PDA

View Full Version : Saints-Texans: GP's things he witnessed


GP
08-22-2010, 10:25 AM
Things that made me mad:

1. Special Teams as a whole. Wait, it should be "Special Teams as a HOLE." Because that's what it was. A big, hairy, stinky hole. We couldn't down the ball on the 1 because our special teams' guys had their heads up their rears, even though it bounced nicely several times before hitting the end zone. The snap to Rackers on our first FG was high and caused him to delay his stride toward the ball, almost wrecking the attempt. Trindon Holliday is as good as cut, period. On one punt to the Saints, we had him pinned at the 3 and he gets to the 17 before being tackled--A +14-yard field position for the Saints.

2. Defense as a hole. Where were these guys? They got manhandled all game. I kept waiting for someone or a few someones to flip a switch and reverse the tide, but it never came. Their 2's were dominating our 1's, unless they had more offense-side 1's out there than I realized. Chase Daniel? Seriously? Chase Freaking Daniel? LOL. Reggie Bush ran circles around us, Mario Williams gave up on plays EARLY, and Brees and his head coach make our offense AND our defense look like Pee-Wee League out there.

3. Antonio Smith. Reggie Bush runs around the right side of his offensive line, Smith pursues the play (untouched/unblocked) down the line...tracking Bush nicely...and when Bush cuts back into the inside, Smith has BUsh in his arms and lets him go. I mean, like "Release captured butterflies go" let go. I was screaming at the TV over this. This is insufferable. Apparently, though, the entire defense was told that they had the night off from proper tackling technique.

4. Trindon Holliday. This guy better have blackmail on Kubiak if he desires to make the team. Has a great opening kick return, IIRC, and then proceeds to royally blow every attempt after that (which included a fumble because he didn't come up and get underneath the ball enough). Out comes Slaton and Jacoby Jones to perform return duties. %$#@! There is no sticking up for the guy, no matter how badly you want to. He's going to need 100% positive plays for the rest of the camp if he wants a shot to make this team. And even then, it might not be enough.

5. TV Commentating. Once again, I understand the idea behind having a home-team, homer'ish commentating team paid to cover your team's games. You get a heavy dose of friendly analysis. What was stoopid was how they had so much to say about LSU. I know it was CST, which I infer means College Sports Network? Meaning this station that carried the game (CST) is normally dedicated to LSU/college coverage? Regardless, it was wearing me out. Mute-the-TV wearing me out. There was one play, early, when Brees had to throw the ball in the dirt quickly because (IIRC) Cushing had blown up the RB's blocking attempt and he was going to hurt Drew Brees as the scramble out of the pocket ensued. But the pasty guy and Solomon Wilcots were all gaga about how that RB just stuck his helmet in there and took care of the Texans defender! :HowardDeanScream: Yet they completely ignored that our guy blew up the play. LOL. This is what I can't stand about preseason: Homer analysis. I hope I don't see it/hear it when he play our home game. I don;t want to. I would hope that our commentators would be more professional than that. So we'll see.

6. Limited viewing of our plays. OK, so because this thing is homer'ized on the TV commentating side...we don't get to see the full range of Texans plays unless it's when we're getting waxed by the Saints. If we had a good play, you didn't see a replay of it very much. The production was just awful. They hardly ever did replay and analysis. Instead, we got to see in-the-booth interviews with Ricky Jackson and the LSU commentator. Lame.

----------------

Things that were OK:

1. At least it was preseason. The only saving grace is that perhaps we were playing a bit reserved by design of the coaches. Because that did not look like the same fired-up, busy-bee defense we saw against the Cards. It's either THAT or it's the difference between the two teams' QBs. And I ain't gonna' spend time deciding which one it is. Because I fear the true answer on it. We're also playing a second game as an away game. I know it's just down the street, but maybe it played a factor. I dunno.

2. James Freaking Casey! Whoo-hoo! Did you see him absolutely SHATTER the Saints #93 so that Schaub could complete that long pass? #93 is going to smash Schaub and Casey puts his helmet and full force of his weight and speed and the right attack angle onto the KNEE of #93. You could hear the POP! of it. He is a blocking machine. I noted that last week he had a crucial block on one of our plays that was a great overall play, mainly due to James Casey's blocking. Out-freaking-standing, James Casey.

3. Kareem Jackson. I felt he stayed with his guy. He also made a very good tackle when it seemed everyone else was doggin' it out there. I did not see him get exposed or abused out there.

4. Foster. Other than his fumble, he is showing promise. He has enough power to withstand the defenses if he can get at least a little help from our oline. Everyone was losing their traction on that field, and on his fumble he attempts to balance himself by bringing his ball-carrying arm up into the air and a tackler hits that arm (and ball) and just the right time to force the fumble. I was not mad about that fumble.

That's it. This game had goats that were blown and pooches that were screwed. It was horrendous. It was a waste of me staying up until midnight to watch it as it aired on NFLN. Should have woke up this morning and watched it instead. I need the Men In Black laser light pen gadget that makes me forget it.

Feel free to add or correct anything. I am sure I missed some things.

dalemurphy
08-22-2010, 10:47 AM
GP: Very good list. I have some re-watching to do and it won't be easy. Of all the poor performances, though, I thought Kubiak had the worst:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/observation-nights-fiasco-orleans/news/)

(by the way, I didn't notice the Casey block... at least I have something to look forward to when I re-watch this thing!)

Texas T
08-22-2010, 10:52 AM
[COLOR="Black"][

5. TV Commentating. Once again, I understand the idea behind having a home-team, homer'ish commentating team paid to cover your team's games. You get a heavy dose of friendly analysis. What was stoopid was how they had so much to say about LSU. I know it was CST, which I infer means College Sports Network? Meaning this station that carried the game (CST) is normally dedicated to LSU/college coverage? Regardless, it was wearing me out. Mute-the-TV wearing me out. There was one play, early, when Brees had to throw the ball in the dirt quickly because (IIRC) Cushing had blown up the RB's blocking attempt and he was going to hurt Drew Brees as the scramble out of the pocket ensued. But the pasty guy and Solomon Wilcots were all gaga about how that RB just stuck his helmet in there and took care of the Texans defender! :HowardDeanScream: Yet they completely ignored that our guy blew up the play. LOL. This is what I can't stand about preseason: Homer analysis. I hope I don't see it/hear it when he play our home game. I don;t want to. I would hope that our commentators would be more professional than that. So we'll see.

6. Limited viewing of our plays. OK, so because this thing is homer'ized on the TV commentating side...we don't get to see the full range of Texans plays unless it's when we're getting waxed by the Saints. If we had a good play, you didn't see a replay of it very much. The production was just awful. They hardly ever did replay and analysis. Instead, we got to see in-the-booth interviews with Ricky Jackson and the LSU commentator. Lame.



These were the two worst things about the game.
I'm watching it on DVR and missing tons of Texans stuff because they keep cutting to the commentators...really freaking annoying.

Really there were only two things that really bothered me.

First, the defense forgot to show up-all the great things I read this week about practice then...nothing

Second, Holliday-I really had high hopes for him to be a real asset in the return game and...nothing

I'm willing to take this all with a grain of salt-preseason and all.
But they better not come out flat next week...

DexmanC
08-22-2010, 10:57 AM
You guys may need to subscribe to preseason.nfl.com to watch the
game from the Texans' feed. I couldn't imagine watching that fiasco
from the Saints' side.

TheRealJoker
08-22-2010, 11:00 AM
Garret Graham, James Casey, and Troy Nolan showed promise. Orlovsky looked better than last week, but still gives me the chills.

I want to see Jeremiah Johnson get Holliday's reps at KR so he can have a shot at winning that job. He's got the speed to break a big return, but i'd like to see him get more opportunities to show he can consistently get the team good field position.

m5kwatts
08-22-2010, 11:10 AM
All in all it was a forgettable game. If this were the movie Bull Durham I'd hope Kubiak threw all the bats into the showers and called them lollygaggers.

Ryan
08-22-2010, 11:13 AM
I think the atrocity we saw on the field last night was due to fatigue from camp. Call me crazy, because it obviously did not effect the Saints one bit, but i think the 3rd week of camp might have just taken a toll on them, and that was the reason for the horrible technique and execution out there, especially on the defensive side.

Maybe i'm just imagining things, but it seems the 2nd preseason game under Kubiak over the past couple of years have been nightmare-ish, maybe due to playing the Saints.

With all of this being said, i see them coming out next saturday with intensity when they play against the cowboys with the homefield advantage.

TheRealJoker
08-22-2010, 11:21 AM
I think the atrocity we saw on the field last night was due to fatigue from camp. Call me crazy, because it obviously did not effect the Saints one bit, but i think the 3rd week of camp might have just taken a toll on them, and that was the reason for the horrible technique and execution out there, especially on the defensive side.

Maybe i'm just imagining things, but it seems the 2nd preseason game under Kubiak over the past couple of years have been nightmare-ish, maybe due to playing the Saints.

With all of this being said, i see them coming out next saturday with intensity when they play against the cowboys with the homefield advantage.

This looked pretty much exactly the same as our game last year against the Saints. Just manhandled at the LOS on both sides of the ball.

bckey
08-22-2010, 11:23 AM
Good post GP. I worked yesterday and had to catch the replay on NFL network at midnight. Was that ever a waste of time. I stayed up until 3 am to watch the Texans get out coached and out played in every phase of the game. And yes the commentators were horrible. I know it is preseason but the Texans better wake up. Their schedule is full of playoff caliber teams.

Our defensive line was disgusting. I hope McNair pulls out 8 million to lure Schoebel out of retirement although Aaron may have watched the game and decided he made the right decision. Seriously, our dl was man handled all night long.

Trinidon Holiday is gone. No way he makes the team. The Texans have enough players that can return kicks and contribute in other areas as well.

cuppacoffee
08-22-2010, 11:36 AM
Garret Graham, James Casey, and Troy Nolan showed promise. Orlovsky looked better than last week, but still gives me the chills.

I want to see Jeremiah Johnson get Holliday's reps at KR so he can have a shot at winning that job. He's got the speed to break a big return, but i'd like to see him get more opportunities to show he can consistently get the team good field position.



That's pretty much what I took from the game.

That and the fact we still can't rush the passer.

Next week should be our 'tell all' game. Third preseason game and against dullass. If they don't show up next week, don't expect things to be any different this year.

:coffee:

Texan4Ever
08-22-2010, 11:36 AM
Good write up GP. I just want us to improve from every game and not go backwards. As for the game itself, the Saints offensive line is one of the best in the league and is a hell of a lot better then our defensive line.

TheRealJoker
08-22-2010, 11:40 AM
Good write up GP. I just want us to improve from every game and not go backwards. As for the game itself, the Saints offensive line is one of the best in the league and is a hell of a lot better then our defensive line.

The Saints have the best OG tandem in the NFL. I'd venture to guess our DT duo doesn't rank in the top half of the league.

ATXtexanfan
08-22-2010, 11:53 AM
This looked pretty much exactly the same as our game last year against the Saints. Just manhandled at the LOS on both sides of the ball.

that was how i felt. hopefully this lights a fire under everyones ass. cuts to come soon

Malloy
08-22-2010, 12:05 PM
What an awful experience watching this game, short of a few players attempts the entire team looked sluggish, like they did not care.

Anyone got a link to the Pollard sideline interview?

steelbtexan
08-22-2010, 12:07 PM
I think the atrocity we saw on the field last night was due to fatigue from camp. Call me crazy, because it obviously did not effect the Saints one bit, but i think the 3rd week of camp might have just taken a toll on them, and that was the reason for the horrible technique and execution out there, especially on the defensive side.

Maybe i'm just imagining things, but it seems the 2nd preseason game under Kubiak over the past couple of years have been nightmare-ish, maybe due to playing the Saints.

With all of this being said, i see them coming out next saturday with intensity when they play against the cowboys with the homefield advantage.

Except the Saints were in their 3rd week of camp and playing their 2nd game.

And somehow they managed to shake off the training camp blues and dominate Kubes Texans in every phase of the game. Alot like last yrs Saints Texans game.

cuppacoffee
08-22-2010, 12:09 PM
GP: Very good list. I have some re-watching to do and it won't be easy. Of all the poor performances, though, I thought Kubiak had the worst:

Texans Bull Blog (http://www.texansbullblog.com/observation-nights-fiasco-orleans/news/)

(by the way, I didn't notice the Casey block... at least I have something to look forward to when I re-watch this thing!)



I agree on Andre. I thought the exact same thing you did when I saw him favor the leg when he got up. GET HIM OUT OF THERE.

Agree on Orlovsky. He looks better......but he still has a long way to go.

Why did Kubiak play the ones so long? Maybe some were playing themselves out of the #1 slot. Positions are won and lost during pre-season.

I won't read too much into last nights fiasco. We know our offense is better than what we saw and our defense is still a work in progress.


Enjoy the blogs, good stuff.


:coffee:

Rey
08-22-2010, 12:12 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Chase still had quite a bit of first teamers out there with him for a while...

Still not an excuse for the poor play, but Marques Colston is Marques Colston.

texanhead08
08-22-2010, 01:05 PM
It's pre season and the games don't count. I am not going to go all batshit crazy over a bad game. The Saints are the defending champs for a reason. I want the Texans to get better and be ready on Sept 12.

These games don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

Hardcore Texan
08-22-2010, 01:22 PM
I usually watch every game a second time but I think I'll skip this go around.

Second Honeymoon
08-22-2010, 01:37 PM
Just another classic noshow by a kubiak coached team in a game against a good team. We should all be used to failure by now

wasn't surprised though... Expect more of the same but we will hope 4 more

Second Honeymoon
08-22-2010, 01:51 PM
Preseason doesn't matter

signed,
2-14 season in 2005

DexmanC
08-22-2010, 02:01 PM
Preseason doesn't matter

signed,
2-14 season in 2005

It's only Preseason


signed,
5-7 start in 2007
5-7 start in 2008
5-7 start in 2009

bckey
08-22-2010, 02:17 PM
It's pre season and the games don't count. I am not going to go all batshit crazy over a bad game. The Saints are the defending champs for a reason. I want the Texans to get better and be ready on Sept 12.

These games don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.


We see these same posts every preseason. And you know what. Every year the Texans come out playing just everyone was complaining about. Their intensity is just too up and down week to week. They have to learn to play all out 4 quarters a game every friggin game of the season including preseason.

ObsiWan
08-22-2010, 02:18 PM
The Saints have the best OG tandem in the NFL. I'd venture to guess our DT duo doesn't rank in the top half of the league.

Fun Fact:
The Saints only gave up 20 sacks last season; 4th best in the NFL. We only got 30 sacks last year (10 belonged to a gimpy Mario); 25th in the league. Our D-line was straight-up over matched.

One Time
08-22-2010, 02:30 PM
Things that made me mad:

5. TV Commentating. Once again, I understand the idea behind having a home-team, homer'ish commentating team paid to cover your team's games. You get a heavy dose of friendly analysis. What was stoopid was how they had so much to say about LSU. I know it was CST, which I infer means College Sports Network? Meaning this station that carried the game (CST) is normally dedicated to LSU/college coverage? Regardless, it was wearing me out. Mute-the-TV wearing me out. There was one play, early, when Brees had to throw the ball in the dirt quickly because (IIRC) Cushing had blown up the RB's blocking attempt and he was going to hurt Drew Brees as the scramble out of the pocket ensued. But the pasty guy and Solomon Wilcots were all gaga about how that RB just stuck his helmet in there and took care of the Texans defender! :HowardDeanScream: Yet they completely ignored that our guy blew up the play. LOL. This is what I can't stand about preseason: Homer analysis. I hope I don't see it/hear it when he play our home game. I don;t want to. I would hope that our commentators would be more professional than that. So we'll see.

6. Limited viewing of our plays. OK, so because this thing is homer'ized on the TV commentating side...we don't get to see the full range of Texans plays unless it's when we're getting waxed by the Saints. If we had a good play, you didn't see a replay of it very much. The production was just awful. They hardly ever did replay and analysis. Instead, we got to see in-the-booth interviews with Ricky Jackson and the LSU commentator. Lame.

----------------

LOL. CST stands for Cox Sports Television. It's not a college or LSU network. LSU has their own network for their games. CST is mainly for the Hornets, but they show Saints pre-season and LSU/Tulane delayed replays, and other mundane games that pretty much just kill space. CST is mainly for CP3.

That said, I'm no fan of them either. They suck!!

Brisco_County
08-22-2010, 02:45 PM
Just another classic noshow by a kubiak coached team in a game against a good team. We should all be used to failure by now

wasn't surprised though... Expect more of the same but we will hope 4 more

I hate you...

Because you're right, and normally I just hate you anyway.

Isn't the purpose of "smaller and faster" linemen to have more stamina when the bigger guys should be fatigued?

How was this week's practices more fatiguing than previous weeks? Why weren't the Saints fatigued? Why couldn't Schaub get the ball to Andre? Why did it look like only one coaching staff had studied their opponents in practice? Why do I live in my mother's basement? Why were DeMeco, Cushing, and Pollard not adjusting to the Saints' running game and stuffing the right gaps?

"Life is a mystery" --Madonna

:bag:

ObsiWan
08-22-2010, 02:48 PM
I hate you...

Because you're right, and normally I just hate you anyway.

Isn't the purpose of "smaller and faster" linemen to have more stamina when the bigger guys should be fatigued?

How was this week's practices more fatiguing than previous weeks? Why weren't the Saints fatigued? Why couldn't Schaub get the ball to Andre? Why did it look like only one coaching staff had studied their opponents in practice? Why do I live in my mother's basement? Why were DeMeco, Cushing, and Pollard not adjusting to the Saints' running game and stuffing the right gaps?

"Life is a mystery" --Madonna

:bag:

wait...
what?!

Brisco_County
08-22-2010, 02:49 PM
wait...
what?!

Oops, damn stream of consciousness.

Malloy
08-22-2010, 03:00 PM
Oops, damn stream of consciousness.

Inner voice damnit, INNER voice! :)

phantom17
08-22-2010, 03:21 PM
SIGH! Same'ole same 'ole from these Texans year in year out! They all look unmotivated, unprepared, bad breaks from injuries, MANHANDLED....again, just going tru the motions, same old broken record! Man, it may be preseason, but I don't like the feel of it!:voodoo: Kubes need to light a fire under these lazy, unmotivated players arse!

CloakNNNdagger
08-22-2010, 03:37 PM
GP,

Must spread the rep. Thanks for the "wrap up." I was unable to watch the game after the 1st quarter. I'll have to go back and try to watch the replay. Sounds like it only got more depressing

DexmanC
08-22-2010, 03:39 PM
SIGH! Same'ole same 'ole from these Texans year in year out! They all look unmotivated, unprepared, bad breaks from injuries, MANHANDLED....again, just going tru the motions, same old broken record! Man, it may be preseason, but I don't like the feel of it!:voodoo: Kubes need to light a fire under these lazy, unmotivated players arse!

Something tells me the Colts are gonna roll the Texans on opening day.
They have yet to bring consistent effort from one game to the next.
More of the same excuses I thought were retired a year ago, are starting
to be employed.

Big Lou
08-22-2010, 03:42 PM
Things that made me mad:

1. Special Teams as a whole. Wait, it should be "Special Teams as a HOLE." Because that's what it was. A big, hairy, stinky hole. We couldn't down the ball on the 1 because our special teams' guys had their heads up their rears, even though it bounced nicely several times before hitting the end zone. The snap to Rackers on our first FG was high and caused him to delay his stride toward the ball, almost wrecking the attempt. Trindon Holliday is as good as cut, period. On one punt to the Saints, we had him pinned at the 3 and he gets to the 17 before being tackled--A +14-yard field position for the Saints.

