Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Something here seems so familiar, ARTICLE

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
i know a lot of yall dont care for Richard Justice, but its an aight article.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/7415045.html


ARLINGTON — One striking thing about this Super Bowl is how much the Texans operate just like the Steelers and Packers.

I know this is going to be a tough sell because many of you no longer believe in Texans owner Bob McNair or his blueprint, and I probably can't persuade you to change your mind.

But it seems significant that executives of the Packers and Steelers say many of the same things McNair routinely says.

No, not every team operates this way. Some — for instance, the Dallas Cowboys — sometimes seem more interested in moves that will sell tickets instead of win games. Other franchises change coaches on a whim.

The Packers and Steelers, like the Texans, weren't built with flashy free-agent signings or by hiring big-money coaches. They did what they believed to be right instead of what they knew would be popular.

Whether by accident or not, McNair's organizational structure and core beliefs are very similar to those of these Super Bowl teams. McNair believes in stability, patience and building through the draft. So do the Steelers and Packers.

McNair hires people he trusts and gives them the resources to do their jobs. And he stays out of their way. How's that for painting another losing season with a nice soft brush? I mean, you need some hope that the 2011 season will be different, don't you?

If there's a flaw in this thinking — and obviously there is considering the Texans have had one winning record in nine years — it's the quality of the people McNair has hired.

Give him credit for sticking with coach Gary Kubiak and general manager Rick Smith when it would be easy to make a case for firing both of them. Five seasons is long enough to put a playoff team on the field.

If they haven't gotten it done in five seasons, there's no reason to think they're going to get it done in six or seven or nine. If the Texans do turn some kind of corner next season, McNair will deserve a parade for staying the course.

There are indications McNair won't tolerate much more. One of his employees recently said, "He has basically put the whole organization on notice."

He said McNair is fine taking bullets for Kubiak and Smith, but he's not going to take them forever. If a new defensive staff doesn't do it, he'll probably throw 'em all out the door.
Four-fingered fist

Successful NFL franchises must be competent in four areas: ownership, general manager, coach and quarterback. They all must be good at what they do, and the decision makers must have the guts to stick to their guns in tough times.

McNair did that in resisting the temptation to fire Kubiak and hire Bill Cowher or Jon Gruden. With a chance to ignite interest in his franchise, he did what he thinks is still in the best interest of the franchise.

The Packers would understand. One aspect of this week is redemption for general manager Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy.

All they did three years ago was make the toughest call they'll ever have to make in parting ways with Brett Favre and turning their team over to untested Aaron Rodgers.

"We've moved on," Thompson said this week when asked about Favre.

He has now, but Thompson needed this Super Bowl to put out the still-simmering anger over Favre's departure. Never mind that Favre's will-he-or-won't-he offseasons pretty much dared the Packers to do what they did.

Splashy? It would be hard to find two less flashy men than these Super Bowl coaches, Pittsburgh's Mike Tomlin and Green Bay's Mike McCarthy. And both general managers, Thompson and Pittsburgh's Kevin Colbert, seem uncomfortable in the spotlight.

"Panic doesn't seem to work," Steelers president Art Rooney II said. "There are enough people that seem to have gone through that mode. Our feeling is that you pick good people, and you try to stick with them if you have good people.

"There are ups and downs in any sport, but if you have the right people in place, you'll always have a chance to be successful, and that's what we do."
If it ain't broke ...

For the last 40 years, one Steelers team has been remarkably similar to all the others. They run the ball, have great linebackers and win — to the tune of 25 playoff appearances in the last 38 seasons.

The Rooney family stuck with both Chuck Noll and Bill Cowher in tough times, and every single time their patience was rewarded.

"I think the idea of having the right people in place and finding and keeping good people, that's something that goes back to my grandfather and my father," Rooney said. "As they said, keeping it simple and keeping the right people in play, that's the key."

His point is that it's sometimes easier to fire people than show faith in them when everything is coming undone. Whether McNair's patience will be rewarded is yet to be seen, but there's no question he's got the right blueprint.
 

GP

Go Texans!
Good post. Thanks, man.

