PDA

View Full Version : What is the real reason we kept Kubiak?


nut
03-13-2011, 10:21 PM
I want to get excited about the new season but how is he going to become a different coach in the offseason? I don't see our personnel being good enough to carry him. What was the reasoning behind keeping him? Not just being a jerk, I'd really like to know.

gary
03-13-2011, 10:27 PM
Real reason. Bob not wanting to be on the hook for having to pay two coaches.

IlliniJen
03-13-2011, 10:27 PM
Because he's a really. nice. guy.

That's all I got. I know it's not because of his coaching skills.

TexCanada
03-13-2011, 10:28 PM
I want to get excited about the new season but how is he going to become a different coach in the offseason? I don't see our personnel being good enough to carry him. What was the reasoning behind keeping him? Not just being a jerk, I'd really like to know.

1) Because Bob likes him and wants him to succeed.
2) He is a good O-coordinator, and he now has only that to focus on, as Phillips is now entirely in control of the D.

GP
03-13-2011, 10:31 PM
Oh brother.....

NTSA (Not This **** Again)

The Pencil Neck
03-13-2011, 11:27 PM
I want to get excited about the new season but how is he going to become a different coach in the offseason? I don't see our personnel being good enough to carry him. What was the reasoning behind keeping him? Not just being a jerk, I'd really like to know.

First off, let me say that we should have fired him. And if it had been a regular situation, I think we may have fired him. Personally, I would have fired him.

BUT.

With this owner/player standoff, the teams are probably not going to have as much time to prepare their teams for the coming season as they normally have. Because of that, it's probably better to have some continuity than having to install an entirely new offense and defense like you'd have to do with a total house cleaning.

OTOH, how good is our offense and how bad was our defense? We lost several (5) tight games that we could have won if our defense hadn't been epically bad. Kubiak has shown the ability to build a great offense but he has also shown an inability to build a great defense. The signing of Wade Phillips COULD change that. It MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

I personally think that we immediately have a better defense just with the addition of Wade Phillips even if we don't add any other players to the defense.

IF Wade does significantly improve the defense and IF Kubiak can keep the offense on track... we should be a 10-11 win team. Those are a bunch of IFs and like I said, if it was me, I would have fired Kubiak and this next season be damned.

steelbtexan
03-13-2011, 11:27 PM
And here we go........

LOL

steelbtexan
03-13-2011, 11:29 PM
Real reason. Bob not wanting to be on the hook for having to pay two coaches.

Or this

Big Lou
03-14-2011, 12:08 AM
Because we're on the righ track..........

Just kidding, I always liked Kubiak, and was behind him 100% until like week 12 of this year, and I wanted him to pull it together even then, but felt like he needed to go at that point.

Now I don't know. I want to be behind him, but if he doesn't get it done this year he has to go.

As to your question, the reason he was kept is because the Texans have had a top 5 Offense 3 years running.......

Wolf6151
03-14-2011, 12:21 AM
Real reason. Bob not wanting to be on the hook for having to pay two coaches.

Ding, Ding, Ding we have a winner. This is it. Bob screwed up a year earlier and gave Gary a 3 yr. extension. No matter how bad we are in 2011 I expect that he'll be here in 2012 as well because they can blame a bad season on the 3-4 defense switch/it takes more than 1 yr. to create a great defense, CBA talks and delayed workouts, new personnel coaches and players, etc... Also after next season Gary will only have 1 season left under contract and Bob doesn't want to pay 2 head coaches.

TheMatrix31
03-14-2011, 01:34 AM
First off, let me say that we should have fired him. And if it had been a regular situation, I think we may have fired him. Personally, I would have fired him.

BUT.

With this owner/player standoff, the teams are probably not going to have as much time to prepare their teams for the coming season as they normally have. Because of that, it's probably better to have some continuity than having to install an entirely new offense and defense like you'd have to do with a total house cleaning.

OTOH, how good is our offense and how bad was our defense? We lost several (5) tight games that we could have won if our defense hadn't been epically bad. Kubiak has shown the ability to build a great offense but he has also shown an inability to build a great defense. The signing of Wade Phillips COULD change that. It MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

I personally think that we immediately have a better defense just with the addition of Wade Phillips even if we don't add any other players to the defense.

