PDA

View Full Version : Why Gary Kubiak should be extended


Lucky
01-03-2010, 11:03 PM
I said should be extended. Not deserves to be extended. Let me elaborate:

1) Respect for Authority - An organization needs to stand behind its head coach. That tells the players that they will be held responsible and accountable for the team's success. The head coach has to be the alpha dog. And the pack works better knowing who their leader is.

2) Organizational Stability - Not in the schematic sense that has been argued for. That is overrated. As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability.

3) Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It is more likely that a head coach will do what is in the long-term best interests of the organization, if they believe they will be a part of the organization in the future.

We will never know how close Gary Kubiak came to being fired. What we do know is that he will be the Houston Texans head coach in 2010. Therefore, he must be given the trust and authority to command this team. Coaching on a lame duck contract (his current deal ends after the 2010 season), would undermine that authority and revoke the trust. Assistant coaches who could leave this offseason, would. Possible free agents would look at more stable situations. Chaos on the team would prevail, if adversity hits during the season. It's a no win situation.

Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

b0ng
01-03-2010, 11:05 PM
It seems to be premature. I'd think Bob would hate himself for extending a coach if he watched him go 0-4 in September. A lot of coaches have gotten mid-season extensions and I think that could also work for Kubiak's current term in Houston.

They play well to start give him an extension and you don't feel as bad about having to eat it later.

Cjeremy635
01-03-2010, 11:06 PM
I can buy into that philosphy for sure. It makes a lot of sense to have stability from the employee and employer standpoint.

HoustonFrog
01-03-2010, 11:10 PM
I said should be extended. Not deserves to be extended. Let me elaborate:

1) Respect for Authority - An organization needs to stand behind its head coach. That tells the players that they will be held responsible and accountable for the team's success. The head coach has to be the alpha dog. And the pack works better knowing who their leader is.

2) Organizational Stability - Not in the schematic sense that has been argued for. That is overrated. As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability.

3) Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It is more likely that a head coach will do what is in the long-term best interests of the organization, if they believe they will be a part of the organization in the future.

We will never know how close Gary Kubiak came to being fired. What we do know is that he will be the Houston Texans head coach in 2010. Therefore, he must be given the trust and authority to command this team. Coaching on a lame duck contract (his current deal ends after the 2010 season), would undermine that authority and revoke the trust. Assistant coaches who could leave this offseason, would. Possible free agents would look at more stable situations. Chaos on the tam would prevail, if adversity hits during the season. It's a no win situation.

Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

I respectfully disagree and I agree with 99% of what you say. Make him earn the extension. 9-7 isn't a massive jump from 2 8-8s. You gave him 5 years. I'm all for Year 5 now but there is still alot to be said for how this team responds under pressure in mid-season. I think they could be on the right track but the bolded above is why I'm afraid of your scenario. I think Bob hangs on, not cuts bait when it comes to cash. I think at some point you have to show that minor improvements while having some of the same mistakes won't cut it. See how he reacts in the pressure cooker. That is what happens in the playoffs, etc. It would be a situation where you would get the URGENCY that I think has been lacking the last 2 years. A higher standard must be reached.

Great post though

Runner
01-03-2010, 11:13 PM
I agree with the OP. He should be extended for the reasons listed.

But I stress this: The team must be ready to eat the contract if it is the same old, stale story of woulda coulda near misses next year.

dtran04
01-03-2010, 11:13 PM
I don't see the problem as long as McNair is willing to fire him (if necessary) and pay the rest of the contract out.

houstonspartan
01-03-2010, 11:13 PM
Lucky,

Are you drunk?

Kubes should be forced to coach with whatever time he has left. If he only has one year to coach, so be it.

You want us to give him a long extension so he'll be more comfortable making decisions for ONE year?

F--k that. He has had four freaking years. Most coaches would KILL for that. He should be grateful he's getting one more year, because he sure as shit don't deserve it.

Gary has had a long enough leash.

infantrycak
01-03-2010, 11:14 PM
I'd like to give kudos to Lucky. He clearly didn't want Kubiak back. I was on the fence leaning one more year. But Lucky went out on a limb and said what needs to be done if the decision he wouldn't have made is made - to keep Kubiak. Productive plan rather than just carping.

PHAROAH
01-03-2010, 11:15 PM
I agree he earned one more season to prove himself and next season it's playoffs or bust!!!

houstonspartan
01-03-2010, 11:15 PM
I respectfully disagree and I agree with 99% of what you say. Make him earn the extension. 9-7 isn't a massive jump from 2 8-8s. You gave him 5 years. I'm all for Year 5 now but there is still alot to be said for how this team responds under pressure in mid-season. I think they could be on the right track but the bolded above is why I'm afraid of your scenario. I think Bob hangs on, not cuts bait when it comes to cash. I think at some point you have to show that minor improvements while having some of the same mistakes won't cut it. See how he reacts in the pressure cooker. That is what happens in the playoffs, etc. It would be a situation where you would get the URGENCY that I think has been lacking the last 2 years. A higher standard must be reached.

Great post though

Exactly. Kubiak has BARELY earned a 5th year, and we should EXTEND him!

I don't think so.

Lucky
01-03-2010, 11:20 PM
See how he reacts in the pressure cooker. That is what happens in the playoffs, etc. It would be a situation where you would get the URGENCY that I think has been lacking the last 2 years.
If it were a player, I would feel the same way. But, a head coach doesn't operate as an individual, in a vacuum. He has an effect on everyone. It's the most important job in the organization. Even more so than QB. You'll see a Super Bowl won on occasion by a mediocre QB. It usually takes a very good head coach to bring in a Lombardi (special exemption to Barry Switzer).

I would love to see Kubiak have to earn his extension. That's just not in the best interests of this team.

houstonspartan
01-03-2010, 11:22 PM
If it were a player, I would feel the same way. But, a head coach doesn't operate as an individual, in a vacuum. He has an effect on everyone. It's the most important job in the organization. Even more so than QB. You'll see a Super Bowl won on occasion by a mediocre QB. It usually takes a very good head coach to bring in a Lombardi (special exemption to Barry Switzer).

I would love to see Kubiak have to earn his extension. That's just not in the best interests of this team.

My mouth is literally hanging open reading this line. Let's just give him a 50-year contract and let him figure it out, ok?

Wow.

Runner
01-03-2010, 11:25 PM
I agree he earned one more season to prove himself and next season it's playoffs or bust!!!

I don't think he's earned one more season, and I don't think Lucky does either. I think it is wrong to keep him and expect a dramatic change in the team's fortunes. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

However, the point here is that if the decision is made to leep him, then McNair must extend the contract. Having a coach in a lame duck year is a very clear vote of "no confidence" and will lead to problems during the season. If they don't extend him, they should fire him. As in many decisions, a wishy-washy non-decision of having Kubiak play out the string is the worst option of the three, if the team is committed to winning.

