PDA

View Full Version : Patriots 10-2 with almost as bad a defense as we have..


silvrhand
12-07-2010, 07:53 AM
So what's our excuse now?

http://www.nfl.com/teams/newenglandpatriots/statistics?team=NE

They are right in front of us with one of the worst defenses in the game this year and yet they are still 10-2. While we are sitting on our butts waiting for something to happen..

Thoughts?

El Tejano
12-07-2010, 07:57 AM
So what's our excuse now?

http://www.nfl.com/teams/newenglandpatriots/statistics?team=NE

They are right in front of us with one of the worst defenses in the game this year and yet they are still 10-2. While we are sitting on our butts waiting for something to happen..

Thoughts?

And we can't say they played bad teams this year. That division is pretty tough.

TimeKiller
12-07-2010, 07:58 AM
Belichick > Kubiak anyone?

Brady > Schaub

Patriots organization > Texans organization

El Tejano
12-07-2010, 07:58 AM
You could say, QB play is the deal but I believe their OL is way superior to ours. I was watching their game yesterday and Brady had like 6-8 seconds to throw the ball. We got to get that line.

Thorn
12-07-2010, 07:59 AM
Belichick > Kubiak anyone?

Brady > Schaub

Patriots organization > Texans organization

And your point is????

Farough
12-07-2010, 08:01 AM
Their defense also forces turnovers and occasionally puts the patriots in better field position then we do.

stingray
12-07-2010, 08:06 AM
They are close in yards, but yards don't mean squat. The stat that matters is scoring and the Pats are ranked 18th while the texans are 27th. The Pats allow 22 points a game while the Texans allow 26. 4 point difference on average a game is not really close.

gtexan02
12-07-2010, 08:08 AM
I was wondering about this, and its really quite shocking really.


1. At first I thought it was because they score so many points that they just give the ball to their opponents a lot and therefore give them many chances to score.

But as it turns out, we have literally the exact same time of possession as the Patriots do.


2. Then I thought to myself, I bet their pass defense is bad because they are always ahead and opposing teams just give up the run. However, their run defense is actually quite a bit worse than ours is.


3. Then I thought, maybe their offense is just so good that they put up points quickly and other teams score a lot trying to catch up. Ironically, our offense is actualy better than New Englands in terms of yards!



The Patriots have only the 13th ranked offense in the NFL, yet are somehow 1st in points, even though they also have the 2nd worst defense in the NFL. How does that happen??


Turnovers!

They are +14, which is way, way higher than any other team in the AFC, and second only to Philly in the entire NFL. We are currently at 0.


That is the main reason that while we both give up a lot of yardage, our pass defense is much, much worse than the Patriots.

While we give up similar yardage, opposing QBs have a 102 QB rating against us. The Patriots are giving up only an 87 QB rating. The difference is in the turnovers

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 08:08 AM
Belichick > Kubiak anyone?

Brady > Schaub

Patriots organization > Texans organization

i'll take all of the above for 20 alex.

BIG TORO
12-07-2010, 08:12 AM
i'll take all of the above for 20 alex.

Brady is not better than Schaub!!!!

:jk:

IDEXAN
12-07-2010, 08:13 AM
How many of you wished we had drafted Kevin McCourty instead of Kareem ?

Thorn
12-07-2010, 08:14 AM
How many of you wished we had drafted Kevin McCourty instead of Kareem ?

With our coaching staff how much of a difference would it have made?

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 08:19 AM
How many of you wished we had drafted Kevin McCourty instead of Kareem ?

Devin McCourty is in a better organization than ours & i doubt it would've mattered if they swapped teams, The pats would've coached KJ up & he'd probably look like revis over there.

NitroGSXR
12-07-2010, 08:23 AM
Devin McCourty is in a better organization than ours & i doubt it would've mattered if they swapped teams, The pats would've coached KJ up & he'd probably look like revis over there.
Belichick was able to Brady-dize Matt Cassel. The man is the best coach ever. Ever.

stingray
12-07-2010, 08:25 AM
Devin McCourty is in a better organization than ours & i doubt it would've mattered if they swapped teams, The pats would've coached KJ up & he'd probably look like revis over there.

That's why I don't really want us to draft a corner in the first round in the draft. I think Quinn and Jackson will be fine with another coching staff. This all goes out the window if we don't bring another coach in here though.

NitroGSXR
12-07-2010, 08:31 AM
That's why I don't really want us to draft a corner in the first round in the draft. I think Quinn and Jackson will be fine with another coching staff. This all goes out the window if we don't bring another coach in here though.

You can never have too many top-flight corners. They will win you football games or they will fetch a hefty price from somebody.

Works either way so win/win.

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 08:34 AM
Belichick was able to Brady-dize Matt Cassel. The man is the best coach ever. Ever.

I think its fairly clear that Cassel wasn't as bad as people thought people were just looking at him through the brady lens. He looks like he's got the goods over there in KC.

It would've been interesting to see how belichick would've faired if brady goes down in say early 2000 & he had to use a scrub like Rohan Davey at qb. How much of genius would he have been then? The "genius" in Belichick lies in the GM who brings in the talent & of course having a guy like Brady to execute. Its the same formula for all of these coaches that've been labeled geniuses in the past...the lone exception being Bill Walsh who was the only true one of those imo.

80tothezone
12-07-2010, 08:39 AM
You could say, QB play is the deal but I believe their OL is way superior to ours. I was watching their game yesterday and Brady had like 6-8 seconds to throw the ball. We got to get that line.

yeh I knew sebastian volmer in college he said the texans didn't even look at recruiting out of UH... which in most cases I would agree with but we really should have looked at taking him ... dude was a hoss like even in the NFL he is one of the biggest people on the field... pluss he took freeney to school in his first ever nfl game

IDEXAN
12-07-2010, 08:41 AM
With our coaching staff how much of a difference would it have made?
Kareem is a more physical corner which is apparently what the Texans were after with a Cover-2 bias for their back-end, but his ball-skills are very lacking whereas that's McCourty long-suit along with his cover ability and I don't think he just acquired that in the last few months from his NFL coachs ?
I've seen him play in several games this year and he's usually right on his guy. I saw him make an outstanding play, another interception in the
SD game where he snatched the ball like a receiver, but now the pic he made last night was under thrown.
Kareem is clearly more of a corner/safety hybrid while McCourty is a more pure cover-corner.

80tothezone
12-07-2010, 08:44 AM
I was wondering about this, and its really quite shocking really.


1. At first I thought it was because they score so many points that they just give the ball to their opponents a lot and therefore give them many chances to score.

But as it turns out, we have literally the exact same time of possession as the Patriots do.


2. Then I thought to myself, I bet their pass defense is bad because they are always ahead and opposing teams just give up the run. However, their run defense is actually quite a bit worse than ours is.


3. Then I thought, maybe their offense is just so good that they put up points quickly and other teams score a lot trying to catch up. Ironically, our offense is actualy better than New Englands in terms of yards!



The Patriots have only the 13th ranked offense in the NFL, yet are somehow 1st in points, even though they also have the 2nd worst defense in the NFL. How does that happen??


Turnovers!

They are +14, which is way, way higher than any other team in the AFC, and second only to Philly in the entire NFL. We are currently at 0.


That is the main reason that while we both give up a lot of yardage, our pass defense is much, much worse than the Patriots.

While we give up similar yardage, opposing QBs have a 102 QB rating against us. The Patriots are giving up only an 87 QB rating. The difference is in the turnovers

only reason our run defense looks anything above terrible is because teams can throw on us whenever they want to this is a case where the stats do not tell the story in critical situations 3rd and 4th and short/goal we loose almost every time... our run D isnt really good at all and I agree with you if anyone on the Texans D could catch then we would be ok

HOU-TEX
12-07-2010, 08:58 AM
The Texans defense couldn't hold the Pats shake weights going by what I saw last night. Additionally, Wilfork is a beast

ChampionTexan
12-07-2010, 09:05 AM
I was wondering about this, and its really quite shocking really.


1. At first I thought it was because they score so many points that they just give the ball to their opponents a lot and therefore give them many chances to score.

But as it turns out, we have literally the exact same time of possession as the Patriots do.


2. Then I thought to myself, I bet their pass defense is bad because they are always ahead and opposing teams just give up the run. However, their run defense is actually quite a bit worse than ours is.


3. Then I thought, maybe their offense is just so good that they put up points quickly and other teams score a lot trying to catch up. Ironically, our offense is actualy better than New Englands in terms of yards!



The Patriots have only the 13th ranked offense in the NFL, yet are somehow 1st in points, even though they also have the 2nd worst defense in the NFL. How does that happen??


Turnovers!

They are +14, which is way, way higher than any other team in the AFC, and second only to Philly in the entire NFL. We are currently at 0.


That is the main reason that while we both give up a lot of yardage, our pass defense is much, much worse than the Patriots.

While we give up similar yardage, opposing QBs have a 102 QB rating against us. The Patriots are giving up only an 87 QB rating. The difference is in the turnovers

This is absolutely dead-on, and it's been a trait of the franchise since the beginning. Right now we're exactly break-even on turnovers, and if it stays that way, it will be the second best turnover ratio the Texans have ever seen (they were +5 in 2004).

I don't know if this is the most important statistic in football, but if it's not, it's very very near the top of the list.

IDEXAN
12-07-2010, 09:05 AM
Have the Jets actually beaten a team this year with a winning record ?
With that NYC media-hpye machine going 24/7, who really knows if they are any good ?
BTW, jets D got 3 sacks & Pats D got 1 sack. So what does that tell you about the importance of QB-sacks ?

ChampionTexan
12-07-2010, 09:09 AM
Have the Jets actually beaten a team this year with a winning record ?
With that NYC media-hpye machine going 24/7, who really knows if they are any good ?
BTW, jets D got 3 sacks & Pats D got 1 sack. So what does that tell you about the importance of QB-sacks ?

Right now they're 1-3 vs. winning teams with a win over the Pats, and losses to the Pats, Ravens and Packers.

TimeKiller
12-07-2010, 09:10 AM
And your point is????

My point is I would rather have a 6 ft. stack of Kraft singles as a DC than Frank Bush.

Ole Miss Texan
12-07-2010, 09:14 AM
If yards were the measuring stick to decide wins and losses, the division breakdown would be as follows:

Colts: 9-3
Texans: 6-6
Jacksonville: 4-7
Titans: 4-7

80tothezone
12-07-2010, 09:16 AM
My point is I would rather have a 6 ft. stack of Kraft singles as a DC than Frank Bush.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl::roflcopter:

thegr8fan
12-07-2010, 09:30 AM
It would've been interesting to see how belichick would've faired if brady goes down in say early 2000 & he had to use a scrub like Rohan Davey at qb. then Rohan Davey would have looked like a superstar. Bledsoe went down and the whole 'talking heads' started 'the Patriots season is over with a 7th rnd draft scrub named Brady taking over'. Then BAM.

What did Bum Phillips used to say? I'll take some of yours and you take some of mine and I will still beat you. Paraphrased.

Belichick uses what talent is there to its best advantage and molds the gameplan to the talent. Kubiak takes his scheme and tries to force the player to mold to it.

Patriots are 10-2, Texans are 5-7. Let's not complicate the cheese sandwhich. Belichick is leagues ahead of Kubiak when it comes to Head Coaching. It's just that simple.

BigBull17
12-07-2010, 09:47 AM
You can never have too many top-flight corners. They will win you football games or they will fetch a hefty price from somebody.

Works either way so win/win.

Yeah, and we need a nickle anyway. Get three good CB's.

panamamyers
12-07-2010, 10:10 AM
Have the Jets actually beaten a team this year with a winning record ?
With that NYC media-hpye machine going 24/7, who really knows if they are any good ?
BTW, jets D got 3 sacks & Pats D got 1 sack. So what does that tell you about the importance of QB-sacks ?

And the refs gave them the Broncos game. Texans should have beaten them. Vikings should have beaten them. Detroit took them to overtime. Cleveland took them to overtime.

I know you can woulda, shoulda, coulda all day with every team nearly, but the Jets have had a very fortuitous run this year. Sooner or later the luck runs out unless you are the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes.

The1ApplePie
12-07-2010, 10:22 AM
Their recieving corps is light years beyond the Texans, which opens up the rest of the field.

The Texans have the best WR in the game, but his supporting cast is garbage. When the best thing you can say about your No. 2 WR is "He's a great blocker" you have problems. OD is washed up as well.

I thought Aaron Hernandez was a lock in the 3rd round for the Texans at TE (he's beasting with the Pats right now).

The Pat's front office is the best in the biz too.

You can't even compare Kraft and McNair as far as owners go either.

btw, I ****ing hate the Patriots!

Thorn
12-07-2010, 10:23 AM
My point is I would rather have a 6 ft. stack of Kraft singles as a DC than Frank Bush.

Oh, I completely agree. I was just messin' with ya. :kitten:

Double Barrel
12-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Like the saying goes, stats are for losers to think about (Texans), while scoreboard is for winners (Patriots).

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 10:26 AM
then Rohan Davey would have looked like a superstar. Bledsoe went down and the whole 'talking heads' started 'the Patriots season is over with a 7th rnd draft scrub named Brady taking over'. Then BAM.

What did Bum Phillips used to say? I'll take some of yours and you take some of mine and I will still beat you. Paraphrased.

Belichick uses what talent is there to its best advantage and molds the gameplan to the talent. Kubiak takes his scheme and tries to force the player to mold to it.

Patriots are 10-2, Texans are 5-7. Let's not complicate the cheese sandwhich. Belichick is leagues ahead of Kubiak when it comes to Head Coaching. It's just that simple.

Not disputing that, but seriously, Rohan Davey? No doubt that Belichick would've gotten more out of him than kubes, but lets not forget that Belicheat was fired after 5 seasons with the cleveland browns before he got the pats job. His starting qbs during that time? The notables are an over the hill kosar, b vinny "on my way to being a bust" testaverde, and mike "big game" tomzcak. There were a few others that aren't even worth mentioning i'm sure but you get my point. He shouldn't be credited with stumbling onto Brady, b/c as i've said before he likely didn't know what he had...noone could've predicted this guy would become what he has.

Double Barrel
12-07-2010, 10:30 AM
Brady is a phenom, but you also have to take into account the amount of knowledge imparted by Belichick regarding the various defenses in the league and how to read them. These guys are like hands and gloves.

I always laugh when people try to downplay Brady by saying "it's the system". Yeah, and the West Coast offense was the system for Montana. You still need players to make those systems work to success.

Ryan
12-07-2010, 10:35 AM
The only person in the league i would trade straight up for AJ would be Bill Belichick.

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 10:38 AM
Brady is a phenom, but you also have to take into account the amount of knowledge imparted by Belichick regarding the various defenses in the league and how to read them. These guys are like hands and gloves.
I always laugh when people try to downplay Brady by saying "it's the system". Yeah, and the West Coast offense was the system for Montana. You still need players to make those systems work to success.

this is about as true a statement as their ever has been. Sometimes, you just get extremely lucky & get the right fit. Honestly, there probably hasn't been a better qb fit other than montana & walsh.

NitroGSXR
12-07-2010, 10:42 AM
Not disputing that, but seriously, Rohan Davey? No doubt that Belichick would've gotten more out of him than kubes, but lets not forget that Belicheat was fired after 5 seasons with the cleveland browns before he got the pats job. His starting qbs during that time? The notables are an over the hill kosar, b vinny "on my way to being a bust" testaverde, and mike "big game" tomzcak. There were a few others that aren't even worth mentioning i'm sure but you get my point. He shouldn't be credited with stumbling onto Brady, b/c as i've said before he likely didn't know what he had...noone could've predicted this guy would become what he has.

Bill Belichick has rattled off three consecutive homeruns in Bledsoe, Brady, and Cassel. When you do that when it counts, you get dubbed nicknames such as Mr. October. I guess Belichick's Mr. Offseason in such a case.

sandmanx
12-07-2010, 10:42 AM
Funny, I was talking this morning about how I think the Pats have any more talent than the Texans, just the coaching staff there knows how to coach their players up, and we got Kubiak.

I think that if both teams swapped coaching staffs the Texans would have 8 or 9 wins right now, and the Pats would be buried in the East, and that's why I think it's time for Gary to go.

Malloy
12-07-2010, 10:45 AM
Just finished watching the 45-3 game, and what struck me was the way the patriots offense plays, they're doing what they do best with (seemingly) no regard as the the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. Ofcourse that's not the truth, but it seems as if they go out and play THEIR game as opposed to 'trying' to be all clever and play to other teams weaknesses.

Coaching. Sure, it helps having a Brady in there, he's one of the very best in the business, but the difference to me is the mentality of the team and the playcalling. Never play cute, never give up, I love how Bilichick took the entire defense in for a huddle leading 38-3 and telling them to keep focus and stay concentrated (well, that's what I think he said). Never play cute, go in for the kill regardless of the score.

That's what I want in a head coach, and it's what differentiates us from the Patriots.

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 10:48 AM
Bill Belichick has rattled off three consecutive homeruns in Bledsoe, Brady, and Cassel. When you do that when it counts, you get dubbed nicknames such as Mr. October. I guess Belichick's Mr. Offseason in such a case.

Ummm, he didn't draft Bledsoe, he was already there during the SB run they had with parcells at the helm; Belichick had next to nothing to do with bringing him in although he was the d-coordinator during those years.

Brady was a 6th rounder. Understand what that means, a 6th rounder. It means he, nor anyone else in the league thought enough of him to select him 5 times prior. In addition to this, he wasn't starting & only got a look b/c Bledsoe went down.

Cassel is his, but considering all the talent around him, it really was hard for him to fail as they were coming off a SB run the year prior. All cassel really had to do was avoid making the mistake.

infantrycak
12-07-2010, 10:57 AM
Brady was a 6th rounder. Understand what that means, a 6th rounder. It means he, nor anyone else in the league thought enough of him to select him 5 times prior. In addition to this, he wasn't starting & only got a look b/c Bledsoe went down.

They had several extra picks so Brady was their 7th selection.

NitroGSXR
12-07-2010, 11:01 AM
Ummm, he didn't draft Bledsoe, he was already there during the SB run they had with parcells at the helm; Belichick had next to nothing to do with bringing him in although he was the d-coordinator during those years.

Brady was a 6th rounder. Understand what that means, a 6th rounder. It means he, nor anyone else in the league thought enough of him to select him 5 times prior. In addition to this, he wasn't starting & only got a look b/c Bledsoe went down.

Cassel is his, but considering all the talent around him, it really was hard for him to fail as they were coming off a SB run the year prior. All cassel really had to do was avoid making the mistake.

Fine. Bledsoe wasn't his pick but gosh darn it... Belichick worked with him and had to REPLACE him. He also replaced Tom Brady and sold his replacement for a fortune. If Schaub goes down... Kubiak will be helping Orlovsky find his helmet rather than turning Schaub's injury into gold.

1st round... 6th round... UFDA... matters none really. Call it luck if you want but Bill Belichick was the only one who drafted him.

I can see that I'm not going to change your mind nor do I want to try. I respect your opinion.

b0ng
12-07-2010, 11:10 AM
Points per game and yards are two entirely different measurements of defense. In Points Per Game, New England is 19th. Not that bad.

We, are 27th ahead such defensive luminaries as Arizona, Buffalo, Denver, Dallas, and the NFC North Champs 2009: The Cincinnati Bengals.

I'll give you all a big hint how all of their seasons are going as well.

Nawzer
12-07-2010, 11:14 AM
They have Tom Brady and we don't. They have a great coach and we don't. They have a front office that knows what they're doing and we don't. That's why they are 10-2 and we're 5-7.

76Texan
12-07-2010, 11:19 AM
Kareem is a more physical corner which is apparently what the Texans were after with a Cover-2 bias for their back-end, but his ball-skills are very lacking whereas that's McCourty long-suit along with his cover ability and I don't think he just acquired that in the last few months from his NFL coachs ?
I've seen him play in several games this year and he's usually right on his guy. I saw him make an outstanding play, another interception in the
SD game where he snatched the ball like a receiver, but now the pic he made last night was under thrown.
Kareem is clearly more of a corner/safety hybrid while McCourty is a more pure cover-corner.

