PDA

View Full Version : Well..........At Least We Look Good in Practice


CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2010, 09:13 AM
Smith shakes his head now when he thinks back to his freshman season here.

"I got the job in June, so it was at a minicamp, and I was standing out on the field with (owner Bob) McNair, and I said, 'A year from now, we're going to be a better team. Two years from now, we'll be even better. But in three or four years, we'll walk out on this field, and I'll be able show you what an NFL team looks like and how they function,' " Smith said. "I feel like we're that functioning NFL team now. We look like a good football team."

Relax. Looks can't prove to be deceiving until the regular season begins, so aside from injuries don't put too much into what happens in the desert tonight when the Texans play their first preseason game at Arizona.

You can look at this as 1) HOPEFUL, 2) "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME," 3) "HERE WE GO AGAIN" or 4) "WHAT EXCUSE WILL IT BE THIS YEAR?"

I choose as any good Texans fan #1 HOPEFUL.........but I'm keeping all options open...........which also evidently can make for a good Texans fan.

LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7153090.html)

Hardcore Texan
08-14-2010, 09:17 AM
You can look at this as 1) HOPEFUL, 2) "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME," 3) "HERE WE GO AGAIN" or 4) "WHAT EXCUSE WILL IT BE THIS YEAR?"

I choose as any good Texans fan #1 HOPEFUL.........but I'm keeping all options open...........which also evidently can make for a good Texans fan.

LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7153090.html)

I'll take #1 and #2! This is our year. Go TEXANS! :texflag:

thunderkyss
08-14-2010, 09:27 AM
You can look at this as 1) HOPEFUL, 2) "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME," 3) "HERE WE GO AGAIN" or 4) "WHAT EXCUSE WILL IT BE THIS YEAR?"

I choose as any good Texans fan #1 HOPEFUL.........but I'm keeping all options open...........which also evidently can make for a good Texans fan.

LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/7153090.html)

I look at this as confirmation of what a lot of posters on this board has been saying. If Rick is saying he told the boss three or four years since he got here... then I don't believe Kubiak's job was ever in jeopardy last season, I don't care what they've put out to the media since then.

Extending Gary's contract to me, is like saying, "Okay, you got us where you said you would get us. Building a team (and an organization if you think about it). With the new contract, you've got to take that team to the Super Bowl and bring home a trophy."

I know the argument, that teams go from the bottom to the top all the time. While I don't deny that, I think a lot of people forget about what happened in the years prior to that team "making it."

Jim Haslett built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go any where.

Denny Green built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go anywhere.

Miami was building talent, just had no stability at the HC position.

Atlanta was built very well by Jim Mora, he just let it get out of Control.

Dallas was built very well with Parcells, he just had enough of Big D.

Washington IMHO is the only team I think that has a shot at the play-offs of the bottom 5 teams, because they have been consistently building a good team over the last 4 years. I think the coaching change was premature.

St. Louis has been stockpiling talent, and killing Stephen Jackson, so I can see them doing something, but it seems like they are going back to the drawing board and going in another direction.

Oakland will be a team next year or the year after, if they can keep Cable.

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2010, 11:01 AM
I look at this as confirmation of what a lot of posters on this board has been saying. If Rick is saying he told the boss three or four years since he got here... then I don't believe Kubiak's job was ever in jeopardy last season, I don't care what they've put out to the media since then.

Extending Gary's contract to me, is like saying, "Okay, you got us where you said you would get us. Building a team (and an organization if you think about it). With the new contract, you've got to take that team to the Super Bowl and bring home a trophy."

I know the argument, that teams go from the bottom to the top all the time. While I don't deny that, I think a lot of people forget about what happened in the years prior to that team "making it."

Jim Haslett built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go any where.

Denny Green built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go anywhere.

Miami was building talent, just had no stability at the HC position.

Atlanta was built very well by Jim Mora, he just let it get out of Control.

Dallas was built very well with Parcells, he just had enough of Big D.

Washington IMHO is the only team I think that has a shot at the play-offs of the bottom 5 teams, because they have been consistently building a good team over the last 4 years. I think the coaching change was premature.

St. Louis has been stockpiling talent, and killing Stephen Jackson, so I can see them doing something, but it seems like they are going back to the drawing board and going in another direction.

Oakland will be a team next year or the year after, if they can keep Cable.