PHAROAH
01-03-2010, 11:30 PM
Runner I agree with you but what if the texans suck next season and they just gave him an extension of 4 seasons and they play like crap? Now they are on the hook and probably give another season due to the contract and the owner is on the hook and don't want to replace the staff because of money that he will have to give to a new coaching staff as well!!! I say let him play out the contract and if we are above .500 by mid season then extend him.

houstonspartan
01-03-2010, 11:30 PM
I don't think he's earned one more season, and I don't think Lucky does either. I think it is wrong to keep him and expect a dramatic change in the team's fortunes. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

However, the point here is that if the decision is made to leep him, then McNair must extend the contract. Having a coach in a lame duck year is a very clear vote of "no confidence" and will lead to problems during the season. If they don't extend him, they should fire him. As in many decisions, a wishy-washy non-decision of having Kubiak play out the string is the worst option of the three, if the team is committed to winning.

No. If the team will run into problems because of Kubiak's "lame duck" status, then that's on Kubiak, and it likely will mean that, yet again, he's screwing up and the team is underperforming.

The ONLY time our players play is when they suspect that Kubiak's job is on the line. I think they should be forced to sweat it out next year and play for their coach, since they CLAIM they love him so much.

You and Lucky want to take the pressure off of Kubiak next year, so he'll relax and do his job. I say screw that. The game IS about pressure. He will just have to do what other coaches do: his job.

Runner
01-03-2010, 11:39 PM
Runner I agree with you but what if the texans suck next season and they just gave him an extension of 4 seasons and they play like crap? Now they are on the hook and probably give another season due to the contract and the owner is on the hook and don't want to replace the staff because of money that he will have to give to a new coaching staff as well!!! I say let him play out the contract and if we are above .500 by mid season then extend him.

I'd expect a two year extension, of which the team will pay off those same two years after Kubiak has another year of mediocrity. It sucks that the Texans would have to waste that money, but that is what results from retaining a marginal coach for a fifth year. To me, this extension is a necessary evil to cover the bad decision of keeping him.

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

I am surprised that every person in favor of keeping Kubiak isn't all for an extension. Supposedly he's building the team the right way, this year was a success, next year is the "real" next year for a play-off run, the next coach might not be better - why shouldn't he be extended?

b0ng
01-03-2010, 11:47 PM
I am surprised that every person in favor of keeping Kubiak isn't all for an extension. Supposedly he's building the team the right way, this year was a success, next year is the "real" next year for a play-off run, the next coach might not be better - why shouldn't he be extended?

My reasons for not extending Kubiak are as follows:

1.) Lame Duck coaches have succeeded in the past (See Coughlin, Tom circa 2007)

2.) Kubiak and Smith are building the team right, but Kubiak's motivational routines are not getting to the players.

3.) Kubiak can still go 0-4 in September contract extension or not. Give him something to shoot for by mid season (an extension).

4.) Any problems Kubiak may have next season will still result in multitudes of fans calling for him to be gone before the season is out. An extension won't make those fans change their minds, and will only cost money in the long run.

Pantherstang84
01-03-2010, 11:48 PM
I agree with this for the same reasons in the original post. Those who disagree must have attended the Ken Lay School of Organizational Management. It is about stability pure and simple. You have to have it in a successful organization.

houstonspartan
01-03-2010, 11:50 PM
I agree with this for the same reasons in the original post. Those who disagree must have attended the Ken Lay School of Organizational Management. It is about stability pure and simple. You have to have it in a successful organization.

That's lame. He's getting another year. That's stability. If he earns an extension, he'll get one. If he doesn't, he won't.

houstonspartan
01-03-2010, 11:51 PM
My reasons for not extending Kubiak are as follows:

1.) Lame Duck coaches have succeeded in the past (See Coughlin, Tom circa 2007)

2.) Kubiak and Smith are building the team right, but Kubiak's motivational routines are not getting to the players.

3.) Kubiak can still go 0-4 in September contract extension or not. Give him something to shoot for by mid season (an extension).

4.) Any problems Kubiak may have next season will still result in multitudes of fans calling for him to be gone before the season is out. An extension won't make those fans change their minds, and will only cost money in the long run.

Exactly. Rep.

b0ng
01-03-2010, 11:51 PM
I agree with this for the same reasons in the original post. Those who disagree must have attended the Ken Lay School of Organizational Management. It is about stability pure and simple. You have to have it in a successful organization.

Football is only big business on the top end. The turnover for the actual football is always high in the NFL (Which is why it is jokingly dubbed Not For Long). If you want stability you have to earn it, and inconsistency should not be greatly rewarded. I like Kubiak as a coach, but that doesn't mean he is garunteed to have success next season, and as a team owner McNair should be willing to pull the plug.

I don't see why if we keep Kubiak we HAVE to extend him for stability. Do people think the players won't play if Kubiak has a large goal looming above his head? (Playoffs)

steelbtexan
01-03-2010, 11:54 PM
Lucky,

Are you drunk?

Kubes should be forced to coach with whatever time he has left. If he only has one year to coach, so be it.

You want us to give him a long extension so he'll be more comfortable making decisions for ONE year?

F--k that. He has had four freaking years. Most coaches would KILL for that. He should be grateful he's getting one more year, because he sure as shit don't deserve it.

Gary has had a long enough leash.

Truth

Pantherstang84
01-03-2010, 11:54 PM
That's lame. He's getting another year. That's stability. If he earns an extension, he'll get one. If he doesn't, he won't.

I stand by my post. There are ways to structure the contract to minimize the financial liability. You're just pissed his job got saved today. Get over it.

PHAROAH
01-03-2010, 11:55 PM
Football is only big business on the top end. The turnover for the actual football is always high in the NFL (Which is why it is jokingly dubbed Not For Long). If you want stability you have to earn it, and inconsistency should not be greatly rewarded. I like Kubiak as a coach, but that doesn't mean he is garunteed to have success next season, and as a team owner McNair should be willing to pull the plug.

I don't see why if we keep Kubiak we HAVE to extend him for stability. Do people think the players won't play if Kubiak has a large goal looming above his head? (Playoffs) I'm with you on this one!!!!



:wild:

b0ng
01-03-2010, 11:56 PM
To just state things, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Kubiak soaper. I did not think he needed to be fired at any time this season.

Lucky
01-04-2010, 12:01 AM
Lucky,

Are you drunk?

I no longer imbibe (clean & sober since 1999).


1.) Lame Duck coaches have succeeded in the past (See Coughlin, Tom circa 2007)
The Giants actually gave Coughlin a one year extension (through 2008) prior to the 2007 season. Lame duck coaches are rare. As ArlingtonTexan pointed out, Wade Phillips is coaching on his last year (though the team has an additional one year option).

houstonspartan
01-04-2010, 12:03 AM
I stand by my post. There are ways to structure the contract to minimize the financial liability. You're just pissed his job got saved today. Get over it.

