PDA

View Full Version : Broncos Fans' Take on the Texans and Kubiak


RagingBull
01-21-2010, 01:27 AM
Reading the Broncos forum (since I live in Colorado), and came across an interesting thread where they hope/predict that Kubiak gets fired after next season and comes back to Denver to take over for McD. Interesting to see that the outsiders take on Kubiak's tenure here is about the same as ours.

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=161505

m5kwatts
01-21-2010, 02:14 AM
Good stuff, very entertaining to see Denver fan's take on our situation. I saw a lot more positive things about Kubiak than "McD" in that thread.

Countdown to this thread turning into another Fire Kubiak/Keep Kubiak thread in 3.....2......1......

Thorn
01-21-2010, 06:30 AM
I kind of like this guy's take on it.


Kubiak took over a team that was 2-14 the previous season and never having had a winning season and has gone 6-10, 8-8, 8-8 and 9-7. Stellar? No, but improving? Yes.

McD took over a team that went 8-8 the previous season with a horrid defense and missed the playoffs by one game and went 8-8 with a vastly improved defense and missed the playoffs by two games. Horrendous? No. Improving? No.


I know I was in the Fire Kubiak crowd, but still I think this post makes sense.

b0ng
01-21-2010, 09:11 AM
I'm sure people will look at Kubiak's body of work here and would desire him as a HC if he were fired, no problem.

dalemurphy
01-21-2010, 09:29 AM
I kind of like this guy's take on it.



I know I was in the Fire Kubiak crowd, but still I think this post makes sense.

Thorn, more to the point, is that McDaniels fired the DC he hired last year, despite the dramatic improvement on that side of the ball. As long as we talk about Kubiak's humility, patience and generosity being weaknesses, it should be pointed out when those traits can be strengths. If McDaniels had a little humility and patience, Nolan would still be the DC there- and he certainly should be. Watch how bad the Broncos are next year!

Thorn
01-21-2010, 09:46 AM
Thorn, more to the point, is that McDaniels fired the DC he hired last year, despite the dramatic improvement on that side of the ball. As long as we talk about Kubiak's humility, patience and generosity being weaknesses, it should be pointed out when those traits can be strengths. If McDaniels had a little humility and patience, Nolan would still be the DC there- and he certainly should be. Watch how bad the Broncos are next year!

No matter what us posters here take out of this season, Kubiak is back next year and I wish him the best of luck. I'm hoping he is what some of yall say he is, and he takes us to the playoffs next year.

I still think the home town boy makes good is a great story and a good thing for Houston, if Kubes can pull it off.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 11:35 AM
I stopped reading that thread two sentences in. Characterizing the Texans 2010 playoff chances as "unlikely" is incredibly dumb.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 11:40 AM
Reading the Broncos forum (since I live in Colorado), and came across an interesting thread where they hope/predict that Kubiak gets fired after next season and comes back to Denver to take over for McD. Interesting to see that the outsiders take on Kubiak's tenure here is about the same as ours.

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=161505

Those are Broncos fans that love the guy. When I look across other forums around the web that has fans from all teams, they don't look at Kubiak like that at all. Most fans that I read stuff from thought he was going to be fired and thought he should have been fired.

HoustonFrog
01-21-2010, 11:49 AM
I stopped reading that thread two sentences in. Characterizing the Texans 2010 playoff chances as "unlikely" is incredibly dumb.

Why? They haven't gotten there before. As Vinny has said around here, every year is a separate year and there is no rhyme or reason as to what happens from one to the other. The Texans were 9-7 with a good schedule and a healthy Schaub for 16 games. Next year the schedule looks hard and you never know who will get hurt, who will go up or down, etc. So I'm sure that poster is just going on random odds based on records before. He may be wrong but it isn't stupid.

There was some good discussion mixed in there with positive and negative

houstonspartan
01-21-2010, 12:06 PM
The flaw in the discussion is that people are assuming that the owner of the Broncos may fire McDaniels after two seasons. He may not. He may keep him for a third or fourth season. We don't know.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 12:17 PM
So I'm sure that poster is just going on random odds based on records before. He may be wrong but it isn't stupid.

There was some good discussion mixed in there with positive and negative

I agree. It's also a possiblity we could go 11-5, and miss the play-offs. I can understand firing Kubiak if we miss the play-offs because we got swept by the Colts again. But if we split the games, & Indy goes 12-4... I don't think that's a good reason to fire Kubiak.

Of course, if we miss the play offs because one of those 4 losses came in the final weeks of the season, again I'm on board with the hatchet job, so don't get me bent (not you frog, but anyone who reads this), thinking my standards are too low.

There are just too many variables involved when getting into the play-offs is concerned.

I don't think it is fair, to make that part of the equation, when considering Kubiak's future. If we are an 11-5 team... dominating on both sides of the ball... it don't make sense to fire Kubiak because of a technicality.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 12:26 PM
Why? They haven't gotten there before. As Vinny has said around here, every year is a separate year and there is no rhyme or reason as to what happens from one to the other. The Texans were 9-7 with a good schedule and a healthy Schaub for 16 games. Next year the schedule looks hard and you never know who will get hurt, who will go up or down, etc. So I'm sure that poster is just going on random odds based on records before. He may be wrong but it isn't stupid.

There was some good discussion mixed in there with positive and negative

The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule. They had one of the tougher schedules in the league, despite everyone thinking otherwise at the beginning of the season. This team has improved every season and is arguably *very close* to being a perennial playoff contender given the undeniable talent on the team's roster. The team is still quite young and gaining experience with each tough win and heartbreaking loss.

Yes, characterizing a playoff appearance next year as "unlikely" is a very stupid statement because it ignores these facts in favor of the fallacy that says a Texans playoff appearance won't happen because it hasn't happened before. Well, Matt Schaub hadn't started a full sixteen game season, either....but he did this year and he proved the naysayers wrong.

This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year. Yeah, injuries can happen next season...but they also happened this year. The team lost two starters on the OL, a Pro Bowl caliber TE, and the starting running back to injuries. And experienced S Eugene Wilson. Regardless, they were fighting for a playoff spot on the last day of the regular season.

No matter how you slice it, that is a stupid adjective to use when discussing the Houston Texans 2010 playoff campaign.

HoustonFrog
01-21-2010, 12:49 PM
The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule. They had one of the tougher schedules in the league, despite everyone thinking otherwise at the beginning of the season. This team has improved every season and is arguably *very close* to being a perennial playoff contender given the undeniable talent on the team's roster. The team is still quite young and gaining experience with each tough win and heartbreaking loss.

Yes, characterizing a playoff appearance next year as "unlikely" is a very stupid statement because it ignores these facts in favor of the fallacy that says a Texans playoff appearance won't happen because it hasn't happened before. Well, Matt Schaub hadn't started a full sixteen game season, either....but he did this year and he proved the naysayers wrong.

This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year. Yeah, injuries can happen next season...but they also happened this year. The team lost two starters on the OL, a Pro Bowl caliber TE, and the starting running back to injuries. And experienced S Eugene Wilson. Regardless, they were fighting for a playoff spot on the last day of the regular season.

No matter how you slice it, that is a stupid adjective to use when discussing the Houston Texans 2010 playoff campaign.

Your reasoning is no more "right" than his..lol. All of the bolded is just as much a guess on your part as it is on his. As I said, the team can be good or bad, there is no rhyme or reason from one season to the next. Schaub making 16 games this year means he didn't get hurt this year. It has nothing to do with proving anything or that it won't happen another year. 8-8, 8-8, 9-7 is improving every year to you, while to others it is being stuck in neutral with more talent. I'm not saying it plays out like he says, I'm just saying that your dream scenario is just as "stupid" to some looking at the records over 3 years than his "stupid" comment. They can be 12-4 or 4-12 and it doesn't take away from the discussion in the thread.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 01:25 PM
This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year.

I understand where you are coming from, & I do believe the improvement on this team is night and day, from 2008 to 2009.

But.. this is another area we've got to get better at. It's not like other teams don't miss field goals, and still win.... that second Tenn game is an example there. Bironas missed a field goal as well.

Indy could was 14-0 despite the fact that Manning threw 13 INTs this season.

I used to think this team needs to get better, and get out of it's own way. I've since changed my view, expecting them to be perfect is unrealistic. Instead, they need to get good enough that they can overcome fumbles, INTs, bad calls, and a busted play here and there.

Nobody is perfect...

houstonspartan
01-21-2010, 01:33 PM
The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule. They had one of the tougher schedules in the league, despite everyone thinking otherwise at the beginning of the season. This team has improved every season and is arguably *very close* to being a perennial playoff contender given the undeniable talent on the team's roster. The team is still quite young and gaining experience with each tough win and heartbreaking loss.

Yes, characterizing a playoff appearance next year as "unlikely" is a very stupid statement because it ignores these facts in favor of the fallacy that says a Texans playoff appearance won't happen because it hasn't happened before. Well, Matt Schaub hadn't started a full sixteen game season, either....but he did this year and he proved the naysayers wrong.

This team was one K(Ch)ris Brown or one Ryan Moats or one Indianapolis Colts week 16 vacation away from the playoffs this year. Yeah, injuries can happen next season...but they also happened this year. The team lost two starters on the OL, a Pro Bowl caliber TE, and the starting running back to injuries. And experienced S Eugene Wilson. Regardless, they were fighting for a playoff spot on the last day of the regular season.

No matter how you slice it, that is a stupid adjective to use when discussing the Houston Texans 2010 playoff campaign.


You have got to be kidding me.

A tough schedule? St Louis? San Fran? Oakland? Seattle?

Do you realize our schedule next year? It's going to be BRUTAL.

And, no, I don't think "unlikely" is an incorrect statement to make in regards to us making the playoffs. It's fair. Odds are, we will not.

Gary has had four years from which to build a baseline. Based on that baseline, we're looking at AT LEAST 5 division losses. Then we have the NFC East, which will mean AT LEAST two more (and I'm being generous). Then there's one or two games we always bungle.

So, we're looking at roughly 8 losses next year, based on past performance. Of course, I hope I'm wrong. But, odds are, we will not make the playoffs next year. That's a realistic, fair assessment of this football team.

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 01:37 PM
They haven't gotten there before. As Vinny has said around here, every year is a separate year and there is no rhyme or reason as to what happens from one to the other.

Nice juxtaposition of two contradictory arguments.

HoustonFrog
01-21-2010, 01:47 PM
Nice juxtaposition of two contradictory arguments.

:rolleyes:

I don't find it contradictory if you read the rest of my statements, including my second post to him. His theory is that 8-8, 8-8 and 9-7, if included with talent, offense, etc should automatically mean another step and playoffs, etc. I just stated that so far it hasn't happened (with more talent, etc.) and every year is different in the injury front, schedule front, etc. So he can't just make that jump.

It isn't like I jumped the guy, I just explained that his fantasy scenario is just as unlikely as the other guys no playoff scenario.

houstonspartan
01-21-2010, 02:02 PM
:rolleyes:

I don't find it contradictory if you read the rest of my statements, including my second post to him. His theory is that 8-8, 8-8 and 9-7, if included with talent, offense, etc should automatically mean another step and playoffs, etc. I just stated that so far it hasn't happened (with more talent, etc.) and every year is different in the injury front, schedule front, etc. So he can't just make that jump.

It isn't like I jumped the guy, I just explained that his fantasy scenario is just as unlikely as the other guys no playoff scenario.

This I agree with. It's actually the mistake I made going into this year. I put us at 10-6 without even thinking about it.

How did I arrive at 10-6? Via 7th grade logic: I basically said, "Well, we won 8 games last year, and blew two games because of Sage. Sage is gone, and the team has improved, so we should be able to capture those two games."

How juvenile was that? LOL!

Now, when I think about next year, I'm going into it much more realistically and clearly.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 02:37 PM
This I agree with. It's actually the mistake I made going into this year. I put us at 10-6 without even thinking about it.

How did I arrive at 10-6? Via 7th grade logic: I basically said, "Well, we won 8 games last year, and blew two games because of Sage. Sage is gone, and the team has improved, so we should be able to capture those two games."

How juvenile was that? LOL!

Now, when I think about next year, I'm going into it much more realistically and clearly.

co-sign

As much as we want to talk about Kris Brown field goals, or Chris Brown
fumbles....

When we needed ONE inch, at the ONE YARDLINE, against a CONTENDING
TEAM, fighting for its life during the MEAT OF THE SCHEDULE, we still
couldn't get it done in Arizona. When we needed ONE stop, at the end
of the game, against the Jags. They were able to hand the ball off
MORE THAN SEVEN CONSECUTIVE TIMES, for THREE 1ST DOWNS. It
was the final game in which the Texans could have taken control
of their own playoff destiny.

The second Indy game, came down to stopping them from getting into
the endzone, and Joseph Addai was able to hop-step himself into the
endzone from 7+ yards out.

This is the type of thing we've experienced from this regime through all
four years, not just last year. Our only chance to win comes when we're
able to avoid short-yardage situations during key moments of any game.
We seem to fail in those situations, against contending teams, at least
80% of the time. Don't know what the real numbers are against contending
teams in short yardage situations, but I do know it's abysmal.

If we expect to make the playoffs, we have to start passing the short-
yardage tests, before calling outside fans "stupid" for realizing we don't
pass the eyeball test in clutch moments against good teams. Stats
don't take you to the playoffs, or having the #1 passing game, the #1
QB, #5 offense, top 15 defense, #1 3-and-out defense, would mean
"CHAMPIONSHIP!" as Marshawn Lynch would say.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 02:39 PM
The Texans were 9-7 with a very tough schedule.

Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.

BigBull17
01-21-2010, 02:47 PM
Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.

We ended up with the hardest schedule this year. Tied with the Titans.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 02:54 PM
We ended up with the hardest schedule this year. Tied with the Titans.

Where do you get that from? Playing the Bills, Seahawks, Rams, Niners, and a Patriots team that took their starters in and out all game long wasn't a hard schedule outside of the 6 games of our division. Plus, that first game we played against the Titans was when they were trash and went like 0-6 before VY came in there. The Jags really weren't that good of a team this year either from our division. They weren't easy, but they weren't some really tough team either. They were merely average. Other than that, we played the Jets, Dolphins, those two Colts games, the second Titans game, and had an impressive win against the Bengals when they were playing some good football. Our schedule was not a difficult schedule at all.

HoustonFrog
01-21-2010, 02:57 PM
We ended up with the hardest schedule this year. Tied with the Titans.

That's next year's schedule, I believe.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 02:59 PM
Where do you get that from? Playing the Bills, Seahawks, Rams, Niners, and a Patriots team that took their starters in and out all game long wasn't a hard schedule outside of the 6 games of our division. Plus, that first game we played against the Titans was when they were trash and went like 0-6 before VY came in there. The Jags really weren't that good of a team this year either from our division. They weren't easy, but they weren't some really tough team either. They were merely average. Other than that, we played the Jets, Dolphins, those two Colts games, the second Titans game, and had an impressive win against the Bengals when they were playing some good football. Our schedule was not a difficult schedule at all.

Not to mention, we got those Dolphins MINUS their MVP, Ronnie Brown. They
weren't able to pound at us with that wildcat.

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 03:03 PM
:rolleyes:

I don't find it contradictory ...

It was pretty much a joke. I just thought it was funny to have your first sentence be about past years as a prediction of the future and your second be there is no rhyme or reason between years.

On the difficulty discussion - the Texans played 6 games against playoff teams, 5 of which were played against division winners.

HoustonFrog
01-21-2010, 03:06 PM
It was pretty much a joke. I just thought it was funny to have your first sentence be about past years as a prediction of the future and your second be there is no rhyme or reason between years.

I figured..thus the rolled eyes...but I wanted to explain anyways. My nature..lol. It's hard to tell on here sometimes.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 04:07 PM
Uh, you guys need to look at the schedules many other teams had and then compare them to the Texans. I routinely looked at the strength of schedule rankings on The Red Zone website as the season went on and the Texans finished pretty high on that list, in the top ten and maybe top-five iirc.

I don't think there is any doubt that the AFC South is the toughest division in football, which accounts for six of our games. Add to that games against the Bengals, Dolphins, Cardinals, Jets, and Niners and you understand how my statement about the schedule being tough this year is right on the money.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 04:08 PM
Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

So very wrong.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 04:15 PM
You have got to be kidding me.

A tough schedule? St Louis? San Fran? Oakland? Seattle?



St. Louis and Seattle sucked, but guess what? The Cardinals got four games against those two teams. San Fran was 8-8.

Now Oakland, despite looking terrible on paper, actually deserves more credit than they get because the organization is such a clusterflock right now. The Raiders got their asses handed to them by the Texans, but they also beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals.

I think some of you suffer from the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 04:26 PM
St. Louis and Seattle sucked, but guess what? The Cardinals got four games against those two teams. San Fran was 8-8.

Now Oakland, despite looking terrible on paper, actually deserves more credit than they get because the organization is such a clusterflock right now. The Raiders got their asses handed to them by the Texans, but they also beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals.

I think some of you suffer from the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome.

And you suffer from the homer syndrome of trying to make it seem like the Texans got way unlucky from having such a massive schedule and over achieved when they got lucky with a pretty easy schedule that was easier than any schedule that they had in previous seasons when they had more talent than they've ever had in any season of their existence.

And you're trying to sit here and act like the Raiders was some difficult match up? That's laughable as they've been a door mat of the league for like the past 5 years. This is funny actually.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 04:32 PM
Your reasoning is no more "right" than his..lol. All of the bolded is just as much a guess on your part as it is on his. As I said, the team can be good or bad, there is no rhyme or reason from one season to the next. Schaub making 16 games this year means he didn't get hurt this year. It has nothing to do with proving anything or that it won't happen another year. 8-8, 8-8, 9-7 is improving every year to you, while to others it is being stuck in neutral with more talent. I'm not saying it plays out like he says, I'm just saying that your dream scenario is just as "stupid" to some looking at the records over 3 years than his "stupid" comment. They can be 12-4 or 4-12 and it doesn't take away from the discussion in the thread.

I don't agree at all. My reasoning *is* more right because it's actually reasoned--i.e. who are the players on the team and what have their past performances shown us w/r/t future results--whereas Mr. Bronco Homer Who Wants Kubiak Back is dismissing the Texans playoff chances on nothing but the basis that it hasn't happened yet. That is not a reasoned analysis, that is just internet prattle.

Of course the defense could regress. Of course major injuries could torpedo the season. That risk applies to every team each year, but if you're asking whether or not the Texans are a playoff team or not, the oddsmakers aren't factoring in the horror of horrors that could happen, nor the crazy fortuitous breaks that could finally go our way, but simply the state of the team on paper.

On paper, there is no doubt that the Houston Texans have a very talented roster of talented players, especially on the offensive side of the football. They also have an apparent superstar linebacker in Brian Cushing lining up next to the proven stud LB DeMeco Ryans. Then, of course, there's Mario Williams and Antonio Smith. We all know where the weaknesses lie, but those weaknesses will probably be addressed through free agency and the draft.

The odds do not favor the Texans regressing. The odds favor the Texans continuing to improve for the simple reason that these young, talented players will benefit from the experiences of the 2009 season.

To reiterate: "unlikely" is a terrible adjective to describe the Texans 2010 playoff chances. I need to hear a better argument than "because it's never happened before."

WWJD
01-21-2010, 04:34 PM
I don't really care about strength of schedule or any of that. Those schedules are set years in advance so you just play each game and see what happens.

There are too many variables in each season for each team.

I guess people can hang their hats on "strength of schedule" and all that but you play what they schedule. You never know from year to year what's going to pan out with any team.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 04:39 PM
And you suffer from the homer syndrome of trying to make it seem like the Texans got way unlucky from having such a massive schedule and over achieved when they got lucky with a pretty easy schedule that was easier than any schedule that they had in previous seasons when they had more talent than they've ever had in any season of their existence.

I didn't say they got unlucky, I said they played a tough schedule. This is a fact. The SOS rankings don't lie. Still, the schedule is the schedule, and there's nothing you can do about it except play who you play. It's unfortunate that the Texans are in the AFC South with probably the GOAT QB named Peyton Manning, but the only remedy for that misfortune is to go out and beat the Colts straight up.

And you're trying to sit here and act like the Raiders was some difficult match up? That's laughable as they've been a door mat of the league for like the past 5 years. This is funny actually.

What's even funnier is someone using the last five years as an argument about this year. Who cares about the Raiders of five years ago? Yes, the Raiders are a poorly run franchise with many problems, but that team was much better at times this year (i.e. with Gradkowski at QB) than they get credit for. Or did you not see them beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals?