Sorry, but this is just another case that the grass is greener on the other side.

I have made some notes on another thread that while I also like McCourty, he had been subjected to his shares of lumps (more than KJ).
At the time, it was like week 7 or 8.

You made me come back and watch another game (Browns - week 9).
McCourty was simply torched by Colt McCoy all game long.
He allowed 3 or 4 first downs completions and a couple of medium passes (17 and 21, I believe.)
He also got away with PI on a "shoulda-been" TD completion.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks the KJ pick was very solid.
I don't know which one of them will have a better career, but I think I will stick with KJ (they weren't drafted too far apart and McCourty was also on my list.)

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Ummm, he didn't draft Bledsoe, he was already there during the SB run they had with parcells at the helm; Belichick had next to nothing to do with bringing him in although he was the d-coordinator during those years.

Brady was a 6th rounder. Understand what that means, a 6th rounder. It means he, nor anyone else in the league thought enough of him to select him 5 times prior. In addition to this, he wasn't starting & only got a look b/c Bledsoe went down.

Cassel is his, but considering all the talent around him, it really was hard for him to fail as they were coming off a SB run the year prior. All cassel really had to do was avoid making the mistake.

It's more than just talent, that made Cassel successful. Who was
Wes Welker in Miami, before Belichick coached him up? That offense
had a motivated Randy Moss catching deep balls all game long from Brady.

If Cassel replaced Schaub in our lineup, the Texans would struggle to win
a game, much like with Sage Rosenfels. The Texans have just as much
talent as the Patriots, but our coaching is unable to extract ANYTHING
from the players.

Our young players play like retards when the game is on the line. Belichick's
players are like Rhodes Scholars when the situations get tight.

In other words, Kubiak must go.

steelbtexan
12-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Belichick > Kubiak anyone?

Brady > Schaub

Patriots organization > Texans organization

All of the above

Ole Miss Texan
12-07-2010, 11:28 AM
This isn't totally accurate but it's a fun exercise.

The Texans give up 26.8 ppg while the Patriots give up 22.4 ppg. That a differential of 4.4 ppg.

Now if we "swapped stats" by adding 4.4 points to each of the Patriots' opponents score, then the Pats would have a 7-5 record right now.

If we subtracted 4.4 points from each of the Texans' opponents score, then we would have a 6-6 record.

In reality, it isn't as consistent as that. Plus, I believe our PPG average is skewed by the fact we shutout the Titans when the rookie Rusty Smith had his first ever start. Taking that game out, the Texans are giving up 29 PPG which is the leagues worst. If we gave up a TD less per game, such as the Patriots are, we'd likely be 8-4 and leading our division.

steelbtexan
12-07-2010, 11:29 AM
Sorry, but this is just another case that the grass is greener on the other side.

I have made some notes on another thread that while I also like McCourty, he had been subjected to his shares of lumps (more than KJ).
At the time, it was like week 7 or 8.

You made me come back and watch another game (Browns - week 9).
McCourty was simply torched by Colt McCoy all game long.
He allowed 3 or 4 first downs completions and a couple of medium passes (17 and 21, I believe.)
He also got away with PI on a "shoulda-been" TD completion.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks the KJ pick was very solid.
I don't know which one of them will have a better career, but I think I will stick with KJ (they weren't drafted too far apart and McCourty was also on my list.)

I was higher on McCourty than KJ. McCourty seemed to be better at turning his hips and running. I had KJ rated in the top of the 2nd rd and that was only because he was already coached up by Saban.

With that said I think KJ and McCourty have had the same ups and downs that most rookie CB's go thru. It's to be expected.

The way I see the performances of the two are like this.

KJ=McCourty

b0ng
12-07-2010, 11:33 AM
Just to add to my point:

This year the Texans rank 11th in PPG on offense averaging 24 a game. They rank 27th in PPG on defense giving up an average of 26.8. We are a hair shy of giving up 4 touchdowns a game. We are still giving up a league worst (by a fairly wide margin for being bad) 287.whatever pass yards a game which is good for dead last.
The Patriots rank 1st in PPG on offense averaging 31.6 (Which is 2.5 points ahead of the next place Eagles). Their "Almost as bad pass defense" is 18th (!) worst in the NFL giving up 22.4 points a game (!). They are 31st in passing in terms of yards, but they hold opposing QB's to an 87 QB rating, they've given up 6 less TD's and 13 less 40 yard plays. New Englands defense might rear it's ugly head in the playoffs, but it won't keep them out of the playoffs all together like ours will.

This is literally one of the worst pass defenses you'll probably ever see in your lifetime.

steelbtexan
12-07-2010, 11:34 AM
This isn't totally accurate but it's a fun exercise.

The Texans give up 26.8 ppg while the Patriots give up 22.4 ppg. That a differential of 4.4 ppg.

Now if we "swapped stats" by adding 4.4 points to each of the Patriots' opponents score, then the Pats would have a 7-5 record right now.

If we subtracted 4.4 points from each of the Texans' opponents score, then we would have a 6-6 record.

In reality, it isn't as consistent as that. Plus, I believe our PPG average is skewed by the fact we shutout the Titans when the rookie Rusty Smith had his first ever start. Taking that game out, the Texans are giving up 29 PPG which is the leagues worst. If we gave up a TD less per game, such as the Patriots are, we'd likely be 8-4 and leading our division.

Yep

Stats are for losers. The only stat that matters is W/L's.

No excuses this yr.

BigBull17
12-07-2010, 11:40 AM
Like the saying goes, stats are for losers to think about (Texans), while scoreboard is for winners (Patriots).

I would rather have 11 guys doing whatever they want on D than our ****ty, stupid DC.

steelbtexan
12-07-2010, 11:47 AM
The only person in the league i would trade straight up for AJ would be Bill Belichick.

^^^^

This

Do you think the Pats would trade Belichick for AJ ?

Not

76Texan
12-07-2010, 11:52 AM
I was higher on McCourty than KJ. McCourty seemed to be better at turning his hips and running. I had KJ rated in the top of the 2nd rd and that was only because he was already coached up by Saban.

With that said I think KJ and McCourty have had the same ups and downs that most rookie CB's go thru. It's to be expected.

The way I see the performances of the two are like this.

KJ=McCourty

The Browns game would be a good example to see that McCourty doens't have quite the hip that KJ does.
No, he can't stick with the receivers when they make their moves (different receivers) as well as some people may think.

What McCourty has is speed (and recovery speed). It allows him to be aggressive. When he needs to recover, he doesn't panic because he thinks he can catch up (which is not neccessarily true in all instances.)

Ryan
12-07-2010, 12:06 PM
^^^^

This

Do you think the Pats would trade Belichick for AJ ?

Not



AJ, our first round pick for the next 7 years, Kubiak, and Schaub for Belichick and Brady.

wagonhed
12-07-2010, 12:08 PM
They are close in yards, but yards don't mean squat. The stat that matters is scoring and the Pats are ranked 18th while the texans are 27th. The Pats allow 22 points a game while the Texans allow 26. 4 point difference on average a game is not really close.

Yep. The yards, passing yards especially, are deceiving. Pats also play with a lead constantly. They are 32nd in pass D.

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 12:12 PM
It's more than just talent, that made Cassel successful. Who was
Wes Welker in Miami, before Belichick coached him up? That offense
had a motivated Randy Moss catching deep balls all game long from Brady.

If Cassel replaced Schaub in our lineup, the Texans would struggle to win
a game, much like with Sage Rosenfels. The Texans have just as much
talent as the Patriots, but our coaching is unable to extract ANYTHING
from the players.

Our young players play like retards when the game is on the line. Belichick's
players are like Rhodes Scholars when the situations get tight.

In other words, Kubiak must go.

We have talent on defense, but not nearly as much as everyone thinks we have. Hell, part of the reason they're so bad is b/c they can't tackle worth a damn. You can say that's on the coaches as well but honestly, once you make it to this level, no nfl team is working on tackling b/c that's something you should be proficient at from like high school.

& Who was wes welker? This is what belichick had to say about playing against him in miami:

"He killed us in Miami. I remember it," Belichick added. "We had someone double No. 83 [Welker] down there, when he was playing in the slot in Miami and he we still couldn’t cover him. He caught nine for 110 -- whatever it was -- and then he returned a punt 70 yards down to the 1-yard line against us. He killed us. The next time we played him, we doubled him, but we still had trouble with him."

so to answer your question, Belichick obviously thought he was a beast even before he acquired him. Once he got to NE he flourished. What, you thought having an all time great qb throwing him the ball wasn't going to help him?

You guys are misinterpreting what i'm trying to say. Belichick is a great coach & is light years better than kubes, but his system & alot of his "genius" lies more in the fact that he's got the most important spot on the team solidified with Brady running the show & a top flight organization.

http://www.nesn.com/2009/11/patriots-bill-belichick-had-sights-set-on-wes-welker-since-college.html

IDEXAN
12-07-2010, 12:27 PM
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks the KJ pick was very solid.
I don't know which one of them will have a better career, but I think I will stick with KJ (they weren't drafted too far apart and McCourty was also on my list.)

76Texan I sincerely hope you are right about that. And it is certainly premature on my part or anybodys to call a player a failure (or success) before his rookie year is complete, and that goes double for the very, very difficult and challenging CB position.
BTW, the third player in this conversation should be former Boise State corner
Kyle Wilson, who was also drated in the first round (by the Jets). He's been struggling, but he's obviously had fewer snaps up that way with the corner combo they have and his time has been limited to nickel opps.

HoustonFrog
12-07-2010, 12:35 PM
You guys are misinterpreting what i'm trying to say. Belichick is a great coach & is light years better than kubes, but his system & alot of his "genius" lies more in the fact that he's got the most important spot on the team solidified with Brady running the show & a top flight organization.

http://www.nesn.com/2009/11/patriots-bill-belichick-had-sights-set-on-wes-welker-since-college.html

I've seen you use the "Brady as a low rounder" against Belichick like its luck. You still have to pull the trigger. Brady was successful at Michigan. You pick guys you think fit your system and that you can coach up. There was a reason he was THE backup already. Joe Montana was a 3rd rounder every passed on but Walsh picked him to fit the system and coached him up. That is what top teams and coaches do. They don't take 3 TEs and hope one sticks.

nut
12-07-2010, 12:53 PM
The Patsies don't start off in the hole every game. We haven't been scoring lately until the game is seemingly out of reach. Plus, the other teams think the Pats are good and Kubiak's troops only strike fear into the hearts of us Texan fans.

Norg
12-07-2010, 01:34 PM
Yeah like the one guy said in here our special teams Sucks just has bad has the D

THe punter Sucks the returner sucks the blockers suck everything sucks

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 01:39 PM
I've seen you use the "Brady as a low rounder" against Belichick like its luck. You still have to pull the trigger. Brady was successful at Michigan. You pick guys you think fit your system and that you can coach up. There was a reason he was THE backup already. Joe Montana was a 3rd rounder every passed on but Walsh picked him to fit the system and coached him up. That is what top teams and coaches do. They don't take 3 TEs and hope one sticks.

There's an extremely large difference in draft in the 3rd round & drafting in the 6th. 3rd rounders are expected to contribute at some point. 6th rounders are guys who teams don't even expect to make the team.

another thing is that Qb's that are thought to be what brady turned out to be are selected at the top of the draft. Its the biggest reason they bust so much. If he'd known that brady was going to become what he has (franchise defining qb) he in all liklihood would have selected him much higher.

Furthermore, at the point in the draft that brady was drafted, it's usually BPA for most teams. No reason to think that this wasn't the Pats's front office thinking which further illustrates my point about them lucking up.

He might've thought he'd be good & he could win with him, but that's completely different than drafting a guy that turns out to be one of the greatest players to ever play the game. Yes he selected him & yes he's a good coach, but there's no way in hell you'll ever convince anyone that he knew that brady was going to turn out to be what he has. Add in his drafting of qb's in cleveland, the fact that qb's of brady's caliber come around once/twice every generation & the fact that the drafting process in and of itself encompasses a high amount of luck &...there you have it.

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 01:52 PM
There's an extremely large difference in draft in the 3rd round & drafting in the 6th. 3rd rounders are expected to contribute at some point. 6th rounders are guys who teams don't even expect to make the team.

another thing is that Qb's that are thought to be what brady turned out to be are selected at the top of the draft. Its the biggest reason they bust so much. If he'd known that brady was going to become what he has (franchise defining qb) he in all liklihood would have selected him much higher.

Furthermore, at the point in the draft that brady was drafted, it's usually BPA for most teams. No reason to think that this wasn't the Pats's front office thinking which further illustrates my point about them lucking up.

He might've thought he'd be good & he could win with him, but that's completely different than drafting a guy that turns out to be one of the greatest players to ever play the game. Yes he selected him & yes he's a good coach, but there's no way in hell you'll ever convince anyone that he knew that brady was going to turn out to be what he has. Add in his drafting of qb's in cleveland, the fact that qb's of brady's caliber come around once/twice every generation & the fact that the drafting process in and of itself encompasses a high amount of luck &...there you have it.

The Patriots consistently draft players who fit what they do, no matter
the round. There's plenty of talent-evaluating SKILL within that organization,
whether you think it's luck or not.

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 02:30 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Patriots secure
TWO draft picks for EACH of the first FOUR ROUNDS of the 2011 draft?

Mr teX
12-07-2010, 02:40 PM
The Patriots consistently draft players who fit what they do, no matter
the round. There's plenty of talent-evaluating SKILL within that organization,
whether you think it's luck or not.

Completely missing the point dex. They are good at evaluating talent in that organization, its what has set them apart this decade. however, anybody asserting that the Brady selection was anything more than an extremely lucky pick...well they're just kidding themselves.

TheMatrix31
12-07-2010, 02:41 PM
The Pats are a better organization than us, but please, let's realize that if it wasn't for three unlucky/cursed ass losses we'd be 8-4.

Their luck and experience is the difference that makes them a better team than us.

Thorn
12-07-2010, 02:43 PM
The Pats are a better organization than us, but please, let's realize that if it wasn't for three unlucky/cursed ass losses we'd be 9-3.

Their luck and experience is the difference that makes them a better team than us.

I agree with the "unlucky/cursed ass losses" thing, but if we were a better coached team what would be the chances we'd have picked up a few of those games?

TheMatrix31
12-07-2010, 02:49 PM
I agree with the "unlucky/cursed ass losses" thing, but if we were a better coached team what would be the chances we'd have picked up a few of those games?

Higher, definitely lol. The onus does fall on the players too though. Everyone's to blame, bastards!

Dutchrudder
12-07-2010, 03:26 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Patriots secure
TWO draft picks for EACH of the first FOUR ROUNDS of the 2011 draft?

Yep, the Patriots have 8 picks in the first four rounds.

Raiders 1st
Panthers 2nd
Vikings 3rd
Broncos 4th


All looking like great picks/trades at this point.

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 03:27 PM
The Pats are a better organization than us, but please, let's realize that if it wasn't for three unlucky/cursed ass losses we'd be 8-4.

Their luck and experience is the difference that makes them a better team than us.

There was nothing unlucky by giving up 83 yards in 40 seconds to the Jets.
Dumb coaching is what told the cornerbacks to play inside technique, and
leave the sidelines WIDE-ASS-OPEN with less than a minute on the game clock.
Dumb coaching is what gave Antonio Smith the green light to jump offsides at
Jacksonville, setting the table for the "Aww Hell Gary" play.

On, and on, and on...

infantrycak
12-07-2010, 05:26 PM
There was nothing unlucky by giving up 83 yards in 40 seconds to the Jets.
Dumb coaching is what told the cornerbacks to play inside technique, and
leave the sidelines WIDE-ASS-OPEN with less than a minute on the game clock.
Dumb coaching is what gave Antonio Smith the green light to jump offsides at
Jacksonville, setting the table for the "Aww Hell Gary" play.

On, and on, and on...

You serious think there was a green light by the coaches or a coaching failure for a 7th year vet jumping off sides? Absurd.

Dwade
12-07-2010, 05:32 PM
Belichick was able to Brady-dize Matt Cassel. The man is the best coach ever. Ever.

Maybe the Belichick-magic is still working on Cassel...Cassel has a 23 to 4 TD/INT ratio this year

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 08:29 PM
You serious think there was a green light by the coaches or a coaching failure for a 7th year vet jumping off sides? Absurd.

He's been doing it all season, in key situations. Who's holding him
accountable?

:cricket:

Exactly.

thunderkyss
12-07-2010, 08:51 PM
There was nothing unlucky by giving up 83 yards in 40 seconds to the Jets.
Dumb coaching is what told the cornerbacks to play inside technique, and
leave the sidelines WIDE-ASS-OPEN with less than a minute on the game clock.
Dumb coaching is what gave Antonio Smith the green light to jump offsides at
Jacksonville, setting the table for the "Aww Hell Gary" play.

On, and on, and on...

I would agree that dumb coaching allowed Wilson on the field for that game at all, much less that play.

NOBODY told him to play the inside receiver in that situation. He chose to. Had simply not made a decision for another fraction of a second, That would have been a sack, loss of down, time off clock.

You're blaming the coach for an aggressive player being aggressive???

I would argue, but I'll just wait for your next post blaming said coach for not motivating said player.

thunderkyss
12-07-2010, 08:52 PM
He's been doing it all season, in key situations. Who's holding him
accountable?

:cricket:

Exactly.

Agreed..... Antonio should have been cut after his 3rd offsides.


:kitten:

DexmanC
12-07-2010, 08:55 PM
You're blaming the coach for an aggressive player being aggressive???


I'm blaming the coach for his players showing zero discipline in critical
situations. Antonio Smith jumping offsides, constantly. Eric Winston
and Duane Brown taking turns with the false-start, to make up for
the loss of Chester Pitts. Matt Schaub dropping the ball on the last
drive of a couple games this year. Bernard Pollard blasting guys out of
bounds, drawing a 15-yard penalty. Too many instances of lost discipline
to name.

It falls on the coaching.

silvrhand
12-07-2010, 09:13 PM
The Patriots consistently draft players who fit what they do, no matter
the round. There's plenty of talent-evaluating SKILL within that organization,
whether you think it's luck or not.

We instead draft the best player available and then try to fit them into our system...

hradhak
12-07-2010, 09:36 PM
We instead draft the best player available and then try to fit them into our system...
There's no question that we take square pegs and squeeze them into round holes.

Bellicheck also interviews his players before the draft. He shows them game film from college showing them getting beat or making a bad play. He then asks the potential draftee what happened on the play. If the draftee can show that he knows what kind of mistake he made, Belichek keeps him on the list. If not, or if the player tries to blame other players or coaches, he crosses his name off.

Do you think Kubes does that? I'm sure they interview the player and then give him a thumbs up if he is of good moral character blah blah blah.

I think part of the problem is that Belichek finds guys that he can teach AND who have talent. We find guys that who have talent. If they are teachable it is only because we got lucky with the pick. I can guarantee you with all 8 of his picks in the first 4 rounds, Belichek is going to have guys who are teachable and can learn his system.

wagonhed
12-07-2010, 09:45 PM
I'm blaming the coach for his players showing zero discipline in critical
situations. Antonio Smith jumping offsides, constantly. Eric Winston
and Duane Brown taking turns with the false-start, to make up for
the loss of Chester Pitts. Matt Schaub dropping the ball on the last
drive of a couple games this year. Bernard Pollard blasting guys out of
bounds, drawing a 15-yard penalty. Too many instances of lost discipline
to name.

It falls on the coaching.

There are lots of things to criticize our team about. Penalties doesn't really seem like one of them.

steelbtexan
12-07-2010, 10:18 PM
There's no question that we take square pegs and squeeze them into round holes.

