How do you feel about Kubiak?

[Rey]

Throw in the injuries we had, which would have sunk any of the other 31 teams. I mean it. Would the Saints stand a chance with their 3rd string QB, no Will Smith, and many other key players gone from the lineup for 3 weeks or more at a time? I don't think so. Therefore, I think Kubiak's locker room standing with his guys is what got us the AFC South title and into round 2 of the playoffs.

I really think the Ravens game was the final straw for us. It was the ceiling that existed due to a long, long road of obstacles. What's terrible, IMO, is that had we beat the Ravens that day...and I don't think I'm being a homer here...I think we beat the Patriots and we're in the Super Bowl. But all in all, the ceiling was there and we couldn't bust through it. It gives all of them something to work for in 2012. They know this. They know it to their core.

Here's my take on that...

Injuries; Yes...We had plenty and we had them to key players BUT...the guys who stepped in and filled those roles didn't play like "rookies" or "third stringers"...

Much of that credit goes to the coaches, of course, but my point is that once you found out those guys could actually play a little bit the injury excuses kind of went out the window for me. Now, I think that we definitely would have been better if we had not had those key injuries....But once you're there, you're there...

Once you are in position to win the game, win it. Don't make the kind of mistakes that can cost your team the game...That goes for players and coaches...

It's fun to think....oh we'll be back next year...But nothing is guaranteed....I'd like to hope we can keep the train rolling....but look how many teams almost get to the top of the mountain one year and then struggle to get back there the next year...or the next few years....

I think Kubiak did a great job all year long with the offense. Sure he made some questionable calls at times but they were only questionable because they didn't work...He has his issues he needs to iron out...

So I'm with you. I'm on the fence about him as a head coach. Despite Wary doing a good job this year, we need Kubiak to actually be a good head coach if we want to win a super bowl.

Our schedule will be harder this up coming season. This will be a real test for Kubiak. Can he get us into the play-offs with a good record and can we at least get back to the divisional round and possible win it. I hope so.

 

[thunderkyss]

Once you are in position to win the game, win it. Don't make the kind of mistakes that can cost your team the game...That goes for players and coaches...

I agree. I thought that was the reason we scaled it back a bit for the last three games of the year. To work on our run game & find out what Tj can do well consistently.

It looked exactly like that when we routed Cincinnati & I was expecting more of the same.

I understood coming out slinging it, back that defense up & get our run game going. But I thought we put more on Tj's plate than we needed to.

 

[cbs1507]

On at least one of those slings, A.J. was supposed to be the decoy, but Reed faked out Yates and managed to recover extremely well when it looked to Yates like he couldn't. The pass is generally designed to go up the middle for about 20 yards (or so) to (I believe) Walter, but Yates took the bait and slung it to a A.J. By the time it got there, he was very-well covered. Point being Kubiak didn't call that play intending for the bomb that was thrown for A.J. Ed Reed is a master.

Yeah because Kevin Walter was WIDE OPEN on a seam route down the middle on the last INT.

On the 2nd INT Walter was TRIPLE COVERED. Andre Johnson beat his man on the sideline (safety was occupied with Walter) so he was WIDE OPEN. Defense play soft coverage, so Foster was WIDE OPEN in the flat with space to run.

People need to stop playing playcalling. They plays were designed to perfection. It's all about execution. Point blank. If Yates doesn't chuck up the INTs, I guarantee you we run some more.

 

[Double Barrel]

He had a bit of an embarrassing moment this time last year when McNair had lunch with Bum Phillips and then Wade gets whisked into the d-coord chair. I mean, that was a HUGE slap to the face of Kubiak that McNair had to relieve him of that duty.

McNair met with Bum Phillips and Dan Pastorini before the end of the 2010 season, when Frank Bush was still on the staff. This is straight from Pastorini's mouth during a recent interview.

They were not trying to undermine Kubiak, though. Bum and Dan obviously had their motives, but Kubiak and Wade have a friendship that goes back to the 1970's and Luv Ya Blue days.

Kubiak was 100% on board with signing Wade, but he could not be a part of the initial meeting due to the fact that the season was still going and he still had a DC on the staff.

Just to clarify that it was never a so-called "slap in the face" within that circle. This is more of projection by fans than anything in reality, and this according to those that were involved with the hiring process.

 

[infantrycak]

McNair met with Bum Phillips and Dan Pastorini before the end of the 2010 season, when Frank Bush was still on the staff. This is straight from Pastorini's mouth during a recent interview.

They were not trying to undermine Kubiak, though. Bum and Dan obviously had their motives, but Kubiak and Wade have a friendship that goes back to the 1970's and Luv Ya Blue days.

Kubiak was 100% on board with signing Wade, but he could not be a part of the initial meeting due to the fact that the season was still going and he still had a DC on the staff.

Just to clarify that it was never a so-called "slap in the face" within that circle. This is more of projection by fans than anything in reality, and this according to those that were involved with the hiring process.

Exactly. Another fan made myth of McNair hiring Wade over Kubiak's objection or even opinion.

 

[Rey]

The folks that voted that Kubiak should be fired and Wade promoted to head coach...I'd like to hear why you believe that if you have the time to respond...

 

[Double Barrel]

Exactly. Another fan made myth of McNair hiring Wade over Kubiak's objection or even opinion.

