PDA

View Full Version : Kubiak wants immediate improvement


Pages : 1 [2]

Carr Bombed
08-27-2010, 12:56 AM
If you're some kind of argumentative posting monster who resides on both sides of every issue facing the Texans who is doing nothing more than saying outrageous things to entice more responses, then basically you're terrible. I don't think GP would want to be lumped in to that group either since it wouldn't really apply to him (or you I thought, but I didn't read through your whole post so maybe you are aptly calling yourself out, it'd surprise me).

In fact it's not meant to be calling out any one particular poster or groups of posters, only the behaviors that almost everybody is exhibiting at some points on this board recently that are repetitive and boring. The hyperbole around here is getting way ridiculous for games of no consequence currently being played (And this is, again, both sides of most arguments). People are just basically trolling each other over many different subjects and not many new ideas, points, or arguments are being brought up at all. Mostly, I'm reading the same verbal fist fights over and over again and it's tiresome. To me it seems pretty silly to take these stands over different arguments and everybody just typing the same lines over and over without bringing something new to the table.

I've said my piece, some of you guys are being silly about all of this stuff going on in the recent offseason/preseason and I think it's sort of degrading all of the discussions currently going on. It doesn't take much brainpower to copy and paste the same arguments that you've been using since January, just to get a response from someone you know will cater to that desire to argue.

Did you ever think that maybe the reason why the arguments are getting repetitive is because the issues with this team have been the same for about 3 years now? (I have literally been bitching about the same weak interior lineman for about 3 years now, with no hope in site)

Sorry, I thought your previous post was a attack at me....like I said I didn't read it all. Now I have (screw work....I can't be fired :) )


Look, here's the point and the ONLY point I'm trying to make in this thread.


WE ARE NOT A EXPANSION TEAM ANYMORE.

Look at some of the posts in this thread...

Do you really think that Colts fans are sitting on their board right now making up excuses on why they didn't win the SB. No, they are pissed they didn't win the SB and why is that? Do you think a Colts fan would ever say "if this team just made the playoffs I'd be happy even if they lost" (which BTW was my own words...Colts fans would say I have a loser's mentality and by their standards I would)... They have higher expectations and hold their team to a higher standard. Some of the posts in this thread seem like something written back in 04-05. I rooted for Billy Miller, I loved Petey Faggins.

This is now a team where a Billy Miller and a DeMarcus Faggins type player have absolutely no chance in hell at sniffing the roster. The talent has been raised, the competition has been raised, but yet for some strange reason that is absolutely beyond me.........everytime a poster on this board talks about this being a "must or break year" or needing to atleast make the playoffs you have posters on this board pumping the breaks or calling them "spoiled".


We aren't spoiled and we don't need to pump the brakes......we need to expect more, because at this point in time with this team, we should be getting more. This is a make or break year and it's not a crime to point that out. We shouldn't be told to write the owner, rip up our tickets, or start a picket line because we expect more from this team. This is not a crappy team anymore..... the excuses need to stop right now. People who are critical of this team are tired of being told to shut up (I know you didn't say that, but that's what it came off like so)

The atmosphere of this thread would be entirely different if people weren't so willing to come up with every excuse under the sun for Kubiak despite the fact that everybody here acknowledges his teams seem to show the same bad habits year in and year out...(or the fact that other coaches have accomplished more with less).....yet if anybody says anything, they aren't a "real fan".


I think people are lumping the "Kubiak needs to win this year"....with the "No matter how much money McNair spends...he's cheap" posters.

There's a difference. There's no doubt in my mind McNair is doing everything that he believes is best for this team (even if I don't agree with him sometimes) and we have evidence to back up that McNair isn't cheap. However we don't have solid evidence that Kubiak needs to be given a 6th shot at taking this team on a postseason run if he fails to do that this year. People who hold this teams' feet to the fire aren't spoiled, or even bitter..... they're frustrated. Watching the same mistakes and miscues for 3 straight seasons will do that to you and it has nothing to do with "Hyperbole".. I was stationed in Detroit Michigan, trust me when I tell you this.....this is not "Hyperbole".

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 03:00 AM
Do you really think that Colts fans are sitting on their board right now making up excuses on why they didn't win the SB. No, they are pissed they didn't win the SB and why is that? Do you think a Colts fan would ever say "if this team just made the playoffs I'd be happy even if they lost" (which BTW was my own words...Colts fans would say I have a loser's mentality and by their standards I would)...



Ain't nobody making any excuses.

The game we are talking about in this thread...
It was practice.

Marcus
08-27-2010, 03:02 AM
I don't spend, or waist, that much time on this MB anymore, and after just reading the first page of this thread, it reminds me why I don't.

I've realized that that the years I've spent lurking and posting on a daily basis here . . . was sort of like eating nothing but refried beans everyday. After a while, it seemed as if I was eating something constantly regurgitated over and over.

Got to admit though, I still get a derisive chuckle when come across the word "milquetoast". I mean really now. I know I'm an old fart, but what the heck happened to "sissy", "pansy", or "candy ass"? I think Caspar would be offended.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 03:06 AM
Why do you like Kubiak?

Have you met him?

Did you go to A&M?

Because he seems like a nice guy

It surely isn't for the hard nosed for 4 qtrs winning brand of football that he"s brought to Houston.

I've never met Kubiak, but I would like to. I'm not an Aggie, never went to college.

I don't know if he's a nice guy or not.

I like Kubiak, because I like what he did in Denver.

I like Kubiak, because I like what he did in Houston.

4 years ago, our team couldn't move the ball up & down the field at will. Now we can.

4 years ago, our team couldn't get a 3 & out to save their life. Now we can.

I like Bob McNair, because there are some teams that never learn to play good basic football, as soon as they get close, they change coaches, they change offensive coordinators, or the change players.

Bob was wise enough to know he got a good one this time & didn't pull the trigger prematurely.

Scooter
08-27-2010, 03:18 AM
WE ARE NOT A EXPANSION TEAM ANYMORE.

This is now a team where a Billy Miller and a DeMarcus Faggins type player have absolutely no chance in hell at sniffing the roster. The talent has been raised, the competition has been raised, but yet for some strange reason that is absolutely beyond me.........everytime a poster on this board talks about this being a "must or break year" or needing to atleast make the playoffs you have posters on this board pumping the breaks or calling them "spoiled".

expansion? no ... complete do-over? yes

billy miller cant make the team but johnson or henry can? faggins cant but shaun cody and frank okam can? the talent has been raised, and it's no doubt leaps and bounds above where it used to be, but let's not start putting ourselves with the colts. our best cornerback is a late first rounder with one preseason game under his belt and we'll again be relying heavily on our rookies through the season. our oldest starter (wilson) celebrated his 30th birthday a week ago and the only starter with more than 4 years as a texan is andre johnson ... most of our starters (or roster for that matter) have barely even been in the league 4 years. our best 2 defensive players last year were a rookie and a guy released from an aweful team.

yes we're better, yes we have some extremely good talent at key positions, and yes we're all anxious for the breakout season - all hoping that this is the year. but our roster doesnt even begin to resemble the powerhouses of the NFL. we're not even to the above average playoff teams like the ravens or chargers yet when it comes to talent, depth, and experience ... maybe that has something to do with how well we're being coached and the personnel choices being made by this staff that so many have such do or die expectations already.

for me, i'm more patient. this is exactly the foundation i want the FRANCHISE to be built on. we've shown our willingness to hold onto key players and because of that i'm just as excited for our 2014 season as i am this one. maybe kubiak's not the guy to get us a trophy, maybe he is, maybe someone else could do more with what we have ... but what we have is beginning to look pretty dang special to everyone and i for one dont want to kill the ones laying those mvp eggs before our groundwork is finished. and having the best passing offense in a pass first league certainly doesnt hurt, especially only spending pennies to get it.

forgive my debbie downer appearance, i am as excited as anyone about seeing andre go beast mode in the playoffs this year (is there a scarier thought for a defensive coordinator?), i'm just attempting some realism. obviously the colts have high expectations ... they had to put in their backups just to keep from going undefeated last season. comparing that to a team with it's first season above .500 is just plain silly. what did those same fans say about the colts before manning?

bckey
08-27-2010, 03:46 AM
I don't like Kubiak as a person. I don't feel for him one way or another.

I like the brand of football he's brought to Houston. I think it's got a chance to win championships.

And that my friend is where we disagree. I think Kubiak will never sniff a championship. For what ever reason his personality and coaching style can't motivate players from week to week much less for an entire season. His best coaching has come when all hope is lost and nothing is on the line. Crap, he can't even post a winning record against his own division rivals. They know him best.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 08:28 AM
I watched the Green Bay Packers last night playing the Indianapolis Colts. Like us, the Packers has a young defense on the rise. Like New Orleans, Indy has a potent offense. Indy's run game isn't all that, akin to Reggie Bush not really all that as a RB.

On their first offensive series, Manning & the Colts scored in 2 plays. One nice run by Addai, and a TD toss by Peyton. & I was thinking, look at that. It's the preseason, it's not a big deal.

After that series however, Green Bay's D tightened up. I don't know if they ever stopped the Colts, but they definitely made them work. So I got to thinking. Is it really that much to ask? Didn't look like the Texans ever "tightened up" So I can clearly see what everyone is talking about.