Bellicheck also interviews his players before the draft. He shows them game film from college showing them getting beat or making a bad play. He then asks the potential draftee what happened on the play. If the draftee can show that he knows what kind of mistake he made, Belichek keeps him on the list. If not, or if the player tries to blame other players or coaches, he crosses his name off.

Do you think Kubes does that? I'm sure they interview the player and then give him a thumbs up if he is of good moral character blah blah blah.

I think part of the problem is that Belichek finds guys that he can teach AND who have talent. We find guys that who have talent. If they are teachable it is only because we got lucky with the pick. I can guarantee you with all 8 of his picks in the first 4 rounds, Belichek is going to have guys who are teachable and can learn his system.

While Belichek was interviewing players at the combine. Kubes was having sleep apnea surgery.

This speaks volumes. IMHO

steelbtexan
12-07-2010, 10:47 PM
Lets go down the schedule

Indy- Blow out
Wash-W- Got lucky 27 yd blocked FG, McNabb misses wide open Galloway on bomb that would've put the game away, Gano misses FG in OT, Then Rackers makes FG in OT

Dal -L,- Despite a fired up huge crowd the Texans lay an egg.
Oak-W- Barely W almost let the HOF Gradkowski lead a comebac W, Nolan bails them out.
NYG - L- Texans get their butts physcally whipped,
KC - W - Lucky, The Chiefs lead most of the game, KC has lead and ball inside the Texans 40 and despite rushing for over 200 yds the Chiefs decide to pass the ball on 3rd and 2. Schaub leads comeback win.

SD-L- Rivers leads comeback with 2nd team receivers. Ajonahou (SP) looks like Jerry Rice
IND -L- Kubes has Brain Fart
Jac -L- Texans find a way to lose despite Scobee giving them every chance in the world to win missing 2 4th qtr FG's after starting the season 11 for 11. Can you say Hail Mary
NYJ -L- Terrible coaching inside technicque when if aligned properly the clock would've run out instead Edwards catches ball gets out of bounds. Holmes catch was antclimatic. This happens only after Greene fumble almost causes the Jets to blow a 23-10 lead.

Tenn-L- Rusty Smith, Can you say shutout
Philly-L- Vick toys with Texans defense for 3 qtrs, then Texans comeback to take 4th qtr lead. Can you say 3rd and 19.

Tell me again how unlucky the Texans are. They were lucky to be in a position to be unlucky in most of their L's and lucky to get W's against Wash,K.C., and play Tenn without a QB. How many times has VY lost to the Texans?

Rey
12-07-2010, 11:31 PM
Why is this so shocking?

Did no one learn anything from the Saints last year?

Their defense wasn't all that statistically speaking, but they caused a lot of turnovers.

This is nothing new.

imatexan
12-08-2010, 02:54 AM
Lets go down the schedule

Indy- Blow out
Wash-W- Got lucky 27 yd blocked FG, McNabb misses wide open Galloway on bomb that would've put the game away, Gano misses FG in OT, Then Rackers makes FG in OT

Dal -L,- Despite a fired up huge crowd the Texans lay an egg.
Oak-W- Barely W almost let the HOF Gradkowski lead a comebac W, Nolan bails them out.
NYG - L- Texans get their butts physcally whipped,
KC - W - Lucky, The Chiefs lead most of the game, KC has lead and ball inside the Texans 40 and despite rushing for over 200 yds the Chiefs decide to pass the ball on 3rd and 2. Schaub leads comeback win.

SD-L- Rivers leads comeback with 2nd team receivers. Ajonahou (SP) looks like Jerry Rice
IND -L- Kubes has Brain Fart
Jac -L- Texans find a way to lose despite Scobee giving them every chance in the world to win missing 2 4th qtr FG's after starting the season 11 for 11. Can you say Hail Mary
NYJ -L- Terrible coaching inside technicque when if aligned properly the clock would've run out instead Edwards catches ball gets out of bounds. Holmes catch was antclimatic. This happens only after Greene fumble almost causes the Jets to blow a 23-10 lead.

Tenn-L- Rusty Smith, Can you say shutout
Philly-L- Vick toys with Texans defense for 3 qtrs, then Texans comeback to take 4th qtr lead. Can you say 3rd and 19.

Tell me again how unlucky the Texans are. They were lucky to be in a position to be unlucky in most of their L's and lucky to get W's against Wash,K.C., and play Tenn without a QB. How many times has VY lost to the Texans?

:rake:

I think you are really confused but one thing I know you are confused about is that we did not lose to Tenn.

Things like this is why I am glad that the FO does not always listen to our fan base. I mean come on every W we got this season other than week one you act like it was the other team that lost, not us winning. It does not work that way, same goes for the losses we have had this year. There is no sort of you won but really lost or you lost but really won that game, it is what it is: 5 wins that we earned and 7 losses that we came up short.

76Texan
12-08-2010, 03:06 AM
76Texan I sincerely hope you are right about that. And it is certainly premature on my part or anybodys to call a player a failure (or success) before his rookie year is complete, and that goes double for the very, very difficult and challenging CB position.
BTW, the third player in this conversation should be former Boise State corner
Kyle Wilson, who was also drated in the first round (by the Jets). He's been struggling, but he's obviously had fewer snaps up that way with the corner combo they have and his time has been limited to nickel opps.

We should bring this over to a Kareem Jackson thread 'cause I don't want to hijack this one.
Look for it! :tiphat:

thunderkyss
12-08-2010, 07:35 AM
I'm blaming the coach for his players showing zero discipline in critical
situations. Antonio Smith jumping offsides, constantly. Eric Winston
and Duane Brown taking turns with the false-start, to make up for
the loss of Chester Pitts.

Bernard Pollard blasting guys out of
bounds, drawing a 15-yard penalty.

Too many instances of lost discipline
to name.

It falls on the coaching.

I believe we're among the least penalized teams.

TimeKiller
12-08-2010, 07:49 AM
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl::roflcopter:
You like that one huh?

Oh, I completely agree. I was just messin' with ya. :kitten:

:) I just had to light that match!

Shrewd decision making, success in the draft, getting the most out of any player at any position, these are just a few of the reasons why the Patriot organization was, is and continues to be a force in the NFL.

thunderkyss
12-08-2010, 08:24 AM
NYJ -L- Terrible coaching inside technicque when if aligned properly the clock would've run out instead Edwards catches ball gets out of bounds. Holmes catch was antclimatic. This happens only after Greene fumble almost causes the Jets to blow a 23-10 lead.


Look, I'm all for knocking a guy when he's down, but let's be honest when we do. Kubiak has done plenty to be criticized & lambasted about, but this is simply not true.

Some overzealous fan started with this.. maybe a BSPN commentator.. but if you watch the game, it wasn't the coaches fault. Allen was in no position to make a play regardless if he played inside or outside. He bit on something underneath, & tried to make up.

Wilson chose (wasn't coached or told) to cover the inside guy. If he had decided to cover the outside receiver, the catch never would have happened. If he chose to not make a decision at all, Sanchez would have checked down. But since Wilson chose to cover the inside guy, turned his hips in.... it was cake for Sanchez (maybe not cake, but it was a beautifully accurate throw).

The coaching mistake was throwing Wilson out there after doing that most of the season (I'll admit in that game, he made some "nice" plays... plays very similar to the one he should have made there.).

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 08:29 AM
:rake:

I think you are really confused but one thing I know you are confused about is that we did not lose to Tenn.

Things like this is why I am glad that the FO does not always listen to our fan base. I mean come on every W we got this season other than week one you act like it was the other team that lost, not us winning. It does not work that way, same goes for the losses we have had this year. There is no sort of you won but really lost or you lost but really won that game, it is what it is: 5 wins that we earned and 7 losses that we came up short.

Yes, Tenn was a W my mind/fingers had a brain fart.

With that said facts are what they are. Keep on drinking the koolaid. Since this is a thread comparing the Pats/Texans. You look at the Pats and you dont see the kinda crap that goes on in the Smithiak regime.

The Pats may slip up every now and then. (Cleveland) But when they get a team down they put them away. Unlike the Texans at Philly. The difference is Belichek/Brady vs Smithiak/Schaub and I'm one of Schaub's biggest fans.

The only constant in the Smithiak regime appears to be 5-7. I expect alot more for my $$$$ than I've seen this yr. Is it to much for loyal season ticket holders to expet a team that gives a solid effort for 4 qtrs. Or a coacing staff that understands simple clock management and can get most of the replay reviews after 5yrs on the job. That's not even mentioning the hiring of a rookie DC (Bush) without even interviewinng anybody else for the position. The result of that decision by Kubes is one of the worst defenses in NFL history.

Would you take a team of Billick/Lewis as HC/DC over Smithiak. They aren't even my 1st choice for the job. But they sure would be a large upgrade over Smithiak. IMHO

BTW, You're glad somebody like me isn't running the Texans. Are you happy with the way McNair/Smithiak are running the team? If you are then mediocrity is good enough for you.

I will tell you one thing if I was running the organization Kubiak would've had his a** at the combine last yr. Instead of sceduling that week to have sleep apnea surgery. That speaks volumes about this organizations commitment to being the best they can be. Maybe just maybe the Texans wouldn't have had such a crappy draft if the leader of the Texans personel dept could've scheduled his surgery 2 wks before the combine. So that he could've been available. And make no mistake that Kubes has final say over personel.

But oh well we as fans have grown to accept this kind of crap and be told the koolaid this yr is going to taste much better than last yrs 5-7 koolaid.

HOU-TEX
12-08-2010, 09:11 AM
Look, I'm all for knocking a guy when he's down, but let's be honest when we do. Kubiak has done plenty to be criticized & lambasted about, but this is simply not true.

Some overzealous fan started with this.. maybe a BSPN commentator.. but if you watch the game, it wasn't the coaches fault. Allen was in no position to make a play regardless if he played inside or outside. He bit on something underneath, & tried to make up.

Wilson chose (wasn't coached or told) to cover the inside guy. If he had decided to cover the outside receiver, the catch never would have happened. If he chose to not make a decision at all, Sanchez would have checked down. But since Wilson chose to cover the inside guy, turned his hips in.... it was cake for Sanchez (maybe not cake, but it was a beautifully accurate throw).

The coaching mistake was throwing Wilson out there after doing that most of the season (I'll admit in that game, he made some "nice" plays... plays very similar to the one he should have made there.).

Wrong. We were in a 2 deep coverage. There was no route run towards the deep middle. Two go routes down the sideline. I assume Pollard did his job on the far side, but Wilson chose to remain covering grass until the ball was thrown. Players missing those kind of assignments at that part of the season is inexcusable, IMO. Everything comes back to coaching

Bigbots_02
12-08-2010, 09:16 AM
Schaub AINT no Brady. Out of the last 13 turnovers the Texans have had, Schaub has contributed to 11 of them. With that said, dont think Im blaming all our problems on schaub because Im not. All players will go thru thier own funks. What we need to learn how to do is stop the bleeding. The Pats have that down with Hoodie and Brady at the front line.

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 09:26 AM
Look, I'm all for knocking a guy when he's down, but let's be honest when we do. Kubiak has done plenty to be criticized & lambasted about, but this is simply not true.

Some overzealous fan started with this.. maybe a BSPN commentator.. but if you watch the game, it wasn't the coaches fault. Allen was in no position to make a play regardless if he played inside or outside. He bit on something underneath, & tried to make up.

Wilson chose (wasn't coached or told) to cover the inside guy. If he had decided to cover the outside receiver, the catch never would have happened. If he chose to not make a decision at all, Sanchez would have checked down. But since Wilson chose to cover the inside guy, turned his hips in.... it was cake for Sanchez (maybe not cake, but it was a beautifully accurate throw).

The coaching mistake was throwing Wilson out there after doing that most of the season (I'll admit in that game, he made some "nice" plays... plays very similar to the one he should have made there.).

And why wasn't Wilson coaced to take the outside guy? Since the only way that the Jets could've gotten off another play was if Edwards caught the ball and got out of bounds. If he had let Smith (inside) catch the ball the game woul've been over before the Jets could've run another play.

This isn't just me saying this Dungy said it. Harrison said somebody should be fired for that play. He said it was basic football.

But, oh well what do I know.

DexmanC
12-08-2010, 09:52 AM
I believe we're among the least penalized teams.

That just me they commit their penalties at ONLY the key moments.
Look at every one of the "heartbreak losses," you'll see a key penalty
on the deciding drive (offense or defense.)

Mr teX
12-08-2010, 09:58 AM
And why wasn't Wilson coaced to take the outside guy? Since the only way that the Jets could've gotten off another play was if Edwards caught the ball and got out of bounds. If he had let Smith (inside) catch the ball the game woul've been over before the Jets could've run another play.

This isn't just me saying this Dungy said it. Harrison said somebody should be fired for that play. He said it was basic football.

But, oh well what do I know.

This is retarded rationale. Lots of things you can blame on the coaching staff, but basic crap like the bolded, falls on the player, b/c on this level these are things that a player should know.....let alone a guy who's been in the league for as many years as Wilson has. In regards to other game-costing plays we've been subjected to this year, you might as well say:

"why wasn't KJ coached up to stay on his feet" on the Roy williams TD in the dallas game.

"why wasn't arian coached up to make sure he held onto the ball all the way" in whatever game that was when that happened.

"why wasn't AJ coached up to catch the ball" when it bounced off his knee & into the SD defender's hands.

Some things are just on the players, no matter how much you guys try to spin it on the coaching staff.

Again, not saying Kubes is not screwing up to, but you can't just blame everything on him & the coaching staff.

thunderkyss
12-08-2010, 10:09 AM
And why wasn't Wilson coaced to take the outside guy? Since the only way that the Jets could've gotten off another play was if Edwards caught the ball and got out of bounds. If he had let Smith (inside) catch the ball the game woul've been over before the Jets could've run another play.

This isn't just me saying this Dungy said it. Harrison said somebody should be fired for that play. He said it was basic football.

But, oh well what do I know.

If you, Dungy, & Harrison want to blame the coach for that play.... that's your opinion, I agree to disagree.

I'd like to see the player cut, because it isn't the first time he's done something equally as stupid.

I don't have a problem with firing coaches either, however the next play, where the receiver's crossed & they scored a TD would be the one I'd fire the secondary coach, the DC, & the head coach for. We've defended that "scenario" the same way at least half a dozen times this season, & we've never been successful. That was probably the third time that play was used to score a TD on us. & we continue to defend it the same way.

infantrycak
12-08-2010, 10:20 AM
There are lots of things to criticize our team about. Penalties doesn't really seem like one of them.

Yup. Our offense is the 7th least penalized unit.

DexmanC
12-08-2010, 10:38 AM
Yup. Our offense is the 7th least penalized unit.

That's a deceptive response to the penalty argument. It's o.k.
I see ya workin'

infantrycak
12-08-2010, 11:21 AM
And why wasn't Wilson coaced to take the outside guy?

This isn't just me saying this Dungy said it. Harrison said somebody should be fired for that play. He said it was basic football.

But, oh well what do I know.

How do we know Wilson didn't just brain fart after being coached to do just that? As Tex said, Wilson has plenty of experience including being coached by Belichick for 5 years when he got a SB ring playing opposite Harrison. Every mistake made on the field is not a coaching problem.

thunderkyss
12-08-2010, 11:39 AM
That just me they commit their penalties at ONLY the key moments.
Look at every one of the "heartbreak losses," you'll see a key penalty
on the deciding drive (offense or defense.)



Yup. Our offense is the 7th least penalized unit.



That's a deceptive response to the penalty argument. It's o.k.
I see ya workin'

Not really. I'm pretty sure our defense is ranked pretty close. We're not a heavily penalized team (maybe on special teams)... they're coached pretty well in that department.

Which doesn't fit your argument.

They get stupid penalties at stupid times..... must be the coaching.

Even if it is the same bone-headed player...... must be the coaching.
:kitten:

GP
12-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Not really. I'm pretty sure our defense is ranked pretty close. We're not a heavily penalized team (maybe on special teams)... they're coached pretty well in that department.

Which doesn't fit your argument.

They get stupid penalties at stupid times..... must be the coaching.

Even if it is the same bone-headed player...... must be the coaching.
:kitten:

Yes, it IS the coaching, because the coach has got to find a way to make his players NOT commit those silly "key moment" penalties.

Whne your player, in basketball, is hitting 25% on free-throws...what do you do, as a coach? Do you just accept it? "Oh well, that's how it goes, i suppose."

No. You make that kid shoot free-throws in practice until he "gets it." Unless that kid is Shaq, and then you really don't care about it because the kid excels elsewhere and you ain't gonna' bench Shaq in favor of a woefully inferior second option at that position.

I don't think Kubiak is actively "making" those guys foul up on the field at key moments. That's not it. But he isn't coaching them on discipline and being aware of the situation, either.

Use a timeout there. Gather them up, coach them up, tell them "They're going to try and get you to jump offisdes. Antonio, if you jump offsides on this series, I'm going to make you take blindside hits from Pollard during practice. For 20 minutes. OK?"

I heard Schaub telling his guys that very thing when AJ was mic'd up vs. the Titans. "Hey, they're going to try and get under our skin and make us get a penalty." When do I see Kubiak call a timeout and gather all the players around him and coach them up? I don't see everything, due to camera shots, but does he? All I see is the guy staring at his menu, away from everyone.

Our coach is absent on game day, at least that's what it feels like. It's as if he's just an observer or a consultant who watches the game and then works with them during practice. Those guys on the field are pros, but they need a coach to hold them to the standard during the heat of battle, too. Help them gather themselves and stay composed when things might be hectic and spinning out of control out there.

I'm just saying'....it IS a coaching issue. Mos def.

Double Barrel
12-08-2010, 12:03 PM
How do we know Wilson didn't just brain fart after being coached to do just that? As Tex said, Wilson has plenty of experience including being coached by Belichick for 5 years when he got a SB ring playing opposite Harrison. Every mistake made on the field is not a coaching problem.

While players certainly play the game, I think accountability is a factor directly related to how they play the game.

I honestly don't think the accountability level with our coaching staff is even close to those of pedigreed teams like the Patriots. It is my perception that as long as they "kids play hard", then these kind of stupid mistakes are forgiven. I think that lowered standard is attributed directly to coaching and how they lead the team.

It's often just a matter of a play or two between winning and losing games. And it seems that the difference in these pivotal plays is the difference between playing smart and playing stupid. I have little doubt that playing smart goes back to how they are instructed, how they practice, and how they are held accountable. These are all coaching responsibilities.

GP
12-08-2010, 12:09 PM
Playing smart goes back to how they are instructed, how they practice, and how they are held accountable. These are all coaching responsibilities.

Exactly.

Accountability is the key. Without it, the coach is telling players there is no negative experience associated with doing wrong things.

But beyond that, the bigger problem (in my opinion, btw) is that a coach isn't holding players accountable because the coach probably understands that the fault lies with him (the coach) first and foremost.

When Gary says, "This one is on me," during his Loser Monday press conferences, he's not lying. Yet he looks so regal while doing it. What a smart, smart man. He's got it figured out.

Texas T
12-08-2010, 12:11 PM
Yes, it IS the coaching, because the coach has got to find a way to make his players NOT commit those silly "key moment" penalties.

Whne your player, in basketball, is hitting 25% on free-throws...what do you do, as a coach? Do you just accept it? "Oh well, that's how it goes, i suppose."

No. You make that kid shoot free-throws in practice until he "gets it." Unless that kid is Shaq, and then you really don't care about it because the kid excels elsewhere and you ain't gonna' bench Shaq in favor of a woefully inferior second option at that position.

I don't think Kubiak is actively "making" those guys foul up on the field at key moments. That's not it. But he isn't coaching them on discipline and being aware of the situation, either.

Use a timeout there. Gather them up, coach them up, tell them "They're going to try and get you to jump offisdes. Antonio, if you jump offsides on this series, I'm going to make you take blindside hits from Pollard during practice. For 20 minutes. OK?"

I heard Schaub telling his guys that very thing when AJ was mic'd up vs. the Titans. "Hey, they're going to try and get under our skin and make us get a penalty." When do I see Kubiak call a timeout and gather all the players around him and coach them up? I don't see everything, due to camera shots, but does he? All I see is the guy staring at his menu, away from everyone.