It's amusing how many fans seem to have "insider information" about playcalling and personnel moves with a team that is traditionally as tight lipped as the KGB during the Cold War. Then, to see biased assumptions presented as factual evidence in spite of, you know, actual facts straight from the source just adds to the fun.

 

[Thorn]

It's amusing how many fans seem to have "insider information" about playcalling and personnel moves with a team that is traditionally as tight lipped as the KGB during the Cold War. Then, to see biased assumptions presented as factual evidence in spite of, you know, actual facts straight from the source just adds to the fun.

Good point. It does not take away from the fact that a good DC was not hired by Kubiak for his first five seasons. His sixth season the organization (or someone) brought in Wade and the Texans finally achieved success.

Whatever is made of all this, my opinion of Kubiak will not change, and that is he should have been gone a long time ago. But, since he's here, and as long as Wade is here to cover his ass, I'm good with it.

 

[GP]

McNair met with Bum Phillips and Dan Pastorini before the end of the 2010 season, when Frank Bush was still on the staff. This is straight from Pastorini's mouth during a recent interview.

They were not trying to undermine Kubiak, though. Bum and Dan obviously had their motives, but Kubiak and Wade have a friendship that goes back to the 1970's and Luv Ya Blue days.

Kubiak was 100% on board with signing Wade, but he could not be a part of the initial meeting due to the fact that the season was still going and he still had a DC on the staff.

Just to clarify that it was never a so-called "slap in the face" within that circle. This is more of projection by fans than anything in reality, and this according to those that were involved with the hiring process.

Where did I ever say that Kubiak objected or that he had an opinion on it???

I never said such a thing, but Icak implies that I did and so that's that, huh? LOL.

Kubiak had no choice in the matter. No voice. It didn't matter what he said or didn't say, McNair was hiring Wade with or without Kubiak. It's insulting for my post to get twisted in that matter. I was here when everything went down, remember?

All I said is that it WAS a slap in Kubiak's face. There's no two ways about it. For the owner to have let Kubiak hire two BAD d-coordinators and then for that same owner to come in and save the day by hiring Wade...you guys can bet your boots that Kubiak's feelings were indirectly affected. He's human.

That's all I said. You think if YOU were the HC and YOU had hired your one DCs and then the owner goes out and gets Wade that it doesn't sting at least a tiny bit? Sure it does.

That's all I said. But a big Thank You to Icak for once again putting words into my post, equating me as being some fan who carries out myths. I didn't anything of the sort. If I did, show me where I said that Kubiak objected to it or had a voice in it. You'll seek but you will not find.

 

[cbs1507]

Kubiak made some "buddy/buddy" choices hiring defensive coordinators. It backfired tremendously. But I don't think Kubiak had objection to Wade Phillips when Bob McNair hired him and allowed Phillips to assemble his guys on that side of the ball. As an organization, they realized that we had a solid offense that had been productive since 2007 (top 10 every year since 2007. top 5 every year since 2008). So we decided to get an experienced defensive coordinator to shore up our underachieving defense. I don't think Kubiak had any objection to this, and it allowed us to grow as a franchise. Some coaches are too stubborn to admit they were wrong, so I think that is a good trait for a head coach.

 

[GP]

LOL. Wow.

That's all I can say.

 

[GP]

The folks that voted that Kubiak should be fired and Wade promoted to head coach...I'd like to hear why you believe that if you have the time to respond...

I didn't vote, but I will say that Kubiak should remain head coach.

I don't want Wade Phillips "head coaching" this team. Kubiak has his warts, but all in all he manages the team all year long in a way that the players have responded VERY well to. And that's the key thing.

He's going to goof up, but then again all HCs do at some point. I give the nod to Kubiak due to his ability to keep the players engaged and focused, even through a horrible 2011 season where we could have seen lesser "teams" implode.

 

[infantrycak]

Where did I ever say that Kubiak objected or that he had an opinion on it???

I never said such a thing, but Icak implies that I did and so that's that, huh? LOL.

I made no such implication. To state it plainly we (as an entire fan base which would include you) don't know exactly what happened. But since you opted to be a classic example:

Kubiak had no choice in the matter. No voice. It didn't matter what he said or didn't say, McNair was hiring Wade with or without Kubiak.

We do not know that. You and others can keep pretending you do and it still won't make it known fact.

 

[Double Barrel]

Good point. It does not take away from the fact that a good DC was not hired by Kubiak for his first five seasons. His sixth season the organization (or someone) brought in Wade and the Texans finally achieved success.

Whatever is made of all this, my opinion of Kubiak will not change, and that is he should have been gone a long time ago. But, since he's here, and as long as Wade is here to cover his ass, I'm good with it.

Coaches are no different than the rest of us in that networking pays dividends. They usually hire coaches that they have worked with in the past, and it makes sense to bring in someone that you trust as a head coach.

If you look at Kubiak's resume, it's pretty much Denver Broncos with a little 49ers and Texas A&M thrown in. He's not a journeyman coach that has been with a lot of teams and formed a lot of contacts in his network.

Wade was not available until mid-2010. I have no doubt that if Wade had been available sooner, he would have received the call.

Where did I ever say that Kubiak objected or that he had an opinion on it???

I never said such a thing, but Icak implies that I did and so that's that, huh? LOL.

