Well..........At Least We Look Good in Practice

[CloakNNNdagger]

Smith shakes his head now when he thinks back to his freshman season here.

"I got the job in June, so it was at a minicamp, and I was standing out on the field with (owner Bob) McNair, and I said, 'A year from now, we're going to be a better team. Two years from now, we'll be even better. But in three or four years, we'll walk out on this field, and I'll be able show you what an NFL team looks like and how they function,' " Smith said. "I feel like we're that functioning NFL team now. We look like a good football team."

Relax. Looks can't prove to be deceiving until the regular season begins, so aside from injuries don't put too much into what happens in the desert tonight when the Texans play their first preseason game at Arizona.

You can look at this as 1) HOPEFUL, 2) "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME," 3) "HERE WE GO AGAIN" or 4) "WHAT EXCUSE WILL IT BE THIS YEAR?"

I choose as any good Texans fan #1 HOPEFUL.........but I'm keeping all options open...........which also evidently can make for a good Texans fan.

LINK

[Hardcore Texan]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

You can look at this as 1) HOPEFUL, 2) "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME," 3) "HERE WE GO AGAIN" or 4) "WHAT EXCUSE WILL IT BE THIS YEAR?"

I choose as any good Texans fan #1 HOPEFUL.........but I'm keeping all options open...........which also evidently can make for a good Texans fan.

LINK

I'll take #1 and #2! This is our year. Go TEXANS!

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

You can look at this as 1) HOPEFUL, 2) "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME," 3) "HERE WE GO AGAIN" or 4) "WHAT EXCUSE WILL IT BE THIS YEAR?"

I choose as any good Texans fan #1 HOPEFUL.........but I'm keeping all options open...........which also evidently can make for a good Texans fan.

LINK

I look at this as confirmation of what a lot of posters on this board has been saying. If Rick is saying he told the boss three or four years since he got here... then I don't believe Kubiak's job was ever in jeopardy last season, I don't care what they've put out to the media since then.

Extending Gary's contract to me, is like saying, "Okay, you got us where you said you would get us. Building a team (and an organization if you think about it). With the new contract, you've got to take that team to the Super Bowl and bring home a trophy."

I know the argument, that teams go from the bottom to the top all the time. While I don't deny that, I think a lot of people forget about what happened in the years prior to that team "making it."

Jim Haslett built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go any where.

Denny Green built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go anywhere.

Miami was building talent, just had no stability at the HC position.

Atlanta was built very well by Jim Mora, he just let it get out of Control.

Dallas was built very well with Parcells, he just had enough of Big D.

Washington IMHO is the only team I think that has a shot at the play-offs of the bottom 5 teams, because they have been consistently building a good team over the last 4 years. I think the coaching change was premature.

St. Louis has been stockpiling talent, and killing Stephen Jackson, so I can see them doing something, but it seems like they are going back to the drawing board and going in another direction.

Oakland will be a team next year or the year after, if they can keep Cable.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

I look at this as confirmation of what a lot of posters on this board has been saying. If Rick is saying he told the boss three or four years since he got here... then I don't believe Kubiak's job was ever in jeopardy last season, I don't care what they've put out to the media since then.

Extending Gary's contract to me, is like saying, "Okay, you got us where you said you would get us. Building a team (and an organization if you think about it). With the new contract, you've got to take that team to the Super Bowl and bring home a trophy."

I know the argument, that teams go from the bottom to the top all the time. While I don't deny that, I think a lot of people forget about what happened in the years prior to that team "making it."

Jim Haslett built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go any where.

Denny Green built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go anywhere.

Miami was building talent, just had no stability at the HC position.

Atlanta was built very well by Jim Mora, he just let it get out of Control.

Dallas was built very well with Parcells, he just had enough of Big D.

Washington IMHO is the only team I think that has a shot at the play-offs of the bottom 5 teams, because they have been consistently building a good team over the last 4 years. I think the coaching change was premature.

St. Louis has been stockpiling talent, and killing Stephen Jackson, so I can see them doing something, but it seems like they are going back to the drawing board and going in another direction.

Oakland will be a team next year or the year after, if they can keep Cable.

I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

If Kubiak had the 2004 roster when he got here, perhaps I could agree with that statement. But Casserly dumped the leaders from that team and it showed the very next season. So I think he started with a less capable set of players than Capers started with.

Back to topic: Put me down for large order of #1 with a little of #2 on the side.
And as for #4, no excuse short of losing A.J. and Matt Schaub will be acceptable for finishing worse than 9-7.

[steelbtexan]

Hope for No.1

Realistically No.4

Smith was towing the company. As he has done the past 2 yrs.

