Kubiak's future

[dalemurphy]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

It's the constant excuse that Kubiak fans have tried to make for him for the last few years now. All of those other teams had much better rosters and veteran players and it's always been a bunch of bull. All of those franchises were really really bad just like the Texans were and they bounced back quick. Will they last? Who knows, that's the beauty of the NFL in that different teams can step up from year to year and have success.

I think the biggest thing with Kubiak will be how Schaub plays. That's the biggest thing with a ton of HC's is what QB they strap themselves to. Kubes said that he thought he could win with Carr and that didn't happen. People try saying that he just said that to get the job, but they don't know that was the case at all. Then Kubes went out and had us spend a lot on Schaub who has shown potential here and there, but so far hasn't stayed healthy. So a lot will depend on Schaub and if he can stay healthy this season and how well he can play if he does.

And the defense as well. Kubes wanted Bush to get the job, so the defense will have to have a pretty significant improvement as well. Kubes has had a lot of say so in personal so depending on how a well Schaub plays and how well the defense plays will greatly depend on Kubiak's future this season and how the over all team record ends according to those improvements.

First of all, the 2005 Texans were one of the most talent-depleted team I've seen since the salary cap era began. Second, it was in bad salary cap shape due to overpaid veteran players that stunk like Robaire Smith, Todd Wade, etc... Third, you simply can't compare the quality of a football coach by looking at W/L results in a single season. The team has improved markedly every season. This season should be one to judging Kubiak fairly harshly since he now has his staff in place, his draft picks have become young veterans, and the team now has quality talent and depth. That being said, I don't want the organization to hit the reset button if we go 10-6 and fail to make the playoffs- only because of jealousy that a team in the NFC made the playoffs after a poor season in '08.

That being said, if the defense remains a disaster and Bush proves to be an atrocious DC, and if Kubiak continues to make poor in game decisions regarding challenges, clock management, etc... Then, I'd be interested in a coaching change even if we did limp into the playoffs.

[Texecutioner]

Originally Posted by dalemurphy

First of all, the 2005 Texans were one of the most talent-depleted team I've seen since the salary cap era began. Second, it was in bad salary cap shape due to overpaid veteran players that stunk like Robaire Smith, Todd Wade, etc... Third, you simply can't compare the quality of a football coach by looking at W/L results in a single season. The team has improved markedly every season. This season should be one to judging Kubiak fairly harshly since he now has his staff in place, his draft picks have become young veterans, and the team now has quality talent and depth. That being said, I don't want the organization to hit the reset button if we go 10-6 and fail to make the playoffs- only because of jealousy that a team in the NFC made the playoffs after a poor season in '08.

That being said, if the defense remains a disaster and Bush proves to be an atrocious DC, and if Kubiak continues to make poor in game decisions regarding challenges, clock management, etc... Then, I'd be interested in a coaching change even if we did limp into the playoffs.

My point is that a lot of teams were in similar situations and they bounced back faster. Sure, that isn't the norm for any team that was that bad to bounce back that easy, but teams have done it in recent years. Maybe they didn't sustain that success the previous season, but they did bounce back into being a winning team and then at least a respectable one. I've heard a lot of explanations for it that didn't carry that much water. The Saints and the Jets were pretty much in the same type of situation and had a coaching change and both went to the post season the very next year. Different situations of course, but it did happen. I thought Kubiak's approach that entire season was just to evaluate instead of trying to win games and go all out. I hated that freaking season.

Like I said though, Kubiak's biggest factor this season to me will be on what Schaub does. Schaub is the QB that he convinced management to give up a lot for and he was unproven and still is to some degree. If Schaub goes down again, then it won't look good for Kubiak at all. If Schaub stays healthy but just has a sub par season, then it still won't look good. Schaub has the play makers on offense to hand the ball of to and to throw the ball to, and he'll have a pretty good O line to block for him, so he'll have no excuses not to have a successful season if he stays healthy.

Then secondly Kubiak got the guy he wanted to run the defense, so he'll have to live with how that defense goes and how well it improves or doesn't improve. The team drafted a lot of pieces to help out on defense and now they'll have a new scheme that is supposed to be a lot more aggressive than what we've seen in the past, so there should be a significant improvement.

Those are the biggest two things that will effect Kubiak's future here next season.

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by gtexan02

My guess is if we win more 7 or more games, he stays. If we have a major regression and go 6-10 or worse, he might be fired. Only way he definitely gets fired, knowing McNair, is if we completely tank and end up 4-12 or something awful like that

This is how I see it, as well. I do not perceive Mr. McNair being prone to high turnover, and 2-14 just forced his hand. I think if Capers had went 5-11 that year he would have gotten a fourth season to turn it around. I think Kubiak will have to suffer a major meltdown of a season to get fired by this owner...at least at this point in time. JMO

Originally Posted by Vinny

how many of them have four or five consecutive non-winning, non-playoff seasons?

ouch! Man, it's a fact you know, but it just hurts reading it. It been waaaay too long since this town had a winning football team.

[TEXANRED]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

ouch! Man, it's a fact you know, but it just hurts reading it. It been waaaay too long since this town had a winning football team.

Approx 6pm on Jan 9, 1994. That makes it four thousand seven hundred thirty five days 11 hours 54 minutes and still going.

But who is counting?

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

My point is that a lot of teams were in similar situations and they bounced back faster.

I'm about to say something I don't have facts for BUT I'll research it later tonight and try to see if I'm right.

Occasionally a team will bounce back faster than we did but most teams don't. My feeling is that most teams change coaches and end up with the same or a worse record the next year. Occasionally you have one that's better by more than 2 games in the W column, and rarely you have won that's MARKEDLY better (over 5 games in the W column). I think last year was odd because we had a couple of HUGE turnarounds. But I think that's an oddity.

And I think, but again no proof, that most dynasties didn't turn around immediately. Sometimes they got worse before getting better.

For me, Kubiak has drastically improved this team. As drastic as Sparano/Parcells last year with the Dolphins? No. As drastic as Mike Smith with the Falcons? No. But still pretty damned good. And I'm hoping that Kubiak is building something that's going to remain good for a long time. But just because he had two 8-8 years in a row... I mean... I wouldn't fire a guy for that even if I had a tradition of winning. That looks like a classic over-reaction to me. This team has a tradition of losing and those back-to-back .500 seasons should be freaking cherished and nurtured and hopefully great things will grow from them. I can't see how you can look at the two best years of our team's existence and then fire someone for doing the best we've ever had. That's like firing Bum because he couldn't get past the Steelers.

[GP]

Originally Posted by RagingBull

All the fans on the Broncos message boards are waiting for McDaniels to fail and then they all want to hire Kubes.

And that might end up happening if the Texans somehow decline to retain Kubiak past 2010. Things would have to go badly for McDaniels AND for Kubiak for the 09 and 10 season(s).

But if the cards play out that way, that's a no-brainer for Bowlen. And Shanny Jr. will be right there as the OC.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

I'm about to say something I don't have facts for BUT I'll research it later tonight and try to see if I'm right.

Occasionally a team will bounce back faster than we did but most teams don't. My feeling is that most teams change coaches and end up with the same or a worse record the next year. Occasionally you have one that's better by more than 2 games in the W column, and rarely you have won that's MARKEDLY better (over 5 games in the W column). I think last year was odd because we had a couple of HUGE turnarounds. But I think that's an oddity.

And I think, but again no proof, that most dynasties didn't turn around immediately. Sometimes they got worse before getting better.

For me, Kubiak has drastically improved this team. As drastic as Sparano/Parcells last year with the Dolphins? No. As drastic as Mike Smith with the Falcons? No. But still pretty damned good. And I'm hoping that Kubiak is building something that's going to remain good for a long time. But just because he had two 8-8 years in a row... I mean... I wouldn't fire a guy for that even if I had a tradition of winning. That looks like a classic over-reaction to me. This team has a tradition of losing and those back-to-back .500 seasons should be freaking cherished and nurtured and hopefully great things will grow from them. I can't see how you can look at the two best years of our team's existence and then fire someone for doing the best we've ever had. That's like firing Bum because he couldn't get past the Steelers.

Spot ON

[kcdoubleeagle]

Kubiak's Future.......Long term contract extension after the Houston Texans win the 2010 Super Bowl!!!!.......................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................God I hate the offseason.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

I'm about to say something I don't have facts for BUT I'll research it later tonight and try to see if I'm right.

Occasionally a team will bounce back faster than we did but most teams don't. My feeling is that most teams change coaches and end up with the same or a worse record the next year. Occasionally you have one that's better by more than 2 games in the W column, and rarely you have won that's MARKEDLY better (over 5 games in the W column). I think last year was odd because we had a couple of HUGE turnarounds. But I think that's an oddity.

And I think, but again no proof, that most dynasties didn't turn around immediately. Sometimes they got worse before getting better.

For me, Kubiak has drastically improved this team. As drastic as Sparano/Parcells last year with the Dolphins? No. As drastic as Mike Smith with the Falcons? No. But still pretty damned good. And I'm hoping that Kubiak is building something that's going to remain good for a long time. But just because he had two 8-8 years in a row... I mean... I wouldn't fire a guy for that even if I had a tradition of winning. That looks like a classic over-reaction to me. This team has a tradition of losing and those back-to-back .500 seasons should be freaking cherished and nurtured and hopefully great things will grow from them. I can't see how you can look at the two best years of our team's existence and then fire someone for doing the best we've ever had. That's like firing Bum because he couldn't get past the Steelers.

Rep!
I started doing the research you're speaking of and soon realized it would be a big job and probably wouldn't change the minds of those who want Kubiak's head because he hasn't pulled the kind of rabbit out of the hat that Mike Smith, Sparano/Parcells, and Jim Harbaugh did last year.

I did find out that when Fisher first took over the Oilers/Titans he had five non-winning seasons (1994-1998) in a row - the last three being 8-8 seasons. Even Bud knew not to screw with the turnaround that was in progress. I'd hate to think that Bob McNair is less patient than Bud.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

I'm about to say something I don't have facts for BUT I'll research it later tonight and try to see if I'm right.

Since 1990, if you've got X number of wins in a season and change your coach, the average change in the number of wins.

1 - 7.25 (4 times)
2 - 3.67 (6 times)
3 - 3.30 (13 times)
4 - 3.11 (18 times)
5 - 2.38 (13 times)
6 - 0.85 (15 times)
7 - -0.62 (12 times)
8 - -0.85 (13 times)
9 - -0.30 (12 times)
10 - -0.75 (4 times)
11 - -2.00 (2 times)
12 - -1.77 (2 times)
13 - -4.00 (2 times)
14 - -3.00 (1 time)

For an 8 win team, the best that's happened was in 1992 when the Vikings went from a 8 win team to an 11 win team with the change of Coach (Dennis Green with Brian Billick and Tony Dungy, iirc). The worst was the Bills in 2001 when they went from a 8 win team to a 3 win team when they fired Wade Phillips and went to Gregg Williams.

I think it's interesting that if you've got more than 5 wins and change your coach, you usually do worse the next year. That's not saying that the change isn't eventually for the best (for example, the Rams with Vermiel).

I've actually got something else I want to do with these numbers but it's got to wait until later.

[krocket]

A lot depends on what the new coach gets to start with. I would venture that most good new coaches would at least stay at 8-8 with the team that Kubiak leaves them. On the other hand I am not sure those coaches listed above would not have had any more success with the team that Kubiak inherited. Good players make a lot of good coaches. IMO the first 8-8 season was an aberation (luck) but last year I believe we were a legitimate 8-8 or better team. This year 10-6 is a reasonable goal if Schaub can stay healthy.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

Since 1990, if you've got X number of wins in a season and change your coach, the average change in the number of wins.

1 - 7.25 (4 times)
2 - 3.67 (6 times)
3 - 3.30 (13 times)
4 - 3.11 (18 times)
5 - 2.38 (13 times)
6 - 0.85 (15 times)
7 - -0.62 (12 times)
8 - -0.85 (13 times)
9 - -0.30 (12 times)
10 - -0.75 (4 times)
11 - -2.00 (2 times)
12 - -1.77 (2 times)
13 - -4.00 (2 times)
14 - -3.00 (1 time)

For an 8 win team, the best that's happened was in 1992 when the Vikings went from a 8 win team to an 11 win team with the change of Coach (Dennis Green with Brian Billick and Tony Dungy, iirc). The worst was the Bills in 2001 when they went from a 8 win team to a 3 win team when they fired Wade Phillips and went to Gregg Williams.

I think it's interesting that if you've got more than 5 wins and change your coach, you usually do worse the next year. That's not saying that the change isn't eventually for the best (for example, the Rams with Vermiel).

I've actually got something else I want to do with these numbers but it's got to wait until later.

So what I take away from this is that if you're 8-8 team (+/- 1 win) changing coaches has rarely resulted in immediate improvement. The better payoff is when you're down in 4 win or less territory - no where to go but up I suppose.

And as a matter of clarification, Dennis Green went 11-5 when he took over the 7-9 Vikings for Jerry Burns in 1992.

And for you Bill Cowher fans, he went 11-5 his first year (1992) after taking over for Chuck Knoll who'd gone 7-9 the year before. Of course, Chuck's Steelers had won the division title the previous year (1990) so its not like Cowher had to rebuild a totally sucky team.

[Runner]

These numbers also indicate Kubiak's first year success was ... average. Interesting.

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by m5kwatts

-If our offense puts up big numbers and were scoring 27-30 points a game like were very well capable of doing

-If the AFC is really really competitive and other 9 or 10 win teams miss the playoffs too

-If we're so rattled with injuries and I mean big ones to key guys and we still manage to win 9

I woke up a couple of years ago and the word "great" had transferred to meaning what used to mean pretty good to good. In other words, overcoming injury and tough division to have a winning record is a good job (more than enough to keep Kubiak's job). I am not Super bowl or bust guy, but not making the playoffs can never be classified a great year..i.e. the Texans have yet to have a great year as an organization.

[HOU-TEX]

I like Kubiak

[Hervoyel]

8 or more wins with the team playing hard for him the entire way will get Kubiak an extension. Obviously everyone would rather see them win 11-12 games but unless we see a collapse of some sort I don't think Bob lets Kubiak go. He's committed to "The Plan (TM)".

I do genuinely believe that if Bob McNair keeps him with an 8-8 record in 2009 then Kubiak needs 10-11 wins in 2010 or he's done regardless of how many years he's got on his contract at that point. McNair will be expecting Jeff Fisher like results in the win column at that point and if the Texans don't give Kubiak the kind of record and effort that McNair thinks he's paid for then it will be rebuilding time.

[Runner]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

I woke up a couple of years ago and the word "great" had transferred to meaning what used to mean pretty good to good. In other words, overcoming injury and tough division to have a winning record is a good job (more than enough to keep Kubiak's job). I am not Super bowl or bust guy, but not making the playoffs can never be classified a great year..i.e. the Texans have yet to have a great year as an organization.

Great post.

[Malloy]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

I woke up a couple of years ago and the word "great" had transferred to meaning what used to mean pretty good to good. In other words, overcoming injury and tough division to have a winning record is a good job (more than enough to keep Kubiak's job). I am not Super bowl or bust guy, but not making the playoffs can never be classified a great year..i.e. the Texans have yet to have a great year as an organization.

Spot on!

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

So what I take away from this is that if you're 8-8 team (+/- 1 win) changing coaches has rarely resulted in immediate improvement. The better payoff is when you're down in 4 win or less territory - no where to go but up I suppose.

And as a matter of clarification, Dennis Green went 11-5 when he took over the 7-9 Vikings for Jerry Burns in 1992.

And for you Bill Cowher fans, he went 11-5 his first year (1992) after taking over for Chuck Knoll who'd gone 7-9 the year before. Of course, Chuck's Steelers had won the division title the previous year (1990) so its not like Cowher had to rebuild a totally sucky team.

I wouldn't say "rarely".

You've got 5 positive changes, 1 no change, and 7 negative changes. Three of the positive changes were just getting a 1 game improvement (and then Green with 3 and Tomlin with 2). The negatives were more negative: 2 teams dropped 1 game back, 1 team dropped 2, 2 teams dropped 3, then 1 team each had 4 and 5 less wins. So, if you do make an improvement, it's probably only a game but if you make it worse, you're probably going to drop 3 from your win total.

So there's not a lot of bang for your buck firing an 8-8 coach. You've got to make sure you've got the right guy lined up to take his place if you're going to do it. Now, if he has a year of <=6 wins, go for it.

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by Runner

Great post.