Kubiak had no choice in the matter. No voice. It didn't matter what he said or didn't say, McNair was hiring Wade with or without Kubiak. It's insulting for my post to get twisted in that matter. I was here when everything went down, remember?

All I said is that it WAS a slap in Kubiak's face. There's no two ways about it. For the owner to have let Kubiak hire two BAD d-coordinators and then for that same owner to come in and save the day by hiring Wade...you guys can bet your boots that Kubiak's feelings were indirectly affected. He's human.

That's all I said. You think if YOU were the HC and YOU had hired your one DCs and then the owner goes out and gets Wade that it doesn't sting at least a tiny bit? Sure it does.

That's all I said. But a big Thank You to Icak for once again putting words into my post, equating me as being some fan who carries out myths. I didn't anything of the sort. If I did, show me where I said that Kubiak objected to it or had a voice in it. You'll seek but you will not find.

Dude, don't get all defensive when your speculation and assumptions are questioned.

Show me some evidence, ANY EVIDENCE, that Kubiak was disrespected, slapped in the face, or his authority as HC overriden by the owner.

And PLEASE, show me ANYTHING that supports "Kubiak had no choice in the matter".

I have seen and heard interviews with Bob McNair, Bum Phillips, Dan Pastorini, Wade Phillips, Rick Smith, and Gary Kubiak the past year that ALL indicate a cohesive set of events. They are not covering up anything. Kubiak and Wade have been friends for decades, so they are in each other's coaching networks. Kubiak could not be a part of the initial meeting because he was a) busy being a head coach during an on-going season, and b) most likely did not look good as a HC to be interviewing a potential DC when he already had a guy yet to be fired.

All this Kubiak was forced to do this or made to do that is just nonsense. Think about it: Kubiak chose the GM and was given full authority by the owner, who is obviously big on the head coach when looking at his 6 years with this team.

We are not putting words in your mouth. Please show me where Kubiak was "embarrassed" (your words), was "relieve(d) of that duty" (your words), or slapped in the face (your words).

I don't have to make stuff up when you go full frontal asinine.

Kubiak made some "buddy/buddy" choices hiring defensive coordinators.

Including Wade, considering that they have been friends since the 1970's.

Phillips, fired as the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys after a 1-7 start, has strong ties to both the city and Kubiak.

He grew up in the area and played linebacker at the University of Houston in the 1960s. He began his NFL coaching career in the late 1970s with the Houston Oilers, who were coached by his father, Bum. Kubiak was a ball boy for the Oilers back then, and the two have remained friends across 30 years.

Source

 

[GP]

DB, why don't you mention the people by name instead of being vague when you address someone in your post? Is it too much to ask for you to quote the dumbasses instead of having people on here make assumptions about which dumbasses you're talking about? I think it's good MB etiquette (since that's a topic lately) to do so. Just quote me, or CarrBombed, and give us that much. We deserve that shred of decency on here. Period.

Back to the topic:

Without you going all sarcastic on me, like you do when someone disagrees with you, let's just agree to stick with the topic OK?

The topic, now, is whether I have proof or not about all this crap with Kubiak and Wade. I don't have to have proof, DB. Do YOU have proof? No, you don't. We're all speculating, aren't we? So why go to such lengths to call out people (such as me or CarrBombed, etc.) for speculating when that's all anybody has at the end of the day.

In my view, you cannot just say "Well, Wade wasn't available until mid-2010 and since he and Kubiak go back to the Denver days, Kubiak would have called him up." Oh really? That's as much speculation as anything I have said here! That's connecting dots that you don't have the proof to make those assumptions.

What we DO have, is this: (1) Kubiak hired Richard Smith who failed abysmally and then (2) Kubiak hired Frank Bush who also failed abysmally. The next evidence we have to examine is this: (3) Early 2011, Bum Phillips and Pastorini met with McNair and felt Wade should be d-coord.

Now, help me understand if it was Gary Kubiak who arranged this meeting or not. In terms of speculation, can we not agree that it is HIGHLY unlikely that Gary Kubiak would ask Bum Phillips and Pastorini to meet with Bob McNair and try to get Wade Phillips as d-coord?

I never said Kubiak suggested one way or another. Based on what we know from pre-2011 and what happened in early 2011, it's safe to say that the head coach of the Houston Texans (Gary Kubiak) was not exactly the guy who decided to hire Wade Phillips. The hiring of Wade came upon the heels of a meeting between BUM PHILLIPS and BOB McNAIR. Gary's opinion, one way or the other, was either not sought or was not a determining factor. At this stage of the ballgame, McNair was doing the hiring and the decision-making.

Lastly, there's not a man on this earth (especially men who coach football) who wouldn't feel a tinge of ire for having hired his own DCs until one point in time when your boss (McNair in this case) decides you don't have the chops to find the right guy for the job. It's human nature. I never said Gary hated it, that he loathed it, etc. I just said it's there in the back of his brain...like it would be for any of us here. But, I get hammered and accused of creating myths.

How? What myth am I propping up? That Wade was hired by Bob? He was. That Kubiak didn't choose Wade? He probably didn't, but we'll never know. In the grand scheme of things, you bring YOUR proof to the table if mine is so important. All this "Prove your point" BS is just that: BS. We'll never know unless someone writes a book, until then...it's. just. discussion. No need in painting me or anybody else as being liars or propping up myths.