I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

ObsiWan
08-14-2010, 11:21 AM
I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

If Kubiak had the 2004 roster when he got here, perhaps I could agree with that statement. But Casserly dumped the leaders from that team and it showed the very next season. So I think he started with a less capable set of players than Capers started with.

Back to topic: Put me down for large order of #1 with a little of #2 on the side.
And as for #4, no excuse short of losing A.J. and Matt Schaub will be acceptable for finishing worse than 9-7.

steelbtexan
08-14-2010, 11:28 AM
Hope for No.1

Realistically No.4

Smith was towing the company. As he has done the past 2 yrs.

Make the playoffs Smithiak before you guys start patting each other on the backs for a job well done.

Ckw
08-14-2010, 11:29 AM
I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

Nothing big, but Capers actually helped "build" Carolina, not Jacksonville.

As for me, I choose option 1. Actually, option 1 should be changed to "Hopeful but skeptical". That is where I fit in.

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2010, 11:33 AM
Nothing big, but Capers actually helped "build" Carolina, not Jacksonville.

As for me, I choose option 1. Actually, option 1 should be changed to "Hopeful but skeptical". That is where I fit in.

My bad..........fingers sometimes get ahead of cranial capacity.:rake:

"Hopeful but skeptical" describes where I am........definitely a necessary category.

eriadoc
08-14-2010, 11:40 AM
I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

People don't like to hear this, or consider this, but Kubiak basically had an expansion team. How many players from that 2005 team he inherited are even in the NFL anymore, much less on the Texans? How many were even in the NFL in 2007, just two years later? Not that many. The '05 team did not have much NFL talent.

That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.

Ckw
08-14-2010, 11:57 AM
My bad..........fingers sometimes get ahead of cranial capacity.:rake:

Must spread rep.

No biggie. You were not totally incorrect as Capers was an assistant for Jacksonville for a year or two. He actually came to the Texans from Jacksonville, so that may be why you were thinking it was Jacksonville that he "built".

That being said, and I'm sure you would agree since you had it in quotes, Capers had little to nothing to do with the success of that team. Great moves by the GM are the reason for that. Capers did exactly with Carolina what he did with the Texans. He makes you think the team is getting better and improving, then all of a sudden pulls a 2-14 or 4-12 season out of his butt. Just an abysmal coach. Not a bad coordinator, but a terrible head coach.

ObsiWan
08-14-2010, 12:00 PM
People don't like to hear this, or consider this, but Kubiak basically had an expansion team. How many players from that 2005 team he inherited are even in the NFL anymore, much less on the Texans? How many were even in the NFL in 2007, just two years later? Not that many. The '05 team did not have much NFL talent.

That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.

Totally agree. The 2004 team was better than the '05 team. Both were cursed with HWWNBN who had the owner's blessing.

It could be worse. We could be Lions fans. How long have they been waiting?

houstonspartan
08-14-2010, 12:15 PM
I look at this as confirmation of what a lot of posters on this board has been saying. If Rick is saying he told the boss three or four years since he got here... then I don't believe Kubiak's job was ever in jeopardy last season, I don't care what they've put out to the media since then.

Extending Gary's contract to me, is like saying, "Okay, you got us where you said you would get us. Building a team (and an organization if you think about it). With the new contract, you've got to take that team to the Super Bowl and bring home a trophy."

I know the argument, that teams go from the bottom to the top all the time. While I don't deny that, I think a lot of people forget about what happened in the years prior to that team "making it."

Jim Haslett built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go any where.

Denny Green built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go anywhere.

Miami was building talent, just had no stability at the HC position.

Atlanta was built very well by Jim Mora, he just let it get out of Control.

Dallas was built very well with Parcells, he just had enough of Big D.

Washington IMHO is the only team I think that has a shot at the play-offs of the bottom 5 teams, because they have been consistently building a good team over the last 4 years. I think the coaching change was premature.

St. Louis has been stockpiling talent, and killing Stephen Jackson, so I can see them doing something, but it seems like they are going back to the drawing board and going in another direction.

Oakland will be a team next year or the year after, if they can keep Cable.

Come on. The Saints were a mess. And, they had to deal with the destruction of their entire city, and they still managed to stay focused and eventually get to the Super Bowl. We are STILL using Hurricane Ike as an excuse.

Also, we could eventually say "Gary Kubiak built a great team in Houston, he just couldn't get them to go anywhere."

