PDA

View Full Version : Don't do it Kubiak


The Medic01
12-17-2012, 12:18 AM
Even if we clinch next week you have to get starters 2-3 quarters in the Clots game. You cannot expect a team to sit out two weeks then play against a second round playoff team.

Ryan
12-17-2012, 12:19 AM
2-3 quarters would be excessive i think. 1 quarter to keep them fresh.

GP
12-17-2012, 12:29 AM
LOL.

Of all the things to be worried about. THIS is the thing to worry about?

I mean, let's not worry about how we've got one game to burn and Gary Kubiak has it in him to lose the Vikings game and then we need a win AT the Colts in the final game to win HFA???

Many of you haven't been here for all of Kubiak's tenure as HC. That's becoming very obvious.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 12:31 AM
LOL.

Of all the things to be worried about. THIS is the thing to worry about?

I mean, let's not worry about how we've got one game to burn and Gary Kubiak has it in him to lose the Vikings game and then we need a win AT the Colts in the final game to win HFA???

Many of you haven't been here for all of Kubiak's tenure as HC. That's becoming very obvious.

Dude, it's a freaking message board! If this is what's on his mind then this is what's on his mind. He did throw out the "Even if" at the beginning of his comment. Lighten up homie!

GP
12-17-2012, 12:37 AM
Dude, it's a freaking message board! If this is what's on his mind then this is what's on his mind. He did throw out the "Even if" at the beginning of his comment. Lighten up homie!

Aw geez, I get ran at 10 times harder than what I did to him.

Almost every single thing I post there's people who got their long knives out for me. LOL.

All I'm saying is that we got bigger problems than worrying if we rest our starters too much, too little, or juuuust right in the final game vs. Colts when the FREAKING VIKINGS are going to come into our house and run Adrian Peterson at us for the better part of 60 minutes of game time.

So we've already won the Vikings game now? That's the vibe I get. We got this all sewed up already. Time to worry about two games from now and how we rest our starters!

If people know anything, they know that this is always ALWAYS dangerous ground for Gary Kubiak. He's got a game to burn, in his mind, and that means we're not safe enough to worry about resting players yet. Period.

Sorry I brought proper perspective to the thread. You guys go back to ignoring Gary's track record of ending seasons on a losing skid.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 12:45 AM
Aw geez, I get ran at 10 times harder than what I did to him.

Almost every single thing I post there's people who got their long knives out for me. LOL.

All I'm saying is that we got bigger problems than worrying if we rest our starters too much, too little, or juuuust right in the final game vs. Colts when the FREAKING VIKINGS are going to come into our house and run Adrian Peterson at us for the better part of 60 minutes of game time.

So we've already won the Vikings game now? That's the vibe I get. We got this all sewed up already. Time to worry about two games from now and how we rest our starters!

If people know anything, they know that this is always ALWAYS dangerous ground for Gary Kubiak. He's got a game to burn, in his mind, and that means we're not safe enough to worry about resting players yet. Period.

Sorry I brought proper perspective to the thread. You guys go back to ignoring Gary's track record of ending seasons on a losing skid.

When have the Texans EVER been in this situation in the past? I'll wait..... Kubiak was 5-3 prior the last 2 games of the season from 2007 to 2010 so saying he has a track record of ending seasons on a losing skid is false. Last season we played the last game of the year with Graham and MLB. That says it all with how we played that game.

I doubt the OP is saying we shouldn't be concerned about Minnesota, but if you don't feel like its something we should be concerned about then you know there are plenty of other threads where people are talking about the Minnesota game. That's the great thing about Texans Talk. You don't have to be concerned with something if you choose not to be. Funny how that works huh?

GP
12-17-2012, 12:50 AM
When have the Texans EVER been in this situation in the past? I'll wait..... Kubiak was 5-3 prior the last 2 games of the season from 2007 to 2010 so saying he has a track record of ending seasons on a losing skid is false. Last season we played the last game of the year with Graham and MLB. That says it all with how we played that game.