IF Wade does significantly improve the defense and IF Kubiak can keep the offense on track... we should be a 10-11 win team. Those are a bunch of IFs and like I said, if it was me, I would have fired Kubiak and this next season be damned.

Agreed.

Double Barrel
03-14-2011, 11:42 AM
I want to get excited about the new season but how is he going to become a different coach in the offseason? I don't see our personnel being good enough to carry him. What was the reasoning behind keeping him? Not just being a jerk, I'd really like to know.

"The first thing you have to do is identify the problem. You know, we did not perform the way I thought we should perform. And Iím disappointed by it and Iím upset by it; Iím not happy about it at all. We have to evaluate what we think was the basis for that record. What was the cause of it? And until you properly identify the problem, you canít solve it. And so the first thing you do is identify the problem, and thatís the process that weíre going through, trying to determine where we have fallen short, and then we can look at what the various options are.

ďAnd the options are, quite frankly, you can go in and you can replace all the coaches or you can replace the head coach. Well, when you do that, thatís very traumatic because then they want to come in and they want to replace all the players quite often. Sometimes, they want to replace all the scouts. On the other hand, if thereís a way to solve the problem without it being so traumatic Ė and if you do it in a traumatic fashion, I believe it sets you back two years. So is your situation so bad that you think thereís no other recourse and the only way you can solve it is to tear up your organization and set it back two years? Thatís one consideration. And if thatís what you have to do, then fine, you do it.

ďOn the other hand, if you think you can isolate it and itís not that severe, itís like the guy going into the doctor with a headache. Is he going to give you aspirin or send you in for brain surgery? You have to determine whatís really needed under the circumstances.Ē

~ Bob McNair - January 2, 2011

And there you have it. Replacing the head coach after a mediocre 37-43 record in five seasons is just too traumatic for this owner. And since he believes 6-10 and still playing hard and losing close games in the end "is on the right track" (his words), you can expect more of this stuff in 2011/2012.

After all, 80 games is just not enough to truly evaluate a head coach. :sarcasm:

Doppelganger
03-14-2011, 11:57 AM
The real reason?

How about the 5 real reasons:

1.
http://news-libraries.mit.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/money.jpg

2.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/images/news/photos/badguysphotos/070322money.jpg

3.
http://pinellasnewsboy.com/files/2009/05/money-bags.jpg

4.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/money_wheelbarrow2.jpg

5.
http://www.deviantart.com/download/74073321/The_Money_Bin_by_vikung_fu.jpg

Texecutioner
03-14-2011, 01:13 PM
Texans have had a top 5 Offense 3 years running.......

Why do some of you continue to say this? It's false. If you're looking at NFL rankings as an indicator then you're looking at one of the worst indicators for what the best offense or defense is. We might have been a top offense once since Kubiak's been here, but not more than twice. Kubiak has great players on offense. He's not a great offensive play caller by any means.

HTown2ATX
03-14-2011, 01:17 PM
The real reason?

How about the 5 real reasons:

5.
http://www.deviantart.com/download/74073321/The_Money_Bin_by_vikung_fu.jpg

Is that the old Scrooge McDuck bank from the old cartoon Ducktales?

Used to love that show when I was a kid.

:turtle:

The Pencil Neck
03-14-2011, 03:00 PM
Why do some of you continue to say this? It's false. If you're looking at NFL rankings as an indicator then you're looking at one of the worst indicators for what the best offense or defense is. We might have been a top offense once since Kubiak's been here, but not more than twice. Kubiak has great players on offense. He's not a great offensive play caller by any means.

So what do you want to use as a metric for how good the offense is? How do you want to grade offenses?

We had the leading rusher in the NFL last year and our QB threw over 4000 yards and the year before, our QB threw for the 6th most passing yards in the history of the NFL.

Say what you want, but our offense has been pretty good for the past 3 years.

beerlover
03-14-2011, 03:09 PM
clearly the impending lock-out which should have been our first clue the owners planned this out in advance so Bob knew when he kept Gary all along.

gary
03-14-2011, 03:12 PM
I would hate to see Wade taken out of his role as DC and replaced once again with another DC if Gary does get fired.

infantrycak
03-14-2011, 03:13 PM
So what do you want to use as a metric for how good the offense is? How do you want to grade offenses?

There is no good argument the offense is not good.

