PDA

View Full Version : Kubiak: "It's time for somebody else to win the AFC South"


Lucky
08-31-2010, 11:03 PM
Selected quotes from the Texans team luncheon (http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=6319) today:

"It's time for somebody else to win the AFC South, and we believe we have the team that can do it," said Kubiak, who's entering his fifth season as Texans head coach.

"Expectations are high," Kubiak said. "I know they're huge around the city, everywhere I go. I know they're huge in this room. All I can tell you is, they're even higher for us. We expect – we used to talk about wanting to do things. Now, as a team, we talk about expecting to do things. And we expect to be a playoff team. That's our goal."

"But also, we know – I know as a coach, we know as coaches, our players know – that the difference between winning and losing is so small. If you're not on, you can get beat any week. But if you're on, we can beat anybody. And it's my job to make sure that we're on."

I agree with pretty much everything Kubiak said. It is time for this team to win the AFC South. And it's Kubiak's job to make that happen. There's no reason to aim low for a wildcard.

Texan_Bill
08-31-2010, 11:07 PM
""It's time for somebody else to win the AFC South"

Do it!!

http://28.media.tumblr.com/wj9Eqnxmgk38b9txgvsOcH7Zo1_250.gif

Do it!!!

GP
08-31-2010, 11:07 PM
This is where he cements himself for a good 10 years here, at least, or he goats himself right out of town by the end of the season.

I always go back and forth with how I think it's going to end up for him, so I guess this season we'll just sit and watch it unfold before us.

If we hammer the Colts the first game...at home in Reliant...man, we could go on a roll with that sort of momentum. I just want to see Kubiak finally dominate his divisional foes. Wreck they asses, Gary.

Carr Bombed
08-31-2010, 11:08 PM
Finally someone says it.

That's all I wanted to hear... Anything less is a failure.

Carr Bombed
08-31-2010, 11:10 PM
Now if the players care for him as much as they say they do........they'll have their coach's back. His job is basically in their hands.

imatexan
09-01-2010, 12:04 AM
Finally someone says it.

That's all I wanted to hear... Anything less is a failure.

Ehh I will take the playoffs in any form and a playoff win over a division crown.

Buttttt the AFC South champs should be the goal!

Norg
09-01-2010, 12:07 AM
wk1 Colts-W .. i think the superbowl hangover continues its streak and we win a fairly easy divison game at home

wk2 @WAS-W call me crazy but this game will be much harder then wk 1 people saying awww mcnabb wont gel yet by this point well they will have gelled enough for us to barley get and win by a FG

wk3 DAL- no fluke we crush the Cowgirls at home and by this point the media buzz around the texans will be huge

wk4 raiders - TBA i think the raiders will be a much tougher team to face then dallas i really dont know who will win this one

so yeah im thinking we go 3-1 either lose to Dallas or the Raiders

BigBull17
09-01-2010, 07:28 AM
wk1 Colts-W .. i think the superbowl hangover continues its streak and we win a fairly easy divison game at home

wk2 @WAS-W call me crazy but this game will be much harder then wk 1 people saying awww mcnabb wont gel yet by this point well they will have gelled enough for us to barley get and win by a FG

wk3 DAL- no fluke we crush the Cowgirls at home and by this point the media buzz around the texans will be huge

wk4 raiders - TBA i think the raiders will be a much tougher team to face then dallas i really dont know who will win this one

so yeah im thinking we go 3-1 either lose to Dallas or the Raiders

I think Oakland may be pretty damn good. Their D is going to be lights out, but Jason Cambell is NOT their savior.

Malloy
09-01-2010, 07:59 AM
I think Oakland may be pretty damn good. Their D is going to be lights out, but Jason Cambell is NOT their savior.

Cambell may end up functioning like VY, 'manage stuff and try not to throw away the victory'-kinda stuff. If their D is indeed as nasty as it may seem, perhaps they won't NEED a MVP QB?

J_R
09-01-2010, 08:02 AM
wk1 Colts-W .. i think the superbowl hangover continues its streak and we win a fairly easy divison game at home

wk2 @WAS-W call me crazy but this game will be much harder then wk 1 people saying awww mcnabb wont gel yet by this point well they will have gelled enough for us to barley get and win by a FG

wk3 DAL- no fluke we crush the Cowgirls at home and by this point the media buzz around the texans will be huge

wk4 raiders - TBA i think the raiders will be a much tougher team to face then dallas i really dont know who will win this one

so yeah im thinking we go 3-1 either lose to Dallas or the Raiders

You think so? Could be McNabb's first game

Indy Skinnz
09-01-2010, 08:06 AM
wk1 Colts-W .. i think the superbowl hangover continues its streak and we win a fairly easy divison game at home

wk2 @WAS-W call me crazy but this game will be much harder then wk 1 people saying awww mcnabb wont gel yet by this point well they will have gelled enough for us to barley get and win by a FG

wk3 DAL- no fluke we crush the Cowgirls at home and by this point the media buzz around the texans will be huge

wk4 raiders - TBA i think the raiders will be a much tougher team to face then dallas i really dont know who will win this one

so yeah im thinking we go 3-1 either lose to Dallas or the Raiders

This Super Bowl hangover you mention, has any of those teams ever been QB'd by Peyton Manning?

To clarify, there is every chance that Houston wins this upcoming game and if they do, it will not be due to some post Super Bowl fog that the Colts are in. To me that seems like you are selling the Texans short if you are counting on something mystical like that to help them beat the Colts.

TimeKiller
09-01-2010, 08:08 AM
It's not time for somebody else to win AFCS....it's time for THE TEXANS to win it.

BorrowMe
09-01-2010, 08:38 AM
We'll beat the colts in week 1 because we finally have a consistent running game and a CB who never gets burned for those long third down conversions

Mr teX
09-01-2010, 08:44 AM
All i really care about is making the playoffs and putting up a decent record in the division. However that happens i'm fine with.

J_R
09-01-2010, 08:51 AM
Kubiak: "It's time for somebody else to win the AFC South"

Talk is great. Prove your team is that "somebody else"!

Mr teX
09-01-2010, 08:54 AM
This is good though..I've never heard kubes come out & talk like this about any of his previous teams...maybe he's tired of falling on the sword & finally ready to have the "kids" own up to thier performance on the field..

Dutchrudder
09-01-2010, 09:02 AM
This Super Bowl hangover you mention, has any of those teams ever been QB'd by Peyton Manning?

To clarify, there is every chance that Houston wins this upcoming game and if they do, it will not be due to some post Super Bowl fog that the Colts are in. To me that seems like you are selling the Texans short if you are counting on something mystical like that to help them beat the Colts.

The Colts went to the Super bowl in 2006 and won, then started the 2007 season with 7 wins in a row and ended 13-3 on the season. So yeah, if anything is wrong with the Colts it will be issues with their preparedness, not some mystical football hangover.

Indy Skinnz
09-01-2010, 09:08 AM
We'll beat the colts in week 1 because we finally have a consistent running game and a CB who never gets burned for those long third down conversions

Those are both assumptions that have not come close to proven true.

Marcus
09-01-2010, 09:19 AM
Kubiak's statements are very significant, given the fact that he's never made them in previous seasons. In fact, up until now, he was saying, always in response to questions, that he believed that they were "a draft or two" away from making the playoffs.

