PDA

View Full Version : Something here seems so familiar, ARTICLE


EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 10:06 AM
i know a lot of yall dont care for Richard Justice, but its an aight article.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/7415045.html


ARLINGTON — One striking thing about this Super Bowl is how much the Texans operate just like the Steelers and Packers.

I know this is going to be a tough sell because many of you no longer believe in Texans owner Bob McNair or his blueprint, and I probably can't persuade you to change your mind.

But it seems significant that executives of the Packers and Steelers say many of the same things McNair routinely says.

No, not every team operates this way. Some — for instance, the Dallas Cowboys — sometimes seem more interested in moves that will sell tickets instead of win games. Other franchises change coaches on a whim.

The Packers and Steelers, like the Texans, weren't built with flashy free-agent signings or by hiring big-money coaches. They did what they believed to be right instead of what they knew would be popular.

Whether by accident or not, McNair's organizational structure and core beliefs are very similar to those of these Super Bowl teams. McNair believes in stability, patience and building through the draft. So do the Steelers and Packers.

McNair hires people he trusts and gives them the resources to do their jobs. And he stays out of their way. How's that for painting another losing season with a nice soft brush? I mean, you need some hope that the 2011 season will be different, don't you?

If there's a flaw in this thinking — and obviously there is considering the Texans have had one winning record in nine years — it's the quality of the people McNair has hired.

Give him credit for sticking with coach Gary Kubiak and general manager Rick Smith when it would be easy to make a case for firing both of them. Five seasons is long enough to put a playoff team on the field.

If they haven't gotten it done in five seasons, there's no reason to think they're going to get it done in six or seven or nine. If the Texans do turn some kind of corner next season, McNair will deserve a parade for staying the course.

There are indications McNair won't tolerate much more. One of his employees recently said, "He has basically put the whole organization on notice."

He said McNair is fine taking bullets for Kubiak and Smith, but he's not going to take them forever. If a new defensive staff doesn't do it, he'll probably throw 'em all out the door.
Four-fingered fist

Successful NFL franchises must be competent in four areas: ownership, general manager, coach and quarterback. They all must be good at what they do, and the decision makers must have the guts to stick to their guns in tough times.

McNair did that in resisting the temptation to fire Kubiak and hire Bill Cowher or Jon Gruden. With a chance to ignite interest in his franchise, he did what he thinks is still in the best interest of the franchise.

The Packers would understand. One aspect of this week is redemption for general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy.

All they did three years ago was make the toughest call they'll ever have to make in parting ways with Brett Favre and turning their team over to untested Aaron Rodgers.

"We've moved on," Thompson said this week when asked about Favre.

He has now, but Thompson needed this Super Bowl to put out the still-simmering anger over Favre's departure. Never mind that Favre's will-he-or-won't-he offseasons pretty much dared the Packers to do what they did.

Splashy? It would be hard to find two less flashy men than these Super Bowl coaches, Pittsburgh's Mike Tomlin and Green Bay's Mike McCarthy. And both general managers, Thompson and Pittsburgh's Kevin Colbert, seem uncomfortable in the spotlight.

"Panic doesn't seem to work," Steelers president Art Rooney II said. "There are enough people that seem to have gone through that mode. Our feeling is that you pick good people, and you try to stick with them if you have good people.

"There are ups and downs in any sport, but if you have the right people in place, you'll always have a chance to be successful, and that's what we do."
If it ain't broke ...

For the last 40 years, one Steelers team has been remarkably similar to all the others. They run the ball, have great linebackers and win — to the tune of 25 playoff appearances in the last 38 seasons.

The Rooney family stuck with both Chuck Noll and Bill Cowher in tough times, and every single time their patience was rewarded.

"I think the idea of having the right people in place and finding and keeping good people, that's something that goes back to my grandfather and my father," Rooney said. "As they said, keeping it simple and keeping the right people in play, that's the key."

His point is that it's sometimes easier to fire people than show faith in them when everything is coming undone. Whether McNair's patience will be rewarded is yet to be seen, but there's no question he's got the right blueprint.

GP
02-09-2011, 10:20 AM
Good post. Thanks, man.

It must have been hard for RJ to write a serious article.

"If there's a flaw in this thinking — and obviously there is considering the Texans have had one winning record in nine years — it's the quality of the people McNair has hired.

Give him credit for sticking with coach Gary Kubiak and general manager Rick Smith when it would be easy to make a case for firing both of them. Five seasons is long enough to put a playoff team on the field."

Those three sentences form the basis of why the Fire Kubiak club is still holding its weekly meetings here.


"There are indications McNair won't tolerate much more. One of his employees recently said, "He has basically put the whole organization on notice."

He said McNair is fine taking bullets for Kubiak and Smith, but he's not going to take them forever. If a new defensive staff doesn't do it, he'll probably throw 'em all out the door."

I doubt he's going to throw Wade Phillips out the door. Maybe throw him out of the d-coord door and throw him through the head coach door.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 10:21 AM
Yeah,

BoB,Gary and Rick are greatness in the making.

LOL

The Rooney's and the Packer shareholders demand that a winning product on the field. Who's demanding that McNair,Rick and Gary put a winning product on the field?

Answer: Nobody

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 10:25 AM
Yeah,

BoB,Gary and Rick are greatness in the making.

LOL

The Rooney's and the Packer shareholders demand that a winning product on the field. Who's demanding that McNair,Rick and Gary put a winning product on the field?

Answer: Nobody

i demand it, but noone answers :whip:

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 10:30 AM
i demand it, but noone answers :whip:

Neither does BoB.

I guess with Reliant being sold out every game might have something to do with this.

El Tejano
02-09-2011, 10:43 AM
The thing about it was that people were complaining why those teams didn't win the Super Bowl that year. Ours is complaining about why we can't make the playoffs. That's a big difference. Sure Cowher didn't make the playoffs a year or two, but they were in there alot and usually showed some promise. Easy to hold on to a coach when your team is getting to the playoffs.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 10:50 AM
The thing about it was that people were complaining why those teams didn't win the Super Bowl that year. Ours is complaining about why we can't make the playoffs. That's a big difference. Sure Cowher didn't make the playoffs a year or two, but they were in there alot and usually showed some promise. Easy to hold on to a coach when your team is getting to the playoffs.

agree but i like the core of players we have, besides our secondary i think we should be a play-off team next season. BUT i think that every season :dancer:

Texans_Chick
02-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Neither does BoB.

I guess with Reliant being sold out every game might have something to do with this.

I know it is frustrating to some.

But the fact that Reliant has been perpetually sold out eventually will payoff for a team.

The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.

The Green Bay Packers made the Aaron Rodgers/Brett Favre decision because 1. it made sense for their team; 2. because their season ticket status allowed them to do so.

It's one of the things that Vic Ketchman (formerly) with the Jaguars mentioned in talking about the Steelers and Packers. They can afford to make difficult decisions because they don't have to make ticketing based decisions.

This hasn't paid off yet--hopefully they can get their defense in order.

gtexan02
02-09-2011, 11:20 AM
McNair is staying the course for one of two reasons:

1. He believes its the best way to get a winning team

2. He believes it will make him the most money


Maybe 1 is true, but it seems like #2 is more likely. We have great attendance, he makes tons of money as is, and keeping Kubiak is a helluva lot cheaper than firing him and getting someone new. Plus, with the lockout looming, its unknown territory.


Maybe 1 is true, or its a combination of 1 and 2, but "staying the course" doesn't always mean the good things Justice seems to imply

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 11:33 AM
I know it is frustrating to some.

But the fact that Reliant has been perpetually sold out eventually will payoff for a team.

The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.

The Green Bay Packers made the Aaron Rodgers/Brett Favre decision because 1. it made sense for their team; 2. because their season ticket status allowed them to do so.

It's one of the things that Vic Ketchman (formerly) with the Jaguars mentioned in talking about the Steelers and Packers. They can afford to make difficult decisions because they don't have to make ticketing based decisions.

This hasn't paid off yet--hopefully they can get their defense in order.

The lack of a sense of urgency within the Tezans org (It starts with BoB) is troubling to say the least.

Atleast we know the defense cant be as bad as it was last yr. Can it?

CloakNNNdagger
02-09-2011, 11:41 AM
If Bob, Smithiak continue their present decision-making pattern of "self inflicted wounds," they will likely remain afflicted.:tiphat:

TheCD
02-09-2011, 11:53 AM
McNair is staying the course for one of two reasons:

1. He believes its the best way to get a winning team

2. He believes it will make him the most money


Maybe 1 is true, but it seems like #2 is more likely. We have great attendance, he makes tons of money as is, and keeping Kubiak is a helluva lot cheaper than firing him and getting someone new. Plus, with the lockout looming, its unknown territory.


Maybe 1 is true, or its a combination of 1 and 2, but "staying the course" doesn't always mean the good things Justice seems to imply

I can't understand this line of thinking. Why would McNair not care about winning? Not winning will ultimately equate to less money as fans leave for other teams. In the short term, yes, this would generate more income, but in the long-term he would be seriously regretting that decision.

I find it hard to believe that a man who would pay $700+ million just for the right to start a team would make short-term based decisions. He has to think about his long-term finances in paying off the stadium, paying players and coaches, and revenue sharing. I would expect teams making big splashes constantly to be the franchises interested in making money as those big names would be the kind that would put "fans in the stands" (to quote The Replacements).

