Wade IS More Valuable Than Kubiak

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by SW H-TOWN

If you had to pick one I really can't think of a valid argument as to why you would pick Kubiak over Wade. I know, because you could let Wade walk Kubiak could pick the new D coordinator, genius.....

I can understand this.

[gary]

I guess Gary should have forever but other teams will win in the mean time.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by gary

I guess Gary should have forever but other teams will win in the mean time.

It's not Kubiak alone that brought success. It's the combo of Wade and Kubiak. And if I could keep the combo together "forever" (or for at least another 4-5 years) I would.

Another key piece of the puzzle that's being totally ignored in this discussion is the gathering of the right personnel. Show me any team that you think turned around in one year, or even two, and I'll show you where they either already had a decent talent pool (the Steelers when Cowher took over) or had sucked so long they'd been drafting in the top ten for years (Detroit, San Francisco, Tom Landry's early Cowboys).

You cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk purse until you gather up a lotta damn silk.

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

It's not Kubiak alone that brought success. It's the combo of Wade and Kubiak. And if I could keep the combo together "forever" (or for at least another 4-5 years) I would.

Another key piece of the puzzle that's being totally ignored in this discussion is the gathering of the right personnel. Show me any team that you think turned around in one year, or even two, and I'll show you where they either already had a decent talent pool (the Steelers when Cowher took over) or had sucked so long they'd been drafting in the top ten for years (Detroit, San Francisco, Tom Landry's early Cowboys).

You cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk purse until you gather up a lotta damn silk.

Good point. It is not like the Texans' defense is bottom feeding at any position...even w/o Mario

DL- 1st round pick, high dollar free agent and FA who was an original 2nd rounder

LB- 1 st rounder and 3 2nd rounders

CB- high $$ Fa (original 1st), Fa (original 1st) and 1st rounder

S - high $$ Fa and 4th rounder

[Mr teX]

yeah lets see how valuable wade would be if he had to deal with the loss of say..jonathan Joseph for the season & then Allen right after that to where he would've been forced to start Jackson & MCCain at cb (can we say 2010 texans?)
...then say he had to deal with the loss of Cush for another 9 games... & Barwin for 2 early on in the season. Do you think he would've had our defense as good as it is now? likely not. would you still think wade was more valuable then? Probably not.

some of you guys just have no perspective and it only proves what i said months ago.... even if the guy managed to have success, some would still be in here pumping their agenda at the 1st sign of trouble.

[GNTLEWOLF]

What i'm wondering is..."Is the City of houston going to have a Superbowl style parade if the Texans lose their first play-off game?"

[Mr teX]

Originally Posted by gary

DanO beat the Texans so not having Schaub or Leinart is not an excuse to lose.

WTF does that matter? the colts likely were a trainwreck this year regardless of who was under center. Us with Schaub= averaging damn near 30 ppg. without him we're barely cracking 20. that 10pts matters.
besides, it not just that we've lost. How about the missing veteran leadership...you cant just look at things individually when talking about TEAM SUCCESS.

[SW H-TOWN]

I really really like the Kubiak Wade combination. Kubiak is really good with the offense and Wade is really good with the D. As for the comparisons of how each one has dealt with injuries. I would just start the comparison by omitting the quarterback position. It would be unfair to Kubiak because quarterback is by far and away the most important position in football. Lets go, Kubiak lost Dre and Wade lost Mario. Kubiak lost Foster for I think 4 games so Wade tries to even things out by playing #25 half of the time. Kubiak lost Brissel for some games and Wade lost Manning for several games too. I think they have both done a good job dealing with injuries. So why would I pick Wade over Kubiak if I could only pick ONE? To keep it short Wade transformed the ENTIRE DEFENSE from horrible to very very good in one shortened offseason. How long did it take Kubiak to get the run game on track? No axe to grind, just my personal opinion.

[Nitrofish]

Originally Posted by Hookem Horns

I am sure most posters here could take the Texans to 0 playoff appearances in their first 5 seasons without Wade as DC too.



I HIGHLY doubt Kubiak gets hired as anyone's HC without going back to being someone's OC first. TV analyst? Well you have to watch all of the plays (even the crucial ones) to do that.

True, but so could having a reindeer running the team so that seems like a pretty lame argument.

Yes you highly doubt that because you dislike Kubiak. Heck the Patriots liked Haynesworth enough to trade for him, then disliked him and dropped him... many people said he was done, and would never play another down. Guess what... another team picked him up.

The problem here is that you think everyone sees things the way you do, that your opinions are the norm among NFL franchises. I think that is a bit conceited in my view.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

True, but so could having a reindeer running the team so that seems like a pretty lame argument.

Yes you highly doubt that because you dislike Kubiak. Heck the Patriots liked Haynesworth enough to trade for him, then disliked him and dropped him... many people said he was done, and would never play another down. Guess what... another team picked him up.

The problem here is that you think everyone sees things the way you do, that your opinions are the norm among NFL franchises. I think that is a bit conceded in my view.

conceited maybe?

Personally, I think you're in a losing argument with some folks. They'll continue to move the bar. First they weren't happy because we had losing season for the first four years of our existence. Regardless what they say, they blame Kubiak. You cab tell by all the "Ten Years" comments.

In year two, we go 8-8. Big deal, should havE been 8-8 the year before. The Lions went 8-8 last year & they're the next best thing to sliced bread.

So we finally get a winning season. So what, we didn't get to the play-offs. Now we're Division champs, so what, we'll probably be one & done.

If we win the Super Bowl, you'll get the blind pig analogy, and odds that he won't repeat.

[TexansFanatic]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

conceited maybe?

It's time to concede you're conceited.

It's your conceit that keeps you from conceding.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

True, but so could having a reindeer running the team so that seems like a pretty lame argument.

Yes you highly doubt that because you dislike Kubiak. Heck the Patriots liked Haynesworth enough to trade for him, then disliked him and dropped him... many people said he was done, and would never play another down. Guess what... another team picked him up.

The problem here is that you think everyone sees things the way you do, that your opinions are the norm among NFL franchises. I think that is a bit conceded in my view.

I like Gary as a man. But his record says he's an average HC at best. I could care less if everybody sees things the way I do. What I do want is a SB winning HC and I seriously doubt Gary is that guy.

Want to know why I feel this way? 5yrs of medicore football at best and Gary reverting back to his old conservative ways means things probably wont go well in the p[ayoffs this yr.

Gary couldn't even beat a 1 win Colts team without Wade. So just keep your blinders on. What would it take for you to admit Gary isn't a good HC? Notice I didn't say OC. He should be responsible for the whole team being that he's the HC.

But you must have a different definition as to what a HC is. Answer me this what is a HC's responsibilities? My answer is to win games and ultimately a SB

What's yours?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

I like Gary as a man. But his record says he's an average HC at best. I could care less if everybody sees things the way I do. What I do want is a SB winning HC and I seriously doubt Gary is that guy.

Want to know why I feel this way? 5yrs of medicore football at best and Gary reverting back to his old conservative ways means things probably wont go well in the p[ayoffs this yr.

Gary couldn't even beat a 1 win Colts team without Wade. So just keep your blinders on. What would it take for you to admit Gary isn't a good HC? Notice I didn't say OC. He should be responsible for the whole team being that he's the HC.

But you must have a different definition as to what a HC is. Answer me this what is a HC's responsibilities? My answer is to win games and ultimately a SB

What's yours?

I think we have a different definition of mediocre football. 8-8 may be a mediocre record, but I've seen some of the best football being played by the Texans since Kubiak got here.

Championship stuff? Maybe not, but definitely not mediocre.

I really think the thing that has been holding this team back, is that Gary has been more than just a head coach around here. He's rebuilt this organization from top to bottom & I bet if he ever stops coaching the Texans, he'll be awarded some F.O. Position.

I didnt think he was ready for that when he got here, but that is what the Texans needed & I don't think he's done too shabby of a job.

As a head coach, he's still got a lot to work on, I admit that & always have. But I think some ignore what all Gary means to the organization.

[TexansFanatic]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

Personally, I think you're in a losing argument with some folks. They'll continue to move the bar.

I'll admit to moving the bar.

The bar in 2006 was anything better than 2 wins.

In 2006, we got 6 wins.

Fantastic! That's a 4 game improvement. We can build on that.

I'm raising the bar here.

In 2007, we got 8 wins.

That's acceptable. I was hoping for a winning season, but 2 games is definitely an improvement. We can build on that.

I'm raising the bar here.

In 2008, we got 8 wins.

Hmmmm..... Well, it's not a step back, so we'll call it a mulligan. We can build on that.

I guess I'm keeping the bar where it was now.

In 2009, we got 9 wins.

Well, it's definitely a step forward, but I would have thought that in the 4th year we'd have broken through and gone to the playoffs. But....... We can build on that.

I'm raising the bar here.

In 2010, we got 6 wins.

Am I still raising the bar here in expecting more than six wins after the fifth season?

In 2011, with Wade Phillips, a cheesecake schedule and Peyton Manning in a wheelchair, we have 10 wins and our first division championship.

But we just lost to the worst team in the league, so there is nobody realistically expecting anything in the playoffs.

Is this raising the bar?

Nobody has raised the bar to unrealistic expectations.

In 2011 we're finally getting what we should have gotten in 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 2010.

[Nitrofish]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

If the Texans would've won out they would've had at least the #2 seed with the Ravens losing Chargers and a shot at the #1 seed.

This shows your lack of knowledge in playoff seedings.

Hmmmmm..... Let's see if you are right. How many times has a #1 or #2 seed won the Super Bowl in the last 10 years?

I will do all you doubters the favor of having to look it up and list the last 10 SB winners and their playoff seeding.

2010-11 (XLV)
Packers (#6 NFC Seed) **SB Winner
Steelers (#2 AFC Seed)

2009-10 (XLIV)
Colts (#1 AFC Seed)
Saints (#1 NFC Seed) **SB WInner

2008-09 (XLIII)
Steelers (#2 Seed) **SB Winner
Cardinals (#4 Seed)

2007-08 (XLII)
Patriots (#1 AFC Seed)
Giants (#5 NFC Seed) **SB Winner

2006-07 (XLI)
Colts (#3 AFC Seed) **SB Winner
Bears (#1 NFC Seed)

2005-06 (XL)
Seattle (#1 NFC Seed)
Steelers (#6 AFC Team) **SB Winner

2004-05 (XXXIX)
Patriots (#2 AFC Seed) **SB Winner
Eagles (#1 NFC Seed)

2003-04 (XXXVIII)
Panthers (#3 NFC Seed)
Patriots (#1 AFC Seed) **SB Winner

2002 (XXXVII)
Raiders (#1 AFC Seed)
Buccaneers (#2 NFC Seed) **SB Winner

2001 (XXXVI)
Rams (#1 NFC Seed)
Patriots (#1 AFC Seed) **SB Winner

2000 (XXXV)
Ravens (#4 AFC Seed) **SB Winner
Giants (#1 NFC Seed)

Looking at those results I would say it is you who does not understand seeding and what it means to winning the Super Bowl.

Not saying it would not have been nice to be #1 or #2... Just saying it does not hold as much weight as you think it does. That is why they call the playoffs a whole new season. If you make it in.. you have just as much of a chance as anyone else.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by TexansFanatic

I'll admit to moving the bar.
.

The problem isn't in raising the bar itself, it when it is being raised. Before the season started, many here expressed how the would be satisfied with a play-off appearance. When it looked like we were a shoe in, it moved to a play-off win. If we're leading at halftime, I bet half them jokers will raise the bar to a super bowl victory.

[TexansFanatic]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

The problem isn't in raising the bar itself, it when it is being raised. Before the season started, many here expressed how the would be satisfied with a play-off appearance. When it looked like we were a shoe in, it moved to a play-off win. If we're leading at halftime, I bet half them jokers will raise the bar to a super bowl victory.

The more you achieve, the more is expected of you.

One of the hazards of success.

Two solutions:

(1) achieve less

(2) achieve more

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Nitrofish

Hmmmmm..... Let's see if you are right. How many times has a #1 or #2 seed won the Super Bowl in the last 10 years?


Not saying it would not have been nice to be #1 or #2... Just saying it does not hold as much weight as you think it does. That is why they call the playoffs a whole new season. If you make it in.. you have just as much of a chance as anyone else.

I don't know how any one can say, "we should have won out" we're not playing very good football right now & are lucky we won 2 of the last four. We need to get healthy, and we needed to go back to camp & learn how to play all over again.

& it's not just Tj, Our running backs keeps fumbling the ball, special teams have disappeared, & we probably lead the league in penalties over the last four or five weeks.

We'll go deep in the play-offs playing our system, leaning heavily on Arian & the defense. But we've got a lot of little things that need to be fixed.

[GNTLEWOLF]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

The problem isn't in raising the bar itself, it when it is being raised. Before the season started, many here expressed how the would be satisfied with a play-off appearance. When it looked like we were a shoe in, it moved to a play-off win. If we're leading at halftime, I bet half them jokers will raise the bar to a super bowl victory.

Yeah, Well I wasn't one of them....My definition for a satisfying season wasn't that we just showed up to the play-offs and were one and done. I also recall that there were several others who said this was unacceptable to them as well. My definition of success didn't include a single season showin either. It included several years of going with a better than 50/50 record of going deep in the play-offs and winning a few SB's. So no...nothing done this year alone is going to satisfy me, but going deep in the play-offs would be a start.
I said in another post that I haven't commented this year because I was enjoying the run. I have felt no need to be negative. But this thread asks what we really believe, that if Wade is more valuable than Gary, and I along with several others think he is. I hope we win, but I just don't think we have either the horses to pull the wagon, nor the driver who can give what horses we do have the proper instructions to maximize their pull. That is my opinion about Kubiak.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by TexansFanatic

The more you achieve, the more is expected of you.

One of the hazards of success.

Two solutions:

(1) achieve less

(2) achieve more

Again, there is nothing wrong with raising he bar. I never said that. It's raising the bar to make Gary look like a failure.

"Oh, you took a team that has never had a winning season to 8-8 in two years? Nice, but they should have been 10-6"

"Oh, you went 9-7 two years later for your first winning season ever? Big deal, you should have improved your team to 9-7 from 9-7 like Rex did to get his team into the play-offs after inheriting a top 10 defense & rushing attack."

"Oh, you finally won your division after 6 years? Well, you should have finished 13-3"

Heck, people are already wanting to fire him for losing our first play-off game & the season isn't done yet. This from the people who (16 weeks ago) said they would be happy if we make the play-offs as a Wild-Card.