I know in the previous two seasons, fans and sports columnists alike "expected" the team to make the playoffs.

But this year, HE expects it.

GP
09-01-2010, 10:13 AM
Those are both assumptions that have not come close to proven true.

Cue the Colts fan in 3...2...1........

Thanks for letting us know. Be sure to stop by over the next 3-5 years when your team is no longer the ruler of the AFC South.

You do know that these things are cyclical, in terms of a team being dominant for a period of many years and then eventually fading into the background.

Every year, Manning gets a year older. The body gets worn down from the previous season. Tick, tock.....

False Start
09-01-2010, 10:17 AM
Glad to hear Kubiak has that much confidence in this squad. Now, lets see them go out there and back those words up. :texflag:

houstonspartan
09-01-2010, 10:19 AM
Wow. We've never heard Kubiak talk like this before. Clear, direct, to-the-point. Impressive.

Texan_Bill
09-01-2010, 10:22 AM
Cue the Colts fan in 3...2...1........

Thanks for letting us know. Be sure to stop by over the next 3-5 years when your team is no longer the ruler of the AFC South.

You do know that these things are cyclical, in terms of a team being dominant for a period of many years and then eventually fading into the background.

Every year, Manning gets a year older. The body gets worn down from the previous season. Tick, tock.....

I reject your reality!



Signed,

Brett Favre, George Blanda


Seriously though, what will keep Manning playing for a long time to come is the fact that be barely gets touched. Even when he gets sacked, it's either him taking a dive (to avoid the hit) or sacks where he gets drug to the ground. I'm hard pressed to remember (if ever) him taking hard shots.

DexmanC
09-01-2010, 10:25 AM
Quarterbacks with quick triggers tend to last longer, because the
ball is usually gone before you can get into their ZIP CODE.

I've seen Peyton throw a ball to a spot on the field WAY BEFORE his
receiver has even come out of their break. He's one of those dudes
that will play as long as he wants.

thunderkyss
09-01-2010, 10:57 AM
It's not time for somebody else to win AFCS....it's time for THE TEXANS to win it.

Agreed

TheCD
09-01-2010, 11:00 AM
This is good though..I've never heard kubes come out & talk like this about any of his previous teams...maybe he's tired of falling on the sword & finally ready to have the "kids" own up to thier performance on the field..


He finally has "his team" as good as it should be. I'm not making excuses for past failings, but I am a firm believer in giving a coach 5 years to build his team.

This is year 5. There are no excuses (short of losing every star player we have), and Kubiak knows that if he can't do it now (at least make the playoffs), it will never get done.

I have held off judgement of Kubiak as a coach until this season. All criticism/praise that he gets is well-deserved. As he said himself...the team has the talent, it's his job to assure they play to that level.

thunderkyss
09-01-2010, 11:02 AM
He finally has "his team" as good as it should be. I'm not making excuses for past failings, but I am a firm believer in giving a coach 5 years to build his team.


5 years seems long to me.

What do you base 5 years on?

HJam72
09-01-2010, 11:03 AM
Well, I've been judging him for the last 4 years and I intend to lay off for a change. This year, everything is Ron Dayne's fault. :roast:

Dan B.
09-01-2010, 11:06 AM
This Super Bowl hangover you mention, has any of those teams ever been QB'd by Peyton Manning?

To clarify, there is every chance that Houston wins this upcoming game and if they do, it will not be due to some post Super Bowl fog that the Colts are in. To me that seems like you are selling the Texans short if you are counting on something mystical like that to help them beat the Colts.

In their first game after winning the 2007 Super Bowl over the Bears, Manning led the Colts over the Saints 41-10. Not much of a hangover evident there.

I agree with your second paragraph. If the Texans beat the Colts, it will be because we were better than them. Peyton will come to play regardless.

JB
09-01-2010, 11:13 AM
The mystical "hangover" is about the lackluster seasons that the losing team in the SB usually seems to have. Not the winning team. Don't compare the SB champs of 07 to the losers of last year.

TheCD
09-01-2010, 11:14 AM
5 years seems long to me.

What do you base 5 years on?


I admit, 5 years is a more traditional length of time. It is based on the idea of building through the draft, replacing old players, bringing in the right mix of coaches, and coaching the system to the players properly. Think of it more as the way things were more commonly done before the advent of FA.

Dan B.
09-01-2010, 11:24 AM
The mystical "hangover" is about the lackluster seasons that the losing team in the SB usually seems to have. Not the winning team. Don't compare the SB champs of 07 to the losers of last year.

I'm no Colts fan, but I think it's a lot more accurate to compare the 2006 Colts to the 2009 Colts than it is to compare them to the Bears, Saints, Cards, and Seahawks.

The reason these teams suffered a hangover the next year is because they came from nowhere to get to the game in the first place. Though the Saints did manage to address problems and seem to have established a place among the NFL's elite, the others shortly returned to the obscurity from whence they came.

On the other hand the Colts have won 6 of 8 division titles since the AFC South was formed. They finished one game behind Tennessee in each of the other two years, and were a wild card team both times. Their track record is nothing like the other losing Super Bowl teams. It's more akin to the Pats losing their perfect season but going 11-5 without Brady the next year. If Indy loses Manning then they may have the same fate, but that would be due to an injury to their best player, not a hangover.

Thorn
09-01-2010, 11:56 AM
At this time the Colts are the class of the AFC South, and until someone beats them up it'll stay that way. I hope the Texans are for real, but they've screwed with my head to many times in the past for me to be jumping onto any bandwagons just yet.

I just hope this is the year for the Texans. They are fielding the most talent they've ever had, but also playing the hardest schedule in the league. We shall see what we shall see soon enough. I actually love playing the Colts in the 1st game of the season, it gives us a good idea of where the team is at.

Indy Skinnz
09-01-2010, 12:04 PM
Cue the Colts fan in 3...2...1........

Thanks for letting us know. Be sure to stop by over the next 3-5 years when your team is no longer the ruler of the AFC South.

You do know that these things are cyclical, in terms of a team being dominant for a period of many years and then eventually fading into the background.

Every year, Manning gets a year older. The body gets worn down from the previous season. Tick, tock.....

There is a brilliant post. Thanks for the insight. I simply responded to a post that stated as fact something which is not.

Is the last decade a cycle?

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 12:06 PM
This is where he cements himself for a good 10 years here, at least, or he goats himself right out of town by the end of the season.



Cements himself for 10 years for winning the division in his 5th season? I don't think so. No coach should get a long leash like that unless they're consistently successful like Fisher and Cowher,and BB have been. If he's in the post season for multiple years and going deep into the playoffs then I can understand that possibly. I don't believe in giving coaches long leashes like that because of one year's success. Hell, Lovie Smith went to the SB a few years ago and is now in the Hot Seat and he should be as well.

Dutchrudder
09-01-2010, 12:11 PM
Kubiak's statements are very significant, given the fact that he's never made them in previous seasons. In fact, up until now, he was saying, always in response to questions, that he believed that they were "a draft or two" away from making the playoffs.

I know in the previous two seasons, fans and sports columnists alike "expected" the team to make the playoffs.

But this year, HE expects it.

Of course he expects it. Nobody in the NFL expects to lose and become the QB coach at your alma mater instead.

Talk is cheap, lets see it on the field next Sunday.