Texans_Chick
02-09-2011, 11:58 AM
I can't understand this line of thinking. Why would McNair not care about winning? Not winning will ultimately equate to less money as fans leave for other teams. In the short term, yes, this would generate more income, but in the long-term he would be seriously regretting that decision.

I find it hard to believe that a man who would pay $700+ million just for the right to start a team would make short-term based decisions. He has to think about his long-term finances in paying off the stadium, paying players and coaches, and revenue sharing. I would expect teams making big splashes constantly to be the franchises interested in making money as those big names would be the kind that would put "fans in the stands" (to quote The Replacements).

Bob McNair has given away more money than I will make in my entire life.

He has consistently said that the way the team will make more money and add more value to the franchise is by winning.

From the beginning of the franchise, he has mentioned the Steelers as an organization he admires. Easy to talk about not doing knee jerk moves, harder to actually do that when everyone is calling for your head.

IDEXAN
02-09-2011, 12:07 PM
The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.

Inferring that the Texans are on track because they are using the template provided by elite franchises like the Packers for success ? Could you give an example of the Texans making a football decision that prempted a decision which would have been more popular with the fan-base on a particular issue, personnel matter, etc ?

DX-TEX
02-09-2011, 12:23 PM
Has Bob read this yet? I can see the comment now.

"The local media says we are on the right track. I have faithy in gary."

:toropalm:

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 12:30 PM
I have no doubt that McNair wants to win. And by the same token, I have no doubt that the other 31 owners want to win. That's pretty much a no-brainer. It's good for business if nothing else.

However, understanding how to achieve a consistently winning franchise is where McNair is nothing like the teams mentioned. They do not tolerate perpetual mediocrity. They simply don't. McNair does, and makes excuses for why he does. It's his team, so he gets that luxury. But it's obvious that he has not hired the right people for the job.

Thanks to Captain Obvious for writing this article. :rolleyes:

Inferring that the Texans are on track because they are using the template provided by elite franchises like the Packers for success ? Could you give an example of the Texans making a football decision that prempted a decision which would have been more popular with the fan-base on a particular issue, personnel matter, etc ?

Good questions. I do not think other teams take into account our team's commitment to "stability, patience and building through the draft" when they play us. If only the NFL gave out shiny participation ribbons! We've have 9 of them hanging from the rafters of Reliant! :D

infantrycak
02-09-2011, 12:38 PM
Could you give an example of the Texans making a football decision that prempted a decision which would have been more popular with the fan-base on a particular issue, personnel matter, etc ?

Seriously?

Keeping HWWNBN certainly the last year but most likely the year before if we are talking majority.
Not drafting VY or Bush.
Keeping Kubiak.

They may be bad football decisions but they certainly were not the more popular decisions.

Yankee_In_TX
02-09-2011, 12:44 PM
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.

TheCD
02-09-2011, 12:47 PM
Seriously?

Keeping HWWNBN certainly the last year but most likely the year before if we are talking majority.
Not drafting VY or Bush.
Keeping Kubiak.

They may be bad football decisions but they certainly were not the more popular decisions.

This may be really random, but you're post got me thinking.

I remember when old "Penny-Pincher Bob" and the organization took a serious run a Orlando Pace. Boy how different this team could have turned out if we'd gotten him...

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 01:03 PM
This may be really random, but you're post got me thinking.

I remember when old "Penny-Pincher Bob" and the organization took a serious run a Orlando Pace. Boy how different this team could have turned out if we'd gotten him...

ewww i doubt Pace would of helped solve anything and i bet we still would have 0 play-off apperances.

IDEXAN
02-09-2011, 01:36 PM
Seriously?

Keeping HWWNBN certainly the last year but most likely the year before if we are talking majority.
Not drafting VY or Bush.
Keeping Kubiak.

They may be bad football decisions but they certainly were not the more popular decisions.
Well done ! Drafting Mario Williams over Vince Young (and to a lesser degree Bush) would be the iconic representation of a football decision which was so unpopular it stirred local fan wrath for not taking a local hero. And as we've learned it turned out to be a smart football decision.
Re retentions like Kubia or David Carr is not the same, and may be more the owner favoring certain personalities and not cases where football decisions won out over more popular choices ?

markn
02-09-2011, 01:38 PM
The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.

Sadly, it appears the Texans have perfected the 'not what is most popular' clause of the tenet while ignoring the 'best for their team'.

OzzO
02-09-2011, 01:38 PM
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.

Heh - I found that funny. If it weren't for that one little thing.....

Hagar
02-09-2011, 01:42 PM
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.

That's a big IF right there.

The problem with trying to build a dynasty without getting into the playoff is that you don't know what you don't know. As we all know, there's a big difference between thinking you know how to do something and actually doing it. GM whose never been a GM, HC whose never been a HC. Using mostly draftees who have never won a playoff game. All major unknowns.

infantrycak
02-09-2011, 02:13 PM
Re retentions like Kubia or David Carr is not the same, and may be more the owner favoring certain personalities and not cases where football decisions won out over more popular choices ?

We will never know if they were attempt at best football judgment decisions but they certainly were both bucking the local polling numbers.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 02:30 PM
I have no doubt that McNair wants to win. And by the same token, I have no doubt that the other 31 owners want to win. That's pretty much a no-brainer. It's good for business if nothing else.

However, understanding how to achieve a consistently winning franchise is where McNair is nothing like the teams mentioned. They do not tolerate perpetual mediocrity. They simply don't. McNair does, and makes excuses for why he does. It's his team, so he gets that luxury. But it's obvious that he has not hired the right people for the job.

Thanks to Captain Obvious for writing this article. :rolleyes:



Good questions. I do not think other teams take into account our team's commitment to "stability, patience and building through the draft" when they play us. If only the NFL gave out shiny participation ribbons! We've have 9 of them hanging from the rafters of Reliant! :D

Repped

This is what I've been trying to say.

I would like to take time to thank BoB,Gary and Rick for wasting 5 going on 6 yrs football watching fun. Andre Johnson you deserve better than to waste your career with such a dysfunctional franchise.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 02:35 PM
Repped

This is what I've been trying to say.

I would like to take time to thank BoB,Gary and Rick for wasting 5 going on 6 yrs football watching fun. Andre Johnson you deserve better than to waste your career with such a dysfunctional franchise.

A.J knows he could get good money and play any where he wants, i dont feel sorry for a guy who chooses to stay and loves this organization.

sandman
02-09-2011, 02:37 PM
However, understanding how to achieve a consistently winning franchise is where McNair is nothing like the teams mentioned. They do not tolerate perpetual mediocrity. They simply don't.

From 1968, after winning two Super Bowls, Green Bay had four winning seasons for the next 24 years, with two playoff appearances.

Since their last Super Bowl appearance in 1997, not including this year, they averaged 9-7 over a nine year span, making the playoffs in only half the years and compiled a 2-5 post-season record.

Looks like Green Bay tolerated a hell of a lot of mediocrity over the years.

infantrycak
02-09-2011, 02:42 PM
Andre Johnson you deserve better than to waste your career with such a dysfunctional franchise.

Andre apparently disagrees with you. Somehow him being on the inside and us not, well you can guess where that would go.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 02:46 PM
Andre apparently disagrees with you. Somehow him being on the inside and us not, well you can guess where that would go.

i agree, ANY team would pay him more money than GOD to play for them, and he chooses to stay with the Texans. I admire the man, All the money these guys make and he has always been humble. I will be proud to see him retire a Texan knowing he choose to stay is the best thing about it.

JB
02-09-2011, 03:17 PM
nevrmind

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 03:25 PM
From 1968, after winning two Super Bowls, Green Bay had four winning seasons for the next 24 years, with two playoff appearances.

Since their last Super Bowl appearance in 1997, not including this year, they averaged 9-7 over a nine year span, making the playoffs in only half the years and compiled a 2-5 post-season record.

Looks like Green Bay tolerated a hell of a lot of mediocrity over the years.

I'm fairly confident that the article was using the successful years of the Packers with the "stability, patience and building through the draft" comparison. This is the perspective that I was addressing, not the 24 years that you are referring to in your post. The point of the article doesn't work if you go with the period that you bring up.

But, using that 24 years as an example for the Texans, do you know the reasons behind that long stretch of mediocrity? Poor personnel decisions made by unqualified coaches and an inept front office.

You see, the Packers hired a very good (and proven) GM with Ron Wolf in 1991. The next year he hired Holmgren, and the rest is history.

Hmmmm, there's a lesson in there somewhere... :um: ...but you have to remove the blinders to see it...

gary
02-09-2011, 03:48 PM
Why do I think both the Packers are not buillt only through the draft?

sandman
02-09-2011, 04:01 PM
I'm fairly confident that the article was using the successful years of the Packers with the "stability, patience and building through the draft" comparison. This is the perspective that I was addressing, not the 24 years that you are referring to in your post. The point of the article doesn't work if you go with the period that you bring up.

But, using that 24 years as an example for the Texans, do you know the reasons behind that long stretch of mediocrity? Poor personnel decisions made by unqualified coaches and an inept front office.

You see, the Packers hired a very good (and proven) GM with Ron Wolf in 1991. The next year he hired Holmgren, and the rest is history.

Hmmmm, there's a lesson in there somewhere... :um: ...but you have to remove the blinders to see it...