Then I watched the Rams & the Patriots. The Patriots D looked outclassed by Sam Bradford and the St Louis offense.

I saw the look on Wilfork's face, he wasn't happy, but there was simply nothing they could do about it. I don't think we were that bad. I mean the look on his face, IMHO took away the "it's only preseason" excuse.

I don't know where our defense falls, but I think it's somewhere between those two. They should have been able to do something to stop the bleeding, but they didn't look as though they were thouroghly disappointed in themselves.

I totally understand, if you expected more from our defense, always have. I still don't think it is a sign that the sky is falling.

OzzO
08-27-2010, 08:29 AM
Smiths' 1st draft was the OkOye draft was not good.

His 2nd draft, the D.Brown/Slaton was O.K.

Not a fan of Jacoby or Diles, huh? I think the '08 was about par with the '07 draft.


His 3rd draft the Cushing/Barwin/Caldwell draft was a great draft

His 4th draft the jury is still out on.

Overall I would say Smith has done an O.K. job of drafting and he appears to be improving. So we agree that Smith probably should keep his job regardless of whether Kubes gets fired or not.

Yeah - he's not doing too shabby, especially in the later rounds. This past draft, I think Mitchell and Sharpton may surprise over time but then ending with Shelly Smith and Holiday... yep jury is still out.

But I think most are in agreement - 2010 - Kubiak and the Texans to put up or shut up.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 09:31 AM
Call me late to the party, but I just started watching the first episode
of this year's "Hard Knocks."

Ryan's Goal for Offense: "I wanna lead the league in WINS!

Ryan's Goal for Defense: "I wanna lead the league IN ****IN' WINS!

Doesn't matter how much talent you have if you can't get it to show
up to the games. You know if they win or lose, the Jets will bust
their asses on Sunday.

Can the same be said for The Texans?

Scooter
08-27-2010, 09:49 AM
Call me late to the party, but I just started watching the first episode
of this year's "Hard Knocks."

Ryan's Goal for Offense: "I wanna lead the league in WINS!

Ryan's Goal for Defense: "I wanna lead the league IN ****IN' WINS!

Doesn't matter how much talent you have if you can't get it to show
up to the games. You know if they win or lose, the Jets will bust
their asses on Sunday.

Can the same be said for The Texans?

the jets. a team that went from 4-12 to 9-7 under mangini, to a whopping 9-7 under ryan - gifted a monster team with the best offensive line in football and even beat us, only to end up with the same record as us lowly texans through a week 16 colts gift?

being loud sure does get people's attention. ofcourse beating the nearly dead panthers 9-3 and getting destroyed by the giants so far this preseason is cause for celebration. the jets are nothing but loud. with all that talent i'd be suprised if they finish with a winning record this season because while ryan's a great defensive mind, he's not a head coach and if he sticks around long enough will prove to be an absolutely horrendous judge of talent. the jets really need to take advantage of this popularity, because it wont take long before al davis is laughing at their decisions.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 10:24 AM
the jets. a team that went from 4-12 to 9-7 under mangini, to a whopping 9-7 under ryan - gifted a monster team with the best offensive line in football and even beat us, only to end up with the same record as us lowly texans through a week 16 colts gift?

being loud sure does get people's attention. ofcourse beating the nearly dead panthers 9-3 and getting destroyed by the giants so far this preseason is cause for celebration. the jets are nothing but loud. with all that talent i'd be suprised if they finish with a winning record this season because while ryan's a great defensive mind, he's not a head coach and if he sticks around long enough will prove to be an absolutely horrendous judge of talent. the jets really need to take advantage of this popularity, because it wont take long before al davis is laughing at their decisions.

Rookie HEAD COACH, who BROUGHT WITH HIM, Tons of experienced coaches
and players, and started a ROOKIE QUARTERBACK to lead them to the
AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Rex Ryan's "9-7" did NOT happen in a vacuum. If it did, we could say
Kubiak inherited an 8-8 team in 2008, yet was only able to accomplish
another 8-8 record. He took THAT 8-8 team, and with a WEAK SCHEDULE,
Probowlers all over the field on both sides of the ball, could only muster
a 9-7 RECORD.

The Colts TRIED to give the Texans the game. Spotted them SEVENTEEN POINTS,
and Kubiak's squad STILL couldn't get the win, AT HOME!! They lost EVEN WHEN the Colts
TRIED to give them the game!!

GP
08-27-2010, 10:34 AM
[/B]

And that my friend is where we disagree. I think Kubiak will never sniff a championship. For what ever reason his personality and coaching style can't motivate players from week to week much less for an entire season. His best coaching has come when all hope is lost and nothing is on the line. Crap, he can't even post a winning record against his own division rivals. They know him best.

Thread ender. :clap:

infantrycak
08-27-2010, 10:40 AM
The Colts TRIED to give the Texans the game. Spotted them SEVENTEEN POINTS,
and Kubiak's squad STILL couldn't get the win, AT HOME!! They lost EVEN WHEN the Colts
TRIED to give them the game!!

That's beyond absurd. The team built by Kubiak took that seventeen point lead. There is no comparison between that game and a game where the Colts were pulling starters including the guy who was just rated the best player in the game.

Double Barrel
08-27-2010, 10:42 AM
Personally, it isn't about winning or losing in preseason, it is about seeing your players compete and seeing improvement as camp wears on. This was a preseason game, so I'm not going to freak completely out, but I can tell you that I was very unhappy to see how the defense played against the Saints and you should be, too.

This. Props to LZ for nailing it like a few fans in the middle on this board. :clap:

Got to admit though, I still get a derisive chuckle when come across the word "milquetoast". I mean really now. I know I'm an old fart, but what the heck happened to "sissy", "pansy", or "candy ass"? I think Caspar would be offended.

Because none of those words describe "a weak, ineffectual or bland person" like milquetoast does. And using "milquetoast" as an adjective for a coaching style does not infer that someone is a "sissy", "pansy", or "candy ass". That's how definitions work. <oh snap!>

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 10:49 AM
expansion? no ... complete do-over? yes

...and the only starter with more than 4 years as a texan is andre johnson ... most of our starters (or roster for that matter) have barely even been in the league 4 years. our best 2 defensive players last year were a rookie and a guy released from an aweful team.


This.

I believe this is the biggest reason for our history the last 4 years, and the biggest reason for my optimism going forward.

Andre Johnson is the only starter with this team for more than 4 years.

& we've got some great players going into their 5th. Mario, Demeco, Daniels, Walter, Winston, Leach.

Schaub, Diles & Jacoby are going into his 4th year.

We've got a very nice, very talented young team, and we're adding more talent every year.

Thorn
08-27-2010, 10:52 AM
Well, whatever your opinion of Kubiak is, this season will make or break him so I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what happens. I'm pulling for him to make it, but I won't shed a single tear if he's gone next year. I'm rather tired of the excuses myself.

Scooter
08-27-2010, 10:53 AM
Rookie HEAD COACH, who BROUGHT WITH HIM, Tons of experienced coaches
and players, and started a ROOKIE QUARTERBACK to lead them to the
AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Rex Ryan's "9-7" did NOT happen in a vacuum. If it did, we could say
Kubiak inherited an 8-8 team in 2008, yet was only able to accomplish
another 8-8 record. He took THAT 8-8 team, and with a WEAK SCHEDULE,
Probowlers all over the field on both sides of the ball, could only muster
a 9-7 RECORD.

ahhh a whole lot different than our ROOKIE head coach who HAD FORCED UPON HIM tons of experienced coaches and DAVID CARR who had to trade for a qb WITH NO STARTING EXPERIENCE just to CREATE THE BEST PASSING OFFENSE IN THE NFL.

please, compare the teams each coach inherited. walk me through kubiak's years, i dont care which ... compare the texans right now to the 2009 jets if you have to. please, i'm begging. show me that talent kubiak landed on.

you cant. fact is that going into our 5th year, kubiak has taken us from andre johnson and kris brown (yeah 2 players) to a team that you've put in the same conversation as a coach who inherited the best rushing offense in football and a loaded defense both built by someone else.

wait hold on time out. our coach in 4 seasons has built a 52 man roster (bye kris brown) that is in a do or die season? heck what's he been waiting for? sean peyton or rex ryan could've replaced all 52 in half that time and we'd have 5 trophies to show for it. i'm all for "not for long", and as anxious as anyone, but find some perspective. i know i come off as a kubiak appologist, and dont care about that appearance, but the fanatacism about what we "should" accomplish only reinforces my opinion. give the man a season that isnt 4 year "veterans", rookies, and new coaches and then get back to me.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 10:54 AM
[/B]

And that my friend is where we disagree. I think Kubiak will never sniff a championship. For what ever reason his personality and coaching style can't motivate players from week to week much less for an entire season. His best coaching has come when all hope is lost and nothing is on the line. Crap, he can't even post a winning record against his own division rivals. They know him best.

This is just ridiculous. We didn't finish 11-5, because a couple of plays, not games, & that includes the Jet's game.

If you're going to just look at a loss, and not put the time in to actually watch the games, I can understand this thinking.

But you don't put up numbers like we have, or send players to the pro bowl like we have, if you're not coming to play every single week.

Our players need to grow up, & I think they did a lot of that last year. 8-8, 8-8, 9-7 to me says they should expect to win more often than not. To me, it's about consistency, and we've gone from being inconsistent for several games, to several quarters, and now we're working on being consistent for several plays.