The Raiders are not a good team, but they are not close to being as bad as the casual NFL observers believe them to be. They played a lot of good teams close. Remember, they almost pulled that game out in week 17 against the Ravens.

dalemurphy
01-21-2010, 04:49 PM
And you suffer from the homer syndrome of trying to make it seem like the Texans got way unlucky from having such a massive schedule and over achieved when they got lucky with a pretty easy schedule that was easier than any schedule that they had in previous seasons when they had more talent than they've ever had in any season of their existence.

And you're trying to sit here and act like the Raiders was some difficult match up? That's laughable as they've been a door mat of the league for like the past 5 years. This is funny actually.

Don't you see how you overreact. Mailman laid out a very good argument. You totally misrepresented him and then freaked out.

He didn't say they got "way unlucky" or had a "massive schedule"... In response to you saying that it was an easy schedule, he argued that it was not easy but fairly difficult in relationship to many other schedules. Why this argument would send you on a rampage, I just don't get.

He didn't say Oakland was a difficult matchup but he just pointed out that they were able to beat quite a few good teams this year.

Mailman
01-21-2010, 04:53 PM
Thanks, Dale.

I apologize for derailing the thread because it's not really about whether the Texans are a playoff team but actually about the view of the team from an outside perspective.

I'll go back and read that thread, but this time I'll skip the first post.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 05:00 PM
I didn't say they got unlucky, I said they played a tough schedule. This is a fact. The SOS rankings don't lie. Still, the schedule is the schedule, and there's nothing you can do about it except play who you play. It's unfortunate that the Texans are in the AFC South with probably the GOAT QB named Peyton Manning, but the only remedy for that misfortune is to go out and beat the Colts straight up.



What's even funnier is someone using the last five years as an argument about this year. Who cares about the Raiders of five years ago? Yes, the Raiders are a poorly run franchise with many problems, but that team was much better at times this year (i.e. with Gradkowski at QB) than they get credit for. Or did you not see them beat the Eagles, Steelers, Broncos, and Bengals?

The Raiders are not a good team, but they are not close to being as bad as the casual NFL observers believe them to be. They played a lot of good teams close. Remember, they almost pulled that game out in week 17 against the Ravens.

The Raiders were a very bad team, and yes the last 5 years of their poor existence is a factor whether you want to recognize that or not. It's been a pattern for them year after year and they haven't been good at all or gotten any better from year to year. And the Raiders played their best ball when Russell wasn't playing. We played them when Russell was playing and he played completely awful in that game. I was embarrassed for him actually.

We had about 6 tough games on our schedule this season and I listed them earlier for you. The Jags weren't some real tough team to play. The Colts were and the Titans were in one of those games. That's 3 tough games from our division. After that, it was Miami, the Jets, and the Bengals. That's 6 difficult games and it's not like the Bengals or the Phins were world beaters. Beating the Bengals at the time that we did though in Cinci was probably the most impressive win of the season.

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 05:14 PM
We had about 6 tough games on our schedule this season

About six as if that six is even in question - they played six games against playoff teams and five of those were against division winners. Those games are given tough games. I'd say playing a team that was 13-3 last season was two more tough games at a minimum.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 05:16 PM
Don't you see how you overreact. Mailman laid out a very good argument. You totally misrepresented him and then freaked out.

Overreact? Any time someone isn't throwing out some sunshine excuse argument for this organization it's overreacting to you. I know what to expect from you just about every time you post.

He didn't say they got "way unlucky" or had a "massive schedule"... In response to you saying that it was an easy schedule, he argued that it was not easy but fairly difficult in relationship to many other schedules. Why this argument would send you on a rampage, I just don't get.

He said it was a very tough schedule. And as far as me overeating or getting off into a rampage you're completely sensationalizing this entire discussion, but keep reaching. Houston Spartan didn't "overreact" either. Him and I both disagreed and I explained why with examples off of the schedule and I stand by the fact that we had about 6 difficult games and the rest of the schedule was pretty easy. And I remember very clearly what the over all consensus was before this season started and the majority of writers and analysts thought the Texans had a very easy schedule and they were pretty much on point.

Texecutioner
01-21-2010, 05:22 PM
About six as if that six is even in question - they played six games against playoff teams and five of those were against division winners. Those games are given tough games. I'd say playing a team that was 13-3 last season was two more tough games at a minimum.

You'd say that the Titans were a tough game when we played them early in the season when they went 0-6? Sorry, but that team was in disarray. Their entire secondary was atrocious at the time and couldn't cover a snail. They had no offense other than Chris Johnson where we gave him one play where he wasn't even touched or guarded in the slot as well and gave up a ton of points to the Titans in that game and almost lost it actually. I'll give them good credit for turning their season around when they did and how the presence of VY gave them a different momentum. When we played them later on in the season, they were a much different team playing with an edge and with some grit and I included that game in those 6 that I mentioned. We still should have won that game though at Reliant on Monday Night in my opinion. If there was any game that I was sure about us winning it was that one.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 05:31 PM
But, odds are, we will not make the playoffs next year. That's a realistic, fair assessment of this football team.

Not really. You're simply looking at the record as if it stood on it's own. Our record this year, or last year, or the year before has no bearing on How we'll do next season.

Use your eyes, look at how we played on both sides of the ball. Then check your gut.. if you still feel we'll lose 8 games next year based on that, fine.

But past history (based on watching our guys play football) does not suggest we'll lose 8 games in 2010.

dalemurphy
01-21-2010, 05:41 PM
You'd say that the Titans were a tough game when we played them early in the season when they went 0-6? Sorry, but that team was in disarray. Their entire secondary was atrocious at the time and couldn't cover a snail. They had no offense other than Chris Johnson where we gave him one play where he wasn't even touched or guarded in the slot as well and gave up a ton of points to the Titans in that game and almost lost it actually. I'll give them good credit for turning their season around when they did and how the presence of VY gave them a different momentum. When we played them later on in the season, they were a much different team playing with an edge and with some grit and I included that game in those 6 that I mentioned. We still should have won that game though at Reliant on Monday Night in my opinion. If there was any game that I was sure about us winning it was that one.

Referring to the Titan game, is that the one right after they played at Pittsburgh, lost by a FG in a game they should've won and then had 10 days off before playing us? and then they went to New York and barely lost to an undefeated NYJets team. You mean that Titan team?

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 06:02 PM
When we played them later on in the season, they were a much different team playing with an edge and with some grit and I included that game in those 6 that I mentioned.

If you are including the 2nd TN game in your 6 games it means you are throwing out a playoff team somewhere and that is just absurd on its face. Frankly this whole thing is a farce if all you are looking at is records. Go ask Peyton Manning if the two games against the Texans were tough for the Colts.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 06:07 PM
If you are including the 2nd TN game in your 6 games it means you are throwing out a playoff team somewhere and that is just absurd on its face. Frankly this whole thing is a farce if all you are looking at is records. Go ask Peyton Manning if the two games against the Texans were tough for the Colts.

What negative effect did those "tough games" have on their season?
None.

That's what "competitive" is. How did you negatively effect the season
of your opponents? We haven't. That's what we all want to see here.

dalemurphy
01-21-2010, 06:12 PM
We can argue about the scheduling, luck, etc...all day but what we should all be able to agree on is that this team, if it has a good off-season, is in position with its talent to win a lot of football games.

Fact: Texans won 9 games last season
Fact: Texans had a winning record on the road.
Fact: The Texans only lost one game by more than 1 score all season and that was in week 1.
Fact: Texans are the youngest team in the NFL.
Fact: Texans only have 3 UFAs and they can use 2 Tags this year.

Given all that, I think expectations should be very high. I think most of the pink soapers think this team has enough talent to make the playoffs. Most of us in the sunshine club would certainly agree with that. So, perhaps we can meet on common ground as we start the off-season. Then, we can pickup the fight about Kubiak's game management when there is another game to manage. What do you'll think?

dalemurphy
01-21-2010, 06:14 PM
What negative effect did those "tough games" have on their season?
None.

That's what "competitive" is. How did you negatively effect the season
of your opponents? We haven't. That's what we all want to see here.

You're right! We should've injured Peyton! Dang it.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 07:17 PM
You're right! We should've injured Peyton! Dang it.

Ummm... Putting a couple L's in their won/loss column, would have helped
us, and hurt them. They wouldn't have been able to take a couple games
off to end the season, as they'd have had seeding ramifications.

....not to mention, we'd CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY.

...let's start there.

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 07:44 PM
What negative effect did those "tough games" have on their season?
None.

That's what "competitive" is. How did you negatively effect the season
of your opponents? We haven't. That's what we all want to see here.

Thanks for your non-responsive post. Frankly your absurd non-responsive post as if winning a game means it wasn't tough. That's laughable.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 07:46 PM
Ummm... Putting a couple L's in their won/loss column, would have helped
us, and hurt them. They wouldn't have been able to take a couple games
off to end the season, as they'd have had seeding ramifications.

....not to mention, we'd CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY.

...let's start there.

Bottom line, the team that finished the 2009 season, is it better, or worse than the team that started the 2009 season?

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 07:49 PM
Bottom line, the team that finished the 2009 season, is it better, or worse than the team that started the 2009 season?

This sounds like a question the eye doctor would ask.

We've gotten THREE games better, over a FOUR YEAR PERIOD.
Whoopee Do.

Bring on 2010.

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 07:51 PM
This sounds like a question the eye doctor would ask.

We've gotten THREE games better, over a FOUR YEAR PERIOD.
Whoopee Do.

Bring on 2010.

No, four years of Kubiak has us SEVEN games better.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 08:02 PM
This sounds like a question the eye doctor would ask.

We've gotten THREE games better, over a FOUR YEAR PERIOD.
Whoopee Do.

Bring on 2010.

Is that the only way you can quantify a teams performance?

I know that's "all that really matters" & if that's all you got to go by, I can really understand your disappointment.

If you knew then, what you know now...... the thing about Kubiak's play calling.... his reluctance to sit old running backs.. our declining record against divisional opponents...

surely you wouldn't be so upset... You would have been expecting another 8-8 season since Sept 13th.

Lesson learned. Let's not get our hopes up about next season. As a matter of fact, since you already know the outcome of next season, is there any point in watching?

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 08:46 PM
No, four years of Kubiak has us SEVEN games better.

The last THREE seasons has gotten us ONE game better. I wasn't gonna
go there, but damn.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 08:51 PM
Is that the only way you can quantify a teams performance?

I know that's "all that really matters" & if that's all you got to go by, I can really understand your disappointment.

If you knew then, what you know now...... the thing about Kubiak's play calling.... his reluctance to sit old running backs.. our declining record against divisional opponents...

surely you wouldn't be so upset... You would have been expecting another 8-8 season since Sept 13th.

Lesson learned. Let's not get our hopes up about next season. As a matter of fact, since you already know the outcome of next season, is there any point in watching?

It's the standard the rest of the league, save Detroit and Oakland, measures
itself by. Hell. Even the Seahawks cleaned house after coming up so short.
Pittsburgh didn't throw a champagne party after their final regular season,
either. The took the season for what it was, 9-7 and no playoffs. They
were disappointed at the way they finished, and looked forward to the
next year. I didn't see them tossing around gameballs and looking at
9-7 like a monumental achievement.

I'm not being negative, just accurate. I'm not going to go as far as you,
and "lower my expectations." They will REMAIN high, until this team is
a champion. You'd better get used to it.

infantrycak
01-21-2010, 09:02 PM
Pittsburgh didn't throw a champagne party after their final regular season,
either. The took the season for what it was, 9-7 and no playoffs. They
were disappointed at the way they finished, and looked forward to the
next year. I didn't see them tossing around gameballs and looking at
9-7 like a monumental achievement.

I'm not being negative, just accurate. I'm not going to go as far as you,
and "lower my expectations." They will REMAIN high, until this team is
a champion. You'd better get used to it.

Accurate? - how about completely unable to analyze. The Steelers weren't celebrating 9-7 because they were the first Super Bowl champion to not make it to the playoffs the next year in how long?

1st winning season v. failed to return to the playoffs after a SB win. Yup that's pretty analogous - not.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 09:41 PM
Accurate? - how about completely unable to analyze. The Steelers weren't celebrating 9-7 because they were the first Super Bowl champion to not make it to the playoffs the next year in how long?

1st winning season v. failed to return to the playoffs after a SB win. Yup that's pretty analogous - not.

Not only that, but since we won, and Baltimore won.... they had no chance of getting into the play-offs.

thunderkyss
01-21-2010, 09:42 PM
It's the standard the rest of the league, save Detroit and Oakland, measures
itself by.

Ok.. Denver. Is the 2009 Broncos better or worse than the 2008 Broncos?

NYJ... is Rex Ryans 9-7 Jets better or worse than Mangini's Farve powered 9-7 Jets?

Explain.

The Pencil Neck
01-21-2010, 10:36 PM
It's the standard the rest of the league, save Detroit and Oakland, measures
itself by. Hell. Even the Seahawks cleaned house after coming up so short.
Pittsburgh didn't throw a champagne party after their final regular season,
either. The took the season for what it was, 9-7 and no playoffs. They
were disappointed at the way they finished, and looked forward to the
next year. I didn't see them tossing around gameballs and looking at
9-7 like a monumental achievement.

I'm not being negative, just accurate. I'm not going to go as far as you,
and "lower my expectations." They will REMAIN high, until this team is
a champion. You'd better get used to it.

Did you see the clips of the Steelers after they won their game? Those guys were psyched that they had won. They were psyched that they still had a shot at the playoffs. Mike Tomlin was all "This is the bed we made, and I like the way we're laying in it." He said that after the last two victories even though they had less of a shot at the playoffs than we did.

It has nothing to do with 9-7 or 10-6 or even 8-8. It's got to do with being in the hunt. Last year, our 8-8 was nothing because we'd have had to have been 11-5 or better to even be in the hunt. (Even though 8-8 was good enough for the Chargers to win their division.) The year before that, we would have had to have been 10-6 to be in the running. So our 8-8 didn't get us close to the playoffs.

The AFC did not dominate the NFC as much and some teams fell back to the pack and 9-7 was the mark this year. And we hit that mark. We were 1 team away from the playoffs. And at the time we won, we'd done everything we could do.

If you're going to castigate someone for celebrating winning and keeping their hopes alive for the playoffs, then you've blinded yourself to the good parts of the game. If you don't think a team is improving even though all the statistics related to that are improving because the only important statistic are W's and L's, then in my estimation, you're not understanding the ebb and flow of the league. At the beginning of this season, some people were saying that the Texans were going to win 10 games but it wasn't going to be enough to get into the playoffs because the Patriots had missed out even though they won 11 last year. Every year is a different story and the distribution of wins and losses is different. Another team could get into the playoffs with an 8-8 record next year and they might not even need to be the winner of a weak division to do it. That's part of the beauty of this game.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 10:57 PM
Thanks for your non-responsive post. Frankly your absurd non-responsive post as if winning a game means it wasn't tough. That's laughable.

I'm not saying the games weren't tough. I'm just saying in regards to their
season, they had no negative effect. What's inaccurate about that statement?

Hagar
01-21-2010, 11:03 PM
Did anyone get a different feeling between our two boards? I read the first two pages of the Bronco's board and found this thread to be much more ..... gentile; or that's the best word I can think of right now. Maybe its me, but we can get a little punchy around here sometimes.

I don't think either board is better; I just thought the diffence was interesting.

DexmanC
01-21-2010, 11:05 PM
Ok.. Denver. Is the 2009 Broncos better or worse than the 2008 Broncos?

NYJ... is Rex Ryans 9-7 Jets better or worse than Mangini's Farve powered 9-7 Jets?

Explain.

The Broncos aren't celebrating their season, nor should they.
I'm sure they're taking inventory and are thinking about what they can
do to turn their teaminto a winner. Rex Ryan's Jets won games down
the stretch, when they had control of their playoff destiny. And now they find
themselves playing for an AFC Championship, minus their best
defensive player <Jenkins> and a rookie quarterback. I'd say, "Job well done, Jets."

Belichick says: "Stats are for losers. The final score is for winners. That's
really what it's all about."

That's what he bases success on, and our squad should do the same. We're
giddy about top-5 offenses and top 15 defenses, but we have no playoff
appearances ever. Texans marketing threw out the line "Playoffs or Bust."
The OWNER said "anything less than the playoffs would be unacceptable."
Now, they're trying to sell us on not achieving the goal. I'm not buying.
Get back in there, and make those playoffs. No more excuses.

What's wrong with taking a hard line, and holding people accountable? Why
do we continue to whine about "how hard our division is?" I know what
this team's capable of, and I also know that making excuses for
underachieving doesn't lead you to the postseason.

Norg
01-21-2010, 11:23 PM
Who says we cant Run Over Philly and NY giants next year has well has the redskins all these teams might implode

Carr Bombed
01-21-2010, 11:53 PM
Who says we cant Run Over Philly and NY giants next year has well has the redskins all these teams might implode

The Giants were not the same team after Phillips and Eli got hurt.......with Both healthy I expect NY to be closer to the team that started off 5-0

As far as Philly goes...I think they're on the decline (they miss the safety play of someone like Dawkins and the coaching of a Jim Johnson), but they still scare the hell out of me with their team speed...especially DeSean Jackson. That guy can flat out single handedly change games. Jeremy Maclin will be a better player next year as well. Philly was really young and inexperienced this year.

The Redskins....well, I'm going to have to see what they do in the draft, but they do have a very good defense and honestly I don't feel comfortable about facing them after so many of our coaches went over there. They are going to know our game plan inside and out. Those are never fun games.

EXHIBIT A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dImtYvSUKc&feature=related)

houstonspartan
01-22-2010, 01:55 AM
We can argue about the scheduling, luck, etc...all day but what we should all be able to agree on is that this team, if it has a good off-season, is in position with its talent to win a lot of football games.

Fact: Texans won 9 games last season
Fact: Texans had a winning record on the road.
Fact: The Texans only lost one game by more than 1 score all season and that was in week 1.
Fact: Texans are the youngest team in the NFL.
Fact: Texans only have 3 UFAs and they can use 2 Tags this year.

Given all that, I think expectations should be very high. I think most of the pink soapers think this team has enough talent to make the playoffs. Most of us in the sunshine club would certainly agree with that. So, perhaps we can meet on common ground as we start the off-season. Then, we can pickup the fight about Kubiak's game management when there is another game to manage. What do you'll think?

Fact: Your comment is bullshit.
Fact: Our HOME record sucked this year. How does that happen in the NFL?
Fact: Season ticket holders like myself didn't see a lot of wins on Kirby Drive.
Fact: The "young team" thing is crap. At some point, we have to perform.
Fact: 1-5 in the division.
Fact: Sean Payton.
Fact: Rex Ryan.
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.

Any questions?

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 05:27 AM
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.
Fact: Our HOME record sucked this year. How does that happen in the NFL?
Fact: Season ticket holders like myself didn't see a lot of wins on Kirby Drive.
Fact: The "young team" thing is crap. At some point, we have to perform.
Fact: 1-5 in the division.
Fact: Sean Payton.
Fact: Rex Ryan.
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.

Any questions?

I don't know. Perhaps you can ask a member of the Superbowl Champion 2007 NYGiants whose home record was worse.

I would really hate to be you. I'm assuming you watch football for entertainment, right? If this is your attitude towards fun, you must be a real pleasure to work with!!

NO Saints' record in 2007 = 8 - 8
NO Saints' record in 2008 = 7 - 9

By the way, Rex Ryan led his team to the identical record as the Texans. And, to do that, he needed the Indianapolis Colts to pull their starters at halftime of week #16. And, since W/L are the only thing that matters to you, it's worth noting that the team he took over had an identical record last year under Eric Mangini. Therefore, I guess Eric Mangini must be as good of a coach as Rex Ryan, right?

BigTimeTexanFan
01-22-2010, 06:59 AM
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.
Fact: Our HOME record sucked this year. How does that happen in the NFL?
Fact: Season ticket holders like myself didn't see a lot of wins on Kirby Drive.
Fact: The "young team" thing is crap. At some point, we have to perform.
Fact: 1-5 in the division.
Fact: Sean Payton.
Fact: Rex Ryan.
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.

Any questions?

What's this all about? You seem to have anger ptoblems. I'm assuming we all care about this team and and enjoy watching them. There isn't anything we can do about this past season so why don't we all chill and take a deep breath. Stop attacking one another.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 07:30 AM
The Broncos aren't celebrating their season, nor should they.

That's fine, I can understand that. My question to you, is if this year's 8-8 team is any better or any worse than last years 8-8 team?
Rex Ryan's Jets won games down
the stretch, when they had control of their playoff destiny.