LOL. Oh, that's mature.

Yeah, I'm so pissed that I was scouting hotel rooms in Boston and checking stub hub for tickets at Gillette Stadium after we won. Hmm. Yeah, that's pissed.

I stand by my response to your post: LAME.

PHAROAH
01-04-2010, 12:08 AM
I don't understand why people are singing kumbiya because we went 9-7 and we missed the damn playoffs and think that coach should get an extension for the sake to show stability!!!!! What in the hell is that? man let this guy prove that he has earned an extension look at the rookie head coach in New York taking his team to the playoffs with a rookie QB in Mark Sanchez and we have a QB who was tops in the NFL and the best wr in the NFL and we are not in the playoffs and the coach is in his 4th season!!!! I say let him prove it then give an extension if we are better than .500 by mid-season i'm tired of mediocrity.

b0ng
01-04-2010, 12:11 AM
I no longer imbibe (clean & sober since 1999).

The Giants actually gave Coughlin a one year extension (through 2008) prior to the 2007 season. Lame duck coaches are rare. As ArlingtonTexan pointed out, Wade Phillips is coaching on his last year (though the team has an additional one year option).

Okay so I remembered the Coughlin situation as much more dire in '07 when it wasn't (Although there were plenty who did not think he was a good coach), but I will go ahead and say that a coach is going to fail because he is not coaching well, contract extensions be damned.

Kubiak has had tons of stability so far, maybe the monkey wrench he needs is pressure from wire to wire. I like that our owner doesn't meddle, but I don't believe that he is going to give his money to Kubiak if he still has questions in his mind if Kubiak is the right guy for the job.

Mr teX
01-04-2010, 12:18 AM
Okay so I remembered the Coughlin situation as much more dire in '07 when it wasn't (Although there were plenty who did not think he was a good coach), but I will go ahead and say that a coach is going to fail because he is not coaching well, contract extensions be damned.

Kubiak has had tons of stability so far, maybe the monkey wrench he needs is pressure from wire to wire. I like that our owner doesn't meddle, but I don't believe that he is going to give his money to Kubiak if he still has questions in his mind if Kubiak is the right guy for the job.

There was tons of turmoil concerning Coughlin & the way he coached prior to the 2007. I remember Strahan, Burress, Barber & others complaining about how his coaching style was rubbing the players the wrong way. To top it off, i believe they started the 2007 1-4 or something like that before a big comeback win against philly which sparked the run to the superbowl. The new york media was all over him.

So extensions mean didley poo.

Lucky
01-04-2010, 12:22 AM
There was tons of turmoil concerning Coughlin & the way he coached prior to the 2007. I remember Strahan, Burress, Barber & others complaining about how his coaching style was rubbing the players the wrong way.
Which is exactly why an extension is given. It shows the players that they are stuck with the coach, so stop complaining and start performing.

b0ng
01-04-2010, 12:26 AM
Which is exactly why an extension is given. It shows the players that they are stuck with the coach, so stop complaining and start performing.

Honestly though, how often do you hear about the players not liking Kubiak? Coordinators, well Smith was given his turn over the barrel by the players but I would say that almost all of the Texans roster is firmly behind Kubes.

In retrospect Coughlin coaches like an asshole (Hey, that's just his style), and the players did not like it. If I remember correct, he actually came out and said he was going to be more lovey dovey in 2007 and the players in turn performed.

Mr teX
01-04-2010, 12:27 AM
Which is exactly why an extension is given. It shows the players that they are stuck with the coach, so stop complaining and start performing.

The extension was given for prior success, not because they wanted to shut players up or because they didn't want players to percieve him as a lame duck coach.

Lucky
01-04-2010, 12:33 AM
The extension was given for prior success, not because they wanted to shut players up or because they didn't want players to percieve him as a lame duck coach.
Coughlin went 8-8 the season prior to the extension (2006) . If the Giants were awarding the extension for prior success, it would have been given after the 2005 season (when the team went 11-5).

Mr teX
01-04-2010, 12:36 AM
Coughlin went 8-8 the season prior to the extension. If the Giants were awarding the extension for prior success, it would have been given after the 2005 season (when the team went 11-5).

They went to the playoffs both years though...2005 & 2006

Silver Oak
01-04-2010, 07:34 AM
Two weeks ago I posted no extension until he coached us into the playoffs, but Lucky and others make some nice points both ways in this thread.

Dunno...guess if Mr. McNair and Rick Smith believe they are on their timeline for their franchise plan, then go ahead and extend him, but not with a huge extension...maybe 2-3 years with their goals re-emphasized to GK.

Pantherstang84
01-04-2010, 07:35 AM
LOL. Oh, that's mature.

Yeah, I'm so pissed that I was scouting hotel rooms in Boston and checking stub hub for tickets at Gillette Stadium after we won. Hmm. Yeah, that's pissed.

I stand by my response to your post: LAME.

:lol: :clown:

bckey
01-04-2010, 10:59 AM
I stand by my post. There are ways to structure the contract to minimize the financial liability. You're just pissed his job got saved today. Get over it.

If Kubiak saved his job with the last game then Bob isn't a fair evaluator of his coaching staff. McNair had 63 other games to evaluate Kubiak from. I think it was pretty much decided some weeks back that Kubiak was staying. Why do alot of the Kubiak supporters think that the soapers don't cheer for our team and get excited when they win. If we didn't care we wouldn't care who is the coach. We just have different opinions on what is causing the Texans to under achieve and play so up and down. No matter what almost everyone thinks Kubiak is a nice guy and likes him.

Goldensilence
01-04-2010, 11:16 AM
I'd expect a two year extension, of which the team will pay off those same two years after Kubiak has another year of mediocrity. It sucks that the Texans would have to waste that money, but that is what results from retaining a marginal coach for a fifth year. To me, this extension is a necessary evil to cover the bad decision of keeping him.

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

I am surprised that every person in favor of keeping Kubiak isn't all for an extension. Supposedly he's building the team the right way, this year was a success, next year is the "real" next year for a play-off run, the next coach might not be better - why shouldn't he be extended?

Agree with the original post and this one.

I am pretty surprised that a few people, including myself, who didn't want Kubiak back next year are in favor of going ahead and extending the contract. I think Lucky made some real good points the other thing I'd point out as well if we are going to make a big FA splash, which I'm somewhat hoping we do long as it's an intelligent decision, no one is going to want to come to a team with a lame duck HC. I don't think he'll get a raise but at least extend the contract one year.

Meanwhile I haven't seen a whole lot of people who were bumping their chests post Pats game about Kubiak, don't seem to want to extend "their guy". Curious.