It's a natural progression.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 10:57 AM
Call me late to the party, but I just started watching the first episode
of this year's "Hard Knocks."

Ryan's Goal for Offense: "I wanna lead the league in WINS!

Ryan's Goal for Defense: "I wanna lead the league IN ****IN' WINS!

Doesn't matter how much talent you have if you can't get it to show
up to the games. You know if they win or lose, the Jets will bust
their asses on Sunday.

Can the same be said for The Texans?

They didn't show up for 7 games, same as Kubiak. But he's a master motivator???

c'mon man.

GP
08-27-2010, 11:00 AM
This.

I believe this is the biggest reason for our history the last 4 years, and the biggest reason for my optimism going forward.

Andre Johnson is the only starter with this team for more than 4 years.

& we've got some great players going into their 5th. Mario, Demeco, Daniels, Walter, Winston, Leach.

Schaub, Diles & Jacoby are going into his 4th year.

We've got a very nice, very talented young team, and we're adding more talent every year.

With the way the cap is, and how guys want big money, you aren't going to logistically keep your core guys for more than 4 or 5 years. Even the Patriots are bleeding out a little. Nobody can keep the best players for very long.

I cannot deny that we have added talent consistently. I feel we've missed out on talent, though, which almost nullifies the good acquisitions we've made. It's like going +5 and then -5. That's zero net gain. The inability to bring in a kicker mid-to-late-season last year is the perfect example. The inability to add running backs cost us, IMO. We ought to be hoarding those guys when they become available. Grab the free agent guys, sign 'em if they're not asking outrageous dough, and then use draft picks elsewhere.

We've got "enough" talent to get to the playoffs. Does anyone agree with that? Maybe we can have a small allowance for RB and DL, though: Two areas that might be a weak spot.

Scooter
08-27-2010, 11:05 AM
And that my friend is where we disagree. I think Kubiak will never sniff a championship. For what ever reason his personality and coaching style can't motivate players from week to week much less for an entire season. His best coaching has come when all hope is lost and nothing is on the line. Crap, he can't even post a winning record against his own division rivals. They know him best.

1 kris brown fieldgoal, 1 fewer fumble, one guy winning at the goalline, heck the colts not putting in curtis painter and kubiak's personality and coaching style is the best thing to ever happen in houston.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 11:06 AM
Rex Ryan's "9-7" did NOT happen in a vacuum. If it did, we could say
Kubiak inherited an 8-8 team in 2008, yet was only able to accomplish
another 8-8 record. He took THAT 8-8 team, and with a WEAK SCHEDULE,
Probowlers all over the field on both sides of the ball, could only muster
a 9-7 RECORD.

That's what we are saying, it did not happen in a Vacuum. He took the leagues 9th best rushing attack, and made them #1. He took the leagues 9th best run defense, and made them #1.

Kubiak took the 4th best passing attack, and made them #1. He took the 23rd best rushing defense, and made them #10. The 22nd total defense, is now 13th.

& it's not like the Jets had a though schedule either. NFC South, two games against Buffalo, two games against Miami, 1 game against Oakland.

The Colts TRIED to give the Texans the game. Spotted them SEVENTEEN POINTS,
and Kubiak's squad STILL couldn't get the win, AT HOME!! They lost EVEN WHEN the Colts
TRIED to give them the game!!

So how did Kubiak lose the game?

GP
08-27-2010, 11:08 AM
I wonder how long it will be before we have a Wade-Bosh-James group of guys do in the NFL what those guys did in the NBA?

How long is it before a trio of great players decide that they want to team up and go play somewhere they feel they can win multiple titles with?

I know this is probably a debate for the NFL forum. Just wondering when we'll see two major RBs and maybe a major QB or WR team up and go somewhere where the other talent (OL, Defense, etc.) is already decent enough as is. They go somewhere where they just need 3 components (some combo of RB, QB, and WR) to get the team over the top.

Ole Miss Texan
08-27-2010, 11:13 AM
Call me late to the party, but I just started watching the first episode
of this year's "Hard Knocks."

Ryan's Goal for Offense: "I wanna lead the league in WINS!

Ryan's Goal for Defense: "I wanna lead the league IN *******IN' WINS!

Doesn't matter how much talent you have if you can't get it to show
up to the games. You know if they win or lose, the Jets will bust
their asses on Sunday.

Can the same be said for The Texans?

I saw the youtube clip of that part, it was awesome. My favorite part....

"Hey guys we don't have Revis in this building, right now. Does it matter that Revis is not here? God damn, he's pretty ****ing good."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuGqhZ9SnUg

HOU-TEX
08-27-2010, 11:17 AM
Geez, this thread is like '09 just ended rather than '10 is getting ready to begin. :slapfight:

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 11:18 AM
That's beyond absurd. The team built by Kubiak took that seventeen point lead. There is no comparison between that game and a game where the Colts were pulling starters including the guy who was just rated the best player in the game.

Using your logic, do you fault the Jaguars for resting THEIR starters,
and allowing Kubiak to accomplish his first 8-8 season?

.....beyond absurd my ass.

houstonspartan
08-27-2010, 11:20 AM
A co-worker and I were just talking about this. He said that Kubiak is going to force McNair to fire him. It's sad, because Kubes is a great guy, but, yeah, I can see that happening. It's like your child who keeps pushing you and testing you until you're forced to take action. You don't want to, but you have to.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 11:20 AM
That's what we are saying, it did not happen in a Vacuum. He took the leagues 9th best rushing attack, and made them #1. He took the leagues 9th best run defense, and made them #1.

Kubiak took the 4th best passing attack, and made them #1. He took the 23rd best rushing defense, and made them #10. The 22nd total defense, is now 13th.

& it's not like the Jets had a though schedule either. NFC South, two games against Buffalo, two games against Miami, 1 game against Oakland.


So how did Kubiak lose the game?

Is Kubiak a stat-padder, or winner? Every game the Texans played, that could have
had them in first place in the division, or in full control of their playoff
destinies, they lost. When the pressure's on, they folded. That falls
on the coach. When the heat is on, they collectively take Kubiak's
lead when it's time to make a big defensive stop, or time to make a big kick.
They stand, doubled-over, with their eyes closed.

2010 is a referendum on Kubiak's growth as a coach. I haven't seen
very much. The talent has gone up, but Kubiak's ability to extract
the best FROM this talent, has not increased.

It's all I want to see.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 11:24 AM
Geez, this thread is like '09 just ended rather than '10 is getting ready to begin. :slapfight:

LOL.
Looks like everybody's tryin' to get on the record early. Nothin' wrong with
that.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 11:27 AM
With the way the cap is, and how guys want big money, you aren't going to logistically keep your core guys for more than 4 or 5 years. Even the Patriots are bleeding out a little. Nobody can keep the best players for very long.

I cannot deny that we have added talent consistently. I feel we've missed out on talent, though, which almost nullifies the good acquisitions we've made. It's like going +5 and then -5. That's zero net gain. The inability to bring in a kicker mid-to-late-season last year is the perfect example. The inability to add running backs cost us, IMO. We ought to be hoarding those guys when they become available. Grab the free agent guys, sign 'em if they're not asking outrageous dough, and then use draft picks elsewhere.

We've got "enough" talent to get to the playoffs. Does anyone agree with that? Maybe we can have a small allowance for RB and DL, though: Two areas that might be a weak spot.

Of course I agree we've got the talent to get to the play-offs. I think we had the talent to win 11 games last season. I think we had the talent to win 10 games the year before.

But I can't believe you think the net gain of talent on this team is 0... that's not possible. Maybe you think we should have been +10, but missed on 5 for a net gain of 5.

Anyway. I don't expect to keep everyone on the team. But hopefully gaining core guys an losing core guys will kind of overlap, so we'll have some continuity.

I know there are other ways Kubiak could have built this team, get some quality free agents in here to form that core, then draft the rest.

I don't know why they didn't, but I've come to terms with that. I also don't believe there was an inability to get a kicker, or a running back, but a desire not to. Again, for whatever reason.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 11:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuGqhZ9SnUg

Now THAT'S a coach that can get his TEAM to KNOCK THE PISS OUTTA
SOMEBODY!

HOU-TEX
08-27-2010, 11:32 AM
LOL.
Looks like everybody's tryin' to get on the record early. Nothin' wrong with
that.

Look, I was pissed after 09 because wasted opportunities and the inability to finish. It's a new season and we should allow them to play the games before writing off the season, no?

I'm niether a "soaper" or a "sunshine" guy. Just love me some football

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 11:34 AM
They didn't show up for 7 games, same as Kubiak. But he's a master motivator???

c'mon man.

We both know they didn't show up AT ALL for the Jets game. Let's make that
clear. They played their ASSES off at Tennessee. For the next TEN WEEKS,
they played ONE HALF OF FOOTBALL PER GAME.

That's the main reason they didn't make post season. A half is good enough
to beat bad teams, injury-riddled teams, but NOT the teams you need to
DEFEAT to get INTO THE PLAYOFFS.

Will they play FOUR QUARTERS OF FOOTBALL EVERY SUNDAY!!??
NOT a half here or there.

Ole Miss Texan
08-27-2010, 11:38 AM
Using your logic, do you fault the Jaguars for resting THEIR starters, and allowing Kubiak to accomplish his first 8-8 season?