So they have a better coach. Is 2009 Jets team better than the 2008 team?

We're
giddy about top-5 offenses and top 15 defenses, but we have no playoff
appearances ever.

Giddy is a strong word. We are all disappointed that we are not in the play-offs. That should be obvious. Top-5 offense, top 15 defense, and all that other stuff has us optomistic about next year. They are metrics that tell us we are going in the right direction.

We aren't ignoring other metrics, like the W-L, or the division record. Those tell us there are reasons for concern.

Texans marketing threw out the line "Playoffs or Bust."
The OWNER said "anything less than the playoffs would be unacceptable."
Now, they're trying to sell us on not achieving the goal. I'm not buying.

I'm not getting that.... that they are trying to "sell us on achieving the goal" McNair said he was disappointed, Kubiak said he was disappointed. Schaub.. disappointed.. If you've got a link to a Texans publication saying, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" please share.

What's wrong with taking a hard line, and holding people accountable?

Who isn't taking a hard line? Who isn't being held accountable? Do you think we should pull our players from the Pro Bowl because we didn't make the play-offs?

Just because GK didn't get fired doesn't mean he's getting a pass on last season.

Why
do we continue to whine about "how hard our division is?"

Who's whining? The only Whining I've heard is from you, about how poorly we did. You want heads to roll, & I guess that's the reason you're so pissy, because heads did not roll.

I know what
this team's capable of, and I also know that making excuses for
underachieving doesn't lead you to the postseason.

We lost because Gary Kubiak is a bad coach.

Is that an excuse, or a reason?

We lost because our players choked.

Is that an excuse, or a reason?

We lost because Gary Kubiak made coaching mistakes and our players choked?

Excuse or reason?

I think most reasonable fans are in the same place, understanding it was a combination of things that kept us out of the play-offs, a combination of things that prevented our W-L to reflect the talent on this team.

Doesn't change the fact that this is a good team. Doesn't change the fact that Gary did a very good job with this talent.

The only difference, is that some are satisfied with, or at least understand the way McNair is handling the situation, and some of us are not.

We're talking about spilled milk here.

Texan_Bill
01-22-2010, 07:55 AM
What's this all about? You seem to have anger ptoblems. I'm assuming we all care about this team and and enjoy watching them. There isn't anything we can do about this past season so why don't we all chill and take a deep breath. Stop attacking one another.

There's a handfull of posters that seem to think that if they post something with enough vitriol and flame enough people, it makes their posts true - no matter how full of crap they are.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 08:04 AM
Who says we cant Run Over Philly and NY giants next year has well has the redskins all these teams might implode

I agree. I think that's the biggest fallacy fans make, when trying to predict what's going to happen next year. Using the previous seasons W-L, which doesn't even tell half the story.

The Giants were not the same team after Phillips and Eli got hurt.......with Both healthy I expect NY to be closer to the team that started off 5-0

As far as Philly goes...I think they're on the decline (they miss the safety play of someone like Dawkins and the coaching of a Jim Johnson), but they still scare the hell out of me with their team speed...especially DeSean Jackson. That guy can flat out single handedly change games. Jeremy Maclin will be a better player next year as well. Philly was really young and inexperienced this year.

The Redskins....well, I'm going to have to see what they do in the draft, but they do have a very good defense and honestly I don't feel comfortable about facing them after so many of our coaches went over there. There are going to know our game plan inside and out. Those are never fun games.

EXHIBIT A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dImtYvSUKc&feature=related)

Good post Bomb. I wish more fans used actual game/team analysis to discuss the direction our team is going. If a person didn't have a good grasp on the game, they are likely to be disproportionally disappointed at the end of the year, if their team didn't get into the play-offs, or win 16 games.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 08:28 AM
Fact: Sean Payton.
Fact: Rex Ryan.

Any questions?

Fact:

It's ridiculous to look at those teams and compare them to the Texans.

Here is a link to the Saints Roster in 2006 (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D957822118.PDF)

Here is a link to the Jets 2008 Roster (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3572033)

First, just the talent difference between those teams, and the team Kubiak took over. I can't find a link to our 2006 roster, but you know who was there. But there is no comparison. Things would be totally different, if Kubiak took over a team like the 2006 Saints, or the 2009 Jets.

Secondly, look at how long those players had been members of those teams. There are guys on that 2006 roster that had been playing together twice as long as the Texans have been a franchise.

I know it sounds like an excuse... but I'm just saying you're comparing Apples and Oranges.

It would be foolish to expect a coach... Holmgren, Cowher, Shanahan, you name it to go in & make the Detroit Lions a contender in 4 years. I use the Lions, because the consensus was that we were in a worse starting position than they were in 2002... and all Capers did was waste time, we had 2 bona fide starters on the team Kubiak took over.

2

Payton added a QB on offense, and 3 LBs on defense.

Rex Ryan added a QB an Wide Receiver.

DeMarCushPoll
01-22-2010, 08:31 AM
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.
Fact: Our HOME record sucked this year. How does that happen in the NFL?
Fact: Season ticket holders like myself didn't see a lot of wins on Kirby Drive.
Fact: The "young team" thing is crap. At some point, we have to perform.
Fact: 1-5 in the division.
Fact: Sean Payton.
Fact: Rex Ryan.
Fact: Your comment is bullshit.

Any questions?

Fact: To say someone's comment is bullshit is not a fact, it's an opinion and not a very good one IMO.

JB
01-22-2010, 08:33 AM
Rex Ryan added a QB an Wide Receiver.

And a pretty good LB in Scott

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 08:39 AM
2006 was a long time ago. We've been stuck in neutral for 3 years now.
Our 2007 squad was an 8-8 team.
Our 2008 squad was an 8-8 team.

The best we can improve is one game in 3 years?

You'd rather a team settle for the security of reaching 8-8, and chastise
one for taking the risks necessary to make yourself a champion.

If you think I'm being negative, you're welcome to that opinion. I'm clearly on
record, that this regime must go if there's no playoff appearance in 2010. Every
coach that has as much tenure as this head coach does, has made the playoffs
at least once. I don't think that's TOO MUCH to ask a 5th year coach, lame duck
or not. He's lame duck for the appropriate reason. He chose to put sub-par
coaches in important positions early in his tenure. Now,
he must lie in the bed he made.

No playoffs in 2010, you're gone. No excuses. Whatsoever.

Are you willing to state, unequivocally, the same?

Is the door open for excuses in 2010?

"Explain."

Texan_Bill
01-22-2010, 08:48 AM
Do some of you people even know the definition of "lame duck"?

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 08:56 AM
Do some of you people even know the definition of "lame duck"?

This board is perused by those in search of knowledge. Please bestow
your great wisdom upon us, Kemo-Sabi. By the prose in which you've
so eloquently stated your inquiry, there's obviously a level of intelligence
most of us could only DREAM of possessing.

So, I'd like an answer to your question.
In English and Spanish please.

Por favor, si tengas una manera de relatar lo que quiere decir tu pregunta
a nosostros, serías un hombre muy amable y capaz. No tenemos la habilidad
de decifrar la frase sin la Piedra de Roseta.

Según contestarme, yo te daría mis agradecimientos.

:sarcasm:

It's a messageboard, dude. Lighten up. Let's laugh a lil bit.

Texan_Bill
01-22-2010, 09:02 AM
This board is perused by those in search of knowledge. Please bestow
your great wisdom upon us, Kemo-Sabi. By the prose in which you've
so eloquently stated your inquiry, there's obviously a level of intelligence
most of us could only DREAM of possessing.

So, I'd like an answer to your question.
In English and Spanish please.

Por favor, si tengas una manera de relatar lo que quiere decir tu pregunta
a nosostros, serías un hombre muy amable y capaz. No tenemos la habilidad
de decifrar la frase sin la Piedra de Roseta.

Según contestarme, yo te daría mis agradecimientos.

:sarcasm:

It's a messageboard, dude. Lighten up. Let's laugh a lil bit.


The expression “lame duck” comes from politics. It’s where an incumbent loses their bid at re-election and merely finishes out their term. It can be used in other facets of life such as the Oilers final season in Houston. It was already determined prior to the start of the season that they were leaving after that, therefore it was a “lame duck” season.

In this case (using Kubiak), he is not a lame duck because as of right now we don’t know if this is his final season or if he’s going to be here for the next ten seasons.

******************************

La expresión "pato cojo" viene de la política. Él es dónde un titular pierde su oferta en la reelección y simplemente termina su período.Se puede utilizar en otras facetas de la vida, como la temporada final de petroleros en Houston. Ya se determinó hasta el comienzo de la temporada que ellos estaban dejando Después de eso, por lo tanto fue una temporada de "pato cojo".

En este caso (usando Kubiak), no es un pato cojo porque como de ahora que no sabemos si se trata de su última temporada o si va a estar aquí para las temporadas siguientes diez.

*EDIT*
And my other post wasn't just directed at Dex... There have been others that referred to Kubiak as a lame duck coach, too.

DeMarCushPoll
01-22-2010, 09:03 AM
2006 was a long time ago. We've been stuck in neutral for 3 years now.
Our 2007 squad was an 8-8 team.
Our 2008 squad was an 8-8 team.

The best we can improve is one game in 3 years?

You'd rather a team settle for the security of reaching 8-8, and chastise
one for taking the risks necessary to make yourself a champion.

If you think I'm being negative, you're welcome to that opinion. I'm clearly on
record, that this regime must go if there's no playoff appearance in 2010. Every
coach that has as much tenure as this head coach does, has made the playoffs
at least once. I don't think that's TOO MUCH to ask a 5th year coach, lame duck
or not. He's lame duck for the appropriate reason. He chose to put sub-par
coaches in important positions early in his tenure. Now,
he must lie in the bed he made.

No playoffs in 2010, you're gone. No excuses. Whatsoever.

Are you willing to state, unequivocally, the same?

Is the door open for excuses in 2010?

"Explain."


I agree with part of what you're saying. If this team goes 9-7 and misses the playoffs again then I'd say yes it's time for a change. But what if they go 11-5 and miss the playoffs like NE did in 2008? What then? How can you fire a coaching staff after going 11-5? I couldn't. Also, I know the record doesn't necessarily reflect it, but I think this team has clearly improved each of the last four years.

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 09:04 AM
Fact:

It's ridiculous to look at those teams and compare them to the Texans.

Here is a link to the Saints Roster in 2006 (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D957822118.PDF)

Here is a link to the Jets 2008 Roster (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3572033)

First, just the talent difference between those teams, and the team Kubiak took over. I can't find a link to our 2006 roster, but you know who was there. But there is no comparison. Things would be totally different, if Kubiak took over a team like the 2006 Saints, or the 2009 Jets.

Secondly, look at how long those players had been members of those teams. There are guys on that 2006 roster that had been playing together twice as long as the Texans have been a franchise.

I know it sounds like an excuse... but I'm just saying you're comparing Apples and Oranges.

It would be foolish to expect a coach... Holmgren, Cowher, Shanahan, you name it to go in & make the Detroit Lions a contender in 4 years. I use the Lions, because the consensus was that we were in a worse starting position than they were in 2002... and all Capers did was waste time, we had 2 bona fide starters on the team Kubiak took over.

2

Payton added a QB on offense, and 3 LBs on defense.

Rex Ryan added a QB an Wide Receiver.

Playing Devils Advocate here for fun...but he could have named Mike Smith and Tony Sparano. Woeful teams. Atlanta had the Vick issues too. They went to the playoffs quick. Atlanta came back a little bit this year but they had horrible injury issues at top positions. Miami was tough but not enough this year. But they did make a huge jump without alot of talent when they had almost no wins.

Let's all agree on one thing.. we are past the excuse section of this test. Other teams have risen up quicker. Other teams have failed also or had more talent to start. But right now, it comes down to next season

DeMarCushPoll
01-22-2010, 09:06 AM
The expression “lame duck” comes from politics. It’s where an incumbent loses their bid at re-election and merely finishes out their term. It can be used in other facets of life such as the Oilers final season in Houston. It was already determined prior to the start of the season that they were leaving after that, therefore it was a “lame duck” season.

In this case (using Kubiak), he is not a lame duck because as of right now we don’t know if this is his final season or if he’s going to be here for the next ten seasons.

******************************

La expresión "pato cojo" viene de la política. Él es dónde un titular pierde su oferta en la reelección y simplemente termina su período.Se puede utilizar en otras facetas de la vida, como la temporada final de petroleros en Houston. Ya se determinó hasta el comienzo de la temporada que ellos estaban dejando Después de eso, por lo tanto fue una temporada de "pato cojo".

En este caso (usando Kubiak), no es un pato cojo porque como de ahora que no sabemos si se trata de su última temporada o si va a estar aquí para las temporadas siguientes diez.

*EDIT*
And my other post wasn't just directed at Dex... There have been others that referred to Kubiak as a lame duck coach, too.

Awesome

Texan_Bill
01-22-2010, 09:07 AM
Playing Devils Advocate here for fun...but he could have names Mike Smith and Tony Sparano. Woeful teams. Atlanta had the Vick issues too. They went to the playoffs quick. Atlanta came back a little bit this year but they had horrible injury issues at top positions. Miami was tough but not enough this year. But they did make a huge jump without alot of talent when they had almost no wins.

Let's all agree on one thing.. we are past the excuse section of this test. Other teams have risen up quicker. Other teams have failed also or had more talent to start. But right now, it comes down to next season

2 big "buts" in this post, disqualifies it.... :spin:

HOU-TEX
01-22-2010, 09:07 AM
This board is perused by those in search of knowledge. Please bestow
your great wisdom upon us, Kemo-Sabi. By the prose in which you've
so eloquently stated your inquiry, there's obviously a level of intelligence
most of us could only DREAM of possessing.

So, I'd like an answer to your question.
In English and Spanish please.

Por favor, si tengas una manera de relatar lo que quiere decir tu pregunta
a nosostros, serías un hombre muy amable y capaz. No tenemos la habilidad
de decifrar la frase sin la Piedra de Roseta.

Según contestarme, yo te daría mis agradecimientos.

:sarcasm:

It's a messageboard, dude. Lighten up. Let's laugh a lil bit.

You might want to heed your own advice, my friend. A lot of us are truly disappointed in how the past season went, and I am one of them. But, you've been acting afool since the Jaguars game. I remember you being one of the highest members of the sunshine club then flipped the switch and became just the opposite.

We're all upset, bro. The Texans failed miserably to meet my expectations of the season.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 09:09 AM
No playoffs in 2010, you're gone. No excuses. Whatsoever.

Are you willing to state, unequivocally, the same?

Is the door open for excuses in 2010?

"Explain."


NO. Setting up arbitrary guidelines just doesn't make sense to me. What if Schaub, AJ, Cushing, DRyans all end up on the IR in September and the team finishes 11-5 but misses the playoffs... Most likely, I wouldn't want the coaching staff turned over after that season. There are thousands of other combinations that would lead me to the same conclusion. Also, I can certainly imagine some scenarios where the Texans do make the playoffs but it still becomes clear that a coaching change is needed. For instance, it the team has a season like the Jets or TB did in 2008 and goes something like 9-3 but then loses out to finish 9-7 but backs into the playoffs. Then, in the playoffs, they lay an egg. Most likely, I would conclude it's time for a change.

I get enough of standardized testing in the public school system. Surely, football fans can get away from that kind of silliness

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 09:21 AM
2 big "buts" in this post, disqualifies it.... :spin:

Still qualifies for the intial jumps. :nolisten:

OT: TB, I started a thread in the NST area. My bro in law shot a commercial with some celebs for Haiti relief. I was looking at shots of other commercials he had done yesterday and saw one for Don't Mess With Texas with JLH. I should have met her..what was he thinking.

Ok, back on topic.

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 09:50 AM
You might want to heed your own advice, my friend. A lot of us are truly disappointed in how the past season went, and I am one of them. But, you've been acting afool since the Jaguars game. I remember you being one of the highest members of the sunshine club then flipped the switch and became just the opposite.

We're all upset, bro. The Texans failed miserably to meet my expectations of the season.

Forgive me for choosing to use the overwhelming empirical data to search for
the truth. When I'm wrong, and the facts show it, I'M WRONG. I'm man
enough to admit that. From that game forward, I'm stirring the pooding
looking for the proof. I'm not emotionally wound up in last year's
disappointment. I just want the stats and wins to start matching up.
There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

************************************************** ********

Bill. Te dije que yo te dara mis agradecimientos por contestarme en ambos
idiomas. Eres un buen hombre, también un gran norteamericano. Yo te
agradezco.

Dang, I wish I hadn't waited until age 23 to start learning Spanish. It's such
a beautiful language.

The Pencil Neck
01-22-2010, 10:08 AM
You might want to heed your own advice, my friend. A lot of us are truly disappointed in how the past season went, and I am one of them. But, you've been acting afool since the Jaguars game. I remember you being one of the highest members of the sunshine club then flipped the switch and became just the opposite.

We're all upset, bro. The Texans failed miserably to meet my expectations of the season.

I think all of us are upset that we didn't make the playoffs. We all thought this team was good enough to be there and do damage once they got there. Hell, they had a good enough record to be in the playoffs.

But, at that point, you've got a choice.

You can look at this from the Half Full side. We've had a winning season for the first time ever. We were in the hunt and playing meaningful games all the way to the last game of the season. Our passing game was one of the most prolific ever. Our defense made some amazing improvement over the course of the year. We've got a lot of things that we need to work on to be a better team next season and the way this team improves every year, there's hope that we'll do that.

Or you can look at this from the Half Empty side. We only got one more win than last year. Our W-L hasn't improved very much over the past 3 years and so we're just running in place and we need to take the next step. We've got a lot more talent on this team and we should have won more. We made a lot of mistakes and gave away a lot of games this year especially in our division and at home. We should have won more games and it's the coach's responsibility to make sure his players win those games.

HOU-TEX
01-22-2010, 10:28 AM
I think all of us are upset that we didn't make the playoffs. We all thought this team was good enough to be there and do damage once they got there. Hell, they had a good enough record to be in the playoffs.

But, at that point, you've got a choice.

You can look at this from the Half Full side. We've had a winning season for the first time ever. We were in the hunt and playing meaningful games all the way to the last game of the season. Our passing game was one of the most prolific ever. Our defense made some amazing improvement over the course of the year. We've got a lot of things that we need to work on to be a better team next season and the way this team improves every year, there's hope that we'll do that.

Or you can look at this from the Half Empty side. We only got one more win than last year. Our W-L hasn't improved very much over the past 3 years and so we're just running in place and we need to take the next step. We've got a lot more talent on this team and we should have won more. We made a lot of mistakes and gave away a lot of games this year especially in our division and at home. We should have won more games and it's the coach's responsibility to make sure his players win those games.

Well said, PN. I'd consider myself as a little of both, if that's possible. I've said it numerous times, but I just think this season was set up nicely for the Texans to kick the door in to the playoffs. There's plenty of blame to go around as to why the door remained shut and were talkin draft and what if's so I don't want to get into finger pointing. Watching the Wildcard weekend truly pissed me off, seeing both the Jets and Ravens win while reflecting on what SHOULD have been had we taken care of our own business. Ugh!

That said, I'm moving on and my expectations are growing once again as I start looking at the draft and other improvements that need to be done. I'm not satisfied with the 9-7 record considering how we got it, but at the same time, I'm happy we finally aren't considered losers.

houstonspartan
01-22-2010, 10:41 AM
NO. Setting up arbitrary guidelines just doesn't make sense to me. What if Schaub, AJ, Cushing, DRyans all end up on the IR in September and the team finishes 11-5 but misses the playoffs... Most likely, I wouldn't want the coaching staff turned over after that season. There are thousands of other combinations that would lead me to the same conclusion. Also, I can certainly imagine some scenarios where the Texans do make the playoffs but it still becomes clear that a coaching change is needed. For instance, it the team has a season like the Jets or TB did in 2008 and goes something like 9-3 but then loses out to finish 9-7 but backs into the playoffs. Then, in the playoffs, they lay an egg. Most likely, I would conclude it's time for a change.

I get enough of standardized testing in the public school system. Surely, football fans can get away from that kind of silliness


So, if we don't make the playoffs, Kubiak should stay, but if we DO make the playoffs and lose, he should be fired? I don't understand.

And, it's not "standardized testing" testing to have goals and metrics. I think a playoffs or fired benchmark for Kubiak next near is perfectly fair. Kubiak is the most spoiled, coddled coach in the NFL. There's nothing wrong with making him achieve something every now and then.