Pantherstang84
01-04-2010, 11:21 AM
If Kubiak saved his job with the last game then Bob isn't a fair evaluator of his coaching staff. McNair had 63 other games to evaluate Kubiak from. I think it was pretty much decided some weeks back that Kubiak was staying. Why do alot of the Kubiak supporters think that the soapers don't cheer for our team and get excited when they win. If we didn't care we wouldn't care who is the coach. We just have different opinions on what is causing the Texans to under achieve and play so up and down. No matter what almost everyone thinks Kubiak is a nice guy and likes him.

And where did I say that? I was a soaper too. Kubiak will be back and it is time to move on. Give him a 2 year extension loaded with incentives and limit the financial risk. There is not going to be football in 2011 anyway. What is so hard to comprehend about this? You want big sexxy (insert favorite UFA name here) to come to Houston? Do not lame duck your coach. No one wants to go play for a team with its future in doubt.

bckey
01-04-2010, 11:36 AM
Andy Reid just signed a 4 year contract extension this december. I don't think the Eagles had any problems with him being in the last year of his contract. It isn't that uncommon in the NFL. Fisher signed an extension at the end of the 2007 season after starting 0-5 and getting them back 8-8. I wouldn't give Kubiak an extension until late into the 2010 season and that is if they are sure to make the playoffs. I would make it known that it is playoffs or no extension. Owners have to set some kind of standards and hold their coaches to them.

I don't think you can call it a lame duck year for Kubiak unless the team plays poorly. It is business and I would think the players would understand that. They usually play their butts off when they are in the last year of their contracts. So lets see if Kubiak coaches his butt off in the last year of his contract. Kubiak will have had 5 years to earn it. I disagree with Lucky on this one.

Texecutioner
01-04-2010, 12:21 PM
I said should be extended. Not deserves to be extended. Let me elaborate:

1) Respect for Authority - An organization needs to stand behind its head coach. That tells the players that they will be held responsible and accountable for the team's success. The head coach has to be the alpha dog. And the pack works better knowing who their leader is.

2) Organizational Stability - Not in the schematic sense that has been argued for. That is overrated. As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability.

3) Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It is more likely that a head coach will do what is in the long-term best interests of the organization, if they believe they will be a part of the organization in the future.

We will never know how close Gary Kubiak came to being fired. What we do know is that he will be the Houston Texans head coach in 2010. Therefore, he must be given the trust and authority to command this team. Coaching on a lame duck contract (his current deal ends after the 2010 season), would undermine that authority and revoke the trust. Assistant coaches who could leave this offseason, would. Possible free agents would look at more stable situations. Chaos on the team would prevail, if adversity hits during the season. It's a no win situation.

Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

Not me. If Kubes has another disappointing season full of poor game preparation, bad 2nd halves, and personal decisions that hurt the team I think Mcnair would keep him around for the simple fact that he extended him. If Kubes is capable of being the guy and the coach for this team, then whether he has an extension or not shouldn't matter. He should be able to lead this team to a great season with or without an extension. If he's capable, he's capable. If he's not, then he's not. I don't think his extension matters that much honestly.

ObsiWan
01-04-2010, 03:42 PM
I said should be extended. Not deserves to be extended. Let me elaborate:

1) Respect for Authority - An organization needs to stand behind its head coach. That tells the players that they will be held responsible and accountable for the team's success. The head coach has to be the alpha dog. And the pack works better knowing who their leader is.

2) Organizational Stability - Not in the schematic sense that has been argued for. That is overrated. As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability.

3) Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It is more likely that a head coach will do what is in the long-term best interests of the organization, if they believe they will be a part of the organization in the future.

We will never know how close Gary Kubiak came to being fired. What we do know is that he will be the Houston Texans head coach in 2010. Therefore, he must be given the trust and authority to command this team. Coaching on a lame duck contract (his current deal ends after the 2010 season), would undermine that authority and revoke the trust. Assistant coaches who could leave this offseason, would. Possible free agents would look at more stable situations. Chaos on the team would prevail, if adversity hits during the season. It's a no win situation.

Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

:clap::clap::clap:
excellent post.
And rep for putting what's best for the team above your distaste (I'll leave it at that) for Kubiak and what we didn't get done this year.

Goldensilence
01-04-2010, 06:16 PM
I'm really surprised at some of the posts in this thread by some people. I'm not at all surprised by some of the people who didn't support Kubiak coming back in not wanting him extended.

What does surprise me is more from his supporters saying they want him to earn his extension next year. Some of the supporters reasons for keeping him around was continuity. Yet, I don't see the same people suggesting that then putting their money where their mouth is on an extension. Maybe it's the way its been presented but, I really expected more of his supporters to be on board quicker and more loudly. Maybe this thread's still too young.

Truth is I know it's been done, but I don't like the idea of a lame duck coach. So what if we find ourselves struggling to start to season or hit another string of divisional losses in the season and we find out well maybe Gary isn't worth the last year we gave him. We find ourselves with a year wasted on what many people argued and voiced concern about.

Truth is I think that the reluctance to extend Kubiak beyond next year says the same thing the "soapers" have all along. You're not ready to commit to mediocrity long term. Difference is you're still willing to do it for one more year.

Double Barrel
01-04-2010, 06:26 PM
I think Lucky makes some excellent points, and since it's Bob's money, why not?

But, all of those great points aside, I want our head coach to perform under pressure. I want him to act like the 2010 season is the same as these last four games of 2009, like his job is on the line. I want the hot seat so freaking torching his buns that he either rises to the occasion and we get to the playoffs, or he melts and we finally find out if he's chewy nougat or golden caramel in the center.

I have a feeling, though, that it's just a matter of time before Bob announces an extension for Gary. It's the nice thing to do, and there are solid reasons for supporting this decision.

bckey
01-04-2010, 06:33 PM
:clap::clap::clap:
excellent post.
And rep for putting what's best for the team above your distaste (I'll leave it at that) for Kubiak and what we didn't get done this year.


It is your opinion that Lucky is putting what is best for the team above what you call distaste for Kubiak. Others on both sides of the Kubiak issue don't think it is in the teams best interest to extend him. :logo:

infantrycak
01-04-2010, 06:44 PM
It is your opinion that Lucky is putting what is best for the team above what you call distaste for Kubiak. Others on both sides of the Kubiak issue don't think it is in the teams best interest to extend him. :logo:

No, it is Lucky's stated purpose.

spurstexanstros
01-04-2010, 06:54 PM
I said should be extended. Not deserves to be extended. Let me elaborate:

1) Respect for Authority - An organization needs to stand behind its head coach. That tells the players that they will be held responsible and accountable for the team's success. The head coach has to be the alpha dog. And the pack works better knowing who their leader is.

2) Organizational Stability - Not in the schematic sense that has been argued for. That is overrated. As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability.

3) Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It is more likely that a head coach will do what is in the long-term best interests of the organization, if they believe they will be a part of the organization in the future.