OK, but outside of the '94-'98 seasons where they averaged 12-4 and went to 2 SB's, success since '91 must have been defined by three 8-8 seasons, four 9-7 seasons and two 10-6 seasons in nine of the other twelve seasons.

The point I am trying is that Texan fan is saying year after year of 8-8 or 9-7 is mediocrity for the Texans, but was part of a 'successful model' for Green Bay? Heck, they were 4-12 two years ago! Green Bay was great for four seasons, and a slightly better than average team for the majority of the rest of the time.

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 04:08 PM
OK, but outside of the '94-'98 seasons where they averaged 12-4 and went to 2 SB's, success since '91 must have been defined by three 8-8 seasons, four 9-7 seasons and two 10-6 seasons in nine of the other twelve seasons.

The point I am trying is that Texan fan is saying year after year of 8-8 or 9-7 is mediocrity for the Texans, but was part of a 'successful model' for Green Bay? Heck, they were 4-12 two years ago! Green Bay was great for four seasons, and a slightly better than average team for the majority of the rest of the time.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Green Bay has had 2 losing seasons since 1992. That's a pretty successful franchise in the past two decades, all things considered. Packers fans might disagree...I don't know...but from our perspective as Texans fans, I'd be happy with that kind of record.

My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.

sandman
02-09-2011, 04:24 PM
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Green Bay has had 2 losing seasons since 1992. That's a pretty successful franchise in the past two decades, all things considered. Packers fans might disagree...I don't know...but from our perspective as Texans fans, I'd be happy with that kind of record.

My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.

OK, maybe I am confused. The general consensus on this board is that 8-8 and 9-7 will no longer be tolerated by the fans. That it is mediocrity. That this team needs to be winning 10 games or more to be considered successful.

But yet, Green Bay has had six seasons of 8-8 or 9-7 during this period considered as 'successful' for them. Was it considered successful because they interspersed these average seasons with a few good ones and got to the Super Bowl?

I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.

Yankee_In_TX
02-09-2011, 04:27 PM
Heh - I found that funny. If it weren't for that one little thing.....

LOL, so you saw what I did there....

TheCD
02-09-2011, 04:46 PM
OK, maybe I am confused. The general consensus on this board is that 8-8 and 9-7 will no longer be tolerated by the fans. That it is mediocrity. That this team needs to be winning 10 games or more to be considered successful.

But yet, Green Bay has had six seasons of 8-8 or 9-7 during this period considered as 'successful' for them. Was it considered successful because they interspersed these average seasons with a few good ones and got to the Super Bowl?

I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.

In short, yes. The thing is that the people who are saying this are saying it because we have no history of success. While I view our 9-7 poorly, we were still only a fluke play here and there, a yard here, a field goal here and there, plus a 2-game back-in into the playoffs for the Jets away from the playoffs. Had any of that gone differently the outlook would be much brighter.

HoustonFrog
02-09-2011, 04:51 PM
In short, yes. The thing is that the people who are saying this are saying it because we have no history of success. While I view our 9-7 poorly, we were still only a fluke play here and there, a yard here, a field goal here and there, plus a 2-game back-in into the playoffs for the Jets away from the playoffs. Had any of that gone differently the outlook would be much brighter.

That is alot of " we were onlys." Remember that works towards the losing side too.

As for GB. They have a rich history. During that time they had some playoff time. That is why a guy like Mike Sherman was always on the hot seat. Some found him to be a solid coach while others didn't think he did enough. I don't think it was accepted there at all but they stuck with some of the seasons to see if they could pull it out. Probably easier to do when your franchise is a storied franchise. When your franchise has never won anything then celebrating a non-playoff 9-7 or "being on the right track" seems hollow.

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 04:53 PM
OK, maybe I am confused. The general consensus on this board is that 8-8 and 9-7 will no longer be tolerated by the fans. That it is mediocrity. That this team needs to be winning 10 games or more to be considered successful.

But yet, Green Bay has had six seasons of 8-8 or 9-7 during this period considered as 'successful' for them. Was it considered successful because they interspersed these average seasons with a few good ones and got to the Super Bowl?

I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.

Okay, I gotcha'. My speculation would be that it comes down to perspective. Sort like one of those optical illusions where the shade of gray is really the same but looks different if it's surrounded by white or surrounded by black (abstract example, I know).

The Packers went to the post-season 13 times since the '92 season. Perhaps going to playoffs and winning championships makes those 8-8 and 9-7 records bearable? So regardless of an individual season, they have long term hope because they have experienced success. And since '92, the Packers never went beyond two seasons without making the playoffs.

For us, however, those 8-8 / 9-7 records are the peaks. And without any post-season appearances in 9 years, it feels hopeless sometimes.

sandman
02-09-2011, 04:53 PM
Gonna Data Integrity Police myself after realizing that I was missing some data points for a few seasons.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 04:54 PM
If Bob, Smithiak continue their present decision-making pattern of "self inflicted wounds," they will likely remain afflicted.:tiphat:

I agree. And this is from a medical professional (doctor). So bank it. I don't know enough about Smith to understand to what degree he is the % of the problem. But what I know about Kubes - the coach, not the man - I believe he is 75% of the problem, until proven otherwise.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 04:59 PM
So let me play What If:

2007: 8-8
2008: 8-8
2009: 9-7
2010: 6-10

What If 2011 is 9-7 for the Texans? Is that success or mediocrity?

Because what is listed above is not very different from what Green Bay experienced before this year.

They were 10-6, 10-6, 4-12 and 8-8.

Then they win the Super Bowl this year...

Disagree. 10-6 are SUCCESSFUL seasons. Did they make the playoffs in any of those years? That also makes for a successful year. 9-7 cannot be classified as a successful year, especially without a playoff appearance. It can be called a "positive" year, better than average, winning year, but in no way successful, unless it was followed by 4 additional post season wins.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:02 PM
Disagree. 10-6 are SUCCESSFUL seasons. Did they make the playoffs in any of those years? That also makes for a successful year. 9-7 cannot be classified as a successful year, especially without a playoff appearance. It can be called a "positive" year, better than average, winning year, but in no way successful, unless it was followed by 4 additional post season wins.

actually i don't think its successful if you don't win the Superbowl isn't that the whole point of playing the game. Play-offs with no Lombardi trophy mean nothing.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:08 PM
From 1968, after winning two Super Bowls, Green Bay had four winning seasons for the next 24 years, with two playoff appearances.

Since their last Super Bowl appearance in 1997, not including this year, they averaged 9-7 over a nine year span, making the playoffs in only half the years and compiled a 2-5 post-season record.

Looks like Green Bay tolerated a hell of a lot of mediocrity over the years.

Making the playoffs in half of all years is holding up their end of the bargain, considering a team would mathematically be expected to trip into the playoffs every 2.67 years under an "all things equal" state. So every other year is even better.

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 05:10 PM
actually i don't think its successful if you don't win the Superbowl isn't that the whole point of playing the game. Play-offs with no Lombardi trophy mean nothing.

C'mon, man, we're Texans fans. We have much lower standards for defining success. :winky:

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:10 PM
actually i don't think its successful if you don't win the Superbowl isn't that the whole point of playing the game. Play-offs with no Lombardi trophy mean nothing.

Winning the Super Bowl would be termed football "perfection" or "the pinnacle". Do you think the Rooney family is berating the Steelers as we speak for not having a successful year?

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:11 PM
Winning the Super Bowl would be termed football "perfection" or "the pinnacle". Do you think the Rooney family is berating the Steelers as we speak for not having a successful year?

Success without reaching the main goal is an opinion. So really the Steelers Failed to do the job they were supposed to do. which is reach the Superbowl.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:15 PM
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Green Bay has had 2 losing seasons since 1992. That's a pretty successful franchise in the past two decades, all things considered. Packers fans might disagree...I don't know...but from our perspective as Texans fans, I'd be happy with that kind of record.

My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.

I wish I had said that.

sandman
02-09-2011, 05:16 PM
Disagree. 10-6 are SUCCESSFUL seasons. Did they make the playoffs in any of those years? That also makes for a successful year. 9-7 cannot be classified as a successful year, especially without a playoff appearance. It can be called a "positive" year, better than average, winning year, but in no way successful, unless it was followed by 4 additional post season wins.

I don't want to argue for arguing sake, and I feel like I am doing that at this point. What originally set me off was the comment about GB and Pittsburgh not accepting mediocrity. My personal opinion is that, in Green Bay's case, they are more willing to accept average and mediocre, even losing seasons, because they come after some very successful seasons. But let's not say that they have not had trends of "Kubiak" in their record. They haven't woke up every morning since '91 and pissed Excellence.

It's a lot like last year when the Saints won, and everyone wanted to compare how Payton took NO to the SB in only four seasons, while all Gary could do was 9-7, completely ignoring that they took over two entirely different teams.

I guess as fans it is natural to compare our team to the one that wins it all and talk about all the ways we don't do it like the winners did. But in the last 15 years, 10 different teams have won. So who do we want to the team to be modeled after?

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:18 PM
Making the playoffs and improving as a team every yr while you're building a team would be considered being successful. Rick and Gary have failed in this regard. But BoB still wont admit or pay for his mistake in judgement.

