if not worse then Gary.

I don't think Turner or Kiffin were put in good situations to be fair. Petrino quit on that team. Will give you Dennis Green, but he left some good pieces for Grimm.

To be fair in that argument most of the guys you mention took over BAD teams. There are some things that Kubiak has done questionably no doubt, but if a coaching change is made it's not like the new HC is going to take over a BAD team. He'll be taking over a team that just can't seem to get over the hump.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 05:38 PM
Jim Mora, Jr - 31-32 (1-1 playoffs)
Gary Kubiak - 30-33 (0-0 playoffs)

Kubiak is almost up to Mora, Jr.'s level. That is an appropriate comparison. Good coordinator. Not a good head coach.


Jim Mora, Jr had a great first year and has gotten steadily worse.

Kubiak has gotten better.

At this point in time, Kubiak > Mora.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 05:40 PM
Then how do we treat the Falcons who lost Petrino and added a better head coach right after his departure?

Every bad situation is waiting for an opportunistic person to come along and inject life into it. Some teams are very reactionary. This one is NOT.

So I don't see the comparison to how we would end up like the Lions or Redskins if we made a move. Four seasons is a good length of time for a coach to show if he can hang in this league, at this moment in time.

Kubiak's stopped the bleeding. Just like Dungy moved on, and Gruden came in and capitalized off of Dungy's work, some person might come in and do the same with what Gary has built here.

Dungy came in and took over Mora, Sr.'s body of work at Indy, and built upon what Mora, Sr. was constructing there in Indy.

Harbaugh came in and capitalized off of Billick's hard work and foundational efforts with the Ravens.

It happens all the time. There's no need to fear "change" in this sort of manner, IMO. We're set for an opportunistic person to come in and tweak this team to the point of propelling it to a higher standard.

Most teams that are 8-8 or 9-7 and change head coaches end up with a worse record after the change.

Kubiak has stopped the bleeding. And he's gotten the team in a position to be really good. Instead of canning him and moving on to someone who may screw everything up, give him the chance to take it to the next level.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 05:45 PM
Spagnulo took over a pretty bad Rams team. If you're willing to give Kubiak 4 years you got to give Spags the same, as well for for Schwartz(who I think had done good considering what he's been given). Bucs I'll give you, I never thought Raheem was a legit coaching candidate, however, Freeman does look like he's got a future there. Same thing in KC. If you're willing to give Kubiak 4 years you gotta give other guys a chance as well. Most of those guys inherited teams just as bad if not worse then Gary.

I don't think Turner or Kiffin were put in good situations to be fair. Petrino quit on that team. Will give you Dennis Green, but he left some good pieces for Grimm.

To be fair in that argument most of the guys you mention took over BAD teams. There are some things that Kubiak has done questionably no doubt, but if a coaching change is made it's not like the new HC is going to take over a BAD team. He'll be taking over a team that just can't seem to get over the hump.

This is a different topic than the one I was replying to.

The point is that changing your coach doesn't necessarily make you a winner and a lot of teams change coaches and fail. Teams even bring in "known" coaches who've been successful in the past is not a recipe for success.

One of the big signs of a FAIL team is constantly changing the coaching staff. And that's what I see this as the road to. We ditch Kubiak, we get worse. We ditch the guy we brought in, and get worse. And then we're the new Lions or Bengals during the 90's.

I think stability gives us a better chance for success than some phantom quick fix.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 05:52 PM
This is a different topic than the one I was replying to.

The point is that changing your coach doesn't necessarily make you a winner and a lot of teams change coaches and fail. Teams even bring in "known" coaches who've been successful in the past is not a recipe for success.

One of the big signs of a FAIL team is constantly changing the coaching staff. And that's what I see this as the road to. We ditch Kubiak, we get worse. We ditch the guy we brought in, and get worse. And then we're the new Lions or Bengals during the 90's.

I think stability gives us a better chance for success than some phantom quick fix.