.....beyond absurd my ass.
I wouldn't fault the Jags in that situation just like I don't fault the Colts this past season. THEY did what was smart for THEM. But there certainly is a difference in the competition level between the games.
That's beyond absurd. The team built by Kubiak took that seventeen point lead. There is no comparison between that game and a game where the Colts were pulling starters including the guy who was just rated the best player in the game.
The game we lost to Indy at home, that was a tough hard fought game that Indy needed to win as much as we did. Indy was in it to maintain their record and get home field advantage in the playoffs.

The game at the end of the season against the Jets? Indy was smart to do what they did, you can't let Peyton Manning get injured. I'm sorry but the score was 9-10 (Indy losing) when Peyton got the ball for his last drive... 12 seconds into the 2nd half. He took the ball down the field and they scored a TD, missed the 2pt conversion. Score 15-10 with basically the entire 3rd and 4th quarters to play... and Peyton no longer playing but Curtis Painter instead.

Is that the same??? Not no but hell no!!

Mr teX
08-27-2010, 11:41 AM
I'm just glad that you have a criteria for next yr as making the playoffs. Where we have a difference of opinionis I see last yrs 9-7 as closer to a 7-9 team due to the weak schedule they had last year. You see the 9-7 as closer to an 11-5 team.

Time will tell who's right. One thing I would like to say is go Texans. (where hopefully 10-6,11-5 lives)

Our schedule wasn't as "weak" as the pundits projected it to be. 4 teams on our schedule wound up making the playoffs.

NYJ - AFC championship game
Arizona - Division winner
Cincy - Division winner
NE - Divison winner



Of these 4, we beat 2 & those 2 wound up winning their division. Of course of the 4, 1 of which wound up in the AFC championship game. If you factor in the fact that miami & tennessee were coming off the playoffs last year & were expected to contend again & then u factor in that we had the eventual superbowl runner up in Indy flirting with 19-0 all the way up until the jets game....on our schedule twice....it wasn't the toughest, but it wasn't a pure cakewalk either.


People like to point to our game against the jets or the jets/cincy game as the reason why we didn't make the playoffs & they are right; But i contend that it was the Indy/jets game that screwed us more than our own game against them for 3 reasons. 1st, b/c Indy likely does beat them.........If they don't sit their starters in the 2nd half of that game in the regular season. 2nd, b/c the jets were the better of team over Cincy; I think they proved that they belonged in the playoffs by beating SD afterwards. They had the top defense in the league with the league's best cover corner..truthfully, Cincy's 1 dimensional offense didn't stand a chance against them.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 11:51 AM
I still contend the biggest factor in the Texans' mediocrity last season, was
they played 1-half of ball per game. Rarely did they put two full quarters
together during the entire season. They were able to beat bad teams, and
squeak a win out against Cincinnati. The Patriots took that game
no where NEAR as serious as the Texans did. They didn't NEED to. They'd
clinched their playoff spot and seed already. I doubt a fully-ready New England
team gives up a 3-touchdown lead in the FOURTH QUARTER if something was
on the line for them.

This is why, how the Texans do in their First Twelve Games, is PARAMOUNT
to their playoff chances.

From my Signature:

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?

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 12:03 PM
Every game the Texans played, that could have
had them in first place in the division, or in full control of their playoff
destinies, they lost. When the pressure's on, they folded.

Definition of young players.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 12:07 PM
Now THAT'S a coach that can get his TEAM to KNOCK THE PISS OUTTA
SOMEBODY!

We won 9 games, same as them.

We lost 7 games, same as them.

We shut down the run on all but a handful of plays (not Quite like them)

They ran the ball down people's throat (except ours).

We threw the ball all over everybody (except them).

They had 32 sacks, we had 30.



& Gary Kubiak doesn't look like a fool doing it.

Mr teX
08-27-2010, 12:07 PM
I still contend the biggest factor in the Texans' mediocrity last season, was
they played 1-half of ball per game. Rarely did they put two full quarters
together during the entire season. They were able to beat bad teams, and
squeak a win out against Cincinnati. The Patriots took that game
no where NEAR as serious as the Texans did. They didn't NEED to. They'd
clinched their playoff spot and seed already. I doubt a fully-ready New England
team gives up a 3-touchdown lead in the FOURTH QUARTER if something was
on the line for them.

This is why, how the Texans do in their First Twelve Games, is PARAMOUNT
to their playoff chances.

From my Signature:

If this were the case, why didn't we sweep the jags? Sure, the pats didn't have much to play for at that point, but you're seriously over-estimating that NE team last year. They weren't as good as the pats 2001-2005 mainly b/c Brady obviously wasn't himself, Welker went down & their defense wasn't all that last year...It's 1 of the main reasons B-more smacked them around in the playoffs last year. 2nd, most of the starters were out there for the pats even after brady left the game. In any case, i believe we win that game even if Brady's out there.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 12:10 PM
If this were the case, why didn't we sweep the jags? Sure, the pats didn't have much to play for at that point, but you're seriously over-estimating that NE team last year. They weren't as good as the pats 2001-2005 mainly b/c Brady obviously wasn't himself, Welker went down & their defense wasn't all that last year...It's 1 of the main reasons B-more smacked them around in the playoffs last year. 2nd, most of the starters were out there for the pats even after brady left the game. In any case, i believe we win that game even if Brady's out there.

The Jags, especially Del Rio, knows Kubiak like the back of his hand. Also,
they are the team that plays a style the Texans have YET to show any
kind of proficiency against. They hit the Texans in the mouth for four quarters,
and watch them fold when shit gets tough. They've only beaten Jacksonville
once* in the last 3 years.

(If ya wanna count the game where Jacksonville rested EVERYBODY in 2007, then go ahead.)

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 12:11 PM
We both know they didn't show up AT ALL for the Jets game. Let's make that
clear.


I thought I made it clear, that is not what I believe.
They played their ASSES off at Tennessee. For the next TEN WEEKS,
they played ONE HALF OF FOOTBALL PER GAME.

Again, I don't believe any of that. I think we brought it every half, the other team only brought it for 1. That is exactly what happened in Miami.

That's the main reason they didn't make post season. A half is good enough
to beat bad teams, injury-riddled teams, but NOT the teams you need to
DEFEAT to get INTO THE PLAYOFFS.

Will they play FOUR QUARTERS OF FOOTBALL EVERY SUNDAY!!??
NOT a half here or there.
We beat a healthy Cincinnati team, a healthy Titans team, a healthy 49ers team a healthy Buffalo team (I only mention them, because the Jets couldn't beat the injured version).

eriadoc
08-27-2010, 12:12 PM
They were able to beat bad teams, and
squeak a win out against Cincinnati.

One of us is misremembering. I'm too lazy to go look it up, but didn't we beat the snot out of Cincy?

Mr teX
08-27-2010, 12:13 PM
One of us is misremembering. I'm too lazy to go look it up, but didn't we beat the snot out of Cincy?

Yeah we did, just hyperbole to make his case look stronger...

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 12:15 PM
One of us is misremembering. I'm too lazy to go look it up, but didn't we beat the snot out of Cincy?

LOL. Ok, Roger. Go take your roi... er, vitamins.

GP
08-27-2010, 12:36 PM
One of us is misremembering. I'm too lazy to go look it up, but didn't we beat the snot out of Cincy?

I remember them losing one of their best players early in the game. Their stud defensive lineman or LB. Can't remember which one. That seemed to sap the team from that point forward.

Then we go to the Bills and we lost Owen Daniels. Look what THAT effectively did for the next several games. Suckage.

Injuries play a part, especially if they fall upon a really really integral player of your team. I often wonder if we still win that game vs. Cincy had they not lost (arguably) their best defensive player.

JB
08-27-2010, 12:44 PM
I remember them losing one of their best players early in the game. Their stud defensive lineman or LB. Can't remember which one. That seemed to sap the team from that point forward.

Then we go to the Bills and we lost Owen Daniels. Look what THAT effectively did for the next several games. Suckage.

Injuries play a part, especially if they fall upon a really really integral player of your team. I often wonder if we still win that game vs. Cincy had they not lost (arguably) their best defensive player.

It was Odom that they lost, and iirc he was leading the league in sacks at the time. I think we still would have won. They were also leading the league in rushing, and we held them to 46 yds.

infantrycak
08-27-2010, 01:26 PM
It was Odom that they lost, and iirc he was leading the league in sacks at the time. I think we still would have won. They were also leading the league in rushing, and we held them to 46 yds.

Yes it was Odom and no he was not pivotal to the game. Let's first remember this is a guy defensive minded Jeff Fischer let go. Then let's recognize Odom was leading the league in sacks due to a 5 sack game against Green Bay who looked like they were fielding the 2002 Texans Oline. The Texans went into half time down, adjusted, came out and dominated the 2nd half over the eventual division champs.

Scooter
08-27-2010, 02:05 PM
:truck:

Texas T
08-27-2010, 02:05 PM
Our schedule wasn't as "weak" as the pundits projected it to be. 4 teams on our schedule wound up making the playoffs.

NYJ - AFC championship game
Arizona - Division winner
Cincy - Division winner
NE - Divison winner




I just thought I'd add the other two games against a team that went to the Superbowl-the Colts...but we lost to them twice...

steelbtexan
08-27-2010, 08:49 PM
Our schedule wasn't as "weak" as the pundits projected it to be. 4 teams on our schedule wound up making the playoffs.