Hervoyel
09-01-2010, 12:11 PM
I think that what Gary is doing here is significant because he seems to be telling the world that he's finally got what he needs in place. from 6-10 to 9-7 he talked the talk... but just barely. He always seemed to be in the process of trying to get somewhere and spoke like it. There has always been a glaring weakness somewhere on this team and he has always addressed the media like he was well aware of it. It was always the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to acknowledge.

Now I'm not saying that this team doesn't have weaknesses and I don't think Kubiak is suggesting this either. I think instead he knows that he's got goals to meet this year or he can truly find himself out of a job for the first time since he got here. I also think that he feels confident enough in his 5 drafts and the subsequent years of experience to believe that he's ready to start winning regularly. By saying these things he's telling his players that he believes they're ready to do what they were brought here to do and that he's ready to live (or die) with the results. I think he's asking them to step up and back his words up.

If we win the first game of the season great, fantastic even. We'll do it because we beat the Colts and go on to the next game. I'm not afraid of the Texans coming out flat or too tightly wound. I'm not afraid of losing another one to Peyton. I'm afraid of them coming out, beating Indy, and then kicking back and enjoying their successful "season". That's what young, talented teams do until they learn how to be consistent which is a whole hell of a lot harder to do than to learn how to win. Everybody (except Detroit that one year) wins here and there. Consistent winning is done by only a handful of teams in the league. If it was easy then everybody would be 8-8 every year.

thunderkyss
09-01-2010, 12:14 PM
I just hope this is the year for the Texans. They are fielding the most talent they've ever had, but also playing the hardest schedule in the league.

Our schedule, and the Colts schedule are identical with the exception of 4 games. They play the Patriots and the Bengals, we play the Jets and the Ravens... their schedule there, is equally as tough as ours.

The other two games, are the games we play each other. There schedule looks weaker, because they play a 9 win team twice, and we play a 13 win team twice.

If the Colts truly are the class of the AFC South, and we think we are on par with them... their chances of winning the division is equally as steep as ours.

Wolf6151
09-01-2010, 12:19 PM
Coach Kubiak, talk is cheap either back it up or shut up and get out of town. No more excuses.

HJam72
09-01-2010, 12:24 PM
That's really not fair. The Colts should have to play themselves twice.

OzzO
09-01-2010, 12:36 PM
...No coach should get a long leash like that unless they're consistently successful like Fisher and Cowher,and BB have been. ....

Fisher - first winning season year 5 (if you count his first half year) then winning / losing seasons it seems at 2-3 years intervals.

Cowher - started out with six winning seasons, then went into the 2-3 year up and down interval as well.

Belichick - first winning season year 5 then up/down yearly interval till he straightened it out in year 9 and has had a yearly winning season since.

pro-football-reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/)

Out of the group you mentioned, Cowher was the only one starting strong out the gate (but then went cyclical). So - maybe doesn't cement himeself for 10 years, but at least steps up to his contract extension he just got to prove himself once again after this season.

Not getting into an arguement, just adding on for reference.

Double Barrel
09-01-2010, 12:40 PM
Good to see the head coach talking the talk. Now we just need to see the team walk the walk as a result.

2slik4u
09-01-2010, 12:47 PM
This Super Bowl hangover you mention, has any of those teams ever been QB'd by Peyton Manning?

To clarify, there is every chance that Houston wins this upcoming game and if they do, it will not be due to some post Super Bowl fog that the Colts are in. To me that seems like you are selling the Texans short if you are counting on something mystical like that to help them beat the Colts.

Agreed, those "super bowl hangovers" or "madden curse" issues dont affect a Manning QB'd team. If we win this game, its because we simply out played Manning and the Colts.

I think we have what it takes to beat any team in the NFL, the question is if we play 4 quarters or not. As we know with the Colts, we need to tell ourselves that we are going to play six quarters so we dont quit midway in the fourth.

Whatever it takes, if we have the lead, we need to put our foot on their throat and stomp em out.

Kill em all, let the paramedics sort em out.

Rey
09-01-2010, 12:59 PM
I would like to see a coach keep his job as long as it does not appear that they are in over their heads. I don't have any specific numbers or a formula besides consistency.

But if a team looks good and is consistently improving/playing in winnable games then I think that a coach should stay.

Last year there were times that the team just played pitifully. I don't always correlate pitiful play to poor coaching, but there were definitely times when Kubiak did not do the best coaching job. He has several things that he has to work on, and by him being a first time head coach taking over a team that lacked in every department from talent, to know how, to heart--I think he has done a pretty good job.

I think that some coaches take over teams that are a little more talented, but their players help overshadow their downfalls or faults.

Gruden is definitely a good coach, but some unfortunate moves in Tampa led to his demise + all the vets that made the team good got old. Plus, he took over a really good team in Tampa when they won the superbowl (although they beat the team he had coached the previous year).

But my point is that I don't always equate the record or poor play on the field to the coach. Just like I don't always point to good play on the field as being a product of the head coach. I do look at a teams consistency as being a product of the coach.

If your team consistently does something well, or poorly then that is on the coaches. If your team fluctuates in how they perform on any given Sunday then I'm more apt to look at the players.

Not at one point have I thought Kubes should be fired. Why? Because the team has consistently improved since he's been here. The offense has gotten light years better and they seem consistent in producing. The defense is a work in progress, but even they have consistently improved.

Kubiak definitely has his faults, I'm not shocked that he's not perfect. I'm not shocked that he has made some mistakes a long the way. But the guy is consistent in what he is about, he's consistent when he speaks and he's consistent in improving the talent and record of the team...As a fan of a team that was 2-14 not too long ago, I appreciate the hell out of that.

Whether or not Kubiak is able to get us to that next level of upper echelon teams has yet to be seen, but based on his results thus far, I am willing to have a little patience.

TheCD
09-01-2010, 01:03 PM
That's really not fair. The Colts should have to play themselves twice.

But then they'd pull manning in the 2nd to avoid an injury and back into the playoffs...:kitten:

El Tejano
09-01-2010, 01:03 PM
Fisher - first winning season year 5 (if you count his first half year) then winning / losing seasons it seems at 2-3 years intervals.

Cowher - started out with six winning seasons, then went into the 2-3 year up and down interval as well.

Belichick - first winning season year 5 then up/down yearly interval till he straightened it out in year 9 and has had a yearly winning season since.

pro-football-reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/)

Out of the group you mentioned, Cowher was the only one starting strong out the gate (but then went cyclical). So - maybe doesn't cement himeself for 10 years, but at least steps up to his contract extension he just got to prove himself once again after this season.

Not getting into an arguement, just adding on for reference.

I agree and all 3 of those teams have gone to the Super Bowl with two of them winning multiple Super Bowls.

Marcus
09-01-2010, 01:08 PM
I hope this isn't going to turn into another "how long should it take for a coach to make the playoffs" thing again. That's like a bottomless pit to me.

The point is that HE has NOW declared that THIS season is it.

Like GP said, if they go to the playoffs, he's here for 10 years, if they don't, then we have a new coach next year, and we all get to read 100 new threads about "how long it should take a coach to make the playoffs."

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 01:11 PM
Fisher - first winning season year 5 (if you count his first half year) then winning / losing seasons it seems at 2-3 years intervals.