That or making the playoffs once in a decade might be considered a measure of success. You know something the Texans have never achieved under Robert C. McNair leadership.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:20 PM
Success without reaching the main goal is an opinion. So really the Steelers Failed to do the job they were supposed to do. which is reach the Superbowl.

Well, they did reach the Super Bowl. It's pretty narrow-minded to say that 31 NFL teams are unsuccessful every year, just as it is open minded to the extreme to say that 32 NFL have some form of success evey year. I think we can all agree that the point of the REGULAR SEASON is to pry your way into the playoffs. Now if you've been there for 4 straight years and never advanced, one might question the "success" of the team in the 4th year. But if you've never been there in your team's history, I think you could pretty easily term the year a "success" if you make the playoffs for the first time ever. As for a retrospective view of a team that makes the palyoffs every other year, I think you could call them generally successful without taking too much heat from the in crowd.

It may be a matter of opinion, but I'm refering to a consensus opinion, not a fringe opinion.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:22 PM
Success without reaching the main goal is an opinion. So really the Steelers Failed to do the job they were supposed to do. which is reach the Superbowl.

By the standard set by the Rooney family, yes this season would be considered a failure. Even though that goal is unrealistic they set the bar high every yr.

Unlike BoB and the Texans.

Mr teX
02-09-2011, 05:24 PM
Bob McNair has given away more money than I will make in my entire life.

He has consistently said that the way the team will make more money and add more value to the franchise is by winning.
From the beginning of the franchise, he has mentioned the Steelers as an organization he admires. Easy to talk about not doing knee jerk moves, harder to actually do that when everyone is calling for your head.

This statement right here is why the whole "bob is in it solely for the money" argument is silly.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:24 PM
Well, they did reach the Super Bowl. It's pretty narrow-minded to say that 31 NFL teams are unsuccessful every year, just as it is open minded to the extreme to say that 32 NFL had success evey year. I think we can all agree that the point of the REGUKAR SEASON is to pry your way into the playoffs. Now if you've been there for 4 straight years and never advanced, one might question the "success" of the team in the 4th year. But if you've never been there in your team's history, I think you could pretty easily term the year a success if you make the playoffs for the first time ever.

It may be a matter of opinion, but I'm refering to a consensus opinion, not a fringe opinion.

i agree to an extent, But to compare our team to teams who have been around since the 50s our 60s is out there. If u add up all our Success to their success it seems kinda unfaid dont ya think.

Mr teX
02-09-2011, 05:25 PM
By the standard set by the Rooney family, yes this season would be considered a failure. Even though that goal is unrealistic they set the bar high every yr.

Unlike BoB and the Texans.


ridiculous :vincepalm:

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:26 PM
By the standard set by the Rooney family, yes this season would be considered a failure. Even though that goal is unrealistic they set the bar high every yr.

Unlike BoB and the Texans.

i wouldn't say Bob don't set the Bar high, i think that He has made some poor decisions but our week 1 win against the colts shows you he wants to win. Fix our secondary and we will be talking about how the refs made a bad call in the play-offs next year. :texanbill:

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:27 PM
By the standard set by the Rooney family, yes this season would be considered a failure. Even though that goal is unrealistic they set the bar high every yr.

Unlike BoB and the Texans.

Really?! Perhaps in the most critical, politically correct stearn-faced view, but there is no way that the Rooney's are calling Tomlin into their office and saying/yelling, "ok, how are we going to fix this so we can be successful next year, unlike this year?"

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:28 PM
This statement right here is why the whole "bob is in it solely for the money" argument is silly.

And also not true.

I cant find the thread but CnD started it

It shows how a team can make more $$$$ by not making the playoffs than by making them.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:30 PM
And also not true.

I cant find the thread but CnD started it

It shows how a team can make more $$$$ by not making the playoffs than by making them.

so you think we arent making the play-offs on purpose ????

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:30 PM
ridiculous :vincepalm:

The Steelers dont set winning the SB as there main goal each yr and expect to reach that goal?

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 05:30 PM
What originally set me off was the comment about GB and Pittsburgh not accepting mediocrity.

My specific point was that they do not accept perpetual mediocrity.

"Perpetual" is a key word in my point.

For instance, Ray Rhodes was the Packers coach in 1999 for one year. He went 8-8. Did GB accept it? No, they fired him and hired Sherman.

Sherman had five winning seasons (9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6) and then went 4-12. Did they accept it? No, they fired him and hired McCarthy. (BTW, despite receiving a contract extension earlier in the 2005 season, Sherman was fired by the Packers on January 2, 2006, after compiling a 4–12 record — Green Bay's first losing record since the 1991 season.* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman))

Do you honest believe that GB would allow Kubiak to flounder for five seasons without taking action? Historical facts prove otherwise.

HOU-TEX
02-09-2011, 05:33 PM
My specific point was that they do not accept perpetual mediocrity.

"Perpetual" is a key word in my point.

For instance, Ray Rhodes was the Packers coach in 1999 for one year. He went 8-8. Did GB accept it? No, they fired him and hired Sherman.

Sherman had five winning seasons (9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6) and then went 4-12. Did they accept it? No, they fired him and hired McCarthy. (BTW, despite receiving a contract extension earlier in the 2005 season, Sherman was fired by the Packers on January 2, 2006, after compiling a 4–12 record — Green Bay's first losing record since the 1991 season.* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman))

Do you honest believe that GB would allow Kubiak to flounder for five seasons without taking action? Historical facts prove otherwise.

Well, he does have some purdy lips......

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:34 PM
i agree to an extent, But to compare our team to teams who have been around since the 50s our 60s is out there. If u add up all our Success to their success it seems kinda unfaid dont ya think.

In my opinion, we haven't had any success, other than the kind of success and congratulations that may be heaped upon you for trying hard. So start the comparisons however you want - discount our first 4 years, and only spotlight our last 5. Or only our last four, or even just last year. There's no way to spin it to say that the Texans have ever been "successful."

Now, having said that, I don't believe that over the course of our history, we've had the 7th or worse 53-man talent in the AFC, and because of that we've not made the playoffs. In fact, I believe that we have, and have had, amongst the top 6 53-man rosters in the AFC. So you see where I'm going with this - the coaches have not produced a playoff even though we've had the 6th or better squad for at least a couple , maybe a few years now.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:34 PM
Really?! Perhaps in the most critical, politically correct stearn-faced view, but there is no way that the Rooney's are calling Tomlin into their office and saying/yelling, "ok, how are we going to fix this so we can be successful next year, unlike this year?"

No, but you can bet that the Rooneys are trying to figure out how to win a SB next yr. (Right Now as we speak)

That's the way they operate.

Mr teX
02-09-2011, 05:35 PM
And also not true.

I cant find the thread but CnD started it

It shows how a team can make more $$$$ by not making the playoffs than by making them.

Find the thread, i'd really like to read that b/c i find that extremely hard to believe. Not with teams like the yankees & red sox able to field 200 million dollar payrolls & not be hurting like a kansas city royals franchise.

sandman
02-09-2011, 05:37 PM
By the standard set by the Rooney family, yes this season would be considered a failure. Even though that goal is unrealistic they set the bar high every yr.

Unlike BoB and the Texans.

and yet, Tomlin is only the 3rd coach in the last 40+ years for the team. For setting the bar unrealistically high, they sure do hang on to those coaches that fail year after year, only reaching the Super Bowl less than 20% of the time.

Mr teX
02-09-2011, 05:37 PM
The Steelers dont set winning the SB as there main goal each yr and expect to reach that goal?

not that, the fact that you think every team doesn't do that.....

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:37 PM
In my opinion, we haven't had any success, other than the kind of success and congratulations that may be heaped upon you for trying hard. So start the comparisons however you want - discount our first 4 years, and only spotlight our last 5. Or only our last four, or even just last year. There's no way to spin it to say that the Texans have ever been "successful."

Now, having said that, I don't believe that over the course of our history, we've had the 7th or worse 53-man talent in the AFC, and because of that we've not made the playoffs. In fact, I believe that we have, and have had, amongst the top 6 53-man rosters in the AFC. So you see where I'm going with this - the coaches have not produced a playoff even though we've had the 6th or better squad for at least a couple , maybe a few years now.

i'd say they have been successful. they successfully let us down all year. they successfully enertained us with all the "COMEBACKS" this year and they successfully fooled us into thinking our Kiddie CBs would be Ok :turtle:

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:39 PM
My specific point was that they do not accept perpetual mediocrity.

"Perpetual" is a key word in my point.

For instance, Ray Rhodes was the Packers coach in 1999 for one year. He went 8-8. Did GB accept it? No, they fired him and hired Sherman.

Sherman had five winning seasons (9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6) and then went 4-12. Did they accept it? No, they fired him and hired McCarthy. (BTW, despite receiving a contract extension earlier in the 2005 season, Sherman was fired by the Packers on January 2, 2006, after compiling a 4–12 record — Green Bay's first losing record since the 1991 season.* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman))

Do you honest believe that GB would allow Kubiak to flounder for five seasons without taking action? Historical facts prove otherwise.

This is the difference between McNair's privately owned Texans and the publicly owned Packers.

Showtime100
02-09-2011, 05:39 PM
My specific point was that they do not accept perpetual mediocrity.

"Perpetual" is a key word in my point.

For instance, Ray Rhodes was the Packers coach in 1999 for one year. He went 8-8. Did GB accept it? No, they fired him and hired Sherman.