Little melodramatic, isn't it? We gave Capers/Casserly four years, and
he maintained the same level of improvement over his tenure. Gone.
Kubiak has maintained the samed 8-8'dom for 3 consecutive years,
assuming he loses to the Pats on Sunday. If he wins, he has a leg
to stand on. But, assuming he loses, that's 3 consecutive years
of running in place. Four years is plenty, as there have been many
coaches, recently, to show TANGIBLE improvement in much shorter time
with much less talent.

Looking good while losing, isn't my idea of improvement. We must judge
our coaches on their RESULTS, and if he fails, bring someone else in.
Four years is enough. It's not like he's only had a season or two. He's
had FOUR YEARS. We have 3-17 record over the last three seasons against
the major playoff contenders of the AFC. We have dominated weak teams,
and competed with average teams for the last 3 seasons. What has
NOT improved, is the fact we don't compete with our division, nor
conference. 3-17 since 2007 against the AFC's best.

It's time to give another coach 4 years.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 06:07 PM
Little melodramatic, isn't it? We gave Capers/Casserly four years, and
he maintained the same level of improvement over his tenure. Gone.
Kubiak has maintained the samed 8-8'dom for 3 consecutive years,
assuming he loses to the Pats on Sunday. If he wins, he has a leg
to stand on. But, assuming he loses, that's 3 consecutive years
of running in place. Four years is plenty, as there have been many
coaches, recently, to show TANGIBLE improvement in much shorter time
with much less talent.

Looking good while losing, isn't my idea of improvement. We must judge
our coaches on their RESULTS, and if he fails, bring someone else in.
Four years is enough. It's not like he's only had a season or two. He's
had FOUR YEARS. We have 3-17 record over the last three seasons against
the major playoff contenders of the AFC. We have dominated weak teams,
and competed with average teams for the last 3 seasons. What has
NOT improved, is the fact we don't compete with our division, nor
conference. 3-17 since 2007 against the AFC's best.

It's time to give another coach 4 years.

What are you talking about. C&C never made it to 8-8, totally lost the team their third and best year, and then reaped the rewards of their strategies by creating a team sadly lacking in talent.

Kubiak has built a team that is verging on being a powerhouse.

Kubiak hasn't been "looking good while losing." He hasn't been losing.

This year, Kubiak has the same conference record as the Steelers and Dolphins and within a game of the conference records of the Ravens, Broncos, Jaguars, and Jets.

Do we need to improve? Yeah. Do we need to win more games in our division? Sure, that would be nice.

The question is: How do we improve? The answer to that is the only difference between us. I believe we improve by doing the same thing we've been doing. You believe we improve by bringing in new coaches and a new general manager. I believe that if what you're doing is showing benefits, you keep doing it and try to do it better. You believe what we're doing is running in place.

And that's the heart of it, I think. A fundamental different in what we think we're seeing and a fundamental difference in what needs to be done next.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 06:15 PM
Little melodramatic, isn't it?
<snip>

It's time to give another coach 4 years.

But... would we give another coach 4 years?

Whatever coach McNair brings in is probably going to split the fanbase in some way. If McNair brings in a coach that you or I don't approve of, then at least one of us will be on here bitching for him to be gone before he even coaches his first game. If the guy doesn't come in and walk on water, more people are going to be asking for his head... I mean, he was supposed to take us immediately to the playoffs, right? If he comes in and we end up at 8-8 or worse, we're going to be asking why we ditched Kubiak if we're just getting more of the same or worse.

If the guy tanks, he doesn't get 4 years. He might only get a single year if he does poorly enough. He could turn out to be a Petrino or a Saban or a Kiffin.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 06:19 PM
What are you talking about. C&C never made it to 8-8, totally lost the team their third and best year, and then reaped the rewards of their strategies by creating a team sadly lacking in talent.

Kubiak has built a team that is verging on being a powerhouse.

Kubiak hasn't been "looking good while losing." He hasn't been losing.