Our coach is absent on game day, at least that's what it feels like. It's as if he's just an observer or a consultant who watches the game and then works with them during practice. Those guys on the field are pros, but they need a coach to hold them to the standard during the heat of battle, too. Help them gather themselves and stay composed when things might be hectic and spinning out of control out there.

I'm just saying'....it IS a coaching issue. Mos def.

Hey now you are showing that Schaub is a leader on this team. That is not allowed because, according to some, our losses are on him because he is not a leader...
It does appear that Kubs is not doing much during the game. There have been a couple of times that he has showed emotion on the field and I liked it. Ususally he was mad and yelling at someone. I really wish he had this attitude more often. He really needs to sit players for a quarter when they screw up and make them pay. It seems to work, ask Foster.

DexmanC
12-08-2010, 12:25 PM
Hey now you are showing that Schaub is a leader on this team. That is not allowed because, according to some, our losses are on him because he is not a leader...
It does appear that Kubs is not doing much during the game. There have been a couple of times that he has showed emotion on the field and I liked it. Ususally he was mad and yelling at someone. I really wish he had this attitude more often. He really needs to sit players for a quarter when they screw up and make them pay. It seems to work, ask Foster.

Kubes can say the right thing all he wants, but what's he gonna do when
the players don't listen? Last year, when the run defense was giving up
huge plays every game, Demeco was on "SoundFX" screaming at his
defense for giving up 30 points every week. As he was standing, and
imploring his teammates to do better, most of them were sitting and
looking dis-interested. What's Demeco gonna do to hold his team
accountable? Schaub said the right thing in the huddle, but that
didn't stop Andre from beatin' Finnegan's ass.

Tom Brady, a few weeks ago, had receivers dropping passes during a
big game. He lit them up while coming off the field. He later gathered
the entire offense around and "coached them up." on the sideline. They went on
to score 38 points that game. What could Brady do if his players
didn't listen? Every one on that offense knew they'd better pay
attention, because Brady's trump card was Belichick.

You see how accountability DOES have a major effect on team
leaders' ability to coach up their teammates?

Team leaders with no powers to enforce their leadership are nothing
more than jawjacking teammates. See Bernard Pollard.

GP
12-08-2010, 12:25 PM
Hey now you are showing that Schaub is a leader on this team. That is not allowed because, according to some, our losses are on him because he is not a leader...
It does appear that Kubs is not doing much during the game. There have been a couple of times that he has showed emotion on the field and I liked it. Ususally he was mad and yelling at someone. I really wish he had this attitude more often. He really needs to sit players for a quarter when they screw up and make them pay. It seems to work, ask Foster.

Schaub is more of a leader than Kubiak is, at least that's what I think after hearing him encourage his guys to be focused and aware of a certain risk of danger via the Titans and their sneaky ways.

I need to see Kubiak getting in the middle of a sideline huddle and coaching them up. But he just doesn't do it. He's trying to be Tom Landry maybe? Mr. Cool. Mr. Unflappable. The vigilant sentry who sits alone on his wall, keeping watch over his citizens as they sleep in their beds each night?

I mean, I don't get it. I really don't. I could not play for a guy like that. I want a coach who relates to me, who DOES keep his cool, but who will not be afraid to speak up in front of everyone and jolt the team back into the present reality. I don't need him to be a psycho. Just find a way to think outside the box and show you're committed to doing different things.

Be different. Be unique. Don't accept things as they are. Actively work to change them. Hold people accountable. Hold yourself accountable, too.

(sigh)

Just ready for a change. Something to talk about other than Gurry Kubiak and how he's going to evolve into Mr. Wonderful somehow.

Mr teX
12-08-2010, 12:28 PM
While players certainly play the game, I think accountability is a factor directly related to how they play the game.

I honestly don't think the accountability level with our coaching staff is even close to those of pedigreed teams like the Patriots. It is my perception that as long as they "kids play hard", then these kind of stupid mistakes are forgiven. I think that lowered standard is attributed directly to coaching and how they lead the team.

It's often just a matter of a play or two between winning and losing games. And it seems that the difference in these pivotal plays is the difference between playing smart and playing stupid. I have little doubt that playing smart goes back to how they are instructed, how they practice, and how they are held accountable. These are all coaching responsibilities.


well, you know the old saying db, "if you make a mistake, make it full speed".
& playing smart again isn't necessarily always on the coaches; the player bears more than half the responsibility with that imo simply b/c you can have the right call on as a coach, but if the player doesn't execute it or strays from it for whatever reason, the coach can look like a fool.

For Instance, I'm damn certain belichick didn't coach asante samuel to completely abandoned his coverage responsibility on David Tyree during the course of that unbelievable play just before the giants scored in that Giants/Pats SB. That was just samuels choosing to jump a route like he normally does he just chose to do it at the wrong time.

Yet, to let some of you in here call it, that kind of crap is all on the coaching. The coach can only do so much, the player has to execute.

infantrycak
12-08-2010, 12:28 PM
While players certainly play the game, I think accountability is a factor directly related to how they play the game.

Sure as a general principle but there are several limitations. One is a lack of information. Other than benching and fines we have no idea what is being done. People see results they don't like and start supplying reasons regardless of whether they are supported by facts. Another is it isn't sufficient to merely identify a problem you have to find a better alternative to see improvement. Want to complain about Antonio Smith jumping off sides, well you need someone who can perform as well without jumping off sides. I don't see that person on the roster or available as a free agent right now. Do you? And it's funny, when Kubiak has done things like bench Slaton and Foster or hold Jacoby out of a game folks have complained. Remember when Sage complained about Kubiak being too hard on him? Now the storyline is nobody is held accountable.

GP - maybe Schaub was coached up to show that leadership. Nah, couldn't be that.

People crack me up with the sideline demeanor and Denny's menu comments. Shouting doesn't equate to leadership. Kubiak behaves on the sideline very much like Belichick. Just because Belichick does it doesn't make it "the right way" any more than Cowher yelling and patting lots of butts makes that "the right way."

Mr teX
12-08-2010, 12:31 PM
Schaub is more of a leader than Kubiak is, at least that's what I think after hearing him encourage his guys to be focused and aware of a certain risk of danger via the Titans and their sneaky ways.

I need to see Kubiak getting in the middle of a sideline huddle and coaching them up. But he just doesn't do it. He's trying to be Tom Landry maybe? Mr. Cool. Mr. Unflappable. The vigilant sentry who sits alone on his wall, keeping watch over his citizens as they sleep in their beds each night?

I mean, I don't get it. I really don't. I could not play for a guy like that. I want a coach who relates to me, who DOES keep his cool, but who will not be afraid to speak up in front of everyone and jolt the team back into the present reality. I don't need him to be a psycho. Just find a way to think outside the box and show you're committed to doing different things.

Be different. Be unique. Don't accept things as they are. Actively work to change them. Hold people accountable. Hold yourself accountable, too.

(sigh)

Just ready for a change. Something to talk about other than Gurry Kubiak and how he's going to evolve into Mr. Wonderful somehow.


So basically, b/c you heard Schaub saying heady things in a huddle & you haven't heard kubiak, you think that he's not doing it & therefore not a leader? Gotcha. :choke:

Rey
12-08-2010, 12:35 PM
Sure as a general principle but there are several limitations. One is a lack of information. Other than benching and fines we have no idea what is being done. People see results they don't like and start supplying reasons regardless of whether they are supported by facts. Another is it isn't sufficient to merely identify a problem you have to find a better alternative to see improvement. Want to complain about Antonio Smith jumping off sides, well you need someone who can perform as well without jumping off sides. I don't see that person on the roster or available as a free agent right now. Do you? And it's funny, when Kubiak has done things like bench Slaton and Foster or hold Jacoby out of a game folks have complained. Now the storyline is nobody is held accountable.

I don't know whether it's on the coaching for every little thing that goes wrong, but Kubiak is largely responsible for the players on the roster. If they can't get it done then it's still on the coaching and the front office for bringing the players in.

Either way, if the team is failing, the coach is largely responsible for that.

Ole Miss Texan
12-08-2010, 12:38 PM
So when a player does something right it's because of how good the player is DESPITE the coaching. But when a player does something bad it's not the player's fault it's because they weren't COACHED well enough?

Just want to make sure I got it right. Hmmkayy thanks guys.


So when an 8 year veteran player (including 5 years with the Almighty Patriots and Bilichick) does something wrong, its Kubiak's fault.

But when an undrafted rookie free agent running back all of a sudden has 2 very good games at the end of a season after carrying the rock only 15 times in 4 games... it's because he's the second coming of Earl Campbell and has NOTHING to do with Kubiak.

infantrycak
12-08-2010, 12:41 PM
I don't know whether it's on the coaching for every little thing that goes wrong, but Kubiak is largely responsible for the players on the roster. If they can't get it done then it's still on the coaching and the front office for bringing the players in.

Either way, if the team is failing, the coach is largely responsible for that.

I have no problem with folks criticizing Kubiak/Smith/McNair for the roster. Sometimes it gets silly in the specific criticism but generally the roster is on them.

So when a player does something right it's because of how good the player is DESPITE the coaching. But when a player does something bad it's not the player's fault it's because they weren't COACHED well enough?

Just want to make sure I got it right. Hmmkayy thanks guys.

Now you're getting with the program. Myers' improvement was a growth spurt, not coaching. Foster's improvement was from a summer school philosophy course. The improvement in the run game is solely on Foster and has nothing to do with the coaching of the OL.

Mr teX
12-08-2010, 12:42 PM
I don't know whether it's on the coaching for every little thing that goes wrong, but Kubiak is largely responsible for the players on the roster. If they can't get it done then it's still on the coaching and the front office for bringing the players in.

Either way, if the team is failing, the coach is largely responsible for that.

& this is ultimately what he should be hung for right here. He brought these guys in here. So for every play that they fail on that costs us a game, that is on him.

Rey
12-08-2010, 12:49 PM
& this is ultimately what he should be hung for right here. He brought these guys in here. So for every play that they fail on that costs us a game, that is on him.

Before this year, I was a staunch Kubiak supporter and I think that part of me is about to come out a tiny bit in this post.

I don't think we can blame him for everything.

I was willing to give him a pass for years past, but at some point you have to $hit or get off the pot.

Kubiak has had enough time to get things done, but he has failed. I don't know about whether or not he is a leader of men or if his coaching style stinks. Heck, for all I know Kubiak could be a successful head coach one day...Or maybe even next year...His demeanor means 0 to me. All kinds of personalities have been successful head coaches.

My main thing is the results. I have supported this team for a good while now and I have grown absolutely tired of the same old stuff. At this point I really don't care what the cause is. I'm just ready to clear house and let someone else take a crack at it.

Results are the only thing that matters. Kubiak has not achieved desired results. 1+1 in this case = 2 for me.

Norg
12-08-2010, 12:52 PM
LOL at your sig does denver really want Kubes back

anyways WHo really plays in a tougher divison ???????????

I know the Jags and titans are down but IMO there overall there still pretty tough teams when u compare them to the BIlls and DOlphins

Mr teX
12-08-2010, 01:02 PM
Before this year, I was a staunch Kubiak supporter and I think that part of me is about to come out a tiny bit in this post.

I don't think we can blame him for everything.

I was willing to give him a pass for years past, but at some point you have to $hit or get off the pot.

Kubiak has had enough time to get things done, but he has failed. I don't know about whether or not he is a leader of men or if his coaching style stinks. Heck, for all I know Kubiak could be a successful head coach one day...Or maybe even next year...His demeanor means 0 to me. All kinds of personalities have been successful head coaches.

My main thing is the results. I have supported this team for a good while now and I have grown absolutely tired of the same old stuff. At this point I really don't care what the cause is. I'm just ready to clear house and let someone else take a crack at it.

Results are the only thing that matters. Kubiak has not achieved desired results. 1+1 in this case = 2 for me.

perfectly acceptable stance & honestly i am about in the same boat Although i wouldn't be about to jump off a cliff if he wasn't fired. The main thing that needs to happen imo is to bring in a new experienced gm & d-coordinator & kubes need to be completely out of the loop on bringing in coaching & player personnel; at the very least, the final decision on bringing these people in doesn't need to rest with him....especially on defense.

Texas T
12-08-2010, 01:13 PM
Kubes can say the right thing all he wants, but what's he gonna do when
the players don't listen? Last year, when the run defense was giving up
huge plays every game, Demeco was on "SoundFX" screaming at his
defense for giving up 30 points every week. As he was standing, and
imploring his teammates to do better, most of them were sitting and
looking dis-interested. What's Demeco gonna do to hold his team
accountable? Schaub said the right thing in the huddle, but that
didn't stop Andre from beatin' Finnegan's ass.

Tom Brady, a few weeks ago, had receivers dropping passes during a
big game. He lit them up while coming off the field. He later gathered
the entire offense around and "coached them up." on the sideline. They went on
to score 38 points that game. What could Brady do if his players
didn't listen? Every one on that offense knew they'd better pay
attention, because Brady's trump card was Belichick.

You see how accountability DOES have a major effect on team
leaders' ability to coach up their teammates?

Team leaders with no powers to enforce their leadership are nothing
more than jawjacking teammates. See Bernard Pollard.

So we agree...that's a first I think that I'm on the same page with you.
Accountability should have a direct effect on the results on the field.

HOU-TEX
12-08-2010, 01:16 PM
I've got a hair in my nose that keep making me sneeze. Man it's a drag gettin old

Texas T
12-08-2010, 01:18 PM
Schaub is more of a leader than Kubiak is, at least that's what I think after hearing him encourage his guys to be focused and aware of a certain risk of danger via the Titans and their sneaky ways.

I need to see Kubiak getting in the middle of a sideline huddle and coaching them up. But he just doesn't do it. He's trying to be Tom Landry maybe? Mr. Cool. Mr. Unflappable. The vigilant sentry who sits alone on his wall, keeping watch over his citizens as they sleep in their beds each night?

I mean, I don't get it. I really don't. I could not play for a guy like that. I want a coach who relates to me, who DOES keep his cool, but who will not be afraid to speak up in front of everyone and jolt the team back into the present reality. I don't need him to be a psycho. Just find a way to think outside the box and show you're committed to doing different things.

Be different. Be unique. Don't accept things as they are. Actively work to change them. Hold people accountable. Hold yourself accountable, too.

(sigh)

Just ready for a change. Something to talk about other than Gurry Kubiak and how he's going to evolve into Mr. Wonderful somehow.

I think if Kubs did this, during the game, it would at least give the fans the impression that he was giving a crap. I'm not saying that he's a horrible coach, I actually like him and I believe the team likes him too. I really think, and I'm just looking from the outside, he doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions. I know he did do it to Foster and it worked. We have heard of no more problems with him.
It's kinda like the running game against the Colts-it worked once so don't do it again...

DexmanC
12-08-2010, 01:19 PM
We've got two consecutive seasons of hard evidence, this team pee's its
pants when its time to roll up their sleeves.

2009:
The Team starts 5-3, ready to conquer the world. They go on to
lose FOUR STRAIGHT GAMES in a row (ALL DIVISION GAMES,) and
take themselves right out of contention. When the pressure's off,
they clean up against the Rams and Seahawks, then Pittsburgh drops
out of the Wildcard race. Once this happen, the Texans say "Whohoo!
We're still alive!" That, my friends, is not making your own way into
postseason. Nice try, Texans.

2010:
The Texans start the year 4-2, ready to conquer the world. Many of
us were screaming about the red flags already apparent on the young
season. People were telling us, "Relax. They're 4-2. They beat the
**** out of the Colts. It's gonna be a fine year. Those aren't any-ol
'red flags,' those are BATTLE RED flags." I didn't buy it, folks.
This team went on to lose FOUR STRAIGHT GAMES, ALL against
contending teams. In a year where the Jags, who never have superior
talent, but possess far more toughness and discipline than the Texans,
are sitting atop the AFC South. It makes me puke.

The Texans took a late lead against the best team in the AFC, on the road,
and pissed away the game by giving up 83 yards in 40 seconds. The
Texans got off to a 4-2 start, and could only get one win in the next
six games. The only win came against a team that fired its quarterback,
and quit on its head coach. The Texans now need the Titans to find
a way to beat Jacksonville and Indianapolis. That ain't gonna happen.
Who knows. The Texans just might beat Denver, now that the coach
that made Kyle Orton into a probowler just got fired.

Whether it be a key situation in a game, or a pivotal point in the season,
we know that Kubiak's leadership does not permit this team to take the
next step. Last year, we thought this offense needed a running game
to get itself over-the-top. They now have the NFL's leading rusher,
who basically has to beg for the ball when the game is close. Arian Foster
was even benched for a half of football, and he's still the best runningback
in the NFL.

Kubiak benches players for off-the-field infractions like walking into
a meeting five minutes late, but this team has NO fear of repercussions
from making the same mistakes ON THE FIELD, week-in week-out. Matt
Jackson and Adam Wexler do a good job in the Kubiak press conferences,
pressing Kubiak on what could be done about players making the same
mistakes on the field every week. Kubiak plays dumb, and refuses
to acknowledge his team getting beat on the same plays over and
over again. The Texans, under Kubiak, are the easiest paycheck
for NFL players in the league. If you screw up on the field, you've
got a job so long as you "battled."

"It's on me." -- Gary Kubiak

It's time this ownership listened.

Texas T
12-08-2010, 01:27 PM
So when a player does something right it's because of how good the player is DESPITE the coaching. But when a player does something bad it's not the player's fault it's because they weren't COACHED well enough?

Just want to make sure I got it right. Hmmkayy thanks guys.


So when an 8 year veteran player (including 5 years with the Almighty Patriots and Bilichick) does something wrong, its Kubiak's fault.

But when an undrafted rookie free agent running back all of a sudden has 2 very good games at the end of a season after carrying the rock only 15 times in 4 games... it's because he's the second coming of Earl Campbell and has NOTHING to do with Kubiak.

Not exactly. Kubs is at fault for hiring the DC, who doesn't seem to call the right formations, which in turn causes the players to be out of position (based on the offensive play calling), which makes us all think that the player messed up. So I do think it comes down to coaching, in this scenerio, which may only be in my mind.

Mr teX
12-08-2010, 01:49 PM
Not exactly. Kubs is at fault for hiring the DC, who doesn't seem to call the right formations, which in turn causes the players to be out of position (based on the offensive play calling), which makes us all think that the player messed up. So I do think it comes down to coaching, in this scenerio, which may only be in my mind.

What evidence to do you have that says they were in the wrong formation in particular situation.

Texas T
12-08-2010, 02:26 PM
What evidence to do you have that says they were in the wrong formation in particular situation.

Just my eyeballs. Again it is just my perception but as much as it seems that players are out of position...
Maybe I'm just hoping that our players are not so bad that they are almost always out of position, but my gut tells me that the scheme is at fault more often than the players being bad, not always but mostly.

Double Barrel
12-08-2010, 03:00 PM
well, you know the old saying db, "if you make a mistake, make it full speed".
& playing smart again isn't necessarily always on the coaches; the player bears more than half the responsibility with that imo simply b/c you can have the right call on as a coach, but if the player doesn't execute it or strays from it for whatever reason, the coach can look like a fool.

For Instance, I'm damn certain belichick didn't coach asante samuel to completely abandoned his coverage responsibility on David Tyree during the course of that unbelievable play just before the giants scored in that Giants/Pats SB. That was just samuels choosing to jump a route like he normally does he just chose to do it at the wrong time.

Yet, to let some of you in here call it, that kind of crap is all on the coaching. The coach can only do so much, the player has to execute.

I agree that it's a tandem effect, that not all stupid plays are on coaches because it's the players that play the game. It's just the body of work of the past five seasons that shows me that it' the same old crap, different day. This franchise is plagued by Groundhog Day syndrome, and that has got to be on coaches. These are the players that represent this staff, they run their schemes, and try to execute their plays.