Make the playoffs Smithiak before you guys start patting each other on the backs for a job well done.

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

Nothing big, but Capers actually helped "build" Carolina, not Jacksonville.

As for me, I choose option 1. Actually, option 1 should be changed to "Hopeful but skeptical". That is where I fit in.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Originally Posted by Ckw5814

Nothing big, but Capers actually helped "build" Carolina, not Jacksonville.

As for me, I choose option 1. Actually, option 1 should be changed to "Hopeful but skeptical". That is where I fit in.

My bad..........fingers sometimes get ahead of cranial capacity.

"Hopeful but skeptical" describes where I am........definitely a necessary category.

[eriadoc]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

I see what you're saying. We've already had an early experience of a HC (Capers) that had a history of being able to help "build" an organization(Jacksonville) , but couldn't bring the Texans to the "next level." But Kubiak arguably had a higher base to work off of and we are not really sure if we see the "next level" after an even longer reign.

People don't like to hear this, or consider this, but Kubiak basically had an expansion team. How many players from that 2005 team he inherited are even in the NFL anymore, much less on the Texans? How many were even in the NFL in 2007, just two years later? Not that many. The '05 team did not have much NFL talent.

That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

My bad..........fingers sometimes get ahead of cranial capacity.

Must spread rep.

No biggie. You were not totally incorrect as Capers was an assistant for Jacksonville for a year or two. He actually came to the Texans from Jacksonville, so that may be why you were thinking it was Jacksonville that he "built".

That being said, and I'm sure you would agree since you had it in quotes, Capers had little to nothing to do with the success of that team. Great moves by the GM are the reason for that. Capers did exactly with Carolina what he did with the Texans. He makes you think the team is getting better and improving, then all of a sudden pulls a 2-14 or 4-12 season out of his butt. Just an abysmal coach. Not a bad coordinator, but a terrible head coach.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by eriadoc

People don't like to hear this, or consider this, but Kubiak basically had an expansion team. How many players from that 2005 team he inherited are even in the NFL anymore, much less on the Texans? How many were even in the NFL in 2007, just two years later? Not that many. The '05 team did not have much NFL talent.

That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.

Totally agree. The 2004 team was better than the '05 team. Both were cursed with HWWNBN who had the owner's blessing.

It could be worse. We could be Lions fans. How long have they been waiting?

[houstonspartan]

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

I look at this as confirmation of what a lot of posters on this board has been saying. If Rick is saying he told the boss three or four years since he got here... then I don't believe Kubiak's job was ever in jeopardy last season, I don't care what they've put out to the media since then.

Extending Gary's contract to me, is like saying, "Okay, you got us where you said you would get us. Building a team (and an organization if you think about it). With the new contract, you've got to take that team to the Super Bowl and bring home a trophy."

I know the argument, that teams go from the bottom to the top all the time. While I don't deny that, I think a lot of people forget about what happened in the years prior to that team "making it."

Jim Haslett built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go any where.

Denny Green built a very good talented team, just couldn't get it to go anywhere.

Miami was building talent, just had no stability at the HC position.

Atlanta was built very well by Jim Mora, he just let it get out of Control.

Dallas was built very well with Parcells, he just had enough of Big D.

Washington IMHO is the only team I think that has a shot at the play-offs of the bottom 5 teams, because they have been consistently building a good team over the last 4 years. I think the coaching change was premature.

St. Louis has been stockpiling talent, and killing Stephen Jackson, so I can see them doing something, but it seems like they are going back to the drawing board and going in another direction.

Oakland will be a team next year or the year after, if they can keep Cable.

Come on. The Saints were a mess. And, they had to deal with the destruction of their entire city, and they still managed to stay focused and eventually get to the Super Bowl. We are STILL using Hurricane Ike as an excuse.

Also, we could eventually say "Gary Kubiak built a great team in Houston, he just couldn't get them to go anywhere."

That's where I think we're heading. The Texans WILL win a Super Bowl within the next five years - but it will be with another head coach. And then we will spend years talking about how Coach X won in Houston with Gary's players.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

Totally agree. The 2004 team was better than the '05 team. Both were cursed with HWWNBN who had the owner's blessing.

It could be worse. We could be Lions fans. How long have they been waiting?

They also had an interesting point about the Bills in the Redskins game last night. Since 2000, they've had 1 winning season (and 2 8-8 seasons.)

The Lions have had 2 winning seasons since '96.

But, OMG, the BENGALS have had 2 winning seasons since '91.

[pbat488]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

They also had an interesting point about the Bills in the Redskins game last night. Since 2000, they've had 1 winning season (and 2 8-8 seasons.)

The Lions have had 2 winning seasons since '96.