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 11:20 AM
NO. Setting up arbitrary guidelines just doesn't make sense to me. What if Schaub, AJ, Cushing, DRyans all end up on the IR in September and the team finishes 11-5 but misses the playoffs... Most likely, I wouldn't want the coaching staff turned over after that season. There are thousands of other combinations that would lead me to the same conclusion. Also, I can certainly imagine some scenarios where the Texans do make the playoffs but it still becomes clear that a coaching change is needed. For instance, it the team has a season like the Jets or TB did in 2008 and goes something like 9-3 but then loses out to finish 9-7 but backs into the playoffs. Then, in the playoffs, they lay an egg. Most likely, I would conclude it's time for a change.

I get enough of standardized testing in the public school system. Surely, football fans can get away from that kind of silliness

If you're gonna use a "what if" scenario, why wouldn't you use one that's
actually LIKELY to happen. No way the Texans go 11-5 after losing that
many key players. Hell, they had to beat a half-ready Patriots team to win
9 games THIS year, with the bulk of those players healthy.

The scenario you've stated is as likely to happen
as the Detroit Lions winning the NFC North next year. Do you want to
address the question I posed, or not?

If Kubiak does not make the playoffs, in FIVE SEASONS, should he be gone?

It's a simple question. If your answer is "NO," then the follow-up would
be: What has Gary Kubiak done, to merit a sixth season, after never
making the postseason in FIVE?

The Pencil Neck
01-22-2010, 12:11 PM
If you're gonna use a "what if" scenario, why wouldn't you use one that's
actually LIKELY to happen. No way the Texans go 11-5 after losing that
many key players. Hell, they had to beat a half-ready Patriots team to win
9 games THIS year, with the bulk of those players healthy.

The scenario you've stated is as likely to happen
as the Detroit Lions winning the NFC North next year. Do you want to
address the question I posed, or not?

If Kubiak does not make the playoffs, in FIVE SEASONS, should he be gone?

It's a simple question. If your answer is "NO," then the follow-up would
be: What has Gary Kubiak done, to merit a sixth season, after never
making the postseason in FIVE?

The simple answer is: It depends. I don't think his tenure is entirely about making the playoffs.

If we make the playoffs, Kubes should stay regardless of what our record is.

If we end up with a losing record, Kubiak should go.

If we go 8-8 or 9-7 and miss the playoffs, then it depends on how close we were to getting there. If we were just 1 team away from they playoffs again, then I say keep him. If we were totally out of the running the last couple of weeks, then he goes.

If we go 10-6 (or better) and miss the playoffs, Kubiak should stay.

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 12:16 PM
The simple answer is: It depends. I don't think his tenure is entirely about making the playoffs.

If we make the playoffs, Kubes should stay regardless of what our record is.

If we end up with a losing record, Kubiak should go.

If we go 8-8 or 9-7 and miss the playoffs, then it depends on how close we were to getting there. If we were just 1 team away from they playoffs again, then I say keep him. If we were totally out of the running the last couple of weeks, then he goes.

If we go 10-6 (or better) and miss the playoffs, Kubiak should stay.

Thank you for a direct, and well-thought answer to my question.

OzzO
01-22-2010, 12:55 PM
...Countdown to this thread turning into another Fire Kubiak/Keep Kubiak thread in 3.....2......1......

Good foresight.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 01:06 PM
Playing Devils Advocate here for fun...but he could have named Mike Smith and Tony Sparano. Woeful teams. Atlanta had the Vick issues too. They went to the playoffs quick. Atlanta came back a little bit this year but they had horrible injury issues at top positions. Miami was tough but not enough this year. But they did make a huge jump without alot of talent when they had almost no wins.

I haven't looked, but I would bet it is the same with the Falcons & Dolphins. Both were way more talented than the team Kubiak took over. If it weren't for their coach walking out on the Dolphins mid-season, they would have finished with a better record (I'm going from memory here, do I have my time line right? The coach before Sparano just up & left?)

When Kubiak came, I was a big time homer. Even though I didn't like David Carr, I figured Kubiak could coach him up, and we would roll. I overestimated the talent level of the players on that team. & I say overestimated, for the simple fact of all the players that left, I can't think of one that started on another team, except for Billy Miller. Can the Falcons, Dolphins, Jets & the Saints say the same thing & be in the same ball park with the number of players that have left this team? I don't think so.


Let's all agree on one thing.. we are past the excuse section of this test. Other teams have risen up quicker. Other teams have failed also or had more talent to start. But right now, it comes down to next season

I'll agree, this team is as talented as any team in the NFL. I'll agree our core has been together as long as the avg of the other teams in the league... meaning long enough.

I'll agree if we go 9-7 and miss the play-offs Kubiak needs to go. I'll say that unequivocally right now. If we miss the play-offs because Indy swept us.... he needs to go. If we miss the play-offs because of a poor division record, & by poor, I mean less than .500 in the division, he needs to go.

I'll even go so far as to say if we go 9-7 and make the playoffs, Kubiak needs to go.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 01:12 PM
If you're gonna use a "what if" scenario, why wouldn't you use one that's
actually LIKELY to happen. No way the Texans go 11-5 after losing that
many key players. Hell, they had to beat a half-ready Patriots team to win
9 games THIS year, with the bulk of those players healthy.

The scenario you've stated is as likely to happen
as the Detroit Lions winning the NFC North next year. Do you want to
address the question I posed, or not?

If Kubiak does not make the playoffs, in FIVE SEASONS, should he be gone?

It's a simple question. If your answer is "NO," then the follow-up would
be: What has Gary Kubiak done, to merit a sixth season, after never
making the postseason in FIVE?


This must be what it was like to try and talk about foreign policy with the most recent President George Bush:

Bush- "Are they evil?"

Cabinet member- "sir?"

Bush- "Are they evil?... You know, are they Christians or are they evil?"

Cabinet member- "Sir, the issue is a little more complicated than this. There are so many factors we have to look at before we can even consider a millitary response."

Bush- "It's real simple! First, you're fired! Next, somebody tell me whether these guys are Christians or not. Because if they ain't then we're going to bomb these guys into tomorrow. I don't want to hear anything out of your freakin' mouths except 'yes' or 'no'."

Bush- "Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between an Arab and a Muslim? I always get those confused!... Anyway, gentlemen, let's do some good!"

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 01:17 PM
This must be what it was like to try and talk about foreign policy with the most recent President George Bush:

Bush- "Are they evil?"

Cabinet member- "sir?"

Bush- "Are they evil?... You know, are they Christians or are they evil?"

Cabinet member- "Sir, the issue is a little more complicated than this. There are so many factors we have to look at before we can even consider a millitary response."

Bush- "It's real simple! First, you're fired! Next, somebody tell me whether these guys are Christians or not. Because if they ain't then we're going to bomb these guys into tomorrow. I don't want to hear anything out of your freakin' mouths except 'yes' or 'no'."

Bush- "Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between an Arab and a Muslim? I always get those confused!... Anyway, gentlemen, let's do some good!"

Nice tactic. Turn one's post into a cartoon, and avoid discussion about
the points therein. Please take a look at ThePencilNeck's response to my post, and
use it as an outline.

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 01:18 PM
I haven't looked, but I would bet it is the same with the Falcons & Dolphins. Both were way more talented than the team Kubiak took over. If it weren't for their coach walking out on the Dolphins mid-season, they would have finished with a better record (I'm going from memory here, do I have my time line right? The coach before Sparano just up & left?)

.

No, when Sparano took over they just finished a 1-15 season in 2007. Their QB was Trent Green, who got hurt and they went with Cleo Lemon and John Beck, as rook. Ronnie Brown was their only stud and he was hurt early that year. They didn't have much at all. Saban was their coach and quit to go to Alabama afterward. They had Joey Porter on D. The team was a mess. I mean a 10 win turnaround is pretty good...with Chad Pennington as your QB.

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 01:21 PM
No, when Sparano took over they just finished a 1-15 season in 2007. Their QB was Trent Green, who got hurt and they went with Cleo Lemon and John Beck, as rook. Ronnie Brown was their only stud and he was hurt early that year. They didn't have much at all. Saban was their coach and quit to go to Alabama afterward. They had Joey Porter on D. The team was a mess. I mean a 10 win turnaround is pretty good...with Chad Pennington as your QB.

Not to mention, their only win in 2007 came against the Ravens, on
a miracle catch by Camarillo, or whatever his name is, as time expired
in the fourth quarter.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 01:28 PM
Not to mention, their only win came against the Ravens, on
a miracle catch by Camarillo, or whatever his name is, as time expired
in the fourth quarter.

What do you think of a coach who leads his team to 4 wins less than the previous season? Kubiak's record is one game worse than Soprano's record over the same two year period. Head to head, Kubiak has won both meetings... Perhaps if Peyton Manning blew his ACL out in week one of 2009 or 2008, the Texans would've won 10-11 games and been in the playoffs as well. After all, it was Brady's injury last season that was the key to Miami's success.

But, that's just white noise. When assessing a coach or a football team, it's silly and cowardly to look at anything other than W/L record and playoff berths, right?

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 01:34 PM
What do you think of a coach who leads his team to 4 wins less than the previous season? Kubiak's record is one game worse than Soprano's record over the same two year period. Head to head, Kubiak has won both meetings... Perhaps if Peyton Manning blew his ACL out in week one of 2009 or 2008, the Texans would've won 10-11 games and been in the playoffs as well. After all, it was Brady's injury last season that was the key to Miami's success.

But, that's just white noise. When assessing a coach or a football team, it's silly and cowardly to look at anything other than W/L record and playoff berths, right?


Sparano also lost his best player in the middle of the season to IR. HIS
BEST PLAYER! Despite all that, they still split with their division's leader.
There's also no doubt, Sparano started from a worse base of talent in
2007, than Kubiak did in 2007. A lot of people call his "wildcat" a "gimmick,"
but his team has the personnel to beat teams when they know it's coming.
He schemed to his players' strengths.
In two years, Sparano has won his division once, and made the playoffs once.

In FOUR years, Kubiak has done neither. He doesn't merit the same rope
Sparano does going into next season. Sparano has ACCOMPLISHMENTS
on his mantle, Kubiak has none.

All I'm asking, is 2010 TRULY a do-or-die year for KUBIAK'S tenure in Houston?

What's so complex about that question? Why does it draw so much
hostility? We both know the Texans find teams to lose to (Jaguars)
(Raiders) (Joey Harrington Falcons), so it doesn't matter what Peyton does.

One game "does not a season make."

Who's at fault for this team sleepwalking through the 1st month of every season?

Who's to blame for them falling off the map during every November?

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 01:35 PM
What do you think of a coach who leads his team to 4 wins less than the previous season? Kubiak's record is one game worse than Soprano's record over the same two year period. Head to head, Kubiak has won both meetings... Perhaps if Peyton Manning blew his ACL out in week one of 2009 or 2008, the Texans would've won 10-11 games and been in the playoffs as well. After all, it was Brady's injury last season that was the key to Miami's success.
But, that's just white noise. When assessing a coach or a football team, it's silly and cowardly to look at anything other than W/L record and playoff berths, right?

This is a cop out. As I said, they fell backwards a little but they made the playoffs the year before and their top weapon went out mid season. Earlier the conclusion by some was that teams like the Jets had more talent when a rookie HC took over. So not the same as Kubes. So when a team that had nothing is pointed out, then it is because Brady was hurt. The key to their success wasn't Brady out...that is 2 games. The key to their success was taking less talent, running the Wilcat and making something out of nothing. Ronnie Brown and Chad Pennington.

This year they were just as much in the hunt as the Texans until the end. Again, this is a team that two years back was 1-15 and trotting out Cleo Lemon while their coach was quitting and star receiver was getting arrested.

I just don't get when a real example is thrown out, somehow Kubes had it harder and Kubes' situation is so different. What about the Atlanta one?Horrible team, turmoil, rookie QB..playoffs. They got killed at QB and RB in the injury front this year but they built a winner and with all the injuries they were still 9-7. Their first back to back winning records.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 01:49 PM
In two years, Sparano has won his division once, and made the playoffs once.
Sparano also lost his best player in the middle of the season to IR. HIS
BEST PLAYER!

In FOUR years, Kubiak has done neither. He doesn't merit the same rope
Sparano does going into next season. Sparano has ACCOMPLISHMENTS
on his mantle, Kubiak has none.

All I'm asking, is 2010 TRULY a do-or-die year for KUBIAK'S tenure in Houston?

What's so complex about that question? Why does it draw so much
hostility? We both know the Texans find teams to lose to (Jaguars)
(Raiders) (Joey Harrington Falcons), so it doesn't matter what Peyton does.

One game "does not a season make."

Who's at fault for this team sleepwalking through the 1st month of every season?

Who's to blame for them falling off the map during every November?



Once again, Miami made the playoffs in 2008 because Brady went on IR in week one. The Texans would've made the playoffs in '08 or '09 if Manning had gone down for the season. Regarding Miami this season and overcoming the loss of Ronnie Brown... The went 7-9! What exactly did they overcome? The Texans won 9 games despite losing 4 offensive starters to the IR, including their best OL, and their elite TE.

If it is neccessary to point fingers as to who is most to blame for our November swoon, I'd place blame on Kris Brown and Peyton Manning. Those two players had more to do with the 4 game losing streak than any other individual did.

I don't think we slept-walked through September. I think our defensive secondary was a mess because of Dunta's holdout, a serious miscalculation by the staff regarding the safety position, Bret Favre's cheap shot on Eugene Wilson in preseason, J. Reeves broken fibula, rookies playing in their first game (Quin, McCain) and Fred Bennett's overall suckedness.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 01:54 PM
There's also no doubt, Sparano started from a worse base of talent in
2007, than Kubiak did in 2007. A lot of people call his "wildcat" a "gimmick,"
but his team has the personnel to beat teams when they know it's coming.
He schemed to his players' strengths.



But we beat him & his wild cat.

I mean Gary did.

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 01:55 PM
Once again, Miami made the playoffs in 2008 because Brady went on IR in week one. The Texans would've made the playoffs in '08 or '09 if Manning had gone down for the season. Regarding Miami this season and overcoming the loss of Ronnie Brown... The went 7-9! What exactly did they overcome? The Texans won 9 games despite losing 4 offensive starters to the IR, including their best OL, and their elite TE.
.


Ronnie Brown runing the wildcat is the equivalent to losing Schaub or Andre Johnson. With a new QB, that was their offense with Ricky as the 2nd star. The won in 08 because of the Wildcat. The Pats is 2 games and there is no guarantee that Brady wins both games. They still had Cassell and won 11 games. The still had their D. They won 1 game the year before. Dear Lord, step out of the homer-mobile for 5 seconds and look at the reality.

This is why I hate these threads. I threw out 2 teams to play Devil's Advocate because they weren't loaded with talent and had horrible issues and somehow it was never as bad as the Texans in their 4 years of rebuilding. Give some credit where credit is due. That is the whole point to this exercise...to see where the team stands as compared to similar and dissimilar situations.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 02:01 PM
This is a cop out. As I said, they fell backwards a little but they made the playoffs the year before and their top weapon went out mid season. Earlier the conclusion by some was that teams like the Jets had more talent when a rookie HC took over. So not the same as Kubes. So when a team that had nothing is pointed out, then it is because Brady was hurt. The key to their success wasn't Brady out...that is 2 games. The key to their success was taking less talent, running the Wilcat and making something out of nothing. Ronnie Brown and Chad Pennington.

This year they were just as much in the hunt as the Texans until the end. Again, this is a team that two years back was 1-15 and trotting out Cleo Lemon while their coach was quitting and star receiver was getting arrested.

I just don't get when a real example is thrown out, somehow Kubes had it harder and Kubes' situation is so different. What about the Atlanta one?Horrible team, turmoil, rookie QB..playoffs. They got killed at QB and RB in the injury front this year but they built a winner and with all the injuries they were still 9-7. Their first back to back winning records.

You guys have so much patience for other teams and none for your own. "Miami fell back a little bit", you said... They dropped 4 games! They finished this season with a losing record! The Texans beat them last year and this year... both were games that mattered to both teams.

There is NO chance that Miami makes the playoffs in 2008 if Brady doesn't blowout his ACL in week one. That's not a copout. That is reality. The Texans haven't had that kind of fortune yet. If Manning had gone down injured for the season, I'm confident the Texans would've won 11 games and the division.

Miami had a horrible season in 2007 but they were a moderately talented team. They had an established NFL starter at QB: Pennington. They had two good RBs with Brown and Ricky. They also had a lot of nice pieces on defense. The team played over their heads in 2008 and took advantage of some good breaks: Brady's injury and the Jets' self destruction in December. It's to their credit and Soprano's credit that they accomplished what they did. However, I don't think that's the standard you should judge Kubiak by. After all, Soprano couldn't even approach their accomplishes from the '08 season in '09. The circumstances were different and they didn't get the kind of breaks they did the season before.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 02:03 PM
So when a team that had nothing is pointed out, then it is because Brady was hurt. The key to their success wasn't Brady out...that is 2 games. The key to their success was taking less talent, running the Wilcat and making something out of nothing. Ronnie Brown and Chad Pennington.

I think, that was a defensive team. Are you telling me they didn't have anyone on that defense that was worth a damn? When I get home, I'll look, but right now, I'm not buying it.

As far as not having anything on offense, I've always liked Pennington, so that's not a negative to me.

He also had Ronnie Brown, & Riki Williams.

Is there anyone on that offensive line, that is still there? 2 years later? We've got Pitts from Kubiak's 2006 team, and he didn't play after week 3 in 2009.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 02:07 PM
Ronnie Brown runing the wildcat is the equivalent to losing Schaub or Andre Johnson. With a new QB, that was their offense with Ricky as the 2nd star. The won in 08 because of the Wildcat. The Pats is 2 games and there is no guarantee that Brady wins both games. They still had Cassell and won 11 games. The still had their D. They won 1 game the year before. Dear Lord, step out of the homer-mobile for 5 seconds and look at the reality.

This is why I hate these threads. I threw out 2 teams to play Devil's Advocate because they weren't loaded with talent and had horrible issues and somehow it was never as bad as the Texans in their 4 years of rebuilding. Give some credit where credit is due. That is the whole point to this exercise...to see where the team stands as compared to similar and dissimilar situations.

Don't you think that 2 starting guards, the starting RB, and the all-pro TE are significant pieces of the Texan puzzle? By the way, the Texans won 8 games last year despite Schaub missing 5 of them.

Also, NE's defense stinks. If Miami and NE split last year, then Miami is sitting home and NE is in the playoffs. Certainly, that would've happened if Brady was healthy.

Atlanta and Miami were very good stories in 2008. I agree. However, circumstances collide to make those stories happen. It isn't simply a matter of a good coach all of a sudden makes the difference. It helps... But, all those rookie coaches that had so much success in 2008 all stepped back this year: Miami 7-9, Baltimore 9-7, Atlanta 8-8... What happened? Did those coaches all of a sudden start coaching like Kubiak? No. Things just didn't break for them as well as they did the season before.

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 02:11 PM
Don't you think that 2 starting guards, the starting RB, and the all-pro TE are significant pieces of the Texan puzzle? By the way, the Texans won 8 games last year despite Schaub missing 5 of them.

Also, NE's defense stinks. If Miami and NE split last year, then Miami is sitting home and NE is in the playoffs. Certainly, that would've happened if Brady was healthy.

Atlanta and Miami were very good stories in 2008. I agree. However, circumstances collide to make those stories happen. It isn't simply a matter of a good coach all of a sudden makes the difference. It helps... But, all those rookie coaches that had so much success in 2008 all stepped back this year: Miami 7-9, Baltimore 9-7, Atlanta 8-8... What happened? Did those coaches all of a sudden start coaching like Kubiak? No. Things just didn't break for them as well as they did the season before.

We poo-poo the successes of other rookie coaches, yet pine to keep
one with NO success in FOUR FULL SEASONS. It's an oxymoronic dichotomy of opinion.

ChampionTexan
01-22-2010, 02:19 PM
Ronnie Brown runing the wildcat is the equivalent to losing Schaub or Andre Johnson. With a new QB, that was their offense with Ricky as the 2nd star.


The Dolphins were 4-5 in the games R. Brown started this year (including an 0-3 start). They were 3-4 in the games after he was put on IR. It's a bit of a stretch to jump to the conclusion that a healthy Ronnie Brown for all 16 games would have had much of an impact on their record.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 02:20 PM
We poo-poo the successes of other rookie coaches, yet pine to keep
one with NO success in FOUR FULL SEASONS. It's an oxymoronic dichotomy of opinion.