We will never know how close Gary Kubiak came to being fired. What we do know is that he will be the Houston Texans head coach in 2010. Therefore, he must be given the trust and authority to command this team. Coaching on a lame duck contract (his current deal ends after the 2010 season), would undermine that authority and revoke the trust. Assistant coaches who could leave this offseason, would. Possible free agents would look at more stable situations. Chaos on the team would prevail, if adversity hits during the season. It's a no win situation.

Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

best thread on topic ever...best.

Consistency is the key to a stable and sucessful franchise. I have been preaching to Houston fans for years. Kubiak is growing as a HC and he needs the full faith of the organization. Imagine if Cowher was fired after 4 years or Fisher . The same can be said for Sloan and Popovich. Players listen to them because they know they arent bigger than the HC and it is their jobs on the line if they dont perform.

It was the players that failed this year, Kubiak put them in the position to win. Dont extend or keep the players that failed. ( Dunta, Kris, Chris, Ryan)

Texans_Chick
01-04-2010, 07:03 PM
Lucky's post is spot on.

If you believe in your coach, extend him.

If you don't believe in your coach, well then fire him now.

disaacks3
01-04-2010, 07:12 PM
A few points I quibble with... (obviously these are all IMHO)

As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability. Not necessarily. Stable mediocrity is still mediocrity. As a player, if your goal is to go to a Super Bowl, then you concentrate on a team with a leader / players that you think can get there (with you), not on how stable the organization is. In other words - If you see a good core of players and they are bringing in a NEW highly-rated coach, that might be a more-likely place that you'd WANT to call "home". (rather than a stable also-ran)

Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It sure sounds good, but studies have shown that (up to a point) MORE supervision / oversight actually leads to better production. You try to avoid the "resting on your laurels" dilemma. Ex. - Kubiak himself stated that he approached Mario and told him that he wasn't performing up to expectation. Mario agreed. (insert WT? here) Bringing in a new staff that promises to re-evaluate each and EVERY position may "frighten" the players, but may kick them up that notch they need as well.

2slik4u
01-04-2010, 08:23 PM
No. If the team will run into problems because of Kubiak's "lame duck" status, then that's on Kubiak, and it likely will mean that, yet again, he's screwing up and the team is underperforming.

The ONLY time our players play is when they suspect that Kubiak's job is on the line. I think they should be forced to sweat it out next year and play for their coach, since they CLAIM they love him so much.

You and Lucky want to take the pressure off of Kubiak next year, so he'll relax and do his job. I say screw that. The game IS about pressure. He will just have to do what other coaches do: his job.

I agree here. They get paid millions so they can deal with pressure. If they they're not dealing with pressure then they dont care enough. Give him his last year left on the contract and see how it goes. The guy did give us our first winning season in history.

The questions begs now, if we go 10-6 and still miss the playoffs then what?

Fred
01-04-2010, 10:51 PM
I said should be extended. Not deserves to be extended. Let me elaborate:

1) Respect for Authority - An organization needs to stand behind its head coach. That tells the players that they will be held responsible and accountable for the team's success. The head coach has to be the alpha dog. And the pack works better knowing who their leader is.

2) Organizational Stability - Not in the schematic sense that has been argued for. That is overrated. As an organization, it will be easier to keep employees, and attract new ones, if the team projects stability. A long term contract for the leader of the team projects that commitment and stability.

3) Planning for the Future - Most people work better without someone looking over their shoulder. It is more likely that a head coach will do what is in the long-term best interests of the organization, if they believe they will be a part of the organization in the future.

We will never know how close Gary Kubiak came to being fired. What we do know is that he will be the Houston Texans head coach in 2010. Therefore, he must be given the trust and authority to command this team. Coaching on a lame duck contract (his current deal ends after the 2010 season), would undermine that authority and revoke the trust. Assistant coaches who could leave this offseason, would. Possible free agents would look at more stable situations. Chaos on the team would prevail, if adversity hits during the season. It's a no win situation.

Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

What a pile of hogwash as you admit yourself in the last paragraph. Every coach in the league is a lame duck coach every year and everyone knows it. How many coaches for certain will not be fired after a 4 win season next year? (Answer: the Hoodie with 3 SuperBowls in this coaching stop; and the winner of this years SuperBowl: end of list). The other 30 coaches are lame ducks with a level of expectation, which if not met IN 2010, could be fired regardless of how many years are remaining on their contract.

The real problem is everyone in football knows this already. So whether Kubiak is going into his last year in 2010 or is extended for another 2 or 3 or 5 years everyone knows: another single digit win season and Kubiak is gone after 2010. Double digit wins and Kubiak will be extended. Every list of "coaches on the hot seat" this off-season will include Kubiak. So you can't fake everyone out with the perception of stability that Kubiak is here for the long haul when everyone knows that the years remaining on his contract make zero difference. The first and last time that worked was when the expansion Cowboys had a few terrible years and so they gave Landry a ten year extension. It was a real message then. Now everyone sees through a two or three year extension.

Giving Kubiak an extension is sending the message that he has achieved or over-achieved the goals you have for the team - 8 or 9 wins is excellent - no more is expected. Not extending him is sending the message that he has underachieved or just met the minimum to be given another chance. Sure that puts him on notice that more is expected. But isn't it? Or are you happy with another year of the team only playing for 28 minutes a game, being totalled unprepared for the month of Sept (etc, etc, etc). So I don't think he should be extended unless you will keep him around after another couple of seasons just like the past 3. But then it would be binding the team to him, which you claimed NOT to be doing.

Of the 32 coaches who started the 2006 season, only one who has failed to take his team to the playoffs at least once has not been fired. Not saying that he should be fired, just pointing out that the Texans have already engaged in more stability than any other team thinks is appropriate.

houstonspartan
01-04-2010, 10:58 PM
What a pile of hogwash as you admit yourself in the last paragraph. Every coach in the league is a lame duck coach every year and everyone knows it. How many coaches for certain will not be fired after a 4 win season next year? (Answer: the Hoodie with 3 SuperBowls in this coaching stop; and the winner of this years SuperBowl: end of list). The other 30 coaches are lame ducks with a level of expectation, which if not met IN 2010, could be fired regardless of how many years are remaining on their contract.

The real problem is everyone in football knows this already. So whether Kubiak is going into his last year in 2010 or is extended for another 2 or 3 or 5 years everyone knows: another single digit win season and Kubiak is gone after 2010. Double digit wins and Kubiak will be extended. Every list of "coaches on the hot seat" this off-season will include Kubiak. So you can't fake everyone out with the perception of stability that Kubiak is here for the long haul when everyone knows that the years remaining on his contract make zero difference. The first and last time that worked was when the expansion Cowboys had a few terrible years and so they gave Landry a ten year extension. It was a real message then. Now everyone sees through a two or three year extension.