 

[GP]

I made no such implication. To state it plainly we (as an entire fan base which would include you) don't know exactly what happened. But since you opted to be a classic example:



We do not know that. You and others can keep pretending you do and it still won't make it known fact.

Oh, so Bob McNair is going to stake all of 2011 on whether Gary approves of Wade as d-coord or not?

Which is more likely: Bob said, "Gary, I'm bringing in Wade. Hope that sits OK with you." Gary, who is on that proverbial hot seat for having chosen the two previous d-coords, and who also told McNair "Shucks, I can work with David Carr and we'll see what we get out of him..." says the same damn thing he did when he interviewed for the job the first time. "Yes sir, I think that's a good idea."

Or....Gary has an all-day or half-day or one-hour meeting with McNair where McNair listens intently to what Gary Kubiak thinks about Wade Phillips.

Come on, man! Proof? Proof is in the historicity of how this team has functioned and how Kubiak has the right answers at the right times for McNair.

I tell you what, just find me your source and the text or audio or video of where it shows Kubiak dialed up Wade and mentioned him to McNair and was Wade's biggest fan around January'ish of 2011.

Everything points toward Bob and Bum (and Wade on the side) angling for the job and Kubiak rubber-stamping it like he should have.

 

[GP]

I've made my statements. It's clear what I am saying and I don't think it's conspiracy theory stuff nor unlikely. It's based on the historicity of Kubiak's survival techniques (having the right answers) and the PROOF that Wade's daddy met with the boss man and Wade got hired soon thereafter.

Anything more from me on this would just be back-and-forth rhetoric between me and two mods.

So I'm done. You guys can make hash of me all you want. By the way you guys hammered me, you'd think I was proposing we trade Mario and Schaub for Peyton Manning. LOL.

 

[Pieman2005]

I agree with most of what that guys says. However, one thing that has to be said about Kubiak is that he always has his players playing hard for him. Even when we had bad seasons his players never quit on him. Kubiak should get some huge credit for that even if he does have some short-comings when it comes to his game-day decisions (although he was much better this year at that).

I wouldn't say he always had the team playing hard. Remember 2010-2011 season? So many games where we came out of the game not playing hard or even trying as it seemed.

 

[cbs1507]

I wouldn't say he always had the team playing hard. Remember 2010-2011 season? So many games where we came out of the game not playing hard or even trying as it seemed.

I guess that's why we came back from all those deficits. We competed in every game, especially that debacle of a run down the stretch where we kept losing the games in the 4th quarter. If that wasn't playing hard I don't know what is. Nobody saw one player quit on their coach, even when we were mathematically out. I can't say the same for Wade (GB monstrosity). He is better off as our d-coordinator.

 

[Double Barrel]

I had a lengthy reply, but I just decided vugg it, not worth it, delete.

Look, GP, I'm asking for proof of your position in order to truly comprehend what happened when Wade was hired. If you can provide something, I will be glad to change my perspective accordingly.

The question was not rhetorical to argue with you, which for whatever reason(s) you immediately establish a defensive perimeter. My asking for evidence was an honest question that certainly did not deserve your time that was to required to prepare the subsequent diatribe.

We are both Texans fans, so same team and all that stuff, right? And I always welcome information that challenges the status quo and I have absolutely no problem in absorbing new details for a paradigm shift in perspective.

I did keep the following nugget from my novel, mainly because I thought it was funny:

DB, why don't you mention the people by name instead of being vague when you address someone in your post? Is it too much to ask for you to quote the dumbasses instead of having people on here make assumptions about which dumbasses you're talking about? I think it's good MB etiquette (since that's a topic lately) to do so. Just quote me, or CarrBombed, and give us that much. We deserve that shred of decency on here. Period.

Carr Bombed has got to be wondering why you decided to drag his good name through the mud...

The rest of it I will not engage, simply because I have no desire to hash or hammer or whatever it is that redundant discussions do in the end.

 

[thunderkyss]

The rest of it I will not engage, simply because I have no desire to hash or hammer or whatever it is that redundant discussions do in the end.

Does the gerbil with the bunpan mean you think he's a dumbass?

 

[ObsiWan]

Does the gerbil with the bunpan mean you think he's a dumbass?

 

[b0ng]

Oh, so Bob McNair is going to stake all of 2011 on whether Gary approves of Wade as d-coord or not?

Which is more likely: Bob said, "Gary, I'm bringing in Wade. Hope that sits OK with you." Gary, who is on that proverbial hot seat for having chosen the two previous d-coords, and who also told McNair "Shucks, I can work with David Carr and we'll see what we get out of him..." says the same damn thing he did when he interviewed for the job the first time. "Yes sir, I think that's a good idea."

Or....Gary has an all-day or half-day or one-hour meeting with McNair where McNair listens intently to what Gary Kubiak thinks about Wade Phillips.

Come on, man! Proof? Proof is in the historicity of how this team has functioned and how Kubiak has the right answers at the right times for McNair.

I tell you what, just find me your source and the text or audio or video of where it shows Kubiak dialed up Wade and mentioned him to McNair and was Wade's biggest fan around January'ish of 2011.

Everything points toward Bob and Bum (and Wade on the side) angling for the job and Kubiak rubber-stamping it like he should have.