What are you talking about! I give those guys a ton of credit. I just realize that chance plays a significant role separating a wild card team with a .500 team from one year to the next. That's why those same coaches that were so successful in 2008 all had lesser seasons. They're still the same good coaches they were before, only things didn't line up well for them this year.

a little side note: If the Texans had gone 11-5 in 2008 and lost in the first round of the playoffs and then followed that season up with a 7-9 season, you and others would be screaming for Kubiak's head. But, since it happens in Miami, you are defending the coach because his RB got hurt. Pretty funny!

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 02:22 PM
Don't you think that 2 starting guards, the starting RB, and the all-pro TE are significant pieces of the Texan puzzle? By the way, the Texans won 8 games last year despite Schaub missing 5 of them.

Also, NE's defense stinks. If Miami and NE split last year, then Miami is sitting home and NE is in the playoffs. Certainly, that would've happened if Brady was healthy.

Atlanta and Miami were very good stories in 2008. I agree. However, circumstances collide to make those stories happen. It isn't simply a matter of a good coach all of a sudden makes the difference. It helps... But, all those rookie coaches that had so much success in 2008 all stepped back this year: Miami 7-9, Baltimore 9-7, Atlanta 8-8... What happened? Did those coaches all of a sudden start coaching like Kubiak? No. Things just didn't break for them as well as they did the season before.


Please Stop.

Atlanta was 9-7..the same as the Texans and a year after making the playoffs. the had dog fighting, no Vick, a no-name coach, etc. How did they do it and not take 5 years?

Also, in 2008, NE had the 10th best D and the 5th best offense. So please stop downplaying how a 1-15 team with low talent turned it around so quickly...a historical turnaround.

Oh I forgot..the Texans didn't get breaks, the Texans injuries were just as bad, the Texans bad breaks didn't matchup with other teams good breaks...............

This is why having a logical, no homer talk is impossible.

a little side note: If the Texans had gone 11-5 in 2008 and lost in the first round of the playoffs and then followed that season up with a 7-9 season, you and others would be screaming for Kubiak's head. But, since it happens in Miami, you are defending the coach because his RB got hurt. Pretty funny!

Completely made up and untrue. People would realize that a top player went down that hurt their chances and would know that the same team got to the playoffs the year before. But that isn't what happened. This isn't a conspiracy about Kubes. It is a rational talk about why building here is a sloths pace compared to teams who were in dire straits and made bigger strides.

I'm out. I tried to have some fun but frustration has set in

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 02:27 PM
What are you talking about! I give those guys a ton of credit. I just realize that chance plays a significant role separating a wild card team with a .500 team from one year to the next. That's why those same coaches that were so successful in 2008 all had lesser seasons. They're still the same good coaches they were before, only things didn't line up well for them this year.

a little side note: If the Texans had gone 11-5 in 2008 and lost in the first round of the playoffs and then followed that season up with a 7-9 season, you and others would be screaming for Kubiak's head. But, since it happens in Miami, you are defending the coach because his RB got hurt. Pretty funny!

I'd like the opportunity to know what I'd do if this team had an 11-5 playoff
year. My disappointment is not based on a hypothetical. It's based on
FOUR YEARS of being stuck in neutral. If you can't argue with me based
on what's ACTUALLY happened, then don't respond to my posts.

I don't know how I'd react if Kubiak finished his rookie year 11-5, 'cause
it never happened. He finished it 6-10. This was followed up by
two-consecutive 8-8 years, and a miraculous comeback win to finish
ONE game better at 9-7.

So, understand my arguments are based in the points enumerated by the
previous paragraph, and not a hypothetical situation in which the Texans
were a playoff team having a bad year. That's NOT the team we're
discussing. We ARE discussing a team that's hovered around .500 for
FOUR CONSECUTIVE SEASONS.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 02:29 PM
Please Stop.

Atlanta was 9-7..the same as the Texans and a year after making the playoffs. the had dog fighting, no Vick, a no-name coach, etc. How did they do it and not take 5 years?

Also, in 2008, NE had the 10th best D and the 5th best offense. So please stop downplaying how a 1-15 team with low talent turned it around so quickly...a historical turnaround.

Oh I forgot..the Texans didn't get breaks, the Texans injuries were just as bad, the Texans bad breaks didn't matchup with other teams good breaks...............

This is why having a logical, no homer talk is impossible.

What am I downplaying? Atlanta and Miami had two really nice seasons in 2008. They each took a step back in 2009. I can't believe that it is so controversial to suggest that Brady missing 16 games in 2008 cost the Patriots a game or two.

You call Miami's turnaround "historic"... you're right. So stop trying to use it as an assessment tool for Kubiak. It's historic! It almost never happens. The fact that it's historic also is a clue that many factors had to lineup just right in order for that to happen. It did! and good for them. That team this season went 7-9 and lost at home to the Texans in a game with playoff implications.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 02:35 PM
This is why having a logical, no homer talk is impossible.

It is a rational talk about why building here is a sloths pace compared to teams who were in dire straits and made bigger strides.

I believe even Dale would say this team didn't play up to it's talent potential in 2009. Like Dale, I don't think it warrants getting rid of Kubiak.

I've said many times before, that this pace is not what I expected. You call them excuses, I call them good reasons why the pace has been so slow. Not all of those reasons are on Kubiak either.

My point right now, is that we bought a bad bill of goods, at least we didn't get what we expected when we hired Kubiak. I know I didn't.

I believe he is a better head coach now than he was in 2006... I flat out don't think he was ready then. But given what he has done, with what he had... I think he definitely deserves one more year here in Houston.

Contrary to what many here think, I believe if we let Gary go, someone will snatch him up as a HC, & he'll be the next Bellichick. He will have his team winning their division for the next 10 years.

I would like for that to be this team, and I think he'll prove it next year.

I can go into all the reasons why I think that, but you & dex have poo-poo'd those reasons before, so I don't really see the point.

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 02:35 PM
I'd like the opportunity to know what I'd do if this team had an 11-5 playoff
year. My disappointment is not based on a hypothetical. It's based on
FOUR YEARS of being stuck in neutral. If you can't argue with me based
on what's ACTUALLY happened, then don't respond to my posts.

I don't know how I'd react if Kubiak finished his rookie year 11-5, 'cause
it never happened. He finished it 6-10. This was followed up by
two-consecutive 8-8 years, and a miraculous comeback win to finish
ONE game better at 9-7.

So, understand my arguments are based in the points enumerated by the
previous paragraph, and not a hypothetical situation in which the Texans
were a playoff team having a bad year. That's NOT the team we're
discussing. We ARE discussing a team that's hovered around .500 for
FOUR CONSECUTIVE SEASONS.


Well, then, let's discuss reality. Which team is better heading into 2010 off-season: the 9-7 Houston Texans or the 7-9 Miami Dolphins. As for me, I think the Texans will outplay the Dolphins again next season, just like they did this year. Any of you that think Soprano is a better coach than Kubiak, PM me. I'll take some bets. You guys can have Miami, or Atlanta next season, and I'll bet on the Texans to finish with a better record than those two teams.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 02:38 PM
It's based on
FOUR YEARS of being stuck in neutral. If you can't argue with me based
on what's ACTUALLY happened, then don't respond to my posts.


To tell you the truth, if you think this is the same team GK took over in 2006, I don't know why dale would respond to your posts anyway.


:chef:

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 02:46 PM
To tell you the truth, if you think this is the same team GK took over in 2006, I don't know why dale would respond to your posts anyway.


:chef:

Some people really struggle to deal with disappointment, I guess.

Did you see Houstonfrog say that he wouldn't be calling for Kubiak's job if the Texans had done what Miami did, and win 11 games in 2008 and follow that up with 7 in 2009. He said that losing Ronnie Brown is essentially a valid excuse for dropping back 4 games in the W/L column.

I guess, though, that losing both starting Guards, Owen Daniels, and Steve Slaton doesn't excuse the Texans from only IMPROVING by ONE game.

Pretty funny!

HoustonFrog
01-22-2010, 02:51 PM
I believe even Dale would say this team didn't play up to it's talent potential in 2009. Like Dale, I don't think it warrants getting rid of Kubiak.

I've said many times before, that this pace is not what I expected. You call them excuses, I call them good reasons why the pace has been so slow. Not all of those reasons are on Kubiak either.

My point right now, is that we bought a bad bill of goods, at least we didn't get what we expected when we hired Kubiak. I know I didn't.

I believe he is a better head coach now than he was in 2006... I flat out don't think he was ready then. But given what he has done, with what he had... I think he definitely deserves one more year here in Houston.

Contrary to what many here think, I believe if we let Gary go, someone will snatch him up as a HC, & he'll be the next Bellichick. He will have his team winning their division for the next 10 years.

I would like for that to be this team, and I think he'll prove it next year.

I can go into all the reasons why I think that, but you & dex have poo-poo'd those reasons before, so I don't really see the point.

I don't poo-poo well thought out logical reasons for wanting to keep the guy. I don't even get mad that they kept him. I just think the Texans take an inordinate amount...in NFL standards these days...of time to not do too much and yet it, for a bit, seemed acceptable. That has always been my point. I didn't even bring up Atlanta and Miami to say "fire Kubes." It was only to say that teams in dire straights have done it.

Again, I'm all up for rational talk. And for the last month or so I have stepped way back after giving opinions in original threads concerning all of this. What stopped me was 1) people know my point of view and 2) no matter how football related and fact related a conversation is, some homers will always spin it. Not saying that is you but it isn't in my belief system that the Texans just happen to have bad things while these other teams trip into perfect situations.

Again, the Miami and Atlanta thing was merely a talking point compared to Baltimore and the Jets, etc. After I gave you the lowdown on 08 for them I didn't expect to debate a 10 win turnaround.

Some people really struggle to deal with disappointment, I guess.

Did you see Houstonfrog say that he wouldn't be calling for Kubiak's job if the Texans had done what Miami did, and win 11 games in 2008 and follow that up with 7 in 2009. He said that losing Ronnie Brown is essentially a valid excuse for dropping back 4 games in the W/L column.

I guess, though, that losing both starting Guards, Owen Daniels, and Steve Slaton doesn't excuse the Texans from only IMPROVING by ONE game.

Pretty funny!

Again, you are spinning. Slaton was lost late and was having a bad season to start. So please. Also, I love how Owen Daniels was argued to be expendable before the year and now he is the equivalent to the teams main star player. Dale, my problem with your arguments is that no matter what is presented to you, you have an excuse. If I mention that the Texans offense still produced and that Schaub set top NFL marks with the losses then it turns to...well then it is Kris Brown and Chris Brown. If I mention that the Colts defense played with no one higher than a 3rd stringer in a game against us..it is something else. It's a fruitless debate and exercise.

The Pencil Neck
01-22-2010, 02:56 PM
Personally, I don't care.

I don't care what other coaches have done with other teams. Each situation is different.

I mean, Mora, Jr. had a great first year with the Falcons and then got progressively worse each year. There's nothing that says a Mangini or a Sparano or a Mike Smith is going to be able to keep up that success that they initially had. You can go into a situation and catch a few breaks and look like a genius. Or a great coach could go into a bad situation and have it blow up on him and look bad for a couple of years.

I think a lot of coaches get fired too quickly in this league because the random factors aligned against them. Much like Belichik in Cleveland and his first and third years with the Patriots.

I want someone who's going to be successful over a long period of time.

Texan_Bill
01-22-2010, 02:58 PM
http://www.robofit.net/Ping-PongAnimated.gifhttp://tuttogratis.calshop.biz/immagini/animated/ping_pong/ping_pong-03.gif

:popcorn:

dalemurphy
01-22-2010, 03:17 PM
Again, you are spinning. Slaton was lost late and was having a bad season to start. So please. Also, I love how Owen Daniels was argued to be expendable before the year and now he is the equivalent to the teams main star player. Dale, my problem with your arguments is that no matter what is presented to you, you have an excuse. If I mention that the Texans offense still produced and that Schaub set top NFL marks with the losses then it turns to...well then it is Kris Brown and Chris Brown. If I mention that the Colts defense played with no one higher than a 3rd stringer in a game against us..it is something else. It's a fruitless debate and exercise.

What excuse? You are the one that uses an injury to excuse Miami's poor season. I'm not making any excuses. I'm disappointed that the Texans missed the playoffs. I can grab at a dozen things that would have put us in the playoffs had they gone differently. What I'm responding to are the Texan fans that have taken their disappointment with the season and turned it into bitterness and have directed it at Gary Kubiak. I just don't get it. This magical idea that many of you have about getting into the playoffs is hysterical. We have the same record as the Jets and the Ravens. The Jets and the Ravens caught some breaks and ended up in the playoffs. Somehow that makes them better coaches than Kubiak. That is silly.

I drove from Austin to Houston five times this regular season. I saw the Texans win twice. I had to drive home after heartbreaking losses against Tennessee and Indianapolis. I also had to drive home after that fiasco versus NYJets. It sucks! I was committed to travelling to their first playoff game this season.
As disappointed as I am with our results, I am absolutely thrilled with the development of the team! Furthermore, I simply disagree that Kubiak is a worse gameday coach than guys you have been praising. And, I love the fact that the Texans never quit in a game or during a season. That the players so consistently play for Kubiak is a telling sign, I think. I have my issues with Kubiak but I just don't believe a coaching change right now offers the best hope for the Texans to make a run next season. So, that's why I want him back. Furthermore, I'm so excited about this team and enjoy conversing with other Texan fans about them. But, I seem to always get sucked into threads about Kubiak... Probably because he's my coach. I'm grateful for the job he's done. So, I root for him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

steelbtexan
01-22-2010, 03:50 PM
Here I'm going to stir up some poo.

There has never been a champiomship level HC that has coached or played for A&M. I'm talking about div.1, div.2 or the NFL. I dont expect Kubes to change this trend.

A&M grads are great intelligent people with the highest moral standing but they're not leaders.

Hell when you get right down to it A&M is the best engineering university in Texas and they cant even build a bondfire. Embarrising (SP?)

Let the Neg reps begin but the truth hurts.

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 03:52 PM
Here I'm going to stir up some poo.

There has never been a champiomship level HC that has coached or played for A&M. I'm talking about div.1, div.2 or the NFL. I dont expect Kubes to change this trend.

A&M grads are great intelligent people with the highest moral standing but they're not leaders.

Hell when you get right down to it A&M is the best engineering university in Texas and they cant even build a bondfire. Embarrising (SP?)

OOooohhh. <low blow>
:ouch:

The Pencil Neck
01-22-2010, 04:09 PM
Here I'm going to stir up some poo.

There has never been a champiomship level HC that has coached or played for A&M. I'm talking about div.1, div.2 or the NFL. I dont expect Kubes to change this trend.

A&M grads are great intelligent people with the highest moral standing but they're not leaders.

Hell when you get right down to it A&M is the best engineering university in Texas and they cant even build a bondfire. Embarrising (SP?)

Let the Neg reps begin but the truth hurts.

OK.

Now.

That's just wrong, man. And you know it.

Funny as hell, though.

JB
01-22-2010, 04:14 PM
Here I'm going to stir up some poo.

There has never been a champiomship level HC that has coached or played for A&M. I'm talking about div.1, div.2 or the NFL. I dont expect Kubes to change this trend.

A&M grads are great intelligent people with the highest moral standing but they're not leaders.

Hell when you get right down to it A&M is the best engineering university in Texas and they cant even build a bondfire. Embarrising (SP?)

Let the Neg reps begin but the truth hurts.


Bear Bryant dont count?

DexmanC
01-22-2010, 04:27 PM
To tell you the truth, if you think this is the same team GK took over in 2006, I don't know why dale would respond to your posts anyway.


:chef:

I don't know why you keep going there to bolster your point. By that logic,
as long as Kubiak doesn't fall to 2-14, he should stay because it's "not
the same squad from '05."

The NFL is the "Honors Level" of football coaching. If a kid continually makes
C's, and you tell him he has ONE MORE SEMESTER TO PULL AN A average,
you shouldn't let him stay because a 'C' is a "passing grade". You don't reach
the standard, WHICH IS ALWAYS SET HIGH, you should go.

FIVE YEARS to pull his first 'A' is lenient enough, do you thinK?

Texan_Bill
01-22-2010, 04:28 PM
Here I'm going to stir up some poo.

There has never been a champiomship level HC that has coached or played for A&M. I'm talking about div.1, div.2 or the NFL. I dont expect Kubes to change this trend.

A&M grads are great intelligent people with the highest moral standing but they're not leaders.

Hell when you get right down to it A&M is the best engineering university in Texas and they cant even build a bondfire. Embarrising (SP?)

Let the Neg reps begin but the truth hurts.

Jackie Sherrill did alright at A&M


Jorge Quiroga and Martin Torrijos were both heads of state for Bolivia and Panama.
Several Congressmen.
Several Mayors
Several CEO's of major companies
7 Medal of Honor winners.

No negative rep. but you should do some homework before spewing forth.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 04:36 PM
I didn't even bring up Atlanta and Miami to say "fire Kubes." It was only to say that teams in dire straights have done it.

I'll disagree. But we can carry on this discussion later if you want.
2) no matter how football related and fact related a conversation is, some homers will always spin it. Not saying that is you but it isn't in my belief system that the Texans just happen to have bad things while these other teams trip into perfect situations.

I'm not getting that from these debates. But I will say it's difficult to follow an argument on an open forum, such as this. There are so many parallel thoughts going on.. so many threads within a thread, etc..

Again, you are spinning. Slaton was lost late and was having a bad season to start.

854 yards from scrimmage in 11(9) games. Not what we expected but I wouldn't say bad apart from the fumbling thing.

Also, I love how Owen Daniels was argued to be expendable before the year and now he is the equivalent to the teams main star player.

You don't think OD took it to a different level this year?

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 05:04 PM
I think a lot of coaches get fired too quickly in this league because the random factors aligned against them. Much like Belichik in Cleveland and his first and third years with the Patriots.

I want someone who's going to be successful over a long period of time.

Do you think Denny Green would have taken the Cardinals to the Super Bowl?

I know we'll never know. But I think he was in much the same situation as Kubiak. In 2004, he took an Arizona Cardinals team with spotty talent, and turned them around. Now though Wisenhunt may be a great coach, he took Green's 8-8 team to 9-7, and a Super Bowl appearance. 2 years later, they are 10-6 & made the play-offs again.

His first three years were pretty lackluster, then when he got the talent level up to snuff, you get the, "They are who we thought they were" speach.

Sounds kind of familiar, no?

And Denny Green was a good coach who got his team the NFC Championship game...

The Pencil Neck
01-22-2010, 05:24 PM
Do you think Denny Green would have taken the Cardinals to the Super Bowl?

I know we'll never know. But I think he was in much the same situation as Kubiak. In 2004, he took an Arizona Cardinals team with spotty talent, and turned them around. Now though Wisenhunt may be a great coach, he took Green's 8-8 team to 9-7, and a Super Bowl appearance. 2 years later, they are 10-6 & made the play-offs again.

His first three years were pretty lackluster, then when he got the talent level up to snuff, you get the, "They are who we thought they were" speach.

Sounds kind of familiar, no?

And Denny Green was a good coach who got his team the NFC Championship game...

Green ended up putting the pieces in place.

I also look at Belichik. He had that 5-10 year with the Browns and got canned. I don't think his going back to being a DC for a while really improved his ability to be a head coach all that much. And if he hadn't gotten lucky with Brady, he would have been gone after his second season with the Patriots and probably never would have had another chance to be a head coach.

I look at Tom Coughlin. He had a few bad seasons and got canned in Jacksonville. Then he makes the playoffs a couple of years in New York and people are still calling for his head. He saved his job by winning a Super Bowl. I think he's a good coach. He'll be gone next year if he goes 8-8 again and I think that's a shame because i think he's a good coach who could win another SB.

I think coaches get blamed for a lot of things that are out of their control and sometimes praised for stuff they had nothing to do with. I think good (and even great) coaches get canned because people (I'm talking owners usually, but fans, too) have unrealistic expectations. Any coach with a long tenure is going to go through some periods that aren't that great. I think, in many instances, people pull the trigger too quickly.

thunderkyss
01-22-2010, 05:26 PM
I don't know why you keep going there to bolster your point. By that logic,
as long as Kubiak doesn't fall to 2-14, he should stay because it's "not
the same squad from '05."

Ok, when reading my post, you've got to understand I'm not talking about the W-L record.

I'll restate it for you. If you don't think this team plays better than the team Kubiak took over, the one he took to 6-10, then I don't know why people bother arguing with you.

The NFL is the "Honors Level" of football coaching. If a kid continually makes
C's, and you tell him he has ONE MORE SEMESTER TO PULL AN A average,
you shouldn't let him stay because a 'C' is a "passing grade". You don't reach
the standard, WHICH IS ALWAYS SET HIGH, you should go.