Points - 9th
Yards - 3rd
1st downs/game - 2nd
3rd down % - 9th

Doppelganger
03-14-2011, 03:30 PM
Is that the old Scrooge McDuck bank from the old cartoon Ducktales?

Used to love that show when I was a kid.

:turtle:

Yup. Well done! Its the Scrooge McDuck Money Vault. I always thought it was a bit goofy to keep all your money in a massive vault with a bright Dollart sign on the top that is viewable by everyone. I mean he is pretty much saying, yep, here it is, here is all my money!

Plus he had essentially no real security.

But that's how Scrooge rolled I suppose.

Double Barrel
03-14-2011, 04:59 PM
I would hate to see Wade taken out of his role as DC and replaced once again with another DC if Gary does get fired.

Well, these guys are so nice that maybe Wade will be promoted to HC and Kubiak can stay on as the OC. :handshake:

Hervoyel
03-14-2011, 05:48 PM
And here we go........

LOL


I don't even care anymore so I will not be piling on in this thread. I'm at peace with it... in my very comfortable Steeler gear I might add.

Hervoyel
03-14-2011, 05:50 PM
There is no good argument the offense is not good.

Points - 9th
Yards - 3rd
1st downs/game - 2nd
3rd down % - 9th


True. You can make an argument that the offense isn't consistent. You can maybe even make an argument that the offense isn't particularly efficient. Lot of wasted possessions in there at inopportune times.

You can't really say they aren't good though.

bckey
03-14-2011, 10:02 PM
Ding, Ding, Ding we have a winner. This is it. Bob screwed up a year earlier and gave Gary a 3 yr. extension. No matter how bad we are in 2011 I expect that he'll be here in 2012 as well because they can blame a bad season on the 3-4 defense switch/it takes more than 1 yr. to create a great defense, CBA talks and delayed workouts, new personnel coaches and players, etc... Also after next season Gary will only have 1 season left under contract and Bob doesn't want to pay 2 head coaches.

I guess this means you are the one and only fan with the true knowledge of the Texans. Because that is what ding ding ding we have a winner says to the rest of us.

Texan_Bill
03-14-2011, 11:38 PM
http://jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/awjeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

I sooooooo hate the off-season!!! FML! :gun:

HTown2ATX
03-15-2011, 08:24 AM
Yup. Well done! Its the Scrooge McDuck Money Vault. I always thought it was a bit goofy to keep all your money in a massive vault with a bright Dollart sign on the top that is viewable by everyone. I mean he is pretty much saying, yep, here it is, here is all my money!

Plus he had essentially no real security.

But that's how Scrooge rolled I suppose.

Lol.....you just have to watch out for the Beagle Boys...

http://gremlindog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/beagle-boys.bmp

HOU-TEX
03-15-2011, 10:41 AM
http://jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/awjeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

I sooooooo hate the off-season!!! FML! :gun:

Yup! It looks like it's going to be even worse this year. No free agency. No trades. No re-signing players.

Meh, I have plenty to do these days and it's a lot better than waiting on a bunch of needle dicks to come to an agreement on who gets the most money.

steelbtexan
03-15-2011, 10:54 AM
http://jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/awjeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

I sooooooo hate the off-season!!! FML! :gun:


Just think if the Texans put winning 1st we wouldn't have this SOS every offseason.

gary
03-15-2011, 11:28 AM
I guess this means you are the one and only fan with the true knowledge of the Texans. Because that is what ding ding ding we have a winner says to the rest of us.Winner. Charlie Sheen.:fans:

Texecutioner
03-15-2011, 12:25 PM
So what do you want to use as a metric for how good the offense is? How do you want to grade offenses?

That's an easy one. Points. That's what wins games and what loses games. Points per game is what tells how effective your offense was more than anything. I've seen a ton of different defenses or offenses from year to year have great stats in certain categories that can paint a pretty picture, but are meaningless at the end of the day if the offense can't finish the job and score or if the defense can't fend off a team that's marching down the field over and over. The Texans have been up there in yards for the last few years, but under Kubiak they've had more epic fails inside the 20 than I've ever seen with any team. Hell 3 years ago it seemed like Kubiak had no idea on how to get the ball in the end zone, despite the fact that the offense could go up and down the field all day long. Points are what win games though. You've got to be trying to score in two halves and not just one half which a great OC or HC is going to have his players playing on. And you've got to be able to close out games and close out drives. I can't call any coach some great offensive guru that's got great personal to work with, but constantly has the problems that Gary has had over the years.