I doubt the OP is saying we shouldn't be concerned about Minnesota, but if you don't feel like its something we should be concerned about then you know there are plenty of other threads where people are talking about the Minnesota game. That's the great thing about Texans Talk. You don't have to be concerned with something if you choose not to be. Funny how that works huh?

You can't spread out over a 3-year period, 2007 to 2010, and then boldly leave last year's 3-game skid off the stats. Nice try. I can't stand it when people manipulate stats and expect us to not notice the manipulation.

That's bad form. BAD.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 12:54 AM
You can't spread out over a 3-year period, 2007 to 2010, and then boldly leave last year's 3-game skid off the stats. Nice try. I can't stand it when people manipulate stats and expect us to not notice the manipulation.

That's bad form. BAD.

So you want to bring up a 2 game stretch where we played our 3rd string QB one game, and a guy who was scratching his balls watching games most of the season at QB the other game along with every other backup imaginable we could possibly play? Ok, if you want to do that then fine. We're 5-5 the last 2 games of the season in 5 years. Still not a losing track record. So again, what you said was false.

GP
12-17-2012, 12:55 AM
So you want to bring up a 2 game stretch where we played our 3rd string QB one game, and a guy who was scratching his balls watching games most of the season at QB the other game along with every other backup imaginable we could possibly play? Ok, if you want to do that then fine. We're 5-5 the last 2 games of the season in 5 years. Still not a losing track record. So again, what you said was false.

Why did you include 2007 through 2010 but leave off 2011??????

Because it skews your stats. It messes with your argument.

Don't be mad at me, you intentionally left off the most RECENT season and went fishing with three previous seasons because it fits your argument better.

Sad.

ThaShark316
12-17-2012, 12:56 AM
Don't be stunned if week 17 = glorified pre-season game if HOU and IND win in week 16. Especially with Indy MAYBE being on a short week. (Likely scheduled for Saturday vs. the 4th seed)

Dutchrudder
12-17-2012, 12:57 AM
Why did you include 2007 through 2010 but leave off 2011??????

Because it skews your stats. It messes with your argument.

Don't be mad at me, you intentionally left off the most RECENT season and went fishing with three previous seasons because it fits your argument better.

Sad.

Maybe because playing with Jake Delhomme at QB isn't trying to actually win the game?

GP
12-17-2012, 12:57 AM
I don't have time to keep this up.

You messed up and everyone here is shaking their head on it, when they see it, and saying to themselves "Yep. Should've not gone there if you were going to exclude 2011."

You skewed stats. On purpose. It is what it is. I can't even find the energy to argue with you now that I see you're trying to stack the deck on me.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 12:59 AM
Why did you include 2007 through 2010 but leave off 2011??????

Because it skews your stats. It messes with your argument.

Don't be mad at me, you intentionally left off the most RECENT season and went fishing with three previous seasons because it fits your argument better.

Sad.

Would people include Bill Belichick's Cleveland record when it comes to his coaching resume? No, because he was coaching a completely different team with talent that doesn't even come close to comparing to he New England teams.

I'm bringing up the last 5 years because the previous years are irrelevant as was last year because we weren't playing with a full deck. Obviously that's not something you seem to be able to comprehend. But whatever makes you feel good buddy.

Edit: Just looked it up though and he still doesn't have a losing record in the last 2 games during his tenure. So whatever false assumptions you made turned out to be wrong. But why don't you try throwing out some more asinine thoughts out there. It's what you do best.

Scooter
12-17-2012, 01:00 AM
You messed up and everyone here is shaking their head on it, when they see it, and saying to themselves "Yep. Should've not gone there if you were going to exclude 2011."

hardly everyone, i agree with the exclusion.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 01:01 AM
Maybe because playing with Jake Delhomme at QB isn't trying to actually win the game?

You're making too much sense for him to understand.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:02 AM
Maybe because playing with Jake Delhomme at QB isn't trying to actually win the game?

Lost against the Panthers. Who were not exactly burning up the NFL last year.

Lost against the Colts who had Orlovsky as their QB.

Lost against the Titans because we rested starters AND didn't even care to finish the Titans off even though we had chances to put starters back in (though I don't disagree with the move, btw).

3 game skid is a 3 game skid.

So let me see: We've got posters here who say we cannot under ANY freaking circumstances afford to rest starters in the final game--even if we had wrapped up HFA a week prior--because it messes with mojo and momentum and blah-blah-blah...yet look what we did last year! 3 game skid. Plus, playing footsie with the Titans in the final game and we still blew out the Bengals in the first round of the playoffs.

Brilliant.

Meanwhile, there's this little game vs. the Vikings (who must keep winning to secure their own playoff berth, btw) and that's getting virtually no attention. Instead, we're talking about the final game and if we rest starters or not.

I don't trust Gary in this next game to save my life. He's got 1 game to burn, and the whole offense probably lays a turd in this next game because of that mentality. Meanwhile, JJ Watt will continue to beast because JJ Watt does not believe in taking naps.

49ers helped us out in a HUGE way. But we can't drop both games or either Patriots or Denver gets HFA. Trust me, I dream of entering the Colts game with HFA sewn up. I just think people are sleeping on the Vikings. It is most certainly a possibility.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:05 AM
hardly everyone, i agree with the exclusion.

You want to throw out 3 straight losses and say only 2007 through 2010 count?

Uh, OK. :spin:

GP
12-17-2012, 01:07 AM
Would people include Bill Belichick's Cleveland record when it comes to his coaching resume? No, because he was coaching a completely different team with talent that doesn't even come close to comparing to he New England teams.

I'm bringing up the last 5 years because the previous years are irrelevant as was last year because we weren't playing with a full deck. Obviously that's not something you seem to be able to comprehend. But whatever makes you feel good buddy.

Edit: Just looked it up though and he still doesn't have a losing record in the last 2 games during his tenure. So whatever false assumptions you made turned out to be wrong. But why don't you try throwing out some more asinine thoughts out there. It's what you do best.

LOL. You still won't answer why you excluded 2011.

Why did you do it?

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 01:07 AM
You want to throw out 3 straight losses and say only 2007 through 2010 count?

Uh, OK. :spin:

Are you ignoring the fact that I included last season as well and we're still 5-5 in the final 2 games the last 5 years? Not a losing track record genius. In Kubiak's tenure he doesn't have a losing record in the final 2 games so just face it you don't know what you're talking about.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 01:08 AM
LOL. You still won't answer why you excluded 2011.

Why did you do it?

Because we played those games without 2 of our most important players on the team. What is so hard about that for you to understand?

Scooter
12-17-2012, 01:12 AM
how did we get so off topic so quickly?


i mostly agree with the OP, even with the risk of injury it's better to stay focused and get as much game time as possible. the week off is already asking for rust (we're not good after byes if i remember correctly), to sit our starters for 2 weeks would be playoff suicide. i'd have our starters in for at least a half.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:13 AM
2006: 2 wins

2007: 1 win, 1 loss

2008: 1 win, 1 loss

2009: 2 wins

2010: 1 win, 1 loss

2011 (which you won't include, for obvious reasons): 2 losses

7-5 overall in final two games for his tenure here.

Which is why he has the very real potential to find a way to lay down on one of the final two games of the 2012 season. Not even out of trying to, just out of almost inherent history.

Hey, in only TWO of his SIX years here has he finished the last two games without losing one of the final two games. He's only 2-0 in the final two games 33% of the time.

That's 0.333 in baseball terms.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:15 AM
Because we played those games without 2 of our most important players on the team. What is so hard about that for you to understand?

So? We beat a Browns team in one of those last two games that was a laugher of a game against a really REALLY bad Browns team.

You can cherry pick wins and losses? I can too. But I choose not to. I also choose to not leave off an entire season of stats.

Gary Kubiak is only 2-0, in the final two games of a season, 2 out of his 6 seasons here.

How are those odds for THIS year? About 33% chance he wins both games.

But hell, that's with me including 2011. Which doesn't "count."

GP
12-17-2012, 01:17 AM
hardly everyone, i agree with the exclusion.

So you wouldn't be interested in knowing that Kubiak has a 33% chance of winning the last two games of this season based on his prior 6 years here?

It's there in plain stats. He's finished 1-1 four times out of his six years here.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 01:17 AM
2006: 2 wins

2007: 1 win, 1 loss

2008: 1 win, 1 loss

2009: 2 wins

2010: 1 win, 1 loss

2011 (which you won't include, for obvious reasons): 2 losses

7-5 overall in final two games for his tenure here.

Which is why he has the very real potential to find a way to lay down on one of the final two games of the 2012 season. Not even out of trying to, just out of almost inherent history.

Hey, in only TWO of his SIX years here has he finished the last two games without losing one of the final two games. He's only 2-0 in the final two games 33% of the time.

That's 0.333 in baseball terms.

Sorry I brought proper perspective to the thread. You guys go back to ignoring Gary's track record of ending seasons on a losing skid.


This is your quote....... You said he has a track record of ending seasons on a losing skid yet you show stats to reflect otherwise. Genius!

GP
12-17-2012, 01:21 AM
This is your quote....... You said he has a track record of ending games on a losing skid yet you show stats to reflect otherwise. Genius!

Ok, so I was majoring on the minors. I guess this loophole invalidates what I was saying about how the final two games are not exactly "in the bag."

I focused on 2011, which you excluded completely. I guess these are off-setting penalties??? LOL.

Everyone knows the point is this: Kubiak has one game to burn, and history has shown that he goes 1-1 66% of the time out of the 6 years he's been here.

That doesn't inspire confidence, in me, that we ought to be talking about whether we rest starters or not in the Colts game that might actually be more than what people think it will be right now.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 01:24 AM
Ok, so I was majoring on the minors. I guess this loophole invalidates what I was saying about how the final two games are not exactly "in the bag."

I focused on 2011, which you excluded completely. I guess these are off-setting penalties??? LOL.

Everyone knows the point is this: Kubiak has one game to burn, and history has shown that he goes 1-1 66% of the time out of the 6 years he's been here.

That doesn't inspire confidence, in me, that we ought to be talking about whether we rest starters or not in the Colts game that might actually be more than what people think it will be right now.

Ok, by your logic I'm going to focus on Bill Belichick's Cleveland career and say he's a terrible coach even though he had inferior talent. And Michael Jordan was a terrible player because he couldn't make the playoffs in Washington. Gotcha GP, thanks for giving me that knowledge. I'll use that for the rest of my life.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:26 AM
2-0 for two seasons.

1-1 for three seasons.

And 0-2 for one season.

It's a bit worse than the original 33% I stated, actually. I was gifting Kubiak 1 win in the 2011 season and didn't even realize it.

In the spirit of this conversation, let's just let Gary have 1 win in 2011.

Scooter
12-17-2012, 01:27 AM
So you wouldn't be interested in knowing that Kubiak has a 33% chance of winning the last two games of this season based on his prior 6 years here?

It's there in plain stats. He's finished 1-1 four times out of his six years here.

considering we only need 1 win, i'm feeling pretty good about the numbers.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:28 AM
Ok, by your logic I'm going to focus on Bill Belichick's Cleveland career and say he's a terrible coach even though he had inferior talent. And Michael Jordan was a terrible player because he couldn't make the playoffs in Washington. Gotcha GP, thanks for giving me that knowledge. I'll use that for the rest of my life.

Man, now we're into factoring in things that are not even tangible?

Wowzers.

You're using Jordan on a bad Wizards team as an arguing point???

GP
12-17-2012, 01:30 AM
considering we only need 1 win, i'm feeling pretty good about the numbers.

Oh boy, I do NOT want to head into Lucas Oil Stadium needing a win for HFA. No way, sir.

We threw everything at the Colts last year and watched the refs burn JJ Watt on multiple plays at the end of the game to make sure the Colts had a chance to win (which they did).

Based on the shaky performances vs. Packers and Patriots, I don't want to see us need HFA in the last game of the season. ON THE ROAD.

Texn4life
12-17-2012, 01:31 AM
Man, now we're into factoring in things that are not even tangible?

Wowzers.

You're using Jordan on a bad Wizards team as an arguing point???

Lol, are you actually reading what you're typing? So Kubiak coaching a 3rd string 5th round QB without his best WR one game, and a journeyman QB who wasn't even on a roster all year playing with a rag tag bunch of backups shouldn't be considered? Man, GP you're a funny dude. I'm turning in for the night. Continue entertaining yourself though!

Scooter
12-17-2012, 01:35 AM
Oh boy, I do NOT want to head into Lucas Oil Stadium needing a win for HFA. No way, sir.

We threw everything at the Colts last year and watched the refs burn JJ Watt on multiple plays at the end of the game to make sure the Colts had a chance to win (which they did).

Based on the shaky performances vs. Packers and Patriots, I don't want to see us need HFA in the last game of the season. ON THE ROAD.

despite settling for fieldgoals we put a whoopin on the colts. if by some miracle we're unable to fend off christian ponder, i feel very comfortable putting our talent against theirs with home field on the line. besides, by your numbers we're almost guaranteed to win at least 1 of our next 2 games.

Speedy
12-17-2012, 01:36 AM
There's a chance they could play the Colts a 3rd time in a 5 week span. They need to take care of business next week so they don't have to show the Colts anything in week 17, regardless of who plays and for how long.

htownfan32
12-17-2012, 01:39 AM
Lost against the Panthers. Who were not exactly burning up the NFL last year.

Lost against the Colts who had Orlovsky as their QB.

Lost against the Titans because we rested starters AND didn't even care to finish the Titans off even though we had chances to put starters back in (though I don't disagree with the move, btw).

3 game skid is a 3 game skid.

So let me see: We've got posters here who say we cannot under ANY freaking circumstances afford to rest starters in the final game--even if we had wrapped up HFA a week prior--because it messes with mojo and momentum and blah-blah-blah...yet look what we did last year! 3 game skid. Plus, playing footsie with the Titans in the final game and we still blew out the Bengals in the first round of the playoffs.

Brilliant.

Meanwhile, there's this little game vs. the Vikings (who must keep winning to secure their own playoff berth, btw) and that's getting virtually no attention. Instead, we're talking about the final game and if we rest starters or not.

I don't trust Gary in this next game to save my life. He's got 1 game to burn, and the whole offense probably lays a turd in this next game because of that mentality. Meanwhile, JJ Watt will continue to beast because JJ Watt does not believe in taking naps.

49ers helped us out in a HUGE way. But we can't drop both games or either Patriots or Denver gets HFA. Trust me, I dream of entering the Colts game with HFA sewn up. I just think people are sleeping on the Vikings. It is most certainly a possibility.

No, we lost the Colts with the Refs as their QBs.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:55 AM
despite settling for fieldgoals we put a whoopin on the colts. if by some miracle we're unable to fend off christian ponder, i feel very comfortable putting our talent against theirs with home field on the line. besides, by your numbers we're almost guaranteed to win at least 1 of our next 2 games.

Wouldn't you rather us win the first available game, vs, Vikings, if that's the case?

There is a pucker factor of "10" if we lose to the Vikings and have to beat the Colts, on the road, to secure HFA.

I'm counting on you to know that with Houston pro football you don't count anything until it's completely finished.

GP
12-17-2012, 01:57 AM
No, we lost the Colts with the Refs as their QBs.

But that's just it. You can never know what shakes down in a decisive game.

Refs are goofy like that. You see a lot of calls go the way of the home team. Inherently, the refs do NOT want to be boo'd or harassed...which means home teams are going to get some favorable calls.

I'd like to see studies based on refs and how they call games based on home and road games.

Scooter
12-17-2012, 02:14 AM
Wouldn't you rather us win the first available game, vs, Vikings, if that's the case?

There is a pucker factor of "10" if we lose to the Vikings and have to beat the Colts, on the road, to secure HFA.

I'm counting on you to know that with Houston pro football you don't count anything until it's completely finished.

of course, and i'd put the pucker at about 25 on a 1-10 scale, but this is a wholly different team than we're used to BECAUSE of kubiak's "flaws". we've already surpassed the oilers. our run first offense put up as many passing yards in a game as moon's best day in the run and shoot. and if peyton manning cant overcome kubiak's turtle, we're unlikely to see frank reich any time soon (though john elway back in the fold brings back memories that make me twitch).

that being said, we're hosting a second year quarterback with poor judgment and questionable mechanics. our second ranked run defense is going to be on display, hopefully allowing us to stay in our base packages. also, if my fantasy reports through the season against the vikings are accurate, every one of our skill position players are primed for huge games. with homefield on the line, we'd have to play worse than we did against new england to lose. even then, the colts would be in the crosshairs of another bounce back game.

hakuna matata.

DexmanC
12-17-2012, 02:19 AM
Aw geez, I get ran at 10 times harder than what I did to him.

Almost every single thing I post there's people who got their long knives out for me. LOL.

All I'm saying is that we got bigger problems than worrying if we rest our starters too much, too little, or juuuust right in the final game vs. Colts when the FREAKING VIKINGS are going to come into our house and run Adrian Peterson at us for the better part of 60 minutes of game time.

So we've already won the Vikings game now? That's the vibe I get. We got this all sewed up already. Time to worry about two games from now and how we rest our starters!

If people know anything, they know that this is always ALWAYS dangerous ground for Gary Kubiak. He's got a game to burn, in his mind, and that means we're not safe enough to worry about resting players yet. Period.

Sorry I brought proper perspective to the thread. You guys go back to ignoring Gary's track record of ending seasons on a losing skid.

I gotta give GP his propers for saying what I want to say, but have chosen
not to, simply because we hold a 12-2 record. The fact is, we DO have
a weakness at the Head Coach position, and to this point, we have won
IN SPITE of said weakness. That being said...

Keep up the good work, GP. As long as Kubiak is here, the other shoe will
drop or we will win the Superbowl. He just reminds me too damned much
of Jack Pardee. I hope Wade Phillips is our Buddy Ryan, and we get
a championship without wasting our Hall of Fame talent on both sides
of the ball (Watt and Johnson.)

GP
12-17-2012, 02:21 AM
of course, and i'd put the pucker at about 25 on a 1-10 scale, but this is a wholly different team than we're used to BECAUSE of kubiak's "flaws". we've already surpassed the oilers. our run first offense put up as many passing yards in a game as moon's best day in the run and shoot. and if peyton manning cant overcome kubiak's turtle, we're unlikely to see frank reich any time soon (though john elway back in the fold brings back memories that make me twitch).

that being said, we're hosting a second year quarterback with poor judgment and questionable mechanics. our second ranked run defense is going to be on display, hopefully allowing us to stay in our base packages. also, if my fantasy reports through the season against the vikings are accurate, every one of our skill position players are primed for huge games. with homefield on the line, we'd have to play worse than we did against new england to lose. even then, the colts would be in the crosshairs of another bounce back game.

hakuna matata.

Percy Harvin is also NOT a factor, as well.

Do the Texans, led by Kubiak (let's not lose sight of that here), have it in them to sleep on the Vikings, though, and sort of say "Screw it. We can get this done next week vs. Colts"? I say it's possible.

Only AP scares me. As do the Texans when it comes to this sort of thing we're talking about right now. With Yates last year, we had so so so many games to clinch and just get to the playoffs. I feel like HFA is way bigger of a deal, and with Peyton dragging the Broncos to an 11-3 record and with a shot at HFA themselves, well...I'm nervous.

Sure, I completely see the logic behind your reasons. Then I get twitchy on how even the element of logic is often lost when it comes to big moments in sports.

Scooter
12-17-2012, 02:32 AM
Do the Texans, led by Kubiak (let's not lose sight of that here), have it in them to sleep on the Vikings, though, and sort of say "Screw it. We can get this done next week vs. Colts"? I say it's possible.

this is really where we branch off, as i've got (almost) full confidence in kubiak. dude took tj yates to the second round of the playoffs last year and has the best record in football this year. granted, we at times play down to our competition, we will most certainly be trying to secure home field advantage in front of the home crowd. i also dont think kubiak's post-patriots speech has worn off, especially with the lasers coming from his eyes in the second half ... our guys likely still have a bit of monday night redemption on their minds.

thunderkyss
12-17-2012, 04:04 PM
Don't be stunned if week 17 = glorified pre-season game if HOU and IND win in week 16. Especially with Indy MAYBE being on a short week. (Likely scheduled for Saturday vs. the 4th seed)

So what's important? If you're Gary Kubiak, what do you need to see?

For me, it's the run blocking. I think he'll take notes the Vikings game, if everyone is doing what they're supposed to be doing, they'll get to sit early in week 17. But I think Newton & Jones will play longer than most starters. There is a lot of backside stuff they need to work on.

We're a three TE team with only two TEs on the roster. I think we're going to see a lot of them.

I also want to see the LBs play all game. Inside, outside, I don't care if you've got LB in your position, you're playing a lot.

We're a three safety team, with four of them on the roster. I think we see a lot of Glover/Manning with Keo & Demps playing a lot of the game (expect this to be a high scoring game).

I hope we don't see Andre, Arian, or Schaub for more than a series or two.

buddyboy
12-17-2012, 04:25 PM
I gotta give GP his propers for saying what I want to say, but have chosen
not to, simply because we hold a 12-2 record. The fact is, we DO have
a weakness at the Head Coach position, and to this point, we have won
IN SPITE of said weakness. That being said...

Keep up the good work, GP. As long as Kubiak is here, the other shoe will
drop or we will win the Superbowl. He just reminds me too damned much
of Jack Pardee. I hope Wade Phillips is our Buddy Ryan, and we get
a championship without wasting our Hall of Fame talent on both sides
of the ball (Watt and Johnson.)

Holy smokes, someone finally said, what I find to be, a statement that everyone dances around. Do you honestly believe that this 12-2 season is "in spite of". You honestly believe that we'd be 13-1 or 14-0 this season if we did not have Kubiak and we replace him with...????

I have never understood this mentality that the team's successes are on the team (they'd perform the same whoever was head coaching) and the team's failures are on Kubiak (who DOES have shortcomings, everyone does).

BullNation4Life
12-17-2012, 04:26 PM
I am starting to think GP is actually this guy...

http://d0inw0rk.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/randy-quaid-major-league.jpg?w=598

the way he is pissing and moaning....:toropalm:

thunderkyss
12-17-2012, 04:52 PM
Keep up the good work, GP. As long as Kubiak is here, the other shoe will
drop or we will win the Superbowl. He just reminds me too damned much
of Jack Pardee. I hope Wade Phillips is our Buddy Ryan, and we get
a championship without wasting our Hall of Fame talent on both sides
of the ball (Watt and Johnson.)

31 teams do not win the Super Bowl every year.

This team isn't playing well yet we're 12-2 right now.

But if we don't win it this year, it's Kubiak's fault. We're just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I know you're doing a good job, dropping some of your rhetoric because we're 12-2.

But isn't every team waiting for the other shoe to drop? I mean I'm sure Ravens & Falcons fans are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Rey
12-17-2012, 04:59 PM
31 teams do not win the Super Bowl every year.

Are you ok with being one of those 31 teams?

I'm not. At least I'd rather not be.

Being like 31 other teams shouldn't be the goal. Being the one and only team at the top of the hill is what this stuff is all about. That's why I watch. That's what I root for.

I don't think anyone is going to stop being a fan if we don't win it all. But man, I'm not ok with not winning a superbowl. That would suck. Just like it's sucked every other year.

thunderkyss
12-17-2012, 05:00 PM
Just thought I'd throw this out there. It was in the second half of the game, on Indy's second TD drive. Much of that series, I saw Mitchell, Cody, & Crick playing on our defensive line. I've never seen that before.


A three man front has always been Crick plus two of the starters.

Maybe Kubiak is already starting to work in some rest for the players.

thunderkyss
12-17-2012, 05:11 PM
Are you ok with being one of those 31 teams?

I'm not. At least I'd rather not be.

Being like 31 other teams shouldn't be the goal. Being the one and only team at the top of the hill is what this stuff is all about. That's why I watch. That's what I root for.

I don't think anyone is going to stop being a fan if we don't win it all. But man, I'm not ok with not winning a superbowl. That would suck. Just like it's sucked every other year.

That wasn't the point.

I'm talking about this "other shoe to drop" thing we've got going on here. I don't know if Kubiak is a Super Bowl winning coach or not, but I know there isn't anything we can do about that but wait & find out.

You know this team hasn't played good football for quite some time now, but they're winning, doesn't the coach have something to do with that? He may not be getting it done the way we want him to, but he is delivering the results we want. Ws....

I expect a Super Bowl. I won't be happy if we don't win it. But I'm not going to be upset about it until we lose it.

thunderkyss
12-17-2012, 05:14 PM
Another thing Rey,


I'm primarily talking to two people who are upset that we're going to lose the Vikings game.

We haven't played it & there's no reason to believe we're going to lose it other than the fact that Kubiak & Tj Yates didn't win the final two games of last season.

Marcus
12-17-2012, 05:33 PM
Holy smokes, someone finally said, what I find to be, a statement that everyone dances around. Do you honestly believe that this 12-2 season is "in spite of". You honestly believe that we'd be 13-1 or 14-0 this season if we did not have Kubiak and we replace him with...????

I have never understood this mentality that the team's successes are on the team (they'd perform the same whoever was head coaching) and the team's failures are on Kubiak (who DOES have shortcomings, everyone does).

Yeah, this "in spite of" sh!t drives me absolutely f'king nuts.

I have said this before, and I will say it now, and I will continue to say it, because I absolutely believe it. There are people here who actually seriously believe, that if this team wins a Super Bowl, they will say they won it "in spite of Kubiak".

thunderkyss
12-17-2012, 06:56 PM
Yeah, this "in spite of" sh!t drives me absolutely f'king nuts.

I have said this before, and I will say it now, and I will continue to say it, because I absolutely believe it. There are people here who actually seriously believe, that if this team wins a Super Bowl, they will say they won it "in spite of Kubiak".

To be fair, chances are we won't win a Super Bowl this year. That's just reality. Those people will be here to tell you we lost because of Gary. & we might, I don't know.

But hopefully they'll wait till we lose the Super Bowl.

You gotta feel sorry for them. I mean they were quiet & respectful for 6 weeks before they told us, "I told ya so!!" before we got stomped by the Packers. Then they had to wait another 5 weeks to tell us how bad we are & that the Jags exposed us. Then it was another three weeks before they could come back with the, "I told you so!!" when we lost against New England.

This has been a very rough season for them.