FIVE YEARS to pull his first 'A' is lenient enough, do you thinK?

If I give a teacher a class of my worst students, and tell him he has 4 years to get that class to respectability.... then because of the good work he does, I start boasting that I believe in him so much, that I believe that class will average a 1600 on the SATs...

I'm not going to freak out and fire him when that doesn't happen. Especially if that class performs very well on their TAKS scores.

TAKs doesn't mean anything for that students academic future, It's not the SAT, but it is a measure of performance that does quantify actual student performance.

steelbtexan
01-22-2010, 06:31 PM
Jackie Sherrill did alright at A&M


Jorge Quiroga and Martin Torrijos were both heads of state for Bolivia and Panama.
Several Congressmen.
Several Mayors
Several CEO's of major companies
7 Medal of Honor winners.

No negative rep. but you should do some homework before spewing forth.

I was talking about sports and A&M.

They have many business leaders.

Forgot about Bear Bryant but you get my thought process.

Thorn
01-22-2010, 08:40 PM
Texans suck.

No they don’t.

Kubiak sucks. He should be fired.

No, he’s improved the team a lot. He should stay.

We didn’t make the playoffs because of Kubiak.

No, we didn’t make the playoffs because of the Brown twins.

Evolution is false science and bad for your mind.

No! Raptor Jesus is just to cool!

Schaub hasn’t proven himself yet.

You’re right, that’s why he threw for more yards than anyone with no running game.

The sky is blue.

No it isn’t, it’s night you fool.


:spin:

ChampionTexan
01-22-2010, 08:57 PM
Texans suck.

No they don’t.

Kubiak sucks. He should be fired.

No, he’s improved the team a lot. He should stay.

We didn’t make the playoffs because of Kubiak.

No, we didn’t make the playoffs because of the Brown twins.

Evolution is false science and bad for your mind.

No! Raptor Jesus is just to cool!

Schaub hasn’t proven himself yet.

You’re right, that’s why he threw for more yards than anyone with no running game.

The sky is blue.

No it isn’t, it’s night you fool.


:spin:

I'd Rep you if I could.

No I wouldn't
:specnatz:

Scooter
01-23-2010, 08:49 AM
repped thorn lol.

an interesting stat i found earlier is only 10 teams in the league have done no worse than 8-8 across the past 3 seasons. oddly enough, only 2 coaches in that group are on the hotseat and both are from texas ... one of which mans the youngest starting lineup in the NFL and the most recent franchise in the NFL.

weird.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 09:14 AM
repped thorn lol.

an interesting stat i found earlier is only 10 teams in the league have done no worse than 8-8 across the past 3 seasons. oddly enough, only 2 coaches in that group are on the hotseat and both are from texas ... one of which mans the youngest starting lineup in the NFL and the most recent franchise in the NFL.

weird.

How many of those 10 teams have NOT made postseason? How many
of those 2 coaches on the hotseat are ON the hotseat because they
have an owner DYING for a championship. How many of those coaches
are on the hotseat only as a public front, because their owner is looking
to have 62 choirboys and a boyscout troopleader as the top priority, and
winning is incidental.

....just a thought.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 09:21 AM
Ok, when reading my post, you've got to understand I'm not talking about the W-L record.

I'll restate it for you. If you don't think this team plays better than the team Kubiak took over, the one he took to 6-10, then I don't know why people bother arguing with you.


If I give a teacher a class of my worst students, and tell him he has 4 years to get that class to respectability.... then because of the good work he does, I start boasting that I believe in him so much, that I believe that class will average a 1600 on the SATs... (Superbowl)

I'm not going to freak out and fire him when that doesn't happen. Especially if that class performs very well on their TAKS scores.(Playoff appearance)

TAKs doesn't mean anything for that students academic future, It's not the SAT, but it is a measure of performance that does quantify actual student performance.

His students are still struggling on their pop quizzes. He's probably the
longest-tenured coach in the NFL without a single playoff appearance.
If he's around after year FIVE with the same results, why continue to spin
our wheels?

Have they played better than the 6-10 squad of 2006? YES!!! However,
RESULTS are based on how they fare against the REST OF THE LEAGUE.
What are we supposed to see, that places Kubiak on the same planet
of coaches as Tom Landry, Bill Belichick, or any other GREAT coach?
NOTHING he's done merits him being placed in that class, yet his staunchest
supporters continue to do it. Help me understand.

JB
01-23-2010, 09:46 AM
His students are still struggling on their pop quizzes. He's probably the
longest-tenured coach in the NFL without a single playoff appearance.
If he's around after year FIVE with the same results, why continue to spin
our wheels?

Have they played better than the 6-10 squad of 2006? YES!!! However,
RESULTS are based on how they fare against the REST OF THE LEAGUE.
What are we supposed to see, that places Kubiak on the same planet
of coaches as Tom Landry, Bill Belichick, or any other GREAT coach?
NOTHING he's done merits him being placed in that class, yet his staunchest
supporters continue to do it. Help me understand.

I have not seen anyone compare Kubiak to GREAT coaches, other than pointing out similar records at the beginning of their careers. No one can make you understand what you refuse to see.

Scooter
01-23-2010, 09:59 AM
How many of those 10 teams have NOT made postseason? How many
of those 2 coaches on the hotseat are ON the hotseat because they
have an owner DYING for a championship. How many of those coaches
are on the hotseat only as a public front, because their owner is looking
to have 62 choirboys and a boyscout troopleader as the top priority, and
winning is incidental.

....just a thought.

how many took over a 2-14 team, or even a 6-10 team? how many had to dump cap space their first 3 seasons? how many have replaced 40(ish ... i'm not looking that one up) players in that span? (49 of 53 in the four years) how many had to rebuild after their first rebuild (david carr, mike sherman, ahman green, samkon gado, mike flanagan, anthony weaver, etc) because of someone else? we grossly exceeded expectations. met expectations. and not even counting our mistakes were the colts and bengals rolling over from meeting this season's expectations.

the "other" coach on the hotseat took over for bill friggin parcells. obviously he's nowhere near the calibre of casserly and capers, but that should atleast count for something ... right?

"if that bastard leads us to the superbowl and it's not 70* and sunny i'll be pissed". what do you want? you want indy to play dead like they did for the 9-7 team they'll face tomorrow so we go no worse than 10-6? kris brown to ... not suck and we go no worse than 10-6? if you mention the division record again i'm gonna smack you lol (teasing). trading that one win for several other non divisional games would have us playing tomorrow.

we had a good season. we've come a long way. even being relatively unhealthy we made huge strides on both offense and defense. we achieved a milestone this city hasnt seen in nearly 2 decades and were robbed of potentially a whole lot more. see the forest.

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 10:16 AM
how many took over a 2-14 team, or even a 6-10 team? how many had to dump cap space their first 3 seasons? how many have replaced 40(ish ... i'm not looking that one up) players in that span? (49 of 53 in the four years) how many had to rebuild after their first rebuild (david carr, mike sherman, ahman green, samkon gado, mike flanagan, anthony weaver, etc) because of someone else? we grossly exceeded expectations. met expectations. and not even counting our mistakes were the colts and bengals rolling over from meeting this season's expectations.

the "other" coach on the hotseat took over for bill friggin parcells. obviously he's nowhere near the calibre of casserly and capers, but that should atleast count for something ... right?

"if that bastard leads us to the superbowl and it's not 70* and sunny i'll be pissed". what do you want? you want indy to play dead like they did for the 9-7 team they'll face tomorrow so we go no worse than 10-6? kris brown to ... not suck and we go no worse than 10-6? if you mention the division record again i'm gonna smack you lol (teasing). trading that one win for several other non divisional games would have us playing tomorrow.

we had a good season. we've come a long way. even being relatively unhealthy we made huge strides on both offense and defense. we achieved a milestone this city hasnt seen in nearly 2 decades and were robbed of potentially a whole lot more. see the forest.

My expectations are higher than yours. I expected the playoffs with the easy schedule they had this year.

Next years schedule is much harder. I expect about an 8-8,9-7 record next year because of it.

This was the year to make the playoffs and it didn't happen.

If the Texans dont go 10-6 (unlikely) what excuse would be good enough to make you say McNair should keep Kubes? Injuries,bad luck,another hurricane?

Wolf
01-23-2010, 10:18 AM
I didn't read through all 7 pages and someone might have mentioned it already but right now my main concern is 1-5 within the division



if you can win against Manning and the high octane passing attack of theirs and you can win against the Titans and their play of hard nose defense and really good rushing attack and throw in the Jags philosophy .. I think this team will be ok when going against the rest of the league due to the differences in style within the division

win within the division and the playoffs will come

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 10:40 AM
His students are still struggling on their pop quizzes.

If anything, they are acing the pop quizzes, & struggling with the test.

He's probably the
longest-tenured coach in the NFL without a single playoff appearance.

If that is your only standard, you may never get a coach who will get it done. Yes, this years team should have got to the play-offs. No we did not. I understand you put that all on Kubiak. Understand that I don't.

If he's around after year FIVE with the same results, why continue to spin
our wheels?

Who said anything about him being here after 5 years?

Have they played better than the 6-10 squad of 2006? YES!!!

Finally, a direct answer. Let's try it again, why do you think they are playing better?

However,
RESULTS are based on how they fare against the REST OF THE LEAGUE.

You're not telling me anything I don't know.

If someone were to take the Detroit Lions, or the Oakland Raiders to a 10+ win season and the play offs in 2010, I'll admit I was wrong about everything.

But those two teams, and several others, shouldn't be concerned with play-offs. They need to be concerned with learning how to play football at the pro level. They need to be working on the fundamentals.

That's were we've been.

I agree with you, the Texans were good enough to get to the play-offs in 2009. They should have easily walked into a Wild-Card berth. They have no one to blame but themselves.

What are we supposed to see, that places Kubiak on the same planet
of coaches as Tom Landry, Bill Belichick, or any other GREAT coach?
NOTHING he's done merits him being placed in that class, yet his staunchest
supporters continue to do it. Help me understand.

We've said he's done a good job getting talent on this team. He's done a good job teaching this team to play.

No one I know put him on the same level as Belichick, or Landry.

From what we've seen, we do believe he can be very successful here for a long time. We want to give him one year to prove it.

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 10:51 AM
My expectations are higher than yours. I expected the playoffs with the easy schedule they had this year.

Next years schedule is much harder. I expect about an 8-8,9-7 record next year because of it.

This was the year to make the playoffs and it didn't happen.

If the Texans dont go 10-6 (unlikely) what excuse would be good enough to make you say McNair should keep Kubes? Injuries,bad luck,another hurricane?

Your standards are lower than mine. I want a team that will make the play-offs regardless how tough their schedule. If all you want is a team that will make it on the strength of a weak schedule you aren't asking for much.

Like Scooter said, you should be happy, because the 2009 team was that team. You were robbed by the Colts & Bengals rolling over.

However, because of what Kubiak & this team did in 2009, we will be a better team in 2010, just like we've gotten better every year since 2006 (& I'm not talking about the W-L columns).

We will win 10+ games for a long long time...... If we don't, something went terribly wrong.

If it's Kubiak, I'll be with you. If not, I won't.

Scooter
01-23-2010, 11:00 AM
My expectations are higher than yours. I expected the playoffs with the easy schedule they had this year.

Next years schedule is much harder. I expect about an 8-8,9-7 record next year because of it.

This was the year to make the playoffs and it didn't happen.

If the Texans dont go 10-6 (unlikely) what excuse would be good enough to make you say McNair should keep Kubes? Injuries,bad luck,another hurricane?

kinda whiffed on the expectations part didnt you. "and not even counting our mistakes, we're the colts and bengals rolling over from meeting this season's expectations"

sorry, but that schedule stuff bugs the crap out of me. you nor anyone else has the foggiest idea about what next seasons' strength of schedule will be ... we could very well sweep the nfc east, split our division, and go 7-9.

i've made my fair share of excuses for both kubiak and the texans, but my posted support is based on how we've gotten from A to B and where i think C is because of our own body of work. not because of cushing and pollard being suprising superstars. not because of failure to win in our division. not because of schaub and andre leading the league in several areas. not because of our inability to win close games. disecting any is only a fraction of the texans ... when looking at the whole i think we hit this season dead on and were robbed by circumstance. looking at the whole, even if forced though tough injuries again, we're in position to win as many or more games next season.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 11:07 AM
how many took over a 2-14 team, or even a 6-10 team? how many had to dump cap space their first 3 seasons? how many have replaced 40(ish ... i'm not looking that one up) players in that span? (49 of 53 in the four years) how many had to rebuild after their first rebuild (david carr, mike sherman, ahman green, samkon gado, mike flanagan, anthony weaver, etc) because of someone else? we grossly exceeded expectations. met expectations. and not even counting our mistakes were the colts and bengals rolling over from meeting this season's expectations.

the "other" coach on the hotseat took over for bill friggin parcells. obviously he's nowhere near the calibre of casserly and capers, but that should atleast count for something ... right?

"if that bastard leads us to the superbowl and it's not 70* and sunny i'll be pissed". what do you want? you want indy to play dead like they did for the 9-7 team they'll face tomorrow so we go no worse than 10-6? kris brown to ... not suck and we go no worse than 10-6? if you mention the division record again i'm gonna smack you lol (teasing). trading that one win for several other non divisional games would have us playing tomorrow.

we had a good season. we've come a long way. even being relatively unhealthy we made huge strides on both offense and defense. we achieved a milestone this city hasnt seen in nearly 2 decades and were robbed of potentially a whole lot more. see the forest.

Well, scooter. You've done a better job than anyone else of explaining
your viewpoint. I see it clearly now, but strongly disagree. That's
what is great about America, right.

So in a nutshell:

2006-2009 = a four-year trial run. A four-year mulligan. A four-year training period.

2010 and beyond = The REAL Gary Kubiak tenure begins.

I understand, but I strongly disagree.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 11:13 AM
No one I know put him on the same level as Belichick, or Landry.


They are doing so, by association. When mentioning records of coaches,
which there has been hundreds of in NFL history, to compare Kubiak's record
to, they slip in a couple Hall-of-Famers and accomplished coaches to bolster
their support of Gary.

Why use Belichick and Landry as a point of reference when discussing the
stagnation Kubiak has had in his tenure? It's a subtle boost to Kubiak's
pedigree, which at this point, is completely unwarranted.

You know what I'm talking about, but there's the explanation.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 11:22 AM
kinda whiffed on the expectations part didnt you. "and not even counting our mistakes, were the colts and bengals rolling over from meeting this season's expectations"

sorry, but that schedule stuff bugs the crap out of me. you nor anyone else has the foggiest idea about what next seasons' strength of schedule will be ... we could very well sweep the nfc east, split our division, and go 7-9.

i've made my fair share of excuses for both kubiak and the texans, but my posted support is based on how we've gotten from A to B and where i think C is because of our own body of work. not because of cushing and pollard being suprising superstars. not because of failure to win in our division. not because of schaub and andre leading the league in several areas. not because of our inability to win close games. disecting any is only a fraction of the texans ... when looking at the whole i think we hit this season dead on and were robbed by circumstance. looking at the whole, even if forced though tough injuries again, we're in position to win as many or more games next season.


We've been stuck at point 'B' for 3 years now, and sometimes a coach can
only GET you to 'B.' If this season showed us anything as Texans fans, we
should have noticed that games between contending teams come down
to a matter of inches. ONE decision, playcall or personnel, can win or
lose you a game. The better this team becomes, the more of those
'moments' you will see. This season, we FAILED in almost EVERY
ONE of those such 'moments.'

Blaming Kris Brown after the Titans game for
subsequent losses can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the person
who DECIDED to play him, rather than cut him.

Blaming the Colts and Bengals for taking a couple weeks off is completely
off-base. THEY handled THEIR business. THEY won the games during
the MEAT OF THE SCHEDULE and had the OPTION to do whatever THEY
wanted. Why are we aiming for the 6th seed? That goal is so low, that
you're BOUND to miss it.

When you place any goal in life, you MUST overshoot it from the beginning.
In my own life, I wanted to learn to speak Spanish. I overshot the goal
by wanting to be fully literate, and able to speak it with the same proficiency
as English.

I became fully conversant in the language in SIX MONTHS, and fully literate
and proficient with an all-spanish dictionary in a year and a half! When
you overshoot your goals, miracles tend to happen at a much more rapid
rate.

It seems our mindset, as fans, has been set to "making the playoffs" as the
goal. Once we internalize the desire to go for a CHAMPIONSHIP, will progress
begin to occur at a rapid rate. Our "success" has been EXTREMELY slow,
and even the most-highest PollyAnnas can see that.

Grams
01-23-2010, 11:23 AM
They are doing so, by association. When mentioning records of coaches,
which there has been hundreds of in NFL history, to compare Kubiak's record
to, they slip in a couple Hall-of-Famers and accomplished coaches to bolster
their support of Gary.

Why use Belichick and Landry as a point of reference when discussing the
stagnation Kubiak has had in his tenure? It's a subtle boost to Kubiak's
pedigree, which at this point, is completely unwarranted.

You know what I'm talking about, but there's the explanation.

They are using those example as how good coaches started off their careers.
They are not saying Kubiak is as good - just that he is starting off on a similiar pattern. Where he goes from here is up to him.

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 11:42 AM
Blaming the Colts and Bengals for taking a couple weeks off is completely
off-base. THEY handled THEIR business. THEY won the games during
the MEAT OF THE SCHEDULE and had the OPTION to do whatever THEY
wanted. Why are we aiming for the 6th seed? That goal is so low, that
you're BOUND to miss it.


You're mixing up two arguments. No one is blaming the Colts & Bengals. You're so far up Rex Ryans ass, thinking he is a great coach, but the fact is that his team wasn't a match for the Colts. They should have finished 8-8, actually regressing from their 9-7 finish of 2008.

But the argument now, is that our 9-7 should have got us to the play-offs. The Jets got lucky... & you think they are better coached.

The Bengals? I'm not sure The Jets wouldn't have beat them anyway.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 11:47 AM
You're mixing up two arguments. No one is blaming the Colts & Bengals. You're so far up Rex Ryans ass, thinking he is a great coach, but the fact is that his team wasn't a match for the Colts.

They should have finished 8-8, actually regressing from their 9-7 finish of 2008.


But the argument now, is that our 9-7 should have got us to the play-offs. The Jets got lucky... & you think they are better coached.

The Bengals? I'm not sure The Jets wouldn't have beat them anyway.
What kind of loser bullshit mentality is this? They BEAT the Texans, Colts AND Bengals.
Much like Brady was pulled when Mario clobbered him in the 4th Quarter, the Colts knew
the Jets would keep pounding at them for all 60 minutes. They'd already had home field
wrapped up, so why would they risk injuring a key player over a game that meant
NOTHING to them, partially due to sweeping the Texans.

Rex in his first game, DESTROYED Gary on the field in HIS OWN HOUSE, and
are now playing for the AFC Championship with the #1 defense and #1 running
game in the entire NFL. He took what he had, and made it work. He didn't make
excuses for taking over lunch meat, nor did he need an assistant head coach (Sherman)
to TEACH him how to coach.


THIS is what that line was responding to.
kinda whiffed on the expectations part didnt you. "and not even counting our mistakes, were the colts and bengals rolling over from meeting this season's expectations?"

Anything I say that may piss you
off is purely reactionary. Scroll back a bit, and educate yourself on what I'm
responding to. I never said Rex Ryan's a great coach, he's just better than
Kubiak at this point. Both are in the "average" category, but yes, I see
Ryan as better than Kubiak. Who's calling Gary a great coach, and why
does naming a coach who's better than he is deserve the label of "great?"

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 12:38 PM
..... with the #1 defense and #1 running
game in the entire NFL. He took what he had, and made it work.

Stats are for losers. 9-7 isn't any better than what got the last NYJets coach fired. Rex, is no better than Mangini.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 12:41 PM
Stats are for losers. 9-7 isn't any better than what got the last NYJets coach fired. Rex, is no better than Mangini.

It's WHO HE BEAT, to get to 9-7. Not all 9-7's are created equal due to the
TIEBREAKER EFFECT.

3 WINS vs.Texans, Colts, Bengals > 3 Wins vs. Rams, Raiders, and Seahawks

Scooter
01-23-2010, 01:14 PM
It's WHO HE BEAT, to get to 9-7. Not all 9-7's are created equal due to the
TIEBREAKER EFFECT.

3 WINS vs.Texans, Colts, Bengals > 3 Wins vs. Rams, Raiders, and Seahawks

it's the rookie coach thing isnt it. if rex wins against indy you'll be able to fire off against the texans management the rest of this offseason and the world will be right.