NYJ - AFC championship game
Arizona - Division winner
Cincy - Division winner
NE - Divison winner



Of these 4, we beat 2 & those 2 wound up winning their division. Of course of the 4, 1 of which wound up in the AFC championship game. If you factor in the fact that miami & tennessee were coming off the playoffs last year & were expected to contend again & then u factor in that we had the eventual superbowl runner up in Indy flirting with 19-0 all the way up until the jets game....on our schedule twice....it wasn't the toughest, but it wasn't a pure cakewalk either.


People like to point to our game against the jets or the jets/cincy game as the reason why we didn't make the playoffs & they are right; But i contend that it was the Indy/jets game that screwed us more than our own game against them for 3 reasons. 1st, b/c Indy likely does beat them.........If they don't sit their starters in the 2nd half of that game in the regular season. 2nd, b/c the jets were the better of team over Cincy; I think they proved that they belonged in the playoffs by beating SD afterwards. They had the top defense in the league with the league's best cover corner..truthfully, Cincy's 1 dimensional offense didn't stand a chance against them.

Call it now

Would you rather have last yrs schedule or this yrs schedule?

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 09:10 PM
Call it now

Would you rather have last yrs schedule or this yrs schedule?

This years. Skins, I think they'll be a wild-card, & whether you get a though game or a light game, will just depend on which team shows up.

The Giants ain't got nothing.

Philly, Denver... whatever.

Colts, San Diegoe, Jets, Baltimore, Tennessee

I want to see the Texans play those teams. We'll see what we've really got, should put one side of the debate or the other to rest, and we can move on.

DexmanC
08-27-2010, 09:14 PM
Call it now

Would you rather have last yrs schedule or this yrs schedule?

Don't do this (:pop:) to those guys.

This schedule makes me think the Texans are gonna get (:kitten:)
all season long. I truly hope I'm wrong.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 09:54 PM
Don't do this (:pop:) to those guys.

This schedule makes me think the Texans are gonna get (:kitten:)
all season long. I truly hope I'm wrong.

So you don't expect them to do well.

You hope they do.

Because of their schedule, and your opinion of the coach, you expect what? 7 wins? 8?

You hope, because they are your favorite team, that they win 10-12 games.

Dwade
08-27-2010, 09:58 PM
This years. Skins, I think they'll be a wild-card, & whether you get a though game or a light game, will just depend on which team shows up.

The Giants ain't got nothing.

Philly, Denver... whatever.

Colts, San Diegoe, Jets, Baltimore, Tennessee

I want to see the Texans play those teams. We'll see what we've really got, should put one side of the debate or the other to rest, and we can move on.

You forgot the Cowboys...they are better than Tennessee, I'm not as worried about Tennessee as I am about Dallas.

JB
08-27-2010, 10:00 PM
You forgot the Cowboys...they are better than Tennessee, I'm not as worried about Tennessee as I am about Dallas.

I'm not worried about any team other than the Texans!

Dwade
08-27-2010, 10:03 PM
I'm not worried about any team other than the Texans!

Well if we beat Indy week 1 that would ease my mind a lot. Until then I'm not gonna get my hopes up too much.

JB
08-27-2010, 10:05 PM
Well if we beat Indy week 1 that would ease my mind a lot. Until then I'm not gonna get my hopes up too much.

**** a bunch of hopes and dreams! The preseason is all about 19-0!!!

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 10:36 PM
Call it now

Would you rather have last yrs schedule or this yrs schedule?

I think this year's schedule isn't going to be as hard as people are making it out.

Comparing our NFC opponents, the NFC West had a couple of good teams and a couple of bad teams. The NFC East has one really good team, and three teams that are big question marks. We went 3-1 against the NFC West and we could easily do the same thing against the NFC East. I think this is where most people think the hardest games are but I don't think it's going to be nearly that bad. I don't care that we've never beaten these teams before. The only other times we've played them, Carr was the QB.

Our AFC opponents, last year we had the AFC East and this year we've got the AFC West. I consider the East tougher than the West. We went 3-1 against the East and we should do that well against the West.

Our other two teams last year were the Bengals and the Raiders and we went 2-0 against those guys. This year, we're getting the Jets and the Ravens and I think we can beat both of these teams but those are going to be two hard games.

That leaves our division. And I don't expect to go 1-5 in our division again. I expect us to go at least 3-3 in the division.

I think the two schedules are very similar. This year's schedule is a little harder in some ways but I expect the Jags to be worse this year than last. So, for me, it's a wash.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 10:37 PM
You forgot the Cowboys...they are better than Tennessee, I'm not as worried about Tennessee as I am about Dallas.

I think we are in that league... Jet's, Baltimore, Tennessee. I want to see how we do against them.

Indy & San Diego are the best in our conference (I think) I want to see how we play them.

I'm really not feeling the Cowboys, it's going to be fun game to watch in a novelty kind of way. I don't think how we stack up against them means much in the big picture kind of way.

Dwade
08-27-2010, 10:43 PM
I think this year's schedule isn't going to be as hard as people are making it out.

Comparing our NFC opponents, the NFC West had a couple of good teams and a couple of bad teams. The NFC East has one really good team, and three teams that are big question marks. We went 3-1 against the NFC West and we could easily do the same thing against the NFC East. I think this is where most people think the hardest games are but I don't think it's going to be nearly that bad. I don't care that we've never beaten these teams before. The only other times we've played them, Carr was the QB.

Our AFC opponents, last year we had the AFC East and this year we've got the AFC West. I consider the East tougher than the West. We went 3-1 against the East and we should do that well against the West.

Our other two teams last year were the Bengals and the Raiders and we went 2-0 against those guys. This year, we're getting the Jets and the Ravens and I think we can beat both of these teams but those are going to be two hard games.

That leaves our division. And I don't expect to go 1-5 in our division again. I expect us to go at least 3-3 in the division.

I think the two schedules are very similar. This year's schedule is a little harder in some ways but I expect the Jags to be worse this year than last. So, for me, it's a wash.

NFC West is the worst division in the league, NFC East is a tough division.
AFC West is easier than AFC East.
The key is winning those division games...

@thunder - the Cowboy's game matters in getting that extra win, but we won't play them again unless we both make the Super Bowl, so I agree.

The Pencil Neck
08-27-2010, 10:53 PM
NFC West is the worst division in the league, NFC East is a tough division.
AFC West is easier than AFC East.
The key is winning those division games...

@thunder - the Cowboy's game matters in getting that extra win, but we won't play them again unless we both make the Super Bowl, so I agree.

NFC East WAS a tough division. I think they're paper tigers now.

The Giants aren't the team they were a few years ago. Their defense isn't as stout and Manning is starting to revert to his pick happy form. Their running game isn't as good as it used to be, either.

The Eagles don't have Westbrook or McNabb, anymore. And although I like Kolb, I think he's going to struggle a bit. I don't think McCoy takes Westbrook's place. And the Eagle D isn't the fearsome thing it was in decades past.

The Redskins had a good D last year but they're revamping it to go to the 3-4. I think all of their running backs have seen better years and I don't think they've got the offensive weapons to keep pace.

The Redskins and Cowboys defenses gave up fewer yards than ours did last year but only the Cowboys D gave up fewer points. The Giants D gave up 26 points per game.

A couple of years ago, this division was as strong as any other division in football but that was then. The Cowboys are the cream of this crop and I think that even they are beatable.

thunderkyss
08-27-2010, 10:56 PM
NFC West is the worst division in the league, NFC East is a tough division.
AFC West is easier than AFC East.
The key is winning those division games...


This isn't news, this is talking heads stuff.

I agree with TPN, the NFC East ain't all that. The Cowboys, and fluff.

Rey
08-27-2010, 11:04 PM
The Giants aren't the team they were a few years ago. Their defense isn't as stout and Manning is starting to revert to his pick happy form. Their running game isn't as good as it used to be, either.


Probably has something to do with the loss of Plaxico and pressure from them not running the ball as well.

Dwade
08-27-2010, 11:16 PM
NFC East WAS a tough division. I think they're paper tigers now.

The Giants aren't the team they were a few years ago. Their defense isn't as stout and Manning is starting to revert to his pick happy form. Their running game isn't as good as it used to be, either.

The Eagles don't have Westbrook or McNabb, anymore. And although I like Kolb, I think he's going to struggle a bit. I don't think McCoy takes Westbrook's place. And the Eagle D isn't the fearsome thing it was in decades past.

The Redskins had a good D last year but they're revamping it to go to the 3-4. I think all of their running backs have seen better years and I don't think they've got the offensive weapons to keep pace.

The Redskins and Cowboys defenses gave up fewer yards than ours did last year but only the Cowboys D gave up fewer points. The Giants D gave up 26 points per game.

A couple of years ago, this division was as strong as any other division in football but that was then. The Cowboys are the cream of this crop and I think that even they are beatable.

Giants are a weird team to figure out. They started 5-0 last year, finished 8-8, they remind me of Denver. Very inconsistent.

Washington is gonna be better, they had a top 10 defense last year and McNabb might spark their offense. I say they go 7-9, maybe 8-8.

Cowboys are gonna be good, their defense is crazy. Biggest weakness is O-line so we need Mario to step up that game

steelbtexan
08-27-2010, 11:21 PM
This years. Skins, I think they'll be a wild-card, & whether you get a though game or a light game, will just depend on which team shows up.