Sherman had five winning seasons (9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6) and then went 4-12. Did they accept it? No, they fired him and hired McCarthy. (BTW, despite receiving a contract extension earlier in the 2005 season, Sherman was fired by the Packers on January 2, 2006, after compiling a 4–12 record — Green Bay's first losing record since the 1991 season.* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman))

Do you honest believe that GB would allow Kubiak to flounder for five seasons without taking action? Historical facts prove otherwise.

If you want to take it a little further even Detroit tends to give coaches less time than Kubiak has enjoyed to put something real on the board. Wayne Fontes and Monty Clark are the only two coaches (I'm betting/guessing) that have lasted five or more years since the merger.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:40 PM
The Steelers dont set winning the SB as there main goal each yr and expect to reach that goal?

When you're eyeballing Mount Everest, you don't look at some point 2/3rds of the way up as your ultimate goal. If so, go climb Mount McKinnley. Every football team eyeballs the Super Bowl win as the pinnacle that defines ultimate success. But if you climb within 1,000 feet of Everest's peak, but decide to turn back in order to survive to climb another day, you're not going to give yourself 39 lashes at the base of the mountain.

CharloTex
02-09-2011, 05:46 PM
No, but you can bet that the Rooneys are trying to figure out how to win a SB next yr. (Right Now as we speak)

That's the way they operate.

Well, that's how all teams operate. But both the Steelers and Texans right this minute are trying to figure out first how to win their first game next year, then how to assure a playoff appearance, and thirdly perhaps, get to and win the Super Bowl. Pittsburgh isn't so self-ablsorbed as to believe that their only challenge next year will be playing better in and winning the Super Bowl.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 05:49 PM
not that, the fact that you think every team doesn't do that.....

Not all teams (Texans) some are satisfied with a 9-7 season. In fact 9-7 is celebrated as some kind of an acclomplishment.

Get back to me when the Texans win the 1st big game that matters.

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 05:50 PM
Not all teams (Texans) some are satisfied with a 9-7 season. In fact 9-7 is celebrated as some kind of an acclomplishment.

Get back to me when the Texans win the 1st big game that matters.

BUt they do go into every offseason/season with the goal to win the superbowl. i think thats his point.

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 06:02 PM
Find the thread, i'd really like to read that b/c i find that extremely hard to believe. Not with teams like the yankees & red sox able to field 200 million dollar payrolls & not be hurting like a kansas city royals franchise.

I can't find CnD's specific thread/article, but here's one that supports the same premise:

Do NFL Teams Profit from the Playoffs?

The Greater a Team's Success in the NFL Post Season, the More Profits They Lose

The more success an NFL team has during the season (making the playoffs, winning a division, and winning the Super Bowl) the more profit the team makes, right. Wrong. Teams usually lose money during their post season play. However, a team’s value usually increases in following years with current season playoff success.

Full article (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4020/do_nfl_teams_profit_from_the_playoffs.html)

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 06:06 PM
I can't find CnD's specific thread/article, but here's one that supports the same premise:

But some cant seriously believe McNair is trying to make us NOt make the play-offs because of that !?!?!?!?

Thorn
02-09-2011, 06:10 PM
McNair wants the team to be successful and win a Super Bowl. He just doesn't know how to go about it. I don't believe for a second he likes being owner of a bad team. He's just in the dark about what to do to make the Texans a good team. So instead of having Bud Adams to bear, we have McNair. Take your pick, but I believe most folks around here would still take McNair over Bud Adams, they're just gonna ***** about it is all.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 06:14 PM
I dont believe McNair doesn't want to make the playoffs.

I do belive that McNair wants to make the playoffs his way. (Cororate/profit taking)

EllisUnit
02-09-2011, 06:15 PM
I dont believe McNair doesn't want to make the playoffs.

I do belive that McNair wants to make the payoffs his way. (Cororate/profit taking)

huh :whip:

Double Barrel
02-09-2011, 06:15 PM
McNair wants the team to be successful and win a Super Bowl. He just doesn't know how to go about it. I don't believe for a second he likes being owner of a bad team. He's just in the dark about what to do to make the Texans a good team. So instead of having Bud Adams to bear, we have McNair. Take your pick, but I believe most folks around here would still take McNair over Bud Adams, they're just gonna ***** about it is all.

Exactly. I was going to say the same thing, but you saved me the typing.

I do think he wants to win, but losing just doesn't bother him as much as it might others. He has a very optimistic attitude about "we'll get them next year" that many of us just don't share with him anymore.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 06:16 PM
Adams
McNair
None of the above

I'll take none of the above for $1000 Alex.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 06:17 PM
huh :whip:

LOL

Freudian slip, I guess

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 06:19 PM
Exactly. I was going to say the same thing, but you saved me the typing.

I do think he wants to win, but losing just doesn't bother him as much as it might others. He has a very optimistic attitude about "we'll get them next year" that many of us just don't share with him anymore.

9 next yrs and counting

JB
02-09-2011, 06:30 PM
Adams
McNair
None of the above

I'll take none of the above for $1000 Alex.

So you would rather have no team than what Houston has experienced so far?

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 06:45 PM
So you would rather have no team than what Houston has experienced so far?

I would rather have an owner that's fully committed to bringing a championship caliber team to this city.

If BoB's not this. Then given the choices I would rather have no football in this city. I learned to not miss the Oilers and I could learn not to miss The Texans. If BoB isn't about winning.

See I love football and actually got to a point where I enjoyed watching the best NFL games each Sunday on Direct TV. I no longer do this because I'm at the Reliant during home games.

I bought the Kangaroo TV at the stadium for a few yrs. But the Texans did away with this. Probably wasn't profitable enough for the Texans.

Thorn
02-09-2011, 07:07 PM
Then given the choices I would rather have no football in this city.

I couldn't disagree more. But to each his own. Maybe I’m just a masochist, but I’d still rather have an NFL team to follow, even if it’s bad, than to have no team at all. Besides which, if Houston didn't have a team, I probably wouldn't even be watching the NFL. I'm not much of a pro sports fan at all, but I am a Houston fan, if that makes any sense. So if we have a team, I'll watch the NFL. If we don't then I don't care much about a bunch of damn millionaire owners and players wasting my time on Sunday.

JB
02-09-2011, 07:13 PM
I would rather have an owner that's fully committed to bringing a championship caliber team to this city.

If BoB's not this. Then given the choices I would rather have no football in this city. I learned to not miss the Oilers and I could learn not to miss The Texans. If BoB isn't about winning.

See I love football and actually got to a point where I enjoyed watching the best NFL games each Sunday on Direct TV. I no longer do this because I'm at the Reliant during home games.

I bought the Kangaroo TV at the stadium for a few yrs. But the Texans did away with this. Probably wasn't profitable enough for the Texans.

Good reply. I understand where you are coming from. The difference between us is not so much. Only, I tend to look to next year with as much optimism as I can. I try to look on the good side of things because I have seen the bad so much.

I figure that things have to get better, otherwise there is nothing but depression.

I don't expect it to get better, but I can hope it does. I am going to drink the koolaid and wear the glasses. If I don't, I might have to start drinking seriously...

spurstexanstros
02-09-2011, 07:52 PM
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.

yard.. I cant agree more.

Its the winning that seems to elude us...I just wonder how much longer we can continue to say "missed it by that much" being the league's Maxwell Smart is running a bit thin for me.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 08:00 PM
Good reply. I understand where you are coming from. The difference between us is not so much. Only, I tend to look to next year with as much optimism as I can. I try to look on the good side of things because I have seen the bad so much.

I figure that things have to get better, otherwise there is nothing but depression.

I don't expect it to get better, but I can hope it does. I am going to drink the koolaid and wear the glasses. If I don't, I might have to start drinking seriously...

This is going to be the best draft in Texans history. (Not that it would take much.

Garys goings to figure out how to use time outs/challanges better. He's going to figure out that running the ball against the Colts is a good thing.

Wades going to fix the defense in 1 yr and they become a top defense.

Rick is going to have sleep apnea surgery during the weekend of the draft.

BoB's going to hand over the reins to Cal and the Texans are going to get serious about putting a winning product on the field.

Hows that for positive. LOL

JB
02-09-2011, 08:15 PM
This is going to be the best draft in Texans history. (Not that it would take much.

Garys goings to figure out how to use time outs/challanges better. He's going to figure out that running the ball against the Colts is a good thing.

Wades going to fix the defense in 1 yr and they become a top defense.

Rick is going to have sleep apnea surgery during the weekend of the draft.

BoB's going to hand over the reins to Cal and the Texans are going to get serious about putting a winning product on the field.

Hows that for positive. LOL


:lol: I said positive, not delusional

houstonspartan
02-09-2011, 08:30 PM
Sigh. Here we go with the Steelers comparison yet again.

Look, people. Here's the bottom line: The Steelers would have fired Kubiak after year three. Green Bay MIGHT have given him a fourth year.

Get it? Those teams have standards. Fairly high standards at that.

It's ridiculus logic to say we're becoming The Pittsburg Steelers when we have a coach in YEAR SIX with no success at all.

Y-E-A-R S-I-X

Thorn
02-09-2011, 08:36 PM
Sigh. Here we go with the Steelers comparison yet again.

Look, people. Here's the bottom line: The Steelers would have fired Kubiak after year three. Green Bay MIGHT have given him a fourth year.