Giving Kubiak an extension is sending the message that he has achieved or over-achieved the goals you have for the team - 8 or 9 wins is excellent - no more is expected. Not extending him is sending the message that he has underachieved or just met the minimum to be given another chance. Sure that puts him on notice that more is expected. But isn't it? Or are you happy with another year of the team only playing for 28 minutes a game, being totalled unprepared for the month of Sept (etc, etc, etc). So I don't think he should be extended unless you will keep him around after another couple of seasons just like the past 3. But then it would be binding the team to him, which you claimed NOT to be doing.

Of the 32 coaches who started the 2006 season, only one who has failed to take his team to the playoffs at least once has not been fired. Not saying that he should be fired, just pointing out that the Texans have already engaged in more stability than any other team thinks is appropriate.

Very well said, and I agree. I'm betting that other coaches look at Kubiak and wonder how he kept his job so long. That's why there are probably top shelf coaches licking their chops at the thought of getting their hands on this team. EVERYONE knows that Kubiak has underperformed. As you said, it's not a CIA secret.

Even IF Kubiak gets an extension, everyone will know that it's a sham, and that he could be fired even WITH an extension. So the extension does nothing for Gary's ability to lead. Leaders lead when their backs are against the wall. Gary needs to roll up his sleeves, get some balls, become a leader and EARN a long term contract.

Anyway, rep for you.

Drew_Smoke
01-05-2010, 11:02 AM
Bob sees through the fog and our coach will be extended. Hold yer breath and stomp yer feet but guess what...

Kubes will be the coach. I have never heard anyone in the media and certainly not another coach say anything negative about Kubes.

Its always the same ol same ol message board fodder.

Now...drink your paper cup of water and get back to your cubicles.

Lucky
12-31-2010, 12:38 PM
I'm bringing up a year old thread to admit that I was wrong. It was a huge mistake to extend Gary Kubiak last offseason.

I gave 3 reasons as to why I felt it was necessary to extend Kubiak, as 2010 was his last year on a 5 year contract. First, was that the Kubiak must have the respect of the players. If he went into the last year of his deal and the team ran into adversity, I worried that the players would quit. Well, they quit anyway. Kubiak holds no player on this team accountable for failure. The players say they respect Kubiak. Their play suggests otherwise.

Second, was that the Texans organization would need to project stability, in order to retain and attract players and assistant coaches. That was never necessary, as Kubiak just hired another friend to coordinate the offense, a fiend of Schaub's to coach the QBs, and brought in little in free agency (though Smith & Rackers played well). All that could have been accomplished without a contract extension.

Finally, I asserted that an extended Kubiak would put the franchise's best interests ahead of his own short term goals. That was perhaps the biggest mistake. Smithiak should have brought in veterans (either through FA or trades) to compete with the youngsters in the secondary. I'm not saying that is what kept the Texans from making the playoffs, as I'm certain Kubiak would have found another way to fail. Just that this was another mistake, and flawed logic on my part.

Most of all, I thought that extending Kubiak showed that McNair understood how to run a NFL franchise. I was dead wrong. It just gave him an excuse for not making a tough decision in 2011. Thumbs down to me, for not getting that in 2010.

Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me...you can’t get fooled again.
I won't get fooled again.

texanchris
12-31-2010, 12:45 PM
:wadepalm:

midway
12-31-2010, 12:48 PM
Kubiak is going into his last year in 2010 or is extended for another 2 or 3 or 5 years everyone knows: another single digit win season and Kubiak is gone after 2010.

If only it had worked out the way the Fred (and everyone else) had figured it would, which was "playoffs or bust".

:kubepalm: :gun:

Mr. White
12-31-2010, 12:49 PM
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong. It takes an even bigger man to bump his own thread to point out where he's wrong.

Hookem Horns
12-31-2010, 12:49 PM
:wadepalm: by the way, where did the Kubes facepalm go?

:kubepalm:

BSofA04
12-31-2010, 01:03 PM
I'm bringing up a year old thread to admit that I was wrong. It was a huge mistake to extend Gary Kubiak last offseason.

I gave 3 reasons as to why I felt it was necessary to extend Kubiak, as 2010 was his last year on a 5 year contract. First, was that the Kubiak must have the respect of the players. If he went into the last year of his deal and the team ran into adversity, I worried that the players would quit. Well, they quit anyway. Kubiak holds no player on this team accountable for failure. The players say they respect Kubiak. Their play suggests otherwise.

Second, was that the Texans organization would need to project stability, in order to retain and attract players and assistant coaches. That was never necessary, as Kubiak just hired another friend to coordinate the offense, a fiend of Schaub's to coach the QBs, and brought in little in free agency (though Smith & Rackers played well). All that could have been accomplished without a contract extension.

Finally, I asserted that an extended Kubiak would put the franchise's best interests ahead of his own short term goals. That was perhaps the biggest mistake. Smithiak should have brought in veterans (either through FA or trades) to compete with the youngsters in the secondary. I'm not saying that is what kept the Texans from making the playoffs, as I'm certain Kubiak would have found another way to fail. Just that this was another mistake, and flawed logic on my part.

Most of all, I thought that extending Kubiak showed that McNair understood how to run a NFL franchise. I was dead wrong. It just gave him an excuse for not making a tough decision in 2011. Thumbs down to me, for not getting that in 2010.


I won't get fooled again.

Extending Kubiak has turned out to be a mistake but at the time it made the most sense to show the players that there was some stability in the organization.

By hiring Dennison and Knapp I thought the offense would have some sense of resemblance from 2009. Yes, Dennison was Kubiak's right hand man in Denver, but he has had only one year to acclimate with our personnel. I'll give him a pass for one more season. Schaub has had a down season from the previous year, so it's hard to say if it was Knapp's doing or if Schaub is just having an off year.

You brought up that players have quit this season. Worst thing that can ever happen is players quitting on the team. This is a direct retaliation to the coaching staff and should be addressed immediately if we're going to be competitive in 2011 with Kubiak as our head coach. Yes, I do believe McNair's bringing back Kubiak with Wade Phillips as our DC. Quitting can never, ever, ever-ever happen again.

In 2011, is the team still behind Kubiak? If he's still the head coach, will a couple of early losses next season cause the team to go dysfunctional? If the answer is yes/maybe, we're set up for impending failure.

It boils down to who (McNair) believes Kubiak can lead a team. So far, not looking good.

Runner
12-31-2010, 02:29 PM
I thought McNair had to extend him, with full knowledge that he may have to eat the out years of the contract if he failed this season.

The problem isn't the extension. Last season, McNair needed to either:

A) fire Kubes
B) extend Kubes and fire him this year if he failed, regardless of the money left on the contract.