WHO he beat is a joke in itsself when you cite indy and cincy. capitolize WHEN if you're attempting to be serious. you've been raising 10 types of hell about our division record for months. if WHO we beat was the jets to go 0-6 in the division and make the playoffs, is that all good by you?

just so i'm clear, which moving target do we need to hit next season to be considered a success?

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 01:31 PM
it's the rookie coach thing isnt it. if rex wins against indy you'll be able to fire off against the texans management the rest of this offseason and the world will be right.

WHO he beat is a joke in itsself when you cite indy and cincy. capitolize WHEN if you're attempting to be serious. you've been raising 10 types of hell about our division record for months. if WHO we beat was the jets to go 0-6 in the division and make the playoffs, is that all good by you?

just so i'm clear, which moving target do we need to hit next season to be considered a success?

I know you weren't responding to me but my expectations are

Playoffs next year or atleast 10-6 record. I dont care if there are injuries to Schaub and Andre. Hurricanes or whatever.

Super Bowl appearance within the next 4 years.

This 6-10,8-8,8-8 9-7 crap isn't going to cut it.

The Texans mismanagement has been very Oileresque since this teams inception.

ObsiWan
01-23-2010, 01:32 PM
Bear Bryant dont count?

OOOOOOH!!
BooYaah!!
Direct Hit!!

LMAO

Rep for the quick comeback.
lol

ObsiWan
01-23-2010, 01:36 PM
I'd Rep you if I could.

No I wouldn't
:specnatz:
yes you would

no, he wouldn't

yes he would....

Great Taste!
Less Filling!

Scooter
01-23-2010, 01:41 PM
I know you weren't responding to me but my expectations are

Playoffs next year or atleast 10-6 record. I dont care if there are injuries to Schaub and Andre. Hurricanes or whatever.

Super Bowl appearance within the next 4 years.

This 6-10,8-8,8-8 9-7 crap isn't going to cut it.

The Texans mismanagement has been very Oileresque since this teams inception.

lost me entirely. no schaub, no andre, and a hurricane wipes out half the team ... if we dont make the playoffs with atleast 10 wins it's kubiak's fault. wait, actually i do get that since it's the same nonsense a select few have been posting for the past few months.

this 8-8, 8-8, 9-7, 9-7, 10-6, 10-6, 11-5, 11-5 nonsense doesnt exactly hurt my feelings. i'm aware that NFL stands for Not For Long, but forgive me if i remain a fan for an extended duration.

i'm not exactly old enough to get into a good oilers conversation, but i'd love to hear how we're running the texans in some way similar to the oilers.

houstonspartan
01-23-2010, 01:43 PM
I know you weren't responding to me but my expectations are

Playoffs next year or atleast 10-6 record. I dont care if there are injuries to Schaub and Andre. Hurricanes or whatever.

Super Bowl appearance within the next 4 years.

This 6-10,8-8,8-8 9-7 crap isn't going to cut it.

The Texans mismanagement has been very Oileresque since this teams inception.

Funny you should mention this. I was just telling someone last night that I expected this team to make it to the Super Bowl - and win it - within five years. I don't really think it'll be with our current head coach, but, we'll see. I think it's a reasonable goal.

ObsiWan
01-23-2010, 01:46 PM
It's WHO HE BEAT, to get to 9-7. Not all 9-7's are created equal due to the
TIEBREAKER EFFECT.

3 WINS vs.Texans, Colts, Bengals > 3 Wins vs. Rams, Raiders, and Seahawks

Your bias shows right there for all to see.

I could also say that the Texans' three wins were Bengals, Dolphins (who swept the Jets), and Patriots >> than the Jets' wins over the Texans, Colts (gee, don't we wish the Colts had sat their starters against us) and Bengals.

Brando
01-23-2010, 01:49 PM
n/m It's going to be a looong off-season.

HoustonFrog
01-23-2010, 01:53 PM
Your standards are lower than mine. I want a team that will make the play-offs regardless how tough their schedule. If all you want is a team that will make it on the strength of a weak schedule you aren't asking for much.

Like Scooter said, you should be happy, because the 2009 team was that team. You were robbed by the Colts & Bengals rolling over.

However, because of what Kubiak & this team did in 2009, we will be a better team in 2010, just like we've gotten better every year since 2006 (& I'm not talking about the W-L columns).

We will win 10+ games for a long long time...... If we don't, something went terribly wrong.

If it's Kubiak, I'll be with you. If not, I won't.

I'm out of this now but this one sentence is why this debate keeps rolling. You weren't robbed by the Colts or Bengals. They took care of their business when needed and got the privilege of doing whatever they wanted. You were robbed by getting beat by your division opponents over and over and by not finishing games. Plain and simple. The minute people realize that every season is on the Texans and Kubes and not on Manning or the Jags, etc, the minute these debates stop.

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 01:56 PM
Funny you should mention this. I was just telling someone last night that I expected this team to make it to the Super Bowl - and win it - within five years. I don't really think it'll be with our current head coach, but, we'll see. I think it's a reasonable goal.

Reasonable amount of time?

That's something some people on this board cant seem to define.

But Kubes is a great guy lets give him another 5 yrs. That's reasonable to some.

You and I expect more.

b0ng
01-23-2010, 01:59 PM
Hey guess what guys,

Kubiak is coaching the Texans in 2010. It seems like some of you weren't aware of this and are actively starting a campaign to get him fired in the off-season.

ObsiWan
01-23-2010, 02:00 PM
n/m It's going to be a looong off-season.

yep...

there's an unspoken undercurrent in these "discussions"...
and it's this:

This is the first time in this team's history that we have a RIGHT to be pissed about missing the playoffs. That in and of itself is a milestone. We've never had the talent or the productions to have these expectations before. Ever.
May we never go back.

If Gripers are honest, they know in their heart of hearts that we've never had a team of this caliber before and that's due to Smithiak.

If the Sunshiners are honest, they (ummm, okay WE) know that we missed a golden opportunity to bust through to be in the "Big Dance" THIS year and, try as we might to look on the bright side, we're really PISSED. And that, too, is due to Smithiak.

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm out of this now but this one sentence is why this debate keeps rolling. You weren't robbed by the Colts or Bengals. They took care of their business when needed and got the privilege of doing whatever they wanted. You were robbed by getting beat by your division opponents over and over and by not finishing games. Plain and simple. The minute people realize that every season is on the Texans and Kubes and not on Manning or the Jags, etc, the minute these debates stop.

This

Thanks for sying what I've been trying to no evail to say.

JB
01-23-2010, 02:01 PM
yep...

there's an unspoken undercurrent in these "discussions"...
and it's this:

This is the first time in this team's history that we have a RIGHT to be pissed about missing the playoffs. That in and of itself is a milestone. We've never had the talent or the productions to have these expectations before. Ever.
May we never go back.

If Gripers are honest, they know in their heart of hearts that we've never had a team of this caliber before and that's due to Smithiak.

If the Sunshiners are honest, they (ummm, okay WE) know that we missed a golden opportunity to bust through to be in the "Big Dance" THIS year and, try as we might to look on the bright side, we're really PISSED.


QFT!

must spread Rep

Wolf
01-23-2010, 02:06 PM
n/m It's going to be a looong off-season.

reminds me of major league movie

It's too high! what do you mean its too high? I mean too hard! Too high, too hard, either way its outta here!

Scooter
01-23-2010, 02:10 PM
Reasonable amount of time?

That's something some people on this board cant seem to define.

But Kubes is a great guy lets give him another 5 yrs. That's reasonable to some.

You and I expect more.

in the past day or so there have been 3 posters to mention kubiak being a good guy as a reason for keeping him ... spartan, second honeymoon, and now yourself. there might be some sarcasm involved here, but i'm having trouble finding the connection. i'll help yall out since i'm obviously a homer ... kubiak's a nice guy (there, now the statements are only 99% bullshit).

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 02:13 PM
I'm out of this now but this one sentence is why this debate keeps rolling. You weren't robbed by the Colts or Bengals. They took care of their business when needed and got the privilege of doing whatever they wanted. You were robbed by getting beat by your division opponents over and over and by not finishing games. Plain and simple. The minute people realize that every season is on the Texans and Kubes and not on Manning or the Jags, etc, the minute these debates stop.

I wasn't robbed by anyone. I know exactly what this team did, and though I'm not happy with that, I am happy with the progress the team made. This is the team I wanted, when I got on board with Kubiak coming on as our head coach.

Built primarily through the draft. High scoring WCO, running game needs some work. A surprise, is that we may have a top 10 defense, when I wasn't expecting anything but avg. I think we are going to be very good for a long, long time.

I'm not waiting for the Colts to fall apart, I'm waiting for Gary to build a team that will take the Division from them. We weren't there in 2009, but I think what happened in 2009 will help this team & GK get there.

I'd have been thrilled if we made it to the play-offs.. but I had never bought into the play-offs or Fire Kubiak line of thinking.

Wolf
01-23-2010, 02:15 PM
this upcoming draft will be the most important draft in the history of the Houston Texans

(thought I'd get that out of the way)

:evil:

:smiliedance:

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 02:51 PM
I'm out of this now but this one sentence is why this debate keeps rolling. You weren't robbed by the Colts or Bengals. They took care of their business when needed and got the privilege of doing whatever they wanted. You were robbed by getting beat by your division opponents over and over and by not finishing games. Plain and simple. The minute people realize that every season is on the Texans and Kubes and not on Manning or the Jags, etc, the minute these debates stop.

They know that this is EXACTLY what we're saying, but they continue to put
a new context on it, and roll it out. I'm sure they'll take one line from your
post, and argue against a context THEY create. Ultimately, this is what
we are saying here, and they KNOW it.

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 02:52 PM
But Kubes is a great guy lets give him another 5 yrs. That's reasonable to some.


Who said that? Can you provide a link?

I think the consensus among the sunshiners is that he deserves one more year. How this team performs in that year will determine Kubiak's future with the Texans.

Scooter
01-23-2010, 02:55 PM
They know that this is EXACTLY what we're saying, but they continue to put
a new context on it, and roll it out. I'm sure they'll take one line from your
post, and argue against a context THEY create. Ultimately, this is what
we are saying here, and they KNOW it.

who is "we" and who is "they" just so i'm not completely confused. if we're starting a rally against them i'm totally bringing the booze.

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 02:56 PM
They know that this is EXACTLY what we're saying, but they continue to put
a new context on it, and roll it out. I'm sure they'll take one line from your
post, and argue against a context THEY create. Ultimately, this is what
we are saying here, and they KNOW it.

Ironic, because that is exactly what he did with my argument. My position is not that we were robbed by the Colts, or the Bengals. My position is that we lost games we should have won, but I don't blame, nor do I put the majority of that blame on Kubiak.

Follow the thread that lead me to making that statement, that he was robbed, not me, not the Texans, & not the majority of Texans fans. But he was robbed because he wants a team that get's into the play-offs by beating up on a weak schedule.

DexmanC
01-23-2010, 02:57 PM
who is "we" and who is "they" just so i'm not completely confused. if we're starting a rally against them i'm totally bringing the booze.

Exhibit A, your honor.

Scooter
01-23-2010, 03:04 PM
Exhibit A, your honor.

yeah i'm not funny, but i figured i'd try to keep up with the joke posts. :doot:

HoustonFrog
01-23-2010, 03:10 PM
Hey guess what guys,

Kubiak is coaching the Texans in 2010. It seems like some of you weren't aware of this and are actively starting a campaign to get him fired in the off-season.

I know this isn't my goal. My only arguments in here have been to try and inject some realism into why the Texans are where they are and to try and stop so much spinning that IMHO adds up to "woe is the Texans because of all who screwed them." I think the reality is Kubes is back, they have talent and a shot to make noise. They have no one to blame but themselves...Kubes, players, etc for this last season and in the end, this next season will flush out whether Kubes is back, the direction of the team, etc. I think the debates rage on regarding the excuses. I think draft talk would be a good thing for alot of months..lol

Scooter
01-23-2010, 03:27 PM
edit: overboard.

b0ng
01-23-2010, 03:53 PM
I know this isn't my goal. My only arguments in here have been to try and inject some realism into why the Texans are where they are and to try and stop so much spinning that IMHO adds up to "woe is the Texans because of all who screwed them." I think the reality is Kubes is back, they have talent and a shot to make noise. They have no one to blame but themselves...Kubes, players, etc for this last season and in the end, this next season will flush out whether Kubes is back, the direction of the team, etc. I think the debates rage on regarding the excuses. I think draft talk would be a good thing for alot of months..lol

The only thing is, the debate will rage on even more if Kubiak gets an extension midway through next season. People will threaten to tear up their season tickets (They won't actually do it, but by golly they'll threaten), they'll get upset and make long rants that others will read and disagree with (like now), and the only thing that will change volume of the "real fans".

So basically from now until Kubiak gets fired some bag of crap is going to come onto this board and want to discuss why Kubiak should be fired, and get mad when people disagree and talk about how persecuted they are as a fan.

ATXtexanfan
01-23-2010, 04:17 PM
i like this team, i like kubiak. i'm satisfied with this teams progress.

b0ng
01-23-2010, 04:19 PM
i like this team, i like kubiak. i'm satisfied with this teams progress.

You have been written down in the "sheeple" column. The Cowher brigade will be there soon.

ObsiWan
01-23-2010, 04:53 PM
You have been written down in the "sheeple" column. The Cowher brigade will be there soon.

I thought we were Sunshine Club members... where did sheeple come from.
:thinking:

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 06:18 PM
Who said that? Can you provide a link?

I think the consensus among the sunshiners is that he deserves one more year. How this team performs in that year will determine Kubiak's future with the Texans.

Kubes is a good guy. He's going to get another year and I'm fine with that. (As if I could do anything about his employment)

But after next year if things dont go well, there are no excuses.

You said the Texans lost games they should've won last year but that it wasn't really Kubes fault.

Whose fault was it? Kubes put this roster together and coached the team. Whose fault isit that the Texans lost winnable games? Smith, McNair

Couldn't be McNair because he doesn't have anything to do with the football side of the operation. Except control the purse stings and let Kubes that he wants a certian type of player representing his team.

Personally I like Kubes.

He's just overmatched as a HC in the NFL. IMO

I hope I'm wrong but the proof will be the results that happen next year.

b0ng
01-23-2010, 06:38 PM
I thought we were Sunshine Club members... where did sheeple come from.
:thinking:

Second Honeymoon in a different thread (About the Cowboys none the less!) that has turned into another discussion about. . .

flowers.

Grams
01-23-2010, 06:50 PM
Whose fault was it? Kubes put this roster together and coached the team. Whose fault isit that the Texans lost winnable games? Smith, McNair

Brown and Brown, Inc

thunderkyss
01-23-2010, 07:03 PM
You said the Texans lost games they should've won last year but that it wasn't really Kubes fault.

Whose fault was it? Kubes put this roster together and coached the team. Whose fault is it that the Texans lost winnable games? Smith, McNair


Some of it is on Kubiak, some on Schuab. Some on Shanahan, some on Slaton. Some of it is on Mario, Cushing, I'll even blame McNair for opening his mouth.

The main people I am blaming though is Schaub, Mario, Dunta, and AJ. You can't wave your magic wand and say, "today, the Texans are going to gain the resolve to be leaders, and control their own destiny."

DexmanC is 100% correct, it's not that our offense wasn't good enough. It's not that our defense wasn't good enough. Our problem this year, was that we weren't good enough, when it counted.

It definitely wasn't the plays called, it was mostly execution that let destiny slip from their hands.

The Pencil Neck
01-23-2010, 09:35 PM
You said the Texans lost games they should've won last year but that it wasn't really Kubes fault.

Whose fault was it? Kubes put this roster together and coached the team. Whose fault isit that the Texans lost winnable games?


Why does it have to be someone's fault? Why does there always have to be someone to point the finger at and place blame on?

You've got two teams playing each other. A team is going to win and a team is going to lose. In most cases, there's really not that much of a difference between the two squads. The winning team isn't always "better", and the losing team isn't always "worse." Some days the ball just doesn't bounce your way.

We lost some games we could have won and we won some games we could have lost. In most cases, that's not any one person's fault. That's just a play here and a play there.

The difference between this team and teams of the past is that now almost all of our games were winnable.

We went 9-7 and we're all upset that we didn't go 12-4 or 11-5 or 10-6 because all of those records were within reach.

Think about that for a second.

Brando
01-23-2010, 09:54 PM
I thought we were Sunshine Club members... where did sheeple come from.
:thinking:





Someone with the initials SH. :thinking:


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f372/FrecklesCC/RandyQuaidHappy-1asSmartObject-1.gif

Who reminds me of Johnny(played by Randy Quad) in the movie Major League 2.......

Johnny: [seeing Gary Kubiak coming out of the tunnel and heading into the bullpen] Vile Thing, I think I *loathe* you. Every one of you are poop. Bring out the pooper scooper!

Johnny: [catches a overthrown ball by Schaub in the stands] NO! You rotten bums! You overpaid weenies! Mild thing, you make my butt sting! I *detest* you! You're all garbage! All of ya! Back up the truck! Back it up!

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 10:23 PM
Some of it is on Kubiak, some on Schuab. Some on Shanahan, some on Slaton. Some of it is on Mario, Cushing, I'll even blame McNair for opening his mouth.

The main people I am blaming though is Schaub, Mario, Dunta, and AJ. You can't wave your magic wand and say, "today, the Texans are going to gain the resolve to be leaders, and control their own destiny."

DexmanC is 100% correct, it's not that our offense wasn't good enough. It's not that our defense wasn't good enough. Our problem this year, was that we weren't good enough, when it counted.

It definitely wasn't the plays called, it was mostly execution that let destiny slip from their hands.

Who drafted traded or kept players on this team.

Who has final authority on who is on this team and who gets cut/released?

I dont know the answer but whoever it is deserves most of the blame. Kubes/Smith/McNair

BTW I cstill contend that the HB pass with C.Brown executing it was a stupid play call.

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 10:43 PM
Why does it have to be someone's fault? Why does there always have to be someone to point the finger at and place blame on?

You've got two teams playing each other. A team is going to win and a team is going to lose. In most cases, there's really not that much of a difference between the two squads. The winning team isn't always "better", and the losing team isn't always "worse." Some days the ball just doesn't bounce your way.

We lost some games we could have won and we won some games we could have lost. In most cases, that's not any one person's fault. That's just a play here and a play there.

The difference between this team and teams of the past is that now almost all of our games were winnable.

We went 9-7 and we're all upset that we didn't go 12-4 or 11-5 or 10-6 because all of those records were within reach.

Think about that for a second.

Other than the 1st Tack game I dont recall the Texans pulling out a game they had no business winning.

I was responding to TK's response that they lost games they should've won. When you are not successful somebody has to be held accountable that's just the way it works in the real business world. Not that the Texans are in the real business world. They enjoy the advantages of a monopoly that is the NFL.

If the coaching staff isn't being held accountable why do you think the players are being held accountable? Lack of accountability creates a lack of creates a lack of leadership among the players. This is why I question the foundation on which this team was built. It could also explain why the Browns weren't cut after directly causing 5 losses with turnovers and missed FG's.

I think part of the lack of accountability comes from McNair. Why should their be accountability when the dollars are flowing in to the organization like a river.

Like I said I really do think Kubes is a great guy and hope he has success next year.

I hope I'm wrong about his leadership qualities and the Texans have a great year in 2010.

steelbtexan
01-23-2010, 10:45 PM
Brown and Brown, Inc

Yep and why were they allowed to remain on the team?

In the case of C.Brown he received an increased role after fumbling away the Jax game and failing in his role as short yardage RB seveal times. This made no sense to me but if you understand what Kubes was thinking when he expanded C.Browns role I would love to be enlightened.

That's the million $ question.

Did you really believe K.Brown waas going to make that FG against the Tacks? If you didn't you have to question why he was allowed to remain on the team.

Meanwhile the Colts lose Vinatieri to injury. They go out and sign a reliable veteran K in Matt Stover who not only kicks well for them during the regular season but makes 2 clutch kicks for them last week to help the Colts advance to the AFC champinship game.

After the New England game seeing McNair hug K.Brown on the sideline made me throw up in my mouth a little. It could've been the tailgating and beer. LOL


These are the kinds of decisions that have me questioning Texans management.

The Pencil Neck
01-23-2010, 11:52 PM
Other than the 1st Tack game I dont recall the Texans pulling out a game they had no business winning.

I was responding to TK's response that they lost games they should've won. When you are not successful somebody has to be held accountable that's just the way it works in the real business world. Not that the Texans are in the real business world. They enjoy the advantages of a monopoly that is the NFL.