Get it? Those teams have standards. Fairly high standards at that.

It's ridiculus logic to say we're becoming The Pittsburg Steelers when we have a coach in YEAR SIX with no success at all.

Y-E-A-R S-I-X

Not that I disagree, because I don't, but at this point what does it matter? We have our coaching staff for next year, and to speak that horrible cliché, it is what it is.

steelbtexan
02-09-2011, 08:41 PM
Not that I disagree, because I don't, but at this point what does it matter? We have our coaching staff for next year, and to speak that horrible cliché, it is what it is.

You are correct sir.

Obviously BoB doesn't care what his loyal fan base wants.

We as fans will just have to deal with it. But let the season start out 0-2/1-3 and it's going to be ugly at Reliant.

houstonspartan
02-09-2011, 09:18 PM
Not that I disagree, because I don't, but at this point what does it matter? We have our coaching staff for next year, and to speak that horrible cliché, it is what it is.

No, I agree with you. I was just saying we need to stop with the nonsense that we're becoming the next Steelers. I was saying that, in context, the Steelers would not have given a coach six years to make the playoffs. Most teams wouldn't, and certainly not the Steelers.

Thorn
02-09-2011, 09:26 PM
No, I agree with you. I was just saying we need to stop with the nonsense that we're becoming the next Steelers. I was saying that, in context, the Steelers would not have given a coach six years to make the playoffs. Most teams wouldn't, and certainly not the Steelers.

Well, the thing is, if we do really good next year McNair will look like a genius for all this. I don't think that will happen though. Until we get a REAL head coach, we are in for a long run of Oiler history without the playoffs. I just don't think Bob McNair gets it.

It's a tough job being a Texan fan, but I'm gonna tough it out anyway.

Lucky
02-10-2011, 07:30 AM
Well, the thing is, if we do really good next year McNair will look like a genius for all this.
A genius that takes 10 years to build a winner? No, he'll look more like this guy.

http://derbyimages.woot.com/powoots/Even_a_blind_squirrel_finds_an_acorn_sometimes-i16z86-d.jpg

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 09:39 AM
My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.

I understand this. I agree with this.

However, I don't know why we dwell on this. McNair knows the previous 9 years reflect failure & mediocrity. Many people here for some reason want to believe that was McNair's goal.

It took him 4 years to axe Capers & Casserly. But he did. He made a change. If we're going by W-L record as the measure of success, in Capers first 3 years, the Texans went 4-12, 5-11, then 7-9.

Was that not acceptable for an expansion team? The wheels came off, we went 2-14 the following season. Was it the players? Was it the coach? Being that both the HC & the GM were fired, I believe the conclusion was that it was both. Forget about what they said. McNair's actions clearly states the belief was both.

I'm sure McNair knows the first 4 years were a monumental failure. He made drastic changes.
In the last 5 seasons, we've failed at the most important stat, the W-L. But it hasn't been the complete total failure of the first 4 seasons. So I'm pretty sure McNair doesn't look at it as perpetual mediocrtiy spanning back 9 years. He has, and has had, one of the most prolific offenses in the league...... he's got a QB on the all time stat list. He's got a WR on the all time stat list, he's got a RB on the all time stat list. He's got 5 offensive players that are pro-bowlers. Not "Pro Bowl Caliber" but bona-fide Pro Bowlers. One of which is a pro-bowl MVP. He's got 3 bona-fide defensive pro-bowlers. Worst defense in the league.. but 3 pro bowlers.

I know this post is going to be twisted, as you've surely read what I had to say, and deduced that I (or that I believe McNair) puts all that bullshit above winning. That is not the case.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 09:56 AM
I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.

in 2009, 9-7 was successful for the Ravens, the Jets, & the Steelers.

The best coaches in the league got their teams to 9-7, "success."

Gary Kubiak does the same thing, "mediocre."

Those other coaches get "the benefit of the doubt" because they had been to the play-offs before, or in the case of the Ravens & Jets were going to the play-offs that year.

Those "better" coaches took "better" teams to 9-7 (the 2008 Jets went 9-7, the 2008 Ravens went 11-5, the 2008 Steelers won the Super Bowl) and they were "successful"

Our coach took a team that had never had a winning season, never been in to the play-offs, to 9-7.... didn't even have a running game... but he's a failure.. had a gimpy Center, lost both starting guards & his pro-bowl TE...

Fail.

This doesn't change the fact that I do believe Kubiak should have got us to the play-offs in 2010. 5 years is long enough. It's a shame he wasn't more successful in the 4 prior years, that would have bought him more time in my eyes. It's the bed he made, the bed he has to lie in..... I think he should have been fired after 2010.

Where I differ from the fans who claim that Tomlin, Harbaugh, & Ryan are better coaches than Kubiak, is that I don't consider their 9-7 to be any better than Kubiak's 9-7. 9-7 is 9-7

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:04 AM
Okay, I gotcha'. My speculation would be that it comes down to perspective. Sort like one of those optical illusions where the shade of gray is really the same but looks different if it's surrounded by white or surrounded by black (abstract example, I know).

The Packers went to the post-season 13 times since the '92 season. Perhaps going to playoffs and winning championships makes those 8-8 and 9-7 records bearable? So regardless of an individual season, they have long term hope because they have experienced success. And since '92, the Packers never went beyond two seasons without making the playoffs.

For us, however, those 8-8 / 9-7 records are the peaks. And without any post-season appearances in 9 years, it feels hopeless sometimes.

This makes the most sense concerning the situation.

What I don't understand, is that knowing this, or believing this, how can you be so hard on McNair for making the decision he made?

I understand not agreeing with it. I don't agree with it. But it makes sense to me why McNair would go the route he has. It would make even more sense if he were to replace Rick Smith after the draft. But I just listed our pro-bowl players in an earlier post, so I really don't see that happening either.

slow moving train on the right tracks?

Who knows?

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:16 AM
Making the playoffs and improving as a team every yr while you're building a team would be considered being successful. Rick and Gary have failed in this regard. But BoB still wont admit or pay for his mistake in judgement.

That or making the playoffs once in a decade might be considered a measure of success. You know something the Texans have never achieved under Robert C. McNair leadership.

Detroit went 6-10 in 2010, the Rams went 7-9, & the Oakland Raiders went 8-8. If I were part of those franchises, or simply fans, I would consider those successful years.

San Diego went 9-7. I would consider that a failure.

I think it should be based on expectations. 2007, 2008 the Texans go 8-8. I considered both to be successful years. 2009 9-7, not so much. A good milestone for the franchise, but we were all expecting better than a 9-7 record against our schedule. Getting swept by the Jags.... IMO was unacceptable.

2010 expectations were even higher. I don't think our expectations were misplaced either year. The team didn't live up to expectations.

sandman
02-10-2011, 10:17 AM
9-7 is 9-7

This

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:24 AM
My specific point was that they do not accept perpetual mediocrity.

"Perpetual" is a key word in my point.

For instance, Ray Rhodes was the Packers coach in 1999 for one year. He went 8-8. Did GB accept it? No, they fired him and hired Sherman.

Sherman had five winning seasons (9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6) and then went 4-12. Did they accept it? No, they fired him and hired McCarthy. (BTW, despite receiving a contract extension earlier in the 2005 season, Sherman was fired by the Packers on January 2, 2006, after compiling a 4–12 record — Green Bay's first losing record since the 1991 season.* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman))

Do you honest believe that GB would allow Kubiak to flounder for five seasons without taking action? Historical facts prove otherwise.


This is the difference between McNair's privately owned Texans and the publicly owned Packers.

This is the difference between a 9 year old team & a 30+ year old team.

They did not accept one losing season after 12 years of winning.

Totally different situation that what Bob has on his hands.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:25 AM
If you want to take it a little further even Detroit tends to give coaches less time than Kubiak has enjoyed to put something real on the board. Wayne Fontes and Monty Clark are the only two coaches (I'm betting/guessing) that have lasted five or more years since the merger.

So that tells you that is definitely not the way to build a winning franchise.

Mr teX
02-10-2011, 10:26 AM
I can't find CnD's specific thread/article, but here's one that supports the same premise:

Interesting article, but you'd have to buy into the fact that owners like the rooneys whose main business is the ownership of the steelers are idiots for winning all the time as it doesn't translate to profits & i don't think anyone thinks that. Other than that the article is flawed in so many ways. Never mind where he's getting the numbers from but the main issue with me is its only speaking from a liquid asset point of view & from year to year. Although he acknowledges that winning does correlate with team value at the beginning of the article, he largely ignores this aspect of it when he's making his premise as if you cant quantify team value & as if this team value is really of no value to anyone..again we know this isn't true at least for owners of the team.

It be interesting to see how much more valuable that 49ers dynasty team was in the 80's vs. what tampa was at that same time...i bet it wasn't even close & if Debartolo had chose to sell the 49ers franchise at that time he'd have made out like a bandit.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:30 AM
Not all teams (Texans) some are satisfied with a 9-7 season. In fact 9-7 is celebrated as some kind of an acclomplishment.

Get back to me when the Texans win the 1st big game that matters.

This is the dumbest, goofiest thing I've ever heard on this board.

Every year, you get older..... just like everybody else.... & you still celebrate that don't you.