Cowher - started out with six winning seasons, then went into the 2-3 year up and down interval as well.

Belichick - first winning season year 5 then up/down yearly interval till he straightened it out in year 9 and has had a yearly winning season since.

pro-football-reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/)

Out of the group you mentioned, Cowher was the only one starting strong out the gate (but then went cyclical). So - maybe doesn't cement himeself for 10 years, but at least steps up to his contract extension he just got to prove himself once again after this season.

Not getting into an arguement, just adding on for reference.

Yeah, I know about the history of these guys, and Kubes just got a two year extension. So, I'd say to see how he does the every next year. It seems to me like a lot of fans will be willing to crown this guy King though, if we finally make it to the playoffs. Now, what if we get to the first round and we play a competitive game, but we lose because of a bunch of monumental mistakes from clock management and stuff like that which could have been avoided. Then we go into the next season, make the playoffs again, and the same thing happens where it seems like the HC is screwing things up to where we could have potentially won?

There have been certain coaches that could get their teams to the post season, but would always choke games away. Jack Pardee was one of them. Now, I'm not saying that Kubes will be that way. Maybe we'll get to the playoffs this year and go all the way to the AFC championship and barely lose in a great game? Only time will tell. I just don't believe in giving any coach that long of a leash, because that's when they eventually lose the team and it all falls apart and guys end up leaving for other teams.

Hopefully we'll make the playoffs this year though and Kubes does a great job though.

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 01:12 PM
I hope this isn't going to turn into another "how long should it take for a coach to make the playoffs" thing again. That's like a bottomless pit to me.

The point is that HE has NOW declared that THIS season is it.

Like GP said, if they go to the playoffs, he's here for 10 years, if they don't, then we have a new coach next year, and we all get to read 100 new threads about "how long it should take a coach to make the playoffs."

So you agree that if a coach makes the playoffs for the first time in 5 years, that he should be kept around for the next 10 for that one accomplishment by itself? Those are some very low standards then if that's what you're suggesting.

Marcus
09-01-2010, 01:15 PM
Good to see the head coach talking the talk. Now we just need to see the team walk the walk as a result.

If they go to the playoffs, would he still be "milquetoast"? Just curious.

HOU-TEX
09-01-2010, 01:22 PM
Our schedule, and the Colts schedule are identical with the exception of 4 games. They play the Patriots and the Bengals, we play the Jets and the Ravens... their schedule there, is equally as tough as ours.

The other two games, are the games we play each other. There schedule looks weaker, because they play a 9 win team twice, and we play a 13 win team twice.

If the Colts truly are the class of the AFC South, and we think we are on par with them... their chances of winning the division is equally as steep as ours.

Hmm, we play two teams that have whooped our asses recently and they play two teams we've beaten lately. Might not look different on paper, but it's a bit different to me. I'd much rather play the Pats and Bengals

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 01:26 PM
If they go to the playoffs, would he still be "milquetoast"? Just curious.

No, but making the post season for the first time in 5 years doesn't all of a sudden grant him amnesty for ten years either. That's just nuts. How many coaches have made the post season once or twice and then had their teams completely fall off.

It seems that certain fans are just so tired of losing that making the post season would be like winning a SB, to where Kubes would become a Vince Lombardi around here. It would be great and I hope that happens, and if it does he'll certainly be back, but one playoff appearance certainly doesn't make someone a guy who should be around for ten years just based off of that. It would depend on what he did the year after that as well and how good the team looked after making the post season and losing. Would they be more hungry? Would they bounce back even better? Would they look like a team that is going to continually keep climbing or would they end up turning into a typical team that had decent success but then faltered afterward? All of those things would depend on whether he should stay around regardless if they make the playoffs just "this season."

DexmanC
09-01-2010, 01:28 PM
Hmm, we play two teams that have whooped our asses recently and they play two teams we've beaten lately. Might not look different on paper, but it's a bit different to me. I'd much rather play the Pats and Bengals

If you look a little further down the schedule, the Texans play like
7 or 8 teams we've NEVER beaten. Should the Houston Texans make
postseason, 2010 will be the year they do A LOT of what they've NEVER
done.

Arky
09-01-2010, 01:46 PM
Yeah, there was also the case of Tom Landry. I don't remember the exact numbers but he was in like year 4 or 5 ('64? '65?) and had yet to have a winning season There was much grumbling among the media and fanbase to have him run off. Schramm or Murchison (or both) responded by giving him a 10 year extension. It sent a message to the media and fanbase. Shortly after that, the Cowboys started their streak of 20 straight winning seasons. In this instance, they speculated that Landry was a winner and they were right. I know, different time, different era but just something else to consider....

thunderkyss
09-01-2010, 01:50 PM
Hmm, we play two teams that have whooped our asses recently and they play two teams we've beaten lately. Might not look different on paper, but it's a bit different to me. I'd much rather play the Pats and Bengals

I'm just talking about SOS, and W/Ls...

They're the freak'n Colts, so of course it is different.

Kulluminatii
09-01-2010, 01:59 PM
I think Oakland may be pretty damn good. Their D is going to be lights out, but Jason Cambell is NOT their savior.

Our run defense is incredibly poor. Then again, Seymour wasn't playing during the times we got blown up. Still, one defensive lineman isn't going to be able to help our safeties (mainly Huff) who can't seem to tackle half of the time.

I do think our d-line will be deadly once Seymour starts during the regular season. Out of all our draft picks I am really loving Lamarr Houston and I think he's going to have a hell of a season. Very happy we got him in the 2nd round :hurrah:.

When it comes to Jason Campbell, I can't really say what I expect of him. He's had so many different offensive coordinators that its hard to really gauge how good he is. I'm not expecting him to play as an elite QB this season, or ever, but I do expect him to at least give our team a chance at winning games. If he can move the chains and limit the 3 & outs to allow our D to catch a breath, we have a chance.

The game against the Texans will be very interesting. If the Raiders play like they have been so far, Slaton & Foster should be able to tear through our defense. I'm just hoping we can keep the passing game in check. If I'm not mistaken the Texans have a pretty weak o-line as well, so we should see a few sacks on both sides. Overall, I think this will be one helluva game :D.

infantrycak
09-01-2010, 02:07 PM
If I'm not mistaken the Texans have a pretty weak o-line as well, so we should see a few sacks on both sides.

The Texans had the 5th lowest sacks given up last year. That was with two back up guards playing. Now they did let Schaub get hit quite a few times.

Marcus
09-01-2010, 02:10 PM
So you agree that if a coach makes the playoffs for the first time in 5 years, that he should be kept around for the next 10 for that one accomplishment by itself? Those are some very low standards then if that's what you're suggesting.

Is that really what you think I'm suggesting? :facepalm:

Regardless of the fact that you and some others think that he shouldn't have taken 5 years to get to the playoffs, the other fact is that the team has improved every year he's been here. If he makes the playoffs, then he's a proven, successful NFL coach. That is the standard that you and everyone else makes.

If the team makes the playoffs this year, why wouldn't the team continue to improve? And if they didn't make the playoffs next year, why would you assume that it automatically be because of the coach?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply saying that if makes the playoffs, then the team is on the right track.

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 02:11 PM
The Texans had the 5th lowest sacks given up last year. That was with two back up guards playing. Now they did let Schaub get hit quite a few times.

