PDA

View Full Version : On the verge of success


Runner
12-17-2010, 09:12 AM
As we find the Texans on the verge of greatness again, I can't help but look around the league at other teams who were able to get past the anticipation and have success on the field.

I am interested in the Falcoms this year. I don't follow them closely, but here is a summary. Please correct any errors. They overcame starting completely over at QB due to losing Vick and Schaub and have done well in little time. They also faced some turmoil at head coach, hiring Mike Smith in 2008 after going through three head coches the previous few years. It seems a good hire, seeing as he was the AP coach of the year his first season there. He took a 4-12 team to 11-5 his first year, dropped off to a poor (for them) 9-7 record. This year they stand at 11-2 and are Super Bowl contenders.

They are based on solid if unspectacular QB play, a stud RB, and stud receiver. The QB they drafted. They picked up the RB (Turner) via free agency; he was an up and comer rather than an over the hill vet. It was a very good move. Roddy White has developed into a very good receiver who has gotten better every year he's been there.

The defense, while weak against the pass at times is good enough to help the team win.

I think shrewd off season moves (draft and free agency), the hiring of a new coach that proved successful, and developing their players into better players over time have served the Falcons well.

The Texans on the other hand are focused on stability to the point of stagnation, incremental improvement, and building through the draft.

Anyone care to compare and contrast how these teams have approached building a winner and the relative merits and success they've had?

GNTLEWOLF
12-17-2010, 09:29 AM
As we find the Texans on the verge of greatness again, i cant help but look around the league at other teams who were able to get past the anticipation and have success on the field. *

I am interested in the Falcoms this year. *I don't follow them closely, but here is a summary. Please correct any errors. They overcame *starting completely over at QB due to losing Vick and Schaub and have done well in little time. *They also faced some turmoil at head coach, hiring Mike Smith in 2008 after going through three head coches the previous few years. It seems a good hire, seeing as he was the AP coacjh of the year his first season there. He took a 4-12 team to 11-5 his first year, dropped off to a poor (for them) 9-7 record. This year they stand at 11-2 and are Super Bowl contenders. * *

They are based on solid if unspectacular QB play, a stud RB, and stud receiver. The QB they drafted. They picked up the RB (Turner) via free agency; he was an up and comer rather than an over the hill vet. *It was a very good move. Roddy White has developed into a very good receiver who has gotten better every year he's been there. *

The defense, while weak against the pass at times is good enough *to help the team win.*

I think shrewd off season moves (draft and free agency), the hiring of a new coach that provrd successful, and developing their players into better players ovrr time have served the Falcons well.

The Texans on the other hand are focused on stability to the point of stagnation, incremental improvement, and building through the draft.

Anyone care to compare and contrast how these teams have approached building a winner and the relative merits and success they've had? *

Well you are not taking into account that the TEXANs are just an expansion team, and besides Kubiak started with a much worse team than the falcons coach and Capers and Casserly nearly destroyed the team, so Kubiak had to bring them all the way back from 2-14. also the Texans always have more injuries, bad luck and bad ref calls than anyone else in the league. And don't forget we always have the toughest schedule in football (even in a year when the schedule is weak) andwe paly in the toughest division in football, the AFC South. Atalanta hasn't had to face any of those challenges. Heck fire, they were a team that was almost built before they got there new coach anyway.
~~~~ Sarcasm~~~~

Runner
12-17-2010, 09:31 AM
Well you are not taking into account that the TEXANs are just an expansion team, and besides Kubiak started with a much worse team than the falcons coach and Capers and Casserly nearly destroyed the team, so Kubiak had to bring them all the way back from 2-14. also the Texans always have more injuries, bad luck and bad ref calls than anyone else in the league. And don't forget we always have the toughest schedule in football (even in a year when the schedule is weak) andwe paly in the toughest division in football, the AFC South. Atalanta hasn't had to face any of those challenges. Heck fire, they were a team that was almost built before they got there new coach anyway.
~~~~ Sarcasm~~~~

Thanks for getting that all out in one fell swoop so we can dismisses excuses and move along.

TheCD
12-17-2010, 09:35 AM
Anyone care to compare and contrast how these teams have approached building a winner and the relative merits and success they've had?

I think the major difference between us and them is that they do build through the draft, but aren't afraid to be aggressive in FA. Whereas we build through the draft and tend to supplement players through FA.