Get back to me when you do something real, like turn 112.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:34 AM
See I love football and actually got to a point where I enjoyed watching the best NFL games each Sunday on Direct TV. I no longer do this because I'm at the Reliant during home games.


Weren't we just voted as the most exciting team?

If you like watching good football, there's plenty of that at Reliant, especially over the last 4 years. Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to have won more of them, but losing doesn't make it a bad game.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 10:39 AM
It's ridiculus logic to say we're becoming The Pittsburg Steelers when we have a coach in YEAR SIX with no success at all.

Y-E-A-R S-I-X

Look people, it's ridiculous to compare our team with the Steelers. 5 years ago, we had less than nothing. They were taking a play-off breather after their 2005 play-off run.

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 11:16 AM
This is the dumbest, goofiest thing I've ever heard on this board.

Every year, you get older..... just like everybody else.... & you still celebrate that don't you.

Get back to me when you do something real, like turn 112.

BoB appreciates fans like you.

Do you enjoy a team that never has won a big game. Do you enjoy an organization that keeps GM/Coaching staff that fails to meet expectations? But the owner keeps them around anyway?

Under BoB there's no accountability within this organization and the Texans will never win until accountability is the order from the top down. I dont see this happening until a strong personality is hired to run this team. (Parcells,Gruden,Cowher type)

BoB has never hired this type authoritarin leader to run his franchise and I dont see it happening anytime soon.

As far as all of those fancy stats you put up. Theu're great. But they have no substance. The only stat that matters is 9 yrs an 0 playoff appearances. I hate going to games and watching Gary physically tighten up in the 4th qtr of games. I dont belive this is a characteristic of Lombardi,Walsh,Landry,Belichick etc....

Keeping Gary and Rick on has given me very little hope for the Texan next yr. We've seen their act for 5 yrs now. When will their act get old to you?

I dont want exciting games. I want wins and you should too. That's the only criteria that really matters when it comes to being a successful franchise and it's not going to happen until the GREAT FANS of the HOUSTON TEXANS demand that BoB make that priority number 1.

beerlover
02-10-2011, 11:39 AM
sticking with good people & staying the course, then what was Dom Capers?
:vincepalm:

Mr teX
02-10-2011, 11:42 AM
BoB appreciates fans like you.

Do you enjoy a team that never has won a big game. Do you enjoy an organization that keeps GM/Coaching staff that fails to meet expectations? But the owner keeps them around anyway?


Under BoB there's no accountability within this organization and the Texans will never win until accountability is the order from the top down. I dont see this happening until a strong personality is hired to run this team. (Parcells,Gruden,Cowher type)


BoB has never hired this type authoritarin leader to run his franchise and I dont see it happening anytime soon.

As far as all of those fancy stats you put up. Theu're great. But they have no substance. The only stat that matters is 9 yrs an 0 playoff appearances. I hate going to games and watching Gary physically tighten up in the 4th qtr of games. I dont belive this is a characteristic of Lombardi,Walsh,Landry,Belichick etc....

Keeping Gary and Rick on has given me very little hope for the Texan next yr. We've seen their act for 5 yrs now. When will their act get old to you?

I dont want exciting games. I want wins and you should too. That's the only criteria that really matters when it comes to being a successful franchise and it's not going to happen until the GREAT FANS of the HOUSTON TEXANS demand that BoB make that priority number 1.



Fans can demand all they want...still doesn't mean that its going to happen; ask cleveland cavalier, new york knick & now houston rocket fans.

Get over it, Gary's coming back I'm sure wherever you'll be, you'll be front & center tuned in...watching him & the team "tighten up". & if you don't think coaches like belichick, walsh & landry haven't, didn't had their share of :vincepalm: moments..you haven't been watching football too closely.

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 11:43 AM
sticking with good people & staying the course, then what was Dom Capers?
:vincepalm:

Good people doesn't = good results.

Double Barrel
02-10-2011, 12:31 PM
Interesting article, but you'd have to buy into the fact that owners like the rooneys whose main business is the ownership of the steelers are idiots for winning all the time as it doesn't translate to profits & i don't think anyone thinks that. Other than that the article is flawed in so many ways. Never mind where he's getting the numbers from but the main issue with me is its only speaking from a liquid asset point of view & from year to year. Although he acknowledges that winning does correlate with team value at the beginning of the article, he largely ignores this aspect of it when he's making his premise as if you cant quantify team value & as if this team value is really of no value to anyone..again we know this isn't true at least for owners of the team.

It be interesting to see how much more valuable that 49ers dynasty team was in the 80's vs. what tampa was at that same time...i bet it wasn't even close & if Debartolo had chose to sell the 49ers franchise at that time he'd have made out like a bandit.

yeah, I agree that it's an interesting article. I'm not really going to argue for or against it, as it is what it is and one angle of a complex issue.

I guess one aspect that has always made me scratch my head about things is the Houston Texans being ranked as the sixth (?) most valuable sports franchise in the world. This is a team that has accomplished zilch, so it's interesting that they could be both so valuable and profitable.

I don't criticize McNair about the money thing. I think he allows the football people that he's hired to make decisions and he funds them accordingly. There has been rumors about not paying coaches, but I read recently that Wade is the highest paid DC in the NFL, so that kinda' deflates those rumors. Maybe there's something there with scouts and FO personnel, but I have read nothing substantial supporting that premise.

My focus has solely been on the operational aspects of the franchise as it pertains to the product on the field. And for whatever reason(s), his loyalty to Gary seems to be the thing that most do not understand and/or agree with in the end.


9-7 is 9-7
This

On the surface, it's easy to make that assumption.

However, I think you need to dig a little deeper. A nine win season where only one of those wins is a division opponent is much different than a nine win season when four or five of those wins are division opponents.

A 9-7 team who has kept the division in check by consistently beating divisional opponents stands a better chance of winning the division that getting all the wins outside of the division.

So sometimes a deeper analysis is required to see the differences in the same record.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 12:34 PM
BoB appreciates fans like you.

I'm sure he appreciates fans like you as well.

Do you enjoy a team that never has won a big game. Do you enjoy an organization that keeps GM/Coaching staff that fails to meet expectations? But the owner keeps them around anyway?

This has nothing to do with what I said. We were talking about the 9-7 season. The season we finally won more games than we lost. I said it was a milestone, something worth celebrating. Not cause for us to relax our expectations for this team.

Your wife (if you're married) gets a raise, you go out & celebrate. You don't bash her for not getting a promotion.

That's all I said.

Under BoB there's no accountability within this organization and the Texans will never win until accountability is the order from the top down. I dont see this happening until a strong personality is hired to run this team. (Parcells,Gruden,Cowher type)

This is another goofy line that gets repeated around here as if it's fact. You don't know this. Accountability, look it up. It doesn't mean fired. Have you ever missed a goal at your job? Missed a deadline? Come short, just a little? Have you ever been fired for doing such things? Were you given an opportunity to correct your mistakes?

That's accountability.

I've said plenty of times after the 2010 season, I believe Gary should have been fired. That's after failing to meet expectations several times (2008, 2009, 2010), after being given an opportunity to fix whatever his problem may be. McNair didn't do that. But I still don't believe that means there is no accountability. He did fire both Casserly & Capers, this situation must be different. He did fire Frank Bush, Jonny Holland, & David Gibbs...... so there is some accountability somewhere.

BoB has never hired this type authoritarin leader to run his franchise and I dont see it happening anytime soon.

So, it's not like those guys are running away with Super Bowl Championships or anything. Hell, it took Cowher damn near a generation to get there & everyone wants to act like he'll get us there in a season or two.

As far as all of those fancy stats you put up. Theu're great. But they have no substance. The only stat that matters is 9 yrs an 0 playoff appearances. I hate going to games and watching Gary physically tighten up in the 4th qtr of games. I dont belive this is a characteristic of Lombardi,Walsh,Landry,Belichick etc....

Have you been to games to see how Lombardi, Walsh, Landry, Belichick react to the 4th Qtr? Do they roll out a hammock & cold one?

Keeping Gary and Rick on has given me very little hope for the Texan next yr. We've seen their act for 5 yrs now. When will their act get old to you?

I dont want exciting games. I want wins and you should too. That's the only criteria that really matters when it comes to being a successful franchise and it's not going to happen until the GREAT FANS of the HOUSTON TEXANS demand that BoB make that priority number 1.

Who says I don't want wins? The statement I made was in reference to whether the game was good or not. Winning isn't the determining factor for whether a game was good or not. There's usually 15 other games played every week, where I don't care who wins or loses... many of those are good games. Some of them aren't, even though someone did win.

Bob McNair says he wants to win. He says he kept Gary, brought in Wade because he wants us to win next year.

You're saying he is doing it for other reasons.

& you believe I should believe you.

I'm not going to defend McNair's decision to keep Kubiak. I don't agree with keeping both Kubiak & Smith. But it makes sense & I can understand his thinking. Keeping Kubiak & Wade has more probability of winning 10+ games in 2011 as bringing in Cowher/Gruden/whoever. Not what I would have done. Obviously not what you would have done. But just as viable an option as any.

HoustonFrog
02-10-2011, 12:44 PM
in 2009, 9-7 was successful for the Ravens, the Jets, & the Steelers.

The best coaches in the league got their teams to 9-7, "success."

Gary Kubiak does the same thing, "mediocre."