That's where I think we're heading. The Texans WILL win a Super Bowl within the next five years - but it will be with another head coach. And then we will spend years talking about how Coach X won in Houston with Gary's players.

The Pencil Neck
08-14-2010, 12:21 PM
Totally agree. The 2004 team was better than the '05 team. Both were cursed with HWWNBN who had the owner's blessing.

It could be worse. We could be Lions fans. How long have they been waiting?

They also had an interesting point about the Bills in the Redskins game last night. Since 2000, they've had 1 winning season (and 2 8-8 seasons.)

The Lions have had 2 winning seasons since '96.

But, OMG, the BENGALS have had 2 winning seasons since '91.

pbat488
08-14-2010, 12:30 PM
They also had an interesting point about the Bills in the Redskins game last night. Since 2000, they've had 1 winning season (and 2 8-8 seasons.)

The Lions have had 2 winning seasons since '96.

But, OMG, the BENGALS have had 2 winning seasons since '91.

We've only had two since '93.

'93 Oilers and last year. They at least had a team of their own.

The Pencil Neck
08-14-2010, 12:39 PM
We've only had two since '93.

'93 Oilers and last year. They at least had a team of their own.

That 5 year gap with no team kinda changes things. They had more chances for wins that we did.

Scooter
08-14-2010, 12:41 PM
People don't like to hear this, or consider this, but Kubiak basically had an expansion team. How many players from that 2005 team he inherited are even in the NFL anymore, much less on the Texans? How many were even in the NFL in 2007, just two years later? Not that many. The '05 team did not have much NFL talent.

That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.

that's my gripe. once rackers officially replaces kris brown, andre johnson is the only player that kubiak inherited from only 5 years ago as far as i can tell. kubiak didnt start with an expansion team, he started with a few placeholders. back to the topic, i think it speaks volumes when you compare the team that rick smith was watching when making that statement and the team he's built ... i'm having trouble thinking of another GM who's done more during smith's tenure to shape a team, especially when it comes to late rounders, cheap trades, and walk-ons. i dont think he'll be confused with ozzie newsome, but smith has an understanding of the coaches and exactly what they're looking for that's uncanny.

i still think we've got more work to do before we start demanding playoffs or any guarantees, but chalk me up as hopeful.

DexmanC
08-14-2010, 12:47 PM
Well. I quote myself here:



During the first 12 games, EVERY team is fighting for its playoff life.
The Texans seem to take about 12 games to hit stride.

Start of 2007 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2008 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2009 Season: 5-7 (4-0 finish)

Once they improve their record over "The First Twelve"
I'll be a believer they've "taken the next step." The
Texans can NOT afford to sleepwalk for weeks-on-end
before they "get" it.

Who do we face over the 1st 12?
1. Colts
2. Redskins (Haynesworth)
3. Cowboys
4. Raiders
5. Giants
6. Chiefs
7. Colts
8. Chargers
9. Jags
10. Jets
11. Titans
12. Eagles

Barely a creampuff in this. EVERY team on this list will be BRINGIN' it, because nothing
will have been settled. They won't be resting starters, or switching their key players
in-and-out to give us a chance. The Texans have to WIN these games to make
post season.

ObsiWan
08-14-2010, 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by DexmanC in Another Thread

During the first 12 games, EVERY team is fighting for its playoff life.
The Texans seem to take about 12 games to hit stride.

Start of 2007 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2008 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2009 Season: 5-7 (4-0 finish)

Once they improve their record over "The First Twelve"
I'll be a believer they've "taken the next step." The
Texans can NOT afford to sleepwalk for weeks-on-end
before they "get" it.

Who do we face over the 1st 12?
1. Colts
2. Redskins (Haynesworth)
3. Cowboys
4. Raiders
5. Giants
6. Chiefs
7. Colts
8. Chargers
9. Jags
10. Jets
11. Titans
12. Eagles

Barely a creampuff in this. EVERY team on this list will be BRINGIN' it, because nothing
will have been settled. They won't be resting starters, or switching their key players
in-and-out to give us a chance. The Texans have to WIN these games to make
post season.

So would a 9-7 season THIS year against THIS schedule mean we're actually better than we were last year? Or is it the absolute record no matter who we played? Just curious. And I'm not directing this query at just you, Dex, but everyone....

To my thinking, a better record in the division (at least 3-3) will be the measure of our progress. But I'd be happy with 3-3 in the division IF we finished 7-3 (or better) elsewhere.