This post pretty much proves you don't have any actual evidence of what you say and that you are just speculating. Which is fine as long as you don't try to present it as fact, which is what the overall tone sounds like.

I find it hard to believe that somebody that has multiple thousands of posts on this messageboard actually knows what goes on with the Texans staff behind closed doors.

 

[infantrycak]

Anything more from me on this would just be back-and-forth rhetoric between me and two mods.

Seriously? - play the last bastion defense of claiming martyrdom. Wow. As if the fact you were having a discussion with among others moderators played ANY role in the discussion.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Hey everyone. Congrats on the season. Out of pocket here in Chicago with alot going on but dropped in today and saw this and wanted to respond. I'm still not a Gary fan and on the fence with the guy. Honestly, it makes me wonder how far the Texans would be ahead of their current pace if a real D coordinator was hired to start years ago instead of Friends of Gary. You can't take away this season but overall I look at him as an offensive coordinator Wade where he is a better Coordinator than HC. I agreed with many before the season that this was going to be a good one for Gary but that might just buy him some more mediocrity. What I mean by that is you end up with a Marvin Lewis who people respect and like but overall they sprinkle mediocre to bad seasons with 11-5 so they get more votes by the boss but then its right back to .500. That is how I see it playing out. I hope I'm wrong because it was a fun run to watch up here. But I just don't see him being a guy that gets it done overall. Good guy, great football mind, jut not a guy who brings it home year in and year out. Hope everyone is well in H-Town

 

[Runner]

My opinion of Kubiak hasn't changed. Looking at his body of work, this year is an anomaly. I think the easy schedule had as much to do with the 10-6 record as anything else did. During the rest of his tenure, the team usually stayed about the same or incrementally improved every season. One year they performed significantly worse.

I think he was fortunate not to be fired after each of the three previous seasons.

If he does well next year, my opinion will probably change and I might think he has finally become a competent head coach. However, that won't change my opinion that his previous poor coaching has held the Texans back. This season should not have been the Texans first season in the play-offs. Kubiak looked like a rookie head coach for too many seasons.

 

[ThaShark316]

Y'all know that's my guy.

Someone tell Bob McNair to get his "This one's for Gary" speech ready.

 

[drunkcookie]

Hell i dunno what to think right now...

Before the season i was thinking, "probably shouldn't have brought this guy back.." i mean just look at the other stories around the league entering this season... the Jets were coming off of two AFC C'ship game appearances with a coach who had only been there two years... KC went from bad to the playoffs with a first year, first time HC... Then over in Tampa they went from bad to 10-6 with a new coach... I meam, AZ made the super bowl with a coach who hadn't been there long... I leave out Tomlin in The Burg, that job was turn-key...

So my thinking was: Why in such a short period of time had these new HCs turned their teams into really good teams so quick, yet our guy going on forever hadn't made it to the playoffs, and was coming off a 6-10 season? It wasn't that i thought he could never bee a good coach but damn, couldn't we have done better than 9-7 at least once? Hell, at least 9-7 twice? I, along with everyone else was running out of patience...

Fast-forward to now... The Jets aren't going anywhere with that lockerroom, they think offense is offensive and didn't make the playoffs... The Chiefs axed the HC that took 'em to the playoff mid-season because the team sucked, the Bucs went from 10-Six to sucky quick and axed their HC as well, and AZ was terrible... All of those teams i was so envious of are in bad spots just one year later, while i can look at the Texans and honestly say things should be real good for a while, not just a year or even two...

Maybe there IS something to that whole patience thing, and not going for the quick, short-lived success... The jury is still out in SF...

 

[welsh texan]

Hell i dunno what to think right now...

Before the season i was thinking, "probably shouldn't have brought this guy back.." i mean just look at the other stories around the league entering this season... the Jets were coming off of two AFC C'ship game appearances with a coach who had only been there two years... KC went from bad to the playoffs with a first year, first time HC... Then over in Tampa they went from bad to 10-6 with a new coach... I meam, AZ made the super bowl with a coach who hadn't been there long... I leave out Tomlin in The Burg, that job was turn-key...

So my thinking was: Why in such a short period of time had these new HCs turned their teams into really good teams so quick, yet our guy going on forever hadn't made it to the playoffs, and was coming off a 6-10 season? It wasn't that i thought he could never bee a good coach but damn, couldn't we have done better than 9-7 at least once? Hell, at least 9-7 twice? I, along with everyone else was running out of patience...

Fast-forward to now... The Jets aren't going anywhere with that lockerroom, they think offense is offensive and didn't make the playoffs... The Chiefs axed the HC that took 'em to the playoff mid-season because the team sucked, the Bucs went from 10-Six to sucky quick and axed their HC as well, and AZ was terrible... All of those teams i was so envious of are in bad spots just one year later, while i can look at the Texans and honestly say things should be real good for a while, not just a year or even two...

Maybe there IS something to that whole patience thing, and not going for the quick, short-lived success... The jury is still out in SF...

All great points you make which reflect my views as well. Just a couple of things that worry me, you highlight the number of 'bad' teams that have one good season and then fall back down into mediocrity right away again.

And also, the thing with the patience, we all have to hope that the really slow turnaround will pay dividends now that we're getting to the point where we have to start signing our 'build through the draft' mentality to vet contracts.