The Giants ain't got nothing.

Philly, Denver... whatever.

Colts, San Diegoe, Jets, Baltimore, Tennessee

I want to see the Texans play those teams. We'll see what we've really got, should put one side of the debate or the other to rest, and we can move on.

Fair enough

History says the Redskins in D.C, and the Eagles in Philly aren't going to be easy.

steelbtexan
08-27-2010, 11:24 PM
NFC East WAS a tough division. I think they're paper tigers now.

The Giants aren't the team they were a few years ago. Their defense isn't as stout and Manning is starting to revert to his pick happy form. Their running game isn't as good as it used to be, either.

The Eagles don't have Westbrook or McNabb, anymore. And although I like Kolb, I think he's going to struggle a bit. I don't think McCoy takes Westbrook's place. And the Eagle D isn't the fearsome thing it was in decades past.

The Redskins had a good D last year but they're revamping it to go to the 3-4. I think all of their running backs have seen better years and I don't think they've got the offensive weapons to keep pace.

The Redskins and Cowboys defenses gave up fewer yards than ours did last year but only the Cowboys D gave up fewer points. The Giants D gave up 26 points per game.

A couple of years ago, this division was as strong as any other division in football but that was then. The Cowboys are the cream of this crop and I think that even they are beatable.

I like your way of thinking.

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 02:07 AM
I like your way of thinking.

Now, let's just hope I'm right.

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 07:47 AM
When it comes to the NFC East, Chargers, Jets, Ravens, Jags, Titans,
and Colts, the issue is NOT "whether they can be beaten." The issue
is "can the TEXANS beat them."

ALL of the teams in the NFC East pose the same matchup problems for this team.
Beating them will amount to the Texans having to grow up, as they are the types of
teams that historical kick the Texans ass something-embarrassing. If this team is
bound for postseason, look for NO WORSE than a 7-5 record out of the gate.

Time this team learns how to win in the AFC South. That will solve a lot
of their problems.

Grams
08-28-2010, 08:24 AM
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team.

I think at this point, it will come down to mental toughness and desire. We have very good players that have the athletic ability. But do they have the mentality to keep it up for an entire game - not a half, not 3 quarters, but the entire 60 minutes? Do they go into any game thinking they can win or are they going into games hoping they can squeek one out?

It was posted all last year that we were a "young" team. Well this year we need to grow up to be able to play with the big boys.

If they do, we win.

steelbtexan
08-28-2010, 08:56 AM
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team.

I think at this point, it will come down to mental toughness and desire. We have very good players that have the athletic ability. But do they have the mentality to keep it up for an entire game - not a half, not 3 quarters, but the entire 60 minutes? Do they go into any game thinking they can win or are they going into games hoping they can squeek one out?

It was posted all last year that we were a "young" team. Well this year we need to grow up to be able to play with the big boys.

If they do, we win.

Agreed

Last yr not playing for 4 qtrs was my biggest gripe with Kubes coaching. More than the x's and o's of coaching.

The ability to get a team to play consistently hard for 4 qtrs is what makes a great coach. IMHO

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 09:12 AM
So you don't expect them to do well.

You hope they do.

Because of their schedule, and your opinion of the coach, you expect what? 7 wins? 8?

You hope, because they are your favorite team, that they win 10-12 games.

Of course I EXPECT them to do well.

I just won't PREDICT they will.

Expect =/= Predict

Google the terms.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 10:09 AM
When it comes to the NFC East, Chargers, Jets, Ravens, Jags, Titans,
and Colts, the issue is NOT "whether they can be beaten." The issue
is "can the TEXANS beat them."

ALL of the teams in the NFC East pose the same matchup problems for this team.
Beating them will amount to the Texans having to grow up, as they are the types of
teams that historical kick the Texans ass something-embarrassing. If this team is
bound for postseason, look for NO WORSE than a 7-5 record out of the gate.

Time this team learns how to win in the AFC South. That will solve a lot
of their problems.

Do you think you are the only one privy to this way of thinking?

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 10:26 AM
I think at this point, it will come down to mental toughness and desire. We have very good players that have the athletic ability. But do they have the mentality to keep it up for an entire game - not a half, not 3 quarters, but the entire 60 minutes? Do they go into any game thinking they can win or are they going into games hoping they can squeek one out?

It was posted all last year that we were a "young" team. Well this year we need to grow up to be able to play with the big boys.

If they do, we win.

Have you ever played a team sport? I'm not asking to be mean or anything. But let's say you're playing softball, you get to first base. The guy who normally bats behind you just pop-flied out. The next person comes up to bat, and you know that person strikes out more than not. So you're on first base. How ready are you to get a good leap off first, and make a strong run towards second?

Let's say he tip-fouls the first 5 pitches. After you've jumped and ran, then came back; jumped and ran, then came back; jumped and ran, then came back, etc.. Are you 100% ready on that 6th pitch?

That's where I think we need to work on our mentality. Each player needs to believe that their teammate is going to do his job at 110% on the next play. Not just your Cushings, or Demecos, or Pollards. But when Bulman comes on the field, we can't have Diles thinking, "ah hell" know what I mean?

When Steve fumbles the ball, we don't need Sean Cody thinking, "I knew it." We don't need Myers wondering, "Why in the hell are we calling that play with Mr. Fumblitus out here?"

When the offense turns the ball over, they need to know the defense is going to prevent the other team from scoring.

When the defense forces a 3 & out or force a turn-over, they need to know the offense is going to put 7 on the board.

I don't think it's simply needing to toughen up their mentality, I think they need to trust each other to do their job, so that each individual can do their job as best they can on every single play.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 10:43 AM
Of course I EXPECT them to do well.

I just won't PREDICT they will.

Expect =/= Predict

Google the terms.

If I expect it to rain tomorrow, I cut my grass today. I'll check my windshield wipers today, I'll check the tread on my tires. When I leave the house in the morning, I'll have my raincoat, and an umbrella with me.

If I expect my team to do poorly in the upcoming season, I'll continue to remind everyone of the multitude of reasons that could & most probably should happen.

again, and again, and again... I might even put some stat, designed to kill optimism, in my signature.

cuppacoffee
08-28-2010, 12:10 PM
I don't think it's simply needing to toughen up their mentality, I think they need to trust each other to do their job, so that each individual can do their job as best they can on every single play.


And you think they don't presently do this?

:coffee:

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 12:59 PM
If I expect it to rain tomorrow, I cut my grass today. I'll check my windshield wipers today, I'll check the tread on my tires. When I leave the house in the morning, I'll have my raincoat, and an umbrella with me.

If I expect my team to do poorly in the upcoming season, I'll continue to remind everyone of the multitude of reasons that could & most probably should happen.

again, and again, and again... I might even put some stat, designed to kill optimism, in my signature.

If I expect it to rain tomorrow, I make sure to have my umbrella in my car
when I leave the house. I'm prepared for minor occurrences so my tires
and wipers are part of my routine maintenance schedule. Should rain not
come, to meet my expectation, no disappointment in that, because I
was prepared for the event, should it be contrary to my objectives for
the day.

If I expect my team to do well, I give them all the players they ask for.
I let my head coach select his team of coaches and players, and give
him FIVE FREAKING YEARS to let his selections get to their primes.

I, having given my head coach all he needed to meet my expectation,
know there should be no surprise when he's given a tour of the back door should
he fail this season.

I expect this coach to lead this team to the playoffs this season. It's up
to HIM to meet MY expectation.

Expectations =/= Predictions

By the way...

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?

An air conditioning unit has a thermometer, not to discourage
you from using AC. It has a thermometer to let you know when you've used ENOUGH of it.

If THESE stats come up good this season, we can use more of Kubiak. If THESE stats come up bad,
time to SHUT IT OFF. This is my gauge for the 2012 season. Do the Texans give THEMSELVES
a REAL SHOT at postseason, or do they turn it on when the pressure is off?

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 01:08 PM
Of course I EXPECT them to do well.

I just won't PREDICT they will.

Expect =/= Predict

Google the terms.


ex·pect   /ɪkˈspɛkt/ Show Spelled[ik-spekt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to look forward to; regard as likely to happen; anticipate the occurrence or the coming of: I expect to read it. I expect him later. She expects that they will come.
2. to look for with reason or justification: We expect obedience.
3. Informal . to suppose or surmise; guess: I expect that you are tired from the trip.
4. to anticipate the birth of (one's child): Paul and Sylvia expect their second very soon.


This is the crux of it. To expect something is to think that it's likely to happen. And like you said, you don't predict it happening which implies strongly that you don't think it's likely to happen. And if you don't think it's likely to happen, then you don't expect it.

When you use the word expect, that's what I expect you to mean.

But from your response about googling the meaning of the word, I think you're using the word in the SECOND meaning there. You're looking forward to it with reason and justification but you don't think it's likely to happen. Right? When you said "expect", that wasn't the definition that came to my mind. What came to my mind was the FIRST definitin.

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 01:10 PM
This is the crux of it. To expect something is to think that it's likely to happen. And like you said, you don't predict it happening which implies strongly that you don't think it's likely to happen. And if you don't think it's likely to happen, then you don't expect it.

When you use the word expect, that's what I expect you to mean.

