PDA

View Full Version : St. Louis Rams (this week's new Texans descriptor phrase)


GP
12-06-2010, 08:39 AM
Last week, I started a thread entitled "3rd & 19" that I said described the Texans. This week, the descriptor phrase is "St. Louis Rams." Not because of the similarities. But rather, because of the differences.

St. Louis Rams: An awful previous season. A rookie QB. Who is their coach again? Few playmakers on their offense AND few playmakers on their defense.

And yet there they are: Sitting at 6-6 right now.

Is this just luck? How can we rationalize that the Texans are better than the Rams, even though the Rams are clutching out their games and failing to realize how awful they are?

Can we even compare these two teams, or is this an apples-to-oranges comparison?

Interested to see the responses on the discussion about the path these two teams have taken this season.

HOU-TEX
12-06-2010, 08:41 AM
The Rams have a defensive-minded coach.

HJam72
12-06-2010, 08:43 AM
Schedule? I'm not even gonna bother looking.

houstonhurricane
12-06-2010, 08:45 AM
Schedule? I'm not even gonna bother looking.

In all fairness, they "battle" San Fran, Seattle and Arizona for six of their games...

GP
12-06-2010, 08:47 AM
The Rams have a defensive-minded coach.

That's one reason. A good defense will limit the other teams' offense.

This will allow a lesser Rams offense to be required to do less, in terms of scoring points. Just convert the chances you get, when you get them.

michaelm
12-06-2010, 08:47 AM
They're in the NFC West, for starters.
Also, I'm pretty sure that they haven't beaten a team with a winning record yet. Their schedule looks unbelievable soft at this point.

DexmanC
12-06-2010, 08:48 AM
Sam Bradford is a FRANCHISE QB in his rookie season.

Matt Schaub is a decent/average/ain't-gonna-get-no-better QB in
his SEVENTH season. Huge difference. The Rams are actually getting
better as time goes on. Same goes for the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Patriots,
Chiefs, Raiders, and so on... The Texans?

Standing in place, and are proud of it.

GP
12-06-2010, 08:48 AM
In all fairness, they "battle" San Fran, Seattle and Arizona for six of their games...

Yeah? Well, we "battle" the mighty Colts (who aren't mighty this year) and the awesome Titans (who aren't "awesome" this year).

There's four wins for us, if we look at it that way.

The Jags are not world beaters either.

HOU-TEX
12-06-2010, 08:54 AM
That's one reason. A good defense will limit the other teams' offense.

This will allow a lesser Rams offense to be required to do less, in terms of scoring points. Just convert the chances you get, when you get them.

Most defensive-minded coaches coach to pound the ball on offense and stop the run on defense. That's my kind of coach. Kubiak has thrown on the first possession of every game. Kubiak single-handedly lost the 2nd Colts game by forcing the pass.

Give me a coach like Spags, or at least a good coach that'll bring in a DC with a sack and experience at whoopin that ass

houstonhurricane
12-06-2010, 09:08 AM
Yeah? Well, we "battle" the mighty Colts (who aren't mighty this year) and the awesome Titans (who aren't "awesome" this year).

There's four wins for us, if we look at it that way.

The Jags are not world beaters either.

Look, we stink and our division is nothing to brag about. But the NFC South is still well below the quality of Indy, Jax and even us...at least for now.

GuerillaBlack
12-06-2010, 09:10 AM
Look, we stink and our division is nothing to brag about. But the NFC South is still well below the quality of Indy, Jax and even us...at least for now.

Agreed. We went 3-1 against the NFC West last year. Not a real powerful division. The Texans still suck though. New coach is needed.

Sam Bradford is a FRANCHISE QB in his rookie season.

Matt Schaub is a decent/average/ain't-gonna-get-no-better QB in
his SEVENTH season. Huge difference. The Rams are actually getting
better as time goes on. Same goes for the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Patriots,
Chiefs, Raiders, and so on... The Texans?

Standing in place, and are proud of it.

I feel sorry for Matt Schaub. He receives so much hate. Schaub is an above-average QB. He's not an elite QB (Grade A), but he is above-average (Grade B). Schaub is still in the top ten in the league.

Mailman
12-06-2010, 09:27 AM
Stupid thread. The NFC West is a joke! We would handle the Rams easily.

HTown2ATX
12-06-2010, 09:33 AM
Why does everyone assume we would handle the Rams?

The NFC West is a joke, but so is the AFC South. Our division is friggin GARBAGE this year. The NFC West and AFC South could possibly both send an 8-8 team to the playoffs.

Lol....seriously......AFC South is unfortunately not much better than the NFC West...sorry to have to say that but it's true. Our defense sucks. Bradford could throw for 300+. You don't think so?

Look at other shit QB's and WR's we have made to look like Montana and Rice this year.

Ajiritoutou anyone? Enough said.

RTP2110
12-06-2010, 09:37 AM
The Rams are actually getting
better as time goes on. Same goes for the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Patriots,
Chiefs, Raiders, and so on... The Texans?

Standing in place, and are proud of it.


Yep, go ahead and add Cleveland who was terrible last year, and have the same record as us. Add Tampa Bay too. They were terrible last year, play in a tough division, and we'd kill to have their record right now.

Doppelganger
12-06-2010, 09:45 AM
Sam Bradford is a FRANCHISE QB in his rookie season.

Matt Schaub is a decent/average/ain't-gonna-get-no-better QB in
his SEVENTH season. Huge difference. The Rams are actually getting
better as time goes on. Same goes for the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Patriots,
Chiefs, Raiders, and so on... The Texans?

Standing in place, and are proud of it.

Bradford was the #1 pick in the draft. If he was anything BUT a franchise QB he would be a bust. Schaub was a top 5QB last year and is a top 10 QB this year. If he had some semblance of a Defense, the team would have beaten SD, Jags, Jets, and Eagles. Instead of being 5-7, they would be 9-3 and in contention for not only the division, but best record of the AFC. Don't blame Schaub, blame the piss-poor D.

Mailman
12-06-2010, 09:56 AM
Apologies in advance, but anyone who thinks the NFC West is anywhere remotely close to the AFC South is either completely out of their mind with blind rage over our collective struggles or does not watch NFL football. The idea that the Rams are a better team with a brighter future is flat out laughable.

Yeah, we're 5-7 again but we've also played a very tough schedule. We lose every damn week against those division-leading good teams, yet we're in every game despite our historically awful defense.

One quick glance at the Rams schedule and you see why they're 6-6. They are a bad team made mediocre by a function of a very favorable schedule against terrible, terrible teams.

This ranking is fair and places us where we actually deserve to be overall. We are a mediocre team made worse by a function of an unfavorable schedule.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

ensign_lee
12-06-2010, 10:03 AM
If we had the schedule of anyone in the NFC West, we'd have at least 9 wins right now.

Try not to let your blind hatred cloud your judgment so much.

HTown2ATX
12-06-2010, 10:20 AM
Personally, I am not saying the Rams are "better" than the Texans and I'm definitely not blinded by rage or something like that.

I'm not saying the Rams would blow us out, but if you think the Texans would just shred the Rams you are blinded by sunshine and carebears while thinking some of us are blinded by rage.

We've had more than a few games in hand that have turned into just total embarassing losses. Meanwhile the the Rams, who blow according to everyone, including me - not saying they are world beaters here - have managed to grab a hold of their division and may just make the playoffs with a rookie QB and no playmakers.

Houston - with playmakers and vets on both sides of the ball have a worse record.

You play the teams on your schedule and in your division, that's all you can do and that's all that matters regardless of SOS or whatever.

The record and division states who you are and the division and overall record state that overall as of this moment in time, the Rams are an example of why Kubiak and the coaches should be embarassed.

"If" we had their record, "If" we didn't have such a strong SOS, "If"....too many "if's" and too late in the season.

steelbtexan
12-06-2010, 10:31 AM
[ QUOTE=HJam72;1601063]Schedule? I'm not even gonna bother looking.[/QUOTE]

^^^^
This, the Texans had a schedule that was comparable to the Rams schedule last yr. They finished 9-7.

This is the yr of no excuses.

houstonspartan
12-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Apologies in advance, but anyone who thinks the NFC West is anywhere remotely close to the AFC South is either completely out of their mind with blind rage over our collective struggles or does not watch NFL football. The idea that the Rams are a better team with a brighter future is flat out laughable.

Yeah, we're 5-7 again but we've also played a very tough schedule. We lose every damn week against those division-leading good teams, yet we're in every game despite our historically awful defense.

One quick glance at the Rams schedule and you see why they're 6-6. They are a bad team made mediocre by a function of a very favorable schedule against terrible, terrible teams.

This ranking is fair and places us where we actually deserve to be overall. We are a mediocre team made worse by a function of an unfavorable schedule.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

Apologies in advance, but, anyone who doesn't see that the AFC South is mediocre this year and is ripe for the taking is either completely out of their mind with blind acceptance of our mediocrity or does not watch NFL football.

Also, I'm tired of the "tough schedule" argument.

Tough schedule? Tough shit. Play the games you're given.

Mr. White
12-06-2010, 10:41 AM
The Texans and the Rams have this in common....both are mediocre.

The difference is that these are 2 teams going in opposite directions. The Rams D started making strides last year. Now their offense is following suit.

The Texans already topped out last year and are now regressing.

HOU-TEX
12-06-2010, 10:49 AM
Apologies in advance, but, anyone who doesn't see that the AFC South is mediocre this year and is ripe for the taking is either completely out of their mind with blind acceptance of our mediocrity or does not watch NFL football.

Also, I'm tired of the "tough schedule" argument.

Tough schedule? Tough shit. Play the games you're given.

Agreed!

DexmanC
12-06-2010, 11:08 AM
If we had the schedule of anyone in the NFC West, we'd have at least 9 wins right now.

Try not to let your blind hatred cloud your judgment so much.

We had that kind of schedule last year. It took the final game, against a team
that laid down with a two-touchdown lead in the fourth quarter to win the ninth game.
Don't give me that argument. It doesn't hold water.

Hagar
12-06-2010, 11:34 AM
Face it y'all, we have a culture of losing. We're the new Cardinals, Lions, Bengals; whatever, I'm too tired to really give a damn anymore.

imatexan
12-06-2010, 12:02 PM
We had that kind of schedule last year. It took the final game, against a team
that laid down with a two-touchdown lead in the fourth quarter to win the ninth game.
Don't give me that argument. It doesn't hold water.

The Patriots did not lay down, where do you get this stuff from!?

wagonhed
12-06-2010, 12:12 PM
All I know is I bet that coaching staff could take our roster to an 11-5 record.

DexmanC
12-06-2010, 12:22 PM
The Patriots did not lay down, where do you get this stuff from!?

Really, dude? They rested half their defense, which was aging, for
the REAL game to start the following week. This year, their defense
is YOUNGER than ours, yet, their offense is consistent enough to
keep that defense off the field. The Patriots are rebuilding a Superbowl
champion right before our eyes. Five years into this regime, and not a
SINGLE playoff berth.

As to your point. The Patriots started the 4th quarter with a 2-touchdown
lead, and pulled key starters out of the game. They used the fourth quarter
as a scrimmage to teach their young backup quarterback how to handle certain
game situations. If you can't see the strategy of how the Patriots handled
that game, then you're drunk on Battle Red Kool-Aid.

For the sake of this team, we need fans to put that shit down until
this regime has been overhauled.

HTown2ATX
12-06-2010, 12:25 PM
Really, dude? They rested half their defense, which was aging, for
the REAL game to start the following week. This year, their defense
is YOUNGER than ours, yet, their offense is consistent enough to
keep that defense off the field. The Patriots are rebuilding a Superbowl
champion right before our eyes. Five years into this regime, and not a
SINGLE playoff berth.

As to your point. The Patriots started the 4th quarter with a 2-touchdown
lead, and pulled key starters out of the game. They used the fourth quarter
as a scrimmage to teach their young backup quarterback how to handle certain
game situations. If you can't see the strategy of how the Patriots handled
that game, then you're drunk on Battle Red Kool-Aid.

For the sake of this team, we need fans to put that shit down until
this regime has been overhauled.

/End Thread

infantrycak
12-06-2010, 12:47 PM
Really, dude?

As to your point. The Patriots started the 4th quarter with a 2-touchdown
lead, and pulled key starters out of the game. They used the fourth quarter
as a scrimmage to teach their young backup quarterback how to handle certain
game situations. If you can't see the strategy of how the Patriots handled
that game, then you're drunk on Battle Red Kool-Aid.

Yeah really dude. You are so full of crap on this it isn't even funny. Hoyer played one series ONE to end the game after the Texans were up by a TD. Brady wasn't pulled until he got waylayed by Mario resulting in the Pollard INT.

HOU-TEX
12-06-2010, 01:23 PM
Really, dude? They rested half their defense, which was aging, for
the REAL game to start the following week. This year, their defense
is YOUNGER than ours, yet, their offense is consistent enough to
keep that defense off the field. The Patriots are rebuilding a Superbowl
champion right before our eyes. Five years into this regime, and not a
SINGLE playoff berth.

As to your point. The Patriots started the 4th quarter with a 2-touchdown
lead, and pulled key starters out of the game. They used the fourth quarter
as a scrimmage to teach their young backup quarterback how to handle certain
game situations. If you can't see the strategy of how the Patriots handled
that game, then you're drunk on Battle Red Kool-Aid.

For the sake of this team, we need fans to put that shit down until
this regime has been overhauled.

Yeah really dude. You are so full of crap on this it isn't even funny. Hoyer played one series ONE to end the game after the Texans were up by a TD. Brady wasn't pulled until he got waylayed by Mario resulting in the Pollard INT.

The score was 20-14 going into the 4th quarter. Hoyer did come in a series in the 2nd, which ended with a FG. He also came in after the Pollard/Mario play.

infantrycak
12-06-2010, 01:34 PM
Hoyer did come in a series in the 2nd, which ended with a FG. He also came in after the Pollard/Mario play.

Correct. Hoyer played two whole series in the game. Last one of each half for the Patriots. The idea they were playing him as some sort of training exercise for any significant portion of the game is ludicrous.

HOU-TEX
12-06-2010, 01:41 PM
Correct. Hoyer played two whole series in the game. Last one of each half for the Patriots. The idea they were playing him as some sort of training exercise for any significant portion of the game is ludicrous.

Ha, yeah, I don't know about all that. I just thought I remember him coming in before the 4th so I went and took a look.

The only player of significance I remember sitting for the Pats was Wilfork. I think he was "nicked", but could've played if he had to.

imatexan
12-06-2010, 02:32 PM
Yeah really dude. You are so full of crap on this it isn't even funny. Hoyer played one series ONE to end the game after the Texans were up by a TD. Brady wasn't pulled until he got waylayed by Mario resulting in the Pollard INT.

You just like going around and saying everyone else are homers but the fact that you are missing is that you are just as blinded if not more by your "anger" or whatever you have towards this team rite now.

Watch the highlights yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZvlME6U5GE

The Patriots wanted to win that game and the Texans played better in the 4th quarter, accept it.

HOU-TEX
12-06-2010, 02:40 PM
You just like going around and saying everyone else are homers but the fact that you are missing is that you are just as blinded if not more by your "anger" or whatever you have towards this team rite now.

Watch the highlights yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZvlME6U5GE

The Patriots wanted to win that game and the Texans played better in the 4th quarter, get over it.

Did you quote the wrong person? I think that is what I-cak is saying too

imatexan
12-06-2010, 02:54 PM
Did you quote the wrong person? I think that is what I-cak is saying too

Ya sorry I quoted I-cak to agree with him but the post was directed towards Dex.

ThaShark316
12-06-2010, 03:32 PM
All I know is I bet that coaching staff could take our roster to an 11-5 record.

You high as **** bruh.

HTown2ATX
12-06-2010, 03:50 PM
I've seen so many arguments that are using the word "anger" and saying this is why some people aren't thinking straigh or something in a lot of threads, not just this one.

Ozzie Guillen says......"Psst, please!"

When did everyone else turn into frickin Jedi's or something. Anger is what, clouding our mind to the darkside?

JCTexan
12-06-2010, 04:05 PM
Yep, go ahead and add Cleveland who was terrible last year, and have the same record as us. Add Tampa Bay too. They were terrible last year, play in a tough division, and we'd kill to have their record right now.

Does anybody here actually think these are serious contenders this year? The answer would be no. Tampa Bay hasn't beaten a team above .500 this year. They've beaten Cincinnati, Cleveland, Carolina (twice), St Louis, Arizona & San Francisco. None of those are playoff teams (besides possibly St Louis). They will finish third in their division behind both New Orleans & Atlanta, and will likely not make the playoffs.

St Louis has beaten Washington, Seattle, San Diego, Carolina, Denver & Arizona. They could possibly make the playoffs in the NFC West, but does anybody expect them to beat a playoff caliber team? I know I don't.

Cleveland seems to be a pretty good team on the rise. They've had one of the toughest schedules this year playing Atlanta, New Orleans, New England, Kansas City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville & New YorkJ. They could be a tough team next year.

Hervoyel
12-06-2010, 04:14 PM
Sam Bradford is a FRANCHISE QB in his rookie season.

Matt Schaub is a decent/average/ain't-gonna-get-no-better QB in
his SEVENTH season. Huge difference. The Rams are actually getting
better as time goes on. Same goes for the Jets, Falcons, Lions, Patriots,
Chiefs, Raiders, and so on... The Texans?

Standing in place, and are proud of it.


Just happy to finally be standing I guess.

drs23
12-06-2010, 05:39 PM
Does anybody here actually think these are serious contenders this year? The answer would be no. Tampa Bay hasn't beaten a team above .500 this year. They've beaten Cincinnati, Cleveland, Carolina (twice), St Louis, Arizona & San Francisco. None of those are playoff teams (besides possibly St Louis). They will finish third in their division behind both New Orleans & Atlanta, and will likely not make the playoffs.

St Louis has beaten Washington, Seattle, San Diego, Carolina, Denver & Arizona. They could possibly make the playoffs in the NFC West, but does anybody expect them to beat a playoff caliber team? I know I don't.

Cleveland seems to be a pretty good team on the rise. They've had one of the toughest schedules this year playing Atlanta, New Orleans, New England, Kansas City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville & New YorkJ. They could be a tough team next year.

Hmmm...what changed there..?:thinking:

Rey
12-06-2010, 05:40 PM
The Rams have a better QB.

Rey
12-06-2010, 05:41 PM
The Patriots did not lay down, where do you get this stuff from!?

Yes...Yes, they did.

When you are rotating in your back-up QB when you have Tom Brady on your roster, you are not doing everything in your power to win the game.

infantrycak
12-06-2010, 05:41 PM
The Rams have a better QB.

All evidence to the contrary.

JB
12-06-2010, 05:46 PM
Yes...Yes, they did.

When you are rotating in your back-up QB when you have Tom Brady on your roster, you are not doing everything in your power to win the game.


The backup qb played 2 series... one of which was the final series of the game when it was already decided.

Rey
12-06-2010, 05:51 PM
All evidence to the contrary.

You could say the same thing about this year had I said Manning was a better QB....if you're looking at stats...


If you are watching them play a little bit then it's kind of in the eye of the beholder.

I'd take Bradford over Schaub all day. Even as a rookie.

He doesn't have near the offensive talent we have and he is getting it done.

But it's just my opinion. I thin kBradford is a better QB. I think he is a true franchise guy. When you have one of those guys you will be a contender year in and year out.

Rey
12-06-2010, 05:52 PM
The backup qb played 2 series... one of which was the final series of the game when it was already decided.

Ok. So what?

If we played Dan-O in the middle of the game for no apparent reason do you think that we are putting our best effort forth?

And I'm not sure how you figure the game was out of hand...we only won by 7??????


Brady had 26 attempts, Hoyer had 12...

That is almost half of Brady's attempts....


But besides that, if you go back and look at the play by play (http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=300103034&period=4) Hoyer was in on the last drive that could have tied the game for them....

C'mon, there is no way they were putting forth their best effort...

Mailman
12-06-2010, 05:52 PM
The Rams have a better QB.

No they don't. If being a fan of the Houston Texans means one cannot judge their performance objectively and must make ridiculous, fictional assertions comparing the disappointing Texans and the disappointing AFC South to the far crappier teams from the NFC West, then I am not a fan.

Mailman
12-06-2010, 05:56 PM
You could say the same thing about this year had I said Manning was a better QB....if you're looking at stats...


If you are watching them play a little bit then it's kind of in the eye of the beholder.

I'd take Bradford over Schaub all day. Even as a rookie.

He doesn't have near the offensive talent we have and he is getting it done.

But it's just my opinion. I thin kBradford is a better QB. I think he is a true franchise guy. When you have one of those guys you will be a contender year in and year out.

And Schaub isn't getting it done? Last time I checked, the Texans still had a very potent offense. Schaub is a top-ten qb with a historically awful defense standing on his own sideline.

Rey
12-06-2010, 06:01 PM
By the way JB...The sad thing is that Hoyer was actually driving them down the field...

He got to our 34 and was faced with a 4th and 3 that was incomplete...

Going back and thinking about that game makes me realize that the Texans are really just suck....

Rey
12-06-2010, 06:05 PM
And Schaub isn't getting it done? Last time I checked, the Texans still had a very potent offense. Schaub is a top-ten qb with a historically awful defense standing on his own sideline.



I don't think he is capable of being an elite level QB on a consistent basis.

I look at it like this...

If Schaub was in that Rams offense...everything exactly the same...I think he doesn't perform as well as Bradford has.

I think if Bradford is the QB of the Texans...everything exactly the same...He is a better QB this year...and definitely in the years going forward...

But besides that it's my opinion. I could care less about what you or anyone else thinks about Schaub. I have my opinion about him. I have my opinion about other QB's.

I bet you would have said it was a wild statement to say Vick would be a better QB than Schaub. In fact you probably did say that in the past.

thunderkyss
12-06-2010, 07:52 PM
This ranking is fair and places us where we actually deserve to be overall. We are a mediocre team made worse by a function of an unfavorable schedule.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

I'd like to think we are a middle of the road team.

However, those rankings have Miami & KC higher than where I think they are. I think they should be closer to us. New Orleans should be higher. Denver at 22????? really?

& I would think Oakland should be ranked higher than Denver.

Nothing drastically wrong (IMO).....

thunderkyss
12-06-2010, 07:53 PM
If we had the schedule of anyone in the NFC West, we'd have at least 9 wins right now.

Try not to let your blind hatred cloud your judgment so much.

But we wouldn't be a better team.

We'd be the same team, beating the same teams we always beat.

I believe that is the main idea behind this thread.

Ghostform
12-06-2010, 08:14 PM
The Browns would probably beat us this year...proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FtNxvpaK6I

thunderkyss
12-06-2010, 08:48 PM
You play the teams on your schedule and in your division, that's all you can do and that's all that matters regardless of SOS or whatever.

The record and division states who you are and the division and overall record state that overall as of this moment in time, the Rams are an example of why Kubiak and the coaches should be embarassed.

"If" we had their record, "If" we didn't have such a strong SOS, "If"....too many "if's" and too late in the season.

IF there was a 4A team with a schedule loaded with 5A teams with a 2-6 record & a 4A team with a schedule loaded with 3A teams with a 7-1 record, which team would you think is better?

In reality, you don't have enough information to answer the question. You have to watch the teams play & you have to consider the competition.

Football outsiders rankings would be akin to watching the team (If you didn't click the previously provided link, FO ranks our team at 16 of 32), our strength of schedule is a rough consideration of our competition (our S.O.S. is ranked #1).

So you have a middle of the road team playing the toughest schedule, what do you expect?

I know you want the team to take that next step. We all do.

For a bit of perspective, FO ranks the Cardinals as the worst team in the NFL. According to ESPN, they also have the easiest schedule. The Rams have the 31st ranked SOS, FO says they are the 28th easiest schedule.


The Buccaneers have the 25th toughest schedule....

I know things look bleak in Houston right now, but it could be worse. Like the Cardinals.... easiest schedule, arguably the worst team in football. Or the Panthers, 25th toughest schedule.....

& while Kubiak blew our "easy" schedule last year, it was still much more difficult (15th (.506)) than the schedules the Bucs (.484) & Rams (.449) have this year.

thunderkyss
12-06-2010, 09:02 PM
Just wanted to add.

In 2006, our schedule was the 7th toughest (.523)
In 2007, 16th (.504)
In 2008, 8th (.547)
In 2009, 15th (.509)
In 2010, 1st (.547)

We've never had it "easy"

GuerillaBlack
12-06-2010, 09:06 PM
The Rams have a better QB.

LOL! Schaub gets no much unnecessary hate. Pretty sad really. He has lead this team on so many 4th quarter comebacks this year alone. Not his fault the defense is garbage. But you're right, it's your opinion....

Dishman
12-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Just wanted to add.

In 2006, our schedule was the 7th toughest (.523)
In 2007, 16th (.504)
In 2008, 8th (.547)
In 2009, 15th (.509)
In 2010, 1st (.547)

We've never had it "easy"

None of this would matter if we were the "tougher" team on other team's schedules. Sadly, this team has never had it "easy" in part because were the easy team on the schedule.

imatexan
12-06-2010, 10:31 PM
Yes...Yes, they did.

When you are rotating in your back-up QB when you have Tom Brady on your roster, you are not doing everything in your power to win the game.

Brady had 26 attempts, if they wanted to lay down they would not have started him or at least sat him at the half.

Also, If I remember correctly the Pats were still competing with the Bengals for a better record in the final week.

ThaShark316
12-06-2010, 10:38 PM
The Rams have a better QB.

http://static.bbmp3.com/smilies/0_rofl.gif

Texecutioner
12-06-2010, 11:32 PM
Last week, I started a thread entitled "3rd & 19" that I said described the Texans. This week, the descriptor phrase is "St. Louis Rams." Not because of the similarities. But rather, because of the differences.

St. Louis Rams: An awful previous season. A rookie QB. Who is their coach again? Few playmakers on their offense AND few playmakers on their defense.

And yet there they are: Sitting at 6-6 right now.

Is this just luck? How can we rationalize that the Texans are better than the Rams, even though the Rams are clutching out their games and failing to realize how awful they are?

Can we even compare these two teams, or is this an apples-to-oranges comparison?

Interested to see the responses on the discussion about the path these two teams have taken this season.

Just another team that has shown that it can improve at a much more rapid pace than Kubesy can get this team to, but hey we're still improving according to some fans. We just need Frank Bush out of here and we'd be SB bound.

Texecutioner
12-06-2010, 11:37 PM
Yeah really dude. You are so full of crap on this it isn't even funny. Hoyer played one series ONE to end the game after the Texans were up by a TD. Brady wasn't pulled until he got waylayed by Mario resulting in the Pollard INT.

He's not full of crap. They didn't play all of their starters all game long. They played most of them for the full first half though, and then slowly they started pulling certain guys towards the end of the 3rd quarter and at the end of the game they pulled Tom Brady when the Pats had one last drive to win the game. Brady's one of the best and most clutch QB's of all time and is a wizard in the two minute drill. That's not going all out to win at all.

GP
12-07-2010, 08:34 AM
He's not full of crap. They didn't play all of their starters all game long. They played most of them for the full first half though, and then slowly they started pulling certain guys towards the end of the 3rd quarter and at the end of the game they pulled Tom Brady when the Pats had one last drive to win the game. Brady's one of the best and most clutch QB's of all time and is a wizard in the two minute drill. That's not going all out to win at all.

Yeah, I don't know why he continues to skew the topic on this.

Going all out, to win, is when you don't pull your guys AT ALL. You don't go all out, to win, by yanking your QB twice. Especially when it's Tom Brady.

The Patriots did not "lay down," as some have said...but they sure didn't play that game with the intentions of winning the game no matter what. I respect them for not pulling an Indianapolis Colts, and I also respect them for being wise and trying to pull guys from time to time as the flow of the game permitted them.

If anything, Belichick was just toying with us. He didn't say it out loud, because even Belichick has the brains to not say it out loud. However, he was doing juuust enough in our game to keep his guys sharp. And he still lost Welker. Lost a great WR to the Texans in a meaningless game for them.

infantrycak
12-07-2010, 09:54 AM
He's not full of crap.

Yes he is on his point that the Patriots were using the game as a training camp for their backup QB.

The Patriots did not "lay down," as some have said...but they sure didn't play that game with the intentions of winning the game no matter what.

I agree with that.

Rey
12-07-2010, 10:06 AM
LOL! Schaub gets no much unnecessary hate. Pretty sad really. He has lead this team on so many 4th quarter comebacks this year alone. Not his fault the defense is garbage. But you're right, it's your opinion....

Not hating on him. I've said many times that I think hes a good qb.

I just don't think hes capable of being elite.

I think Bradford is on the right track to becoming just that. Dude has taken about as many hits as Schaub and he is getting it done with one of the worst receiving corps out there.

I seriously think if he had the Texans arsenal of players he'd do a whole lot better than what he's doing.

I don't think he's that far behind Schaub if at all, and I definitely think that in the years going forward he will far surpass him. JMO.

That doesn't mean Schaub sucks. Just means I don't think he's as good as some other QB's with Bradford being one of them.

Rey
12-07-2010, 10:07 AM
And the Pats didn't completely lay down, but they didn't try their hardest.

infantrycak
12-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Not hating on him. I've said many times that I think hes a good qb.

I just don't think hes capable of being elite.

I think Bradford is on the right track to becoming just that. Dude has taken about as many hits as Schaub and he is getting it done with one of the worst receiving corps out there.

I seriously think if he had the Texans arsenal of players he'd do a whole lot better than what he's doing.

I don't think he's that far behind Schaub if at all, and I definitely think that in the years going forward he will far surpass him. JMO.

That doesn't mean Schaub sucks. Just means I don't think he's as good as some other QB's with Bradford being one of them.

Bradford is doing fine but he doesn't match Schaub on any individual stat plus Bradford is playing dink and dunk football.

Mailman
12-07-2010, 11:25 AM
Not hating on him. I've said many times that I think hes a good qb.

I just don't think hes capable of being elite.

blah blah blah

I would probably agree with you to a degree about Bradford because he's a very accurate passer with great potential, but I stopped reading here because Schaub has already proven you wrong. So very wrong.

Any NFL quarterback who finishes a season with 4,770 yards passing, the sixth-highest total of all-time, is by definition elite.

Sixth all time! But noooooo, it was a fluke and Schaub still isn't capable of being an elite quarterback. What a pantload.

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 11:32 AM
IF there was a 4A team with a schedule loaded with 5A teams with a 2-6 record & a 4A team with a schedule loaded with 3A teams with a 7-1 record, which team would you think is better?

In reality, you don't have enough information to answer the question. You have to watch the teams play & you have to consider the competition.

Football outsiders rankings would be akin to watching the team (If you didn't click the previously provided link, FO ranks our team at 16 of 32), our strength of schedule is a rough consideration of our competition (our S.O.S. is ranked #1).

So you have a middle of the road team playing the toughest schedule, what do you expect?

I know you want the team to take that next step. We all do.

For a bit of perspective, FO ranks the Cardinals as the worst team in the NFL. According to ESPN, they also have the easiest schedule. The Rams have the 31st ranked SOS, FO says they are the 28th easiest schedule.


The Buccaneers have the 25th toughest schedule....

I know things look bleak in Houston right now, but it could be worse. Like the Cardinals.... easiest schedule, arguably the worst team in football. Or the Panthers, 25th toughest schedule.....

& while Kubiak blew our "easy" schedule last year, it was still much more difficult (15th (.506)) than the schedules the Bucs (.484) & Rams (.449) have this year.

Your analogy doesn't apply, because the talent difference between
3A, and 5A are gigantic. This is the NFL, where games are won and
loss on the tiniest of details. Teams that handle those situations the
best win, those who screw it up, don't. EVERY team is a handful of
plays from being a winner, or a loser. Teams that consistently lose
are who they are. S.O.S., in the NFL, can NOT be used as an excuse
for your team losing, because it's not like the Texans blow out every
bad team they face. This is the team who has its only victory, in the
last SIX GAMES, against a team that fired its quarterback and quit on its coach.

As Bernard Pollard would say: "Whoopie-Doo."

Mailman
12-07-2010, 11:44 AM
Your analogy doesn't apply, because the talent difference between
3A, and 5A are gigantic. This is the NFL, where games are won and
loss on the tiniest of details. Teams that handle those situations the
best win, those who screw it up, don't. EVERY team is a handful of
plays from being a winner, or a loser. Teams that consistently lose
are who they are. S.O.S., in the NFL, can NOT be used as an excuse
for your team losing, because it's not like the Texans blow out every
bad team they face. This is the team who has its only victory, in the
last SIX GAMES, against a team that fired its quarterback and quit on its coach.

As Bernard Pollard would say: "Whoopie-Doo."

The idea that "you are who your record says you are" is for the bottom-line believers who are rightly frustrated about this team's losses and not really interested in an analytical discussion of strength of schedules and team efficiency.

The proposition that a 6-6 Rams team, with one of the easiest SoS rankings in the NFL, is equal to or better than the Texans and their much harder schedule is unsupportable.

Consider this: the Texans lost two consecutive games on heartbreaking, vomitous plays. If the coverage in the Jets game is the same busted ugliness but Braylon Edwards drops that pass and the Texans go on to win, are they any better? If Glover Quin doesn't bat that Hail Mary (we lost on a HAIL MARY!!!) right to Mike Thomas and the Texans win in OT, are we any better? Is a 7-5 team with the same glaring defensive problems really any different than this 5-7 team?

No, but the record would say otherwise.

Mailman
12-07-2010, 11:59 AM
This is the yr of no excuses.

Indeed, but that only applies for Bob McNair because ultimately he's the one making the decision whether to keep his coaching staff around.

Saying "no excuses" does not excuse us fans from only looking at the wins and losses to analyze the team's play in discussing where we rank among the league's teams.

Mailman
12-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Apologies in advance, but, anyone who doesn't see that the AFC South is mediocre this year and is ripe for the taking is either completely out of their mind with blind acceptance of our mediocrity or does not watch NFL football.

Also, I'm tired of the "tough schedule" argument.

Tough schedule? Tough shit. Play the games you're given.

We all agree with this, nobody is saying anything to the contrary. You play the teams you play and you aspire to win every game.

And yes, the AFC South is still winnable, even after losing five out of six. If the Texans run the table they will likely win the division.

gtexan02
12-07-2010, 02:07 PM
Like the 49ers, the Rams own no victories over teams that currently have winning records. (Sando)

From ESPN power rankings thread

GP
12-07-2010, 02:20 PM
And yes, the AFC South is still winnable, even after losing five out of six. If the Texans run the table they will likely win the division.

I can't wait for the day when a person can no longer use this as a crutch for saying why this season is still undecided for the Texans.

If, If, If, If, and more If.

Do you think the top quality teams have fans who think like this? "If the Jets lose the next x-amount of games, and if the Bills also lose x-amount of games, and if the Dolphins lose x-amount of games, then our Patriots are going to win the division."

No, I imagine a Steelers fan or a Patriots fan, or even a KC Chiefs fan this year, is thinking that they are in the drivers seat and that they need no help getting into the playoffs. They are motoring ahead, plowing through their schedule and charting their own course.

That's a feeling we have never had with our team. Never.

We're always trying to do the NFL Math to figure out what combination of wins and losses among other AFC teams can get us into the playoffs.

I find it very telling.

Mailman
12-07-2010, 02:33 PM
Telling how? What does it tell that we don't already know?

This season has been disappointing by every measure, but it is not over. There are games left to be played. Believe it or not, I actually feel better about our chances of making the playoffs (by winning the division) than I felt at this time last year of backing into the WC spot. I think it is more likely than not that the Colts lose a game and the Jags lose at least one prior to our final home game at Reliant.

So, in my opinion the Texans realistically control their own destiny. Win out and they will probably win the AFC South and host a playoff game.

Or would you rather I say F*CK THIS TEAM, THE SEASON IS OVER!!!1!1!!!1!!!

Because it is so telling to do so, because it makes us all internet tough guys who won't stand for mediocrity, as if screaming about mediocrity on the internet makes one iota of difference in the real world of NFL football.....right? right?

GP
12-07-2010, 02:45 PM
Telling how? What does it tell that we don't already know?

This season has been disappointing by every measure, but it is not over. There are games left to be played. Believe it or not, I actually feel better about our chances of making the playoffs (by winning the division) than I felt at this time last year of backing into the WC spot. I think it is more likely than not that the Colts lose a game and the Jags lose at least one prior to our final home game at Reliant.

So, in my opinion the Texans realistically control their own destiny. Win out and they will probably win the AFC South and host a playoff game.

Or would you rather I say F*CK THIS TEAM, THE SEASON IS OVER!!!1!1!!!1!!!

Because it is so telling to do so, because it makes us all internet tough guys who won't stand for mediocrity, as if screaming about mediocrity on the internet makes one iota of difference in the real world of NFL football.....right? right?

Telling because of the lengths people go to, in order to keep hope alive.

Man, at this point...your team "is" what it "is."

I don't buy into the idea that all you need is a golden ticket into the playoffs and you can magically win the Super Bowl.

Some fans are deluded by that premise.

We've got a problematic team that isn't finding a way to hold down other teams enough to win the closely-contested games. If it isn't one thing, it's another. Every week carries a new, dynamic way of us choking the game away.

It is what it is.

Champions don't play like this for 15 of their 16 regular season games. Outside of the opening game win vs. the Colts, this team hasn't looked like winners capable of taking the whole enchilada.

Once again, because there's an "IF" then there's a shred of hope. And, "no" I have no "Internet bravado" you're trying to put on me. You're just mad because I don't agree with you, which I see you do to others over in the NBA forum quite a bit.

Get over it, Francis. I don't agree with your ideology on Keep Hope Alive! and the only thing keeping YOUR playoff dreams alive is the "IF" factor.

So, "yes," that is very telling from the standpoint that this team has made people delirious with NFLMS, NFL Math Syndrome whereby we all sit around and try to calculate the ways we can end up int he playoffs.

THIS is the norm for us, as Texans fans. Having THIS very same conversation every year at this time. Yes, it is very telling indeed.

GP
12-07-2010, 02:54 PM
Has this team ever had a divisional standings "lead" longer than one or two weeks out of its 9-year existence?

This team has never been out in front. And in the games where we are out in front, we almost lose them or end up losing them.

We're rooting for a team who doesn't know how to get ahead, and even when they are ahead they try so very hard to relinquish the lead and award the victory to its opponents.

This team reduces us to always hoping someone else falls off their horse and breaks a leg so that we can race past them at the finish line. If a Texans fan can't handle being told that, then they are deluded. It is what it is, and there is no "poor, poor, pitiful me" act with it. It's just a statement of fact. It's where we stand as a team, and the fallout hits the fans.

So here we are, playing NFL Math to see how we can get into the playoffs. My expectations are right where I want them. But I have a feeling there will be some who will be very angry when their math equations crumble under how the season shakes down over the next several weeks.

I predict the Jaguars win the division. No other AFC team makes it to the playoffs. The Jags are acting like they want to win the division. They're in the lead, IMO. They aren't in shambles like the Colts and Titans. And they aren't the Texans. They win it by default. And promptly lose in their first playoff game.

HTown2ATX
12-07-2010, 03:30 PM
Your analogy doesn't apply, because the talent difference between
3A, and 5A are gigantic. This is the NFL, where games are won and
loss on the tiniest of details. Teams that handle those situations the
best win, those who screw it up, don't. EVERY team is a handful of
plays from being a winner, or a loser. Teams that consistently lose
are who they are. S.O.S., in the NFL, can NOT be used as an excuse
for your team losing, because it's not like the Texans blow out every
bad team they face. This is the team who has its only victory, in the
last SIX GAMES, against a team that fired its quarterback and quit on its coach.

As Bernard Pollard would say: "Whoopie-Doo."

The idea that "you are who your record says you are" is for the bottom-line believers who are rightly frustrated about this team's losses and not really interested in an analytical discussion of strength of schedules and team efficiency.

Apologies in advance, but, anyone who doesn't see that the AFC South is mediocre this year and is ripe for the taking is either completely out of their mind with blind acceptance of our mediocrity or does not watch NFL football.

Also, I'm tired of the "tough schedule" argument.

Tough schedule? Tough shit. Play the games you're given.

We all agree with this, nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

But........

The idea that "you are who your record says you are" is for the bottom-line believers who are rightly frustrated about this team's losses and not really interested in an analytical discussion of strength of schedules and team efficiency.

I'm honestly confused here.

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 03:35 PM
The idea that "you are who your record says you are" is for the bottom-line believers who are rightly frustrated about this team's losses and not really interested in an analytical discussion of strength of schedules and team efficiency.

The proposition that a 6-6 Rams team, with one of the easiest SoS rankings in the NFL, is equal to or better than the Texans and their much harder schedule is unsupportable.

Consider this: the Texans lost two consecutive games on heartbreaking, vomitous plays. If the coverage in the Jets game is the same busted ugliness but Braylon Edwards drops that pass and the Texans go on to win, are they any better? If Glover Quin doesn't bat that Hail Mary (we lost on a HAIL MARY!!!) right to Mike Thomas and the Texans win in OT, are we any better? Is a 7-5 team with the same glaring defensive problems really any different than this 5-7 team?

No, but the record would say otherwise.

All the things that caused these "heartbreaking" losses, happened in
the same season, especially during a FOUR GAME LOSING STREAK.
What playoff team loses four-in-a-row? The Texans lost because
their discipline breaks down when the tension gets high, damn-near
every time. It's too late for this coaching staff, if they're still
blowing these kinds of situations in the fifth season.

No excuses. I refuse to waste a good imagination on the garbage I've been
seeing on the field for the last two seasons. It's on the Texans to surprise
ME. So far, they are who I THOUGHT they were.

thunderkyss
12-07-2010, 07:18 PM
Your analogy doesn't apply, because the talent difference between
3A, and 5A are gigantic. This is the NFL, where games are won and
loss on the tiniest of details. Teams that handle those situations the
best win, those who screw it up, don't. EVERY team is a handful of
plays from being a winner, or a loser. Teams that consistently lose
are who they are. S.O.S., in the NFL, can NOT be used as an excuse
for your team losing, because it's not like the Texans blow out every
bad team they face. This is the team who has its only victory, in the
last SIX GAMES, against a team that fired its quarterback and quit on its coach.

As Bernard Pollard would say: "Whoopie-Doo."

Don't take my last statement as an "excuse" or "defense" of this teams current state. There is no excuse for what we've been seeing. They are who they are & right now, it's pathetic.

I believe my analogy does apply, while the "talent gap" isn't as huge in the NFL, there is a talent difference among teams. While it's not official, there is a tiered seperation of teams.... it goes a bit beyond talent, including coaching & management.

The Lions are no where near the team the Patriots are. They can play 100 games, & the Patriots would win 100 games before half-time.

& a bigger point in the post, was that it could be much worse. We could have an "easy" schedule, like the Cardinals or the Panthers, and have less than 4 wins between them.

I honestly believed this team would easily win 10 games even against this schedule. I was wrong. I am disappointed.

I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone.

thunderkyss
12-07-2010, 07:25 PM
Do you think the top quality teams have fans who think like this? "If the Jets lose the next x-amount of games, and if the Bills also lose x-amount of games, and if the Dolphins lose x-amount of games, then our Patriots are going to win the division."

No, I imagine a Steelers fan or a Patriots fan, or even a KC Chiefs fan this year, is thinking that they are in the drivers seat and that they need no help getting into the playoffs. They are motoring ahead, plowing through their schedule and charting their own course.


I bet the Ravens, Saints, Jets, Colts, Green Bay, & NYGiants fans are doing the math right now.

thunderkyss
12-07-2010, 07:34 PM
.

Or would you rather I say F*CK THIS TEAM, THE SEASON IS OVER!!!1!1!!!1!!!



I just gotta agree to disagree with some folks.

I understand being upset with the coaching staff, the players, management. But I don't understand how anyone can "love" this team, & not hope for success at every opportunity.

Kinda like marriage, for rich or for poor, through sickness & health, in the good times & the bad..

Everyone likes to say they are this, or they are that. But you know you've got a good spouse/friend/fan, when they are there supporting you in the bad times, the poor times, the worse times..

I mean what would you think of your "friend" who is always around, when you're making it rain, but you can't find them when you need someone to bail you out?

Norg
12-07-2010, 08:02 PM
THe rams almost beat us last year

with a Backup QB
half the team sick with the FLu
and more then 80% of there home crowd gone

GP
12-07-2010, 09:01 PM
I bet the Ravens, Saints, Jets, Colts, Green Bay, & NYGiants fans are doing the math right now.

You know what those teams have in common? Playoffs.

Every one of them have a history of (drum roll, please...) PLAYOFFS.

Once you've been there, you know what it takes to get back there. Just like walking a strange path the first time: You are blazing a new trail, there's nobody to help you get to the destination, and so you're up against the wall and facing things you don't even know if you can conquer when they arise. You're the pioneer. You're first.

Then, it's not so bad. You've been there. Done that. Cross the river a little further down because it's more shallow. Don't try to make the mountain pass past November or you'll run the risk of getting caught in a blizzard and no way out. Etc. etc. You get the point.

THIS team is like the wimpy settler who jacks around and gets scalped by indians because they didn't know how to pay in rifles or whiskey for safe passage. Or gets caught in a blizzard because they tried to make the mountain pass too late in the fall. Boo-hoo. All your clan is dead. Great job.

I feel like I'm on a wagon train with Gary Kubiak, shaking my head and thinking that this ends badly. That I want a new trail guide. And there's some of my clan, just a whistling and telling me that what I see is not what I see.

And spare me the "marriage" analogy. I'm not having sexual relations with Gary Kubiak. He wouldn't know how to use it anyways. He's got the goods, but can't make it work. Same problem on the field, too.

Well, let's circle the wagons here. Maybe those indians will fall off their horses or forget how to shoot at us, or maybe they'll get tired and go home. We need that sort of help, TK. We need others to fail so we can succeed.

Because we can't fend for ourselves and can't make it to the new land. Not with THIS trail guide. Great hair, though. Doesn't even need a hat.

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 09:11 PM
You know what those teams have in common? Playoffs.

Every one of them have a history of (drum roll, please...) PLAYOFFS.

Once you've been there, you know what it takes to get back there. Just like walking a strange path the first time: You are blazing a new trail, there's nobody to help you get to the destination, and so you're up against the wall and facing things you don't even know if you can conquer when they arise. You're the pioneer. You're first.

Then, it's not so bad. You've been there. Done that. Cross the river a little further down because it's more shallow. Don't try to make the mountain pass past November or you'll run the risk of getting caught in a blizzard and no way out. Etc. etc. You get the point.

THIS team is like the wimpy settler who jacks around and gets scalped by indians because they didn't know how to pay in rifles or whiskey for safe passage. Or gets caught in a blizzard because they tried to make the mountain pass too late in the fall. Boo-hoo. All your clan is dead. Great job.

I feel like I'm on a wagon train with Gary Kubiak, shaking my head and thinking that this ends badly. That I want a new trail guide. And there's some of my clan, just a whistling and telling me that what I see is not what I see.

And spare me the "marriage" analogy. I'm not having sexual relations with Gary Kubiak. He wouldn't know how to use it anyways. He's got the goods, but can't make it work. Same problem on the field, too.

Well, let's circle the wagons here. Maybe those indians will fall off their horses or forget how to shoot at us, or maybe they'll get tired and go home. We need that sort of help, TK. We need others to fail so we can succeed.

Because we can't fend for ourselves and can't make it to the new land. Not with THIS trail guide. Great hair, though. Doesn't even need a hat.

Man, I used to be the KING of Oregon Trail. That game was da BIDNESS!

By the way. I'm also confused on how Kubiak has garnered so many
people willing to give him their unconditional love. What has he done?

GP
12-07-2010, 09:19 PM
Man, I used to be the KING of Oregon Trail. That game was da BIDNESS!

By the way. I'm also confused on how Kubiak has garnered so many
people willing to give him their unconditional love. What has he done?

My theory?

1. Capers and Carr were grossly incompetent with an offense

2. Look! An offense--finally!!!--under Kubiak

3. What if Kubiak leaves? GASP! What if it goes bad again?!?!?

Paralysis of analysis. I think most people think we're going to ditch Kubiak and therefore it tosses away any progress we've made thus far. They watch other teams go from coach to coach every few years, never making progress, and it freaks them out.

Better to have a known commodity than the unknown. People don't like it when their cheese is moved. Keep that cheese at the same spot, and I can find it every time. Like clockwork. Move it, though, and I freak out and panic. I want normalcy, dependability, consistency, etc.

I just think some people think it's like continuing to stay the course because it will eventually pay off somehow. As if things will just magically come together on their own. POOF! We're not the sucky team that requires its opponents to fail so that we can succeed.

JB
12-07-2010, 09:29 PM
My theory?

1. Capers and Carr were grossly incompetent with an offense

2. Look! An offense--finally!!!--under Kubiak

3. What if Kubiak leaves? GASP! What if it goes bad again?!?!?

Paralysis of analysis. I think most people think we're going to ditch Kubiak and therefore it tosses away any progress we've made thus far. They watch other teams go from coach to coach every few years, never making progress, and it freaks them out.

Better to have a known commodity than the unknown. People don't like it when their cheese is moved. Keep that cheese at the same spot, and I can find it every time. Like clockwork. Move it, though, and I freak out and panic. I want normalcy, dependability, consistency, etc.

I just think some people think it's like continuing to stay the course because it will eventually pay off somehow. As if things will just magically come together on their own. POOF! We're not the sucky team that requires its opponents to fail so that we can succeed.

One of the problem I have with the die hard soapers like you is that you are not comfortable in having your opinion and letting others have theirs. You (and others) have to constantly belittle those that do not neccessarily agree with you.

If I want to drink the koolaid and believe that our team is heading in the right direction, is that not my right? I don't bash you or call you a non-fan.


Sorry for the rant GP, and it's not really directed at you, but I am getting tired of the assertion (implied or otherwise), that I am blind and/or stupid because I don't wear your soap.

ThaShark316
12-07-2010, 10:21 PM
One of the problem I have with the die hard soapers like you is that you are not comfortable in having your opinion and letting others have theirs. You (and others) have to constantly belittle those that do not neccessarily agree with you.

If I want to drink the koolaid and believe that our team is heading in the right direction, is that not my right? I don't bash you or call you a non-fan.


Sorry for the rant GP, and it's not really directed at you, but I am getting tired of the assertion (implied or otherwise), that I am blind and/or stupid because I don't wear your soap.

Ether.

Mr. White
12-07-2010, 10:51 PM
Th bottom line to me is that we can agree to disagree on the Kubiak thing without people taking it so damn personal. I don't think less of anyone for having a different opinion than me.

That goes for both sides of the argument.

GP
12-07-2010, 11:04 PM
One of the problem I have with the die hard soapers like you is that you are not comfortable in having your opinion and letting others have theirs. You (and others) have to constantly belittle those that do not neccessarily agree with you.

If I want to drink the koolaid and believe that our team is heading in the right direction, is that not my right? I don't bash you or call you a non-fan.


Sorry for the rant GP, and it's not really directed at you, but I am getting tired of the assertion (implied or otherwise), that I am blind and/or stupid because I don't wear your soap.

No need to apologize. We're all grumpy for one reason or another.

Do you think Kubiak has what it takes? Pretend you own this team and you could decide whether to keep him or fire him. Would you fire him? Keep him?

I'm trying to understand the things about this team that make people hold out hope that we're going to "run the table" and make the playoffs. Do you understand the odds of this happening? Is the attraction to the Keep Hope Alive! telethon based on wishful thinking, avoiding reality, believing that "anything can happen!" or the allure of beating the odds and taking down the house?

It seems I am trying to belittle people, but I'm not. I'm trying to understand the reasoning skills. I keep seeing the NFL Math gang, cranking out the necessary win-loss combinations of each week's games in order for us to pair it up with us winning all our remaining games, and it intrigues me. Not belittling or anything (unless someone wants to get snippy about it), but just trying to wrap my mind around the thought process I see with some people on here.

Do people think they are a bad fan if they DON'T root, root, root for the old home team to the very end? I love this team, which is why I can't stand Gary Kubiak and his squad of buzzkill deputies. For every "feel good game" we have, such as the previous Titans game, there are about 10 "feel bad" games around it. I'm just thinking out loud and wondering if the brand of football that Bob McNair is serving us is like Spongebob Squarepants episodes. Those shows rot your brain out, but are fun to watch. Utter drivel, but attracts us like moths to a flame.

Bob McNair Squarepants is killing me slowly. Like arsenic.

Rey
12-07-2010, 11:22 PM
Bradford is doing fine but he doesn't match Schaub on any individual stat plus Bradford is playing dink and dunk football.

Really? Any individual stat?

They have the same amount of TD passes and Bradford has two more INT's. Schaub has been sacked 2 more times than Bradford.

But again, we are talking about a rookie. A first year player.

And again, his best receiver this year may not even crack the rotation on a lot of teams.

Matt Schaub not only has a back that is excellent out of the backfield, but he also has a deep group of TE's that are good targets, and he has an elite receiver, and a lot of talented depth there.




I would probably agree with you to a degree about Bradford because he's a very accurate passer with great potential, but I stopped reading here because Schaub has already proven you wrong. So very wrong.

Any NFL quarterback who finishes a season with 4,770 yards passing, the sixth-highest total of all-time, is by definition elite.

Sixth all time! But noooooo, it was a fluke and Schaub still isn't capable of being an elite quarterback. What a pantload.

Schaub is not elite because he put up all those yards. He threw the ball more than anyone else that year too.

And I don't even want to take anything away from what Schaub is capable of. Like I said, I'm not bashing the guy. He's a very good QB, but he is not a guy that you look at and say "anytime he's on the field, his team has a very good chance to win". He's not a guy that is going to keep his team competitive despite what is going on around him. He is not a guy that consistenly performs in the clutch. He is not that guy.

He can play at an elite level at times, but he doesn't do it consistently enough for me to call him an elite performer.

And I'm not saying Bradford is an elite performer at this point in time. What I'm saying is that I think he is about as good as Matt is already and I think he will far surpass Matt in the years to come.

thunderkyss
12-08-2010, 04:20 AM
You know what those teams have in common? Playoffs.

Every one of them have a history of (drum roll, please...) PLAYOFFS.
.

Wow....

I think it would have been much easier to say, "you're right, there are good teams doing the play-off math now. I was wrong."

GP
12-08-2010, 09:17 AM
Wow....

I think it would have been much easier to say, "you're right, there are good teams doing the play-off math now. I was wrong."

You don't understand the mentality of the NFL. You have an "If we can dream it, we can achieve it. I believe I can fly" attitude. Sounds great, in theory, but the truth is that it takes more than that.

You have to do it. A team has to get there. It has to know exactly what it takes to win the games that get you into the playoffs. It's not just playing the game well. David Carr once said, when asked if the game vs. the 49ers was a "must win" game for the Texans, "No. It's not a 'must win' game. It's a 'must play well' game." That's an accurate description of this franchise. That statement is very telling, to me. You go out, work hard, play hard, and let the chips fall where they may. Except for one thing: That mindset is rubbish. It's void of accountability and diligence regarding beating your opponent each week. it's intellectually and philosophically lazy. It's an alibi for the crime of mediocrity.

Once you get there, you remember how you got there. You understand it is possible to get there again. This team, the Houston Texans, is showing that it doesn't want to be there. Career suicide on so many levels. There isn't a problem with any single player here. Or any single coach. There is a collective mindset and cultural climate within that franchise that oozes under-performance in the things that matter most. "Good enough" is not enough, it's just enough to be able to live with themselves after each pathetic performance. And the coaches are OK with that, too, if we're being honest. If not, there would be lots of changes in coaching philosophy and/or the roster on a consistent basis until they find enough "kids" who will buy into their coaching style and technique. Sure, make a move here...make a move there...etc. That's an obvious effort. Where's the beef? Where's the payoff? Where's the results?

I guess we just haven't found the right kids to execute the stellar techniques and strategies of these coaches? When do we find them, TK? How many years until this team has enough competent players that we can finally see that it's not a coaching problem? Out of the hundred of thousands of potential NFL players sitting around out there in America right now, we can't find players who can excel at the given tasks on the field?

If my oven is broken, I can't bake a cake. Oh sure, I can put the ingredients together and follow the directions to the letter, but I won't have a finished product. Our oven is broken. NO amount of personnel decisions will matter here. At some point, it has to be obvious that there are underlying problems with the very mechanism that exists to take the mixed ingredients and produce an end-product.

The Dallas Cowboys have won 3 of their last 4 games, almost winning that one lost game vs. the SAINTS. Yes, the SAINTS. Why? Because there was an underlying problems that was shackling that team. Problem removed, players begin flourishing. Backup QB even shows some competence out there! Even if this is a "placebo" effect with the Cowboys, who cares?!?! It's working.

Our stuff? Broke as Hell. Period. In dysfunctional organizations, you're going to be able to find a few higher-functioning members who appear to be unphased by the surrounding dysfunction only because of their natural ability to remain above the fray: Such as AJ and Foster. Not everyone is at that level. This team is a collection of players. I want to see a coach who knows how to use each existing player to his utmost strength and limit his weaknesses to the point that each player looks like gold out there.

It can happen. But this stuff, right now? It isn't working. The few higher-functioning members of this team are distracting everyone from the larger picture here.

I think I have done a pretty good job of keeping things "real." Reality is sometimes stinky. Such as right now. Such as the past 9 years here. Time to take out the garbage and put in a new trash can liner.

JB
12-08-2010, 09:41 AM
Do you think Kubiak has what it takes? Pretend you own this team and you could decide whether to keep him or fire him. Would you fire him? Keep him?



I don't know. If I had to make a decision right now, he would be gone. But, I don't. I am going to watch the rest of the year. I need to evaluate and determine how much is on the coaches and how much is on the players.

I suspect there is a great deal of fault on both ends. If I am the owner, I am going to try to get input from someone far more knowledgable about football than I am. I want someone who knows what they are doing and is totally un-biased (if thats possible) to come in and look at the game film and talk to coaches and players. Are the players being put in a position to succeed and then failing? Are the coaches not putting them in a position to succeed?

Why is it that most of our talent seems to digress after their rookie year, and not be able to recover? It can't all be about sophmore slumps, because they are even worse in their third year. Why do we have so many players like Molden and Adibi that can't seem to stay hfealthy long enough to get on the field? Do other teams have the same problem?

If I'm the owner, I'm on the phone right now with Parcells, Shottenheimer and anyone else I can think of to find the path.

But I see no point in making a change right now just for the sake of making a change. If I thought it was possible to bring someone in and that would guarantee making the playoffs, I would do so. I don't think that would happen. Fans & players alike would read it as giving up on the season.

And even if fI have given up on the season, I'm not going to come out and say so publicly.

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 10:02 AM
The idea that "you are who your record says you are" is for the bottom-line believers who are rightly frustrated about this team's losses and not really interested in an analytical discussion of strength of schedules and team efficiency.

The proposition that a 6-6 Rams team, with one of the easiest SoS rankings in the NFL, is equal to or better than the Texans and their much harder schedule is unsupportable.

Consider this: the Texans lost two consecutive games on heartbreaking, vomitous plays. If the coverage in the Jets game is the same busted ugliness but Braylon Edwards drops that pass and the Texans go on to win, are they any better? If Glover Quin doesn't bat that Hail Mary (we lost on a HAIL MARY!!!) right to Mike Thomas and the Texans win in OT, are we any better? Is a 7-5 team with the same glaring defensive problems really any different than this 5-7 team?

No, but the record would say otherwise.

Remember at the begining of the preseason when I was telling everybody that would listen that the Texans were a 7-9 team and not the 10-6 team that so many believed they were.

Due to SOS and sheeple said it didn't matter lets play the games 1st. I was in agreement with that. But how has it turned out.

The difference between this yrs team and last isn't talent. (It's about the same, not good enough) It's that if you finish 9-7 playing the NFC West/ Bills/Cincy's of the world. How did you think it was going to go playing the NFC East and the Ravens,Jets and Chargers?

That should've been an easy answer and so far the season has played out according to form. No major injuries to opposing QB's - VY (which happens to be the only Texans win) means the Texans finish 7-9,8-8 at best due to terrible coaching staff combined with major hole that haven't been filled since day one of this franchise. (See the FS and DT positions)

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 10:09 AM
One of the problem I have with the die hard soapers like you is that you are not comfortable in having your opinion and letting others have theirs. You (and others) have to constantly belittle those that do not neccessarily agree with you.

If I want to drink the koolaid and believe that our team is heading in the right direction, is that not my right? I don't bash you or call you a non-fan.


Sorry for the rant GP, and it's not really directed at you, but I am getting tired of the assertion (implied or otherwise), that I am blind and/or stupid because I don't wear your soap.

It is your right and I respect your opinion. This board would be boring without the koolaid drinkers.

I appreciate the same consideration that you have given me as a hard line soaper.

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 10:12 AM
Th bottom line to me is that we can agree to disagree on the Kubiak thing without people taking it so damn personal. I don't think less of anyone for having a different opinion than me.

That goes for both sides of the argument.

This sounds very reasonable to me.

Hopefully the end is near and McNair will hire somebody that most of us diehards can get on board the new koolaid stand with.

drs23
12-08-2010, 10:50 AM
One of the problem I have with the die hard soapers like you is that you are not comfortable in having your opinion and letting others have theirs. You (and others) have to constantly belittle those that do not neccessarily agree with you.

If I want to drink the koolaid and believe that our team is heading in the right direction, is that not my right? I don't bash you or call you a non-fan.


Sorry for the rant GP, and it's not really directed at you, but I am getting tired of the assertion (implied or otherwise), that I am blind and/or stupid because I don't wear your soap.

+1
Wise words JB.

GP
12-08-2010, 11:14 AM
I don't know. If I had to make a decision right now, he would be gone. But, I don't. I am going to watch the rest of the year. I need to evaluate and determine how much is on the coaches and how much is on the players.

It's on both, but the coaches have not been able to help the existing players succeed. That's a coach's job. Not to loaf around because he has so much talent on his roster that the players are like robots and the coach can sip iced tea and let things happen on their own. And even with "talent" on the roster, there would have to be some real, 100% player leadership among the players in order to make a coachless team succeed in the NFL. In short: There would have to be a perfect storm in order for a coachless team to survive in the NFL.

In the book "First, Break All The Rules," we learn that great managers find ways to help their employees succeed. The example they gave was a diner where they had hired a mentally-challenged man to help with the transition of the meats from the meat delivery truck to the kitchen area. Part of his responsibility was to cut up the meat before giving it to the cooks. But he was failing miserably at it. It was slowing up the process. Instead of firing the young man, due to incompetence, they devised a plan to help him succeed. They contacted the meat provider and asked if he could have the meat pre-cut ahead of time. 'Sure," the man said, "We can do that." Problem solved. Everything got back on track, and they didn't have to fire the young man and find a reliable replacement.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO THE TEXANS: OK, so you don't have world-class talent at some positions. Deal with it. Find a way to support the inferior players and mitigate the damage. Use some wisdom in how you go about the strategies of gameplanning each week. Is our Free Safety failing at getting to the area where he can properly support the CB on a pass play? OK, then let's find ways to use that weakness as a strength--Let's actually bait the QB into throwing that same pass and let's adjust so we can pick it off. Except we see that McCourty of the Patriots did that very concept against Holmes in the Pats-Jets MNF game...the same pass that the Jets burned us on, to set them up for the winning TD play later on, the Pats picked it off and we gave it away completely. Uncontested. This has been happening all season. No coach is seeing this and adjusting to it. Unless we're facing Rusty Smith. Which isn't even a proper variable in the equation of our problems.

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

Coaches have to treat their players the same, yet differently. That's another concept from "First, Break All The Rules." People are unique, but they are also the same. It's a contradiction, for sure, but it's applicable to a work environment in the sense that you must remember that not everyone is "just like you" in how they function and what motivates them...nor should we forget that each person does have the same attributes such as "a need to be accepted," etc.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO THE TEXANS: Kubiak doesn't think outside the box. Therefore, other teams know what we're going to do. Only other teams who are as vastly incompetent in this area as we are tend to get beaten by us. But you find a good strategist who makes his team learn new things each week, to face a new opponent who has different strengths and weaknesses and overall tendencies as the previous opponent you just faced, and I'll show you a coach who makes Gary Kubiak look verrry verrry unprepared and outmatched. This is not speculation. This is fact. The Patriots this past week, IMO, found a way to outguess and outwit the Jets. Rex Ryan is good at adjusting to other teams...but he's on a lower tier than Belichick. As time goes by, I bet Rex Ryan figures some of that same stuff out himself. Our guy? LOL. Yeah....well, whatever.

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

In addition, the book says that BAD managers promote their employees to the level of the employees' incompetency. Good companies provide what's called a "parachute" meaning that if the person is promoted up tyhe ladder and then gets to the point that he's now unable to do his job, he should be given a way to eject and yet stay with the company and go down one rung on the ladder (back to the highest level of his competency). Why? Why not fire the guy? Because BAD companies don't realize that people have limits.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO THE TEXANS: Frank Bush. And we could even say that Gary Kubiak has been promoted to HIS own level of incompetency. Great OC, but not so great at being an HC. Look at Belichick. It took him years of failure, of being promoted to his level of incompetency, before he figured things out. He kept getting his opportunities, kept learning from them, and has finally found a way (via video recording and torturing his players) to get the proper results. I hope Gary Kubiak leaves here, takes his lumps from the experience, and figures things out. And I hope we, the Texans, find our next head coach to be the person who has already done that routine and now knows what he's got to do to succeed.

I think some coaches are just not going to try and mix things up to the degree that they exhaust all of their resources in order to find a winning solution. They're going to do what they know how to do, and do it in the ways that they feel most comfortable, and let the chips fall where they may. To me, this is what intrigues me about Mike Leach. Because he is very unconventional, very cerebral. He'll play a patsy, as if he's a loon or a bumpkin, but it's a show. Belichick is very cerebral too. I think Kubiak is, as well, but to a limit. His schtick is identifying and obtaining guys who can work within his system of offense, but there's no freedom in expression (by, and for, the players) and there's a predictability and a stagnant nature to what he does. The competent opponents we face have got him figured out. And he isn't adapting to it. Because he's too "in the moment" and doesn't have, IMO, the separation from the situation that getting fired and having the "away time" can give a coach.

Even then, he'd have to be like Belichick (and like Coughlin, who recently admitted he had to change things up in how he does things and goes about life) and admit he needs to adapt. I don't know if Gary can do that, though.

This coaching staff did a good job of stopping the bleeding from the previous coaching regime. But we need more than a clotting technique now. We need that next level. Don't we?

JB
12-08-2010, 11:22 AM
You make some excellent points GP. And the coaching staff probably does need to be changed out. Does the GM need to go also? I am just not going to spend the next month bashing the team. I take no enjoyment in that. Instead, I will enjoy my football just like I always do. When they lose, for a few minutes I am a miserable SOB. Then I get over it and move on.



Ranting here does not relieve any pressure or angst for me. I know it does for others. I would prefer to take it a game at a time, and talk about what the team needs to do to beat Baltimore.

GP
12-08-2010, 11:35 AM
You make some excellent points GP. And the coaching staff probably does need to be changed out. Does the GM need to go also? I am just not going to spend the next month bashing the team. I take no enjoyment in that. Instead, I will enjoy my football just like I always do. When they lose, for a few minutes I am a miserable SOB. Then I get over it and move on.



Ranting here does not relieve any pressure or angst for me. I know it does for others. I would prefer to take it a game at a time, and talk about what the team needs to do to beat Baltimore.

IMO, the GM will stay. I think McNair likes him a lot. Just a hunch. I think he sees him as being a long-term guy here...regardless of who the HC is. He held out on restructuring Owen Daniels and DeMeco Ryans contracts...remember that? Those two guys felt they out-performed their rookie ocntract and they made noie about wanting a better deal before the contracts expired. And then they both get hurt. Now, Rick Smith looks like a financial genius for McNair. Because he dragged his feet, was reluctant to enter into talks with those guys, and he was proven to be wise on the matter. Why should McNair pay two guys more money when their contracts are still in effect? If he pays them more, and they get hurt, he's out more money. If he refuses and makes them play out their contracts, THEN they get hurt, well...he only loses the remainder of the money left on the original contract. So he lets Rick Smith be that guy who handles that stuff.

McNair is a businessman, but it seems he's a businessman who capitalizes on being shrewd on many things and lavishing on a few things, such as his facility that he constantly praises as being a reason why "top notch free agents will flock to Houston," etc.

I don't wonder how we're going to prepare for Baltimore. Because Baltimore will have properly prepared for us. Which means the only way Baltimore loses is if they forget tostick to their gameplan OR if they turn the ball over or drop passes, etc.

JB, our team only succeeds when other teams (a) fail to properly prepare for us, or (b) the opponent makes too many mistakes to overcome any points we might gain from those opportunities.

Go in peace, and may you find happiness along your way. If you find it, send some my way.

Texecutioner
12-08-2010, 07:42 PM
IMO, the GM will stay. I think McNair likes him a lot. Just a hunch. I think he sees him as being a long-term guy here...regardless of who the HC is. He held out on restructuring Owen Daniels and DeMeco Ryans contracts...remember that? Those two guys felt they out-performed their rookie ocntract and they made noie about wanting a better deal before the contracts expired. And then they both get hurt. Now, Rick Smith looks like a financial genius for McNair. Because he dragged his feet, was reluctant to enter into talks with those guys, and he was proven to be wise on the matter. Why should McNair pay two guys more money when their contracts are still in effect? If he pays them more, and they get hurt, he's out more money. If he refuses and makes them play out their contracts, THEN they get hurt, well...he only loses the remainder of the money left on the original contract. So he lets Rick Smith be that guy who handles that stuff.

McNair is a businessman, but it seems he's a businessman who capitalizes on being shrewd on many things and lavishing on a few things, such as his facility that he constantly praises as being a reason why "top notch free agents will flock to Houston," etc.

I don't wonder how we're going to prepare for Baltimore. Because Baltimore will have properly prepared for us. Which means the only way Baltimore loses is if they forget tostick to their gameplan OR if they turn the ball over or drop passes, etc.

JB, our team only succeeds when other teams (a) fail to properly prepare for us, or (b) the opponent makes too many mistakes to overcome any points we might gain from those opportunities.

Go in peace, and may you find happiness along your way. If you find it, send some my way.

The GM is probably the biggest waste of space I've ever seen on any team I've ever rooted for in my entire existence. I'm still trying to figure out what Rick Smith ever did to get the confidence that he's gotten with so many fans just in the first two years here, much less now. It's amazing to me that this guy even draws a salary. He's never out there pushing to try and rape teams on trades like so many of these other GM's, he's never out there trying to be a salesman like these other GM's that pull in free agents at times on the cheap to make them believe that they can win a SB here and that's what it's about. He's like that guy at a company that you and your buddies sit there in the break room scratching your heads about trying to figure out what it is he ever did to get the job he got before you guys all got hired there. I don't see how any team in any sport can think that they can win a title or become a consistent winner by a philosophy of strictly building through the draft. If Kubiak were to be fired, that would only be half of the deal that he needs to close. Rick Smith is just as bad as Gary Kubiak and just as incompetent if not worse. He had never been a successful GM before he got here either. He was just some typical Denver assistant who got a red carpet rolled out for him when Kubes was hired that should have never gotten this position. Unfortunately as fans we've had to deal with it.

JB
12-08-2010, 07:47 PM
The GM is probably the biggest waste of space I've ever seen on any team I've ever rooted for in my entire existence. I'm still trying to figure out what Rick Smith ever did to get the confidence that he's gotten with so many fans just in the first two years here, much less now. It's amazing to me that this guy even draws a salary. He's never out there pushing to try and rape teams on trades like so many of these other GM's, he's never out there trying to be a salesman like these other GM's that pull in free agents at times on the cheap to make them believe that they can win a SB here and that's what it's about. He's like that guy at a company that you and your buddies sit there in the break room scratching your heads about trying to figure out what it is he ever did to get the job he got before you guys all got hired there. I don't see how any team in any sport can think that they can win a title or become a consistent winner by a philosophy of strictly building through the draft. If Kubiak were to be fired, that would only be half of the deal that he needs to close. Rick Smith is just as bad as Gary Kubiak and just as incompetent if not worse. He had never been a successful GM before he got here either. He was just some typical Denver assistant who got a red carpet rolled out for him when Kubes was hired that should have never gotten this position. Unfortunately as fans we've had to deal with it.

I'm starting to agree with you... :eek:

But it seems like all of our drafts appear good at the time, in hindsight we have not had a good draft other than 2006. And Smith was not here for that.

We have not had any impact to speak of in the free agent market.

infantrycak
12-08-2010, 07:49 PM
He's never out there pushing to try and rape teams on trades like so many of these other GM's, he's never out there trying to be a salesman like these other GM's that pull in free agents at times on the cheap to make them believe that they can win a SB here and that's what it's about.

How do we know this?

Please note I am not staking out a position. I'd just like to know how you can so definitively stake out the one you have taken.

GuerillaBlack
12-08-2010, 09:00 PM
It's on both, but the coaches have not been able to help the existing players succeed. That's a coach's job. Not to loaf around because he has so much talent on his roster that the players are like robots and the coach can sip iced tea and let things happen on their own. And even with "talent" on the roster, there would have to be some real, 100% player leadership among the players in order to make a coachless team succeed in the NFL. In short: There would have to be a perfect storm in order for a coachless team to survive in the NFL.

In the book "First, Break All The Rules," we learn that great managers find ways to help their employees succeed. The example they gave was a diner where they had hired a mentally-challenged man to help with the transition of the meats from the meat delivery truck to the kitchen area. Part of his responsibility was to cut up the meat before giving it to the cooks. But he was failing miserably at it. It was slowing up the process. Instead of firing the young man, due to incompetence, they devised a plan to help him succeed. They contacted the meat provider and asked if he could have the meat pre-cut ahead of time. 'Sure," the man said, "We can do that." Problem solved. Everything got back on track, and they didn't have to fire the young man and find a reliable replacement.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO THE TEXANS: OK, so you don't have world-class talent at some positions. Deal with it. Find a way to support the inferior players and mitigate the damage. Use some wisdom in how you go about the strategies of gameplanning each week. Is our Free Safety failing at getting to the area where he can properly support the CB on a pass play? OK, then let's find ways to use that weakness as a strength--Let's actually bait the QB into throwing that same pass and let's adjust so we can pick it off. Except we see that McCourty of the Patriots did that very concept against Holmes in the Pats-Jets MNF game...the same pass that the Jets burned us on, to set them up for the winning TD play later on, the Pats picked it off and we gave it away completely. Uncontested. This has been happening all season. No coach is seeing this and adjusting to it. Unless we're facing Rusty Smith. Which isn't even a proper variable in the equation of our problems.

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

Coaches have to treat their players the same, yet differently. That's another concept from "First, Break All The Rules." People are unique, but they are also the same. It's a contradiction, for sure, but it's applicable to a work environment in the sense that you must remember that not everyone is "just like you" in how they function and what motivates them...nor should we forget that each person does have the same attributes such as "a need to be accepted," etc.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO THE TEXANS: Kubiak doesn't think outside the box. Therefore, other teams know what we're going to do. Only other teams who are as vastly incompetent in this area as we are tend to get beaten by us. But you find a good strategist who makes his team learn new things each week, to face a new opponent who has different strengths and weaknesses and overall tendencies as the previous opponent you just faced, and I'll show you a coach who makes Gary Kubiak look verrry verrry unprepared and outmatched. This is not speculation. This is fact. The Patriots this past week, IMO, found a way to outguess and outwit the Jets. Rex Ryan is good at adjusting to other teams...but he's on a lower tier than Belichick. As time goes by, I bet Rex Ryan figures some of that same stuff out himself. Our guy? LOL. Yeah....well, whatever.

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

In addition, the book says that BAD managers promote their employees to the level of the employees' incompetency. Good companies provide what's called a "parachute" meaning that if the person is promoted up tyhe ladder and then gets to the point that he's now unable to do his job, he should be given a way to eject and yet stay with the company and go down one rung on the ladder (back to the highest level of his competency). Why? Why not fire the guy? Because BAD companies don't realize that people have limits.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO THE TEXANS: Frank Bush. And we could even say that Gary Kubiak has been promoted to HIS own level of incompetency. Great OC, but not so great at being an HC. Look at Belichick. It took him years of failure, of being promoted to his level of incompetency, before he figured things out. He kept getting his opportunities, kept learning from them, and has finally found a way (via video recording and torturing his players) to get the proper results. I hope Gary Kubiak leaves here, takes his lumps from the experience, and figures things out. And I hope we, the Texans, find our next head coach to be the person who has already done that routine and now knows what he's got to do to succeed.

I think some coaches are just not going to try and mix things up to the degree that they exhaust all of their resources in order to find a winning solution. They're going to do what they know how to do, and do it in the ways that they feel most comfortable, and let the chips fall where they may. To me, this is what intrigues me about Mike Leach. Because he is very unconventional, very cerebral. He'll play a patsy, as if he's a loon or a bumpkin, but it's a show. Belichick is very cerebral too. I think Kubiak is, as well, but to a limit. His schtick is identifying and obtaining guys who can work within his system of offense, but there's no freedom in expression (by, and for, the players) and there's a predictability and a stagnant nature to what he does. The competent opponents we face have got him figured out. And he isn't adapting to it. Because he's too "in the moment" and doesn't have, IMO, the separation from the situation that getting fired and having the "away time" can give a coach.

Even then, he'd have to be like Belichick (and like Coughlin, who recently admitted he had to change things up in how he does things and goes about life) and admit he needs to adapt. I don't know if Gary can do that, though.

This coaching staff did a good job of stopping the bleeding from the previous coaching regime. But we need more than a clotting technique now. We need that next level. Don't we?

Is there a tl;dr version?

Texecutioner
12-08-2010, 09:30 PM
How do we know this?

Please note I am not staking out a position. I'd just like to know how you can so definitively stake out the one you have taken.

It's very simple how we know this Icak. It's never been top secret as to what teams are out there trying to acquire certain free agents on the market. There are always tons of media outlets out there reporting about teams like the Pats or the Eagles or some other highly active team that's in talks with another team about making a trade for a disgruntled player or to unload one for future value that they can take advantage of. Then there are those free agents that talk to a ton of teams out there when they're promoting themselves and it's usually public knowledge as to what teams are out there trying to sell themselves as great destinations and trying to reel those guys in. You never hear about the Texans being involved, and sorry but this little excuse for Kubes and SMith about "us not knowing" simply isn't valid anymore and never has been. It's reported all of the time even when certain teams don't make the move or make the offer. You hear about them being involved though and we never hear about the Texans being active as far as trades go or in free agency unless it's some cast off that no other team is interersted in like Pollard was or like Reeves was when we acquired him.

That, and the fact that the Texans organization has never really balked at the fact their strategy is to strictly build through the draft. All of the reporters that cover this team have said that over and over for years as well and they get these notions from the team's management.

This theory that "we just don't know" simply doesn't fly and never really has as far as the lack of making moves to better this team outside of the draft.

Texecutioner
12-08-2010, 09:34 PM
I'm starting to agree with you... :eek:

But it seems like all of our drafts appear good at the time, in hindsight we have not had a good draft other than 2006. And Smith was not here for that.

We have not had any impact to speak of in the free agent market.

We've had a few good draft picks here and there, but we've gone after far to many project players for my liking and I've had a big problem with that as far as the draft goes. Teams who are trying to become big time teams and consistent winners aren't in position to get project players like Okoye, all of our TE's, and guys like Barwin who we don't hardly utilize to our advantage. We need to be going after guys that can help right away. Project players are for teams that are already loaded with talent and can afford the waiting period for them to blossom.

Andre_Johnson
12-08-2010, 11:11 PM
I'm sure it's already been said, but I'm too tired to check. Over the past decade the AFC South has been the toughest division, so the NFC West isn't anywhere close to as good.

Ironically the best team of those years looks like the most vunerable, add that to a lot of close games and the Texans lack of defense on the opponent's last drive. Looks like we had our chance and it would take nothing short of a miracle to finally make the playoffs.

Our team lacks composure and discipline when they need it the most and that all falls on the coaching.

Texecutioner
12-08-2010, 11:57 PM
I'm sure it's already been said, but I'm too tired to check. Over the past decade the AFC South has been the toughest division, so the NFC West isn't anywhere close to as good.

Ironically the best team of those years looks like the most vunerable, add that to a lot of close games and the Texans lack of defense on the opponent's last drive. Looks like we had our chance and it would take nothing short of a miracle to finally make the playoffs.

Our team lacks composure and discipline when they need it the most and that all falls on the coaching.

Agree with most of this post, but this continued sentiment that the AFC South has simply been the toughest division year in and year out simply isn't true. It's been up there for sure, but the NFC East has been slightly better in my opinion if you looked at the last 5 years. There have been other divisions that have been very very good in other seasons as well. The Texans have had the Colts to deal with every year which has been the only real problem other than two years ago when the Titans were a great team. There have been other divisions that have at least two very good or great teams every year like the Steelers and the Ravens division and the Patriots division that now has the Jets and a hard nosed Dolphins team as well. The division with The Falcons, Saints, and Panthers got pretty damn good to a few years ago.

GuerillaBlack
12-09-2010, 12:06 AM
Agree with most of this post, but this continued sentiment that the AFC South has simply been the toughest division year in and year out simply isn't true. It's been up there for sure, but the NFC East has been slightly better in my opinion if you looked at the last 5 years. There have been other divisions that have been very very good in other seasons as well. The Texans have had the Colts to deal with every year which has been the only real problem other than two years ago when the Titans were a great team. There have been other divisions that have at least two very good or great teams every year like the Steelers and the Ravens division and the Patriots division that now has the Jets and a hard nosed Dolphins team as well. The division with The Falcons, Saints, and Panthers got pretty damn good to a few years ago.

It's still good with the Saints, Falcons, and Bucs.

Texecutioner
12-09-2010, 12:41 AM
It's still good with the Saints, Falcons, and Bucs.

No argument there GB.

Andre_Johnson
12-09-2010, 01:52 AM
Well put, it's hard to believe that Jacksonville is leading the division at this point. We lost in one of the most creative ways possible, but it was just one of those games...

GP
12-09-2010, 08:35 AM
Is there a tl;dr version?

What's a tl;dr version?

I have the hardback book. had to read it for a master's class in Organizational Communication.

Perhaps the best book on the topic of what makes organizations and its employees "great." It's based off of decades of interviews with the most successful businesses and their owners/managers. The interviews were with companies across all spectrums: Manufacturing, retail, entertainment, construction, finance, etc. They compiled a warehouse full of interviews and then began sorting through it all and finding COMMON threads that ran throughout every interview.

In short: In the book "First, Break All The Rules," you're getting THE cream of the crop and how they achieved what they achieved. And it's all stuff that those successful companies had in common. They found a common theme that ran through each of those companies. No "fluke" success stories, in other words. Every bit of it was by INTENTION. By PURPOSE.

And that's what upsets me about the Texans. When I look at this team, and I remember back to the time I read that book over 11 years ago, I see nothing in common with the book's contents. Not that it's the end-all-be-all book or anything. But to me, it's so logical and so plain. There's no secret formula. No fluke success stories. It's just common sense, bread-and-butter stuff that anybody can do. But most people don't.

You should read that book. It's not a hard read. Not at all. I read it in about a week because I couldn't put it down. The professor asked us to only read a chapter-per-week. LOL. No way. That book is awesome. I remember stuff from it, by heart, 11 years later. All that stuff I typed? From memory. From one reading of the book 11 years ago. It's THAT profound.