You brought up Asante Samuel, one of the best CBs in the league. You are right that Belichick certainly did not coach him to do that, but let's look at accountability now. Where was Samuel the year after that play? Not in a Patriots uniform. And yeah, he had franchise tag requirements and all of that, but, by all accounts, the Patriots were not even bidding on his services at that point. Any connection? Perhaps, but the fact that we can make the argument says something about an organization like NE.

Sure as a general principle but there are several limitations. One is a lack of information. Other than benching and fines we have no idea what is being done. People see results they don't like and start supplying reasons regardless of whether they are supported by facts. Another is it isn't sufficient to merely identify a problem you have to find a better alternative to see improvement. Want to complain about Antonio Smith jumping off sides, well you need someone who can perform as well without jumping off sides. I don't see that person on the roster or available as a free agent right now. Do you? And it's funny, when Kubiak has done things like bench Slaton and Foster or hold Jacoby out of a game folks have complained. Remember when Sage complained about Kubiak being too hard on him? Now the storyline is nobody is held accountable.

GP - maybe Schaub was coached up to show that leadership. Nah, couldn't be that.

People crack me up with the sideline demeanor and Denny's menu comments. Shouting doesn't equate to leadership. Kubiak behaves on the sideline very much like Belichick. Just because Belichick does it doesn't make it "the right way" any more than Cowher yelling and patting lots of butts makes that "the right way."

If players are being held accountable, then it certainly amounts to diddly squat. Four straight years of 5-7 is proof positive that whatever accountability is being implemented is failing them consistently.

You are right in that there are things we do not know, which is why I said "It is my perception...". All I know for certain is that results do not lie, and our results are mediocre and craptastic. Nobody can deny this, and against winning teams, we are so far away from .500 that it's a dot on the horizon.

As far as your last comment, I have to completely disagree. Belichick is not a Cowher spitter, but if you ever watch Sound FX on NFLN and see him, he's holding their feet over the fire and actually COACHING his defensive unit while they're on the bench. He's not turning his back on big plays or FGs, and he's not 40 yards away from the LOS. Remind me of that time that the Texans were blowing a team out and Kubiak called a team meeting on the sideline to drill home the point to finish the game. We saw the Patriots do this last Monday, but it's just not something that is ever going to happen with Kubiak...if not for the fact that we just don't blow teams away, much less good ones in our division.

I find it laughable that any comparison is even attempted to be made between a tepid coach like Kubiak and a proven winner in Belichick. Gary seems out of touch in games, and over the years it amazes me that you never see him in the thick of things on the sideline. He acts like an aloof coordinator, and I'm sure he'd be the first HC to coach from the skybox if they'd let him. Dude is a freakin' goober head coach.

Ole Miss Texan
12-08-2010, 03:04 PM
Not exactly. Kubs is at fault for hiring the DC, who doesn't seem to call the right formations, which in turn causes the players to be out of position (based on the offensive play calling), which makes us all think that the player messed up. So I do think it comes down to coaching, in this scenerio, which may only be in my mind.

Eugene Wilson is an 8 year NFL veteran. He spent his first 5 seasons with Bilichick in New England which instantly makes him more knowledgable than both Gary Kubiak and Frank Bush.;) I too have been scratching my head over THAT particular defense against the Jets. BUT, if we add all the arguements up... I have to place the blame squarely on Wilson for the long bomb that Braylon Edwards caught.

It doesn't matter if Kubiak hired Bush. It doesn't matter if Bush called in a wrong scheme. Eugene Wilson, a 2-time Super Bowl winning Safety should know what to do and who to cover in that situation. He should be able to think on his own and say, "you know what, Edwards is completley wide open and about to catch the ball and then step out of bounds."

Some may argue that he "would get in trouble" if he played football like he was supposed to. Or did something different than a coach was telling him. But he wouldn't. Why? Because our coaches don't hold anyone accountable. Kubiak is not a leader because he doesn't yell. He wouldn't have gotten mad at Wilson. Bush doesn't do anything but play with the chalk in Kubiak's office, so he wouldn't have gotten mad at Wilson. See!?

Texas T
12-08-2010, 03:35 PM
Eugene Wilson is an 8 year NFL veteran. He spent his first 5 seasons with Bilichick in New England which instantly makes him more knowledgable than both Gary Kubiak and Frank Bush. I too have been scratching my head over THAT particular defense against the Jets. BUT, if we add all the arguements up... I have to place the blame squarely on Wilson for the long bomb that Braylon Edward caught.

It doesn't matter if Kubiak hired Bush. It doesn't matter if Bush called in a wrong scheme. Eugene Wilson, a 2-time Super Bowl winning Safety should know what to do and who to cover in that situation. He should be able to think on his own and say, "you know what, Edwards is completley wide open and about to catch the ball and then step out of bounds."

Some may argue that he "would get in trouble" if he played football like he was supposed to. Or did something different than a coach was telling him. But he wouldn't. Why? Because our coaches don't hold anyone accountable. Kubiak is not a leader because he doesn't yell. He wouldn't have gotten mad at Wilson. Bush doesn't do anything but play with the chalk in Kubiak's office, so he wouldn't have gotten mad at Wilson.

I'll agree with you on that specific play.
But over the course of 5 years of Kubs and 1 3/4 with Bush it's been the same thing with different players.
Yes Wilson should have known but the DC SHOULD KNOW TOO. If he doesn't why is he still here.
Completely, 1000% agree with your last paragraph and I think that this is the main failing of the coaching in the current Texans regime-no accountability to anyone, that we know of.

GP
12-08-2010, 03:36 PM
GP - maybe Schaub was coached up to show that leadership. Nah, couldn't be that.

My impression, wait...no, the FACT that I know of is that Kubiak sensed Schaub was "a leader of men" when they played golf together during their first date prior to signing Matt Schaub. Remember that? Kubiak fell in love with him.

Whatever Schaub brought here, IMO, is what is being exhibited today. If anything, 'Cak, he's having to probably ramp up his leadership due to a lack of leadership from Kubiak. You see it all the time in organizations where the hard workers, the talented, the self-sufficient, the self-starters are taking measures into their own hands and effectively operating without leadership from the men entrusted to enstill said leadership. It happens.

I will never call Kubiak "lazy" or say he "doesn't care," etc. To me, there's just an overall inability to operate at anything more than a glacial pace. He even complains about the "lack of a quick pace" at training camp. Every year he's whining about how practice pace should have been quicker and more energized. Then, one day at camp, we get the glorious report from Kubiak that he was "very pleased with the tempo of practice today." Blah blah blah. The people rejoice, "Hooray! We're going to start 'strong' this year! Yeah!"

Then that familiar noise occurs: The sound of someone placing their hand over the mouth, making a "wet fart" noise. That's the sound of our team failing to start strong and close out games. The main theme has been a slow start, a quick-paced second half and a sprint to the finish line at the end of the game. But our fat boys and their fat little girlfriends can't chug-chug-chug their little choo-choo train to first place about 90% of the time. They're too worn out from the 3rd quarter and 4th quarter heroics to seal the deal. After all, they are tired little boys from having to make up so much lost ground in those two quarters. I don't blame 'em for collapsing at the finish line. The idea of having to run the table on the reg season, and then run the table in the playoffs seems very tiring and very hard work.

Oh well. There's always next year. Maybe....

GP
12-08-2010, 03:39 PM
I'll agree with you on that specific play.
But over the course of 5 years of Kubs and 1 3/4 with Bush it's been the same thing with different players.
Yes Wilson should have known but the DC SHOULD KNOW TOO. If he doesn't why is he still here.
Completely, 1000% agree with your last paragraph and I think that this is the main failing of the coaching in the current Texans regime-no accountability to anyone, that we know of.

I was under the impression the defensive back was doing what the coach had instructed him to do.

Wasn't that the answer from Kubiak? "He did what we asked."

Someone help me out. I only read the comments on each presser because I can't stomach the guy himself during his pressers.

GP
12-08-2010, 03:42 PM
I agree that it's a tandem effect, that not all stupid plays are on coaches because it's the players that play the game. It's just the body of work of the past five seasons that shows me that it' the same old crap, different day. This franchise is plagued by Groundhog Day syndrome, and that has got to be on coaches. These are the players that represent this staff, they run their schemes, and try to execute their plays.

You brought up Asante Samuel, one of the best CBs in the league. You are right that Belichick certainly did not coach him to do that, but let's look at accountability now. Where was Samuel the year after that play? Not in a Patriots uniform. And yeah, he had franchise tag requirements and all of that, but, by all accounts, the Patriots were not even bidding on his services at that point. Any connection? Perhaps, but the fact that we can make the argument says something about an organization like NE.



If players are being held accountable, then it certainly amounts to diddly squat. Four straight years of 5-7 is proof positive that whatever accountability is being implemented is failing them consistently.

You are right in that there are things we do not know, which is why I said "It is my perception...". All I know for certain is that results do not lie, and our results are mediocre and craptastic. Nobody can deny this, and against winning teams, we are so far away from .500 that it's a dot on the horizon.

As far as your last comment, I have to completely disagree. Belichick is not a Cowher spitter, but if you ever watch Sound FX on NFLN and see him, he's holding their feet over the fire and actually COACHING his defensive unit while they're on the bench. He's not turning his back on big plays or FGs, and he's not 40 yards away from the LOS. Remind me of that time that the Texans were blowing a team out and Kubiak called a team meeting on the sideline to drill home the point to finish the game. We saw the Patriots do this last Monday, but it's just not something that is ever going to happen with Kubiak...if not for the fact that we just don't blow teams away, much less good ones in our division.

I find it laughable that any comparison is even attempted to be made between a tepid coach like Kubiak and a proven winner in Belichick. Gary seems out of touch in games, and over the years it amazes me that you never see him in the thick of things on the sideline. He acts like an aloof coordinator, and I'm sure he'd be the first HC to coach from the skybox if they'd let him. Dude is a freakin' goober head coach.

That whole post was full of ZING.

Well said, from start to finish. And am LOVING the "..and I'm sure he'd be the first HC to coach from the skybox if they'd let him. Dude is a freakin' goober head coach." LOL. Spot on, man. Spot on!

GP
12-08-2010, 03:44 PM
A 30-point boost for ya', DoubleBarrel.

Excellent post. Am proud to be a sponsor of your thought process.

infantrycak
12-08-2010, 03:55 PM
As far as your last comment, I have to completely disagree. Belichick is not a Cowher spitter, but if you ever watch Sound FX on NFLN and see him, he's holding their feet over the fire and actually COACHING his defensive unit while they're on the bench.

First off I am not arguing there are not coaching problems with the team. My point was simply what is being attributed to coaching has gotten out of control around here. No coaching changes at all with just a couple key executions by the players and we could easily be 7-5 in the lead for the division. Then the commentary would be much different. And yes with better coaching and the same execution we could also be in that position.

As for the comment above I think you are overlooking a key difference - their specialty in coaching, D v. O. On just about any team around you will find the D being huddled up on the sidelines more than the O. I have frequently seen Kubiak coaching the key O player Schaub during the games.

I find it laughable that any comparison is even attempted to be made between a tepid coach like Kubiak and a proven winner in Belichick.

The comment wasn't on relative merit. It was on demeanor. Winning had nothing to do with it. I think during the game is the wrong focus in any event because my impression is other than talking with an individual player here and there (typically the QB) coaching huddles during the game by HCs are very rare today.

But again, I am not claiming there are no coaching problems.

Trail.Blazr
12-08-2010, 04:47 PM
First off I am not arguing there are not coaching problems with the team. My point was simply what is being attributed to coaching has gotten out of control around here. No coaching changes at all with just a couple key executions by the players and we could easily be 7-5 in the lead for the division. Then the commentary would be much different. And yes with better coaching and the same execution we could also be in that position.

As for the comment above I think you are overlooking a key difference - their specialty in coaching, D v. O. On just about any team around you will find the D being huddled up on the sidelines more than the O. I have frequently seen Kubiak coaching the key O player Schaub during the games.



The comment wasn't on relative merit. It was on demeanor. Winning had nothing to do with it. I think during the game is the wrong focus in any event because my impression is other than talking with an individual player here and there (typically the QB) coaching huddles during the game by HCs are very rare today.

But again, I am not claiming there are no coaching problems.



I don't believe it's out of control. I think too many people have finally come to the consensus that enough is enough. It seems every season that Texans coaching mistakes in game have made the difference in 5-7 vs 7-5. EVERY YEAR. And every year, as they happen some noise is made about what idiotic play calling or clock management or not throwing the flag, etc.. took place in that game, then we quietly move on to the next week in hopes that it's a lesson learned.

What I've learned in 4 seasons is that they don't learn.

What kind of an organization has success by consistently getting in their own way year after year?

This, I believe is the "attributing" source of what's out of control. It's good to see a good many others finally convinced that 4 years is enough, which is easy, as based on anything I've seen in the past 2 years, I can honestly say I can't honestly hold out any hope for 2011 if they continue their consistent ways.

Upon reflection of this season, the AFC South was RIPE for the taking this year. We finally found the Texans on the up-side of the injury pendulum, with seemingly every opponent we face cuffed to our advantage. There is absolutely no excuse for 5-7 at this point. And if Kube's and company couldn't get it this year, there's nothing in the draft or the off-season they can sprinkle into the fold to convince me that next season will likely deem better results.

As NitroHonda's first post tries to highlight, the difference between 10-2 and 5-7 is hugely favoring coaching.

Bob McNair CAN'T be so stupid to let it continue. I'm praying for change by season end!

Double Barrel
12-08-2010, 04:55 PM
A 30-point boost for ya', DoubleBarrel.

Excellent post. Am proud to be a sponsor of your thought process.

Thanks, man. I appreciate the endorsement. Misery certainly loves company. :tiphat:

First off I am not arguing there are not coaching problems with the team. My point was simply what is being attributed to coaching has gotten out of control around here. No coaching changes at all with just a couple key executions by the players and we could easily be 7-5 in the lead for the division. Then the commentary would be much different. And yes with better coaching and the same execution we could also be in that position.

As for the comment above I think you are overlooking a key difference - their specialty in coaching, D v. O. On just about any team around you will find the D being huddled up on the sidelines more than the O. I have frequently seen Kubiak coaching the key O player Schaub during the games.

By the same token, you could just as easily argue that we are a couple of fails from being a 3-9 team right now, too. That sounds eerily close to making moral victories out of those close games, and I just don't buy it. Good teams with good coaches find that intangible within themselves to win those close games, and year after year under Kubiak, this team simply lacks whatever that intangible is at the end of the day.

As far as O v. D and head coaching on the sideline, it's just something that I've noticed over the past couple of seasons since having trouble comprehending Kubiak's demeanor. I don't have any specific examples, and I wasn't taking notes that I would need to reference at some future point. However, I do recall Sean Payton gathering his offense at the bench on more than one occasion, and Andy Reid has done it, as well.

It's just an observation by me, though, part of an overall analysis of scrutinizing our head coach and his style. Losing and perpetual mediocrity just magnifies it, of course. Kubiak was a booth coordinator, and nothing about his demeanor reveals that he has grown out of that role as a head coach on the sideline. He might be a slightly ineffectual leader of men in the locker room and practice field, but his body language indicates that he is uncomfortable as a head coaching leader on the sideline.

And for the example given by another poster that he's Tom Landry like, I can't even touch it. There are so many things wrong with that comparison that I won't even touch it.

The comment wasn't on relative merit. It was on demeanor. Winning had nothing to do with it. I think during the game is the wrong focus in any event because my impression is other than talking with an individual player here and there (typically the QB) coaching huddles during the game by HCs are very rare today.

But again, I am not claiming there are no coaching problems.

I know it was not on merit, as there is no comparison. And I knew you were talking demeanor, and I still disagree. I'm not saying that Kubiak won't someday rise to the position, and perhaps he's the Cleveland Browns Belichick right now (and, if so, Belichick only improved by getting fired and rehired by another team).

Today's Belichick, while seemingly calm on the surface, is a coach that demands the pursuit of perfection from his players. There is lots of NFL Films footage of his practices, coaching sessions, and sideline banter that reveals much about him beyond his rather bland press conferences.

Kubiak's "awe shucks the kids played hard today" is a far cry from that world. If he's demanding perfection, it must be like the shadows, out of sight from the public eye. And it is obviously not working.

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 05:56 PM
How do we know Wilson didn't just brain fart after being coached to do just that? As Tex said, Wilson has plenty of experience including being coached by Belichick for 5 years when he got a SB ring playing opposite Harrison. Every mistake made on the field is not a coaching problem.

I dont know

But I dont think A defensive guru like Dungy. Who hardly ever criticizes anything or a multiple time pro bowl S like Harrison (who played with Wilson) would call out the Texans coaching staff without reason.

But you probably know more than they do. LOL

steelbtexan
12-08-2010, 05:59 PM
This is retarded rationale. Lots of things you can blame on the coaching staff, but basic crap like the bolded, falls on the player, b/c on this level these are things that a player should know.....let alone a guy who's been in the league for as many years as Wilson has. In regards to other game-costing plays we've been subjected to this year, you might as well say:

"why wasn't KJ coached up to stay on his feet" on the Roy williams TD in the dallas game.

"why wasn't arian coached up to make sure he held onto the ball all the way" in whatever game that was when that happened.

"why wasn't AJ coached up to catch the ball" when it bounced off his knee & into the SD defender's hands.

Some things are just on the players, no matter how much you guys try to spin it on the coaching staff.

Again, not saying Kubes is not screwing up to, but you can't just blame everything on him & the coaching staff.

I've been saying Dungy is retarded for yrs. Glad to see you agree with me. LOL

GP
12-08-2010, 06:16 PM
And for the example given by another poster that he's Tom Landry like, I can't even touch it. There are so many things wrong with that comparison that I won't even touch it.

I asked "Is he trying to be like Tom Landry," as in the stoic figure on the sideline whose hat would remain in place even if a nuclear bomb went off over his head.

Never would I ever compare them, in terms of coaching ability.

Was only referencing a coaching legend for "effect."

Anyways, this is all for nothing. We have the chance to win this division!

JB
12-08-2010, 06:23 PM
I asked "Is he trying to be like Tom Landry," as in the stoic figure on the sideline whose hat would remain in place even if a nuclear bomb went off over his head.

Never would I ever compare them, in terms of coaching ability.

Was only referencing a coaching legend for "effect."

Anyways, this is all for nothing. We have the chance to win this division!


Whoa buddy! Back off the Koolaid!

GP
12-08-2010, 06:26 PM
Whoa buddy! Back off the Koolaid!

The Koolaid tastes funny. It sort of tastes like what I would expect anti-freeze to taste like.

Anybody else's taste like that, or just mine?

thunderkyss
12-08-2010, 10:58 PM
GP - maybe Schaub was coached up to show that leadership. Nah, couldn't be that.

People crack me up with the sideline demeanor and Denny's menu comments. Shouting doesn't equate to leadership. Kubiak behaves on the sideline very much like Belichick. Just because Belichick does it doesn't make it "the right way" any more than Cowher yelling and patting lots of butts makes that "the right way."

The thing is everything they say they don't see Kubiak do, he does. You don't see it on TV, but you'll see it if you watch the games at Reliant. It's not every time Schaub comes to the sideline, or every time KJack gets burned. But he interacts with the players all the time at key moments.

but whatever.

imatexan
12-09-2010, 01:46 AM
Yes, Tenn was a W my mind/fingers had a brain fart.

With that said facts are what they are. Keep on drinking the koolaid. Since this is a thread comparing the Pats/Texans. You look at the Pats and you dont see the kinda crap that goes on in the Smithiak regime.

The Pats may slip up every now and then. (Cleveland) But when they get a team down they put them away. Unlike the Texans at Philly. The difference is Belichek/Brady vs Smithiak/Schaub and I'm one of Schaub's biggest fans.