Either, as we all hope, Rick Smith and Co. have it all planned out so that we can sign them all to the contracts the market will dictate, or, in the next year or two, the core of this team is going to be ripped out and we'll forever be acquiring young talent and not being able to afford their peak years.

This board seems pretty confident that our club is set up to succeed for years, and so am I, I'm just slightly mindful of the possible pitfalls that could lead to our downfall.

I feel a bit silly for thinking 'Fire Kubiak' a year ago right now, I'm not going to feel silly if my dreams are shattered in a year or two from now, but I am well and truly on board for the time being.

 

[Marcus]

Maybe there IS something to that whole patience thing, and not going for the quick, short-lived success... The jury is still out in SF...

Patience? Really? That's never gonna happen.

There's something else that's never gonna happen. By now, people already have their minds made up about Kubiak. No amount of winning is going to change anything.

 

[welsh texan]

Patience? Really? That's never gonna happen.

There's something else that's never gonna happen. By now, people already have their minds made up about Kubiak. No amount of winning is going to change anything.

Err, so I guess the last 6 years just flew by did they?

6 years of patience Marcus, we've seen the first harvest from that now, I think for very valid reasons (precedent for one, lots of other teams having one good season and then falling back into the melee, and also worries about our cap situation) people are still a little wary of whether this is going to be the start of something special

But to say patience is never going to happen after waiting for 6 years is a very odd statement, we've shown plenty of patience, and now is the time for that to pay off.

 

[Marcus]

Err, so I guess the last 6 years just flew by did they?

6 years of patience Marcus, we've seen the first harvest from that now, I think for very valid reasons (precedent for one, lots of other teams having one good season and then falling back into the melee, and also worries about our cap situation) people are still a little wary of whether this is going to be the start of something special

But to say patience is never going to happen after waiting for 6 years is a very odd statement, we've shown plenty of patience, and now is the time for that to pay off.

I was referring to the statement "have patience, and not going for the quick short-lived success". There are many who favor firing a coach every single year until one eventually gets lucky, and the team has a winning season. Nothing of their doing of course, but that hardly matters. Most fans simply want the HC replaced after a bad season, in order to get that mental reset going into the offseason.

 

[thunderkyss]

Fast-forward to now... The Jets aren't going anywhere with that lockerroom, they think offense is offensive and didn't make the playoffs... The Chiefs axed the HC that took 'em to the playoff mid-season because the team sucked, the Bucs went from 10-Six to sucky quick and axed their HC as well, and AZ was terrible... All of those teams i was so envious of are in bad spots just one year later, while i can look at the Texans and honestly say things should be real good for a while, not just a year or even two...

Maybe there IS something to that whole patience thing, and not going for the quick, short-lived success... The jury is still out in SF...

Which is why I started this thread, to have this discussion.

Are we looking at fools gold? Or is Gary Kubiak a mad genius who had been in the basement piecing together a foundation that will stand the test of time?

 

[Double Barrel]

Patience? Really? That's never gonna happen.

There's something else that's never gonna happen. By now, people already have their minds made up about Kubiak. No amount of winning is going to change anything.

I guess I'm different, always the anti-pop, going against the grain until the day I drop.

I wanted Kubiak gone last season. I do not want him gone after the 2011 season. Winning changed everything.

Short of a drastic plunge - i.e. 2-14 - I do not think I will want him gone after the 2012 season.

 

[thunderkyss]

I guess I'm different, always the anti-pop, going against the grain until the day I drop.

I wanted Kubiak gone last season. I do not want him gone after the 2011 season. Winning changed everything.

Short of a drastic plunge - i.e. 2-14 - I do not think I will want him gone after the 2012 season.

& I don't understand that.... 2010 is only one year removed from our first winning season. No, we didn't make the play-offs, but that had as much to do with chance than anything else. The 9-7 Jets (we were as good as the Jets that year) went to the AFC Championship game.

2010, I swear we were the most exciting team to watch that year. Didn't win a lot (6-10) But man we lost in some of the most head-scratching, improbable ways.

Now we're winning in 2011.

If we're 9-7.... 8-8, 7-9 you won't want him gone?

really?

 

[Double Barrel]

& I don't understand that.... 2010 is only one year removed from our first winning season. No, we didn't make the play-offs, but that had as much to do with chance than anything else. The 9-7 Jets (we were as good as the Jets that year) went to the AFC Championship game.

2010, I swear we were the most exciting team to watch that year. Didn't win a lot (6-10) But man we lost in some of the most head-scratching, improbable ways.

Now we're winning in 2011.

If we're 9-7.... 8-8, 7-9 you won't want him gone?

really?

2009 - First winning season and all that was meaningless when you are sitting at home watching other teams in the playoffs. Just my perspective.

2010 was just another year in a long period of perpetual mediocrity. I did not see anything that told me the team was truly improving, especially when I consider it the head coach's responsibility on the final outcome of both sides of the ball. And starting 4-2 and ending 2-8 is pathetic. Why would I have faith in that kind of trend? 5-7 four years in a row? Can you understand how 5 years of mediocrity might just getting tiring to root for as a fan?

As far as 2012, my own perspective is that 2011 bought Kubiak a lot of goodwill. That's just me, though, and I know a lot of folks will disagree (and that's alright). I think Kubiak would have to lose this team's faith in him for them to not be a playoff team next season. 2011 broke a lot of bad habits and established the foundation for something that should carry over for years.