This year, Kubiak has the same conference record as the Steelers and Dolphins and within a game of the conference records of the Ravens, Broncos, Jaguars, and Jets.

Do we need to improve? Yeah. Do we need to win more games in our division? Sure, that would be nice.

The question is: How do we improve? The answer to that is the only difference between us. I believe we improve by doing the same thing we've been doing. You believe we improve by bringing in new coaches and a new general manager. I believe that if what you're doing is showing benefits, you keep doing it and try to do it better. You believe what we're doing is running in place.

And that's the heart of it, I think. A fundamental different in what we think we're seeing and a fundamental difference in what needs to be done next.

Fair enough. Sunday's gonna have a lot to do about how vociferous I
get during the offseason regarding a switch at head coach. Just remember
that Shanahan got fired after going 24-24 in three consecutive seasons,
and a rookie head coach and journeyman QB has that team in the driver's
seat for a playoff spot in the AFC during week 17. In four years, our
coach hasn't been able to accomplish that.

There's a lot riding on Sunday. I hope they win, so you'll be right. If they
lose, we all know that Bob will stay mediocre until those stands stay empty.
There's just soo much coaching talent on the sidelines. In '06, there was
plenty of QB talent, but we stuck with HWSNBN. In '07 there was a true
stud RB on the market, and we let him go to Atlanta and stuck with Green
and Dayne. In 2008, we had another stud RB in our offices, and told him
we were fine with just Steve Slaton and Ryan Moats.

Now, it's 2009, and we'll be a year late again. Oh, well.

Such is the life of a Texans fan... I truly hope they win Sunday, to calm
me down for the offseason.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 06:24 PM
But... would we give another coach 4 years?

Whatever coach McNair brings in is probably going to split the fanbase in some way. If McNair brings in a coach that you or I don't approve of, then at least one of us will be on here bitching for him to be gone before he even coaches his first game. If the guy doesn't come in and walk on water, more people are going to be asking for his head... I mean, he was supposed to take us immediately to the playoffs, right? If he comes in and we end up at 8-8 or worse, we're going to be asking why we ditched Kubiak if we're just getting more of the same or worse.

If the guy tanks, he doesn't get 4 years. He might only get a single year if he does poorly enough. He could turn out to be a Petrino or a Saban or a Kiffin.

Shanahan getting fired in Denver wasn't popular. That new coach alienated the
entire fanbase before the season even started. 6-0 bought that kid some
time. If they win Sunday, they go to the playoffs. It's only his first year,
but he bought himself some time. He inherited a team much like ours,
mediocre for 3 consecutive seasons. Kubiak got us from horrible to
ok. We need another move to get us from "o.k." to contender. We don't
even compete in our own division, and excuses like "Peyton is here." don't
fly with me at all. If that's your crutch, we need a new leader in here
to fight back. We are still the doormat of the AFC South. Even when
two of the 3 juggernauts have down years, we STILL can't compete with
them. Kubiak got us to the middle rung, where we've been for 3 consecutive
seasons.

infantrycak
01-01-2010, 06:36 PM
Just remember
that Shanahan got fired after going 24-24 in three consecutive seasons,
and a rookie head coach and journeyman QB has that team in the driver's
seat for a playoff spot in the AFC during week 17. In four years, our
coach hasn't been able to accomplish that.

This fawning over Denver is ridiculous. They are 8-7 just like us and in a division where the bottom two teams have combined for 8 wins. Unlike us they have lost 7 of their last 9 games. Pointing at them as some sort of successful contrast to the Texans makes no sense.

Goldensilence
01-01-2010, 07:02 PM
This is a different topic than the one I was replying to.

The point is that changing your coach doesn't necessarily make you a winner and a lot of teams change coaches and fail. Teams even bring in "known" coaches who've been successful in the past is not a recipe for success.

One of the big signs of a FAIL team is constantly changing the coaching staff. And that's what I see this as the road to. We ditch Kubiak, we get worse. We ditch the guy we brought in, and get worse. And then we're the new Lions or Bengals during the 90's.