The O line has definitely improved over the years, but I think they need to get better in run blocking this year. They struggled to open up nice holes last year to me

infantrycak
09-01-2010, 02:16 PM
The O line has definitely improved over the years, but I think they need to get better in run blocking this year. They struggled to open up nice holes last year to me

Sure that is a clear need but he was referring to pass blocking. They were better than average at that last year.

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 02:19 PM
Sure that is a clear need but he was referring to pass blocking. They were better than average at that last year.

Agreed. Our pass blocking looked damn good against the Cowboys great pass rush as well. I'm not to worried about the pass blocking this year. A little worried about the run blocking, but I think Foster is a lot better at finding the holes with his vision and timing for this scheme. Slaton was also part of the problem last year. Sometimes our O line would instantly look better at run blocking when Moats would get in there and hit the holes with decisiveness.

Marcus
09-01-2010, 02:24 PM
Where I said the "next 10 years", just replace that with "a little while longer".

I keep forgetting that this is the Internet, where no one can tell the difference between the the literal and figurative meaning of words and expressions.

"It's on me!".

The Pencil Neck
09-01-2010, 02:25 PM
Agreed. Our pass blocking looked damn good against the Cowboys great pass rush as well. I'm not to worried about the pass blocking this year. A little worried about the run blocking, but I think Foster is a lot better at finding the holes with his vision and timing for this scheme. Slaton was also part of the problem last year. Sometimes our O line would instantly look better at run blocking when Moats would get in there and hit the holes with decisiveness.

With two backup guards in there last year, I still felt (and iirc, Kubiak said) that Slaton was just not seeing and hitting the holes like he had been the year before. I expect our line to be better this year but I would expect the run game to improve just because of Foster reading and hitting the holes better. I think Jeremiah Johnson may even see the holes better than Slaton.

So I'm not too worried about our run game this year. I think it's going to be dramatically better than it was last year.

GP
09-01-2010, 02:31 PM
The Texans had the 5th lowest sacks given up last year. That was with two back up guards playing. Now they did let Schaub get hit quite a few times.

You guys want to look at a scary stat?

Look at the number of sacks Carr had in 2005 before Kubiak (that season we went 2-14), then look at Carr's sack total for the next season in 2006 which was Kubiak's first year as head coach. Then lastly, look at Schaub's first year as QB in 2007 and take a peek at his sack numbers.

David Carr in 2005: 68 sacks

David Carr in 2006 with Kubiak's offense installed: 41 sacks (27 fewer sacks from previous season!)

Matt Schaub in 2007: 16 sacks (52 fewer than Carr's '05 number and 25 fewer than Carr's '06 number)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kulluminatii
09-01-2010, 02:33 PM
The Texans had the 5th lowest sacks given up last year. That was with two back up guards playing. Now they did let Schaub get hit quite a few times.

Ah...well then, I'm expecting the Texans to win. Hopefully its a close game though with no injuries :D.

HOU-TEX
09-01-2010, 02:36 PM
With two backup guards in there last year, I still felt (and iirc, Kubiak said) that Slaton was just not seeing and hitting the holes like he had been the year before. I expect our line to be better this year but I would expect the run game to improve just because of Foster reading and hitting the holes better. I think Jeremiah Johnson may even see the holes better than Slaton.

So I'm not too worried about our run game this year. I think it's going to be dramatically better than it was last year.

I'm still a bit worried about it. I agree it will be better than last year, but after Foster, I just don't see much quality depth. It definitely wouldn't be as bad as if Schaub was to go down, but dadgum, it's not very promising.

hookinreds
09-01-2010, 02:52 PM
You guys want to look at a scary stat?

Look at the number of sacks Carr had in 2005 before Kubiak (that season we went 2-14), then look at Carr's sack total for the next season in 2006 which was Kubiak's first year as head coach. Then lastly, look at Schaub's first year as QB in 2007 and take a peek at his sack numbers.

David Carr in 2005: 68 sacks

David Carr in 2006 with Kubiak's offense installed: 41 sacks (27 fewer sacks from previous season!)

Matt Schaub in 2007: 16 sacks (52 fewer than Carr's '05 number and 25 fewer than Carr's '06 number)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

FIFY...now it's really WOW!!!!!!!

Marcus
09-01-2010, 02:59 PM
You guys want to look at a scary stat?

Look at the number of sacks Carr had in 2005 before Kubiak (that season we went 2-14), then look at Carr's sack total for the next season in 2006 which was Kubiak's first year as head coach. Then lastly, look at Schaub's first year as QB in 2007 and take a peek at his sack numbers.

David Carr in 2005: 68 sacks

David Carr in 2006 with Kubiak's offense installed: 41 sacks (27 fewer sacks from previous season!)

Matt Schaub in 2007: 16 sacks (52 fewer than Carr's '05 number and 11 fewer than Carr's '06 number)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some might say this is due to the improvement of the quality/cohesiveness of the offensive line. At least partly.

GP
09-01-2010, 03:00 PM
FIFY...now it's really WOW!!!!!!!

Yay math! I suck.

LOL. Was using the 27 difference instead of the other number. Sheesh...

Thanks for correcting it! I made the changes to my original post.

Texecutioner
09-01-2010, 03:05 PM
I'm still a bit worried about it. I agree it will be better than last year, but after Foster, I just don't see much quality depth. It definitely wouldn't be as bad as if Schaub was to go down, but dadgum, it's not very promising.

Yeah, I worry about the depth a lot. We had good depth going into the season with Foster, Slaton, and Tate, but now that Tate is gone and Slaton is nursing an injury like turf toe that lingers I'm very worried. RB's just get hurt to easily these days and you can never have enough of them. If Foster and Slaton both stay healthy though I think we'll be dramatically improved this year. I'm sold on Foster now, and Slaton will be a great 3rd down change of pace back.

GP
09-01-2010, 03:05 PM
Some might say this is due to the improvement of the quality/cohesiveness of the offensive line. At least partly.

If anything, it points to the total failure of the Capers-era offensive system.

Yes, as years progress we were thinning out expansion-era players in all areas, but I think the overall improvement is due to a new style of offense.

Carr, as bad as he is, still managed to really cut down the sacks in his first and only year as Kubiak's QB. Granted, IIRC, those were all check-downs to a RB and some very shallow/high-percentage pass routes (A curl, or screen, etc.) Remember that a lot of people on here showed that he wasn't hitting anything in the deeper, middle part of the field. It was almost always short and to the sideline(s).

Kubiak then began the process of thinning out Capers-era players.

HJam72
09-01-2010, 03:08 PM
There's still one we need to thin out. :pop:

HOU-TEX
09-01-2010, 03:22 PM
Yeah, I worry about the depth a lot. We had good depth going into the season with Foster, Slaton, and Tate, but now that Tate is gone and Slaton is nursing an injury like turf toe that lingers I'm very worried. RB's just get hurt to easily these days and you can never have enough of them. If Foster and Slaton both stay healthy though I think we'll be dramatically improved this year. I'm sold on Foster now, and Slaton will be a great 3rd down change of pace back.

I've been sold on Foster for quite some time now. I felt better going into camp at RB too, but now, it looks terrifying. Slaton still can't seem to find a hole, still has a possible fumbling issue and now he's got a toe issue. J.Johnson is a huge ?. Kubiak has a problem with his protections, which is a bad thing (see Chris Brown starting over everyone else last season). Henry appears to be what we were warned about, a workout warrior. The dude doesn't even bother looking for the hole. He just tries to run over whoever's in the way.