But, OMG, the BENGALS have had 2 winning seasons since '91.

We've only had two since '93.

'93 Oilers and last year. They at least had a team of their own.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by pbat488

We've only had two since '93.

'93 Oilers and last year. They at least had a team of their own.

That 5 year gap with no team kinda changes things. They had more chances for wins that we did.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by eriadoc

People don't like to hear this, or consider this, but Kubiak basically had an expansion team. How many players from that 2005 team he inherited are even in the NFL anymore, much less on the Texans? How many were even in the NFL in 2007, just two years later? Not that many. The '05 team did not have much NFL talent.

That said, Kubiak has cost the team enough wins that his job security ought to at least be up for discussion.

that's my gripe. once rackers officially replaces kris brown, andre johnson is the only player that kubiak inherited from only 5 years ago as far as i can tell. kubiak didnt start with an expansion team, he started with a few placeholders. back to the topic, i think it speaks volumes when you compare the team that rick smith was watching when making that statement and the team he's built ... i'm having trouble thinking of another GM who's done more during smith's tenure to shape a team, especially when it comes to late rounders, cheap trades, and walk-ons. i dont think he'll be confused with ozzie newsome, but smith has an understanding of the coaches and exactly what they're looking for that's uncanny.

i still think we've got more work to do before we start demanding playoffs or any guarantees, but chalk me up as hopeful.

[DexmanC]

Well. I quote myself here:

Originally Posted by DexmanC in Another Thread

During the first 12 games, EVERY team is fighting for its playoff life.
The Texans seem to take about 12 games to hit stride.

Start of 2007 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2008 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2009 Season: 5-7 (4-0 finish)

Once they improve their record over "The First Twelve"
I'll be a believer they've "taken the next step." The
Texans can NOT afford to sleepwalk for weeks-on-end
before they "get" it.

Who do we face over the 1st 12?
1. Colts
2. Redskins (Haynesworth)
3. Cowboys
4. Raiders
5. Giants
6. Chiefs
7. Colts
8. Chargers
9. Jags
10. Jets
11. Titans
12. Eagles

Barely a creampuff in this. EVERY team on this list will be BRINGIN' it, because nothing
will have been settled. They won't be resting starters, or switching their key players
in-and-out to give us a chance. The Texans have to WIN these games to make
post season.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by DexmanC

Originally Posted by DexmanC in Another Thread

During the first 12 games, EVERY team is fighting for its playoff life.
The Texans seem to take about 12 games to hit stride.

Start of 2007 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2008 Season: 5-7 (3-1 finish)
Start of 2009 Season: 5-7 (4-0 finish)

Once they improve their record over "The First Twelve"
I'll be a believer they've "taken the next step." The
Texans can NOT afford to sleepwalk for weeks-on-end
before they "get" it.

Who do we face over the 1st 12?
1. Colts
2. Redskins (Haynesworth)
3. Cowboys
4. Raiders
5. Giants
6. Chiefs
7. Colts
8. Chargers
9. Jags
10. Jets
11. Titans
12. Eagles

Barely a creampuff in this. EVERY team on this list will be BRINGIN' it, because nothing
will have been settled. They won't be resting starters, or switching their key players
in-and-out to give us a chance. The Texans have to WIN these games to make
post season.

So would a 9-7 season THIS year against THIS schedule mean we're actually better than we were last year? Or is it the absolute record no matter who we played? Just curious. And I'm not directing this query at just you, Dex, but everyone....

To my thinking, a better record in the division (at least 3-3) will be the measure of our progress. But I'd be happy with 3-3 in the division IF we finished 7-3 (or better) elsewhere.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

So would a 9-7 season THIS year against THIS schedule mean we're actually better than we were last year? Or is it the absolute record no matter who we played? Just curious. And I'm not directing this query at just you, Dex, but everyone....

To my thinking, a better record in the division (at least 3-3) will be the measure of our progress. But I'd be happy with 3-3 in the division IF we finished 7-3 (or better) elsewhere.

With that reasoning, (by numbers alone) I believe that if we finish 9-7 this year, it would probably show us very little improvement compared to what we should have ended up last year. Last year should have easily resulted in a 10 or 11 win year.

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

With that reasoning, (by numbers alone) I believe that if we finish 9-7 this year, it would probably show us very little improvement compared to what we should have ended up last year. Last year should have easily resulted in a 10 or 11 win year.

I think the lost of Daniels and breaking in a new defense cost us a win or two last year.

The loss of Cushing for four games may cost us this year.

but we should still be in contention for a playoff berth no matter what. If we're to be a playoff team, then we need be ready to beat whoever the schedule puts in front of us.
Period.