2. Defense as a hole. Where were these guys? They got manhandled all game. I kept waiting for someone or a few someones to flip a switch and reverse the tide, but it never came. Their 2's were dominating our 1's, unless they had more offense-side 1's out there than I realized. Chase Daniel? Seriously? Chase Freaking Daniel? LOL. Reggie Bush ran circles around us, Mario Williams gave up on plays EARLY, and Brees and his head coach make our offense AND our defense look like Pee-Wee League out there.

3. Antonio Smith. Reggie Bush runs around the right side of his offensive line, Smith pursues the play (untouched/unblocked) down the line...tracking Bush nicely...and when Bush cuts back into the inside, Smith has BUsh in his arms and lets him go. I mean, like "Release captured butterflies go" let go. I was screaming at the TV over this. This is insufferable. Apparently, though, the entire defense was told that they had the night off from proper tackling technique.

4. Trindon Holliday. This guy better have blackmail on Kubiak if he desires to make the team. Has a great opening kick return, IIRC, and then proceeds to royally blow every attempt after that (which included a fumble because he didn't come up and get underneath the ball enough). Out comes Slaton and Jacoby Jones to perform return duties. %$#@! There is no sticking up for the guy, no matter how badly you want to. He's going to need 100% positive plays for the rest of the camp if he wants a shot to make this team. And even then, it might not be enough.

5. TV Commentating. Once again, I understand the idea behind having a home-team, homer'ish commentating team paid to cover your team's games. You get a heavy dose of friendly analysis. What was stoopid was how they had so much to say about LSU. I know it was CST, which I infer means College Sports Network? Meaning this station that carried the game (CST) is normally dedicated to LSU/college coverage? Regardless, it was wearing me out. Mute-the-TV wearing me out. There was one play, early, when Brees had to throw the ball in the dirt quickly because (IIRC) Cushing had blown up the RB's blocking attempt and he was going to hurt Drew Brees as the scramble out of the pocket ensued. But the pasty guy and Solomon Wilcots were all gaga about how that RB just stuck his helmet in there and took care of the Texans defender! :HowardDeanScream: Yet they completely ignored that our guy blew up the play. LOL. This is what I can't stand about preseason: Homer analysis. I hope I don't see it/hear it when he play our home game. I don;t want to. I would hope that our commentators would be more professional than that. So we'll see.

6. Limited viewing of our plays. OK, so because this thing is homer'ized on the TV commentating side...we don't get to see the full range of Texans plays unless it's when we're getting waxed by the Saints. If we had a good play, you didn't see a replay of it very much. The production was just awful. They hardly ever did replay and analysis. Instead, we got to see in-the-booth interviews with Ricky Jackson and the LSU commentator. Lame.

----------------

Things that were OK:

1. At least it was preseason. The only saving grace is that perhaps we were playing a bit reserved by design of the coaches. Because that did not look like the same fired-up, busy-bee defense we saw against the Cards. It's either THAT or it's the difference between the two teams' QBs. And I ain't gonna' spend time deciding which one it is. Because I fear the true answer on it. We're also playing a second game as an away game. I know it's just down the street, but maybe it played a factor. I dunno.

2. James Freaking Casey! Whoo-hoo! Did you see him absolutely SHATTER the Saints #93 so that Schaub could complete that long pass? #93 is going to smash Schaub and Casey puts his helmet and full force of his weight and speed and the right attack angle onto the KNEE of #93. You could hear the POP! of it. He is a blocking machine. I noted that last week he had a crucial block on one of our plays that was a great overall play, mainly due to James Casey's blocking. Out-freaking-standing, James Casey.

3. Kareem Jackson. I felt he stayed with his guy. He also made a very good tackle when it seemed everyone else was doggin' it out there. I did not see him get exposed or abused out there.

4. Foster. Other than his fumble, he is showing promise. He has enough power to withstand the defenses if he can get at least a little help from our oline. Everyone was losing their traction on that field, and on his fumble he attempts to balance himself by bringing his ball-carrying arm up into the air and a tackler hits that arm (and ball) and just the right time to force the fumble. I was not mad about that fumble.

That's it. This game had goats that were blown and pooches that were screwed. It was horrendous. It was a waste of me staying up until midnight to watch it as it aired on NFLN. Should have woke up this morning and watched it instead. I need the Men In Black laser light pen gadget that makes me forget it.

Feel free to add or correct anything. I am sure I missed some things.

I think CST stands for Cajuns Suck at Television. Can they just call the game down the middle. I thought they were going to go down on the field and make out with Reggie. Although he did look like a real NFL RB against the Defense which doesn't bode well..........

Antonio Smith: Wow he looked the Defensive version of Chris Meyers. He was blown up on like every play.

Defense: There was no intensity. They looked like they were just there to go thru the motions. Hopefully we can chalk this up to them bieng tired from camp and Preseason really doesn't matter, but I don't like that kind of attitude.

Offesnse: Well the offense looked like last year. Fumbles, big plays, and hot and cold. I suspect if they played 4 quarters they would have made it interesting to watch.

I'm on the West Coast and only had to stay up until 10PM, and it wasn't worth it.

Brisco_County
08-22-2010, 03:51 PM
Inner voice damnit, INNER voice! :)

The weird thing is that it's not even true. I live in a halfway house. :shades:

GP
08-22-2010, 03:51 PM
GP,

Must spread the rep. Thanks for the "wrap up." I was unable to watch the game after the 1st quarter. I'll have to go back and try to watch the replay. Sounds like it only got more depressing

Oh, did it ever.

Midnight is NOT the time to try and tolerate bad Texans football. And I sat there until 2 a.m. trying to find a way to finish eating that crap sandwich that was put before me. Every coach and player on the Texans should have been made to watch the entire game at midnight, just like I did. They should have had to stay up until 3 a.m. and soak it all in. Turds.

I resorted to trying to single out at least 1 out of the 11 guys on the field, at any given moment, who was putting forth an honest effort. And let me tell you, it became about as futile of an attempt as trying to Find Waldo while looking through your grandad's eyeglasses. Headache-inducing.

I will NOT re-watch this game. It has been erased, and Kubiak will be erased if his team plays its same old ways this season. The McNair extension to Kubiak was to retain KUBIAK if he so choose to retain him...not as a locked-down guarantee that the guy will be here for the duration of the extended contract. I hope our owner will pull the ripcord if Kubiak's team cannot play consistent football. I can tolerate other teams and other teams' players finding a superior way and maybe even LUCKING their way to a win over us. But to be manhandled at all phases of the game, even against the Saints, is the sort of humiliation that needs to end for Texans fans.

We're at a point where the talent level is THERE. Enough to suffice, so to say. No team will ever be 100% stacked at each position. That's when strategy and coaching take the team over the top.

And that's where Kubiak is, IMO. Either he can drag them over the finish line, or he's just a great builder but without the skill sets to actually find a way to win games as they occur in real time and in real space.

Regular Season Game 1 is the only game of the year. It has to be. There can exist NO other game in the minds of the team's coaches and players. But, we see that they didn't think that way vs. Jets last year. No, apparently the Jets found a way to do this but not the Texans. Not at home, and not against a rookie QB and a rookie head coach.

At least I will get to see this team play Dallas next weekend on LIVE TV and not on delay at midnight. I'm tired, I'm angry, and etc. etc.

ReliantTexan
08-22-2010, 03:56 PM
The defense was man-handled most of the game, but you have to understand that you are not going to keep points off the board against this team when you can't keep their offense off the field. Granted alot of that had to do with the defense, but just to recap.

The saints score on a lengthy opening drive, collectively running the ball down the Texans throats, inexcusable,but now it's the Texans turn on offense. A couple of minor gains from foster and an incomplete pass forces a three and out. Saints offense back on the field, but this time the Texans actually halt the drive around mid field, saints forced to punt. Well you know the story carless turnover and we give them the ball back right around our 13 yd line, pretty much setting up the defense to fail. Not making excusesfor the performance of the defense, way too many missed tackles, and it seemed like no one could shed their blocker. But our defense didn't get much help early on in keeping their offense off the field,

DexmanC
08-22-2010, 04:00 PM
Excellent post GP. The Texans are NOT one of teams that can afford
to blow off preseason. What have they done before? How do
they fare in the early-to-mid part of the season where division
titles and playoff spots are being fought for? Here we go:

2007: 5-7
2008: 5-7
2009: (Yes. You've guessed it...) 5-7


Sean Payton took over a woeful Saints team, in 2006, and led
them through catastrophe to a Superbowl Title. All we've gotten
from Kubiak in the same amount of time is frustration and
excuses.

I swore to keep the soap off for the first twelve games of 2010,
but it's getting mighty hard to do so.

gary
08-22-2010, 04:11 PM
What a piss poor effort on both sides of the football and I will say it is all but certain Holladay is done. You may think ah, well the Saints are the Superbowl champs but that is a team the Texans are going to have to win against if they want to make any head way in the AFC South. There is zero postives to take away from the game last night. Everyone said after last week that they are not worried because some of the third and fourth stringers blew the stinking game well, I would like to know what the story is today after the 1ns and 2 both looked uninspired and unprepared. You and me would have given a 1,000 percent better effort than the Texans gave last night but we are not the ones who are paid to play and know how to do their job they are. But we might as well be the ones playing after that performence last night. We as a whole might not be worried just yet but I sure am. You can call this an overeaction if you want to that is fine but then you'd also be saying Gary was too last night because he was hot after that pee wee game and rightfully so IMO. This is going on nine seasons already and last season right or wrong we blamed Kris Brown but I have a feeling we all should be asking what will be the reason once again this season. I hope I am wrong but I am not sorry for the rant because everytime that game crosses my mind not just because they lost but because they were flat out taken to school and their text books were even opened up for them my face cringes and I just want to ball up in the corner in cry my eyes out but men don't do that sort of thing. So I'll just have to get over the loss and hope they figure things out by next week because they are the pros not me. /End rant.

Number19
08-22-2010, 04:59 PM
Dreessen had a couple of fine downfield receptions. How was his overall play?

gary
08-22-2010, 05:07 PM
Dreessen had a couple of fine downfield receptions. How was his overall play?
Alright. I do not remember any plays which were really eye poping just an all around decent game from him.

C Madd
08-22-2010, 05:28 PM
All in all it was a forgettable game. If this were the movie Bull Durham I'd hope Kubiak threw all the bats into the showers and called them lollygaggers.

- You know what that makes you? Larry!
- Lolligaggers!
- Lolligaggers.

beerlover
08-22-2010, 06:59 PM
:goodpost: GP like your sense of humor.

FYI, The Saints are Super Bowl Champions, their core group remains intact, not to mention its tough as hell for anybody to beat them in New Orleans & they're healthy.

GP
08-22-2010, 07:05 PM
Dreessen had a couple of fine downfield receptions. How was his overall play?

He was essentially our offense. He was getting open and down the field for many deep passes, which were throw his way and he caught them. If Owen Daniels cannot make it, I think we'll be fairly OK at TE.

The one TD run that Foster had, it looked like the Saints Defense conceded the score much like you would in a scrimmage. Sure, he was through the seam in the middle of the line of scrimmage, but no Saints defender tried to tackle him. It was a gimmee.

ATXtexanfan
08-22-2010, 07:06 PM
i wonder how different things would have been if jj returned that punt and not holliday. not saying anything just saying.

Brisco_County
08-23-2010, 03:58 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GP again.

How many people do I have to spread it to? I don't even remember repping GP before.

(That felt weird to type. It sounds like I'm talking about herpes or something.)

Malloy
08-23-2010, 05:08 AM
How many people do I have to spread it to? I don't even remember repping GP before.

(That felt weird to type. It sounds like I'm talking about herpes or something.)

Dude, kids read this stuff ;)

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 08:12 AM
It's pre season and the games don't count. I am not going to go all batshit crazy over a bad game. The Saints are the defending champs for a reason. I want the Texans to get better and be ready on Sept 12.

These games don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

this. People are really downplaying the fact that this was the SB champs playing at home...which has really become one of the toughest places to play in the last couple of years. No one in the league has been able to stop that offense & when you give them extra possessions inside the red zone (mr. holiday i'm talking to you) you're only making that much harder to stop them. After NO went up 14-0, our 1's answered back with a long drive of their own & the score is only 7-7. Sure the 1's on defense didn't look like it was on point, but they played well enough to keep the team in it & they were probably gassed anyway..

Calm down people....it really is just preseason & winning these games will have 0 impact on the regular season..signed detroit for the last 2 years. 7-1 in the preseason for those 2 years but only won a combined 2 regular season games..We also know about how the colts rountinely dog the preseason only to run through the regular season.

CloakNNNdagger
08-23-2010, 12:31 PM
this. People are really downplaying the fact that this was the SB champs playing at home...which has really become one of the toughest places to play in the last couple of years. No one in the league has been able to stop that offense & when you give them extra possessions inside the red zone (mr. holiday i'm talking to you) you're only making that much harder to stop them. After NO went up 14-0, our 1's answered back with a long drive of their own & the score is only 7-7. Sure the 1's on defense didn't look like it was on point, but they played well enough to keep the team in it & they were probably gassed anyway..

Calm down people....it really is just preseason & winning these games will have 0 impact on the regular season..signed detroit for the last 2 years. 7-1 in the preseason for those 2 years but only won a combined 2 regular season games..We also know about how the colts rountinely dog the preseason only to run through the regular season.

These must be the same people that were downplaying how weak an opponent the Cardinals really were.

And, we have never to date been or in the least bit performed like the Colts.

Brisco_County
08-23-2010, 01:02 PM
No one is disputing that the pre-season doesn't mean anything.

But it is an undeniable indicator of the state of the team, which fits a historical pattern that takes us down a road we've been down before.

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 01:16 PM
These must be the same people that were downplaying how weak an opponent the Cardinals really were.

And, we have never to date been or in the least bit performed like the Colts.

So? what does that have to with anything? Our preseason games count more than the colts' do? Performing in the regular season is what has ultimately gotten them to where they're at & I highly doubt that any of them look / have looked back on any preseason game over the last couple of years & said "yep, if we'd just done this or that in this preseason game, we'd be champs.." Truthfully i doubt any team does that regardless of their position b/c there are simply too many other things. Let's look at it for what it really is, many of you are essentially about ready to blow it all up over 1 half of a meaningless game. Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you?

The overall point i'm trying to make is that it wasn't all good in the Arizona game & it ain't all bad in the NO game....we are likely somewhere between the 2.

DexmanC
08-23-2010, 01:18 PM
These must be the same people that were downplaying how weak an opponent the Cardinals really were.

And, we have never to date been or in the least bit performed like the Colts.

Mr. Tex sounds like I did early last season, but that was the THIRD
time in a row the Texans put forth a season like that. I ain't fallin'
for it a fourth time. I want this regime to make me believe in them.
And I'll be right here, as the happiest Texan fan alive, if the staff
steps its game up as we expect the players to.

Kubiak is still acting like an offensive coordinator, and it's affecting
the focus of the TEAM. Up one game, gone the next, for three
straight seasons.

I'm just waiting for SOMETHING to prove this team has found
a way to stay focused for more than one game at a time. Playoff
teams put their best feet forward during the FIRST 3/4 OF THE
SEASON. The Texans don't hit stride, as we've seen, until the
FINAL quarter of the season. By this time, teams are resting their
starters after they've clinched something. This gives the illusion
that the Texans are "on the rise."

The next time they beat a good team in the first quarter of the
season will be the first. They've got almost NO margin for error
with this schedule, and the fans at Reliant. God bless the fans
for showing this team it ain't gonna stand for this crap anymore.

Fight for four quarters, every game. That is to be expected, not excused.
I don't care how tired you are, and how bad you miss your wife and
kids, over THREE DAYS OF PRACTICE.

CloakNNNdagger
08-23-2010, 01:46 PM
I'm just waiting for SOMETHING to prove this team has found a way to stay focused for more than one game at a time. Playoff teams put their best feet forward during the FIRST 3/4 OF THE
SEASON. The Texans don't hit stride, as we've seen, until the
FINAL quarter of the season. By this time, teams are resting their
starters after they've clinched something. This gives the illusion
that the Texans are "on the rise."

The next time they beat a good team in the first quarter of the
season will be the first. They've got almost NO margin for error
with this schedule, and the fans at Reliant. God bless the fans
for showing this team it ain't gonna stand for this crap anymore.

Fight for four quarters, every game. That is to be expected, not excused.
I don't care how tired you are, and how bad you miss your wife and
kids, over THREE DAYS OF PRACTICE.

It's this concept of "MARGIN OF ERROR" that the players, coaches and some fans have repeatedly felt they can fall back on, beginning in the preseason and carrying it through the regular season..............until we find ourselve left with NO margin of error ...........staring again at another disappointing year. You have to build up "insurance" by CREATING a timely and "advantageous" margin of error by what you do from the very beginning of the year.

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 01:46 PM
Its just like this with me...If you want to find something to complain about, you'll find it, ask 2nd honeymoon about that..this works both ways of course, but i just think that some fans, who don't have obvious agendas that is, have gotten to the point where if they don't see perfection every single play then they go into "the sky is falling" mode. & it's one of the reasons this town is a terrible sports town imo, b/c it's not just with the texans that they do this.

The Pencil Neck
08-23-2010, 02:05 PM
I'm not that worried about this game. BUT, that doesn't mean that this game gave me the warm fuzzies, either. This game sets up the possibility for the same bad opening that we've seen from this team before.

But, here's why I'm not that worried...

1. The thing that killed us was the early fumbles.

We stopped the NO first team offense and made them punt. And Holliday fumbled that and gave the NO first team offense a very short field. I would have preferred that our defense stiffen and hold them to a FG at that point (if not just flat out taking the ball away) but that's a tough position to be put in against that offense. And this doesn't worry me because Holliday's not going to make that mistake in the regular season because he's not going to be fielding punts with a bum thumb. We were only down 14-7 after 1.

THEN we forced the NO semi-first team (with Daniel at QB, though) to punt again. And then Arian fumbled and that set up the touchdown that put us down 21-7. And that's when our defense really seemed to relax. Without going against the ones, they seemed to really lose their intensity.

I don't think Arian is going to make that mistake again.

But as Schaub said afterwards, our offense wasn't having that much of a problem moving the football.

So, I'm not worried about the fumbles. We'll have some during the season and we may lose some games because of it. But I don't think it's going to be the fumbling problem we had last year. I don't think Holliday is going to be in the position to make that sort of mistake and I think Foster learned his lesson.

2. Our pass D didn't look bad with Kareem in there.

Going against Brees, I expected Kareem to get chewed up and spit out. And he wasn't. That's a huge plus.

3. Arian Foster

Except for that fumble, he was running well. I'm expecting some good things from this offense.

4. Schaub looked sharp.

The1ApplePie
08-23-2010, 02:17 PM
We have the worst DTs in the NFL, I'm sure of it.

dalemurphy
08-23-2010, 02:36 PM
We have the worst DTs in the NFL, I'm sure of it.

They ain't good! that's for sure. Still, with guys like Mitchell and Sheppard on the roster, I have hope. Also, Amobi looked good against Arizona. So, let's see how he does against Dallas. I don't think all hope is lost yet.

76Texan
08-23-2010, 02:44 PM
I'm not that worried about this game. BUT, that doesn't mean that this game gave me the warm fuzzies, either. This game sets up the possibility for the same bad opening that we've seen from this team before.