The NFL is a results based business. Waiting a decade to finally get to the playoff had even the most homer of fans calling for Kubiak's head. There were some folks that surprised me last year because they were just tired and worn out of mediocre results. I never blame anyone for how they feel. It's their right, regardless if I agree or disagree with them.

 

[Texan_Bill]

If Kubiak loses the Pro-Bowl for the AFC, I say fire his ass!!

 

[drunkcookie]

Are we looking at fools gold? Or is Gary Kubiak a mad genius who had been in the basement piecing together a foundation that will stand the test of time?

We'll have to wait and see, eh? I tell you this much: i like the Texans' chances of winning the superbowl next year more than that of any of the other teams mentioned...

But even with success next year and going on into the future i wouldn't grant mad genius status... Gary+Wade+Rick may just be a darn good combo that works... And having things work is the bottom line no matter if it's one guy or a combo...

McNair the mad genius?

 

[Rey]

I think if kubiak puts together another winning season and continues to show growth as a coach folks will let him in. But this is his first play off run since he's been here and often times the team has looked stupid under his watch. Wade brought a tremendous amount to the team, so I can understanbd folks still being skeptical of kubiak the Head Coach.

Patience? Really? That's never gonna happen.

There's something else that's never gonna happen. By now, people already have their minds made up about Kubiak. No amount of winning is going to change anything.

 

[Texecutioner]

Patience? Really? That's never gonna happen.

There's something else that's never gonna happen. By now, people already have their minds made up about Kubiak. No amount of winning is going to change anything.

I think that several posts in this thread debunk that statement.

There are many who favor firing a coach every single year until one eventually gets lucky, and the team has a winning season. Nothing of their doing of course, but that hardly matters. Most fans simply want the HC replaced after a bad season, in order to get that mental reset going into the offseason.

This is such an exaggeration and you know it. I've never read a post from anyone in here that has suggested to fire a coach any time a bad season exists. Nice hyperbole, but not the truth.

 

[thunderkyss]

I think that several posts in this thread debunk that statement.

I don't believe they do. As we saw during the season, these same people were down on Kubiak after we lost to Carolina... 7 game win streak be damned.

I would wager, if we go 13-0 through next season, it would be love & roses & koolaid flowing down Kirby. Lose that 14th game & it's back to "same old Kubiak" "Wade is the reason for the 13-0, Kubiak for the lost game." etc... etc...

 

[Runner]

I would wager, if we go 13-0 through next season, it would be love & roses & koolaid flowing down Kirby. Lose that 14th game & it's back to "same old Kubiak" "Wade is the reason for the 13-0, Kubiak for the lost game." etc... etc...

I don't get the point of making up stupid scenarios so the poster can argue against them to show how dumb the "other side" is.

How about "I would wager that if the Texans start off 0-8 next year, people would say that three games were because of bad officiating, two were lost because of thunderstorms, and the other three were because they had to play three tough teams in a row, and one was coming off a bye! Kubiak has them on the right track! The team he took over sucked!"

Wow - I just proved pro-Kubiak people are wrong, unreasonable, and probably mentally deficient. It was so easy too. I should have used this tactic long ago.

Or not.

 

[ObsiWan]

I don't get the point of making up stupid scenarios so the poster can argue against them to show how dumb the "other side" is.

How about "I would wager that if the Texans start off 0-8 next year, people would say that three games were because of bad officiating, two were lost because of thunderstorms, and the other three were because they had to play three tough teams in a row, and one was coming off a bye! Kubiak has them on the right track! The team he took over sucked!"

Wow - I just proved pro-Kubiak people are wrong, unreasonable, and probably mentally deficient. It was so easy too. I should have used this tactic long ago.

Or not.

You ignored the first part of the post - which was not hypothetical - where some people (not all to be sure) jumped all over Kubiak when we failed to stretch that 7-game winning streak to 8 when we lost to Carolina. I seem to recall several "Kubiak cannot win without Wade..." posts. Remember those??

 

[Texecutioner]

I don't get the point of making up stupid scenarios so the poster can argue against them to show how dumb the "other side" is.

How about "I would wager that if the Texans start off 0-8 next year, people would say that three games were because of bad officiating, two were lost because of thunderstorms, and the other three were because they had to play three tough teams in a row, and one was coming off a bye! Kubiak has them on the right track! The team he took over sucked!"

Wow - I just proved pro-Kubiak people are wrong, unreasonable, and probably mentally deficient. It was so easy too. I should have used this tactic long ago.

Or not.

For the record TK said that he would completely bail all support on Gary Kubiak after this season if he did not reach the AFC Championship or further. Yet, now he is still saying extreme things to defend the guy or to make his criticizers sound foolish that aren't even true. Kubiak could go 3-13 next season and the guy would act like he never even supported him. It's exactly why I don't take anything he says seriously especially when he makes up scenarios like that.

 

[GNTLEWOLF]

My opinion of Kubiak hasn't changed. Looking at his body of work, this year is an anomaly. I think the easy schedule had as much to do with the 10-6 record as anything else did. During the rest of his tenure, the team usually stayed about the same or incrementally improved every season. One year they performed significantly worse.

I think he was fortunate not to be fired after each of the three previous seasons.