:praying: Please stay healthy, Foster!

Mr teX
09-01-2010, 03:34 PM
With two backup guards in there last year, I still felt (and iirc, Kubiak said) that Slaton was just not seeing and hitting the holes like he had been the year before. I expect our line to be better this year but I would expect the run game to improve just because of Foster reading and hitting the holes better. I think Jeremiah Johnson may even see the holes better than Slaton.

So I'm not too worried about our run game this year. I think it's going to be dramatically better than it was last year.

I don't think it was necessarily seeing the holes all the time with slaton though, he just wasn't patient enough sometimes imo.

Foster in contrast is better for the scheme imo b/c he's not as quick as slaton & he physically can't rush the development of the play as much. By no means am i comparing him to emmitt, but among many of the things that made him so great is that he was "slow to the hole but fast through it".

GP
09-01-2010, 03:36 PM
I've been sold on Foster for quite some time now. I felt better going into camp at RB too, but now, it looks terrifying. Slaton still can't seem to find a hole, still has a possible fumbling issue and now he's got a toe issue. J.Johnson is a huge ?. Kubiak has a problem with his protections, which is a bad thing (see Chris Brown starting over everyone else last season). Henry appears to be what we were warned about, a workout warrior. The dude doesn't even bother looking for the hole. He just tries to run over whoever's in the way.

:praying: Please stay healthy, Foster!

There was big run play vs. Cowboys where Jeremiah Johnson made a super-sweet cut against the grain and then proceeded to outrun people until several defenders had to gang tackle him (and he then gained about 5 more yards by dragging them).

I think it's obviously Foster at RB1, and I suspect at some point that Jeremiah ends up RB2, with Slaton the typical 3rd down guy and motioning out into the slot as a WR on 3rd downs.

GuerillaBlack
09-01-2010, 03:40 PM
You guys want to look at a scary stat?

Look at the number of sacks Carr had in 2005 before Kubiak (that season we went 2-14), then look at Carr's sack total for the next season in 2006 which was Kubiak's first year as head coach. Then lastly, look at Schaub's first year as QB in 2007 and take a peek at his sack numbers.

David Carr in 2005: 68 sacks

David Carr in 2006 with Kubiak's offense installed: 41 sacks (27 fewer sacks from previous season!)

Matt Schaub in 2007: 16 sacks (52 fewer than Carr's '05 number and 25 fewer than Carr's '06 number)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

For Schaub, he only played in eight games in 2007, IIRC.

HOU-TEX
09-01-2010, 03:42 PM
There was big run play vs. Cowboys where Jeremiah Johnson made a super-sweet cut against the grain and then proceeded to outrun people until several defenders had to gang tackle him (and he then gained about 5 more yards by dragging them).

I think it's obviously Foster at RB1, and I suspect at some point that Jeremiah ends up RB2, with Slaton the typical 3rd down guy and motioning out into the slot as a WR on 3rd downs.

I saw the run, but it's not enough to go into the season without a worry at the spot. I fully expect another RB will be brought in next week, or as early as the weekend.

JB
09-01-2010, 04:10 PM
I saw the run, but it's not enough to go into the season without a worry at the spot. I fully expect another RB will be brought in next week, or as early as the weekend.

I'm thinking they will wait until after week 1 before signing a vet. That way his entire year's salary is not guaranteed.

infantrycak
09-01-2010, 04:16 PM
For Schaub, he only played in eight games in 2007, IIRC.

Schaub played in 11 games in 2007. Houston gave up a total of 22 sacks for Schaub and Rosenfels.

b0ng
09-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Honestly, you really can't go into a season thinking you're going to have a 3 headed monster like the Giants did in 2007, 2008. I mean, injuries are going to kill your team no matter how good your depth is, and how many superbowl winners have been injured throughout their first stringers? Most playoff winners are the healthiest teams alive out of the season. Foster, Johnson and Slaton are going to be about par for depth around the league, and I imagine Smithiak is going to grab a cut vet once the rosters are pared down to 53. But even then, are we really going to carry 4 RB's on the active roster? It doesn't sound like Slaton is going to IR, and I doubt we keep Henry. So for the time being going into the season it sounds like Foster, Slaton and Johnson with hope that we don't get injured really anywhere on the offense or defense. I mean think about it, an injury that takes out any star caliber player on any team will severely hamper them.

Honestly, I'm more worried about CB and D-line depth. As much as everybody likes to make fun of Amobi or Cody, can you imagine what we'll be fielding if Mario, or Quin ends up on IR? Yeeeesh.

Double Barrel
09-01-2010, 05:31 PM
If they go to the playoffs, would he still be "milquetoast"? Just curious.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. IF IF IF...

Let the season pan out, and should they make it to the playoffs, then let's see how they represent.

Up to this point, milquetoast is just a description. It's nothing personal against the man himself, as Kubiak appears to be a nice guy. It's just an individual's perception of his coaching style. Wade Phillips is a bit milquetoast, and his team had made it to the playoffs. They finally won a playoff game after 13 years and did it in spite of Wade. Go figure.

It's just a word, man. You shouldn't let it bother you.

I hope this isn't going to turn into another "how long should it take for a coach to make the playoffs" thing again. That's like a bottomless pit to me.

The point is that HE has NOW declared that THIS season is it.

Like GP said, if they go to the playoffs, he's here for 10 years, if they don't, then we have a new coach next year, and we all get to read 100 new threads about "how long it should take a coach to make the playoffs."

10 years because of ONE play off appearance? No wonder milquetoast as a description gets your panties in a wad.

oh yeah, literal and figurative meaning of words and expressions and all that BS. :rolleyes:

DexmanC
09-01-2010, 05:37 PM
I gotta agree that the Europeanized spelling of "milk" to "milque"
does give it a sissified appearance.

"Milquetoast" is highly applicable to Kubiak's coaching style.
No one will tolerate his team going "space cadet" during this season.
They show up, and play, EVERY DOWN, of EVERY GAME.
As last year showed, even the FIRST game could have huge
implications on your season.

Texas T
09-01-2010, 05:54 PM
Ah...well then, I'm expecting the Texans to win. Hopefully its a close game though with no injuries :D.

Good luck to ya'll.
I'll be watching the game out here in NJ with a Raider's friend of mine.
Here's to no injuries on either side!:toast2:

CloakNNNdagger
09-01-2010, 06:31 PM
If they go to the playoffs, would he still be "milquetoast"? Just curious.

I've always heard the word used. It made sense that it would refer to a milk soaked slice of toast that would easily fall apart. But I wasn't really sure what it's origin was. Your post stimulated me to look it up.


The usual spelling is milquetoast, [not milk toast] but said the same way as your spelling. And the usual sense is that of a person who is timid or meek, unassertive. Such people may appear apathetic or unmotivated, but that’s not the reason for their being quiet.

It’s an eponym, named after a fictional cartoon character named Caspar Milquetoast, invented by the American illustrator Harold T Webster in 1924. The strip was called The Timid Soul and appeared every Sunday in the New York Herald Tribune up to his death in 1953. Mr Webster said that his character was “the man who speaks softly and gets hit with a big stick”.