McNair gambled on Kubes this year and lost. The money owed Kubiak is what he risked and should lose.

beerlover
12-31-2010, 02:35 PM
equal credit should be heaped upon the players as well they're the ones who failed on the field of play, made mental mistakes, miscues otherwise choked under pressure. In many cases they where put into positions to succeed but for whatever reason something bad usually happened. can't just fire everybody. name the players on this team who where solid all year, never making huge mistakes or plays that cost this team a chance of winning more games?

houstonspartan
12-31-2010, 02:35 PM
I'm bringing up a year old thread to admit that I was wrong. It was a huge mistake to extend Gary Kubiak last offseason.

I gave 3 reasons as to why I felt it was necessary to extend Kubiak, as 2010 was his last year on a 5 year contract. First, was that the Kubiak must have the respect of the players. If he went into the last year of his deal and the team ran into adversity, I worried that the players would quit. Well, they quit anyway. Kubiak holds no player on this team accountable for failure. The players say they respect Kubiak. Their play suggests otherwise.

Second, was that the Texans organization would need to project stability, in order to retain and attract players and assistant coaches. That was never necessary, as Kubiak just hired another friend to coordinate the offense, a fiend of Schaub's to coach the QBs, and brought in little in free agency (though Smith & Rackers played well). All that could have been accomplished without a contract extension.

Finally, I asserted that an extended Kubiak would put the franchise's best interests ahead of his own short term goals. That was perhaps the biggest mistake. Smithiak should have brought in veterans (either through FA or trades) to compete with the youngsters in the secondary. I'm not saying that is what kept the Texans from making the playoffs, as I'm certain Kubiak would have found another way to fail. Just that this was another mistake, and flawed logic on my part.

Most of all, I thought that extending Kubiak showed that McNair understood how to run a NFL franchise. I was dead wrong. It just gave him an excuse for not making a tough decision in 2011. Thumbs down to me, for not getting that in 2010.


I won't get fooled again.


Lucky,

Shout out to you for admitting you were wrong. Not everyone would do that.

I had a really bad feeling about the extension. Kubiak didn't earn it. Some people were saying that he should have gotten it because it would have allowed him to recruit Dennison. Even then, I said tough shit. If Kubiak was so well liked by people, then they should want to work for him regardless of his contract situation.

steelbtexan
12-31-2010, 02:36 PM
I thought McNair had to extend him, with full knowledge that he may have to eat the out years of the contract if he failed this season.

The problem isn't the extension. Last season, McNair needed to either:

A) fire Kubes
B) extend Kubes and fire him this year if he failed, regardless of the money left on the contract.

McNair gambled on Kubes this year and lost. The money owed Kubiak is what he risked and should lose.

If he wasn't willing to lose the $$$$ with the impending lockout. He shouldn't have extended him.

This is what people who called McNair cheap were fearing would happen and it came to pass.

You have to realize with McNair he's a straight up businessman and doesn't really care about football. He only cares about profit margins. Which have been incredibly good for 9 yrs running.

mussop
12-31-2010, 02:39 PM
I was just watching a bowl game and a commercial came on and it said "Why would any fun loving red blooded all american male give up watching football to upgrade his head lights?" and my immediate reaction was, because he is a Houston Texans fan!!!!!!!

Thanks McNair for damming us to another year of this torture. You're the Micheal Vick of owners. :voodoo:

Lucky
12-31-2010, 02:47 PM
equal credit should be heaped upon the players as well they're the ones who failed on the field of play, made mental mistakes, miscues otherwise choked under pressure.
I would suggest that more of the current players would have lost their jobs had a new regime arrived. The Smithiak pets will stay and remain unchallenged. They will never admit their mistakes on Okoye and Jackson. You want the players to be held accountable, and so do I. Keeping Smithiak will not bring about accountability, in any way, shape, or form.

beerlover
12-31-2010, 03:02 PM
I would suggest that more of the current players would have lost their jobs had a new regime arrived. The Smithiak pets will stay and remain unchallenged. They will never admit their mistakes on Okoye and Jackson. You want the players to be held accountable, and so do I. Keeping Smithiak will not bring about accountability, in any way, shape, or form.

my bad, thought this was a thread "Why Gary Kubiak should be extended".

thunderkyss
12-31-2010, 03:06 PM
Now, in no way should a contract extension bind Gary Kubiak to this team, if they fail to meet the organizational goals. If Bob McNair has to eat the contract, so be it. But, the perception of the organization has to indicate that Gary Kubiak is in total command. That can only happen with a contract extension.

I completely agree with this.... I have all year, never said any different.

thunderkyss
12-31-2010, 03:33 PM
I'm bringing up a year old thread to admit that I was wrong. It was a huge mistake to extend Gary Kubiak last offseason.


Wow..... I don't think you were wrong at all. All your reasons were sound & logical. Just because things didn't turn out the way they "should have" doesn't mean the reasoning was wrong.

Those were the reasons he should have been extended, not that you thought he should have been extended.

How were you to know he would fail even though he was set up (as much as McNair possibly could have set him up) to succeed.

houstonspartan
12-31-2010, 03:36 PM
Wow..... I don't think you were wrong at all. All your reasons were sound & logical. Just because things didn't turn out the way they "should have" doesn't mean the reasoning was wrong.

Those were the reasons he should have been extended, not that you thought he should have been extended.

How were you to know he would fail even though he was set up (as much as McNair possibly could have set him up) to succeed.

I'm at work, trying to finish up a bunch of stuff, and damn near laughed out loud at this.

Sure, how were we to know that Gary Kubiak was a failure? We only had, oh, FOUR YEARS of evidence.

Give me a break.

thunderkyss
12-31-2010, 03:55 PM
By hiring Dennison and Knapp I thought the offense would have some sense of resemblance from 2009. Yes, Dennison was Kubiak's right hand man in Denver, but he has had only one year to acclimate with our personnel. I'll give him a pass for one more season. Schaub has had a down season from the previous year, so it's hard to say if it was Knapp's doing or if Schaub is just having an off year.

Matt Schaub was unreal in 2009, to expect him to do the same in consecutive years is just unreasonable.

Yet he still threw for over 4000 yards, 23 TDs, 12 Ints, 62% completion, & a QB rating over 88 (which I think is avg)....... Matt had a good year, not as good as last year, but a good year just the same.

Oh yeah, he didn't win as many games as last year.....

You brought up that players have quit this season. Worst thing that can ever happen is players quitting on the team. This is a direct retaliation to the coaching staff and should be addressed immediately.

He (Lucky) believes the players quit.... maybe you believe the players quit. I don't think they quit (I just think they're bad), & I believe if McNair thought they quit (& he might for all we know) Kubiak doesn't stand a chance of being in Houston beyond Jan 3rd...... he'd be gone by now (I believe) if McNair thought the team quit on Kubiak.

It boils down to who (McNair) believes Kubiak can lead a team. So far, not looking good.

I seriously don't understand why McNair would bring Kubiak back. Not that I think the players quit on him.... I believe McNair understands if the players have quit on him, it is over unless you higher a 53 new players.