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2010, 02:15 PM
So would a 9-7 season THIS year against THIS schedule mean we're actually better than we were last year? Or is it the absolute record no matter who we played? Just curious. And I'm not directing this query at just you, Dex, but everyone....

To my thinking, a better record in the division (at least 3-3) will be the measure of our progress. But I'd be happy with 3-3 in the division IF we finished 7-3 (or better) elsewhere.

With that reasoning, (by numbers alone) I believe that if we finish 9-7 this year, it would probably show us very little improvement compared to what we should have ended up last year. Last year should have easily resulted in a 10 or 11 win year.:spin:

ObsiWan
08-14-2010, 02:25 PM
With that reasoning, (by numbers alone) I believe that if we finish 9-7 this year, it would probably show us very little improvement compared to what we should have ended up last year. Last year should have easily resulted in a 10 or 11 win year.:spin:
I think the lost of Daniels and breaking in a new defense cost us a win or two last year.

The loss of Cushing for four games may cost us this year.

but we should still be in contention for a playoff berth no matter what. If we're to be a playoff team, then we need be ready to beat whoever the schedule puts in front of us.
Period.

TimeKiller
08-14-2010, 02:30 PM
Honestly, a lot of times when people talk about Kubiak's tenure, specifically how long he's been here I always discount the first year he was here. That wasn't a team. The next year was a lot better and still it was like "Hey look, we're gonna have a team in a few years that'll be good".....So it's a few years later and guess what? The team is looking niiiiiiiice.

Smith saying "Hey look, it's a functioning football team" doesn't mean a championship team to me. It means that the team operates functionally, where before it probably resembled a day-care more than a football team.

Ok Kubiak, we weathered the storm (literally even) with you. We're here now. Lofty fan expectations need to start meeting up with some results. That's what's next. We all watched and loved and cheered for the best regular season team not to make the playoffs. Now we want to make the playoffs and I think more than a few of us would like to see some noise being made whilst playing off.

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2010, 02:35 PM
I think the lost of Daniels and breaking in a new defense cost us a win or two last year.

The loss of Cushing for four games may cost us this year.

but we should still be in contention for a playoff berth no matter what. If we're to be a playoff team, then we need be ready to beat whoever the schedule puts in front of us.
Period.


With this I agree with you completely, and playoffs should be our only tangible goal..................and 9-7 ain't gonna do it............so we better look better on the field AND better on paper to make this a "successful" season.

steelbtexan
08-14-2010, 02:39 PM
I think the lost of Daniels and breaking in a new defense cost us a win or two last year.

The loss of Cushing for four games may cost us this year.

but we should still be in contention for a playoff berth no matter what. If we're to be a playoff team, then we need be ready to beat whoever the schedule puts in front of us.
Period.

Dont care for the we're improved excuse. If the Texans finish 9-7 it will be 9-7 just like last year.

This year is all about the playoffs. although with this schedule if they finish 10-6 and dont make the playoffs that would be a vast improvement to me. Kubes 2 min. blunder and the brilliant HB pass call along with the K.Brown suckitude also could have cost the Texans a win or two.

DexmanC
08-14-2010, 02:41 PM
Honestly, ObsiWan, I'll be judging the progress of this team on THE
FIRST TWELVE GAMES.

They've been 5-7 to start the season, for THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.
Every year, they've gone on a Fool's Gold Run to make us look forward
to "next year." My reason for posting this season's first twelve games,
is to illustrate how none of these teams have a reason to pull starters,
or rest key players at the point they play the Texans. They'd BETTER
not go 5-7 to start this year. If they do, I will not buy a 4-0 Fool's
Gold Run and call it "a decent season."

Watch the first twelve. If they have a winning record after that point,
then we can honestly say this team has "arrived."

The Pencil Neck
08-14-2010, 03:17 PM
The schedule is irrelevant.

We need to win a lot of games.

To me, though, it's not just "Playoffs or clean house." If we win 10 or 11 games and don't make the playoffs, I'm not going to be mad about that. Even if we win 9 games, I'm not going to be all that pissed off although I will be let down. At 8 games, though, and I'll be considering a pink soap avatar.

If we get into the playoffs, I don't care how many games we win. Kubes is the man. If we win 8 games but find a way into the playoffs, he's fine by me.

CloakNNNdagger
08-14-2010, 04:00 PM
The schedule is irrelevant.