But, here's why I'm not that worried...

2. Our pass D didn't look bad with Kareem in there.

Going against Brees, I expected Kareem to get chewed up and spit out. And he wasn't. That's a huge plus.

3. Arian Foster

Except for that fumble, he was running well. I'm expecting some good things from this offense.

The PS for me is to watch:
- Rookies to see whether they live up to the billing.
- UDFAs to see whether any of them is worth keeping.
- Second-year players and injured players on the come-back to see how they have progressed.
- FAs

The early returns are good, IMHO.

- Rookies:
Unfortunately, Tate was injured and so was Holliday (who was already on the bubble to make the team when healthy.)

Still, Tate flashes his potential.

Holliday shows his lack of focus (one of my concerns as I discussed before and right after the draft) but you can see his speed.

KJ shows that he's not a deer in the headlights and that he has some skills.

Mitchell shows that he belongs in the rotation.

McMannis shows some skills and swagger.

Sharpton is solid playing at all 3 positions.

Graham can run some routes and catch the football, and proves a decent blocker.

Shelley Smith shows promises.

Dickerson did not disappoint.

- UDFAs
Sheppard flashes some potential

- Returning players:
Nolan and Jerehmiah look good.
Parkson & Molden are still difficult to judge but didn't tank.
Caldwell, Foster, Quin, and Casey look more comfortable.
Barwin, Jamison, McCain didn't regress.
Cushing didn't drop off.
Brisiel hasn't looked to be quite there yet, but his prognosis looks a little better.

FAs:
W.Smith provides depth on the line.
Rackers gives C.Brown a run for the money.

There are a lot of positives for the team, IMHO.
Now if they can only stay healthy.

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 03:25 PM
I'm not that worried about this game. BUT, that doesn't mean that this game gave me the warm fuzzies, either. This game sets up the possibility for the same bad opening that we've seen from this team before.

But, here's why I'm not that worried...

1. The thing that killed us was the early fumbles.

We stopped the NO first team offense and made them punt. And Holliday fumbled that and gave the NO first team offense a very short field. I would have preferred that our defense stiffen and hold them to a FG at that point (if not just flat out taking the ball away) but that's a tough position to be put in against that offense. And this doesn't worry me because Holliday's not going to make that mistake in the regular season because he's not going to be fielding punts with a bum thumb. We were only down 14-7 after 1.

THEN we forced the NO semi-first team (with Daniel at QB, though) to punt again. And then Arian fumbled and that set up the touchdown that put us down 21-7. And that's when our defense really seemed to relax. Without going against the ones, they seemed to really lose their intensity.

I don't think Arian is going to make that mistake again.

But as Schaub said afterwards, our offense wasn't having that much of a problem moving the football.

So, I'm not worried about the fumbles. We'll have some during the season and we may lose some games because of it. But I don't think it's going to be the fumbling problem we had last year. I don't think Holliday is going to be in the position to make that sort of mistake and I think Foster learned his lesson.

2. Our pass D didn't look bad with Kareem in there.

Going against Brees, I expected Kareem to get chewed up and spit out. And he wasn't. That's a huge plus.

3. Arian Foster

Except for that fumble, he was running well. I'm expecting some good things from this offense.

4. Schaub looked sharp.

Agree with everything here. Foster looks like he's going to help our run tremendously..

Amobi & the DT's are getting a slightly bad wrap from this game imo. They didn't play great but In rewatching the game in slo-mo on the run plays 1st - 2nd quarter, I found that the main culprit was Antonio Smith. Dude couldn't keep his balance, allowing the tackles to push him way too far up the field, going too far up the field on his own & not keeping backside containment by coming too far down the line too fast. I saw at least 4-6 plays where this guy was out of position & had he been, the plays in question would've been 2-3 yard gains as opposed to 6-10. He was terrible.

The 2nd thing is, Daniels played with the 1st teamers all but about 3-4 minutes in the 2nd quarter.

GP
08-23-2010, 04:46 PM
Mr. Tex sounds like I did early last season, but that was the THIRD
time in a row the Texans put forth a season like that. I ain't fallin'
for it a fourth time. I want this regime to make me believe in them.
And I'll be right here, as the happiest Texan fan alive, if the staff
steps its game up as we expect the players to.

Kubiak is still acting like an offensive coordinator, and it's affecting
the focus of the TEAM. Up one game, gone the next, for three
straight seasons.

I'm just waiting for SOMETHING to prove this team has found
a way to stay focused for more than one game at a time. Playoff
teams put their best feet forward during the FIRST 3/4 OF THE
SEASON. The Texans don't hit stride, as we've seen, until the
FINAL quarter of the season. By this time, teams are resting their
starters after they've clinched something. This gives the illusion
that the Texans are "on the rise."

The next time they beat a good team in the first quarter of the
season will be the first. They've got almost NO margin for error
with this schedule, and the fans at Reliant. God bless the fans
for showing this team it ain't gonna stand for this crap anymore.

Fight for four quarters, every game. That is to be expected, not excused.
I don't care how tired you are, and how bad you miss your wife and
kids, over THREE DAYS OF PRACTICE.

Rep worthy. Good job,man.

Especially the part about "...Kubiak is still acting like an offensive coordinator, and it's affecting the focus of the TEAM. Up one game, gone the next, for three straight seasons."

This has been one of my arguments when I find myself in the "funk" of things. I flip-flop between the idea that he is going to make it as a head coach and the idea that he's just a good coordinator but can't handle it all.

These past two games make it seem that he can't handle it all. Had we gone in there and handled the Saints, I would think we've turned a corner. It would have been a first to see us START the right way and CONTINUE the right way.

Instead, this team showed that it STILL has the mentality of flipping it on and off whenever they want. Super Bowl teams have that all-the-time mentality about them. Everyone can play, but not everyone plays WELL. Consistently.

No, they could never be p-e-r-f-e-c-t or anything. Just consistent performances would be nice. If we get beat AND we played our game, then that's one thing. But the Saints game was how we showed up for Jets Game 1 of regular season. Same freakin' way. Flat, disinterested, and beaten badly.

gary
08-23-2010, 05:03 PM
I'm not going to get overhyped or down on this season just yet for me it just is what it is.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 07:09 PM
Preseason doesn't matter

signed,
2-14 season in 2005

We kicked the Cowboys ass in 2007 preseason.

They went 13-3, we went 8-8.

JT
08-23-2010, 07:21 PM
Mr Roarke used to say... "Your Fantasy is over." Texans are at best an
8-8 team. That night with the Saints should have shown you that. When a team runs a 9 yard play up the gut of your starting defense with Reggie Bush for a score, 1) Your D line sucks. 2) The other team knows it and have no respect for you. The Texans right now and still are F.I.N.O. (Football In Name Only)

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 07:28 PM
I'm not that worried about this game. BUT, that doesn't mean that this game gave me the warm fuzzies, either. This game sets up the possibility for the same bad opening that we've seen from this team before.

But, here's why I'm not that worried...

1. The thing that killed us was the early fumbles.

2. Our pass D didn't look bad with Kareem in there.

3. Arian Foster

4. Schaub looked sharp.

Am I wrong, or did Slaton not look pretty good too? 5 for 19, and a hell of a kick return, & no fumbles.

& we still haven't got Owen Daniels on the field.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 07:33 PM
We have the worst DTs in the NFL, I'm sure of it.

Those DTs helped us rank 10th against the run in 2009.

What we saw last night, was nothing like what we saw in the regular season of 2009, or what we will see in the regular season of 2010.

The Pencil Neck
08-23-2010, 07:43 PM
Am I wrong, or did Slaton not look pretty good too? 5 for 19, and a hell of a kick return, & no fumbles.

& we still haven't got Owen Daniels on the field.

I thought he looked great on the kickoff returns but I didn't think he was running very well.

Dwade
08-23-2010, 07:44 PM
Am I wrong, or did Slaton not look pretty good too? 5 for 19, and a hell of a kick return, & no fumbles.

& we still haven't got Owen Daniels on the field.

The kick return was very good, but I wasn't thrilled with his running.

If we are happy about 5 for 19, which isn't even 4 yards a carry, our running game must really suck.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 07:51 PM
Rep worthy. Good job,man.

These past two games make it seem that he can't handle it all. Had we gone in there and handled the Saints, I would think we've turned a corner. It would have been a first to see us START the right way and CONTINUE the right way.


Why?

The Saints aren't the focus. Winning this game, is not the focus. Beating the Cowboys this week, is not the focus.

This should be some Mr. Miyagi type shit. He's putting them on the field, looking at different things, that may have no relevance whatsoever to what the other team is doing.

That's why the Colts kick ass in the regular season, and don't look so hot in the pre-season. They are working on their fundamentals, their schemes, their packages, their philosophy. They probably have no clue who is out there on the field against them, because it doesn't matter.

We won't know how good a job he's done, until we play the Colts.

PUt it this way, would you rather win all these Pre-Season games, and lose to the Colts week 1, or would you rather lose all the preseason games, and beat the Colts week 1?

Forget the Saints, Forget the Cowboys, Forget the Pre Season. This is about the Colts.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 08:00 PM
No, they could never be p-e-r-f-e-c-t or anything. Just consistent performances would be nice. If we get beat AND we played our game, then that's one thing. But the Saints game was how we showed up for Jets Game 1 of regular season. Same freakin' way. Flat, disinterested, and beaten badly.

Again, I think that Jets game was a pretty good game. The score is misleading. We played some damn good football. Flat, disintersted.... I don't know. I posted this in another thread.


Jets:
Thomas Jones carried the ball 19 times.
3 were for 0 yards or less (15%)
8 were for 1 yard or less (42%)
15 were for 3 yards or less (79%)

Only 2 carries went for more than 5 yards (38 & 39 yards)

He had a total of 12 yards going into the 4th Qtr.

Leon Washington did have a good game, gaining 60 yards on 15 carries. (56 yards going into the 4th).


Then if you remember Kubiak took out half the play-book, and kept Matt in the pocket, because he had sprained his ankle the week before (in the preseason).

& Matt IMHO, was too scared to test Revis. I don't think Matt is scared of anyone anymore. That's part of the growing up he did last year.

DexmanC
08-23-2010, 08:05 PM
The Battle Red Kool-Aid has been secretly switched with
Crystal Light.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 08:12 PM
Mr Roarke used to say... "Your Fantasy is over." Texans are at best an
8-8 team. That night with the Saints should have shown you that. When a team runs a 9 yard play up the gut of your starting defense with Reggie Bush for a score, 1) Your D line sucks. 2) The other team knows it and have no respect for you. The Texans right now and still are F.I.N.O. (Football In Name Only)

Did you see both Antonio Smith & Amobi in the backfield on that play? Antonio got his hands on Reggie, missed tackle, but that's what they do in the preseason. Amobi was about to get him, but whiffed, again, it's just preseason. In the regular season, they both make that play.

In the regular season, Demeco, Cushing, Diles, or Mario is on him in the backfield. Are you telling me you honestly believe all four of those guys just decided not to show up?

That's preposterous. That isn't in any of those guys character. Well, maybe Mario, if you're one to believe such things.

We've played better running teams than the Saints, and we shut them down. 49ers, Bengals, Jets (with the exception of 2 plays), Dolphins...

DexmanC
08-23-2010, 08:13 PM
Again, I think that Jets game was a pretty good game. The score is misleading. We played some damn good football. Flat, disintersted.... I don't know. I posted this in another thread.



Then if you remember Kubiak took out half the play-book, and kept Matt in the pocket, because he had sprained his ankle the week before (in the preseason).

& Matt IMHO, was too scared to test Revis. I don't think Matt is scared of anyone anymore. That's part of the growing up he did last year.

With the D-line allowing the other team's offensive line to consistently
block our linebackers, and waltz players like Lil Reggie DIRECTLY UP
THE GUT for 1st downs and touchdowns, the Texans are gonna have
to throw the ball A LOT.

The next elite team the Texans beat in the 1st half of the season
will be the first. Teams that can smash the Texans up the gut AND
throw the ball, seem to dominate this team. Let's see them handle
the first twelve games of the season like a real contender, then I'll
agree that this regime has stepped up. Everything they've done so
far steers me to a four-peat of the 2007-2009 seasons (5-7 start, with
a 3 to 4-win finish.)

RazorOye
08-23-2010, 08:37 PM
The interior of the Saints OLine is our strength up front. I don't know that there's a stronger tandem of young guards in the NFL than Evans and Nicks. That also factors into the efficacy of the Texans DLine in the game the other night and something I thought I'd throw out there because I don't see it mentioned much - if at all - in this thread.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 08:39 PM
With the D-line allowing the other team's offensive line to consistently
block our linebackers, and waltz players like Lil Reggie DIRECTLY UP
THE GUT for 1st downs and touchdowns, the Texans are gonna have
to throw the ball A LOT.

Again, if you look at the preseason last year, and the regular season, you'll see two completely different teams. Just like yesterday, we got rode, and rode hard in the preseason. Once the season started, we were playing behind the L.O.S. We gave up a few big plays here and there, but nothing like what we saw in the preseason.

We shut down the 49ers, when they were the #1 rushing offense, we shut down the Bengals, when they were the #1 rushing offense, we shut down the Dolphins, and we virtually shut down the Jets in week 1.

How you going to tell me how bad we are against the run, when that is simply not the case in the regular season?

#10, against the run. #10 in the regular season.


The next elite team the Texans beat in the 1st half of the season
will be the first.

Didn't we beat the Bengals in week 6?

I don't know if you'd call them elite, but they swept the Ravens, & the Steelers.


Teams that can smash the Texans up the gut AND
throw the ball, seem to dominate this team. Let's see them handle
the first twelve games of the season like a real contender, then I'll
agree that this regime has stepped up. Everything they've done so
far steers me to a four-peat of the 2007-2009 seasons (5-7 start, with
a 3 to 4-win finish.)

You want to talk about how bad we did the last 3 seasons over the first 12 games of the season, that's fine. But don't act like we've already done the same thing in 2010.

Just because it happened the last three years doesn't mean it will be the same next year.

DexmanC
08-23-2010, 09:08 PM
We shut down the 49ers, when they were the #1 rushing offense,
The 49ers were not able to keep our linebackers honest with the pass


We shut down the Bengals, when they were the #1 rushing offense
The Bengals had OchoCinco, no tight end, and who else? No serious
threat with the pass. Again, a one-dimensional squad


We shut down the Dolphins
I wouldn't call the Dolphins elite. Their best weapon (Ronnie Brown) was down
for the season.


We virtually shut down the Jets in week 1
In reality, we got our asses kicked to a full home crowd.


How you going to tell me how bad we are against the run, when that is simply not the case in the regular season?
#10, against the run. #10 in the regular season.
When it came to nut-cutting time, like at the Jags, or at
the Colts, or home for the Titans, there was no stopping the run
to seal a win. Who cares what the defensive rank is, when it doesn't
come through when the game is on the line?


You want to talk about how bad we did the last 3 seasons over the first 12 games of the season, that's fine. But don't act like we've already done the same thing in 2010.
Three time's a charm, and the benefit of the doubt is gone.
Time to prove who you are (talking about the team, here.)


Just because it happened the last three years doesn't mean it will be the same next year.
I'm saying it had better not.
2007: 5-7
2008: 5-7
2009: 5-7
2010: Is Groundhog Day over?

Texecutioner
08-23-2010, 09:13 PM
I think the atrocity we saw on the field last night was due to fatigue from camp. Call me crazy, because it obviously did not effect the Saints one bit, but i think the 3rd week of camp might have just taken a toll on them, and that was the reason for the horrible technique and execution out there, especially on the defensive side.

Maybe i'm just imagining things, but it seems the 2nd preseason game under Kubiak over the past couple of years have been nightmare-ish, maybe due to playing the Saints.

With all of this being said, i see them coming out next saturday with intensity when they play against the cowboys with the homefield advantage.

Well that is a completely unsubstantiated theory there. What the Texans have done in other seasons in week 2 of pre season games has nothing to do with any this year or any other year and if it does, than that would be a huge problem with the coaching. Every year is different. The Saints didn't have that problem this year or last year when they played us. We just got flat out beaten and whipped around. This is football. You either show up and play hard and play smart, or the other team that does will beat you.

Texecutioner
08-23-2010, 09:18 PM
Did you see both Antonio Smith & Amobi in the backfield on that play? Antonio got his hands on Reggie, missed tackle, but that's what they do in the preseason. Amobi was about to get him, but whiffed, again, it's just preseason. In the regular season, they both make that play.

In the regular season, Demeco, Cushing, Diles, or Mario is on him in the backfield. Are you telling me you honestly believe all four of those guys just decided not to show up?



WTF? Are you sitting here defending this as "well that's how these guys play in pre season" and it shouldn't be a worry in the regular season? Last time I checked both of those guys are starters on this team on our D line. One of which has been a monumental bust and the other isn't all that great and is over paid. And when you're in the game in pre season you're supposed to be out there playing hard, not just screwing around and half assing it. And whether Demeco or Cushing is on this team, that doesn't mean a thing. They don't play on the D line. They are LB's and a lot of their success ends up hindering upon our D line's pressure and abilities. Those aren't good signs early on and hopefully the coaches are addressing stuff like this.

GP
08-23-2010, 09:36 PM
Did you see both Antonio Smith & Amobi in the backfield on that play? Antonio got his hands on Reggie, missed tackle, but that's what they do in the preseason. Amobi was about to get him, but whiffed, again, it's just preseason. In the regular season, they both make that play.

In the regular season, Demeco, Cushing, Diles, or Mario is on him in the backfield. Are you telling me you honestly believe all four of those guys just decided not to show up?

That's preposterous. That isn't in any of those guys character. Well, maybe Mario, if you're one to believe such things.

We've played better running teams than the Saints, and we shut them down. 49ers, Bengals, Jets (with the exception of 2 plays), Dolphins...

:lol:

Are we on hidden camera? This has to be a prank, TK.

You should be the TV commentator for the Texans preseason games with that stuff.

Antonio got his hands on Reggie, missed tackle, but that's what they do in the preseason. Amobi was about to get him, but whiffed, again, it's just preseason. In the regular season, they both make that play.

That is such a weird statement. You think Antonio Smith purposefully let go of Reggie Bush in that situation? Amobi, too? Dude, come on now...seriously?

Sometimes it is what it is. They dogged it out there. There was nothing else. Even Eric Winston goofed up and admitted it. And is now denying it.

Kubiak better start writing that letter if this keeps up.

I was thinking that an 18-game reg season would benefit Kubiak since his players end up playing REAL football at the end of the season instead of at the beginning. You know what? This team would just find a way to DOG IT in two of the first few games anyways. They'd add on those two extra games to the beginning, then wonder why finishing strong still didn't matter.

This team is a kick in the nuts. I wasn't worried at all about "losing" the Cards preseason game. Losing the way we did, to the Saints, was a rude awakening for this fan. We were backhanded and curb-stomp'd. Period.

If they blow it against the Boys this weekend, there's going to be some serious heat put upon our team. Preseason doesn't count, but it damn sure MATTERS.

thunderkyss
08-23-2010, 09:38 PM
The 49ers were not able to keep our linebackers honest with the pass


The Bengals had OchoCinco, no tight end, and who else? No serious
threat with the pass. Again, a one-dimensional squad


I wouldn't call the Dolphins elite. Their best weapon (Ronnie Brown) was down
for the season.

Why are you changing the discussion. I said we shut down better running games than the Saints. Doesn't matter who had a TE, and who kept our LBs honest.