The name is just a Frenchified respelling of the old American English term milk toast, an uninspiring, bland dish which was created from slices of buttered toast laid in a dish of milk, usually considered to be food for invalids. There’s an even older foodstuff, milksop, which was untoasted bread soaked in milk, likewise something suitable only for infants or the sick. From the thirteenth century on, milksop was a dismissive term for “an effeminate spiritless man or youth; one wanting in courage or manliness”, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it. Mr Milquetoast is in the same tradition.
LINK (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mil1.htm)

http://www.facebook.com/profile/pic.php?uid=AAAAAQAQMxgHlrBetmhivkcw4gQa9AAAAApbgr 9zbxaZS0e9h1Mz26fJ

Lucky
09-01-2010, 06:56 PM
The Texans had the 5th lowest sacks given up last year. That was with two back up guards playing. Now they did let Schaub get hit quite a few times.
I'm not knocking Schaub. At all. But, he does hold on to the ball longer than many QBs. As evidenced by Schaub's top 5 status in yards per pass.

If he makes the playoffs, then he's a proven, successful NFL coach. That is the standard that you and everyone else makes.
That's true. And it's silly to speculate past this season, anyway. This has to be the year.

I felt entering 2008 and 2009, that the Texans could be a wildcard team. I feel that this team should have higher aspirations. They may be young at certain positions. But, there are proven players in the prime of their career, as well. Andre Johnson, Matt Schaub, Duane Brown, Eric Winston, Owen Daniels, Mario Williams, DeMeco Ryans, Bernard Pollard. And by week 5, Brian Cushing. One of the very best defenders in this league. Make no mistake, the talent is here and Kubiak deserves his share of the credit for that. Now is the time to win. And win big.

thunderkyss
09-01-2010, 07:01 PM
I'm not knocking Schaub. At all. But, he does hold on to the ball longer than many QBs. As evidenced by Schaub's top 5 status in yards per pass.

Which only makes the job done by the Texans OL that much more remarkable.

I felt entering 2008 and 2009, that the Texans could be a wildcard team.

I honestly thought we would win the division.

DexmanC
09-01-2010, 07:15 PM
Which only makes the job done by the Texans OL that much more remarkable.


I honestly thought we would win the division.

If this team learns how to focus when times are GOOD, they can
win every game on its schedule. They get a big lead, and fall
asleep. They win three games in a row, then lose four in a row.
In 2010, the Texans have to be willing to destroy a team 59-0.

When they had a chance to blow out the Raiders last year,
they chose the second half to "get our running game on tape
." They knew the Raiders couldn't move the ball with Jamarcus,
and were willing to sit on the lead, trying to "FIX THE RUNNING GAME."

They got up BIG on the 49ers with the inept Shaun Hill running the
offense, got complacent, and Singletary switched to Alex Smith
at halftime. Texans almost lost that one with the attitude I mentioned
earlier. Smith was able to hit Vernon Davis with essentially the same
play three times to make the game WAAAY closer than it should have
been.

Killer Instinct. Does this team have it?

CloakNNNdagger
09-01-2010, 07:27 PM
I'm not knocking Schaub. At all. But, he does hold on to the ball longer than many QBs. As evidenced by Schaub's top 5 status in yards per pass.

That's true. And it's silly to speculate past this season, anyway. This has to be the year.

I felt entering 2008 and 2009, that the Texans could be a wildcard team. I feel that this team should have higher aspirations. They may be young at certain positions. But, there are proven players in the prime of their career, as well. Andre Johnson, Matt Schaub, Duane Brown, Eric Winston, Owen Daniels, Mario Williams, DeMeco Ryans, Bernard Pollard. And by week 5, Brian Cushing. One of the very best defenders in this league. Make no mistake, the talent is here and Kubiak deserves his share of the credit for that. Now is the time to win. And win big.


I'm also overall quite happy with Schaub. But to your statement, if you go back at look at the sack he took in the Dallas game, he not only hung onto the ball fairly long, but despite loads of open space in front of him, he never took one step into the pocket to avoid the end around rush. This is something I've noticed more than just a handful of times.

ObsiWan
09-01-2010, 07:55 PM
I admit, 5 years is a more traditional length of time. It is based on the idea of building through the draft, replacing old players, bringing in the right mix of coaches, and coaching the system to the players properly. Think of it more as the way things were more commonly done before the advent of FA.

I think from 3 to 5 years is a fair length of time to turn a team around. If the coach inherits a non-playoff team but that has some studs on it (like the team "the Chin" inherited from Chuck Knoll) then he has a solid base and shouldn't need but 3 yrs - max - to make the playoffs. If the coach inherits a team full of guys who would be 2nd and 3rd teamers on most playoff teams (like our 2005 team) then he's got 53 holes to fill and that cannot be done overnight. Well maybe if he's Sid Gillman, Vince Lombardi, or Bill Walsh.....

ObsiWan
09-01-2010, 07:55 PM
I admit, 5 years is a more traditional length of time. It is based on the idea of building through the draft, replacing old players, bringing in the right mix of coaches, and coaching the system to the players properly. Think of it more as the way things were more commonly done before the advent of FA.

I think from 3 to 5 years is a fair length of time to turn a team around. If the coach inherits a non-playoff team but that has some studs on it (like the team "the Chin" inherited from Chuck Knoll) then he has a solid base and shouldn't need but 3 yrs - max - to make the playoffs. If the coach inherits a team full of guys who would be 2nd and 3rd teamers on most playoff teams (like our 2005 team) then he's got 53 holes to fill and that cannot be done overnight. Well maybe if he's Sid Gillman, Vince Lombardi, or Bill Walsh.....

JB
09-01-2010, 08:12 PM
I'm also overall quite happy with Schaub. But to your statement, if you go back at look at the sack he took in the Dallas game, he not only hung onto the ball fairly long, but despite loads of open space in front of him, he never took one step into the pocket to avoid the end around rush. This is something I've noticed more than just a handful of times.

To be honest, I don't think he is used to having a pocket to step up into.

The Pencil Neck
09-01-2010, 09:07 PM
Killer Instinct. Does this team have it?

To me, a "killer instinct" and closing out games is based on being able to run when you need to. Teams that have to throw to move the ball usually have issues closing out games. There are plenty of exceptions but more often than not, no running game == not closing out.

Last year, we couldn't run when we needed to and because of that, we had problems closing out games.

If we want to be "that" team, we have to find our running game and we have to be able to rely on it to choke other teams out and beat them into submission.

CloakNNNdagger
09-01-2010, 09:13 PM
To be honest, I don't think he is used to having a pocket to step up into.

That's probably so. But last year on several of his sacks, I remember him hanging on and getting blind-sided with quite a bit of room to have stepped into in order to avoid the sack. A little lapse of "awareness."

JB
09-01-2010, 09:16 PM
That's probably so. But last year on several of his sacks, I remember him hanging on and getting blind-sided with quite a bit of room to have stepped into in order to avoid the sack. A little lapse of "awareness."

Yep. I remember the same. But, he was much improved over the previous year in this regard.