The only constant in the Smithiak regime appears to be 5-7. I expect alot more for my $$$$ than I've seen this yr. Is it to much for loyal season ticket holders to expet a team that gives a solid effort for 4 qtrs. Or a coacing staff that understands simple clock management and can get most of the replay reviews after 5yrs on the job. That's not even mentioning the hiring of a rookie DC (Bush) without even interviewinng anybody else for the position. The result of that decision by Kubes is one of the worst defenses in NFL history.

Would you take a team of Billick/Lewis as HC/DC over Smithiak. They aren't even my 1st choice for the job. But they sure would be a large upgrade over Smithiak. IMHO

BTW, You're glad somebody like me isn't running the Texans. Are you happy with the way McNair/Smithiak are running the team? If you are then mediocrity is good enough for you.

I will tell you one thing if I was running the organization Kubiak would've had his a** at the combine last yr. Instead of sceduling that week to have sleep apnea surgery. That speaks volumes about this organizations commitment to being the best they can be. Maybe just maybe the Texans wouldn't have had such a crappy draft if the leader of the Texans personel dept could've scheduled his surgery 2 wks before the combine. So that he could've been available. And make no mistake that Kubes has final say over personel.

But oh well we as fans have grown to accept this kind of crap and be told the koolaid this yr is going to taste much better than last yrs 5-7 koolaid.

My post does not have ANYTHING to indicate that I am "drinking the kool-aid". Also I am sick and tired of people who are hating on this team using this line for an escape, especially when many times it is used incorrectly.
I did not say anywhere in my post that I am content with the Texans being 5-7 I am saying that you should accept that we are 5-7 and not act like the only win we had this season was week 1.

Like I said in my earlier post, this goes both ways. You can't act like the losses we had somehow are "moral victories" because we were so close to winning and you can't act like the wins we earned just fell in our lap and that this team is just terrible.
No kool-aid drinking here just some reality, which many of our fans on both sides need.

Fico
12-09-2010, 10:00 AM
So what's our excuse now?

http://www.nfl.com/teams/newenglandpatriots/statistics?team=NE

They are right in front of us with one of the worst defenses in the game this year and yet they are still 10-2. While we are sitting on our butts waiting for something to happen..

Thoughts?


I think it quite clear. While their defense may be worse, our is filled with losers. I don't mean all our people suck, what I mean is our defense sucks as a unit in the most critical of situations.

I would put money that NE's defense wouldn't have given up that drive to the Jets, or had the Jax hail mary happen, or allow a wide open TD to San Diego with 6mins in the 4th.

Hell that is a 3 game swing right there 8-4 vs. 5-7 is huge. Point is our guys are the anti clutch on defense.

Double Barrel
12-09-2010, 10:16 AM
The thing is everything they say they don't see Kubiak do, he does. You don't see it on TV, but you'll see it if you watch the games at Reliant. It's not every time Schaub comes to the sideline, or every time KJack gets burned. But he interacts with the players all the time at key moments.

but whatever.

I have never seen such a passionate defense of a mediocre coach with the exception of Texans fans with Kubiak. Nobody said that he never talks to players. But his sideline personae, and I've been to many home games to see it in person, is aloof and distant.

But whatever.

Rey
12-09-2010, 10:26 AM
I have never seen such a passionate defense of a mediocre coach with the exception of Texans fans with Kubiak. Nobody said that he never talks to players. But his sideline personae, and I've been to many home games to see it in person, is aloof and distant.

But whatever.

Gonna have to agree about his sideline demeanor...Kubiak mostly interacts with the QB's...

When guys make good plays he doesn't even really clap...He just looks like it should be business as usual...

That said, I don't put a whole lot of stock in that. Not sure that the sideline attitude of a coach really determines how good the team is.

It's kind of like teaching styles in a classroom. Teachers have all kinds of styles and personalities and many of them are effective. I don't believe in one certain style when it comes to leading and teaching...JMO

HOU-TEX
12-09-2010, 10:42 AM
Gonna have to agree about his sideline demeanor...Kubiak mostly interacts with the QB's...

When guys make good plays he doesn't even really clap...He just looks like it should be business as usual...

That said, I don't put a whole lot of stock in that. Not sure that the sideline attitude of a coach really determines how good the team is.

It's kind of like teaching styles in a classroom. Teachers have all kinds of styles and personalities and many of them are effective. I don't believe in one certain style when it comes to leading and teaching...JMO

Agreed. Different stroke for different folks. Look at Tom Landry. The dude never even twitched a muscle in his face, much less made expressions.

Double Barrel
12-09-2010, 10:59 AM
Gonna have to agree about his sideline demeanor...Kubiak mostly interacts with the QB's...

When guys make good plays he doesn't even really clap...He just looks like it should be business as usual...

That said, I don't put a whole lot of stock in that. Not sure that the sideline attitude of a coach really determines how good the team is.

It's kind of like teaching styles in a classroom. Teachers have all kinds of styles and personalities and many of them are effective. I don't believe in one certain style when it comes to leading and teaching...JMO

I agree. I think the obvious angle here is that losing magnifies deficiencies to the point that perception becomes reality. If this team were consistent winners, then Kubiak's demeanor would be applauded, but since they are perpetual losers, his sideline personality becomes a lightning rod.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy of holding this perspective, but rooting for a seemingly eternal crappy team can do that to a fan. Losing has made me despise Kubiak as a head coach and everything about his particular style of coaching.

Agreed. Different stroke for different folks. Look at Tom Landry. The dude never even twitched a muscle in his face, much less made expressions.

This is true, and in the big picture of coaching styles - Lombardi's yelling vs. Landry's calm and cool - I can see where the connection with Kubiak is made.

However, the gigantic elephant in the room here is that Landry was a football genius who innovated the sport (on both sides of the ball, at that) and held his players to higher standards than they could hold themselves to, and his aloof nature was part of that overall demanding coaching style. He was never friends or personable with his players, and they often thought that he was cold and did not care. But, in the end, he was a legendary winner so that personality worked well.

Gary is neither a genius or innovator, and to be honest, without John Elway (and Steve Young), him and Shanahan were average, at best.

Texan_Bill
12-09-2010, 11:34 AM
The only two stats that matter:

Pats D gives up 22.4 PPG - the Texans D gives up 26.8 PPG = -5 PPG

Pats O scores 31.6 PPG - the Texans ) scores 24.0 PPG = -7 PPG

80tothezone
12-09-2010, 12:26 PM
If you, Dungy, & Harrison want to blame the coach for that play.... that's your opinion, I agree to disagree.

I'd like to see the player cut, because it isn't the first time he's done something equally as stupid.

I don't have a problem with firing coaches either, however the next play, where the receiver's crossed & they scored a TD would be the one I'd fire the secondary coach, the DC, & the head coach for. We've defended that "scenario" the same way at least half a dozen times this season, & we've never been successful. That was probably the third time that play was used to score a TD on us. & we continue to defend it the same way.

yeh but once they got down there they were pretty much already in the endzone... we the worst team in the NFL inside the 20 THE WORSTE on D... basically whoever we play only has an 80 yrd field ...

Mr teX
12-09-2010, 02:15 PM
I dont know

But I dont think A defensive guru like Dungy. Who hardly ever criticizes anything or a multiple time pro bowl S like Harrison (who played with Wilson) would call out the Texans coaching staff without reason.

But you probably know more than they do. LOL

He didn't call out the texans coaching staff..he just said someone needs to be fired...i.e. player or coach.

Mr teX
12-09-2010, 02:24 PM
I agree. I think the obvious angle here is that losing magnifies deficiencies to the point that perception becomes reality. If this team were consistent winners, then Kubiak's demeanor would be applauded, but since they are perpetual losers, his sideline personality becomes a lightning rod.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy of holding this perspective, but rooting for a seemingly eternal crappy team can do that to a fan. Losing has made me despise Kubiak as a head coach and everything about his particular style of coaching.



This is true, and in the big picture of coaching styles - Lombardi's yelling vs. Landry's calm and cool - I can see where the connection with Kubiak is made.

However, the gigantic elephant in the room here is that Landry was a football genius who innovated the sport (on both sides of the ball, at that) and held his players to higher standards than they could hold themselves to, and his aloof nature was part of that overall demanding coaching style. He was never friends or personable with his players, and they often thought that he was cold and did not care. But, in the end, he was a legendary winner so that personality worked well.

Gary is neither a genius or innovator, and to be honest, without John Elway (and Steve Young), him and Shanahan were average, at best.


Yeah & it took that genius 6 years to garner a winning record with the cowboys. I mean i don't think anyone is saying kubes is lombardi reincarnated, but like Cak said, there is too much piling the guy for things that for the most part are on the player on the field.

Double Barrel
12-09-2010, 02:46 PM
Yeah & it took that genius 6 years to garner a winning record with the cowboys. I mean i don't think anyone is saying kubes is lombardi reincarnated, but like Cak said, there is too much piling the guy for things that for the most part are on the player on the field.

I've said it before, who picked these players? All of them, with the exception of one, are representative of Gary and his staff. And players don't pick the scheme or call the plays that they are told to execute.

I'm done hearing excuses for five years of perpetual mediocrity. It's not piling on, IMO, when his body of work clearly reveals an overall LOSER at 35-40. Is it really not enough games at 75 to evaluate this guy??

As far as Landry's early career, it was a different era. For instance, he was given a 10 year extension after his first five seasons. Landry's HC career arc would never have made it in today's NFL for a variety of reasons, as great as he was during his reign.

Mr teX
12-09-2010, 03:05 PM
I've said it before, who picked these players? All of them, with the exception of one, are representative of Gary and his staff. And players don't pick the scheme or call the plays that they are told to execute.

I'm done hearing excuses for five years of perpetual mediocrity. It's not piling on, IMO, when his body of work clearly reveals an overall LOSER at 35-40. Is it really not enough games at 75 to evaluate this guy??

As far as Landry's early career, it was a different era. For instance, he was given a 10 year extension after his first five seasons. Landry would never have made it in today's NFL for a variety of reasons, as great as he was during his reign.


5 years is plenty of time for the eval of kubes & i've said in other posts that the bolded is what he should be ultimately hung for b/c that is squarely on him. But as i've illustrated in other posts, players play on the field/court, not the coaches. You could have the greatest scheme/coaches in the world & still look like a dunce if your players don't execute. How on earth can anyone seriously blame kubiak for Kris Brown's numerous shanks last year that cost us a few games? You could stretch it & say that it's on kubes to make a change after the 1st few instances, but brown was a pretty reliable kicker up to that point.

Last year Pollard came on like gangbusters & was credited with stabilizing our run defense. This year, his pralis for stopping the run has been overshadowed b/c he's been exposed in coverage & arguably the worst safety in the league coverage-wise having giving up 8 TDs. Veteran player, exact same HC, exact same DC. How can you blame kubiak/bush for pollard being exposed in pass coverage?

DexmanC
12-09-2010, 03:05 PM
I've said it before, who picked these players? All of them, with the exception of one, are representative of Gary and his staff. And players don't pick the scheme or call the plays that they are told to execute.

I'm done hearing excuses for five years of perpetual mediocrity. It's not piling on, IMO, when his body of work clearly reveals an overall LOSER at 35-40. Is it really not enough games at 75 to evaluate this guy??

As far as Landry's early career, it was a different era. For instance, he was given a 10 year extension after his first five seasons. Landry's HC career arc would never have made it in today's NFL for a variety of reasons, as great as he was during his reign.

Gotta love the Landry references the guys keep making, without
acknowledging the glaring difference...


FREE AGENCY!!!

Double Barrel
12-09-2010, 04:30 PM
5 years is plenty of time for the eval of kubes & i've said in other posts that the bolded is what he should be ultimately hung for b/c that is squarely on him. But as i've illustrated in other posts, players play on the field/court, not the coaches. You could have the greatest scheme/coaches in the world & still look like a dunce if your players don't execute. How on earth can anyone seriously blame kubiak for Kris Brown's numerous shanks last year that cost us a few games? You could stretch it & say that it's on kubes to make a change after the 1st few instances, but brown was a pretty reliable kicker up to that point.

Last year Pollard came on like gangbusters & was credited with stabilizing our run defense. This year, his pralis for stopping the run has been overshadowed b/c he's been exposed in coverage & arguably the worst safety in the league coverage-wise having giving up 8 TDs. Veteran player, exact same HC, exact same DC. How can you blame kubiak/bush for pollard being exposed in pass coverage?

I'll use your last question as an example.

When we acquired Pollard, it was well known that he was a run stopper and soft on pass coverage. We knew his strengths and weaknesses. And with two veteran CBs, his strengths played into our defensive scheme with success, simply because they did not need him to cover and could use him where he was strongest.

A year later, we have two crappy CBs, so his weakness now becomes a glaring liability. Same player, same strengths and weaknesses as last year, but now he does not have that layer of security for pass protection. And going young at CB was a decision by this coaching staff, not the players.

How can you not blame them for the direct results of their decisions?

As far as blaming coaches for individual plays, it's not about that. It is about a collective body of work, and after 75 games, we have ample evidence of what Kubiak's body of work is now.

Gotta love the Landry references the guys keep making, without
acknowledging the glaring difference...


FREE AGENCY!!!

Great example. Like I said, it was a different era in pro football. We can't extrapolate the examples that work while ignoring other obvious differences.

HOU-TEX
12-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Gotta love the Landry references the guys keep making, without
acknowledging the glaring difference...


FREE AGENCY!!!

What does that have to do with facial expressions and sideline demeanor?

That's the reason I mentioned him

Rey
12-09-2010, 04:55 PM
Yeah & it took that genius 6 years to garner a winning record with the cowboys. I mean i don't think anyone is saying kubes is lombardi reincarnated, but like Cak said, there is too much piling the guy for things that for the most part are on the player on the field.

I think I read some stuff about Asante Samuels a few pages back and about how he jumps routes and just the Patriots players in general.

I heard something on the radio today as well where they were talking about how good a patriots player was because of his anticipation skills.

Well, IMO, you can't always attribute that to a player. When you are sitting in meeting rooms watching films with the coaches they will key you in on certain things...Like how a guy lines up...Which way a guy looks, if a lineman puts more pressure on his hands when it's a down hill run...ect....

Some players learn how to do this stuff all on their own and they may even pick up on stuff that their coach doesn't see. They may pick up keys that their opponent doesn't even realize they are giving away.

Basically it could be a positive of coaching or the player or both...It's really not hard to figure out though...

Like the Pats and Asante...They obviously taught him how to watch film or refined his skills in that area....But he has continued to play at a high level well when he left so we know that he has that skill now...

The Patriots continue to have DB's playing well in their system so it's safe to assume that the coaching there is doing a good job.

Here, we have never had guys perform well on a consistent basis in the secondary.

Most position groups have performed consistently one way or the other. It's not hard at all to see where the coaching is good at. It's not hard at all to see where Kubiak has failed. Look at the aspects of the team that have not gotten any better. We've thrown pretty decent talent at almost every position on the field.

After a while, it is not hard to make the correlation to poor coaching.

Basically, I really think some of the talent on the team would look a whole lot better if other coaches were working with them. And that ain't piling on...I'm just calling it like I see it...

When you have units that have not progressed at all despite talent being added, that's on the coaching...When guys look lost or completely over-matched...that's on coaching...

Double Barrel
12-09-2010, 05:05 PM
What does that have to do with facial expressions and sideline demeanor?

That's the reason I mentioned him

yep, which in that regard, you have a point.

I think the conversation expanded due to Mr. teX's post about 6 years until a winning record, as well as other threads where Landry has been mentioned in relation to being patient with Kubiak year after year.

steelbtexan
12-09-2010, 09:07 PM
Yeah & it took that genius 6 years to garner a winning record with the cowboys. I mean i don't think anyone is saying kubes is lombardi reincarnated, but like Cak said, there is too much piling the guy for things that for the most part are on the player on the field.

Players that Smithiak drafted or signed in FA.

Or it's on Kubes and the coaches for not coaching them up.

Which is it ? Did Kubes draft players that are too dumb to learn or are the coaches unable to teach basic situational defense?

Lucky
12-09-2010, 09:16 PM
You could have the greatest scheme/coaches in the world & still look like a dunce if your players don't execute.
You're argument that Kubiak is blameless for the player execution is ludicrous, considering that he selected and coached these players. But it's your implication that the players are getting a free pass, if Kubiak gets the ax, that's really off the mark.

After selecting his staff, the first thing a new coach will do is evaluate the players on the roster. This coach will not be encumbered by his relation with these players because he didn't select them and hasn't coached them. He has no loyalty to these guys. The players that he feels can help him win will stay. The players that he feels can't will go. So ultimately, there will be plenty of players who will see the door.

So if it's blood of players you want, you shall have it. Whose and how much will determined by the next man in charge.

Texan_Bill
12-09-2010, 10:51 PM
What does that have to do with facial expressions and sideline demeanor?

That's the reason I mentioned him

Texan_Bill's sideline demeanor--------> :heh:

VTexan
12-09-2010, 11:28 PM
The Pats held the Jets to 3 points for 60 minutes. The Texans gave up 7 points in 50 seconds

Mr teX
12-10-2010, 09:25 AM
You're argument that Kubiak is blameless for the player execution is ludicrous, considering that he selected and coached these players. But it's your implication that the players are getting a free pass, if Kubiak gets the ax, that's really off the mark.

After selecting his staff, the first thing a new coach will do is evaluate the players on the roster. This coach will not be encumbered by his relation with these players because he didn't select them and hasn't coached them. He has no loyalty to these guys. The players that he feels can help him win will stay. The players that he feels can't will go. So ultimately, there will be plenty of players who will see the door.

So if it's blood of players you want, you shall have it. Whose and how much will determined by the next man in charge.


& your reading comprehension is ludicrous. No where in my posts have i said kubiak is blameless. In fact, i've maintained that player selection is the main thing the guy should be fired for. You are right, plenty of players will see the door with a new regime, but what assurances will we have that the next coach that comes in knows what he's doing any more than what kubiak has done? People are assuming that if we get a new coach we're going to automatically be better. The potential is certainly there for us to get the next great coach or a proven winning HC like a Cowher or a Gruden, but we could also snag a rich kotite, Petrino, or McDaniels. In other words, the chances of getting an equally disappointing or worse HC far out weigh the chance of getting a guy like a Belichick or Holmgren.

My posts have been mainly directed at those who try to place every single thing that happens on the field at the HC's feet & that's just faulty logic. The landry reference was only in regards to how people still try to point to sideline demeanor as eveidence that he doesn't give a damn or is somehow aloof. Those with any common sense can cite at least 2-3 successful coaches today in the FA era (for you dex) who are just as reserved as he is on the sideline.

Mr teX
12-10-2010, 09:45 AM
I think I read some stuff about Asante Samuels a few pages back and about how he jumps routes and just the Patriots players in general.

I heard something on the radio today as well where they were talking about how good a patriots player was because of his anticipation skills.

Well, IMO, you can't always attribute that to a player. When you are sitting in meeting rooms watching films with the coaches they will key you in on certain things...Like how a guy lines up...Which way a guy looks, if a lineman puts more pressure on his hands when it's a down hill run...ect....

Some players learn how to do this stuff all on their own and they may even pick up on stuff that their coach doesn't see. They may pick up keys that their opponent doesn't even realize they are giving away.

Basically it could be a positive of coaching or the player or both...It's really not hard to figure out though...

Like the Pats and Asante...They obviously taught him how to watch film or refined his skills in that area....But he has continued to play at a high level well when he left so we know that he has that skill now...

The Patriots continue to have DB's playing well in their system so it's safe to assume that the coaching there is doing a good job.

Here, we have never had guys perform well on a consistent basis in the secondary.

Most position groups have performed consistently one way or the other. It's not hard at all to see where the coaching is good at. It's not hard at all to see where Kubiak has failed. Look at the aspects of the team that have not gotten any better. We've thrown pretty decent talent at almost every position on the field.

After a while, it is not hard to make the correlation to poor coaching.

Basically, I really think some of the talent on the team would look a whole lot better if other coaches were working with them. And that ain't piling on...I'm just calling it like I see it...