I think stability gives us a better chance for success than some phantom quick fix.

I got what you're saying but, my point is the list of coaches you initially listed took over bad teams. If a new coach comes in he's not taking over a BAD team.

I do understand the point you're making about turning into a coaching turnstile like Oakland and Washington.I just don't see that happening though. I would expect another 3-4 years from the next coach barring another 2-14 meltdown.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 07:05 PM
This fawning over Denver is ridiculous. They are 8-7 just like us and in a division where the bottom two teams have combined for 8 wins. Unlike us they have lost 7 of their last 9 games. Pointing at them as some sort of successful contrast to the Texans makes no sense.

It makes more sense than saying that replacing Kubiak condemns us to
a 2-14 season. They still have more control of their playoff lives in
year one, than Kubiak has EVER accomplished in four years! Don't dismiss
my point, by criticizing coaches in their first years. I'm judging Kubiak on his
FOUR years. Ask Dick Jauron if he wishes Buffalo was as forgiving of
constant 7-9 seasons as Houston is.

Before you say "Kubiak didn't go 7-9." Aint much difference than 3 straight
8-8's.

infantrycak
01-01-2010, 07:25 PM
Ask Dick Jauron if he wishes Buffalo was as forgiving of
constant 7-9 seasons as Houston is.

Before you say "Kubiak didn't go 7-9." Aint much difference than 3 straight
8-8's.

Jauron didn't get fired after going 7-9. He got fired after going 3-6 and having a team that looked like it was going backwards.

DexmanC
01-01-2010, 07:35 PM
Jauron didn't get fired after going 7-9. He got fired after going 3-6 and having a team that looked like it was going backwards.

Had his QB situation happened Houston, you guys would have excused
it away to injuries and the Boogie Man. He couldn't blame it on an injured
o-line, or too many young players on defense, or a malcontent receiver.

Man, this town is just too soft.

The Pencil Neck
01-01-2010, 09:18 PM
Fair enough. Sunday's gonna have a lot to do about how vociferous I
get during the offseason regarding a switch at head coach. Just remember
that Shanahan got fired after going 24-24 in three consecutive seasons,
and a rookie head coach and journeyman QB has that team in the driver's
seat for a playoff spot in the AFC during week 17. In four years, our
coach hasn't been able to accomplish that.

Shanahan got fired because he had a really bad defense and refused to fire the defensive coordinator. He could easily have saved his job if he had wanted to. He went 8-8 that last year but while he had the 2nd ranked offense, he had the 30th ranked defense. He also had the worst turnover differential in the league.

Denver has a one game edge on us in the conference record and exactly the same overall record we have. BUT, they got to play the Raiders and Chiefs twice.


There's a lot riding on Sunday. I hope they win, so you'll be right. If they
lose, we all know that Bob will stay mediocre until those stands stay empty.
There's just soo much coaching talent on the sidelines. In '06, there was
plenty of QB talent, but we stuck with HWSNBN. In '07 there was a true
stud RB on the market, and we let him go to Atlanta and stuck with Green
and Dayne. In 2008, we had another stud RB in our offices, and told him
we were fine with just Steve Slaton and Ryan Moats.

Now, it's 2009, and we'll be a year late again. Oh, well.

Such is the life of a Texans fan... I truly hope they win Sunday, to calm
me down for the offseason.

Smithiak has made mistakes in their treatment and evaluation of running backs. But I don't think anyone foresaw the sophomore slump that Slaton ended up having.

Last year, our biggest problems (iirc) were our defense and turnovers from the QB position. Both of those things have improved.

But, like you said, let's wait and see what our final record is.

Goldensilence
01-01-2010, 10:21 PM
Shanahan got fired because he had a really bad defense and refused to fire the defensive coordinator. He could easily have saved his job if he had wanted to. He went 8-8 that last year but while he had the 2nd ranked offense, he had the 30th ranked defense. He also had the worst turnover differential in the league.