Those other coaches get "the benefit of the doubt" because they had been to the play-offs before, or in the case of the Ravens & Jets were going to the play-offs that year.

Those "better" coaches took "better" teams to 9-7 (the 2008 Jets went 9-7, the 2008 Ravens went 11-5, the 2008 Steelers won the Super Bowl) and they were "successful"

Our coach took a team that had never had a winning season, never been in to the play-offs, to 9-7.... didn't even have a running game... but he's a failure.. had a gimpy Center, lost both starting guards & his pro-bowl TE...

Fail.

This doesn't change the fact that I do believe Kubiak should have got us to the play-offs in 2010. 5 years is long enough. It's a shame he wasn't more successful in the 4 prior years, that would have bought him more time in my eyes. It's the bed he made, the bed he has to lie in..... I think he should have been fired after 2010.

Where I differ from the fans who claim that Tomlin, Harbaugh, & Ryan are better coaches than Kubiak, is that I don't consider their 9-7 to be any better than Kubiak's 9-7. 9-7 is 9-7

Well for one all those coaches are better than Kubiak. Secondly, you are right, 9-7 is 9-7 but it is your teams perception of 9-7 that matters. For all of those teams or coaches they were good before and have been good after 9-7. So sneaking into the playoffs at 9-7 might have been a chump season but in the grand scheme of things it was a blip and they still got to their goal. For Houston 9-7 was the first winning season but considering the other seasons it meant nothing and to many was done while running out 4 meaningless games(just perception). When someone starts 5-7 every year then there isn't much to celebrate about 9-7. Records are the same but yearly expectations are not. I doubt those fans were celebrating 9-7, despite playoffs. They expect more. So do those organizations.

thunderkyss
02-10-2011, 01:30 PM
Well for one all those coaches are better than Kubiak. Secondly, you are right, 9-7 is 9-7 but it is your teams perception of 9-7 that matters.

It's really unfair for you to jump into this debate with this argument. 9-7 is 9-7........ the rest of that is a different argument all together.

infantrycak
02-10-2011, 03:13 PM
Maybe there's something there with scouts and FO personnel, but I have read nothing substantial supporting that premise.

To the contrary, it was reported when Casserly was here that they had the largest (I didn't say most effective, but to the money point) scouting staff in the NFL. Kubiak and Smith decreased the size. McNair seems to follow the advice of this chosen football guys.

On the surface, it's easy to make that assumption.

However, I think you need to dig a little deeper. A nine win season where only one of those wins is a division opponent is much different than a nine win season when four or five of those wins are division opponents.

A 9-7 team who has kept the division in check by consistently beating divisional opponents stands a better chance of winning the division that getting all the wins outside of the division.

So sometimes a deeper analysis is required to see the differences in the same record.

Yes and no. We could have beaten the Jets and lost to the Titans for the same 9-7 record with 0-6 in the division and gone to the playoffs. These scenarios are endless - but I agree you would like to beat your division rivals even if it is just for the hell of it and makes no difference.

I doubt those fans were celebrating 9-7, despite playoffs.

Yeah right the Ravens, Jets and other similarly situated fans weren't celebrating making the playoffs at 9-7 or even the Seahawks at 7-9.

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 03:31 PM
Fans can demand all they want...still doesn't mean that its going to happen; ask cleveland cavalier, new york knick & now houston rocket fans.

Get over it, Gary's coming back I'm sure wherever you'll be, you'll be front & center tuned in...watching him & the team "tighten up". & if you don't think coaches like belichick, walsh & landry haven't, didn't had their share of :vincepalm: moments..you haven't been watching football too closely.

Hope you enjoy the mediocrity

Mr teX
02-10-2011, 03:40 PM
Hope you enjoy the mediocrity

If you're as passionate a fan as you claim, you will too if it comes to pass....

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 03:47 PM
I'm sure he appreciates fans like you as well.

This has nothing to do with what I said. We were talking about the 9-7 season. The season we finally won more games than we lost. I said it was a milestone, something worth celebrating. Not cause for us to relax our expectations for this team.

Your wife (if you're married) gets a raise, you go out & celebrate. You don't bash her for not getting a promotion.

That's all I said.

This is another goofy line that gets repeated around here as if it's fact. You don't know this. Accountability, look it up. It doesn't mean fired. Have you ever missed a goal at your job? Missed a deadline? Come short, just a little? Have you ever been fired for doing such things? Were you given an opportunity to correct your mistakes?

That's accountability.

I've said plenty of times after the 2010 season, I believe Gary should have been fired. That's after failing to meet expectations several times (2008, 2009, 2010), after being given an opportunity to fix whatever his problem may be. McNair didn't do that. But I still don't believe that means there is no accountability. He did fire both Casserly & Capers, this situation must be different. He did fire Frank Bush, Jonny Holland, & David Gibbs...... so there is some accountability somewhere.

So, it's not like those guys are running away with Super Bowl Championships or anything. Hell, it took Cowher damn near a generation to get there & everyone wants to act like he'll get us there in a season or two.

Have you been to games to see how Lombardi, Walsh, Landry, Belichick react to the 4th Qtr? Do they roll out a hammock & cold one?


Who says I don't want wins? The statement I made was in reference to whether the game was good or not. Winning isn't the determining factor for whether a game was good or not. There's usually 15 other games played every week, where I don't care who wins or loses... many of those are good games. Some of them aren't, even though someone did win.

Bob McNair says he wants to win. He says he kept Gary, brought in Wade because he wants us to win next year.

You're saying he is doing it for other reasons.

& you believe I should believe you.

I'm not going to defend McNair's decision to keep Kubiak. I don't agree with keeping both Kubiak & Smith. But it makes sense & I can understand his thinking. Keeping Kubiak & Wade has more probability of winning 10+ games in 2011 as bringing in Cowher/Gruden/whoever. Not what I would have done. Obviously not what you would have done. But just as viable an option as any.

Obviously your mind isn't going to be changed. Houston Texans where mediocrity lives should be the Texans slogan for next yr.

If you want to know more about how the Texans are run. You have to follow the $$$$. Not all of the these are good coaches/bad coaches/stat mongering type stuff.

This is why there is going to be a lockout. IMHO

I actually hope their is one in a way. So BoB will have to open his books and show them to the world. That will never happen. Because if it did teams fans around the NFL would be pissed.

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 03:49 PM
If you're as passionate a fan as you claim, you will too if it comes to pass....

I'm an indifferent fan who hopes tp outlive BoB.

Even though I'm younger BoB's dad is 100. So time may not be on my side.

They say evil people live longer. LOL

Mr teX
02-10-2011, 04:04 PM
Obviously your mind isn't going to be changed. Houston Texans where mediocrity lives should be the Texans slogan for next yr.

If you want to know more about how the Texans are run. You have to follow the $$$$. Not all of the these are good coaches/bad coaches/stat mongering type stuff.

This is why there is going to be a lockout. IMHO

I actually hope their is one in a way. So BoB will have to open his books and show them to the world. That will never happen. Because if it did teams fans around the NFL would be pissed.

Where do you come up with this stuff SBT? It's almost comical at this point...

why are you still here as a fan if you don't have any faith that mcnair will eventually get it right?

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 07:37 PM
Because as Fud has proven as an owner. You can be an ***** and still put a good product on the field. If his heart is in it.

The word Houston on the jersey means more to me. Than McNair owning the team.

The word Houston, period probably means more to me than it does to McNair. My Houston roots run alot deeper than his and probably yours.

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 09:22 PM
Where do you come up with this stuff SBT? It's almost comical at this point...

why are you still here as a fan if you don't have any faith that mcnair will eventually get it right?

What do you find humorous? Any NFL owner opening his books would be humorous. Maybe that's just my sense of humor though.

Your blind faith is very humorous. Your belief that a billionaire that has built the 10th most profitable sports franchise in the world is incapable of having a franchise that cant make the playoffs after a decade of trying. Without him and his policies that he sets for the organization not being the major source of the problem with the product on the field. I find this hilariuosly humorous.

But I'm not going to change your mind. So lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

EllisUnit
02-10-2011, 09:39 PM
What do you find humorous? Any NFL owner opening his books would be humorous. Maybe that's just my sense of humor though.

Your blind faith is very humorous. Your belief that a billionaire that has built the 10th most profitable sports franchise in the world is incapable of having a franchise that cant make the playoffs after a decade of trying. Without him and his policies that he sets for the organization not being the major source of the problem with the product on the field. I find this hilariuosly humorous.

But I'm not going to change your mind. So lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

BLIND FAITH seems to be a common tradition among man kind. Take that into consideration.

steelbtexan
02-10-2011, 09:53 PM
BLIND FAITH seems to be a common tradition among man kind. Take that into consideration.

Cant rep you

Some Mankind/Sunshiners

LOL

EllisUnit
02-10-2011, 09:55 PM
Some Mankind

LOL

Like 95 % world wide. And it is purely blind faith. If its not blind than they have to be on some kind of MEDS. :doot:

steelbtexan
02-11-2011, 11:14 AM
Like 95 % world wide. And it is purely blind faith. If its not blind than they have to be on some kind of MEDS. :doot:

Cant rep you

But that's funny.

EllisUnit
02-11-2011, 01:16 PM
Cant rep you

But that's funny.

wow my rep is 425 i didnt even notice it since like the 200s. I have come along ways since my texans talk is awesome thread haha.