We had the leading rusher in the NFL last year and our QB threw over 4000 yards and the year before, our QB threw for the 6th most passing yards in the history of the NFL.

The first real season that we had a great running game under Kubiak. That's hardly anything to brag about on his behalf as an offensive guru. And he also benched that leading rusher for an entire season when we needed a RB bad which ultimately kept us out of the playoffs. Schaub is a good QB just like AJ is the best WR in the NFL. Kubiak has great pieces to work with which makes his blunders that much more inexcusable.

Say what you want, but our offense has been pretty good for the past 3 years.

The offense has been pretty good. I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning whether Kubiak is really that great of an offensive coach. I don't think he is. He outsmarts himself to much and simply isn't a closer. He can command an offense with a lot of great pieces and put up shiny stats, but he can't lead a fantastic offense that doesn't have some sort of poor flaw every year that gets in the way of his team making that big jump. They just went 6-10 last season for heaven sake in his 5th season and people act like it was all on the defense. Every year it has been one major flaw that's held this team back that Gary refused to address in the off season and his ineptitude of being able to get his offense to play a full 4 quarters of a game for two straight years is an extreme head scratcher.

gary
03-15-2011, 01:04 PM
I just am not a believer in Kubiak anymore and haven't been for quite awhile now.

Topher
03-15-2011, 01:08 PM
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q276/iancu_popa/SARCASM/1284364103603.jpg

The Pencil Neck
03-15-2011, 04:18 PM
That's an easy one. Points. That's what wins games and what loses games. Points per game is what tells how effective your offense was more than anything.

Unfortunately, points are not a great indicator of how good the offense is.

Why?

Because points includes touchdowns scored by the defense and the special teams. Last year, there were 3 teams that didn't have a special teams or defensive touchdown: Texans, Giants, and Rams.

Points also hides the fact that your defense got a turnover and gave your offense the ball back with a short field. In those cases, the offense doesn't have to work as hard to get points.

Last year, we were #1 in the league with how far our offense moved the ball on a per drive basis. If our defense had gotten our offense the ball more often in better field position, our offense would have scored more. The year before, we were #6 on a per drive basis (but only 2 yards behind the #1 team, the Patriots). 2008, we were #5.

Sure, we've had some years where we had problems getting the ball in the end zone but that was mostly because our running game sucked so bad in the red zone. Last year, we led the league in rushing touchdowns. If we can continue that, offensive scoring won't be a problem.

But the real issue with the team almost always comes back around to the defense. If this offense had the support of a decent defense that didn't give up the length of the field in the last few seconds of the game or forget how to play for 2-3 quarters at a time, we'd be in business.

NBT
03-15-2011, 08:54 PM
I think if Wade makes some sense out of that woe-be-gone defense from last year, and turns them into EVEN a little better than average defense this year; this team will make believers (finally) out of the worst of you doubting Thomas's. Now, if we can just get the player situation settled?

steelbtexan
03-15-2011, 09:29 PM
Because BoB likes seeing his team only play 2 qtrs of football every game.

TheMatrix31
03-16-2011, 04:54 AM
Unfortunately, points are not a great indicator of how good the offense is.

Why?

Because points includes touchdowns scored by the defense and the special teams. Last year, there were 3 teams that didn't have a special teams or defensive touchdown: Texans, Giants, and Rams.

Points also hides the fact that your defense got a turnover and gave your offense the ball back with a short field. In those cases, the offense doesn't have to work as hard to get points.

Last year, we were #1 in the league with how far our offense moved the ball on a per drive basis. If our defense had gotten our offense the ball more often in better field position, our offense would have scored more. The year before, we were #6 on a per drive basis (but only 2 yards behind the #1 team, the Patriots). 2008, we were #5.

Sure, we've had some years where we had problems getting the ball in the end zone but that was mostly because our running game sucked so bad in the red zone. Last year, we led the league in rushing touchdowns. If we can continue that, offensive scoring won't be a problem.

But the real issue with the team almost always comes back around to the defense. If this offense had the support of a decent defense that didn't give up the length of the field in the last few seconds of the game or forget how to play for 2-3 quarters at a time, we'd be in business.