In reality, we got our asses kicked to a full home crowd.


Not really. That team eventually became the #1 rushing team in the league. We held them to 72 rushing yards (or something like that) through three Qtrs (for this post, since we're talking about our defense against the run). The breakdown in the 4th Qtr, IMHO has more to do with the number of snaps Mario, Antonio & Amobi take. I don't think it's normal for anyone else at those positions to play so many snaps.

That's also why I think the best thing we could possibly have done for our defense, was to get some real DTs to rotate with Okoye & Cody, allowing Antonio to rest, Mario to rest, as Barwin rotates in on the outside.

When it came to nut-cutting time, like at the Jags, or at
the Colts, or home for the Titans, there was no stopping the run
to seal a win. Who cares what the defensive rank is, when it doesn't
come through when the game is on the line?

Let's just say we were 23rd against the run in 2008, 10th in 2009, we're making progress. Not where we need to be, but making progress.


Three time's a charm, and the benefit of the doubt is gone.
Time to prove who you are (talking about the team, here.)


I'm saying it had better not.
2007: 5-7
2008: 5-7
2009: 5-7
2010: Is Groundhog Day over?

2007: 24th Total Defense
2008: 22nd Total Defense
2009: 17th Total Defense

I'm hoping we'll improve the defense for the forth year in a row.

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 09:49 PM
:lol:

Are we on hidden camera? This has to be a prank, TK.

You should be the TV commentator for the Texans preseason games with that stuff.

.

That is such a weird statement. You think Antonio Smith purposefully let go of Reggie Bush in that situation? Amobi, too? Dude, come on now...seriously?

Sometimes it is what it is. They dogged it out there. There was nothing else. Even Eric Winston goofed up and admitted it. And is now denying it.

Kubiak better start writing that letter if this keeps up.

I was thinking that an 18-game reg season would benefit Kubiak since his players end up playing REAL football at the end of the season instead of at the beginning. You know what? This team would just find a way to DOG IT in two of the first few games anyways. They'd add on those two extra games to the beginning, then wonder why finishing strong still didn't matter.

This team is a kick in the nuts. I wasn't worried at all about "losing" the Cards preseason game. Losing the way we did, to the Saints, was a rude awakening for this fan. We were backhanded and curb-stomp'd. Period.

If they blow it against the Boys this weekend, there's going to be some serious heat put upon our team. Preseason doesn't count, but it damn sure MATTERS.

See this is the problem i have with all of this..how can you say these guys "dogged" it out there saturday? I've watched the game (at least the 1st half) 3 times & effort was not the problem..If anything trying too hard by continously over-pursuing & reacting too fast was more of the problem. If you actually go back & look at the game, time after time, the saints rbs were cutting back against the grain & no one was there (Smith & Barwin mainly) or guys were getting up field entirely too fast taking themselves out of the play instead of seeing what's going on 1st. (Smith & Okoye). Saints WR's were driving hard out of breaks making sharp cuts & texan defnders were over reacting entirely too much to these cuts rather than trying to disrupt the timing of the route. Effort was certainly not the problem.There was a play early on where Barwin came up the field so fast it opened a gapping hole off tackle for Bush to run through. The LT for the saints just shoved him exactly where he wanted to go & moved on to the next level. I seen the exact same things happen to Smith & Okoye more than a few times. Once guys settled down, you saw us start to shut the run down a bit better.

GP
08-23-2010, 09:58 PM
See this is the problem i have with all of this..how can you say these guys "dogged" it out there saturday? I've watched the game (at least the 1st half) 3 times & effort was not the problem..If anything trying too hard by continously over-pursuing & reacting too fast was more of the problem. If you actually go back & look at the game, time after time, the saints rbs were cutting back against the grain & no one was there (Smith & Barwin mainly) or guys were getting up field entirely too fast (Smith & Okoye). Saints WR's were driving hard out of breaks making sharp cuts & texan defnders were reacting entirely too much to these cuts rather than trying to disrupt their timing. Effort was certainly not the problem.

You're right. They just had terrible timing and barely missed making plays.

On every play.

What was I thinking? :slapsforehead:

It couldn't possibly have been a mailed-in performance from THESE Texans. Because there's no prior history of such a thing.

:clown:

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 10:01 PM
You're right. They just had terrible timing and barely missed making plays.

On every play.

What was I thinking? :slapsforehead:

It couldn't possibly have been a mailed-in performance from THESE Texans. Because there's no prior history of such a thing.

:clown:

Very valuable contribution you made there buddy..:gun:

GP
08-23-2010, 10:05 PM
Very valuable contribution you made there buddy..:gun:

All I am saying is that you deem it IMPOSSIBLE that they would dog it.

You have lots of excuses and reasons. What's next, the turf made our guys slip too much?

I just sum it up with two words: Dogged It.

Let's see if they desire to actually focus and play better vs. the Boys. I sure hope so. I don't care about a win or loss, but just want to see 11 guys working together like they did vs. the Cards. They were 11 individuals out there vs. the Saints, and none of them looked good as individuals.

Is that a better "contribution" buddy?

CloakNNNdagger
08-23-2010, 10:10 PM
I came across this Dec 2009 ESPN article (includes references to Rick Smith, Frank Bush, Pollard, and some other Texans personel) concerning the lost art of tackling. Gives some great insights into why the Texans may be seeing such inconsistency in their tackling.

Coming to grips with poor tackling (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?page=hotread13/Tackling)

Mr teX
08-23-2010, 10:14 PM
All I am saying is that you deem it IMPOSSIBLE that they would dog it.

You have lots of excuses and reasons. What's next, the turf made our guys slip too much?

I just sum it up with two words: Dogged It.

Let's see if they desire to actually focus and play better vs. the Boys. I sure hope so. I don't care about a win or loss, but just want to see 11 guys working together like they did vs. the Cards. They were 11 individuals out there vs. the Saints, and none of them looked good as individuals.

Is that a better "contribution" buddy?

Well you summed it up wrong bro..

& the bolded is what you implied smart ass.... you & others seem to be ready to throw the baby out with the bath water b/c the best offense in the NFL the last 2 years took it to us in their home opener.

GP
08-23-2010, 10:31 PM
Well you summed it up wrong bro..

& the bolded is what you implied smart ass.... you & others seem to be ready to throw the baby out with the bath water b/c the best offense in the NFL the last 2 years took it to us in their home opener.

Oh that's right. I guess we need to exclude ONE team from the list of teams we should be better than. Since they are all-universe and we're merely all-world.

Hey, it's not MY job that's on the line here. I can't throw any baby out of any bath water. I have no say in how the team is operated. Gary Kubiak is behind the wheel. If he wants to nod off at the wheel and swerve into oncoming traffic, then fine by me. It's HIS job. Not mine. He's driving the bus.

Pointing it out, and refusing to marginalize poor overall TEAM play is not a crime, man.

I have zero room for going to lengths that some are going to, in order to try and make this past game into something positive. We've got people saying that once the regular season hits, we're going to NOT let people go when we have them wrapped up for a tackle. :frowns:

JB
08-23-2010, 10:33 PM
I came across this Dec 2009 ESPN article (includes references to Rick Smith, Frank Bush, Pollard, and some other Texans personel) concerning the lost art of tackling. Gives some great insights into why the Texans may be seeing such inconsistency in their tackling.

Coming to grips with poor tackling (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?page=hotread13/Tackling)

That was a great read! Thanks for posting!

The Pencil Neck
08-23-2010, 11:39 PM
Oh that's right. I guess we need to exclude ONE team from the list of teams we should be better than. Since they are all-universe and we're merely all-world.

Hey, it's not MY job that's on the line here. I can't throw any baby out of any bath water. I have no say in how the team is operated. Gary Kubiak is behind the wheel. If he wants to nod off at the wheel and swerve into oncoming traffic, then fine by me. It's HIS job. Not mine. He's driving the bus.

Pointing it out, and refusing to marginalize poor overall TEAM play is not a crime, man.

I have zero room for going to lengths that some are going to, in order to try and make this past game into something positive. We've got people saying that once the regular season hits, we're going to NOT let people go when we have them wrapped up for a tackle. :frowns:

Dude. WTF?

You made a statement. Mr. Tex told you why you were wrong. And then you got all sarcastic. And then you just go on and on with sarcastic BS instead of arguing back with facts.

Lighten up.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 08:43 AM
WTF? Are you sitting here defending this as "well that's how these guys play in pre season" and it shouldn't be a worry in the regular season?

And when you're in the game in pre season you're supposed to be out there playing hard, not just screwing around and half assing it.

I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying there isn't anything to worry about. Not giving 110% happens in a preseason game. I don't care if the Saints came out with 120% and we came out with 85%

It is the pre-season.

And whether Demeco or Cushing is on this team, that doesn't mean a thing. They don't play on the D line. They are LB's and a lot of their success ends up hindering upon our D line's pressure and abilities.

Exactly, and in the regular season, that same D-Line that you are discounting helped Demeco & Cushing finish 6th and 2nd in the AFC in tackles. Many of them for losses.

Those aren't good signs early on and hopefully the coaches are addressing stuff like this.

Yeah, I hope our coaches prepare these guys to be as amped as the SB Champs playing in front of their home crowd for the first time in the preseason.

GP
08-24-2010, 08:45 AM
Dude. WTF?

You made a statement. Mr. Tex told you why you were wrong. And then you got all sarcastic. And then you just go on and on with sarcastic BS instead of arguing back with facts.

Lighten up.

LOL.

I am not wrong. He is not wrong. And THAT is the problem. I stated my opinion, and he clearly thinks it's wrong. I happen to think HIS opinion is wrong. So we're at a stand-still. Big deal, at least in my opinion. It happens. He's the one who started stalking my post. I was trying to continue forward.

And I don't need you to be the judge of who is right and who is wrong. It's called an OPINION, dude.

Sometimes you guys act like this is a foreign concept.

I don't think I am the one who needs to lighten up. :fingergun:

BTW, I had taken you off my ignore list awhile back, but I think the best solution to spare everyone from the back-and-forths between us is to add you again. I just need to limit the temptations to respond to you.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 10:09 AM
:lol:
That is such a weird statement. You think Antonio Smith purposefully let go of Reggie Bush in that situation? Amobi, too? Dude, come on now...seriously?

I don't think they did anything on purpose. But I've never seen either guy whiff on a tackle in the regular season.

This is pre-season.

Sometimes it is what it is. They dogged it out there. There was nothing else. Even Eric Winston goofed up and admitted it. And is now denying it.

I agree they dogged it. I believe Winston's comments were taken out of context.

I was thinking that an 18-game reg season would benefit Kubiak since his players end up playing REAL football at the end of the season instead of at the beginning. You know what? This team would just find a way to DOG IT in two of the first few games anyways. They'd add on those two extra games to the beginning, then wonder why finishing strong still didn't matter.

Again, we didn't dog it at the beginning of the season. We played behind the LOS more often than not.

Jets:
Thomas Jones carried the ball 19 times.
3 were for 0 yards or less (15%)
8 were for 1 yard or less (42%)
15 were for 3 yards or less (79%)

Only 2 carries went for more than 5 yards (38 & 39 yards)

He had a total of 12 yards going into the 4th Qtr.

Leon Washington did have a good game, gaining 60 yards on 15 carries. (56 yards going into the 4th).


Still, that's 72 yards to the #1 rushing team in the league going into the 4th Qtr. That's pretty damn good for such a young team, especially after looking pathetic in the preseason.

It's not about turning it on, or turning it off, it's about focusing on fundamentals, philosophy, scheme, and technique in the preseason (practice). In the regular season, it turns into stopping the run, stopping the pass, creating turnovers, and winning games.

This team is a kick in the nuts. I wasn't worried at all about "losing" the Cards preseason game. Losing the way we did, to the Saints, was a rude awakening for this fan. We were backhanded and curb-stomp'd. Period.

I was also expecting a better showing. But I also realized we did not play the way we normally play. The LB's weren't shooting their gaps. It's as if they are playing read and react, or playing the pass first (which makes sense, when we play Manning week 1).

I don't think it was ever about winning the game. Sure, you'd like to win them all. But whatever time or energy we focus on beating the Saints (or the Cowboys) we are taking it away from our focus. Week 1 against the Colts.

If they blow it against the Boys this weekend, there's going to be some serious heat put upon our team. Preseason doesn't count, but it damn sure MATTERS.

Again. Screw the Cowboys, and screw winning another preseason game ever again. 2007, at Reliant, we whipped their ass, it wasn't even funny. They kept their ones in to score on our 3s.

They went 13-3, we went 8-8.

It is the preseason.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 10:15 AM
See this is the problem i have with all of this..how can you say these guys "dogged" it out there saturday? I've watched the game (at least the 1st half) 3 times & effort was not the problem..If anything trying too hard by continously over-pursuing & reacting too fast was more of the problem.

As if the objective wasn't to get the RB, or the QB, but as if they were working on penetrating.

If you actually go back & look at the game, time after time, the saints rbs were cutting back against the grain & no one was there (Smith & Barwin mainly) or guys were getting up field entirely too fast taking themselves out of the play instead of seeing what's going on 1st. (Smith & Okoye).

Exactly. I saw one play, where Mario runs down the line, over the top, in front of the LT, who eventually hooked him and got him moving to the sideline.

That's not the way we play. Mario always (always) shoots inside, and runs down the RB on their side of the LOS.

Another thing, I don't think there is an OLman on the planet, that can consistently block out Demeco & Cushing. Yet it happened with regularity, as they sat on their heels.

I honestly believe they were working on something else, looking past this game, and hopefully the next two games, to get ready for the Colts.

Rey
08-24-2010, 10:17 AM
I'm not too upset about the NO game anymore...

Looking back I can see some reasons why we'd come out flat and NO would come out on fire...

Also, I think that if Trindon doesn't muff that punt the game may look better...

Defense had actually stopped NO on their second drive only to return to the field later gassed and already in the red zone...

Offense didn't do them any favors with the three and outs either...Not a lot of time to rest and get your legs back...

I know that these are just excuses, but I'm just searching for other possiblities besides "we suck again"...I think that the team is still on track to have their best season despite that lousy performance this past weekend...

GP
08-24-2010, 10:42 AM
There is no possible way, IMO, that our coaches had the defense trying a read-and-react style or had them playing sit-and-spin defense.

I just can't see it.

What is the benefit of such a style? To get their rears handed to them as they watch it unfold before their eyes? We're practicing THAT style just in case we play a team that we can use that style for? Because no team in the NFL can be beaten with that style, TK. Richard Smith tried that "style" and its results were putrid. Maybe it was a promotional game: Retro Defense Night?

There is no benefit to getting pushed around the field like a sled.

I might buy the idea that Kubiak told the guys to take the night off and to not get hurt by trying too hard. But I can't buy the idea that we were experimenting or "looking to do so something else" for preparation of using that or looking for that in the future.

All roads lead to the same destination, for me: They dogged it. Whether it was coach-led dogging or individual-led dogging, they dogged it.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 11:00 AM
There is no possible way, IMO, that our coaches had the defense trying a read-and-react style or had them playing sit-and-spin defense.

I just can't see it.

What is the benefit of such a style? To get their rears handed to them as they watch it unfold before their eyes? We're practicing THAT style just in case we play a team that we can use that style for? Because no team in the NFL can be beaten with that style, TK.

What if the focus is to be able to read the play fake? What if you had a team that notoriously gets beat on the play fake? What if you had one of the best play action pass S.O.B. as an opponent in week 1?

We can try to learn how to read that play fake week 1 against Peyton Manning, or we can try to learn against Chase Daniels in a meaningless preseason game.

decisions... decisions...

gary
08-24-2010, 11:07 AM
Gary was pissed afterwards that should speak volumes but some here continue to say what they want.

Rey
08-24-2010, 11:14 AM
What if the focus is to be able to read the play fake? What if you had a team that notoriously gets beat on the play fake? What if you had one of the best play action pass S.O.B. as an opponent in week 1?

We can try to learn how to read that play fake week 1 against Peyton Manning, or we can try to learn against Chase Daniels in a meaningless preseason game.

decisions... decisions...

What is the benefit of reading a play fake if you're getting gashed for 20 and 30 yard strikes?

The Colts run game does not scare me. It's Manning and his plethora of receivers.

If anything the Texans should have been working on tightening up their pass rush and pass coverage...Especially on third down.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 11:18 AM
Gary was pissed afterwards that should speak volumes but some here continue to say what they want.

I think Gary does a good job telling the papers what they want to hear.

Actions speak louder than words.

He gave the team the day off.

gary
08-24-2010, 11:21 AM
I think Gary does a good job telling the papers what they want to hear.

Actions speak louder than words.

He gave the team the day off.
Well, that is part of the problem IMO.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 11:24 AM
What is the benefit of reading a play fake if you're getting gashed for 20 and 30 yard strikes?

The Colts run game does not scare me. It's Manning and his plethora of receivers.

If anything the Texans should have been working on tightening up their pass rush and pass coverage...Especially on third down.

I'll bet you money the Colts won't be gashing us for 20-30 yard strikes.

If you truly believe this game meant all that, then it should be an easy bet.

I don't know what they work on in practice. I don't know what the focus was on Saturday night.

But I do know that it should all be getting us prepared for Sept 12th.

I know when I watch them in drills, it doesn't look like the CB ever wins. What little I've seen before games, and on HT.com A lot of the things they do do not make sense to me.

But it works.

I don't know that they were practicing reading the play fake, I just threw that out there.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 11:25 AM
Well, that is part of the problem IMO.

IMO that means we're right on schedule.

gary
08-24-2010, 11:47 AM
IMO that means we're right on schedule.
I am done the season will tell everything we have to know.

Rey
08-24-2010, 12:08 PM
I'll bet you money the Colts won't be gashing us for 20-30 yard strikes.

If you truly believe this game meant all that, then it should be an easy bet.

I don't know what they work on in practice. I don't know what the focus was on Saturday night.

But I do know that it should all be getting us prepared for Sept 12th.

I know when I watch them in drills, it doesn't look like the CB ever wins. What little I've seen before games, and on HT.com A lot of the things they do do not make sense to me.

But it works.

I don't know that they were practicing reading the play fake, I just threw that out there.

I'm not totally against the idea that the Texans were working on something specific, but the thing that troubles me the most was our poor run defense on our first defensive series.

That's really the thing that bothered me most from the game. I can see a ton of reasons/excuses for the overall poor performance, but I just didn't like how we looked on that first drive.

Granted, if we were playing a real game the defense might have settled down...Still, you cannot ever come out and get pushed around like that and claim that you are an attacking 'all hells gonna break loose when we take the field' defense.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 12:59 PM
I'm not totally against the idea that the Texans were working on something specific, but the thing that troubles me the most was our poor run defense on our first defensive series.

That's really the thing that bothered me most from the game. I can see a ton of reasons/excuses for the overall poor performance, but I just didn't like how we looked on that first drive.

Granted, if we were playing a real game the defense might have settled down...Still, you cannot ever come out and get pushed around like that and claim that you are an attacking 'all hells gonna break loose when we take the field' defense.

It's not even about settling down. If you have access to some of our games last season, watch how we play the run. On those stretch plays, the DL moves with the OL, it looks as if they are being manhandled, yet Cushing, Diles, Demeco, or Pollard slices into the backfield and drops the RB. I think it's more about not getting pushed 5 or 6 yards back, which they still weren't doing Saturday. The LOS stayed pretty much the same,

Again, with the cutting LBs & Safeties. Demeco isn't going to get beaten on a regular basis. There is no way I'm going to believe an offensive line is going to be able to stop all 4 of our run stoppers (not counting Mario) consistently. Yes, they are the Super Bowl Champs, but we've played some running teams that were better than them, we played some that were as good as them, and we basically shut them down.