If the coaching staff isn't being held accountable why do you think the players are being held accountable? Lack of accountability creates a lack of creates a lack of leadership among the players. This is why I question the foundation on which this team was built. It could also explain why the Browns weren't cut after directly causing 5 losses with turnovers and missed FG's.

I think part of the lack of accountability comes from McNair. Why should their be accountability when the dollars are flowing in to the organization like a river.

Like I said I really do think Kubes is a great guy and hope he has success next year.

I hope I'm wrong about his leadership qualities and the Texans have a great year in 2010.

I've been in the "real business world" for a helluva long time now. And I don't think "accountability" has anything to do with anything in this case. I think this whole "lack of accountability" argument is pure BS.

When you've got a kicker who's done well for you in the past, you can either cut him as soon as he goes into a slump (which is bad management in my book) or you can try to stick with him until he gets out of it. You don't just cut someone to cut them. You cut them if you think you've got someone better that you can put into their position. You don't cut your kicker and then replace him with someone who's going to miss just as many (if not more) kicks. You think Kris Brown missed those kicks because he doesn't give a rat's ass? You think he went out there with the attitude that he's already got a lot of money and doesn't care if we win or lose? I don't. That doesn't mean I don't think he should be replaced, I just think we shouldn't just cut off our nose to spite our face. We've got to improve the position not hamstring ourselves.

When someone fumbles on this team, what happens? They sit their asses down and the next guy's up. It's that next guy's job to take advantage of the situation. That's accountability. Kubiak tried to get Slaton's head back on straight, but he couldn't.

You're willing to give him all the blame for the losses and none of the credit for what's been built.

"Lack of accountability"? Child, please.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 12:12 AM
[QUOTE=The Pencil Neck;1354026]I've been in the "real business world" for a helluva long time now. And I don't think "accountability" has anything to do with anything in this case. I think this whole "lack of accountability" argument is pure BS.

When you've got a kicker who's done well for you in the past, you can either cut him as soon as he goes into a slump (which is bad management in my book) or you can try to stick with him until he gets out of it. You don't just cut someone to cut them. You cut them if you think you've got someone better that you can put into their position. You don't cut your kicker and then replace him with someone who's going to miss just as many (if not more) kicks. You think Kris Brown missed those kicks because he doesn't give a rat's ass? You think he went out there with the attitude that he's already got a lot of money and doesn't care if we win or lose? I don't. That doesn't mean I don't think he should be replaced, I just think we shouldn't just cut off our nose to spite our face. We've got to improve the position not hamstring ourselves.

When someone fumbles on this team, what happens? They sit their asses down and the next guy's up. It's that next guy's job to take advantage of the situation. That's accountability. Kubiak tried to get Slaton's head back on straight, but he couldn't.

You're willing to give him all the blame for the losses and none of the credit for what's been built.

"Lack of accountability"? Child, please.[/QUOTE

K.Brown - I get what you're saying but fact is he was a main reson that they didn't make the playoffs. I didn't say cut K.Brown I just think they should have cut somebody oh lets say Chaun Thompson (for example) and sign a vet K like Stover (who was available) and let him handle 50 and in FG's and let K.Brown handle outside 50 FG's and KO's. This is an example of thinking outside of the box. This would have been a great example of showing the team the consequnses of failing to do your job.


C.Brown-After his early season turnover problems you would've thought he would've gotten the same treatment as Slaton (his fumbling problems were due to a nerve injury in his arm) or Foster, it didn't happen. In Fact C.Browns rollle increased as the season wore on. It may not be accountability is what you call it but there was certianly a double standard. This kind of double standard can kill team leadership and cohesiveness. IMO

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 07:45 AM
Who drafted traded or kept players on this team.

Who has final authority on who is on this team and who gets cut/released?

So you're saying AJ, Mario, and Schaub should be cut? Read my post, read your response. Think about it.


K.Brown - I get what you're saying but fact is he was a main reson that they didn't make the playoffs.....This would have been a great example of showing the team the consequnses of failing to do your job.

I kind of see what you're saying. But I also see what Kubiak had been saying about the situations... I don't agree with you 100%, because it's easy to say Matt Stover now, after the fact. As easy as it would have been to say Suisham before the fact. At the same time, I don't agree with Kubiak 100%.

I do find it odd, that when it's your QB, you've got to assure him that he is your guy, to get him out of his slump... but if it's your kicker, you've got to assure him that he is easily replaceable??

Even though he has more influence than your pro-bowl QB does on making the post-season.



C.Brown-After his early season turnover problems you would've thought he would've gotten the same treatment as Slaton (his fumbling problems were due to a nerve injury in his arm) or Foster, it didn't happen.

First, lets see what kind of treatment Slaton got.
Week 1,
Slaton had 12 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost...
Brown had 4 touches, 0 fumbles

Week 2,
Slaton 20 touches, 2 fumbles, 0 lost..
Brown 8 touches, 0 fumbles

Week 3,
Slaton 15 touches, 0 fumbles,
Brown 8 touches, 1 fumble

Week 4,
Slaton 23 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 0 touches, 0 fumbles

Week 5,
Slaton 19 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 9 touches.

Week 6,
Slaton 25 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 9 touches

Week 7,
Slaton 22 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 5 touches

Week 8,
Slaton 3 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 14 touches

Week 9,
Slaton 9 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 0 touches

Week 11,
Slaton 10 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 14 touches

Week 12,
Slaton 17 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 14 touches

Week 13,
Slaton 0 touches
Brown 8 touches.

Slaton didn't play week 13 because of his injury.

The point here, is after Browns week 3 fumble, he is benched the next week. Slaton fumbled 7 times, and was benched once in the Oakland game. But still had more touches than any other RB that game. He was benched again week 8, but still given 3 touches, and he fumbles the ball anyway.

Kubiak, IMHO was much more lenient with Slaton than he's ever been with any running back ever. But you think Brown's "poor" performance dictated he should have got the "Slaton treatment"????

C'mon man!

In Fact C.Browns rollle increased as the season wore on. It may not be accountability is what you call it but there was certianly a double standard. This kind of double standard can kill team leadership and cohesiveness. IMO

Chris Brown fumbled once, in week 3. He's the only one of our running backs that showed he can pick up the blitz consistently, and hold on to the ball. I agree, there is a double standard here, but not in favor of Chris Brown.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 10:38 AM
So you're saying AJ, Mario, and Schaub should be cut? Read my post, read your response. Think about it.


I kind of see what you're saying. But I also see what Kubiak had been saying about the situations... I don't agree with you 100%, because it's easy to say Matt Stover now, after the fact. As easy as it would have been to say Suisham before the fact. At the same time, I don't agree with Kubiak 100%.

I do find it odd, that when it's your QB, you've got to assure him that he is your guy, to get him out of his slump... but if it's your kicker, you've got to assure him that he is easily replaceable??

Even though he has more influence than your pro-bowl QB does on making the post-season.


First, lets see what kind of treatment Slaton got.
Week 1,
Slaton had 12 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost...
Brown had 4 touches, 0 fumbles

Week 2,
Slaton 20 touches, 2 fumbles, 0 lost..
Brown 8 touches, 0 fumbles

Week 3,
Slaton 15 touches, 0 fumbles,
Brown 8 touches, 1 fumble

Week 4,
Slaton 23 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 0 touches, 0 fumbles

Week 5,
Slaton 19 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 9 touches.

Week 6,
Slaton 25 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 9 touches

Week 7,
Slaton 22 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 5 touches

Week 8,
Slaton 3 touches, 1 fumble, 1 lost
Brown 14 touches

Week 9,
Slaton 9 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 0 touches

Week 11,
Slaton 10 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 14 touches

Week 12,
Slaton 17 touches, 0 fumbles
Brown 14 touches

Week 13,
Slaton 0 touches
Brown 8 touches.

Slaton didn't play week 13 because of his injury.

The point here, is after Browns week 3 fumble, he is benched the next week. Slaton fumbled 7 times, and was benched once in the Oakland game. But still had more touches than any other RB that game. He was benched again week 8, but still given 3 touches, and he fumbles the ball anyway.

Kubiak, IMHO was much more lenient with Slaton than he's ever been with any running back ever. But you think Brown's "poor" performance dictated he should have got the "Slaton treatment"????

C'mon man!


Chris Brown fumbled once, in week 3. He's the only one of our running backs that showed he can pick up the blitz consistently, and hold on to the ball. I agree, there is a double standard here, but not in favor of Chris Brown.

1. Kickers are more easly replaceable than QB's. You know this and are just being argumentative. Some of the best teams carry 2 K's see the Colts,Saints,Cowboys. Kubes must have felt more confident about Brown than I did because I wanted Stover signed after the blocked FG in Ariz. (I went to that game and that block was the result of a low kick) and the missed FG in the biggest game of the year against Indy. No it wasn't after the fact. I hope Kubes doesn't make the same mistake with Brown this year.

2. I believe Slatons fumbling problems were directly related to his arm injury and he shouldn't have been playing injured. I cant really blame Kubes though if my best option was C.Brown I would have continued to use Slaton as much as possible.

3 C.Brown I'm not going to spend time looking it up but I seem to recall there were many times that he fumbled and it was recovered by the Texans. Or the refs missed the call and he was ruled down by contact (Mia game) which could have cost them that game. Some things dont show up in the game stats.

4. Did you really think I was talking about AJ,Schaub and Mario. Do you really just enjoy arguing? Come on your better than that.

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 11:31 AM
The main people I am blaming though is Schaub, Mario, Dunta, and AJ. You can't wave your magic wand and say, "today, the Texans are going to gain the resolve to be leaders, and control their own destiny."

DexmanC is 100% correct, it's not that our offense wasn't good enough. It's not that our defense wasn't good enough. Our problem this year, was that we weren't good enough, when it counted.


Who drafted traded or kept players on this team.

Who has final authority on who is on this team and who gets cut/released?


This is the conversation.... who are you saying should be cut?

I wasn't being argumentative about the kicker, I was just thinking out-loud.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 12:23 PM
This is the conversation.... who are you saying should be cut?

I wasn't being argumentative about the kicker, I was just thinking out-loud.

Okam-not dedicated to the game, I dont care about a guys potential if he doesn't have a love of the game I wouldn't want him on my team.

C.Brown- Guy just plain stinks, I dont get how anybody can defend Kubes using him in any situation. Selvin Young and Andre Carter (?) were good enough to start for the Broncos in 2008 (they must have been OK at pass protection) but C.Brown was a better RB than these guys. Yeah right.

I'm sure there are other examples but I'm not going to spend time looking over the Texans entire roster/moves.

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 12:32 PM
Okam

C.Brown

So you'll just start your own argument.... fine.

I agree cut Okam, cut Brown. wouldn't change a thing.

My point is that our leaders didn't perform when they needed to. Our leaders didn't mature in time for them to get the results you wanted.

& when it's our leaders throwing INTs, fumbling, not stepping up getting that sack, droping that pick, etc.. etc..

who are you going to cut or bench?

If our leaders did what they were supposed to do, we wouldn't be hoping Kris Brown would tie the game with a 50 yard field goal, or Chris Brown throwing a HB pass.

Chris Brown wouldn't have been on the field if Slaton was who we thought he was.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 01:04 PM
So you'll just start your own argument.... fine.

I agree cut Okam, cut Brown. wouldn't change a thing.

My point is that our leaders didn't perform when they needed to. Our leaders didn't mature in time for them to get the results you wanted.

& when it's our leaders throwing INTs, fumbling, not stepping up getting that sack, droping that pick, etc.. etc..

who are you going to cut or bench?

If our leaders did what they were supposed to do, we wouldn't be hoping Kris Brown would tie the game with a 50 yard field goal, or Chris Brown throwing a HB pass.

Chris Brown wouldn't have been on the field if Slaton was who we thought he was.

True

Kubes is the guy who should be the leader. As far as leaders among the players. If there are no leaders then that means the team was put together the wrog way. Evey team needs a couple of players to be laeders in the lockeroom. The Colts have Manning and Brackett/Sanders, The Tacks Have Mawae and Vanden Bosch for example.

On the defensive side of the ball I could see Cushing and Ryans as leaders.

Hopefully Schaub will become a leader for the offense. When the HB pass was called Schaub should've stepped in the huddle laughed and said can you believe called this HB pass play. We're not going to run this play . Check with me at the LOS and I will get us into a play that's not stupid.

That's leadership, Manning would have done this. That's the difference between Schaub and Manning. Regardless of what the stats may say.

Cutting C.Brown would have changed alot of things. Most likely the Texans would've made the playoffs. When C.Brown is cut this year the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.

The Pencil Neck
01-24-2010, 05:59 PM
3 C.Brown I'm not going to spend time looking it up but I seem to recall there were many times that he fumbled and it was recovered by the Texans. Or the refs missed the call and he was ruled down by contact (Mia game) which could have cost them that game. Some things dont show up in the game stats.


There were not many times that he fumbled and it was recovered by the Texans. He had 1 called fumble and it was not recovered by the Texans. He had that lucky break call but that didn't register as a fumble because it wasn't called a fumble. He had 1 interception.

After his two big screwups, he saw less of the ball. After the first fumble, he didn't get a touch the next game. After the Jaguars thing, his touches dropped to almost nothing.

The bottom line is that you thought Brown was given preferential treatment when he really wasn't. After his screw ups, he saw less of the ball. Not more.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 07:50 PM
My problem is that after the 2nd Jax game he shouldn't have seen the ball at all. He should've been cut.

I would rather go with Foster,Moats and promote C.Henry from the PS.

Everybody could see that Brown stunk by that time.

Unless you were oblivious.

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 08:06 PM
My problem is that after the 2nd Jax game he shouldn't have seen the ball at all. He should've been cut.


After that game, he got

Week 14, Brown 3 touches----Moats 11 touches----Foster 17 touches
Week 15, Brown 5 touches----Moats 13 touches----Foster 03 touches
Week 16, Brown 3 touches----Moats 12 touches----Foster 10 touches
Week 17, Brown 0 touches----Moats 04 touches----Foster 23 touches

We're really talking semantics here.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 08:10 PM
Cut I said cut

Made an example of etc......

He did get on the field for the lucky down by contact fumble against Mia. Almost costing the team his 4th game of the year. That was on a pass rec. BTW

Look if the Kool Aid drinkers cant admit that C.Brown should've been cut or not see the field after the Jax game. There's not going to be any changing of the minds here.

Some people cant be intelectually honest with themselves.

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 08:45 PM
Cut I said cut

Made an example of etc......

semantics, I said semantics.

I think the example was made.

Look if the Kool Aid drinkers cant admit that C.Brown should've been cut or not see the field after the Jax game. There's not going to be any changing of the minds here.

Some people cant be intelectually honest with themselves.

As poorly as C.Brown played, there was a stretch there, that Kubiak needed him. Now, we're talking post Jacksonville, when Slaton is already on IR.

We already know Moats can't block a sneaze much less Jason Taylor, and you want to cut the only RB worth a crap in pass protection.

Precedence has already been set with Slaton, there's your example.

And we were still in the play-off race.

Regardless whether I think he should have been cut or not, I know he wasn't. Trying to look at it from Kubiak's POV, I see a few reasons he may not have been.

I may not agree with those reasons, but they do seem plausible.

If you are watching the Vikes game, try to understand. I know CBrown isn't Adrian Peterson. But AD put the ball on the ground 3 times (maybe 4) and he is still in the game. Risk, Benefits... it's something the HC has to balance.

CBrown never put it on the ground more than once in any 5 week stretch. Matt dropped back over 600 times, sacked 25. Risk, Benefit...

For the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you, he should have been cut. On the real, I'll be very, very disappointed if he thinks he is a member of this team right now.

Kubiak kept him through the end of the season. As a fan, I need to try to understand why. Do I think Kubiak should be fired, because Brown fumbled the ball in the Miami game? No, Did you see that hit? You do know those guys get paid too don't you?

Again, cut him, castrate him.. don't really matter to me. Kubiak didn't do what I would have liked to have seen. But the end results were about the same.

houstonspartan
01-24-2010, 09:06 PM
Cut I said cut

Made an example of etc......

He did get on the field for the lucky down by contact fumble against Mia. Almost costing the team his 4th game of the year. That was on a pass rec. BTW

Look if the Kool Aid drinkers cant admit that C.Brown should've been cut or not see the field after the Jax game. There's not going to be any changing of the minds here.

Some people cant be intelectually honest with themselves.

Good point. Co-sign.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 09:23 PM
TK

No not semantics, he should've been cut no ? about it.

We do not know if the results ended up about the same.

dalemurphy
01-24-2010, 09:27 PM
TK

No not semantics, he should've been cut no ? about it.

We do not know if the results ended up about the same.

Didn't the Texans go 4-0 after the Jacksonville game?

houstonspartan
01-24-2010, 09:28 PM
TK

No not semantics, he should've been cut no ? about it.

We do not know if the results ended up about the same.

All I know is, the Saints cut their kicker in DECEMBER, and brought in someone else. And that new guy just sent them to the Super Bowl.

Wow.

Major kudos to the Saints for making tough decisions. The kicker they cut had been with the team for a long time.

CloakNNNdagger
01-24-2010, 09:28 PM
Tough schedule?? Huh! We played what is arguably the easiest division in football outside of our divisional games. . We had a very easy schedule this season. This year was set up about as easy as it has been in years for us to have made the playoffs.

Unfortunately, when we lost games, we made it look easy, too. :gun:

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 09:34 PM
All I know is, the Saints cut their kicker in DECEMBER, and brought in someone else. And that new guy just sent them to the Super Bowl.

Wow.

Major kudos to the Saints for making tough decisions. The kicker they cut had been with the team for a long time.

EDIT: I'm not going there, I would have cut Kris Brown too.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 09:38 PM
All I know is, the Saints cut their kicker in DECEMBER, and brought in someone else. And that new guy just sent them to the Super Bowl.

Wow.

Major kudos to the Saints for making tough decisions. The kicker they cut had been with the team for a long time.

Yeah

Carney was a pro bowler last year I believe.

He was a long time Saints fan favorite.

That's leadership not doing the popular thing. Doing what's best for the team.

Kubbes could learn a thing or two.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 09:39 PM
Unfortunately, when we lost games, we made it look easy, too. :gun:

True so true

LOL

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 09:40 PM
EDIT: I'm not going there, I would have cut Kris Brown too.

Would you have cut Chris Brown too?

thunderkyss
01-24-2010, 09:51 PM
Would you have cut Chris Brown too?

No.

Maybe..

Yes... he should have ate that ball, & gave us a chance to do something on 2nd down.

If you would have cut Brown, then like me, you must agree that wasn't a bad call.

steelbtexan
01-24-2010, 09:56 PM
It was only a bad call because of the fact that C.Brown was participating in the play.

The play itself wasn't a bad call

dalemurphy
01-25-2010, 07:28 AM
All I know is, the Saints cut their kicker in DECEMBER, and brought in someone else. And that new guy just sent them to the Super Bowl.

Wow.

Major kudos to the Saints for making tough decisions. The kicker they cut had been with the team for a long time.

This is an example of you not knowing what you're talking about. Garrett Hartley was the Saints kicker entering the season. He received a 4 game suspension during the preseason and the Saints had to pickup a kicker: Carney. When Hartley became eligible to kick again, he was unreliable. They kept both kickers until finally releasing Carney late in the season. The plan was for Hartley to be the kicker for this season.

HOU-TEX
01-25-2010, 09:00 AM
Geez, :rolleyes:

HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines

Texan_Bill
01-25-2010, 09:02 AM
Geez, :rolleyes:

HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOU-TEX: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines

Okay there Steve McCroskey.

HOU-TEX
01-25-2010, 09:10 AM
Okay there Steve McCroskey.

This thread =

HOU-TEX: [seeing airplane from tower] It's coming right at us!
[he then jumps out of a window]

steelbtexan
01-25-2010, 10:03 AM
This thread =

HOU-TEX: [seeing airplane from tower] It's coming right at us!
[he then jumps out of a window]

LOL

True

The Pencil Neck
01-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Would you have cut Chris Brown too?

I wouldn't have. We needed his blocking.

I see cutting Chris Brown as a kind of a fan's over-reaction move. "This guy lost a game for us! Cut him!"

Besides sucking as a runner (although he did have 2 games with us where he averaged 5 yards a carry), CB made 3 mistakes.

But you, as a fan, only see those mistakes and don't see any of the good things he did for this team. And he did good things for this team. Good things that don't show up in the stat line. When you see the interception, you just see a bad pass but the coaches see what really happened. Someone missed a block. CB tried to make the play instead of pulling it down.

To me, that's not a fatal offense.