But from your response about googling the meaning of the word, I think you're using the word in the SECOND meaning there. You're looking forward to it with reason and justification but you don't think it's likely to happen. Right? When you said "expect", that wasn't the definition that came to my mind. What came to my mind was the FIRST definitin.

Predicting it would mean that I believe it DEFINITELY WILL happen.
That's a little too strong. I believe it's LIKELY they make post season,
because Bob Mcnair has taken action this offseason which makes me
think he's of the same opinion I am.

So, yes. I expect the Texans to make good on the goals of this season.
I just will not predict the outcome. I will predict Kubiak is gone if they turn
in another season like last year. Mcnair has just been too active for me to
believe otherwise.

I have faith in the will and talent of the team, but hardly any at all in Kubiak.
Kubiak will either have to evolve as a coach, or the team will have to win in
spite of HIS lack of growth as a HEAD COACH.

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 01:14 PM
This is the crux of it. To expect something is to think that it's likely to happen. And like you said, you don't predict it happening which implies strongly that you don't think it's likely to happen. And if you don't think it's likely to happen, then you don't expect it.

When you use the word expect, that's what I expect you to mean.

But from your response about googling the meaning of the word, I think you're using the word in the SECOND meaning there. You're looking forward to it with reason and justification but you don't think it's likely to happen. Right? When you said "expect", that wasn't the definition that came to my mind. What came to my mind was the FIRST definitin.

Definition TWO is definitely the context in which I'm using the word "expect."
You're exactly right. My use of the term is correctly applied. "You don't believe
it's likely to happen" is a meaning YOU are applying to it. I'm not saying THAT part.
Leave DEFINITION TWO as it's written, and you have the context of my use of
the word "expect."

ex·pect   /ɪkˈspɛkt/ Show Spelled[ik-spekt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to look forward to; regard as likely to happen; anticipate the occurrence or the coming of: I expect to read it. I expect him later. She expects that they will come.
2. to look for with reason or justification: We expect obedience.
3. Informal . to suppose or surmise; guess: I expect that you are tired from the trip.
4. to anticipate the birth of (one's child): Paul and Sylvia expect their second very soon.

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 02:21 PM
Predicting it would mean that I believe it DEFINITELY WILL happen.
That's a little too strong. I believe it's LIKELY they make post season,
because Bob Mcnair has taken action this offseason which makes me
think he's of the same opinion I am.

So, yes. I expect the Texans to make good on the goals of this season.
I just will not predict the outcome. I will predict Kubiak is gone if they turn
in another season like last year. Mcnair has just been too active for me to
believe otherwise.

I have faith in the will and talent of the team, but hardly any at all in Kubiak.
Kubiak will either have to evolve as a coach, or the team will have to win in
spite of HIS lack of growth as a HEAD COACH.

I'm cool with that.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 02:50 PM
If I expect my team to do well, I give them all the players they ask for.
I let my head coach select his team of coaches and players, and give
him FIVE FREAKING YEARS to let his selections get to their primes.

I, having given my head coach all he needed to meet my expectation,
know there should be no surprise when he's given a tour of the back door should
he fail this season.


So by your standards, Kubiak has at least through the 2011 season, since McNair didn't give Kubiak everything he wanted. Most people easily point out David Carr, so that's the only one I'll take credit for here. 2010 will be Kubiak's 4th season with "his" players.

But I'll also go out on a limb, and say Chester Pitts and Dunta Robinson were also forced on Kubiak. I honestly believe Andre Johnson & DD were part of the deal, but DD worked his way out, and Andre... well that's a no brainer.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 02:54 PM
So, yes. I expect the Texans to make good on the goals of this season.
I just will not predict the outcome. I will predict Kubiak is gone if they turn
in another season like last year.

So, in your opinion, Kubiak will be back in 2011?

Yes or no?

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 03:36 PM
So, in your opinion, Kubiak will be back in 2011?

Yes or no?

Nah. Sean Payton rebuilt his roster, made the playoffs within 2 years.

Five is enough with Kubiak. Bob has given Kubiak WAY MORE than
ANY coach could EVER expect.

Sometimes, I think you're just trying to get my goat. I ain't gone lie.
Some of your replies to me, piss me the hell off.
LOL.

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 04:15 PM
Nah. Sean Payton rebuilt his roster, made the playoffs within 2 years.

Five is enough with Kubiak. Bob has given Kubiak WAY MORE than
ANY coach could EVER expect.

Sometimes, I think you're just trying to get my goat. I ain't gone lie.
Some of your replies to me, piss me the hell off.
LOL.

Payton took a team that already had playoff talent but had been under performing (primarily because Aaron Brooks was so inconsistent) and got it to the playoffs in his first year.

A lot of those players on that team were already there. On the offense, 8 of the 14 starters were already with the team and 3 were drafted that year. The 3 starters that were brought in were Drew Brees, TE Mark Campbel who started 10 games, Jeff Faine who they got to replace LeCharles Bentley (who was considered a monster at the time).

And on the defense, 6 of the 13 starters were already on the team and 1 was picked up in the draft that year. (There are more than 11 starters because of changes during the season.) They did a great job on this side totally replacing their LB corp and bringing in DT Hollis Thomas.

He DID add a lot of quality starters. I'll give him that. Payton did a masterful job in bringing in some great players and giving that team what it needed. But he was starting with a lot more quality in place than Kubiak was: Deuce McAllister, Will Smith, Charles Grant, Devery Henderson, Joe Horn.

Deny it all you want but Kubiak started from a very unique position with regards to the talent and tradition of the team. The closest comparison would be the Browns* of 99 and I think they were given a more beneficial way into the league. And Casserly really had screwed up our roster.

If you look at the Saints of today, there are still guys playing from that original roster but there aren't on the Texans... except for Kris Brown and hopefully that's over, too.

* Note that the Browns have been to the playoffs once in the decade since they've been back in the league and have had 2 winning seasons. Sure, they got to the playoffs sooner than we did but that was a fluke. I like to think we're in a better position with this team.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 04:55 PM
Nah.

So you don't expect this team to make the play-offs?

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 04:56 PM
Payton took a team that already had playoff talent but had been under performing (primarily because Aaron Brooks was so inconsistent) and got it to the playoffs in his first year.


That teams was also in the play-offs despite Brooks in two of the four years prior to Payton taking over, and was one of a few teams that could consistently beat the Greatest show on turf.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 05:00 PM
Deny it all you want but Kubiak started from a very unique position with regards to the talent and tradition of the team. The closest comparison would be the Browns* of 99 and I think they were given a more beneficial way into the league. And Casserly really had screwed up our roster.


I would love for anyone to name one coach who took over a team with 4 consecutive losing seasons (we had never even been to 8-8 before Kubiak) who got to the play-offs in 4 years or less.

mattieuk
08-28-2010, 05:05 PM
Definition TWO is definitely the context in which I'm using the word "expect."
You're exactly right. My use of the term is correctly applied. "You don't believe
it's likely to happen" is a meaning YOU are applying to it. I'm not saying THAT part.
Leave DEFINITION TWO as it's written, and you have the context of my use of
the word "expect."

My goodness. See what the period our last and first regular season games does to people.

Roll on week one!

J_R
08-28-2010, 05:05 PM
That teams was also in the play-offs despite Brooks in two of the four years prior to Payton taking over, and was one of a few teams that could consistently beat the Greatest show on turf.

Prior to 2006, their last playoff appearance was in 2000.

ChampionTexan
08-28-2010, 05:08 PM
That teams was also in the play-offs despite Brooks in two of the four years prior to Payton taking over, and was one of a few teams that could consistently beat the Greatest show on turf.

The last time the Saints made the playoffs prior to Payton coming on board was in 2000. The last time prior to that was 1992 under Jim Mora.

Their records during the four years prior to Payton were '02:9-7 (no playoffs), '03:8-8 '04:8-8, and '05:3-13.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 05:12 PM
Prior to 2006, their last playoff appearance was in 2000.

You're correct. I knew better to go there based on my memory.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 05:16 PM
The last time the Saints made the playoffs prior to Payton coming on board was in 2000. The last time prior to that was 1992 under Jim Mora.

Their records during the four years prior to Payton were '02:9-7 (no playoffs), '03:8-8 '04:8-8, and '05:3-13.

So in your opinion, do you think that team had the talent to get to the play-offs or not?


(thank you for correcting me, I'm not trying to make light of my error, but I addressed it in another post.)

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 05:18 PM
Definition TWO is definitely the context in which I'm using the word "expect."
You're exactly right. My use of the term is correctly applied. "You don't believe
it's likely to happen" is a meaning YOU are applying to it. I'm not saying THAT part.
Leave DEFINITION TWO as it's written, and you have the context of my use of
the word "expect."

Your expection then, is based on the time Kubiak has been head coach, correct?

It has nothing to do with how good, or not good this team is, right?

J_R
08-28-2010, 05:29 PM
I would love for anyone to name one coach who took over a team with 4 consecutive losing seasons (we had never even been to 8-8 before Kubiak) who got to the play-offs in 4 years or less.

Ken Whisenhunt
Jim Haslett
Dick Vermeil(Rams)
Tony Dungy(Bucs)
Glanville(Oilers)

Singletary could be added if he does it within next 2 years. Also some of the guys listed above may or may not fit description. Some of them had losing seasons of their own in their first year or two(with prior losing season) but yes, had gotten to the playoffs in 4 years in less.