I can understand thinking, "It's the defense, Gary doesn't know defense."

Unless that move to dump Okam, pick up Jamison & Nading, and picking up secondary players...... bringing Bush down on the field, unless that was when Kubiak castrated Frank Bush....

Just like you, me & everyone else, we knew back then it wasn't going to work, but is there anything that could have been done that would have made it work at time.

I don't know. If Kubiak comes back, it's got to be because of the CBA.... that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

thunderkyss
12-31-2010, 04:17 PM
I'm at work, trying to finish up a bunch of stuff, and damn near laughed out loud at this.

Sure, how were we to know that Gary Kubiak was a failure? We only had, oh, FOUR YEARS of evidence.

Give me a break.

Were 2007 & 2008 failures for Sean Payton? Should he have been fired?
Did that mean he was a "failure"?

Or is it that anything less than 10 wins a failure in your book?

Fred
12-31-2010, 04:32 PM
What a pile of hogwash as you admit yourself in the last paragraph. Every coach in the league is a lame duck coach every year and everyone knows it. How many coaches for certain will not be fired after a 4 win season next year? (Answer: the Hoodie with 3 SuperBowls in this coaching stop; and the winner of this years SuperBowl: end of list). The other 30 coaches are lame ducks with a level of expectation, which if not met IN 2010, could be fired regardless of how many years are remaining on their contract.

The real problem is everyone in football knows this already. So whether Kubiak is going into his last year in 2010 or is extended for another 2 or 3 or 5 years everyone knows: another single digit win season and Kubiak is gone after 2010. Double digit wins and Kubiak will be extended. Every list of "coaches on the hot seat" this off-season will include Kubiak. So you can't fake everyone out with the perception of stability that Kubiak is here for the long haul when everyone knows that the years remaining on his contract make zero difference. The first and last time that worked was when the expansion Cowboys had a few terrible years and so they gave Landry a ten year extension. It was a real message then. Now everyone sees through a two or three year extension.

Giving Kubiak an extension is sending the message that he has achieved or over-achieved the goals you have for the team - 8 or 9 wins is excellent - no more is expected. Not extending him is sending the message that he has underachieved or just met the minimum to be given another chance. Sure that puts him on notice that more is expected. But isn't it? Or are you happy with another year of the team only playing for 28 minutes a game, being totalled unprepared for the month of Sept (etc, etc, etc). So I don't think he should be extended unless you will keep him around after another couple of seasons just like the past 3. But then it would be binding the team to him, which you claimed NOT to be doing.

Of the 32 coaches who started the 2006 season, only one who has failed to take his team to the playoffs at least once has not been fired. Not saying that he should be fired, just pointing out that the Texans have already engaged in more stability than any other team thinks is appropriate.

I called hogwash on the original post then and I stand by that now. But, wow, I really missed the boat on a lot of my post. I was giving Bob McNair WAY too much credit in assuming that a fifth year of failure would force his hand. The part (sadly) that proved to be true was "So I don't think he should be extended unless you will keep him around after another couple of seasons just like the past 3." (or worse apparently).

If Kubiak is retained (as seems apparent from the Bum & Dan show McNair did this week) then all future references to the Texans owner must include the term "Bottom Line Bob". (Someone please notify the AP stylebook.) He will have accomplished what we all thought was impossible: making Bud Adams look like a knowledgeable football owner (and willing to make the money rain to improve his team!)

It was already pushing the limits of credibility to bring Kubiak back for 2010. I gave Bottom Line Bob the benefit of the doubt that he did not want to fire the head coach after the franchise's first winning season ever. I could see the rationale that (despite the glaringly obvious fact that the major problem holding the team back in 2009 was crappy coaching) maybe the same coach would improve the record again and you would be in the playoffs. Of course that didn't happen (just like after four years of being clueless, Kubiak did not magically learn clock management, or to run the ball down Indy's throat, or how to get the offense to play both halves of a game - and that's not even mentioning the defense).

Bringing Kubiak back for 2011 is insane from a football standpoint. It is the equivalent of Bud giving the "double rods" to the opposing fans, except Bottom Line Bob (BLB) is giving it to the Texans fans. Here's a bottom line for you BLB: I currently have 12 season tickets. This year I had trouble finding friends and family interested in coming to the games. If Kubiak returns next year I am cutting back to 4 season tickets. The wife, myself, and the grandkids who are still too young to know bad coaching when they see it (the 6 year old may be too smart to go by now).

Let me update some of my original post for 2011:

How many coaches for certain will not be fired after a 4 win season next year? (Answer: the Hoodie with 3 SuperBowls in this coaching stop; and the winner of this years SuperBowl, and Gary Kubiak: end of list). The other 29 coaches are lame ducks with a level of expectation, which if not met IN 2011, could be fired regardless of how many years are remaining on their contract.

everyone knows: another single digit win season and Kubiak will be extended. Every list of "coaches on the hot seat" this off-season will include not Kubiak. So you can't fake everyone out with the perception of instability that Kubiak is not here for the long haul when everyone knows that the years remaining on his contract make zero difference.

Giving Kubiak an extension is sending the message that he has achieved or over-achieved the goals you have for the team - 5 or 8 or 9 wins is excellent - no more is expected. Not extending him is sending the message that he has underachieved or just met the minimum to be given another chance which is crazy talk. Sure that puts him on notice that more is expected. But it isn't. You are happy with another year of the team only playing for 28 minutes a game, being totalled unprepared for the month of Sept, Nov, Dec (etc, etc, etc). So I don't think he should be extended unless you will keep him around after another couple of seasons just like the past 3. Which you absolutely will.

Of the 32 coaches who started the 2006 season, only one who has failed to take his team to the playoffs at least once has not been fired. Of the 32 teams in the league 26 have either: made the playoffs at least twice, or changed coaches at least twice, or if they only made the playoff once they have changed coaches. Of the other six five have done it once and four of those could get their second this year: Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, and Bills. Leaving the Houston Lions, err, Texans at zero playoffs/coaching changes, and you guessed it, the Detroit Texans, err, Lions at one.

Fred
12-31-2010, 04:47 PM
Were 2007 & 2008 failures for Sean Payton? Should he have been fired?
Did that mean he was a "failure"?

Or is it that anything less than 10 wins a failure in your book?

Yes, 2007 and 2008 were failures for Sean Payton. No he should not have been fired for two years of failure and one year of success (playoffs in 2006). (Although some owners would have fired him). No, it did not mean he was a "failure" yet, only making the playoff one of three years was not a "success" yet either.

Now he has two more years of success, including one of ultimate success - a Super Bowl championship. Pretty hilarious to compare Payton's career with Kubiak's. If the Saints fail to make the playoffs for five years in a row Payton will probably be fired even though his career record will have a Super Bowl championship and three playoff appearances.

And, yes, anything less than 10 wins is a failure.