We need to win a lot of games.

To me, though, it's not just "Playoffs or clean house." If we win 10 or 11 games and don't make the playoffs, I'm not going to be mad about that. Even if we win 9 games, I'm not going to be all that pissed off although I will be let down. At 8 games, though, and I'll be considering a pink soap avatar.

If we get into the playoffs, I don't care how many games we win. Kubes is the man. If we win 8 games but find a way into the playoffs, he's fine by me.

If we win 8 games and find a way into the playoffs, it will have been because McNair mortgages the team to the NFL Referees Association.

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/545306_f520.jpg

The Pencil Neck
08-14-2010, 04:13 PM
If we win 8 games and find a way into the playoffs, it will have been because McNair mortgages the team to the NFL Referees Association.

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/545306_f520.jpg

LOL.

The only way we win 8 games and make it into the playoffs is if the Colts, Titans, and Jags all tank and we win the division by default like the Chargers did a couple of years ago.

infantrycak
08-14-2010, 06:37 PM
and the brilliant HB pass call .

Saw a show the other day on NFL Network and Hall of Fame and Super Bowl winning coach Bill Parcels made exactly the same call in a conference championship game no less. The play didn't work. That doesn't mean it was a stupid call.

thunderkyss
08-14-2010, 09:07 PM
I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

Do you mean the Panthers?

My point was that those coaches built good teams, the next coach took them to the next level, it's not that Sean Peyton was given a zero talent team.

It's arguable whether Kubiak should have been able to win with the team he had. There were enough first round picks there. However, other than David Carr, CC Brown & Jabar Gaffney, I can't think of a player Kubiak got rid of that have had any kind of a career since.

thunderkyss
08-14-2010, 09:10 PM
That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.


I love me some Kubiak, you know that. But I can agree with this statement.

thunderkyss
08-14-2010, 09:41 PM
Come on. The Saints were a mess. And, they had to deal with the destruction of their entire city, and they still managed to stay focused and eventually get to the Super Bowl. We are STILL using Hurricane Ike as an excuse.

The Saints record in 2005 was a result of Katrina. That was not a bad team. Peyton went to the NFC Championship game with the same starting OL that Haslett left. The DL, same. I think 3 of the 4 secondary guys were Haslette's guys. Reggie Bush was a non-factor. The next year, they drafted Meachum who wasn't a factor until halfway through last year.

Drew Brees & Marques Colston were the only meaningful additions Payton brought to that team. He did bring in three LBs, and a safety on Defense, but their defense wasn't much in 2006.

The only thing I blame Katrina for is a game or two in 2008.

Also, we could eventually say "Gary Kubiak built a great team in Houston, he just couldn't get them to go anywhere."

Aaron Brooks, Joe Horn, Duece McAllister, and several defensive players were ProBowlers with Haslett. He got them to the play-offs twice, the next step for him was a play-off win.

That's where I think we're heading. The Texans WILL win a Super Bowl within the next five years - but it will be with another head coach. And then we will spend years talking about how Coach X won in Houston with Gary's players.

That's fine, and plausible. I don't understand why you, or anyone, would think Kubiak can't get it done. Our players screw up, with fumbles and interceptions, and he continues to put them in a position to win, in spite of it. We exhibited the same mistakes made by young teams last year, no reason to believe they won't mature and over come them. Watching the changes in Andre, Winston, Schaub, Meco, Pollard & Cush over the coarse of the year, should be proof that they are maturing.

If you think Schaub & Andre has always been leaders on this team, and see no difference in those players, from game one to game 16 then there's just no talking to you.

Kubiak has also made progress. Maybe not in the areas you'd have liked to have seen. But he is a fine head coach. If he keeps doing what he's doing, I don't see how we don't get a Super Bowl very soon.

thunderkyss
08-14-2010, 09:51 PM
Watch the first twelve. If they have a winning record after that point,
then we can honestly say this team has "arrived."

How much football knowledge and understanding does it take to look back and determine if a team is any good?

That's kinda like picking your lotto numbers after they announce the winning numbers.

Or going to the track, and placing your bets after all the races are run.

DexmanC
08-14-2010, 10:05 PM
How much football knowledge and understanding does it take to look back and determine if a team is any good?



All I know is that 5-7, for the FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW, would show me
that it's the "Same 'Ol Texans."

No more excuses for it. Watch the First Twelve Games. 5-7 ain't gonna
cut it.