When you have units that have not progressed at all despite talent being added, that's on the coaching...When guys look lost or completely over-matched...that's on coaching...


This is very true, nevertheless, if you watch that play unfold, Samuels 1st jumps the route, gets caught in no man's land & then essentially gives up on the play assuming Harrison's gonna make it for him. Belichick & his coaching staff might've shown him tendencies, but no way did they teach him to abandon his man like that & give up on a play. What's more is that it was a critical situation...the things that belichick gets so much credit for from his players in getting them to recognize these exact times.

Samuels free-lanced & did what made him such a dangerous db, it just bit him that time & by default belichick & the team. The only difference is that most who'd watched asante closely over the years knew he did things like this all the time & recognize that it wasn't belichick it was just a dumb move by a player. Here, people don't recognize this & just want to blame the coach for 1 reason or another.

GP
12-10-2010, 10:16 AM
This is very true, nevertheless...

My momma and daddy always told me that when someone says something, then adds a "but..." or in this case, it's "nevertheless" then you can throw out everything the person said before the "but."

Look, Tex, it's obvious you don't think it's a coaching problem. You acknowledge things, but then throw in the "but" or the "nevertheless" and then proceed to tell the person where he is wrong.

Rey broke it down perfectly. In the game of NFL, the coaches have a core duty and utmost responsibility to position the players for the best chance at success. There is an obvious deficiency in coaching, especially in the secondary. Overall, there is an obvious problem with the entire defense.

I will not place blame on the players in this situation. Even the offense, to a degree, is not being handled correctly during in-game situations, specifically the types of playcalling at different critical junctures of the game. In fact, the poor first half outing this offense has consistently provided can only be traced to one thing: The coaching on the offense is doing something radically different in half one as opposed to how it approaches half two.

If anybody here has honestly watched the Texans games all year long, you know this to be true. There is a fundamental problem with the defense as a whole unit, and there is a problem with the offense starting slowly then gaining momentum in the second half, and lastly there's a problem with straying away from what had been working the previous 75% of the game. And we all know what area we stray away from. It doesn't need to be spoken. It's a known commodity here.

At some point, the obvious answer is the right answer. However, people will be drawn to their own theories for a myriad of reasons. So be it.

Double Barrel
12-10-2010, 10:21 AM
One aspect that we can only speculate about but that must be considered: how do we know that the players are not correctly executing the plays called in, but they are just the wrong plays?

For all we know, these guys are doing a great job of following and executing specific plays (and the coaches seem to confirm this in interviews), but the schemes and game plans drawn up by the coaching staff is just inadequate against our opponents.

infantrycak
12-10-2010, 10:39 AM
Look, Tex, it's obvious you don't think it's a coaching problem.

Holy madre de jesus. For someone that writes so much you would think you could read. All Tex has been saying is EVERY BAD PLAY IS NOT A COACHING PROBLEM, sometimes players (even well coached ones) screw up as well.

One aspect that we can only speculate about but that must be considered: how do we know that the players are not correctly executing the plays called in, but they are just the wrong plays?

I would bet on the critical bad plays made in any season for any team some will be bad play calls and some will be player execution.

Not you, but I don't understand why people are being so binary in this discussion. There has never been a team whose coach never made mistakes and there has never been a team whose players executed every play perfectly.

GP
12-10-2010, 10:51 AM
Holy madre de jesus. For someone that writes so much you would think you could read. All Tex has been saying is EVERY BAD PLAY IS NOT A COACHING PROBLEM, sometimes players (even well coached ones) screw up as well.

I didn't have to read the whole thiong, 'Cak.

I'm a big boy. I pay attention. His posts on this matter have been pro-coaching and anti-players. Period. He's been replying to soapers and telling them all manner of things that clearly state where his position is.

I have a hard time faulting players when they goof up, because so many of the times the coaches are not taking the time to correct the goof-ups.

Coaches can't play. They can't take the field. Their sole duty is to make sure the players "get it."

After nine years, we haven't found the right combination of players and coaches to create the desired end product. Players don't have a choice if they are drafted. Free agents DO have somewhat of a choice. Coaches? They can choose to be smarter than their pupils. If they want to. Or, they can be dolts and keep thinking their refried, rehashed, and incompetent techniques and strategies are going to end up working one day. usually, a coach is a guy who has a primary way of doing things that has made him successful elsewhere. Eventually, the best coaches end up being the best. And average coaches end up being average.

Players screw up. But coaches are supposed to correct and adjust those goof-ups and make sure it doesn't happen again. And THAT is where we differ in philosophy, I'm afraid. That's where the lack of true, 100% accountability enters the picture here. There is none. Kubiak stands up there and says "It's on me." Duh. Rinse and repeat. We trust you, Gary. It IS on you.

But 'Cak, you know this already.

infantrycak
12-10-2010, 11:42 AM
I didn't have to read the whole thiong, 'Cak.

I'm a big boy. I pay attention. His posts on this matter have been pro-coaching and anti-players. Period.

Tex has already said he thinks Kubiak should go. You just aren't happy with anyone who won't put 100% of all Texans problems on Kubiak.

Ole Miss Texan
12-10-2010, 11:46 AM
If a student fails a test, is it ALWAYS the teacher's fault for not making sure they learned the material?

thunderkyss
12-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Samuels free-lanced & did what made him such a dangerous db, it just bit him that time & by default belichick & the team.

I have a feeling that our coaches have started to "coach" our players to not make mistakes. I have nothing to back that up, it's just a feeling I get when I watch them play. They're not trying to make things happen, they're trying to prevent the worse from happening (& it sooner or later happens anyway).

That was my gripe with Capers.... & Carr. They weren't playing to win, they were trying not to make mistakes.

Instead of taking a guy like Samuels, & making him better at what he did... we're taking away their instincts & natural tendencies, making them be something they aren't...... square pegs, round holes.

They allowed Pollard to roam the field last year.. & when he's done it this year, he's been successful. Cushing was much more aggressive as well...... that could have changed for a number of reasons, but having to think & "cover" for the guy next to him isn't helping.

There are more examples....

Double Barrel
12-10-2010, 11:58 AM
I would bet on the critical bad plays made in any season for any team some will be bad play calls and some will be player execution.

yep, I agree.

Not you, but I don't understand why people are being so binary in this discussion. There has never been a team whose coach never made mistakes and there has never been a team whose players executed every play perfectly.

I think the HC is an easy and very visible target, especially five seasons into a mediocre run, so I would assume that's why Kubiak is bearing the brunt of fan frustration at this point.

I have always maintained that responsibility for failure is somewhere in between the players and coaches. It is a tandem relationship, so obviously the results are indicative of that symbiotic existence.

However, at almost five seasons and 75 games, we have to start somewhere. And in big picture analysis, it starts at the top.

If a student fails a test, is it ALWAYS the teacher's fault for not making sure they learned the material?

According to the "Art of War", Sun Tzu said the general is always responsible for defeat in battle, regardless of the circumstances or decisions made by his men.

Mr teX
12-10-2010, 12:08 PM
Tex has already said he thinks Kubiak should go. You just aren't happy with anyone who won't put 100% of all Texans problems on Kubiak.

Why this is so hard for him to grasp is beyond me.

Ole Miss Texan
12-10-2010, 12:32 PM
According to the "Art of War", Sun Tzu said the general is always responsible for defeat in battle, regardless of the circumstances or decisions made by his men.

According to Ole Miss Texan, "The ultimate responsibility may fall on a general, but that does not mean his soldiers are not at fault."

DexmanC
12-10-2010, 12:38 PM
According to Ole Miss Texan, "The ultimate responsibility may fall on a general, but that does not mean his soldiers are not at fault."

Well. That's the way that organizational chain-of-command works, whether you
like it or not. When a ship is being inspected, they don't waste time talking
to the sailors,deck hands, or helmsmen. They talk to the captain.

mridge01
12-10-2010, 12:55 PM
And your point is????

Thorn, how old are you? You really don't understand...?

mridge01
12-10-2010, 01:01 PM
If a student fails a test, is it ALWAYS the teacher's fault for not making sure they learned the material?

Ummm well, if the student fails the test 5 times, then yes, maybe teacher needs to start assessing their ability to be effective.

JB
12-10-2010, 01:15 PM
Ummm well, if the student fails the test 5 times, then yes, maybe teacher needs to start assessing their ability to be effective.

Or perhaps the students qualifications to be in the classroom.

DexmanC
12-10-2010, 01:53 PM
Or perhaps the students qualifications to be in the classroom.

Or maybe the teacher needs to be more astute at assessing the ability
of the student, BEFORE recruiting that student to join the classroom.

JB
12-10-2010, 01:59 PM
Or maybe the teacher needs to be more astute at assessing the ability
of the student, BEFORE recruiting that student to join the classroom.

The teacher should not be recruiting. That is anothers job.

DexmanC
12-10-2010, 02:01 PM
The teacher should not be recruiting. That is anothers job.

When the teacher is the one that hired the head master, they are equally culpable.

JB
12-10-2010, 02:08 PM
When the teacher is the one that hired the head master, they are equally culpable.

You're all wrapped up in Kubiak. I was speaking generally, the same way I read the lead in from Ole Miss to be.

Mr teX
12-10-2010, 03:14 PM
Ummm well, if the student fails the test 5 times, then yes, maybe teacher needs to start assessing their ability to be effective.

not if the other students are fairing comfortably.

GP
12-10-2010, 03:27 PM
not if the other students are fairing comfortably.

You said, in the thread about Cowher being open to coaching again, that you would ONLY be fine with Cowher and would prefer Kubiak if Cowher didn't take this job. You said, and I am quoting you here, that you wouldn't want to gamble on anybody else but Cowher.

Yet another fellow poster thought I wasn't reading you correctly when I expressed that you are pro-coach.

You are pro-coach, because you think out of the entire galaxy of coaches that could coach here...only Kubiak or Cowher has got your allegiance. You're as pro-Kubiak as a person can be, IMO, because you feel there's only one other guy who could do "as good of a job" as Kubiak. Therefore, IMO, it's easy to see why you don't think the problems here are "on the coaching" as much as others say they are.

I, on the other hand, think that there is a wide assortment of coaches who could fare as well, or even better, than Kubiak. Cowher heads my list, but I am also comfortable in saying that there could be worse options than Cowher Only.

The worst option is Kubiak. But you say you're fine with him if we can't get Cowher, and that there's no other coach you'd take a gamble on.

Therefore, you're going to find yourself at odds with a lot of people here. Not that it means anything bad. Not that you have to go with the mob, "or else." All I am saying is that there will exist an ongoing battle between your ideas and those of the soapers. I know I'm being Captain Obvious here, but am only doing this to point out that our two ideologies are in conflict with one another and so we've got to coexist and dialogue here throughout the whole ordeal.

Right now, my personal feeling is that I'd be glad with a change. Any change.

Double Barrel
12-10-2010, 03:27 PM
According to Ole Miss Texan, "The ultimate responsibility may fall on a general, but that does not mean his soldiers are not at fault."

There is no 'may' about it. The general will ultimately be glorified for his victories or chastised for his defeats.

Further analysis can be studied for the reasons and causes of those victories and defeats, but, in the end, it is the man in charge whose name gets recorded in history books.

And again, if a general is giving faulty orders, are his men at fault for obeying those orders? There is ambiguity in laying too much fault when all the facts are unknown.

burro
12-10-2010, 03:32 PM
You said, in the thread about Cowher being open to coaching again, that you would ONLY be fine with Cowher and would prefer Kubiak if Cowher didn't take this job. You said, and I am quoting you here, that you wouldn't want to gamble on anybody else but Cowher.

Yet another fellow poster thought I wasn't reading you correctly when I expressed that you are pro-coach.

You are pro-coach, because you think out of the entire galaxy of coaches that could coach here...only Kubiak or Cowher has got your allegiance. You're as pro-Kubiak as a person can be, IMO, because you feel there's only one other guy who could do "as good of a job" as Kubiak. Therefore, IMO, it's easy to see why you don't think the problems here are "on the coaching" as much as others say they are.

I, on the other hand, think that there is a wide assortment of coaches who could fare as well, or even better, than Kubiak. Cowher heads my list, but I am also comfortable in saying that there could be worse options than Cowher Only.

The worst option is Kubiak. But you say you're fine with him if we can't get Cowher, and that there's no other coach you'd take a gamble on.

Therefore, you're going to find yourself at odds with a lot of people here. Not that it means anything bad. Not that you have to go with the mob, "or else." All I am saying is that there will exist an ongoing battle between your ideas and those of the soapers. I know I'm being Captain Obvious here, but am only doing this to point out that our two ideologies are in conflict with one another and so we've got to coexist and dialogue here throughout the whole ordeal.

Right now, my personal feeling is that I'd be glad with a change. Any change.

Even as a pink soaper I think that's a little extreme, you'll see my point when McNair inevitably hires Brad Childress for the job. :gun:

Mr teX
12-10-2010, 03:47 PM
You said, in the thread about Cowher being open to coaching again, that you would ONLY be fine with Cowher and would prefer Kubiak if Cowher didn't take this job. You said, and I am quoting you here, that you wouldn't want to gamble on anybody else but Cowher.

Yet another fellow poster thought I wasn't reading you correctly when I expressed that you are pro-coach.

You are pro-coach, because you think out of the entire galaxy of coaches that could coach here...only Kubiak or Cowher has got your allegiance. You're as pro-Kubiak as a person can be, IMO, because you feel there's only one other guy who could do "as good of a job" as Kubiak. Therefore, IMO, it's easy to see why you don't think the problems here are "on the coaching" as much as others say they are.

I, on the other hand, think that there is a wide assortment of coaches who could fare as well, or even better, than Kubiak. Cowher heads my list, but I am also comfortable in saying that there could be worse options than Cowher Only.

The worst option is Kubiak. But you say you're fine with him if we can't get Cowher, and that there's no other coach you'd take a gamble on.

Therefore, you're going to find yourself at odds with a lot of people here. Not that it means anything bad. Not that you have to go with the mob, "or else." All I am saying is that there will exist an ongoing battle between your ideas and those of the soapers. I know I'm being Captain Obvious here, but am only doing this to point out that our two ideologies are in conflict with one another and so we've got to coexist and dialogue here throughout the whole ordeal.

Right now, my personal feeling is that I'd be glad with a change. Any change.


I hear ya GP. I guess the main thing with me is that i just really don't want to see us have to start over again only to find we have the same problems we had 2 regimes ago 3-4 years down the line. (no consistent pass rush, garbage defensive personnel etc.). I would much rather try everything before switching HC.

In regards to the other thread, i just meant that in the sense that he's the only available guy that i have confidence in that could turn this thing around. Everyone else, not so much.

DexmanC
12-10-2010, 03:50 PM
I hear ya GP. I guess the main thing with me is that i just really don't want to see us have to start over again only to find we have the same problems we had 2 regimes ago 3-4 years down the line. (no consistent pass rush, garbage defensive personnel etc.). I would much rather try everything before switching HC.

In regards to the other thread, i just meant that in the sense that he's the only available guy that i have confidence in that could turn this thing around. Everyone else, not so much.

I'd be o.k. with Kubiak staying if we didn't see the same glaring problems
in personnel and gameday in year five, that we saw in year one. Same guy,
no progress.

Ole Miss Texan
12-10-2010, 04:32 PM
There is no 'may' about it. The general will ultimately be glorified for his victories or chastised for his defeats.

Further analysis can be studied for the reasons and causes of those victories and defeats, but, in the end, it is the man in charge whose name gets recorded in history books.

And again, if a general is giving faulty orders, are his men at fault for obeying those orders? There is ambiguity in laying too much fault when all the facts are unknown.

That's what many of us are trying to say... and I think you hit the nail on the head. There is so much that is "unknown" to us fans and it's easy to just casually blame the CB when in reality it could be the Safety's fault. Or blame the LT for a sack when the RB failed to pick up a blitz, etc etc.

What started all this was when one poster was basically saying be careful who you blame for what. There are blanket statements blaming Kubiak for this or that. There are posters that have such a blinding opposition to Kubiak that they'll find anything they can to blame him for however ridiculous it may be. That post wasn't even a "pro-kubiak" post. LOL

Kubiak could very well get fired. Does he have his faults? I think he does, I'm not saying he doesn't. Could he improve in areas. Yes. But so much of the complaining around here filter to Kubiak because he's the Head Coach, the one ultimately responsible, the General, the name that will be in the record books. That's fine... that's what happens. I just think so much getting thrown on Kubiak isn't his fault per se, he's just the one that's going to have to deal with it.

Responsibility and Fault are not necessarily synonyms. "There is ambiguity in laying too much fault when all the facts are unknown." I 100% agree with this too. So much is unknown but you know what is easy? Blaming Kubiak.

infantrycak
12-10-2010, 04:46 PM
There is no 'may' about it. The general will ultimately be glorified for his victories or chastised for his defeats.

Further analysis can be studied for the reasons and causes of those victories and defeats, but, in the end, it is the man in charge whose name gets recorded in history books.

And again, if a general is giving faulty orders, are his men at fault for obeying those orders? There is ambiguity in laying too much fault when all the facts are unknown.

Correct truism and yet subject to a fault. Funneling all responsibility to the top of whatever unit can lead to bad analysis. Example - QB's get disproportionate credit for wins. On field it is their offense. Because of the shove it to the top instinct of most people they also get the blame disproportionately. Ball might not get caught because of a misthrown ball or because the receiver cut off his route two yards early or late. Unless what appears to be a perfectly thrown ball hits the receiver in the hands the blame is going on the QB. Coaches and GM's shouldn't get caught in that thought process for sure and fans should be wary of it at least.

Ole Miss Texan
12-10-2010, 04:49 PM
You said, in the thread about Cowher being open to coaching again, that you would ONLY be fine with Cowher and would prefer Kubiak if Cowher didn't take this job. You said, and I am quoting you here, that you wouldn't want to gamble on anybody else but Cowher.

Yet another fellow poster thought I wasn't reading you correctly when I expressed that you are pro-coach.

You are pro-coach, because you think out of the entire galaxy of coaches that could coach here...only Kubiak or Cowher has got your allegiance. You're as pro-Kubiak as a person can be, IMO, because you feel there's only one other guy who could do "as good of a job" as Kubiak. Therefore, IMO, it's easy to see why you don't think the problems here are "on the coaching" as much as others say they are.

I, on the other hand, think that there is a wide assortment of coaches who could fare as well, or even better, than Kubiak. Cowher heads my list, but I am also comfortable in saying that there could be worse options than Cowher Only.

The worst option is Kubiak. But you say you're fine with him if we can't get Cowher, and that there's no other coach you'd take a gamble on.

Therefore, you're going to find yourself at odds with a lot of people here. Not that it means anything bad. Not that you have to go with the mob, "or else." All I am saying is that there will exist an ongoing battle between your ideas and those of the soapers. I know I'm being Captain Obvious here, but am only doing this to point out that our two ideologies are in conflict with one another and so we've got to coexist and dialogue here throughout the whole ordeal.

Right now, my personal feeling is that I'd be glad with a change. Any change.

I think we're all Pro-Winning, Pro-Playoffs... we just have different ideas about the easiest, quickest and/or best ways to get there. This isn't about picking sides and belittling those that oppose us. Cowher has that air about him that just reeks success. I'm intruiged by him and what he might be able to do. That interests me. I don't think there's a 100% chance he comes in here and turns us into the next Steelers/Patriots but the though interests me that maybe he can.

There's going to be a lot of HC candidates that can probably turn this thing around. But even more that can't. This can be said about probably 25 other teams out there, at least. Personally, I think this team can get to the playoffs faster, find success quicker and hold that longer WITH Kubiak as Head Coach and Wade Phillips as Defensive Coordinator. That's the camp I would say I'm in. I think of all the names that have been thrown out here to replace Kubiak with.... probably 95% of them would not get us where we want to and with a BILLION DOLLAR franchise, you don't play around with that.