If he does well next year, my opinion will probably change and I might think he has finally become a competent head coach. However, that won't change my opinion that his previous poor coaching has held the Texans back. This season should not have been the Texans first season in the play-offs. Kubiak looked like a rookie head coach for too many seasons.

I have to agree with Runner on this one. I’m not convinced that this season is for real. I tend to think it is probably an anomaly given the data base of evidence in existence thus far.
I have long maintained my belief that Kubiak is Marvin Lewis and the Texans are the Bengals of the AFC South. Lewis’ record so far has been that he stays right around a .500 record career. One year he will have his team in the play-off with a winning record and the next year or two he will be at or near the bottom of the division. I see Kubiak as that guy.
I have removed my “Fire Kubiak” avatar for now. I am waiting to see how next year turns out. I think that if the team has a convincing winning record next year along with a return to the play-offs that he should be extended. If not then …well it’s been fun…see ya!. I’m not sure the winning record and play-offs this year were so much a function of Kubiak’s growth as a Head Coach as much as a combination of an AFC South weakened by re-building, an overall soft schedule and Wade having taken over the defense. I’m waiting to see more. I am not satisfied with one real winning season (not counting the 9-7 here) and one play-off win when compared to the rest of the 6 year record. Give me another year or two looking good and I’m on board.

 

[thunderkyss]

For the record TK said that he would completely bail all support on Gary Kubiak after this season if he did not reach the AFC Championship or further. Yet, now he is still saying extreme things to defend the guy or to make his criticizers sound foolish that aren't even true. Kubiak could go 3-13 next season and the guy would act like he never even supported him. It's exactly why I don't take anything he says seriously especially when he makes up scenarios like that.

Whoa..... I'm not defending Kubiak.. show me his defense.

Kubiak has not earned an extension... That's where I said I would be if we did not reach the AFC Championship game.

& you have a big problem with reading comprehension. I'd love for you to post the "evidence" where I said I would pull out all support... but I know you won't find it.

 

[badboy]

I think this past season was a combination of several thing including shcedule, Manning not playing, Wade's draft and his 52 defense; emergence of our Oline playing together healthy most games; two FA DBs and Gary doing a bit better with his game plan. I am not shouting that we did so well in spite of our head coach but I am considering it as a possibility. With the right moves we could be even better and if that's the case he should get a mid-season extension.

 

[SuperSerial]

I am not comparing him to Belichick. You are comparing Kubiak to Belichick. Belichick has a 17 year body of HC work. Kubiak has 6 years of HC work. I am comparing their first 6 years. Belichick had a worse record, the same amount of playoff wins/appearances. Kubiak has 1 division title in that span (0 for Belichick). You are using the benefit of hindsight. I am saying look at their 1st 6 years (since Kubiak does not have another 11 to compare to BB). Do you seriously think coaches immediately experience success in their early years?

My point is that it takes time for a coach to win in this league (especially when they have to build a franchise). I don't think anyone can argue that Kubiak has done a great job building this franchise into a contender.

Yes you are comparing Kubiak to BB.

I am not comparing anyone to anything. I don't know how you decided I was comparing anything. I was just commenting on your comment.

All I am saying is there are several Kubiak homers out there who blindly defend Kub's mediocre start by telling the world about BB's first six years to compare with Kub's first 6, as if that means Kubiak is somehow on the road to greatness. In other words, "Just keep dealing with this guy because if BB can suck and then be great, so can Kub".

My comment was simple. When you try to defend Kub with the BB comparison, don't conveniently forget to talk about the hundreds of coaches who may have had bad or mediocre starts as well, and later never amounted to anything. You are singling out one coach who was successful later in his career to compare Kub to. In that sense, you are twisting what the "jury" gets to hear, and are trying to mind screw them into getting the verdict you want. That is twisting the facts like a slick defense lawyer.

No big deal. That type of smoke and mirrors is expected from the Kool Aid Krowd.

 

[thunderkyss]

My comment was simple. When you try to defend Kub with the BB comparison, don't conveniently forget to talk about the hundreds of coaches who may have had bad or mediocre starts as well, and later never amounted to anything. You are singling out one coach who was successful later in his career to compare Kub to. In that sense, you are twisting what the "jury" gets to hear, and are trying to mind screw them into getting the verdict you want. That is twisting the facts like a slick defense lawyer.

No big deal. That type of smoke and mirrors is expected from the Kool Aid Krowd.

I don't think it is smoke & mirrors. I am not hoping that Kubiak stays with the Texans for any length of time, but it is a valid point. Your rebuttal, that for every Belichick, there are a hundred Marvin Lewises is equally valid (if not accurate).

Belichick studied under the great Parcells, but he was not 100% ready to turn a team around, not a team like the expansion Browns (ooh, look, a similarity), however once he got to an organization with a more structure in place, he was able to build something special.

It's a dream, a pipe dream that Kubiak can build something here. Everyone with that argument knows that. Still a valid point, but the soapers won't let the rainbow warriors have one valid point.

 

[Runner]

You ignored the first part of the post - which was not hypothetical - where some people (not all to be sure) jumped all over Kubiak when we failed to stretch that 7-game winning streak to 8 when we lost to Carolina. I seem to recall several "Kubiak cannot win without Wade..." posts. Remember those??

I was commenting on the made up scenario and making up such scenarios to "prove" something. I thought that was clear.