I prefer the build through the draft approach (as most do, I'm sure), but there are some times when we all go nuts because the Texans are a "sit-on-your-hands-and-make-sure-everything-is-perfect-before-you-make-a-move" team (And that's a lot of dashes for one team).

The Falcons went out and got their RB (Turner), and took a chance on a CB that they needed (Dunta). Turner worked out well, and I keep getting mixed reviews about Dunta (seems as though he's playing about like he was here). While Dunta isn't the best CB out there, there's no doubting he's been a part of their success.

At the very least they have taken chances on big-money contracts to guys that are highly sought after. You would think that after losing Vick and paying him that 100+ million dollar contract they'd be skittish with their money. Seems like quite the opposite actually.

My only concern is how long they can sustain it. If they can do so for at least 5 years in the playoffs, it was well worth the money and tenacity to go after those guys.

El Tejano
12-17-2010, 09:42 AM
I would also like to say that ATL saw a premiere DE on the market and went for him. They also added Dunta to their defense and he's done better than he's done over here.

Runner
12-17-2010, 09:50 AM
My only concern is how long they can sustain it. If they can do so for at least 5 years in the playoffs, it was well worth the money and tenacity to go after those guys.

Personally, if they go to the playoffs a couple of times and maybe make a deep run or two and then miss the playoffs for three years, i think that's better than never going.

There is also no guarantee, although there is some belief, that building very slowly guarantees multiple playoff runs if the team ever succeeds in getting there once. I don't believe a long run automatically follows a long build.

Goatcheese
12-17-2010, 10:10 AM
Didn't we just have a compare and contrast with the Falcons thread a few weeks ago?

You could have just linked to it and saved everyone a punch of posts.

Mr. White
12-17-2010, 10:14 AM
Didn't we just have a compare and contrast with the Falcons thread a few weeks ago?

You could have just linked to it and saved everyone a punch of posts.

There's any number of teams that we could compare and contrast with.

How about the Saints?

Except they weren't on the verge of greatness. They absolutely sucked before they hired a winner as a HC.

Runner
12-17-2010, 10:18 AM
Didn't we just have a compare and contrast with the Falcons thread a few weeks ago?

You could have just linked to it and saved everyone a punch of posts.

Did we? I must not have seen it, or more likely just forgot.

Maybe the Falcons will be a recurring character in this comedy, like J. Peterman on Seinfeld.

Runner
12-17-2010, 10:24 AM
There's any number of teams that we could compare and contrast with.

How about the Saints?

Except they weren't on the verge of greatness. They absolutely sucked before they hired a winner as a HC.

I'm starting a pool with my friends. The "At least the Texans aren't..." pool. It's simple. Pick a team that was used to complete that phrase within the past three years. For instance "At least the Texans aren't the Browns". If the team you pick is the next loser franchise to beat the Texans to the playoffs, you win.

I'm taking "At least the Texans aren't the Raiders".

HoustonFrog
12-17-2010, 10:34 AM
Personally, if they go to the playoffs a couple of times and maybe make a deep run or two and then miss the playoffs for three years, i think that's better than never going.

There is also no guarantee, although there is some belief, that building very slowly guarantees multiple playoff runs if the team ever succeeds in getting there once. I don't believe a long run automatically follows a long build.

Agree. I'm not really sure where people are getting the idea that if you go slowly then you are "built for the long haul." In this day and age of parity teams rise and fall by the year. The only ones who have stayed consistent...Colts, Pats, Steelers...have top management, top GMs and good coaches...not to mention Top QBs. There is no proof that the Texans have any of those things right.

houstonspartan
12-17-2010, 10:39 AM
Didn't we just have a compare and contrast with the Falcons thread a few weeks ago?

You could have just linked to it and saved everyone a punch of posts.

And you could have just ignored this thread and not commented.

Goatcheese
12-17-2010, 10:56 AM
Did we? I must not have seen it, or more likely just forgot.

Maybe the Falcons will be a recurring character in this comedy, like J. Peterman on Seinfeld.

Probably just forgot. :bender:

And you could have just ignored this thread and not commented.

Yeah, let's just repost the same thing over and over again. That's pretty much all you do anyway.

Think I'll go start a new Texans @ Eagles Official Gameday Thread.

Mr. White
12-17-2010, 11:03 AM
I'm starting a pool with my friends. The "At least the Texans aren't..." pool. It's simple. Pick a team that was used to complete that phrase within the past three years. For instance "At least the Texans aren't the Browns". If the team you pick is the next loser franchise to beat the Texans to the playoffs, you win.

I'm taking "At least the Texans aren't the Raiders".

If you're a Raider fan, you've got decades of success to live off of. You can stay stuck in the past and watch NFL Films about the "Commitment to Excellence" and keep putting money on Al Davis in your death pool. You're bound to get it right someday.

I'll take at least the Texans aren't the.....well, I don't know. Every other team has been to the playoffs at least once.

OK, here's one. At least the Texans aren't the San Antonio Texans.

disaacks3
12-17-2010, 11:09 AM
I saw the thread title and immediately thought of a counter one:

Mired in Failure

5-8 just doesn't feel like it's on the "verge" of anything...unless it's abject failure.

I listened to Vandemeer spout his "wisdom" this morning about how "special" the Texans and Kubiak are and how they really want to win.

As a caller pointed out - if McNair really wants to win that much, he ought to hire a PROVEN winner.

GNTLEWOLF
12-17-2010, 12:26 PM
Thanks for getting that all out in one fell swoop so we can dismisses excuses and move along.

I actually left out some of the newest or most used at this time excuses like:
Our offense had to get used to a new offensive coordinator...
Our Offense misses Kyle Shanahan as OC....
Two of our best starters were suspended 4 games for "bogus" substance abuse violations...
It's not the coaches who:
Fumble balls
Fail to catch easy passes
Miss tackles
Jump offsides or commit ( place penalty of choice here)
Can't manage to throw easy passes to receivers
Miss blocks
Let opposing receivers get behind them and/or score on them.
There are probably others but really the list of excuses has become exhausting.

houstonspartan
12-17-2010, 12:33 PM
I actually left out some of the newest or most used at this time excuses like:
Our offense had to get used to a new offensive coordinator...
Our Offense misses Kyle Shanahan as OC....
Two of our best starters were suspended 4 games for "bogus" substance abuse violations...
It's not the coaches who:
Fumble balls
Fail to catch easy passes
Miss tackles
Jump offsides or commit ( place penalty of choice here)
Can't manage to throw easy passes to receivers
Miss blocks
Let opposing receivers get behind them and/or score on them.
There are probably others but really the list of excuses has become exhausting.


What about Hurricane Ike? We rode that excuse into the ground for about a year.

Honoring Earl 34
12-17-2010, 12:36 PM
Me too !

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/iceLFI1104_468x762.jpg

GNTLEWOLF
12-17-2010, 12:40 PM
What about Hurricane Ike? We road that excuse into the ground for about a year.

I forgot about that one....funny though isn't it how the Saints turned Katrina into a Superbowl eventually and We tuned Ike into another reason for failure

Jackie Chiles
12-17-2010, 12:46 PM
The Falcons hit the jackpot hiring Thomas Dimitroff away from the Pats in 2008 just like the Chiefs hit the jackpot getting Pioli from..... the Pats. Dimitroff then hired a great coach in Mike Smith and the rest is history.

HuttoKarl
12-17-2010, 04:37 PM
Texans have been on the verge of success for three years now...unfortunately they don't know how to get off the verge and just be successful.

steelbtexan
12-17-2010, 04:51 PM
I'm starting a pool with my friends. The "At least the Texans aren't..." pool. It's simple. Pick a team that was used to complete that phrase within the past three years. For instance "At least the Texans aren't the Browns". If the team you pick is the next loser franchise to beat the Texans to the playoffs, you win.

I'm taking "At least the Texans aren't the Raiders".

Great idea for a new thread

I'm going to start one

thunderkyss
12-18-2010, 09:34 AM
Anyone care to compare and contrast how these teams have approached building a winner and the relative merits and success they've had?

If it were easy, anyone could do it. I've got ideas that I think would have worked better. Some I imagine wouldn't have. Otherwise, I would be in the front office of some NFL franchise, instead of working my 9-5 which I do not love as much as football.

I assume it would be the same for many of us.

I don't like the decision of building through the draft only... never did. I recognize that the successful organizations build through whatever means necessary, trades, FA, draft......

Somewhere along the way, the Texans have seemed to made up their minds they weren't going after the "big name proven" veterans in FA. They seem to have made up their mind they weren't going to trade for any player. They seem to have made up their mind, that they'll build depth by going young in FA & "smart" in the draft.

To date, these decisions don't seem to have paid off.