Is 5 years too long? I'll admit it and say it is for me. I'm frustrated... but we're here. If I'm running the ship I'm not punishing someone just because we're not where I want to be... I'm thinking about the quickest/easiest/best way to get us where I want to be. Sometimes it takes longer than you want.

mridge01
12-10-2010, 05:05 PM
not if the other students are fairing comfortably.

In this case half are, most of the time, and the other half are just flunkies.

Lucky
12-10-2010, 06:53 PM
You are right, plenty of players will see the door with a new regime, but what assurances will we have that the next coach that comes in knows what he's doing any more than what kubiak has done?

My posts have been mainly directed at those who try to place every single thing that happens on the field at the HC's feet & that's just faulty logic..
Assurances? There are no assurances for anything in life. Or football, which isn't the same as real life. Because there are no assurances, the Texans should remain paralyzed in mediocrity? Come on.

The whole analysis of why Kubiak has failed is pointless. What's his demeanor on the sideline? Can he evaluate talent? Does he understand defensive football? Will he ever learn how to manage a game? None of that really matters. There's only one thing that matters. Can Gary Kubiak win? He has proven over the course of 5 NFL seasons that the answer is "No".

Texanator
12-10-2010, 06:58 PM
Very simple........ Bill Belichick, not Gary Kubiak. Any more questions?

thunderkyss
12-10-2010, 08:03 PM
According to the "Art of War", Sun Tzu said the general is always responsible for defeat in battle, regardless of the circumstances or decisions made by his men.

No doubt about it. This is Kubiak's team, Kubiak's mess.

If I were McNair, I'm going to ask Kubiak what happened. Just like Belichick asking draft prospects what happened. If Kubiak blames everyone....... he's gone.

If he shows that he truly understands his mistakes, & has a clear obtainable plan to make sure this doesn't happen......

I'm still for ****canning him.

The one good thing he brought to the table....... ain't looking too hot.

thunderkyss
12-10-2010, 08:05 PM
Well. That's the way that organizational chain-of-command works, whether you
like it or not. When a ship is being inspected, they don't waste time talking
to the sailors,deck hands, or helmsmen. They talk to the captain.

The Captain gets a slap on the hand.

The Sailor walks the plank.

thunderkyss
12-10-2010, 08:27 PM
I'd be o.k. with Kubiak staying if we didn't see the same glaring problems
in personnel and gameday in year five, that we saw in year one. Same guy,
no progress.

I respected Kubiak last year, because I thought he figured out what he needed to figure out. This job is about results, either get results, or get fired, & if you're going to get fired, get fired for doing the absolute best you can.

When Pitts went down, Brisiel... Myers got dinged up.... Kubiak didn't try to teach all that goofy stuff Sherman & whoever brought in here. He taught them to play the system he knows. The system he has taught his whole career. The system he is good at teaching. The system....... that works.

So he brings Bush in, & in one year, he has this defense looking pretty damn awesome, playing pretty damn good football. Teaching what he knows..... letting the players do what they were drafted to do.

This year.... Cushing gets himself suspended...... & the defense is playing Prevent all year long. These guys weren't meant to play prevent defense. They overcompensated & it has hurt them...... Demeco gets hurt..... & they overcompensated.....

When they play the aggressive defense they played last year..... it works. They're still mediocre..... but things happen, they force fumbles, INTs, 3 & outs.......

But instead of teaching what they are the best teachers of........ they overcompensate & teach crap they have no business teaching.

DexmanC
12-10-2010, 08:40 PM
This year.... Cushing gets himself suspended...... & the defense is playing Prevent all year long. These guys weren't meant to play prevent defense. They overcompensated & it has hurt them...... Demeco gets hurt..... & they overcompensated.....

When they play the aggressive defense they played last year..... it works. They're still mediocre..... but things happen, they force fumbles, INTs, 3 & outs.......

But instead of teaching what they are the best teachers of........ they overcompensate & teach crap they have no business teaching.

This means the teachers have lost confidence in what THEY do.
Overcompensation, especially when the players know that's what
is going on, demonstrates a clear loss of confidence in the group's ability to get
the job done. When the scheme is based around "not failing,"
that negative energy will lead to overthinking, overanalizing,
and ultimately forgetting how to impose your will.

The Texans became re-active, on both sides of the ball. The defense
takes what the offense gives them. Matt Schaub said himself, "We
take what the defense gives us."

Playoff teams live and die by what THEY do, which is why I think Jacksonville
wins the AFC South this year. They win and lose by what they do best.

infantrycak
12-10-2010, 08:48 PM
Matt Schaub said himself, "We
take what the defense gives us."

See you can be making a decent point and then just have to take it over the top. Both Brady and Manning have talked about taking what the defense gives them. It's almost standard QB interview speak.

Texan_Bill
12-10-2010, 08:50 PM
Playoff teams live and die by what THEY do, which is why I think Jacksonville
wins the AFC South this year. They win and lose by what they do best.

That's crap...

Perennial Playoff teams say, "If they overplay the pass, we'll run the ball down their throat and if they overplay the run with 8 or so in the box, we'll destroy them throwing the ball"... Very rarely have one dimensional teams won a Championship....

Texan_Bill
12-10-2010, 08:51 PM
See you can be making a decent point and then just have to take it over the top. Both Brady and Manning have talked about taking what the defense gives them. It's almost standard QB interview speak.

Thanks for posting whilst I was typing!!! ;)

DexmanC
12-10-2010, 09:15 PM
That's crap...

Perennial Playoff teams say, "If they overplay the pass, we'll run the ball down their throat and if they overplay the run with 8 or so in the box, we'll destroy them throwing the ball"... Very rarely have one dimensional teams won a Championship....

Well. You didn't quote what I actually SAID. Let me make it clear.
The Texans have never made the playoffs. There are ONE DIMENSIONAL
teams that make the PLAYOFFS, and it occurs every year..
Going to the PLAYOFFS makes you a playoff TEAM. Many of
such one-dimensional teams have won DIVISION Championships.

I don't know if you're sliding the context of the word "championship"
into "Superbowl," but if so, accept my clarification.

Who said "perrennial"? I'd just like to see them to make it in ONE ANNAL, first.

GP
12-10-2010, 10:48 PM
I hear ya GP. I guess the main thing with me is that i just really don't want to see us have to start over again only to find we have the same problems we had 2 regimes ago 3-4 years down the line. (no consistent pass rush, garbage defensive personnel etc.). I would much rather try everything before switching HC.

In regards to the other thread, i just meant that in the sense that he's the only available guy that i have confidence in that could turn this thing around. Everyone else, not so much.

Well, nobody wants to contemplate returning to that time when our QB was running backwards...out of bounds...or curling up and laying down when nobody was near him.

That was definitely a worse time than current day.

I just don't know where McNair would turn, if he fired Kubiak. McNair has got to be peeing his pants the day he pulls that trigger and then has to contemplate who in the heck he's going to throw our way next.

The next HC of the Texans has a lot of pressure on him, from day one.

steelbtexan
12-10-2010, 11:10 PM
That's what many of us are trying to say... and I think you hit the nail on the head. There is so much that is "unknown" to us fans and it's easy to just casually blame the CB when in reality it could be the Safety's fault. Or blame the LT for a sack when the RB failed to pick up a blitz, etc etc.

What started all this was when one poster was basically saying be careful who you blame for what. There are blanket statements blaming Kubiak for this or that. There are posters that have such a blinding opposition to Kubiak that they'll find anything they can to blame him for however ridiculous it may be. That post wasn't even a "pro-kubiak" post. LOL

Kubiak could very well get fired. Does he have his faults? I think he does, I'm not saying he doesn't. Could he improve in areas. Yes. But so much of the complaining around here filter to Kubiak because he's the Head Coach, the one ultimately responsible, the General, the name that will be in the record books. That's fine... that's what happens. I just think so much getting thrown on Kubiak isn't his fault per se, he's just the one that's going to have to deal with it.

Responsibility and Fault are not necessarily synonyms. "There is ambiguity in laying too much fault when all the facts are unknown." I 100% agree with this too. So much is unknown but you know what is easy? Blaming Kubiak.

I agree with you BTW, there is alot of unknown when it comes to the structure of the Texans org.

Ultimultely it falls on McNair.

But because he brought football back to Houston he gets a pass and he gets to stuff his pockets full of $$$$ because he was willing to step up to the plate for this football starved city.

How much longer do you think this city's love affair with McNair will last?

SheTexan
12-10-2010, 11:41 PM
How much longer do you think this city's love affair with McNair will last?

Well now, let me see!:thinking: Until he decides to move the team?? About 27 more years? Humm, that would be my best guess!!

BetaV1
12-11-2010, 12:14 AM
Well now, let me see!:thinking: Until he decides to move the team?? About 27 more years? Humm, that would be my best guess!!

Was going to post the same thing.

As much as I dislike the man for his lack of football decision skills, I can't seem to wrap my head around the mentality of the Big, Evil, Greedy Capitalist Pig that is Bob McNair. According to many here, the guy is lining his pockets with cash. Which owner in the NFL isn't? This is a business first and foremost and every team is looking to make a profit. If you don't make a profit, you won't have a team for very long.

So the comment is usually that Bob does not want to "break the bank" with his team. The USA Today has a database of team salaries (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009) for anyone who wants to compare Bob's thrifty habits with the rest of his NFL counterparts. In terms of total payroll, the top two teams are the New York Giants and the Miami Dolphins. Want to guess who number three is?

The Texans.

In terms of your average salary for the year, the Texans spend more than the Jets, Packers, Colts, and Steelers. The Patriots, who are well known for being a thrifty organization, are arguably the best team of the past decade and damn near had a perfect season not too long ago. If all it took to win championship was throwing money around, then the Cowboys would be going for a Ten-Peat right now.

The point is that McNair is willing to spend the dough to improve the team. I'm curious if Andre Johnson thinks Bob McNair is cheap.

As someone else mentioned, Houston wanted another NFL franchise and Bob McNair, being the evil, greedy bastard that he is, stepped on up. How heartless of him!

TheMatrix31
12-11-2010, 08:42 AM
Yeah, I thought Houston was in a pretty darn conservative, business-oriented state. You'd think the fans would know a bit about what it takes to run successful businesseses and organizations.

infantrycak
12-11-2010, 08:50 AM
So the comment is usually that Bob does not want to "break the bank" with his team. The USA Today has a database of team salaries (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009) for anyone who wants to compare Bob's thrifty habits with the rest of his NFL counterparts. In terms of total payroll, the top two teams are the New York Giants and the Miami Dolphins. Want to guess who number three is?

The Texans.

Yup, and McNair has had a top 5 payroll for the entire existence of the team. This McNair is cheap thing is stupid. The poster children for excess spending Redskins are spending $17 mil less this year, the Rams an incredible $60 mil less. Being parsimonious isn't the problem.

GP
12-11-2010, 09:34 AM
Yup, and McNair has had a top 5 payroll for the entire existence of the team. This McNair is cheap thing is stupid. The poster children for excess spending Redskins are spending $17 mil less this year, the Rams an incredible $60 mil less. Being parsimonious isn't the problem.

This is one area where "how we rank vs. other teams" doesn't matter.

If the Texans spend, for example, $20, but they didn't sign a player or a coach that would have pushed that total to $30, then it's not a far reach to say that the owner isn't willing to spend more than he's comfortable spending. If we were to hire Cowher, I guarantee you that we won't be ranked at #3 in spending.

In addition, when the franchise is one of the league's most PROFITABLE franchises (the stats are there, as well, for this category) then spending extra money shouldn't be a problem.

Thirdly, if the Texans are ranked 3rd and we aren't seeing results off it...then the owner should have cause for concern. Because something, somewhere, is not working in conjunction with the money spent. There's a fundamental problem somewhere.

And if a team is spending a lot less than the Texans, but achieving better results, then that adds a whole new dynamic to the discussion. Then we'd KNOW that it's a problem with the franchise itself. It would mean the core of the organization is not capable of fostering a winning culture here. It would mean the powers-that-be, despite spending more than other teams around them, can't identify and support the proper personnel. Rendering us to a futile existence; causing us to only succeed off of blind luck. Yikes.

I'm sorry I gum up the works like this. My bad.

infantrycak
12-11-2010, 09:50 AM
This is one area where "how we rank vs. other teams" doesn't matter.

Yes it does as far as responding to a McNair is cheap comment. The rest of your off-topic as usual overly long post is irrelevant to that point. Try succinctness some time. Like "it isn't being cheap so it is something else."

GP
12-11-2010, 02:09 PM
Yes it does as far as responding to a McNair is cheap comment. The rest of your off-topic as usual overly long post is irrelevant to that point. Try succinctness some time. Like "it isn't being cheap so it is something else."

McNair is cheap.

He allowed AJ and his uncle to do a bad contract, knowing damn well that AJ and his uncle were screwing themselves. Then, oh look! AJ realizes it was a bad deal and a NEW deal was done. And without hardly any pushback from Smith and McNair at all. When there's no pushback from McNair and Smith, you know they understood that the gig was up and they better settle up.

Owen Daniels and DeMeco Ryans were not so lucky. They received major pushback from management. They were being vocal, and then one day it just ended. Stopped. Hmmm.....why didn't McNair reward these two players, a couple of guys who (outside of AJ) were our best players at the time? Two guys who deserved it. Hard workers, made key plays when needed, etc.

We couldn't outbid the Bengals for Cedric Benson. Lost him by a few million dollars and an inability to promise that he'd get the shot at being the more-featured back in the system. Had to protect Stevie Franchise in that situation, too, didn't we? Because that was before Slaton started his skid. Not enough money, and not enough foresight by Kubiak.

Leigh Bodden is questionable, because I think he was using us all along to leverage the Patriots. No need in wasting my time here. We weren't going to throw enough money at him anyways.

A lack of QUALITY defensive coaches: Yet another example that McNair isn't doing enough. Quality coaches cost money. We've got Frank Bush for DC and a secondary coach who is woeful. Oh, but he just doesn't have good enough players. Poor David Gibbs. :(

So what exactly do we have here? A franchise that isn't spending enough to get the better-quality personnel onboard? Or a guy who is misspending what he has spent thus far?

I have provided examples of where we haven't spent "enough." And you haven't answered my question about how this should be proportional to the Texans' ranking of one of the most PROFITABLE franchises.

Money in, money out. And if you rank verrry high in the category of most profitable, then you need to parlay that money: Grab a Benson, grab a better DC. Instead of doing what we have done.

JB
12-11-2010, 02:51 PM
:confused: I thought they rewarded DeMeco with a very nice contract.

wildroot
12-11-2010, 02:57 PM
Owen Daniels and DeMeco Ryans were not so lucky. They received major pushback from management. They were being vocal, and then one day it just ended. Stopped. Hmmm.....why didn't McNair reward these two players, a couple of guys who (outside of AJ) were our best players at the time? Two guys who deserved it. Hard workers, made key plays when needed, etc.



My understanding is that a last year we tried to make OD the 2nd highest paid TE in the league and he turned it down. Can't blame that on McNair, he was trying to take care of him. Then he blows his knee and his value plummets. Can't expect McNair to re-offer that kind of money to him now, especially since he's not been on the field much to re-prove his worth.
Ryans was signed for 48 mil, 21 guaranteed. That's not chump change.

If we have the 3rd highest payroll and producing these results, then something is amiss. It may have something to do with our ability to evaluate talent together with poor coaching.

thunderkyss
12-11-2010, 04:25 PM
See you can be making a decent point and then just have to take it over the top. Both Brady and Manning have talked about taking what the defense gives them. It's almost standard QB interview speak.

They may talk about taking what the defense gives them, but you can tell they're being "nice"/"politically correct" about it. They are doing a lot more than just taking what the defense gives them. They're bending the defenses over & punking them.

We're not.

End of last season, Schaub's didn't.

When the Texans have their backs against the wall...... Shaub doesn't.

thunderkyss
12-11-2010, 04:27 PM
That's crap...

Perennial Playoff teams say, "If they overplay the pass, we'll run the ball down their throat and if they overplay the run with 8 or so in the box, we'll destroy them throwing the ball"... Very rarely have one dimensional teams won a Championship....
Sorry, I reread your post..... what you said is correct.

thunderkyss
12-11-2010, 04:42 PM
Yes it does as far as responding to a McNair is cheap comment. The rest of your off-topic as usual overly long post is irrelevant to that point. Try succinctness some time. Like "it isn't being cheap so it is something else."

infantrycak.... if you're not going to hit the moving targets around here, you're just going to have to stay out of the arguments altogether.

All you're doing is giving them another opportunity to make another stupid misguided point.

infantrycak
12-12-2010, 08:53 AM
McNair is cheap.

He allowed AJ and his uncle to do a bad contract, knowing damn well that AJ and his uncle were screwing themselves.

You've hit a new low in logic. So now McNair is cheap because he didn't negotiate against himself and say "I know you'll take $50 mil but you shouldn't, you should ask me for $60." LOL yeah, that's going to happen.

And psssst - that contract that was so ludicrous McNair should have ponied up extra money made AJ the highest paid WR in the league at the time.

Lead off with something this dumb and the rest is irrelevant.

:confused: I thought they rewarded DeMeco with a very nice contract.

They did. Six years $48 mil. As mentioned above they also made a very sweet offer to OD.

steelbtexan
12-12-2010, 09:13 AM
I dont know if McNair's cheap.

Although I do have my ideas. But no ones mind is going to be changed on this subject.

What I do know is that BoB McNair runs a very incompetent organization and the GREAT FANS of the HOUSTON TEXANS deserve much better than the crap product that has been put on the field for the last 9 yrs.

On this I believe we can all agree.

Mr teX
12-12-2010, 09:20 AM
I dont know if McNair's cheap.

Although I do have my ideas. But no ones mind is going to be changed on this subject.

What I do know is that BoB McNair runs a very incompetent organization and the GREAT FANS of the HOUSTON TEXANS deserve much better than the crap product that has been put on the field for the last 9 yrs.

On this I believe we can all agree.

You are correct & that's a pretty fair summation.

hradhak
12-12-2010, 09:53 PM
My guess is that if you are going to have the 3rd highest payroll in the league, you should be getting more in terms of wins.

And to all of those folks who say that McNair doesn't want to win, he just wants to make money just doesn't get it. The more we win, the more money he makes. Playing 4 extra games a year? You better believe you get more money that way. Perennial winning teams may not get more in tv revenue what with the revenue sharing, but they sell a lot more merchandise. Whether that makes McNair greedy is up to interpretation, but I imagine if he bought the NFL franchise (or created it), he wants to win because first and foremost he is a fan of his NFL franchise.

b0ng
12-13-2010, 12:38 PM
**** you guys, just because McNair isn't spending the money the way you want him to spend it doesn't make him cheap. Incompetent? Not savvy with football? Surrounds himself with goobers? Those all apply, but the guy will pony up the dough for players he thinks are worth it (Andre, Demeco). He let Charlie Casserly spend all the money he could in free agency, that didn't work, and now Smith is almost miserly when it comes to free agency but Bob is the cheap one.

Go read about Mike Brown, or Jerry Richardson, or the Bidwells, or the Glazers if you want to see what real terrible ownership is, and get the **** out of here with the dumbass logic that somehow McNair is in the negotiating room or McNair is secretly playing GM and paying Rick Smith to make tea and crumpets.

Rey
12-13-2010, 01:27 PM
So we've had a top five payroll since our exsistnence and never made the play-offs...

Even more reason to get someone in here who knows what they are doing.

Mr teX
12-13-2010, 02:23 PM
So we've had a top five payroll since our exsistnence and never made the play-offs...

Even more reason to get someone in here who knows what they are doing.

Right, lets get rid of Ricky & bring in an experienced guy. Basically all he's got to do is find out the players/coaches that Kubiak likes ..then make sure to stay the hell away from them!

The1ApplePie
12-13-2010, 04:02 PM
Right, lets get rid of Ricky & bring in an experienced guy. Basically all he's got to do is find out the players/coaches that Kubiak likes ..then make sure to stay the hell away from them!

Parcells wants another job like he had in Miami.:evil: