Originally Posted by Kaiser Toro
He doesn't deserve a thing. We have seen how his team performs without the Son of Bum for five years and two games. It ain't pretty.
Well, lets think about this for a moment.
First I want to say that I was on board with firing Gary Kubiak after the 6-10 season & today, I'm in the group that wants him to be a lame duck. But, just to play devil's advocate & some balance to this conversation.
Let's say that the 2009 season was the first season most (of us here) wanted him fired.
To me, it's all about the goals you set & what you've accomplished in light of those goals. 2009, was our "Play-offs or bust" year. So let's say that was the goal. How did we do?
Well, we didn't make the play-offs. Why not? Because the Jets beat us in week one & we failed to win more than 9 games. In a nutshell, that's what it was.
So let's look at the possibility of winning 10 games. That year, our schedule was,
Jets, Tenn, Jacksonville, Oakland, Arizona, Cincinnati, 49ers, Buffalo, Indy, Tenn, Indy, Jacksonville, Seattle, St Louis, Miami, & New England.
Tennessee won the division in 2008 with 13 wins, Indy was second with 12 wins, Jacksonville only won 5 games. So it would have been reasonable to expect a split with Tenn & Indy & a sweep of Jacksonville for 4 wins in the division.
We finished with 1 win inside the division.
Oakland should have been thought of as a W, Cinci, 49ers, Buffalo, Seattle, St Louis, & Miami should have been thought of the same.... that's 7 games. We were perfect against these teams (7-0)
Jets & Arizona should have been thought of as Maybe; we lost both (0-2)
New England should have been a probably won't win. We did.. 1
So realistically, we should have thought we would win 11 to 13 games.
I remember before the season, I said we would win 11-12 games & most of you said I was smoking something. So let's say 10 games should have been the expectation.
We won 9.
So, "realistically" we should have expected 10 wins & a play-off berth.. he missed it by one game & he missed the play-offs by losing to the wrong team (had we won the Jets game & went 0-6 in the division we'd have been in the play-offs).... Is that cause to fire him?
I didn't think so & I don't understand those who said it was....
So anyway, we (McNair, Cal, Rick Smith, & Gary) have a sit down at the end of the season, Gary/Rick blow a lot of smoke Gary gets an extension (is that right? was he extended at the end of the 2009 season?) & we (they) set the goals for the next year.
Let's fast forward to definitely failed against 2010 expectations........ the question is why?
Personally, I think the rookie CB was the biggest reason. Why did that happen? Did Kubiak say Kareem was good enough? Or did Rick Smith fail to get someone who was?
Personally, I think Rick Smith failed & Kubiak had to do what he had to do. Now, how can that abysmal season be credited to one player? I think
the plan was that we were going to play a lot of zone & try to help the rookie. If you've paid attention to anything I've said since then, this team was not built to play zone. Our LB need to be attacking the LOS... our Corners need to be physical at the line & play solid man to man coverage.... Our DL..... need to penetrate. See what we did in 2009, that's what we did. See what wade has done in 2011, that's what we do. See how we give up more yards when we play zone.... check the Colts game.
I think we should have left Kareem on that island, let the rest of the D do what they're good at & make things hard for QBs & RBs... sink or swim.
So..... I credit Rick Smith for not getting a veteran CB.. but who's decision was it to play so much zone coverage? If it wasn't Gary's, it should have been... so I blame him for that.
Is that enough to fire him for? Again, I would have been fine with firing Gary at this time, but would have much preferred to fire Rick Smith & get a real GM who wasn't hand picked by the newbie head coach...
So... why did I write all this?
I have no idea.