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 05:30 PM
Your expection then, is based on the time Kubiak has been head coach, correct?

It has nothing to do with how good, or not good this team is, right?

Seems to me, you're cheering for Kubiak MORE than you are for the Texans.

It's your right to do so.

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 05:33 PM
I would love for anyone to name one coach who took over a team with 4 consecutive losing seasons (we had never even been to 8-8 before Kubiak) who got to the play-offs in 4 years or less.

In 1992, Bobby Ross took over the Chargers who'd been 6-10, 6-10, 6-10, and 4-12 before he got there. He turned that team into an 11-5 team and took them to the playoffs. That's pretty impressive.

Parcells ALMOST did that with the Cowboys. It was only 3 consecutive losing seasons, however. When Parcells was with the Patriots, they'd had 4 consecutive losing seasons and then a losing season under him before he took them to the playoffs. When Parcells took over the Jets, they'd had 3 consecutive losing seasons and he turned them around to a 9-7 team his first year, but they missed the playoffs.

Fassel took the Giants to the playoffs his first year there after 2 consecutive losing seasons before he got there.

Tony Dungy came to a Buccaneer team that had 13 consecutive losing seasons and in 2 seasons had them at 10-6 and in the playoffs. But it took him a season.

Most coaches take a year to be able to turn it around.

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 05:35 PM
Ken Whisenhunt
Jim Haslett
Dick Vermeil(Rams)
Tony Dungy(Bucs)
Glanville(Oilers)

Singletary could be added if he does it within next 2 years. Also some of the guys listed above may or may not fit description. Some of them had losing seasons of their own in their first year or two(with prior losing season) but yes, had gotten to the playoffs in 4 years in less.

Ooops, dammit, I missed Haslett and the saints.

But the rest of these guys didn't make it. Dungy had a losing season before turning it around. So did Glanville. Vermiel had 2 losing seasons before turning it around.

J_R
08-28-2010, 05:40 PM
Ooops, dammit, I missed Haslett and the saints.

But the rest of these guys didn't make it. Dungy had a losing season before turning it around. So did Glanville. Vermiel had 2 losing seasons before turning it around.

You're right. Which I mentioned they may not qualify because they had some losing season themselves before turning around in 4 yrs or less. But agree overall on your previous post/point


Most coaches take a year to be able to turn it around.

The Pencil Neck
08-28-2010, 05:42 PM
You're right. Which I mentioned they may not qualify because they had some losing season themselves before turning around in 4 yrs or less. But agree overall on your previous post/point

Sorry, my bad. I skipped over that part.

J_R
08-28-2010, 05:46 PM
No worries, it's all good:highfive:

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 06:38 PM
Ooops, dammit, I missed Haslett and the saints.

But the rest of these guys didn't make it. Dungy had a losing season before turning it around. So did Glanville. Vermiel had 2 losing seasons before turning it around.

That doesn't matter. The criteria was 4 years. All those guys he listed turned their teams around in 4 years.

Kubiak came to the Texans after 4 consecutive losing seasons. Those are all good comparisons for Kubiak.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 06:39 PM
Haslett, I always thought was a good coach.

I thought he would get another shot after the Saints implosion. If you've got a GM to team with Haslett, I think you'll have a good combination.

J_R
08-28-2010, 06:47 PM
I know you can't go solely off record(or can you?!) but saying so, Haslett was just about average, maybe a little above average. Only 2 winning seasons(though 1 playoff appearance in 2000, first since '92 for NO), a couple of 8-8s, a 7-9, and a 3-13 in which he got ax. 45-51 with New Orleans. 2-10 in an interm role with STL. Let's see what he does or can do with Washington's D.

thunderkyss
08-28-2010, 06:50 PM
Seems to me, you're cheering for Kubiak MORE than you are for the Texans.

It's your right to do so.

I root for Kubiak, because I like what he has done for this team, and it ticks me off to high heaven, when people ignore the good things that he has done.

We call him a head coach, but he has been doing more than that since he's been here. He's more like a VP of football operations. Rick Smith is here because of Kubiak. This franchise's turnaround has been because of Kubiak.

I've always thought Parcell's 4 years was the standard. Sure there have been some that have done it quicker (circumstances have been different). But if Parcells can turn around a loser in 4 years, and Parcells is a hall of fame coach, I'm going to give Kubiak 4 years.

If it takes 5, fine. As long as there has been consistent improvement along the way. And getting major contribution from late round flyers (Anderson, OD, Diles, Jacoby, Studdard, McCain, Casey, Barber) is a big plus. (And Nolan may take over at FS).

This team isn't good, it's freak'n awesome, & that's not in spite of Gary Kubiak.

ChampionTexan
08-28-2010, 07:02 PM
Haslett, I always thought was a good coach.

I thought he would get another shot after the Saints implosion. If you've got a GM to team with Haslett, I think you'll have a good combination.

Haslett's problem may be less his head coaching tenure with the Saints, and more that his next gig was DC for the Rams. It's not exactly like he immediately went out and proved his coaching credentials after being fired.

And to your previous question for me, I'm not arguing your point - just the accuracy of your statement.

But the answer is no - I don't think they (the pre-Payton) Saints had the talent to make the playoffs because their QB(s) sucked. I think the presence of a top-caliber QB is the single biggest factor in making or not making the playoffs in the NFL.

DexmanC
08-28-2010, 07:49 PM
This team isn't good, it's freak'n awesome, & that's not in spite of Gary Kubiak.

You ought to trademark that line. It gave me a good chuckle.

Let's go 2010.

thunderkyss
08-29-2010, 03:37 PM
So, what did last night tell me??

1) The Coaches obviously were not happy with the effort of the Saints game. "It's the preseason" crowd were wrong.

2) They looked more like they did in the regular season. That first tackle by Diles behind the LOS, looked very similar to the penetrating defense we fell in love with from 2009. "It's the preseason" crowd was right.

3) I saw a 3 man rush get to Romo, after coverage made it difficult to find an open receiver. He escaped, coverage broke down & he found an open receiver, but I still believe this looks promising. If our pass defense makes the same kind of jump & improvement as our run D, we'll have an elite defense. I don't think anyone saw this coming.

4) Jerry Jones didn't look at all happy, preseason or not.

DexmanC
08-29-2010, 03:43 PM
So, what did last night tell me??

1) The Coaches obviously were not happy with the effort of the Saints game. "It's the preseason" crowd were wrong.

2) They looked more like they did in the regular season. That first tackle by Diles behind the LOS, looked very similar to the penetrating defense we fell in love with from 2009. "It's the preseason" crowd was right.

3) I saw a 3 man rush get to Romo, after coverage made it difficult to find an open receiver. He escaped, coverage broke down & he found an open receiver, but I still believe this looks promising. If our pass defense makes the same kind of jump & improvement as our run D, we'll have an elite defense. I don't think anyone saw this coming.

4) Jerry Jones didn't look at all happy, preseason or not.

Good observations. The next test for the Texans will be the first four
games. In past seasons, concentration would wane, and they'd get up
for one game, down for the other. Other times, adversity would hit, and
they'd go into the tank. This season, the team STARTS with adversity
(No Tate, no Cushing). I'm anxious to see how this squad is able to
keep it pushing. On a talent level, they are equal to their opponents.

The test of this team will be their maturity.

thunderkyss
08-29-2010, 03:45 PM
The test of this team will be their maturity.

Exactly.

thunderkyss
08-29-2010, 11:11 PM
Singletary could be added if he does it within next 2 years. Also some of the guys listed above may or may not fit description. Some of them had losing seasons of their own in their first year or two(with prior losing season) but yes, had gotten to the playoffs in 4 years in less.

That would be a good comparison. The 49ers haven't been 8-8 or better since 2002 (10-6). Only difference is that Mike Nolan has been stacking that team with good talent before Singeltary got there. Takeo Spikes, Manny Lawson, Patrick Willis, Nate Clements (??)... But still, that perennial loser mentality, that mediocre mindset will have to be overcome.

Most people think Singeltary has already overcome that mediocre mindset.

DexmanC
08-29-2010, 11:16 PM
That would be a good comparison. The 49ers haven't been 8-8 or better since 2002 (10-6). Only difference is that Mike Nolan has been stacking that team with good talent before Singeltary got there. Takeo Spikes, Manny Lawson, Patrick Willis, Nate Clements (??)... But still, that perennial loser mentality, that mediocre mindset will have to be overcome.

Most people think Singeltary has already overcome that mediocre mindset.

I think the 49ers and Raiders are bound to be "surprise" teams of 2010. Both
were a decent quarterback away from respectability. The Raiders have
Jason Campbell, and the Niners are still searching for one (Not sold on Smith).
I'll give Nolan credit for stacking the defense, but the offense is a year or
two away from having sufficient talent.

thunderkyss
08-30-2010, 12:11 AM
I think the 49ers and Raiders are bound to be "surprise" teams of 2010. Both
were a decent quarterback away from respectability. The Raiders have
Jason Campbell, and the Niners are still searching for one (Not sold on Smith).
I'll give Nolan credit for stacking the defense, but the offense is a year or
two away from having sufficient talent.

I hear what you're saying. Joe Staley, Chilo Rachal, Iupati, Vernon Davis, Frank Gore, Crabtree...

At least a year away.

:kitten: