Kubiak's future

[El Tejano]

I hate to say it but in this particular case Mcnair should look to see how Bud Adams handled Jeff Fisher's back to back 8-8 teams. He stayed with his man. Now Fisher has the longest current tenure of head coaches and has repeatedly had his teams in the playoffs. Of course going to the Super Bowl after two 8-8 seasons helps alot with that. However, the one smart thing Bud Adams has done was stay with Jeff Fisher.

I see Kubiak doing alot of what Fisher did to become a winner. The players play for him, and he is a players coach that relates well and he doesn't tolerate alot of things either. You can get in his doghouse and find yourself there for a while too.

[GP]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

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.

This is a very interesting point, because it all comes down to the owner at the end of the day.

McNair was a really patient guy waiting for the NFL to get over the pandering of L.A., so there is a case to be made about his patience. Obviously, 2-14 pushed the boundaries, which is to be expected. (Bud = not so patient, as evidenced by his high-tailing it out of town before his lease was even up on the 'dome or he even had a stadium to play in at Tenn, much less his legacy of constantly firing head coaches during the early decades of the Oilers.)

But Kubiak is a different story, because his improvement has been both tangible and intangible. I've been pondering this very subject, and barring a catastrophe in the vein of 2-14, I think he gives Kubiak 6 years to make something happen. I don't think 8-8 for 2009 gets him fired, but it'll definitely cause McNair to get some charcoal. By 2010, it'll be six full seasons, and then McNair will have given it every chance and will be forced to a decision by dwindling sales if we do not see a marked improvement by that point. JMO

[eriadoc]

This entire thread will be pointless after this season. SB in '09!

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

...I think he gives Kubiak 6 years to make something happen. I don't think 8-8 for 2009 gets him fired, but it'll definitely cause McNair to get some charcoal. By 2010, it'll be six full seasons...

2010 will be the Texans head coach's 5th season, and last on his current contract. The question in the thread starter was what has to happen for the head coach to get an extension (after the 2009 season).

The reasoning is that few owners put their head coach in a position to be a lame duck, by coaching on the final year of a contract. Which is why some (like myself) believe that the Texans have to win (and the coach is extended) or he is terminated with 1 year left on his contract.

[ObsiWan]

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.

no argument from me on that point.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

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.

You're right. Bad choice of words there.

You're last paragraph sums up this whole discussion very neatly.

...I hope you're happy.
NOW what will we argue about??

[Norg]

i think consistey can be a good thing look at Pittsburg

our divison


Jags -Stuck with Jack del rio

Colts- had dungy foe years

TItans - they have had fisher since the get go

[awtysst]

Originally Posted by Norg

i think consistey can be a good thing look at Pittsburg

our divison


Jags -Stuck with Jack del rio

Colts- had dungy foe years

TItans - they have had fisher since the get go

Not the same situation. Lets see why:

Pitt: Cowher took them to the playoffs in year 1

Coltsungy took them into the playoffs in year 1

Jags: Del Rio had them in the playoffs in year 3

Titans: Fisher took them in year 5. You could argue some fairly significant circumstances here.

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by Lucky

2010 will be the Texans head coach's 5th season, and last on his current contract. The question in the thread starter was what has to happen for the head coach to get an extension (after the 2009 season).

The reasoning is that few owners put their head coach in a position to be a lame duck, by coaching on the final year of a contract. Which is why some (like myself) believe that the Texans have to win (and the coach is extended) or he is terminated with 1 year left on his contract.

yeah, you're right. My bad, I had a brain fart and was thinking 2005 was Kubiak's first year.

But good points about a lame duck HC. Most owners probably want to seal the deal on a long-term coach, but if that coach is still unproven and struggling after a certain period of time, owners just let go and move on.