If this was a regular season game, the focus would have been to stop the run, and things would have been totally different.

Second Honeymoon
08-24-2010, 12:59 PM
some people think preseason means nothing
some people think preseason means something

one thing is for sure. the Texans looked like crap and no amount of excuses or rationalizing will change that

GP, I agree with you, but there is no use trying to talk sense into someone who won't even come to terms with their team playing like ass. They are too busy mining for excuses to be reasonable and objective. It is still preseason but I have heard that since Day One of this franchise. Remember how bad we looked in 2005 preseason and the party line was 'its just preseason' 'we aren't showing any of our packages' and 'we aren't gameplanning'...sound familiar??....well, we all know what happened that season, dont we.

some people just won't criticize the team and its play until the season is already over (which is around Halloween for Texans fans). There was plenty to criticize from Saturday nights matchup, but its gonna fall on deaf ears with most of the homers err fans around here. They live, breathe, eat, and crap Kubiak-style football, so don't waste your time. Every year these same people claim the Texans have turned the corner and start talking playoffs only to meet failure after failure....then its Draft Talk time. It's no wonder that some of the best dialogue happens re: draft talk. We have had a lot of practice.

Even last year, some of these guys don't blame the Texans for their crap record and their crap performance and their annual failure to reach postseason. In fact, they blame the Colts and Bengals for not showing up against the Jets. Yeah, its the Colts and Bengals fault. Real fans will realize that we didn't show up against the Jets either, and THAT is why we didn't make the playoffs. If I hear another homer err fan whine about the Jets 'backing' into the playoffs, I might go ballistic. The Jets got to the AFC Championship game (2 playoff wins) with a rookie head coach and a rookie QB. Give them some credit and stop making excuses for piss poor results and start taking responsibility for being outplayed, outcoached, and outmanned on a consistent basis. But at least we can beat the Rams when it counts. How about that 'huge' Seahawks win? Every time we face a good team with something to play for, we get rolled. Thats Kubiak for you though. Never met a big game he couldn't lose.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 01:40 PM
some people think preseason means nothing
some people think preseason means something

I understand what the preseason means. Winning or losing in the preseason is what means nothing.

one thing is for sure. the Texans looked like crap and no amount of excuses or rationalizing will change that

yes, they looked like crap.

Have I denied that even once?

some people just won't criticize the team and its play until the season is already over (which is around Halloween for Texans fans). There was plenty to criticize from Saturday nights matchup, but its gonna fall on deaf ears with most of the homers err fans around here.

Okay, here is my deal.

If you watched that game, you would have seen that we did not play it the same way we normally play. Our LBs didn't play down hill, Mario was playing over the top, Where was Bernard Pollard? Where was Cushing?

So that tells me, we weren't out there to try to stop the other team. We weren't out there to win that game.

What they were doing exactly, I don't know.

None of that excuses any of the missed tackles.

But since we weren't trying to stop the run, we must have been working on something else.

Maybe stopping the pass.

We didn't look too good against the pass either, so who knows?

Every year these same people claim the Texans have turned the corner and start talking playoffs only to meet failure after failure....
Are you suggesting the team would play better if more of us focused on the negatives?

Even last year, some of these guys don't blame the Texans for their crap record and their crap performance and their annual failure to reach postseason. In fact, they blame the Colts and Bengals for not showing up against the Jets. Yeah, its the Colts and Bengals fault.

!!!Whew!!! for a minute there, I thought you were talking about me. I've never blamed the Colts or the Bengals for any of that. I blame our coach, and our players in equal parts.

Real fans will realize that we didn't show up against the Jets either, and THAT is why we didn't make the playoffs.

See I was thinking a real fan would have watched that game, and instead of talking about coming out flat, and lacking fire, they would have recognized 15 of Thomas Jones' 19 carries were for 3 yards or less. 42% of his carries were for less than a yard. That's intensity brother, no matter how you slice it.

And, that is after looking just as pathetic (did I just say that?) in the preseason 2009.

If I hear another homer err fan whine about the Jets 'backing' into the playoffs, I might go ballistic. The Jets got to the AFC Championship game (2 playoff wins) with a rookie head coach and a rookie QB. Give them some credit and stop making excuses for piss poor results.


Well, you see the Jets backed into the play-offs.

That's not an excuse for why the Texans didn't make the play-offs, that's evidence that the Jets aren't as good as people think they are. Good, but not as good as everybody thinks they are.

The Pencil Neck
08-24-2010, 01:55 PM
LOL.

I am not wrong. He is not wrong. And THAT is the problem. I stated my opinion, and he clearly thinks it's wrong. I happen to think HIS opinion is wrong. So we're at a stand-still. Big deal, at least in my opinion. It happens. He's the one who started stalking my post. I was trying to continue forward.

And I don't need you to be the judge of who is right and who is wrong. It's called an OPINION, dude..

It's OK to have an opinion on something where there is no right or wrong, but in some cases, there are facts that show that the opinion is wrong.

You said the guys came out looking like they weren't trying and were dogging it. But that's something that you can actually look at and in some ways quantify.

You can think the guys were dogging it all you want but that's something you can actually verify by looking at the freaking tape. But you don't seem to care about facts.

So put me back on your ignore list if you don't want to hear things that show you that you've got a bunch of baseless opinions.

DexmanC
08-24-2010, 02:07 PM
Well, you see the Jets backed into the play-offs.
By making DAMN sure the Texans couldn't score the ball,
nor could they get off the field on 3rd down. Stat's schmat.
They couldn't make the plays during clutch time.


That's not an excuse for why the Texans didn't make the play-offs, that's evidence that the Jets aren't as good as people think they are. Good, but not as good as everybody thinks they are.

By shellacking the Texans they had what they needed to make
post season. The were good enough to advance to the AFC Championship
from the wild card position, with a rookie head coach and rookie quarterback.
They also signed an aging runningback the Texans brass passed on.

thunderkyss
08-24-2010, 03:16 PM
By making DAMN sure the Texans couldn't score the ball,
nor could they get off the field on 3rd down. Stat's schmat.
They couldn't make the plays during clutch time.

You want to come back to the conversation? You're starting to venture off into left field.

The stats were provided in the context of coming out flat, and not being prepared to play. This thread is about defense. The stats I provided show the Texans defense came to play, and played quite well on a majority of running plays, despite how poor they looked in the preseason games 2009.





By shellacking the Texans they had what they needed to make
post season. The were good enough to advance to the AFC Championship
from the wild card position, with a rookie head coach and rookie quarterback.
They also signed an aging runningback the Texans brass passed on.

This is really a discussion for another thread.

Mr teX
08-24-2010, 04:00 PM
some people think preseason means nothing
some people think preseason means something

one thing is for sure. the Texans looked like crap and no amount of excuses or rationalizing will change that

GP, I agree with you, but there is no use trying to talk sense into someone who won't even come to terms with their team playing like ass. They are too busy mining for excuses to be reasonable and objective. It is still preseason but I have heard that since Day One of this franchise. Remember how bad we looked in 2005 preseason and the party line was 'its just preseason' 'we aren't showing any of our packages' and 'we aren't gameplanning'...sound familiar??....well, we all know what happened that season, dont we.

some people just won't criticize the team and its play until the season is already over (which is around Halloween for Texans fans). There was plenty to criticize from Saturday nights matchup, but its gonna fall on deaf ears with most of the homers err fans around here. They live, breathe, eat, and crap Kubiak-style football, so don't waste your time. Every year these same people claim the Texans have turned the corner and start talking playoffs only to meet failure after failure....then its Draft Talk time. It's no wonder that some of the best dialogue happens re: draft talk. We have had a lot of practice.

Even last year, some of these guys don't blame the Texans for their crap record and their crap performance and their annual failure to reach postseason. In fact, they blame the Colts and Bengals for not showing up against the Jets. Yeah, its the Colts and Bengals fault. Real fans will realize that we didn't show up against the Jets either, and THAT is why we didn't make the playoffs. If I hear another homer err fan whine about the Jets 'backing' into the playoffs, I might go ballistic. The Jets got to the AFC Championship game (2 playoff wins) with a rookie head coach and a rookie QB. Give them some credit and stop making excuses for piss poor results and start taking responsibility for being outplayed, outcoached, and outmanned on a consistent basis. But at least we can beat the Rams when it counts. How about that 'huge' Seahawks win? Every time we face a good team with something to play for, we get rolled. Thats Kubiak for you though. Never met a big game he couldn't lose.

Dude, there's critiquing & then there's what you do...criticize & hate b/c you never have anything good or meaningful to say when you post. It's always "get rid of this person..." " change that" "this person sucks.." half the time you're not even making a good case or are just flat out wrong like that whole "Bob Mcnair is cheap" garbage you were spewing a while back. Like now...you're talking about our 2005 preseason & how that led into our dismal 2005 record all the while completely ignoring how little talent we had on this team at that time & also the change in regime. Besides, who really uses a preseason from 5 years ago to predict what's going to happen in the current regular season? that's just flat out asinine. At least GP can be objective, you just flat don't...:nolisten: even when you are clearly wrong & confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Now, I don't think anyone in this forum thinks the texans played great against the saints last saturday by any stretch of the imagination; far from it in fact But to act like there was absolutely nothing positive that came out of it is just not true. Pencil neck or someone else laid out all the things to be positive about. I guess when your, bent on an agenda, it's hard to see what's right in front of you.

Second Honeymoon
08-25-2010, 12:39 PM
Well, you see the Jets backed into the play-offs.

That's not an excuse for why the Texans didn't make the play-offs, that's evidence that the Jets aren't as good as people think they are. Good, but not as good as everybody thinks they are.

tkyss,

my previous post wasn't aimed at you whatsoever. we may not agree on some things, but i appreciate your candor, your knowledge, and your even handedness. we agree on a whole bunch of things.

...however. You can't say the Jets backed into the playoffs. You can't take away what the Jets did. They beat the teams that lined up against them, and fell on some good fortune but that is not backing into the playoffs.

Now if they had beat the Colts and Bengals and then got thrashed by Cincy, then you could argue that they were not deserving...but we all know that didn't happen. The Jets were playing good football and if you remember, they were one quarter away from the Super Bowl. They had the Colts on the ropes and made some mistakes and let Manning pwn them in the 4th.

The Jets were deserving and are a helluva football team with a helluva coach and some good talent. Of course, they took chances and spent money to assemble that talent but remember they picked 3rd in the Mario draft, so they were a bad football team back then too. They just showed more agressiveness in Free Agency and Trades and they didn't sit around for 5 years to decide if their coach sucked. They identified a problem and fixed it without waiting till it was too late.

As for the Texans, they failed to make the playoffs because of their own inability to play good in the division and to finish games. The Colts and the Bengals had NOTHING to do with the Texans failing to reach the postseason. The Texans controlled their own destiny and blew it Week One.

I know I am being a little sore with this topic, but I expect more consistency and objectivity from you, I guess. You gotta beat who you are lined up against. Would the Texans have 'backed into the playoffs' if they beat a Brady-less Patriots team Week17? Of course not. You beat who you are matched up with. That doesn't mean that a team cant be fortunate to play a team with nothing to play for or with their playoff spot/seed wrapped up. When it counted, the Jets played well. They beat the Texans on the road with rookie coach and QB in our crib. To take anything away from them is unfair and dishonest and ingenuine.

The Texans failed to make the playoffs. The Jets made the playoffs and had a lot of success winning 2 road playoff games. The Jets belonged there and they were and are a helluva team. They play with vigor and intensity and it all starts up top with Ryan. Our team plays like they are sleepwalking half the time and lack intensity and spirt, and that starts up top with Kubiak.

You don't have to agree with me about Kubiak, but don't discount the Jets. 2 road playoff wins is as many road playoff wins as some franchises have in their entire existence...and I am not talking about the Texans.

GP
08-25-2010, 01:36 PM
I am a moderate.

We've got left wingers on here claiming what we saw vs. the Saints is not what we saw. Nothing to see here, move along. etc. etc.

We've got right wingers on here saying Off With Their Heads!!!!

In politics, I'm right wing. In football, you have to be a moderate or you're screwed. Because you can't ignore bad on-the-field product, and you can't do a damn thing about it even if you DID recognize bad football when you see it.

You can't do anything, except go get ya' another team to root for. Which is why a lot of people bandwagon it. It's easier.

But here we all are, rooting for the same team, but with different takes on it.

What we saw in the Saints game was the polar opposite of what we saw in the Cards game. But what I saw in the Titans-Cards games scared me. A pee-wee team could take the Cards to task right now. So big whoop if we played decent against the Cards. Their ship sailed. Against the defending champs, we got manhandled much like we manhandled the Cards.

And that, no matter how you slice it, should make all of us slow down and realize that things are not always what they seem. Yeah, yeah, yeah: It's just the preseason. I get it already. But although the games do not count, they sure as hell "matter." Work off that rust NOW and not the first four games of the reg season, please. That's all I ask.

I am GP, and I approve this message.

And our guys DOGGED it against the Saints. Not lettin' that one go. They did.

thunderkyss
08-25-2010, 03:55 PM
tkyss,
They just showed more agressiveness in Free Agency and Trades and they didn't sit around for 5 years to decide if their coach sucked.


If this is the reason so many people are upset with Kubiak, I can kindof understand. I personally don't like the "draft only" or the "FA only" method of building a team.

But they made it pretty clear how they were going to approach this, when they signed Anthony Weaver for a bazillion dollars.

If that's why you're (not just you) pissed at Kubes, I can understand that.

What I don't understand, is when people over analyze and magnify every mistake Kubiak makes, as if other coaches don't. Including the great Buddy Ryan.

He lost to Buffalo.


Would the Texans have 'backed into the playoffs' if they beat a Brady-less Patriots team Week17? Of course not.

Yes they would... anytime you're benefitted by some kind of help (another team pulling their starters, another team losing (like the us needing the Jets to lose) That's backing in. If the Jets were clearly the better team, against the Colts, or the Bengals were 100% then that wouldn't have been backing in. The Bengals didn't back in, they limped in as they had their seed sewn up, and then picked up injuries and lost some games down the stretch.
To take anything away from them is unfair and dishonest and ingenuine.

No that's being Honest.

The Jets belonged there and they were and are a helluva team.

I didn't watch their second game, so I can't say... but the Bengals were hurt.

Even if the Jets would have lost, and we made it, I would be saying the same thing. We backed in. If we beat an injured Bengals team, we beat an injured Bengals team.

If they (we) beat a good San Diego team clicking on all 4, I would say the stepped it up, they evolved, that they were a better team at that point (because I think we all learn from our experiences) than the team that backed into the playoffs.

The Stealers, the Giants, the Cardinals, all backed into the playoffs, and became better teams as a result.

The playoffs is a second season

They play with vigor and intensity and it all starts up top with Ryan. Our team plays like they are sleepwalking half the time and lack intensity and spirt, and that starts up top with Kubiak.

Did you watch all their games? Is it possible that you can say this about the Texans, because you analyze every misstep?

The Jets lost to Buffalo & were swept by Miami.

thunderkyss
08-25-2010, 04:02 PM
You don't have to agree with me about Kubiak, but don't discount the Jets. 2 road playoff wins is as many road playoff wins as some franchises have in their entire existence...and I am not talking about the Texans.

I'm not discounting their play-off wins.

If Ryans gets Kudos for going 9-7 (like the Jets did the year before)

Then Kubiak should get Kudos for going 9-7. It shouldn't matter who beat who. Winning 9 games, is winning 9 games.

Had the Jets lost to the Bengals, or the Colts, and Kubiak got into the playoffs, would you be giving him the Kudos you're giving Ryans? I doubt it. You would be the one talking about backing into the playoffs.

It's luck, that that was the tie breaker. You can't go into the season knowing that. 9 times out of 10, when a team loses that first game, it means nothing on the overall season. We just got lucky enough that it bit us in the ass.

Had Ryans been that fire breather you think he is, and they beat Buffalo, and won one of the Miami games, they would have won the divison.

If they would have swept the Patriots, we would have been playing the Pats in week 17 for the wildcard. & losing that first game wouldn't have meant anything then.

9 wins is 9 wins. IF you can find anything good in that to prop up Ryans, you should be able to find something in their to cut Kubiak some slack.

There isn't a whole lot of difference going 2-4 in your division, than going 1-5.

76Texan
08-25-2010, 04:17 PM
I am a moderate.

We've got left wingers on here claiming what we saw vs. the Saints is not what we saw. Nothing to see here, move along. etc. etc.

We've got right wingers on here saying Off With Their Heads!!!!

In politics, I'm right wing. In football, you have to be a moderate or you're screwed. Because you can't ignore bad on-the-field product, and you can't do a damn thing about it even if you DID recognize bad football when you see it.

You can't do anything, except go get ya' another team to root for. Which is why a lot of people bandwagon it. It's easier.

But here we all are, rooting for the same team, but with different takes on it.

What we saw in the Saints game was the polar opposite of what we saw in the Cards game. But what I saw in the Titans-Cards games scared me. A pee-wee team could take the Cards to task right now. So big whoop if we played decent against the Cards. Their ship sailed. Against the defending champs, we got manhandled much like we manhandled the Cards.

And that, no matter how you slice it, should make all of us slow down and realize that things are not always what they seem. Yeah, yeah, yeah: It's just the preseason. I get it already. But although the games do not count, they sure as hell "matter." Work off that rust NOW and not the first four games of the reg season, please. That's all I ask.

I am GP, and I approve this message.

And our guys DOGGED it against the Saints. Not lettin' that one go. They did.
The Texans did not get manhandled!

The DEs and the LBs (those who have been our bread-and-butter players) did not play as well as they should have been.

With a few exceptions like the time all our 3 LBs were pushed back by the releasing O-linemen (because they didn't read their key quick enough), that is!

The Pencil Neck
08-25-2010, 04:26 PM
And compare what the Titans did against the Cardinals to what we did to the Cardinals. Please.

Our 1's were up 10-0 after a quarter. The Titans were up 10-3 after a half.

If you're going to say that the Titans did a much better job against the Cards then we did, then you're wrong. Their 1's didn't do as well.

Brisco_County
08-25-2010, 05:09 PM
And compare what the Titans did against the Cardinals to what we did to the Cardinals. Please.

Our 1's were up 10-0 after a quarter. The Titans were up 10-3 after a half.

If you're going to say that the Titans did a much better job against the Cards then we did, then you're wrong. Their 1's didn't do as well.

Too many variables for this to be conclusive, but it would've been nice if the Cards gave the Titans more of a challenge.

What I've determined from preseason so far is that we bully lesser teams, and get dominated by teams that don't even have that much more talent. This is troubling because that's what we were last year, and we need to be an improved team to have a winning season with this schedule.

GP
08-25-2010, 05:51 PM
The Texans did not get manhandled!

The DEs and the LBs (those who have been our bread-and-butter players) did not play as well as they should have been.

With a few exceptions like the time all our 3 LBs were pushed back by the releasing O-linemen (because they didn't read their key quick enough), that is!

Arguing with you guys is useless.

I have never seen so many excuses, reasons, and special scenarios in all my life. This reminds me of the David Carr years, of which I was one of the ones making the excuses, reasons, and special scenarios as to why our offense was so bad. Must have been the oline, must have been the ocoord, must have been the WRs or TEs, must have been he needed ONE MORE YEAR to get there, must have been, must have been, must have been....

As a collective group, a t-e-a-m, those guys dogged it. And their reward was that they got manhandled.

LOL. Some of you are fooling yourselves. I promise you are. You don't know you are. You genuinely believe what you're saying. But the tea leaves don't look as pretty all of a sudden. And they won't if these guys don't screw their helmets on and play all-out. All I can figure is that the Texans coaching staff wanted to avoid over-exerting and thus to avoid injury. Play it safe, so to speak.

But they didn't go all out. Nobody here can honestly say they did. They were all getting pushed off the line and re-directed wherever the Saints wanted them to go. I re-watched it last night. It was sad.

thunderkyss
08-25-2010, 06:14 PM
Arguing with you guys is useless.

I have never seen so many excuses, reasons, and special scenarios in all my life. This reminds me of the David Carr years, of which I was one of the ones making the excuses, reasons, and special scenarios as to why our offense was so bad. Must have been the oline, must have been the ocoord, must have been the WRs or TEs, must have been he needed ONE MORE YEAR to get there, must have been, must have been, must have been....

Well I was one of the ones telling what it was with Carr.

I'm telling you now, what it is with our defense.

Your past history of reading the tea leaves pale in comparison to mine.

For the time being, lets use my interpretations.

JB
08-25-2010, 07:36 PM
Just like to point out here that I was in NOLA for 1 night. It has taken 5 days to recover. Them dude's was in NOLA for 5 nights! :eek:

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 07:40 PM
Well I was one of the ones telling what it was with Carr.

I'm telling you now, what it is with our defense.

Your past history of reading the tea leaves pale in comparison to mine.

For the time being, lets use my interpretations.

TK. Is this an indication you're banking your credibility on
the Texans making good on all the expectations for this
season?

The Pencil Neck
08-25-2010, 08:23 PM
TK. Is this an indication you're banking your credibility on
the Texans making good on all the expectations for this
season?

Define "expectations".

I expect this to be a good team that fights for a playoff spot.

You expect this team to start off 5-7 and at best reach 500.

There are people here who expect this team to finish sub 6-10.

Then there are people who are expecting at least a 10 win season.

76Texan
08-25-2010, 08:28 PM
Arguing with you guys is useless.

I have never seen so many excuses, reasons, and special scenarios in all my life. This reminds me of the David Carr years, of which I was one of the ones making the excuses, reasons, and special scenarios as to why our offense was so bad. Must have been the oline, must have been the ocoord, must have been the WRs or TEs, must have been he needed ONE MORE YEAR to get there, must have been, must have been, must have been....

As a collective group, a t-e-a-m, those guys dogged it. And their reward was that they got manhandled.

LOL. Some of you are fooling yourselves. I promise you are. You don't know you are. You genuinely believe what you're saying. But the tea leaves don't look as pretty all of a sudden. And they won't if these guys don't screw their helmets on and play all-out. All I can figure is that the Texans coaching staff wanted to avoid over-exerting and thus to avoid injury. Play it safe, so to speak.

But they didn't go all out. Nobody here can honestly say they did. They were all getting pushed off the line and re-directed wherever the Saints wanted them to go. I re-watched it last night. It was sad.Wait a minute!
You complained about Marioa and Antonio Smith.


I said the Defense Ends.
(I simply added a few other guys to those two names.)

I metioned the LB corp that usually play well for us, did not play well in NO.
You mentioned the team as a whole.

Our seondary, as a whole or a hole, however you want to put it, had their up and down moments just as usual.
Our DTs played about as usual, more or less.

They didn't play any worse than usual, on the average.

There wasn't a whole lot difference between what we said.
The main thing is the defense played poorly, that we both agreed on.

But there are many ways of playing bad.
The Texans weren't pushed around (or whatever your definition of manhandling is.)

From what I saw, those particular guys didn't play up to par.
They missed their assignments or did not perform them well.
It's totally different from "they did their jobs but still got whooped".
That, I call being manhandled!

thunderkyss
08-25-2010, 09:25 PM
TK. Is this an indication you're banking your credibility on
the Texans making good on all the expectations for this
season?

Yes.

Unequivocally.

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 10:52 PM
Define "expectations".
Expectations for the Texans 2010 season: Division Championship,
Playoff Berth, in that order.

I expect this to be a good team that fights for a playoff spot.

So do I, but I also expect consequences for coming up short
for the fifth year in a row.

You expect this team to start off 5-7 and at best reach 500.

Let me be clear. I've only illustrated what this team has done
for THREE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS, and am looking with a
microscope for ANY indication 2010 will be different. Look at
my signature. I've left NO prediction of the 2010 First Twelve
Games (Where Playoff Teams Are Made.), but I will be keeping
track. No more falling for the "Banana-In-The-Tailpipe" run when
we go 3-1 on teams out of the race, and other squads resting their
"key players" to claim a "non-losing / winning season."

Time for this team to grow the hell up.

There are people here who expect this team to finish sub 6-10.
I'm not one of these people.

Then there are people who are expecting at least a 10 win season.

I guess you could include me in this group. It takes 10 wins MINIMUM
to win the AFC South.

The Pencil Neck
08-25-2010, 11:07 PM
Expectations for the Texans 2010 season: Division Championship,
Playoff Berth, in that order.


I'd change the order: Playoff Berth, Division Championship.

I think the Colts are still in the driver's seat and I think we can get in without winning the division.



So do I, but I also expect consequences for coming up short
for the fifth year in a row.


The problem with consequences is that you've got to be careful that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. One of the big problems that losing franchises have is that they do exactly what you're talking about. They have a team that is improving but not improving fast enough, so they fire their coach and hire another one. And then that cycle is repeated over and over again.

I don't want a losing franchise. I don't want to fire a guy who has improved the team each season he's been in charge and hire some washed up ex-super bowl winning coach who's just going to drive us into the ground. I don't want to get on a rollercoaster of hiring and firing coaches ever 2-3 years... and that's were "consequences" lead you.


Let me be clear. I've only illustrated what this team has done
for THREE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS, and am looking with a
microscope for ANY indication 2010 will be different. Look at
my signature. I've left NO prediction of the 2010 First Twelve
Games (Where Playoff Teams Are Made.), but I will be keeping
track. No more falling for the "Banana-In-The-Tailpipe" run when
we go 3-1 on teams out of the race, and other squads resting their
"key players" to claim a "non-losing / winning season."


I don't have signatures turned on. So, I have no idea what's in anyone's signature.



I guess you could include me in this group. It takes 10 wins MINIMUM
to win the AFC South.

No, you WANT 10 wins but you don't EXPECT 10 wins. That's the problem. You WANT 10 wins but you're already EXPECTING to be disappointed. You may well be disappointed. It's not easy to put together a winning team and it's not easy to get to the playoffs. But to assume that you're already going to start 5-7 when the first real game hasn't even been played is kinda sad. This is the time of year when fans are all supposed to be at least somewhat hopeful.

I mean, my Raider buddies are all predicting 19-0 already. And we're better than the Raiders.

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 11:12 PM
No, you WANT 10 wins but you don't EXPECT 10 wins. That's the problem.

I said what I meant, and meant what I said. I EXPECT 10 wins.
This team shows up, every game, like they did in the 4th quarter
of the Patriots game, it gets 10 wins. Falling short would give us
a FIVE YEAR RECORD of what ain't crackin.' Kubiak has been given
more than two seasons more than a coach with no playoff appearances.
You only need look to New Orleans, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, and several
other cities to know it doesn't take FIVE SEASONS for one coach to make
post season.

Time to burn those ships, no retreat, and treat every game like it matters. No more
sleepwalking into a game, looking like you don't belong in the NFL. Like
I said in a previous post: "Time for this team to grow the hell up."

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 11:14 PM
Your past history of reading the tea leaves pale in comparison to mine.

For the time being, lets use my interpretations.


TK. Is this an indication you're banking your credibility on
the Texans making good on all the expectations for this
season?

Yes.

Unequivocally.

Good for you, TK. You may seem irrational at times, but at least you're a
man about your shit.

The Pencil Neck
08-25-2010, 11:22 PM
I said what I meant, and meant what I said. I EXPECT 10 wins.
This team shows up, every game, like they did in the 4th quarter
of the Patriots game, it gets 10 wins. Falling short would give us
a FIVE YEAR RECORD of what ain't crackin.' Kubiak has been given
more than two seasons more than a coach with no playoff appearances.
You only need look to New Orleans, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, and several
other cities to know it doesn't take FIVE SEASONS for one coach to make
post season.

Time to burn those ships, no retreat, and treat every game like it matters. No more
sleepwalking into a game, looking like you don't belong in the NFL. Like
I said in a previous post: "Time for this team to grow the hell up."


If you EXPECTED 10 wins, you'd be excited and happy right now.

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 11:24 PM
If you EXPECTED 10 wins, you'd be excited and happy right now.

I'll be "happy about it" when expectation becomes reality.

The Pencil Neck
08-25-2010, 11:24 PM
I'll be "happy about it" when expectation becomes reality.

So, looking at the schedule, how many games do you think we're going to lose? 6?

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 11:27 PM
So, looking at the schedule, how many games do you think we're going to lose? 6?

This team has ten-win ability. It's about time to expect and DEMAND them to play
up to their potential. How many ways must I state this, before you
quit pretending to be so dense?

The Pencil Neck
08-25-2010, 11:35 PM
This team has ten-win ability. It's about time to expect and DEMAND them to play
up to their potential. How many ways must I state this, before you
quit pretending to be so dense?

I totally believe this team can win 10 games, no problem. They might not but I expect them to.

But weren't you the one who was posting the first 12 games of the season saying how there was no way that Schaub makes it through that murderer's row of sack happy teams and how we'd be lucky to get to 5-7 this year? I'm just saying that I think you're flat out lying about expecting this team to win 10 games.

DexmanC
08-25-2010, 11:37 PM
But weren't you the one who was posting the first 12 games of the season saying how there was no way that Schaub makes it through that murderer's row of sack happy teams and how we'd be lucky to get to 5-7 this year? I'm just saying that I think you're flat out lying about expecting this team to win 10 games.

I never declared, one way or another, how the 2010 season is gonna go.
How this season is going to turn out has not been determined. Go search
my posts. All you'll see is posting how the last three seasons were essentially
the same, and ASKING what's new about 2010.

Just give it up, dude...

bckey
08-26-2010, 01:07 AM
I never declared, one way or another, how the 2010 season is gonna go.
How this season is going to turn out has not been determined. Go search
my posts. All you'll see is posting how the last three seasons were essentially the same, and ASKING what's new about 2010.

Just give it up, dude...

Ditto. I'm frigging tired of mediocre. This team better come out and play every game hungry to win. Quit being the up and down team we have seen since Kubiak arrived. Houston and all of south Texas want a winner. Not excuses. The Texans have the talent. Get er done. If not then they have to make changes because excuses are wearing really thin.

The problem with consequences is that you've got to be careful that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. One of the big problems that losing franchises have is that they do exactly what you're talking about. They have a team that is improving but not improving fast enough, so they fire their coach and hire another one. And then that cycle is repeated over and over again.

I have to disagree with pencil neck on this. Not fast enough is one thing. But staying the same old mediocre team is another. There is a problem if this team goes 9-7 or 8-8 or less and miss the playoffs again. COACHING. And I will tell you straight up I don't expect this team to do any better than 9-7. Not because of lack of talent. That excuse is long gone. The pendelum is swinging in the coaches direction. More talent added every year with the same results = bad leadership.

GP
08-26-2010, 07:36 AM
The pendelum is swinging in the coaches direction. More talent added every year with the same results = bad leadership.

Great way of stating it.

Back when David Carr was let go, it meant that eventually Gary Kubiak was going to be in that spot that David Carr had occupied. I'm not saying that David Carr was unjustly let go. I'm saying that Gary Kubiak is now facing the same sort of dilemma that Carr did.

This has been Kubiak's team for several years now. It has his stamp and seal upon it. It's his brand of NFL football.

The microscope should be placed upon him this season, whether that's fair or not. And the early returns do not look good. More talent? Yes. Improved offense? Yes. Improved defense? Yes. Ability to play consistently GOOD and to win the tough games against the better teams we face? No.

And that last little category is the top of the mountain. Can he reach it? Maybe. But the preseason look-and-feel better not carry over into the regular season.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 08:52 AM
Expectations for the Texans 2010 season: Division Championship,
Playoff Berth, in that order.

So it's not about winning games, or performing well? If we go 8-8 & by some freak accident, that gets us a wildcard, you're happy?

So do I, but I also expect consequences for coming up short
for the fifth year in a row.

Totally understandable. But in the above scenario, if that were to happen, would that mean Kubiak keeps his job?

From where I'm at, if that scenario were to happen, and we lose that wildcard game, GK is gone. It's not simply about getting into the play-offs for me. It's about fielding a good team. If by some chance we do that, and circumstances led to us not making the playoffs, like going 11-5 and missing out because we lost game 1 against Indy... Gary stays. There were more positives than negatives.

Same thing with '09. You're damn right that was a disappointing year. But to miss the play-offs, because a hundred things that could've happened to make that first game irrelevant didn't happen doesn't constitute firing a coach that brought good football to Houston.

If I were Bob sitting up in my box, watching the games, I'm very proud of my team for 100 out of 126 plays, & I'm keeping my coach. Unless he's rationalizing the 26 plays away, and isn't doing anything to address them. & while we may be rationalizing them here on the boards, Kubiak isn't. He tells you week after week, that it's his fault. What he plans on doing to fix the problems, I'm sure is between Kubiak & McNair, and we can only speculate.



Let me be clear. I've only illustrated what this team has done
for THREE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS, and am looking with a
microscope for ANY indication 2010 will be different.

So how can you expect any different? How can you expect them to do better than 5-7 over the first 12 games if you don't acknowledge one improvement on this team on either side of the ball, I know you damn sure don't see any improvement in Kubiak.

If you expect this team to not lose more than 6 games in the first 12, why? What gives you optimism? What makes you expect them to win seven of the first 12 games?

Some fluke? The Schedule? Maturity?

Why do you expect better, if you aren't seeing better?



I guess you could include me in this group. It takes 10 wins MINIMUM
to win the AFC South.
The Colts win 12 games every year. We'll have to win 12 games, and more divisional games than the Colts to win the division.

I know we can do it. I expect this team to do it.

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 09:16 AM
The Colts win 12 games every year by beating the Texans twice. I get your
point, though. Statistical improvement, with no equivalent improvement in
the W-L column falls on the coach. This team has enough talent to win, but
they have yet to "Bring It" every game.

Sometimes they look like hellbeaters, then the very next game, they don't
show up AT ALL.

That last little line is all they need to change to become the team WE EXPECT
them to be. That falls on Coach Kubiak, no matter how ya slice it.

Even Albert Haynesworth found out that if he plays like our entire team did Saturday, his ass will be on the scout team. Vernon Davis found out,
from Mike Singletary, that if HE dogs it, he'll have to hit the showers mid-game.

Now the 49ers play with as much talent as we had in 2005, yet their discipline is MUCH higher than our 2009 Texans team.

Kubiak's job is on the line, and it should be.

About my expectations of them doing better than 5-7:
It's not that I'm optimistic about them going 11-5, or 10-6.
I'm saying that if 2010 is different than the last Three Seasons,
then they will BRING IT EVERY SINGLE DOWN, IN EVERY SINGLE GAME.

This team, should they play like bats flying out of hell, has 12-win talent.
I'd settle for 10-6. The bar is set high, but not nearly as high as other teams
I could name.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 09:44 AM
The pendelum is swinging in the coaches direction. More talent added every year with the same results = bad leadership.

If only everything were staying the same. You completely ignore all the good things that have been happening. I understand W/L means alot, I understand W/L is the most important stat of them all.

However, I do think 2010 is different. W/L means more this year, than it has in the past. For me anyway.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 09:51 AM
This team has enough talent to win, but
they have yet to "Bring It" every game.

That's bull, & I can show you the stats to prove it. But you don't know how to interpret stats, so the would be a waste of time.

Now had you said they have yet to bring it on every play... or every qtr of every game, I would agree.

Now the 49ers play with as much talent as we had in 2005, yet their discipline is MUCH higher than our 2009 Texans team.

Again, bullshit.

If Kubiak does the same thing to Slaton or Jacoby Jones that happened to Vernon Davis, he's got half a dozen people up his ass telling him that's the wrong thing to do.


About my expectations of them doing better than 5-7:
It's not that I'm optimistic about them going 11-5, or 10-6.


So you don't expect them to win 10 games. Period.

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 11:00 AM
That's bull, & I can show you the stats to prove it. But you don't know how to interpret stats, so the would be a waste of time. d

Now had you said they have yet to bring it on every play... or every qtr of every game, I would agree.

Again, bullshit.

If Kubiak does the same thing to Slaton or Jacoby Jones that happened to Vernon Davis, he's got half a dozen people up his ass telling him that's the wrong thing to do.



So you don't expect them to win 10 games. Period.

I'm not talking stats. I'm talking what I see with my eyes.

Vernon Davis became an all-pro caliber tight end after Singletary
got into his ass against Seattle. That can not be denied. Leaders
find out which buttons their players need pushed, and PUSH them.
Singletary didn't give a shit what "other" people cared about it. He
got HUGE RESULTS from sending Vernon Davis to the showers. Hell,
he's even their offensive captain!

Being that 2010, is the year they will turn the corner (so we've heard),
I expect them to win 10 games. Will they MEET my expectation?
That's why the games are played.

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 11:07 AM
About my expectations of them doing better than 5-7:
It's not that I'm optimistic about them going 11-5, or 10-6.
I'm saying that if 2010 is different than the last Three Seasons,
then they will BRING IT EVERY SINGLE DOWN, IN EVERY SINGLE GAME.

This team, should they play like bats flying out of hell, has 12-win talent.
I'd settle for 10-6. The bar is set high, but not nearly as high as other teams
I could name.


I put those two lines you quoted in its own paragraph for a reason.
Don't change the context, and argue against your creation.

Read the bolded portion, which you omitted when you quoted me, and
understand the entire paragraph.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 12:27 PM
I put those two lines you quoted in its own paragraph for a reason.
Don't change the context, and argue against your creation.

Read the bolded portion, which you omitted when you quoted me, and
understand the entire paragraph.

It doesn't change a thing. The "extra content" as well as your post history makes it very clear, that you don't think they can or will bring it every single down. If they win ten games, you would be happy, but it would be more of a surprise than an expectation.

You expect them to win 10 games, because the franchise has been in existence for 8 years, and Kubiak has been the HC for 4, going on 5. It's about time he won 10+ games, but you wouldn't be surprised if we don't win more than 9.

It's the same ol, same ol, it is what you expect from Kubiak.

You don't have any faith in his ability to lead men.

I on the other hand have been tracking this teams improvements through the years. Last year, we were good enough to win 10+ games. But it didn't happen. 2010 we will be better. Of that, I have no doubt.

I fully expect them to win 10+ games, and would be surprised if they don't.

GP
08-26-2010, 12:39 PM
The hangup is not on the issue of "improvements" TK. It's squarely upon Kubiak's ability to lead men, as you put it. And that's the crux of this debate. You got no stats that'll show if he can lead them this year.

But we do have that pesky Saints game to evaluate, of which you have invented several excuses or possible reasons as to why we dogged it.

You are expecting us to rise, others are doubtful. Me, I'll just watch with a critical eye because I think there's a gaping hole on this team that has nothing to do with the roster.

The overall attitude of our guys last Saturday is alarming.

Second Honeymoon
08-26-2010, 01:24 PM
If this is the reason so many people are upset with Kubiak, I can kindof understand. I personally don't like the "draft only" or the "FA only" method of building a team.

But they made it pretty clear how they were going to approach this, when they signed Anthony Weaver for a bazillion dollars.

If that's why you're (not just you) pissed at Kubes, I can understand that.

What I don't understand, is when people over analyze and magnify every mistake Kubiak makes, as if other coaches don't. Including the great Buddy Ryan.

He lost to Buffalo.


Yes they would... anytime you're benefitted by some kind of help (another team pulling their starters, another team losing (like the us needing the Jets to lose) That's backing in. If the Jets were clearly the better team, against the Colts, or the Bengals were 100% then that wouldn't have been backing in. The Bengals didn't back in, they limped in as they had their seed sewn up, and then picked up injuries and lost some games down the stretch.

No that's being Honest.

I didn't watch their second game, so I can't say... but the Bengals were hurt.

Even if the Jets would have lost, and we made it, I would be saying the same thing. We backed in. If we beat an injured Bengals team, we beat an injured Bengals team.

If they (we) beat a good San Diego team clicking on all 4, I would say the stepped it up, they evolved, that they were a better team at that point (because I think we all learn from our experiences) than the team that backed into the playoffs.

The Stealers, the Giants, the Cardinals, all backed into the playoffs, and became better teams as a result.

The playoffs is a second season

Did you watch all their games? Is it possible that you can say this about the Texans, because you analyze every misstep?

The Jets lost to Buffalo & were swept by Miami.

Buddy Ryan didn't lose to Buffalo. Buddy Ryan was brought in as a response to the Jim Eddy-led defensive effort against Buffalo. Buddy Ryan was responsible for arguably the greatest season of Oilers football ever. 12 wins in a row, bye week, and a home playoff game. Too bad that game was against Big Game Joe Montana or we could have had Oilers v Cowboys Super Bowl and the Oilers would have never left to begin with.

As for the Jets, the Jets had a midseason malaise. But that is to be expected with a rookie QB who was hurting and a rookie HC who was still trying to overcome the loss of Kris Jenkins. The Dolphins are another well coached team that didn't take 5 years to turn things around. it took ZERO years. They went from embarassment to playoff contender and they didn't have to wait around for the 2nd coming or for Kubiak to grow a pair for it to happen.

Bottom line is that the Jets did not back into the playoffs. They won who was lined up against them and won 2 more playoff games in one season than the Texans have even been to.

You are a pretty knowledgeable fan, but to blame Buddy Ryan for 35-3 is ridiculous. Geez, Buddy could probably come in and turn this ship around tomorrow and the guy is like 100 years old by now.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 03:02 PM
Buddy Ryan didn't lose to Buffalo.

I meant Rex Ryan. My bad.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 03:07 PM
The hangup is not on the issue of "improvements" TK. It's squarely upon Kubiak's ability to lead men, as you put it. And that's the crux of this debate. You got no stats that'll show if he can lead them this year.

To me, the stats shows his ability to lead men.

But we do have that pesky Saints game to evaluate, of which you have invented several excuses or possible reasons as to why we dogged it.

It was practice.


Practice man.

We aren't even talking about a real game... you know.

I mean.

Practice.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 03:16 PM
The Dolphins are another well coached team that didn't take 5 years to turn things around. it took ZERO years.

If Drew Brees gets hurt tomorrow, and is out for the season.

Then Evans & Nicks are out after week 2.

Roman Harper, and their starting LBs miss 6 games in 2010, and the Saints go 4-12.

Then Payton decides he wants to go coach the Rams for some reason (more money?? who knows, but it doesn't matter).


Let's say the Saints decide to promote Greg Williams to head coach. They get all their players back, and they stay healthy for the 2011 season.

They go 10-6.

Would that be a team that took 0 years to turnaround, or is that a team that got healthy?

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 03:21 PM
If Drew Brees gets hurt tomorrow, and is out for the season.

Then Evans & Nicks are out after week 2.
Roman Harper, and their starting LBs miss 6 games in 2010, and the Saints go 4-12.

Then Payton decides he wants to go coach the Rams for some reason (more money?? who knows, but it doesn't matter).


Let's say the Saints decide to promote Greg Williams to head coach. They get all their players back, and they stay healthy for the 2011 season.

They go 10-6.

Would that be a team that took 0 years to turnaround, or is that a team that got healthy?

None of that happened for the Texans, they still scored 20+ unanswered,
and opened another game 17-0 on the Colts and LOST BOTH. They still found ways
to sleepwalk during the Jets game, go braindead in the 1st Jags game,
and let MOJO-D walk all over them 11 straight plays in the other.

7-9,9-7 Ville. We're looking for someone to lead us out of there. Will
Kubiak HIMSELF step HIS game up, like the team needs him to? That's
what we're watching for in 2010. You're arguing hypotheticals, we're
using the past TRUTHS to set the standard for this season.


RIP EXCUSES (2006-2009)
The First Twelve Games (Where Playoff Teams Are Made):
2007: (5-7) | 2008: (5-7) | 2009: (5-7) | 2010: The Year of Change?

GP
08-26-2010, 03:55 PM
It was practice.


Practice man.

We aren't even talking about a real game... you know.

I mean.

Practice.

That is the biggest cop out, if you're serious about it. I have to think you're joking here. Surely you are.

Man, you got a bad case of the Kool Aid "shakes" TK.

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 04:16 PM
That is the biggest cop out, if you're serious about it. I have to think you're joking here. Surely you are.

Man, you got a bad case of the Kool Aid "shakes" TK.


.................................................. ...........(((((:shots:)))))
.................................................. I.....Can't.....Leave Drank....Alone...
.................................................. ........You Got Me FEEEEENIN'.......
I tried to tell him.

GP
08-26-2010, 04:33 PM
I tried to tell him.

LOL.

You know we just be playin' 'round, TK.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 06:14 PM
None of that happened for the Texans

Follow the conversation.

I'm talking about Miami. They were a hot team before that losing season that led to them getting a new coach, that led to them having a quick "turnaround"


9-7 in 2005 #4 total defense,

6-10 in 2006,

1-15 in 2007 10th ranked defense against the run,

11-5 in 2008

7-9 in 2009

In 2006, they were favored to win the division, until they experienced several injuries, then they had the coaching thing in 2007.

point is, they weren't as bad as their record made them look. They had a top defense, then they had some injuries, including their QB.

We never even had a winning season, then went 2-14 in 2005.

I just don't think it is fair to compare Miami to the Texans.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 06:19 PM
That is the biggest cop out, if you're serious about it. I have to think you're joking here. Surely you are.

Man, you got a bad case of the Kool Aid "shakes" TK.



I'm dead serious.

Remember David Carr looked great in practice, they say the same about Chris Henry.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

We looked just as bad in 2009 preseason, yes or no?

Then we come out against the Jets, and we're playing on their side of the LOS, yes or no?

we were 2 plays away from shutting down 2009's #1 rushing offense yes or no?

we were 4 plays away from shutting down 2009's #2 rushing offense yes or no?

we were 1 play away from shutting down 2009's #10 rushing offense yes or no?

Pollard came in, and those missed plays stops... more or less, yes or no?

remember, this is after looking just as bad in 2009's preseason games.

it's just practice.

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 06:22 PM
1-15 in 2007 10th ranked defense against the run,


Take a good look at how stats can be used to justify anything.
They were 1-15 that season. Teams don't have to run the ball
when they get all they want through the air.

You used the Jets game as an example of "excellent run defense for
3 quarters." I seem to remember Sanchez converting many 3rd-AND-
FOREVERS through the AIR, all game long.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 06:23 PM
Again
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a159/Thunderkyss/vsrushing2009.jpg

steelbtexan
08-26-2010, 06:24 PM
TK Mia. was 6-10 before they went 1-15

Hou. was 7-9 before they went 2-14

O.K. you dont want to compare the Texans to the Dolphins. What other team would you like to compare the Texans too?

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 06:24 PM
Again
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a159/Thunderkyss/vsrushing2009.jpg

Your chart is missing PASSING YARDS, FIRST DOWNS, and TOUCHDOWNS.

Again.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 06:33 PM
Take a good look at how stats can be used to justify anything.
They were 1-15 that season. Teams don't have to run the ball
when they get all they want through the air.

You used the Jets game as an example of "excellent run defense for
3 quarters." I seem to remember Sanchez converting many 3rd-AND-
FOREVERS through the AIR, all game long.

That was a typo. they were



8th against the run in 2006 (#4 total defense)
32nd against the run in 2007
10th against the run in 2008

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 06:38 PM
TK Mia. was 6-10 before they went 1-15

Hou. was 7-9 before they went 2-14

O.K. you dont want to compare the Texans to the Dolphins. What other team would you like to compare the Texans too?

They were 9-7 in 2005.
They went 6-10 in 2006, after losing their QB for a good part of the year.

It would be like our expectations of our team with and without Schaub.
Then you have the coaching fiasco in 2007.

2008, they get Ricky Williams back (or was that 2007) either way, they have Ricky Williams, Ronnie Brown, and Chad Pennington for the 11-5 season.

We have had no success at all, before Kubiak took this team. You want to compare Kubiak to another coach, compare him to a coach who took over a team with 4 or more losing seasons before they took the job.

thunderkyss
08-26-2010, 06:44 PM
Your chart is missing PASSING YARDS, FIRST DOWNS, and TOUCHDOWNS.

Again.

I made the chart to discuss the teams fire, so many tackles for loss... I'm only using it here, out of convenience.

If you have a point you want to prove, bring your own evidence.

DexmanC
08-26-2010, 09:13 PM
I made the chart to discuss the teams fire, so many tackles for loss... I'm only using it here, out of convenience.

If you have a point you want to prove, bring your own evidence.

This back-and-forth is making my mind numb. Can the Texans get
off to a 4-0 start already?

JB
08-26-2010, 09:15 PM
this back-and-forth is making my mind numb. Can the texans get
off to a 4-0 start already?



yeah!!!

GP
08-26-2010, 09:27 PM
Follow the conversation.

I'm talking about Miami. They were a hot team before that losing season that led to them getting a new coach, that led to them having a quick "turnaround"


9-7 in 2005 #4 total defense,

6-10 in 2006,

1-15 in 2007 10th ranked defense against the run,

11-5 in 2008

7-9 in 2009

In 2006, they were favored to win the division, until they experienced several injuries, then they had the coaching thing in 2007.

point is, they weren't as bad as their record made them look. They had a top defense, then they had some injuries, including their QB.

We never even had a winning season, then went 2-14 in 2005.

I just don't think it is fair to compare Miami to the Texans.

So you're saying there is no way to judge a good year against all the bad years surrounding it? In essence, even if we got our golden 11-5 season and made the playoffs, we could just as easily drop back to 7-9 the next year? A good year is an apparition of sorts? A mirage?

LOL.

Man, come on.

I knew the Dolphins were one-hit wonders. It was obvious. They goofed around with their Wildcat offense and got some extra wins off those shenanigans. Until defense figured out how to stop it.

The Falcons were one-hit wonders, too. Something I think I also pointed out when it was happening.

And, as I have mentioned before, this all boils down to Texans fans thinking that it sucks to re-build with a new coach...so let's just grind it out and wait for Kubiak to turn into Jeff Fisher or Tony Dungy or Tom Landry, etc.

But you know what? LOL....Gary Kubiak can't even luck into an 11-5 season at all. Others have, but not Gurry Kubiak. How frustrating it must be, to see all these other goof-balls like Tony Sporano luck into a great season...with a SUCKY team.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 02:28 AM
So you're saying there is no way to judge a good year against all the bad years surrounding it? In essence, even if we got our golden 11-5 season and made the playoffs, we could just as easily drop back to 7-9 the next year? A good year is an apparition of sorts? A mirage?

LOL.

Man, come on.

I think it sounds like you are saying that the one good year is the aberration.

I'm saying the one good year is a logical conclusion in the evolution of the team. Miami had been getting more and more talented as they were playing musical coaches. The year before the 1-15 season they had some big injuries, or Ricky Williams went sailing, or something.

11-5, they got healthy, plus the trick plays, plus they got Pennington.

And, as I have mentioned before, this all boils down to Texans fans thinking that it sucks to re-build with a new coach...so let's just grind it out and wait for Kubiak to turn into Jeff Fisher or Tony Dungy or Tom Landry, etc.

What did you think it was going to take? 1 year? 4?

If you wanted us to load up on Free agents and win right away... I can understand you being upset after that first year. Maybe even that second year.

After year three, it should be pretty obvious that wasn't the plan.

At that point, you should either make good with it, accept the fact that they aren't going to do it for whatever reason.

Yes, we could have signed half a dozen free agents like Payton did, like Parcells did, like they did in Atlanta... & we could have been winning a long time ago.

I don't doubt that at all.

I'm hoping Kubiak's approach is a little more permanent, and we dominate our conference like the Colts & Patriots.

Miami didn't... Atlanta didn't... Baltimore didn't...

The only team that looks like they may be onto something is the Saints. & with that Super Bowl, does it really matter? I mean he can probably have six mediocre seasons & it'll still be worth it right?

But think about all the teams that have tried it that way, and failed.

St.Louis, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore, Oakland, Kansas City...

I think what Kubiak is doing is a lot more like what Jimmy Johnson did in Dallas. Except it's going to take Kubiak 5 years to do what Jimmy did in 4.

Think about it. How much more talented was the '92 team than the '91 team?

GP
08-27-2010, 08:58 AM
I think what Kubiak is doing is a lot more like what Jimmy Johnson did in Dallas. Except it's going to take Kubiak 5 years to do what Jimmy did in 4.

Think about it. How much more talented was the '92 team than the '91 team?

Well, IIRC, the Cowboys traded Herschel Walker to the Vikings and landed a crap-load of draft picks. In fact, I think the league sometime afterward decided that a trade like that can't go down again.

Jimmy Johnson had Grade A coordinators on both sides of the ball. His staff struck gold with their draft picks, as they each grew into their role at about the same pace. Yes, the '91 year wasn't as good as the '92 year.

I would grade Kubiak at a B for coordinators and a B for draft picks, if we compare the two coaches. I also think Jimmy Johnson had a different leadership style. He also came off a huge winning tradition at the U. So people bought into his style, and he surrounded himself with players of that style.

Kubiak is more like Tom Landry, in a sense.

But I have severe reservations that he is going to win like landry.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 09:08 AM
AJ Burge said it best. If the Texans make post season, winning 10-or-more
games, 2010 will be the season of MANY firsts:


Schedule

The Texans play only four teams in 2010 that finished sub-.500 in 2009: Kansas City,
Oakland, Jacksonville, and Washington. I expect the Raiders to finish second in the
AFC West this season.

The Texans all time record against their 2010 opponents is 22-55.

The Texans are 0-14 against the Eagles, Redskins, Ravens, Chargers
and Jets (all Texans opponents in 2010), although games against the Redskins
and Eagles four years ago don't matter any more.

The Texans are a combined 5-27 all time against the Colts and Titans
and 4-14 against the AFC South during the last three seasons.
That matters.

Kubiak's Texans do not typically fare well against more physical teams
like the Jets, Ravens, Cowboys and Titans. The Redskins had a top ten
defense last year.

Here's what we've been arguing about all week:

Team psychology

I've been of the opinion for a while that the Texans struggles are
partially due to what's rattling around in their heads. And what's in
their heads is what Gary Kubiak puts there.

I like Gary Kubiak. I've said many times that I want him to succeed
in a bad way.

It's just that I wonder sometimes whether Kubiak's persona - his
openly fretting and worry wart nature - translates, consciously or
subconsciously, to the players as 'someone who lacks confidence...
in himself, his players, or both.'

I'm not talking about Kubiak not being able to watch crucial kicks.
I'm talking about the angst that comes across in Kubiak's pressers,
comments to the media and radio shows - which must also present
itself, maybe even moreso in the locker room.

Kubiak wears it all on his sleeve and as much as I want to run through
the wall for the guy when I hear him speak publicly, I can get
de-motivated just as easily when I listen to him break down another
close loss or constantly talk about how 'tough it is to win in the NFL.
It seems we've been pushing this same boulder up the same mountain
for 4 years. 'Woe is us' is getting old.

A coach's confidence can be contagious - just like his lack of
confidence. And I wonder if Kubiak's wringing of hands, so to speak,
has a negative effect on those he's charged to lead.

Because as we know, a team typically takes on the personality
and style of its leader.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 11:25 AM
AJ Burge said it best. If the Texans make post season, winning 10-or-more
games, 2010 will be the season of MANY firsts:



Here's what we've been arguing about all week:

That was a good read. I'd give you rep for it, but we just ain't seeing eye to eye right now.


Tell me this. With all that against him, everything in that article. If we win 10+ games in 2010, will you admit the GK is a bad motherF@#er?

That's all I want to know.

GP
08-27-2010, 11:47 AM
That was a good read. I'd give you rep for it, but we just ain't seeing eye to eye right now.


Tell me this. With all that against him, everything in that article. If we win 10+ games in 2010, will you admit the GK is a bad motherF@#er?

That's all I want to know.

I think you have to take so much into consideration, TK.

How did we get those 10 wins? Were any of them situations where we shouldn't have won a game here or there, due to scenarios that fall outside of the realm of "how good we are." Meaning this: If we get a win or two where it was gifted or we lucked into something, then I have to analyze that and weight it.

Were there losses that SHOULD have been wins, hands down, but we royally blew it somehow.

It's a subjective math system, for me. How many wins were wins where we played like champs, and how many wins were wins that we were gifted, how many losses were a result of us playing out-of-our-mind insanely good but the other team found a way to be 1% better than us, and how many losses were the result of us being sloppy and not focused on playing t-e-a-m football.

I see far too much of the wins that were gifts, and far too much of the losses where we dogged it out there. Those two types of scenarios are outweighing the times when we took a better team to task and beat them because we wroked harder AND smarter than them.

Wins are not all equal. Losses are not all equal. Wins and losses DO get you into the playoffs where anything can happen. The Jets somehow made it to the AFC championship game with this attitude. If Rex Ryan can identify and correctly alter what it was that cost him the AFC title game, he might be in the Super Bowl this year. I don't think they're a fluke. If the QB settles down and plays within himself, they'll be alright.

I'd like us to get into the playoffs because we earned it and not from the league's mathematical tie-breaking system. If we win our division, I will admit that the guy is true head coach who belongs. Even if we lost a first round game, but had won our division, I can admit that Kubiak should stay.bar is set at winning the division. If he can outsmart the divisional coaches and get enough wins to beat out the Jags, Titans, and Colts, then I'm down.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 12:29 PM
I think you have to take so much into consideration, TK.

How did we get those 10 wins? Were any of them situations where we shouldn't have won a game here or there, due to scenarios that fall outside of the realm of "how good we are." Meaning this: If we get a win or two where it was gifted or we lucked into something, then I have to analyze that and weight it.

Were there losses that SHOULD have been wins, hands down, but we royally blew it somehow.

It's a subjective math system, for me. How many wins were wins where we played like champs, and how many wins were wins that we were gifted, how many losses were a result of us playing out-of-our-mind insanely good but the other team found a way to be 1% better than us, and how many losses were the result of us being sloppy and not focused on playing t-e-a-m football.

I see far too much of the wins that were gifts, and far too much of the losses where we dogged it out there. Those two types of scenarios are outweighing the times when we took a better team to task and beat them because we wroked harder AND smarter than them.