Sounds very familiar. Just sayin.

Denver has a one game edge on us in the conference record and exactly the same overall record we have. BUT, they got to play the Raiders and Chiefs twice.

Yeah still have a one game edge on us and have something we haven't for what it is worth, a 6 game winning streak.

Smithiak has made mistakes in their treatment and evaluation of running backs. But I don't think anyone foresaw the sophomore slump that Slaton ended up having.

Last year, our biggest problems (iirc) were our defense and turnovers from the QB position. Both of those things have improved.

But, like you said, let's wait and see what our final record is.

No, not a lot of people saw the slump itself, but there were a lot of at least posters concerned about Slaton's durability and the fact our running game last year solely was on him.

We saw Smith and Kubiak peg Chris Brown as the guy who could shoulder part of the load. Epic Fail.

Lucky
01-02-2010, 03:42 AM
We saw Smith and Kubiak peg Chris Brown as the guy who could shoulder part of the load. Epic Fail.

Here are 2 posters (among many) who knew it was absurd to count on Brown as a legitimate backup RB (from a May 4th thread):

Let's be honest. The Texans do not have an answer at RB if Steve Slaton goes down for any length of time. Be it the year, a month, a game, or a quarter. I laughed out loud when Rick Smith mentioned Chris Brown during the pre-draft press conference. Forget his injury status, Brown looked shot last preseason. He has nothing left and he couldn't be counted on to stay on the field when he still had game.


Chris Brown was out last year because of a back injury right? To me, that's all I need to know. I've had a back injury before and it takes way to long to get over the fear of hurting it again because any little thing can hurt it again. I don't know why we are putting our trust in Chris Brown.

GP
01-02-2010, 09:26 AM
There are some things that Kubiak has done questionably no doubt, but if a coaching change is made it's not like the new HC is going to take over a BAD team. He'll be taking over a team that just can't seem to get over the hump.

Co-signed.

You also have to look at the ownership for the Rams. It's been in a state of flux, and that's not good for the whole team's psyche and how it manages itself through free agency and the draft (and all the other little aspects).

I won't delude myself into thinking that Bill Cowher will come here, nor that McNair would even fire Kubiak at the end of the year. At the end of the day, all Kubiak had to do (to get his 5th year here) is to not tank the whole season.

The poor teams we faced at the end of our schedule have saved him.

Not even a loss to New England will get him fired. 8-8 or 9-7 is good enough for the man who said "I expect playoffs..."

.500 = Playoffs to some men, I suppose.

He'll be back next year, and there will be lots of angry threads created when the same dumb crap happens all over again. People might as well buck up and get ready for it.

Enjoy the draft, enjoy camp, and enjoy preseason games. Because that's where the sidewalk ends for Gary Kubiak.

JB
01-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Shanahan getting fired in Denver wasn't popular. That new coach alienated the
entire fanbase before the season even started. 6-0 bought that kid some
time. If they win Sunday, they go to the playoffs. It's only his first year,
but he bought himself some time. He inherited a team much like ours,
mediocre for 3 consecutive seasons. Kubiak got us from horrible to
ok. We need another move to get us from "o.k." to contender. We don't
even compete in our own division, and excuses like "Peyton is here." don't
fly with me at all. If that's your crutch, we need a new leader in here
to fight back. We are still the doormat of the AFC South. Even when
two of the 3 juggernauts have down years, we STILL can't compete with
them. Kubiak got us to the middle rung, where we've been for 3 consecutive
seasons.


Sorry, but they need help just like we do!

thunderkyss
01-02-2010, 08:57 PM
Bill Belichick has earned all kinds of slack. Please, stop with the comparisons of Gary Kubiak to great coaches. They do not apply.


I'm not comparing the men, or the coaches.

We're talking about the Jets & how we did against them. Some say that is a sign that Kubiak is not a good coach.

The very next week, the Jets went to New England, & the Patriots didn't do any better than the Texans.