You've been on fire in this thread. Absolute destruction.

HJam72
03-16-2011, 10:39 AM
But, but, we do have a descent defense. :faildetector:

Texecutioner
03-16-2011, 12:21 PM
Unfortunately, points are not a great indicator of how good the offense is.

It's the biggest indicator.



Because points includes touchdowns scored by the defense and the special teams. Last year, there were 3 teams that didn't have a special teams or defensive touchdown: Texans, Giants, and Rams.

You got a link that proves that points per game scored by offensive teams has points scored by their defenses? Are you sure about that?

And even if they were that's still an irrelevant point that doesn't mean anything when it comes to the top offenses around the league. The top offenses every year that are at the top of the points per game charts are always the top offenses around the league. There is no team out there that has a defense scoring so many points that it effects a PPG average to where it puts an offense in the top 5. No defense scores like that.

Points also hides the fact that your defense got a turnover and gave your offense the ball back with a short field. In those cases, the offense doesn't have to work as hard to get points.

Sorry, but this is just weak. Bringing up field position? Every team around the league gets good field position at times during games. That doesn't stop a team from being able to effectively get down the field when they have the ball. Their offense is either clicking or it isn't and it's still about scoring TD's and FG's less frequently. THe Baltimore Ravens have been a FG kicking team for years behind that great field position you want to try and spin this thing with and they were never a great offense because of it. Just about every team in the league that's had a top tier defense that got a ton of TO's and points scored have almost always been teams with either poor offenses or average ones.

Last year, we were #1 in the league with how far our offense moved the ball on a per drive basis. If our defense had gotten our offense the ball more often in better field position, our offense would have scored more. The year before, we were #6 on a per drive basis (but only 2 yards behind the #1 team, the Patriots). 2008, we were #5.

And those stats prove my original point exactly. If you've got a team that can move the ball that well on a per drive basis, it's fairly obvious that there were plenty of RZ failures that stopped your team from scoring points efficiently if the offense was moving efficiently. Whether you get the ball on the other team's 30 yard line or your 30 yard line makes no difference if you can't get the ball in the end zone once you get in scoring position. If you can effectively get to scoring position, THEN YOU HAVE TO SCORE. Your stats prove that the offense already had no problems getting down there, but scoring has always been an issue.

Sure, we've had some years where we had problems getting the ball in the end zone but that was mostly because our running game sucked so bad in the red zone. Last year, we led the league in rushing touchdowns. If we can continue that, offensive scoring won't be a problem.

What makes you think that it will "just get fized" when we're going into year 6 under the same guy who has always had some sort of problem in this offense since he's been here. Every time he fixes one part of it, that next seasons there is something new where people are saying "well if we just fix this going into next season then.........." I'm through with believing something will happen just to be optimistic. I've seen 5 years of fail to have an idea of what we're working with.

But the real issue with the team almost always comes back around to the defense. If this offense had the support of a decent defense that didn't give up the length of the field in the last few seconds of the game or forget how to play for 2-3 quarters at a time, we'd be in business.

More what if's here. In 5 years we haven't seen a good defense here with Kubiak. Just because Wade is here doesn't mean that everything gets fixed. Personally I think he was a bad hire for this team since Kubiak is the HC. Two softies don't work. Wade will improve it some, but the Texans offense will have to be lights out without the blunders and that's not something I can expect if Kubiak runs this offense. Hell, the guy can't even make himself watch all of the plays.

The Pencil Neck
03-16-2011, 01:21 PM
You got a link that proves that points per game scored by offensive teams has points scored by their defenses? Are you sure about that?

Yes.

NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go)


And even if they were that's still an irrelevant point that doesn't mean anything when it comes to the top offenses around the league. The top offenses every year that are at the top of the points per game charts are always the top offenses around the league. There is no team out there that has a defense scoring so many points that it effects a PPG average to where it puts an offense in the top 5. No defense scores like that.

The past two years, the top scoring team had the top scoring defense. The Patriots had 9 ST and Defensive scores and the year before, the Saints had the same. Now, the Patriots scored so much offensively last year that you can remove those 9 TDs and they're still #1. The year before, the Saints would have dropped to about #3.

But last year, if you remove the Falcons ST/Def TDs, they drop from 5th to 12th. If you give US those points, we move up to 5th.

In 2008, the Packers were a top 5 scoring team. If you took out their defensive and special team scores, they drop down to 17th or 18th.

Those scores do count and they do matter.


Sorry, but this is just weak. Bringing up field position? Every team around the league gets good field position at times during games. That doesn't stop a team from being able to effectively get down the field when they have the ball. Their offense is either clicking or it isn't and it's still about scoring TD's and FG's less frequently. THe Baltimore Ravens have been a FG kicking team for years behind that great field position you want to try and spin this thing with and they were never a great offense because of it. Just about every team in the league that's had a top tier defense that got a ton of TO's and points scored have almost always been teams with either poor offenses or average ones.


On average, the leading offenses average about 38 yards per drive. If your defense is giving you the ball at your own 20 every time, then you'll never even get into FG range.

If the Ravens didn't have that great defense, they wouldn't even be getting INTO field goal range. Last year, the Ravens average drive was 29.7 yards. If they get the ball on their 20, they're probably not scoring and probably not even getting into their opponent's territory.

Teams that force more turnovers have a tendency to score more points themselves. The fact that we scored as much as we did with as few turnovers as we got last year is a testament to how good this offense is.

Dutchrudder
03-16-2011, 01:26 PM
Well, ya know, Kubiak is a good kid and all, and we didn't want to cut him before he got a chance to show us his real potential...

HOU-TEX
03-16-2011, 03:14 PM
A few more points to add to what PN has already stated.

- The Texans were 15th in the league in number of offensive plays from scrimmage.

- The Texans were 22nd in the league in offensive time of possession.

- The Texans were still able to put enough points on the board to earn 9th in points scored.

So, what does this tell us? To me, it's obvious our defense was horrible and couldn't get off the field. BTW, our defense was 2nd to last in 1st downs allowed.

SouthSideTexan
03-16-2011, 04:12 PM
I think Kubiak has naked pics of him and threatened to leak them to Deadspin if he couldn't have one last year to proove himself. Just my opinion.....nothing to back it up. :fans:

SteveSlaton20
03-17-2011, 02:25 AM
The real reason why McNair hasn't fired Kubiak yet because McNair loves mediocre.

b0ng
03-17-2011, 02:54 AM
EDIT: Didn't know that ST/Defense scores were calculated in points scored for the offense.

steelbtexan
03-17-2011, 10:54 AM
Because BoB is making his $$$$ and we all know how BoB loves his $$$$.

JB
03-17-2011, 07:25 PM
Because BoB is making his $$$$ and we all know how BoB loves his $$$$.

Do you know anyone that doesn't like making money?

steelbtexan
03-17-2011, 08:43 PM
Do you know anyone that doesn't like making money?

Nope

Just dont try to sell your fan base the we're doing everything we can to be a champion line.

That's laughable at this point and time of the Texans existence.

What he should say to his fanbase is this is a business and being a business we will try to maximize our profits. Oh sure we really want to win. But not at the expense of the bottom line. After all this is a business. Why do you think I fully supported a lockout and am willing to kill football for 1/2 yrs. It's all business and although I have been able to turn a 300 mil investment out of my pocket into 1.2 bil in a decade. It's just not enough of a return on my investment.

The truth may be a little too traumatic for BoB's loyal fanbase though. LOL

GP
03-17-2011, 10:15 PM
Nope

Just dont try to sell your fan base the we're doing everything we can to be a champion line.

That's laughable at this point and time of the Texans existence.

What he should say to his fanbase is this is a business and being a business we will try to maximize our profits. Oh sure we really want to win. But not at the expense of the bottom line. After all this is a business. Why do you think I fully supported a lockout and am willing to kill football for 1/2 yrs. It's all business and although I have been able to turn a 300 mil investment out of my pocket into 1.2 bil in a decade. It's just not enough of a return on my investment.

The truth may be a little too traumatic for BoB's loyal fanbase though. LOL

Time for some comedy...

Hitler Upset With Kubiak (Game 2 vs. Colts in 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc6J-iLnThc)

steelbtexan
03-17-2011, 11:20 PM
Time for some comedy...

Hitler Upset With Kubiak (Game 2 vs. Colts in 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc6J-iLnThc)

LOL

Much appreciated

Laughter is the only thing you can do at this point.