Dwade
09-01-2010, 10:00 PM
wk1 Colts-W .. i think the superbowl hangover continues its streak and we win a fairly easy divison game at home

wk2 @WAS-W call me crazy but this game will be much harder then wk 1 people saying awww mcnabb wont gel yet by this point well they will have gelled enough for us to barley get and win by a FG

wk3 DAL- no fluke we crush the Cowgirls at home and by this point the media buzz around the texans will be huge

wk4 raiders - TBA i think the raiders will be a much tougher team to face then dallas i really dont know who will win this one

so yeah im thinking we go 3-1 either lose to Dallas or the Raiders

:facepalm:

Raiders were 5-11 last year, Cowboys were 11-5. Raiders got Jason Campbell...who led Washington to a 4-12 season last year.

We are going to ghetto-stomp the Raiders, the Cowboys will be more of a challenge.

Norg
09-02-2010, 12:47 AM
Our schedule, and the Colts schedule are identical with the exception of 4 games. They play the Patriots and the Bengals, we play the Jets and the Ravens... their schedule there, is equally as tough as ours.

The other two games, are the games we play each other. There schedule looks weaker, because they play a 9 win team twice, and we play a 13 win team twice.

If the Colts truly are the class of the AFC South, and we think we are on par with them... their chances of winning the division is equally as steep as ours.

yeah i think the titans have a hard sechudle has well if the AFC south wants to prove its the best divison in football this will be the year

Brisco_County
09-02-2010, 01:20 AM
I've always heard the word used. It made sense that it would refer to a milk soaked slice of toast that would easily fall apart. But I wasn't really sure what it's origin was. Your post stimulated me to look it up.



LINK (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mil1.htm)

http://www.facebook.com/profile/pic.php?uid=AAAAAQAQMxgHlrBetmhivkcw4gQa9AAAAApbgr 9zbxaZS0e9h1Mz26fJ

It's also a badass song by Helmet.

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJ7EdHdvlM)

Kulluminatii
09-02-2010, 01:54 AM
:facepalm:

Raiders were 5-11 last year, Cowboys were 11-5. Raiders got Jason Campbell...who led Washington to a 4-12 season last year.

We are going to ghetto-stomp the Raiders, the Cowboys will be more of a challenge.

While I do believe you guys will win the game, I don't think we'll be as easy as you make us sound. We had arguably the biggest QB bust of all time playing for most of the season. He was so great at what he did that he didn't just affect the Offense, but the defense as well. Last season our O barely saw the field with the numerous 3 & outs we had and our D rarely had a chance to catch a breather.

Also, Chris Cooley was Campbell's go-to-guy in Washington, and when he went down in Week 7 that hurt their team immensely. Also, they had Zorn running that team...need I say more? :D

thunderkyss
09-02-2010, 02:02 AM
While I do believe you guys will win the game, I don't think we'll be as easy as you make us sound. :D

ghetto-stomping mudholes isn't as easy as you make it sound.

barrett
09-02-2010, 10:30 AM
I think Kubiak has that killing attitude this year. Check out these video's of his reactions after two touchdowns against Dallas last weekend.

http://www.texansbullblog.com/gary-kubiak-texans-found-missing-piece/news/


He's ready to eat that assistant alive. I can't help but feel like the Texans are finding their killing instinct, their "confidence piece" that Tony Dungy said they lacked.

JB
09-02-2010, 10:37 AM
I think Kubiak has that killing attitude this year. Check out these video's of his reactions after two touchdowns against Dallas last weekend.

http://www.texansbullblog.com/gary-kubiak-texans-found-missing-piece/news/


He's ready to eat that assistant alive. I can't help but feel like the Texans are finding their killing instinct, their "confidence piece" that Tony Dungy said they lacked.

I didn't see that he was upset at all. Looks to me he is saying "like practice"

DexmanC
09-02-2010, 09:53 PM
I didn't see that he was upset at all. Looks to me he is saying "like practice"

Which is exactly what Phil Simms said about that play. They'd seen
it the day before in practice.

ColtsBlueFL
09-04-2010, 06:31 PM
I reject your reality!



Signed,

Brett Favre, George Blanda


Seriously though, what will keep Manning playing for a long time to come is the fact that be barely gets touched. Even when he gets sacked, it's either him taking a dive (to avoid the hit) or sacks where he gets drug to the ground. I'm hard pressed to remember (if ever) him taking hard shots.

Your right, for the most part. However, he has been hit before. Se here vs, the Redskins 2nd quarter Oct 2006-

http://www.angelfire.com/ia3/coltshighlights/2006week7redskins.htm

OTOH, he got real mad afterward and minced up the Skins in the 3rd Q. Oh and you had your only victory vs. us that year too. But Manning and the Colts got something even more important that year. :splits:

I expect another tough game, especially in your house.

Rey
09-04-2010, 07:04 PM
I remember that hit.

Had rubber from the turf on his face.

CloakNNNdagger
09-08-2010, 06:46 PM
Good news......the Colts will beat the Girls
Bad news........it will be in the SuperBowl
The Good and Bad news..............we will make the playoffs.........as a Wild Card.

Playboy: Peyton Manning's Colts will defeat Tony Romo's Cowboys in Super Bowl XLV

Peyton Manning will smile if he picks up the October issue of Playboy ... but not because of the pictorials.

The magazine's annual NFL preview issue predicts that Manning's Indianapolis Colts will defeat the hometown Dallas Cowboys in Super Bowl XLV.

"Bob Sanders and Anthony Gonzalez are healthy, making the Colts once again the AFC team to beat," Playboy contributor Rick Gosselin wrote.

USA TODAY'S PICKS: Packers seen as Super Bowl favorites

If Tony Romo and the Cowboys were to clinch a berth in the Super Bowl, they would become the first team ever to host the game in its home stadium. Super Bowl XLV is scheduled for February 6 in Cowboys Stadium.

The NFL preview issue is on newsstands Sept. 17. Here are Playboy's picks for the NFL playoff field:

AFC East Champion: New England Patriots
AFC North Champion: Baltimore Ravens
AFC South Champion: Indianapolis Colts
AFC West Champion: San Diego Chargers
AFC wild cards: Houston Texans, New York Jets
AFC Champion: Indianapolis Colts

NFC East Champion: Dallas Cowboys
NFC North Champion: Green Bay Packers
NFC South Champion: Atlanta Falcons
NFC West Champion: San Francisco 49ers
NFC wild cards: Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints
NFC Champion: Dallas Cowboys

LINK (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/09/playboy-peyton-mannings-colts-will-defeat-tony-romos-cowboys-in-super-bowl-xlv/1)

Lucky
09-08-2010, 09:45 PM
NFC South Champion: Atlanta Falcons
Maybe I'm missing something? How in the world can the Saints not be the favorite to win the NFC South?

thunderkyss
09-09-2010, 03:15 AM
Maybe I'm missing something? How in the world can the Saints not be the favorite to win the NFC South?

No one has ever repeated as NFC South division champs. As a matter of fact, it's usually the 4th team from the year before, that wins the division.. should be Tampa Bay.

But, mojo & voodoo aside, 2009 was the first time ever, that the Falcons had back to back winning seasons. The Saints has a real team, that will build off the success of last year... they've been building off their success since 2006.

I can understand thinking Atlanta will be a better team, with a healthy Matt Ryan & Michael Turner, but if that defense doesn't get back to it's dominating ways (& I don't see why anyone would think they have), I agree with you. Saints should be favored to win that division.