Does that make Bellichick a bad coach?

Of course not.

I'm not saying Kubiak is a good coach, I'm just saying this can't be a reason used against Kubiak.

thunderkyss
01-02-2010, 09:42 PM
Had his QB situation happened Houston, you guys would have excused
it away to injuries and the Boogie Man. He couldn't blame it on an injured
o-line, or too many young players on defense, or a malcontent receiver.

Man, this town is just too soft.

First I want to agree... you fawning over Denver just makes you look silly.

Secondly, there's a big difference between us & Buffalo.

Buffalo
30th in total offense.
29th in passing 19th in rushing 29th in pts/game

21st in total defense
3rd against the pass 32nd against the run 20th in pts/game

Houston
5th in total offense.
2nd in passing 31st in rushing 11th points per game

14th in total defense
17th pass defense 13th against the run 15th pts/game

Colts
7th in total offense
1st in passing offense 32nd in rushing 6th in pts/game

16th in total defense
18th in passing 21st againts the run 7th in pts/game


The Colts was just thrown in there for perspective. But the Bills don't appear to have improved very much in many areas.

DexmanC
01-02-2010, 09:45 PM
First I want to agree... you fawning over Denver just makes you look silly.

Secondly, there's a big difference between us & Buffalo.

Buffalo
30th in total offense.
29th in passing 19th in rushing 29th in pts/game

21st in total defense
3rd against the pass 32nd against the run 20th in pts/game

Houston
5th in total offense.
2nd in passing 31st in rushing 11th points per game

14th in total defense
17th pass defense 13th against the run 15th pts/game

Colts
7th in total offense
1st in passing offense 32nd in rushing 6th in pts/game

16th in total defense
18th in passing 21st againts the run 7th in pts/game


The Colts was just thrown in there for perspective. But the Bills don't appear to have improved very much in many areas.


The fact that you have to quote stats to defend your stance on Kubiak
makes my point. As Bill Belichick said, in a clip available on youtube,
"Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners. That's what it's
all about."

The reason I say that, is because the Texans DID lose close games, but
they ALMOST lost OTHER close games. Things even out in the NFL, and
at the end of the season, you ARE what your record says you are.

The Pencil Neck
01-02-2010, 09:54 PM
The fact that you have to quote stats to defend your stance on Kubiak
makes my point. As Bill Belichick said, in a clip available on youtube,
"Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners. That's what it's
all about."

The reason I say that, is because the Texans DID lose close games, but
they ALMOST lost OTHER close games. Things even out in the NFL, and
at the end of the season, you ARE what your record says you are.

And our record says that it's Week 17 and we have a shot at the playoffs.

thunderkyss
01-02-2010, 10:15 PM
The fact that you have to quote stats to defend your stance on Kubiak
makes my point. As Bill Belichick said, in a clip available on youtube,
"Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners. That's what it's
all about."

The reason I say that, is because the Texans DID lose close games, but
they ALMOST lost OTHER close games. Things even out in the NFL, and
at the end of the season, you ARE what your record says you are.

You need to take those quotes off your quote, or provide a link, because that is not what Bellichick said. He said he doesn't look at stats as closely as the media, & he doesn't use the stats to base his assessment of a particular player.

he watches them. Just like he watches this team, & he knows we're getting there.

I'm asking you to ignore all the stats. Including the W-L record. & tell me if you think the Texans are the same as the Bills. Are we better, worse, or the same?

DexmanC
01-02-2010, 10:23 PM
And our record says that it's Week 17 and we have a shot at the playoffs.

So long as it doesn't read "8-8" I'm cool.

ObsiWan
01-02-2010, 10:49 PM
You need to take those quotes off your quote, or provide a link, because that is not what Bellichick said. He said he doesn't look at stats as closely as the media, & he doesn't use the stats to base his assessment of a particular player.

he watches them. Just like he watches this team, & he knows we're getting there.

I'm asking you to ignore all the stats. Including the W-L record. & tell me if you think the Texans are the same as the Bills. Are we better, worse, or the same?