Wins are not all equal. Losses are not all equal. Wins and losses DO get you into the playoffs where anything can happen. The Jets somehow made it to the AFC championship game with this attitude. If Rex Ryan can identify and correctly alter what it was that cost him the AFC title game, he might be in the Super Bowl this year. I don't think they're a fluke. If the QB settles down and plays within himself, they'll be alright.

I'd like us to get into the playoffs because we earned it and not from the league's mathematical tie-breaking system. If we win our division, I will admit that the guy is true head coach who belongs. Even if we lost a first round game, but had won our division, I can admit that Kubiak should stay.bar is set at winning the division. If he can outsmart the divisional coaches and get enough wins to beat out the Jags, Titans, and Colts, then I'm down.

Great post, I think exactly the same way, all the time. Not just when I'm trying to discredit Gary Kubiak.

Everything you're saying is exactly how I'm looking at 2009. Except I'm not seeing the dogging it, or gifted wins.

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 01:01 PM
Even if we lost a first round game, but had won our division, I can admit that Kubiak should stay.bar is set at winning the division. If he can outsmart the divisional coaches and get enough wins to beat out the Jags, Titans, and Colts, then I'm down.

We can win the division and not have a winning record in our division.

Normally, the team that wins the division does have at least a winning record in the divisional games. The worst divisional records I can recall for teams that won their divisions were 3-3. The Colts and Seahawks were both 3-3 in their division in 2006 and the Seahawks were 3-3 in 2003 and won their division. There are lots of instances of teams doing well in the division and having the best divisional record but not winning the division.

But it's mathematically possible to lose all your divisional games and still win the divison.

So, what if Kubiak goes 6-0 in the division? Is that a sign of good coaching even if he only wins 2 non-divisional games and ends up 8-8?

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 01:07 PM
We can win the division and not have a winning record in our division.

Normally, the team that wins the division does have at least a winning record in the divisional games. The worst divisional records I can recall for teams that won their divisions were 3-3. The Colts and Seahawks were both 3-3 in their division in 2006 and the Seahawks were 3-3 in 2003 and won their division. There are lots of instances of teams doing well in the division and having the best divisional record but not winning the division.

But it's mathematically possible to lose all your divisional games and still win the divison.

So, what if Kubiak goes 6-0 in the division? Is that a sign of good coaching even if he only wins 2 non-divisional games and ends up 8-8?

If he wins the division, he will have needed to get better or equal
overall records to the Colts, Jags, and Titans AND hold all tiebreakers
over them. Bottom line: The hypothetical 6-0 in the division, 2-8 every
where else WILL NOT get him the division title, because the AFC South
Division Champion has NEVER won the title with an 8-8 record.

I get your overal point, but your hypothetical lacks reality.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 01:13 PM
If he wins the division, he will have needed to get better or equal
overall records to the Colts, Jags, and Titans AND hold all tiebreakers
over them. Bottom line: The hypothetical 6-0 in the division, 2-8 every
where else WILL NOT get him the division title, because the AFC South
Division Champion has NEVER won the title with an 8-8 record.

I get your overal point, but your hypothetical lacks reality.

I think that is exactly what he said.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 01:19 PM
I think that is exactly what he said.

Also, to win tiebreakers against your divisional foes, you actually have to
BEAT them. 3*-15 against the AFC South in the last three years didn't cut it then,
and it won't cut it this year, either.

(The Jags did a complete laydown in 2007 so that the Texans could claim
their "First NON-Losing Season.")

Rey
08-27-2010, 01:19 PM
AJ Burge said it best. If the Texans make post season, winning 10-or-more
games, 2010 will be the season of MANY firsts:

I like Gary Kubiak. I've said many times that I want him to succeed
in a bad way.

It's just that I wonder sometimes whether Kubiak's persona - his
openly fretting and worry wart nature - translates, consciously or
subconsciously, to the players as 'someone who lacks confidence...
in himself, his players, or both.'

I'm not talking about Kubiak not being able to watch crucial kicks.
I'm talking about the angst that comes across in Kubiak's pressers,
comments to the media and radio shows - which must also present
itself, maybe even moreso in the locker room.


Here's what we've been arguing about all week:

Why doesn't he talk about the fact that the Texans are the youngest team in the league having an impact on their psyche?

Seems like he just has a problem with how Kubiak does things in certain situations so he ran with it.

IMO, Kubiak is a lot more fired up than Dungy was and Dungy was a hell of a coach.

I don't get how the comments Kubiak makes to the media after losses has anything to do with anything. There have been plenty of coaches that got up on the podium and threw tantrums, screamed and yelled...

I guess this guy wants Denny Green or Jim Mora on the podium.

I'll pass on that.

I've found that people respond better to leadership that remains consistent in their approach. If Kubiak gets up there and starts losing it or acting out of character I think that would negatively affect his players psyche even more.

Mr teX
08-27-2010, 01:20 PM
I think you have to take so much into consideration, TK.

How did we get those 10 wins? Were any of them situations where we shouldn't have won a game here or there, due to scenarios that fall outside of the realm of "how good we are." Meaning this: If we get a win or two where it was gifted or we lucked into something, then I have to analyze that and weight it.

Were there losses that SHOULD have been wins, hands down, but we royally blew it somehow.

It's a subjective math system, for me. How many wins were wins where we played like champs, and how many wins were wins that we were gifted, how many losses were a result of us playing out-of-our-mind insanely good but the other team found a way to be 1% better than us, and how many losses were the result of us being sloppy and not focused on playing t-e-a-m football.

I see far too much of the wins that were gifts, and far too much of the losses where we dogged it out there. Those two types of scenarios are outweighing the times when we took a better team to task and beat them because we wroked harder AND smarter than them.

Wins are not all equal. Losses are not all equal. Wins and losses DO get you into the playoffs where anything can happen. The Jets somehow made it to the AFC championship game with this attitude. If Rex Ryan can identify and correctly alter what it was that cost him the AFC title game, he might be in the Super Bowl this year. I don't think they're a fluke. If the QB settles down and plays within himself, they'll be alright.

I'd like us to get into the playoffs because we earned it and not from the league's mathematical tie-breaking system. If we win our division, I will admit that the guy is true head coach who belongs. Even if we lost a first round game, but had won our division, I can admit that Kubiak should stay.bar is set at winning the division. If he can outsmart the divisional coaches and get enough wins to beat out the Jags, Titans, and Colts, then I'm down.

In a game where every game means so much how can you say wins & losses are not equal? Wins are wins, & losses are losses & they are equal no matter how you got them.

You think the 91' giants care that they essentially "lucked" up & won SB XXV when norwood choked & missed wide right? How about the Falcons in 99' when mr. perfect gary anderson just happens to miss his 1 & only FG of the year in the biggest game of the season for the vikings essentially costing them a shot at the SB?

If this were the NBA where teams get a series to prove who's the best, then i'd agree but it's not. It's a league where 1 game means alot & in the playoffs decides the fate of your season & you can either get incredibly lucky or unlucky as i described above. Plus, every guy who has ever played in the NFL & won a superbowl or had an unbelievable run for 1 year cites that ol' phrase "you need a little luck" at times. So whether it was b/c a massive hurricane hit our city or b/c a certain team sat its starters in the final game of the season we beat who was in front of us & why penalize us for something that every team partake's in every year?

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 01:41 PM
In a game where every game means so much how can you say wins & losses are not equal? Wins are wins, & losses are losses & they are equal no matter how you got them.

You think the 91' giants care that they essentially "lucked" up & won SB XXV when norwood choked & missed wide right? How about the Falcons in 99' when mr. perfect gary anderson just happens to miss his 1 & only FG of the year in the biggest game of the season for the vikings essentially costing them a shot at the SB?

If this were the NBA where teams get a series to prove who's the best, then i'd agree but it's not. It's a league where 1 game means alot & in the playoffs decides the fate of your season & you can either get incredibly lucky or unlucky as i described above. Plus, every guy who has ever played in the NFL & won a superbowl or had an unbelievable run for 1 year cites that ol' phrase "you need a little luck" at times. So whether it was b/c a massive hurricane hit our city or b/c a certain team sat its starters in the final game of the season we beat who was in front of us & why penalize us for something that every team partake's in every year?

Can't use the "hurricane" excuse. Sean Payton had one hit HIS city, and
it actually KILLED a bunch of people. He only lead his squad to FIGHT
to the NFC Championship. They didn't crater, and go 0-4 to start the
season, when the city NEEDED them.

Being young means the team is highly impressionable to its leadership (coach.)
The Astros are young now, but they are fighting their asses off every inning.

Youth, is NO excuse for coming out flat. Youth depends HEAVILY on
leadership, which a lot of us are saying is "lacking" from the head coach
position.

Mr teX
08-27-2010, 01:47 PM
Can't use the "hurricane" excuse. Sean Payton had one hit HIS city, and
it actually KILLED a bunch of people. He only lead his squad to FIGHT
to the NFC Championship. They didn't crater, and go 0-4 to start the
season, when the city NEEDED them.

Being young means the team is highly impressionable to its leadership (coach.)
The Astros are young now, but they are fighting their asses off every inning.

Youth, is NO excuse for coming out flat. Youth depends HEAVILY on
leadership, which a lot of us are saying is "lacking" from the head coach
position.

that was the year after.....the year of katrina...they were putrid & understandbly so, they had no home games..payton comes in the next year, the superdome is repaired, they have a new qb etc....

& just curious, what gives u the impression that leadership is lacking when absolutely no player has come out and said, or given so much as an inkling that this is the case?

infantrycak
08-27-2010, 01:54 PM
that was the year after.....the year of katrina...they were putrid & understandbly so, they had no home games..payton comes in the next year, the superdome is repaired, they have a new qb etc....

& just curious, what gives u the impression that leadership is lacking when absolutely no player has come out and said, or given so much as an inkling that this is the case?

Yup. Three big factors for the Saints turnaround and I really don't get why people keep bringing them up - (1) Katrina, (2) Deuce went down - that made the horrid season that got Payton brought in - then (3) their gamble on Brees worked out.

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 02:03 PM
If he wins the division, he will have needed to get better or equal
overall records to the Colts, Jags, and Titans AND hold all tiebreakers
over them. Bottom line: The hypothetical 6-0 in the division, 2-8 every
where else WILL NOT get him the division title, because the AFC South
Division Champion has NEVER won the title with an 8-8 record.

I get your overal point, but your hypothetical lacks reality.

Basically, you're saying what I was saying. You can go 6-0 in the division and lose the division. Which was one of my points.

But to clarify, if you have a better overall record to the teams in your division, you win the division. Period. You don't have to hold ALL tiebreakers over them. You only have to hold the tie-breaker over any team you happen to be tied with.

And one of my other points was that you can have a better overall record than the teams in your division and have a losing record in the division. That hasn't ever been done. But a few teams have had an even record in their division and won their division. So, having a winning record in the division is not a requirement to winning your division. It helps, but it's not a requirement.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 02:05 PM
Basically, you're saying what I was saying. You can go 6-0 in the division and lose the division. Which was one of my points.

But to clarify, if you have a better overall record to the teams in your division, you win the division. Period. You don't have to hold ALL tiebreakers over them. You only have to hold the tie-breaker over any team you happen to be tied with.

And one of my other points was that you can have a better overall record than the teams in your division and have a losing record in the division. That hasn't ever been done. But a few teams have had an even record in their division and won their division. So, having a winning record in the division is not a requirement to winning your division. It helps, but it's not a requirement.

Speaking in the context of the AFC South, that hypothetical doesn't apply.
It may be the case in the AFC West, NFC West, or even the NFC South.
Doesn't apply in the AFC South, though.

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 02:05 PM
Can't use the "hurricane" excuse. Sean Payton had one hit HIS city, and
it actually KILLED a bunch of people. He only lead his squad to FIGHT
to the NFC Championship. They didn't crater, and go 0-4 to start the
season, when the city NEEDED them.

Being young means the team is highly impressionable to its leadership (coach.)
The Astros are young now, but they are fighting their asses off every inning.

Youth, is NO excuse for coming out flat. Youth depends HEAVILY on
leadership, which a lot of us are saying is "lacking" from the head coach
position.

No hurricane has ever hit New Orleans while Payton was the coach. It hit New Orleans the year before and cost Jim Haslett his job and gave them the #2 pick in the draft.

Which is why people have been saying that Payton inherited a better team than Kubiak. The Saints record from the previous season was unnaturally depressed.

JB
08-27-2010, 02:06 PM
Yup. Three big factors for the Saints turnaround and I really don't get why people keep bringing them up - (1) Katrina, (2) Deuce went down - that made the horrid season that got Payton brought in - then (3) their gamble on Brees worked out.

Great article in the NOLA paper today about this...

Link (http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/08/new_orleans_saints_success_sup.html)

When the Saints opened training camp in 2005, they were a franchise on the brink of implosion. The last thing they needed was a major setback.

But Katrina didn't destroy the Saints. Miraculously, incredibly and improbably, it saved them.

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 02:06 PM
Speaking in the context of the AFC South, that hypothetical doesn't apply.
It may be the case in the AFC West, NFC West, or even the NFC South.
Doesn't apply in the AFC South, though.

The Colts won the AFC South with a 3-3 divisional record in 2006.

So apparently it does apply to the AFC South.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 02:07 PM
Yup. Three big factors for the Saints turnaround and I really don't get why people keep bringing them up - (1) Katrina, (2) Deuce went down - that made the horrid season that got Payton brought in - then (3) their gamble on Brees worked out.

Didn't take five seasons to make postseason, though. I do agree
with Thunderkiss though. There should be NO way to credibly
lobby for a sixth season on Kubiak. He has ALWAYS FAILED when
the pressure was on. 2010 MUST be different, although we've only
seen more-of-the-same so far.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 02:08 PM
The Colts won the AFC South with a 3-3 divisional record in 2006.

So apparently it does apply to the AFC South.

They also needed at least 10 games to clinch the title. It's my point
that 8-8 will not get you an AFC South title, nor would 9-7.

Texans have to make good on 10 maybe 11 games to win the AFC South.

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 02:14 PM
They also needed at least 10 games to clinch the title. It's my point
that 8-8 will not get you an AFC South title, nor would 9-7.

Texans have to make good on 10 maybe 11 games to win the AFC South.

So... you're not actually referring to anything I actually said?

OK.

GP said that he'd be happy if we swept our divisional games and won the division. My response to him was that we could sweep our divisional games and not win the division because it's entirely possible to win our 6 divisional games and end up 8-8 and that's probably not going to win the division. Although we could conceivably go 3-3 in our division and still get 10-13 wins and win it (I did not state it that explicitly.)

I felt GP was concentrating too much on our divisional record. While, we need to do better than 1-5, we would have been 11-5 if we had just gone 3-3 in our division last year. We don't need to have a winning record in our division (although, like I said, it would be nice.)

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 03:01 PM
So... you're not actually referring to anything I actually said?

OK.

GP said that he'd be happy if we swept our divisional games and won the division. My response to him was that we could sweep our divisional games and not win the division because it's entirely possible to win our 6 divisional games and end up 8-8 and that's probably not going to win the division. Although we could conceivably go 3-3 in our division and still get 10-13 wins and win it (I did not state it that explicitly.)

I felt GP was concentrating too much on our divisional record. While, we need to do better than 1-5, we would have been 11-5 if we had just gone 3-3 in our division last year. We don't need to have a winning record in our division (although, like I said, it would be nice.)


My bad. We both agree here. Kubiak gets props for me if the Texans
clinch the AFC South Championship, due to the fact you have to win
12 times minimum. The Texans would be hitting multiple goals, just
by winning one of the most difficult divisions in the NFL.

Dwade
08-27-2010, 04:10 PM
If we are worse than 9-7 without Schaub being injured for a long amount of time, Kubiak needs to go.

Period.

GP
08-27-2010, 05:37 PM
Great post, I think exactly the same way, all the time. Not just when I'm trying to discredit Gary Kubiak.

Everything you're saying is exactly how I'm looking at 2009. Except I'm not seeing the dogging it, or gifted wins.

You're not seeing the dogging it or gifted wins because it diminishes your view of this team. You don't want to think our guys slack off or get wins handed to them. In your opinion, they give 100% all the time and they always win games because they rightfully earned them.

I don't think like that anymore. Used to. Not anymore.

Not saying they collectively suck on purpose, but that there are definitely times when they dog it. The Saints game was an example. LZ even admitted it. Thanks to Double Barrel for posting LZ's take on it, btw.

I'm essentially intolerant of their half-ass efforts and basically expect them to invoke the persona of Pollard and Cushing. Every single one of them should act like every play is the last play of their lives. I know that sounds corny, but the Saints game was a joke. A complete waste of time. They weren't lookin' at anything, TK. No alternative defense style was being tested. It was a zombie performance. And the Saints were shooting each of them through the skull. Ping. Pow. Zip. Clunk. (sigh) Oh well...

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 06:13 PM
Yup. Three big factors for the Saints turnaround and I really don't get why people keep bringing them up - (1) Katrina, (2) Deuce went down - that made the horrid season that got Payton brought in - then (3) their gamble on Brees worked out.

Don't forget Brooks. He was especially bad that year. Hence the need for a new QB, instead of Benson asking Payton if he could win with Brooks, he just said, "do what you do."

That didn't happen n Houston, & our Deuce never came back.

I'm sorry, I see you said three things that led to the turnaround.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 06:55 PM
You're not seeing the dogging it or gifted wins because it diminishes your view of this team. You don't want to think our guys slack off or get wins handed to them. In your opinion, they give 100% all the time and they always win games because they rightfully earned them.

If you're talking about New England, I will admit it would have been a different game, if the Patriots really wanted to win it. But I don't believe it's automatic we lose that game.

There is no doubt in my mind (or any sane person's) that the Jets would have lost that game if Peyton played 4 Qtrs.

Which other win do you think was gifted?

What I don't understand about your take, is why is it that we dogged it to lose 7 games, but the Jets didn't? They just got beat by better teams 7 times. Buffalo, Miami Twice, Jacksonville, New England, New Orleans, Atlanta. Are you telling me Buffalo outplayed the NYJets?

Everybody talks about the "pressure" the Jets put on the QB, while we dogged it. They put up 32 sacks in 2009. We put up 30. But we were doggin it.



I don't think like that anymore. Used to. Not anymore.

Not saying they collectively suck on purpose, but that there are definitely times when they dog it. The Saints game was an example. LZ even admitted it. Thanks to Double Barrel for posting LZ's take on it, btw.

I'm essentially intolerant of their half-ass efforts and basically expect them to invoke the persona of Pollard and Cushing.

Could have sworn I saw Pollard and Cushing "Practicing" out there like the rest of the team.

Every single one of them should act like every play is the last play of their lives. I know that sounds corny, but the Saints game was a joke. A complete waste of time.

Practice

They weren't lookin' at anything, TK. No alternative defense style was being tested. It was a zombie performance. And the Saints were shooting each of them through the skull. Ping. Pow. Zip. Clunk. (sigh) Oh well...

Again, I know this is the same thing we were thinking Last year, before the season started. When the season started, whatever they were looking at, whatever they were working on, they got it to work.

Unless you are talking about the offense dogging it?? I don't know.

But defensively, we were playing very well. Not anywhere near as bad as we had in the preseason. In the preseason, we were being ran over on every play. Against the Jets, only 2 out of 17 carries. Against Tennessee only 4 times on 19 carries, against Jacksonville only once in 23 carries.

After Pollard got here, not once.