Actually, Belichick did use the "stats are for losers" line. But he used it to chastise the press for getting on Randy Moss when he had an off game against the Panthers.

here's the Belichick quote in proper context (http://www.nesn.com/2009/12/bill-belichick-stats-are-for-losers.html)...

Moss came under fire when he finished Sunday's game with just one catch and appeared to be a bit unfocused, prompting criticism that he was running lazy routes and giving up on plays.

Was it a bad effort or just a bad game? Belichick chooses to believe the latter.

"Everybody can't have high stats every week," he told the Web site. "It's impossible. We can always pick out somebody and say, 'What happened to them?'"

The coach made it clear that nobody will ever catch him evaluating his players based on their single-game stats.

"Stats are for losers," Belichick said. "The final score is for winners."

And Belichick has one more thing to say to the Panthers:
"That's a lot of conversation coming from a team that just lost another game."

DexmanC
01-02-2010, 11:08 PM
Actually, Belichick did use the "stats are for losers" line. But he used it to chastise the press for getting on Randy Moss when he had an off game against the Panthers.

here's the Belichick quote in proper context (http://www.nesn.com/2009/12/bill-belichick-stats-are-for-losers.html)...

Nice try, but the context of the story is the actual REVERSE of what
YOU'D like to use his quote for. Randy Moss put up LOW stats, but they
WON the game. The Texans actually put up HIGH stats, and LOSE the
games.

Thus... "Stats are for losers, the FINAL SCORE is for WINNERS! That's
REALLY what it's about!"

Here's the clip!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-r2HASo5M)

ObsiWan
01-02-2010, 11:25 PM
Nice try, but the context of the story is the actual REVERSE of what
YOU'D like to use his quote for. Randy Moss put up LOW stats, but they
WON the game. The Texans actually put up HIGH stats, and LOSE the
games.

Thus... "Stats are for losers, the FINAL SCORE is for WINNERS! That's
REALLY what it's about!"

Here's the clip!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-r2HASo5M)

Actually, I saw that the quote supported your argument more than mine (kinda obvious don't you think), but I posted it anyway.

DexmanC
01-03-2010, 12:10 AM
Actually, I saw that the quote supported your argument more than mine (kinda obvious don't you think), but I posted it anyway.

Good of you to admit it. Hopefully we're looking at a 9-7 record, and not
trying to decipher the latest DVOA's after Sunday's game.

ObsiWan
01-03-2010, 05:22 AM
Good of you to admit it. Hopefully we're looking at a 9-7 record, and not
trying to decipher the latest DVOA's after Sunday's game.

well, I'm gonna look at stats win or lose.

thunderkyss
01-03-2010, 07:35 AM
well, I'm gonna look at stats win or lose.

Right, regardless what Billichick says, I bet he looks at the stats, & use some of them at least to measure his progress, decide how much he'll pay possible free agents, or even identify trends to prepare for a play-off game.

I seriously doubt they sat there & said, we need to keep Jabar Gaffney, because we won the majority of our games with him.
:doot: :doot: :doot: :doot: :doot:

DexmanC
01-03-2010, 08:05 AM
Right, regardless what Billichick says, I bet he looks at the stats, & use some of them at least to measure his progress, decide how much he'll pay possible free agents, or even identify trends to prepare for a play-off game.

I seriously doubt they sat there & said, we need to keep Jabar Gaffney, because we won the majority of our games with him.
:doot: :doot: :doot: :doot: :doot:

He bases stats on which PLAYERS to keep, but the true barometer of TEAM
success, is your won/loss record.

The Pencil Neck
01-03-2010, 03:51 PM
He bases stats on which PLAYERS to keep, but the true barometer of TEAM
success, is your won/loss record.

Yes, and some stats can lie, but looking at your stats can help you pinpoint things that need to improve and things that will normally get you wins. If you're doing a lot of the things that normally get you wins, then you're on the right track.