It must have been hard for RJ to write a serious article.

"If there's a flaw in this thinking — and obviously there is considering the Texans have had one winning record in nine years — it's the quality of the people McNair has hired.

Give him credit for sticking with coach Gary Kubiak and general manager Rick Smith when it would be easy to make a case for firing both of them. Five seasons is long enough to put a playoff team on the field."
Those three sentences form the basis of why the Fire Kubiak club is still holding its weekly meetings here.


"There are indications McNair won't tolerate much more. One of his employees recently said, "He has basically put the whole organization on notice."

He said McNair is fine taking bullets for Kubiak and Smith, but he's not going to take them forever. If a new defensive staff doesn't do it, he'll probably throw 'em all out the door."
I doubt he's going to throw Wade Phillips out the door. Maybe throw him out of the d-coord door and throw him through the head coach door.
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
Yeah,

BoB,Gary and Rick are greatness in the making.

LOL

The Rooney's and the Packer shareholders demand that a winning product on the field. Who's demanding that McNair,Rick and Gary put a winning product on the field?

Answer: Nobody
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
Yeah,

BoB,Gary and Rick are greatness in the making.

LOL

The Rooney's and the Packer shareholders demand that a winning product on the field. Who's demanding that McNair,Rick and Gary put a winning product on the field?

Answer: Nobody
i demand it, but noone answers :whip:
 

El Tejano

Hall of Fame
The thing about it was that people were complaining why those teams didn't win the Super Bowl that year. Ours is complaining about why we can't make the playoffs. That's a big difference. Sure Cowher didn't make the playoffs a year or two, but they were in there alot and usually showed some promise. Easy to hold on to a coach when your team is getting to the playoffs.
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
The thing about it was that people were complaining why those teams didn't win the Super Bowl that year. Ours is complaining about why we can't make the playoffs. That's a big difference. Sure Cowher didn't make the playoffs a year or two, but they were in there alot and usually showed some promise. Easy to hold on to a coach when your team is getting to the playoffs.
agree but i like the core of players we have, besides our secondary i think we should be a play-off team next season. BUT i think that every season :dancer:
 

Texans_Chick

Utopian Dreamer
Neither does BoB.

I guess with Reliant being sold out every game might have something to do with this.
I know it is frustrating to some.

But the fact that Reliant has been perpetually sold out eventually will payoff for a team.

The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.

The Green Bay Packers made the Aaron Rodgers/Brett Favre decision because 1. it made sense for their team; 2. because their season ticket status allowed them to do so.

It's one of the things that Vic Ketchman (formerly) with the Jaguars mentioned in talking about the Steelers and Packers. They can afford to make difficult decisions because they don't have to make ticketing based decisions.

This hasn't paid off yet--hopefully they can get their defense in order.
 

gtexan02

Working?
McNair is staying the course for one of two reasons:

1. He believes its the best way to get a winning team

2. He believes it will make him the most money


Maybe 1 is true, but it seems like #2 is more likely. We have great attendance, he makes tons of money as is, and keeping Kubiak is a helluva lot cheaper than firing him and getting someone new. Plus, with the lockout looming, its unknown territory.


Maybe 1 is true, or its a combination of 1 and 2, but "staying the course" doesn't always mean the good things Justice seems to imply
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
I know it is frustrating to some.

But the fact that Reliant has been perpetually sold out eventually will payoff for a team.

The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.

The Green Bay Packers made the Aaron Rodgers/Brett Favre decision because 1. it made sense for their team; 2. because their season ticket status allowed them to do so.

It's one of the things that Vic Ketchman (formerly) with the Jaguars mentioned in talking about the Steelers and Packers. They can afford to make difficult decisions because they don't have to make ticketing based decisions.

This hasn't paid off yet--hopefully they can get their defense in order.
The lack of a sense of urgency within the Tezans org (It starts with BoB) is troubling to say the least.

Atleast we know the defense cant be as bad as it was last yr. Can it?
 

CloakNNNdagger

Hall of Fame
If Bob, Smithiak continue their present decision-making pattern of "self inflicted wounds," they will likely remain afflicted.:tiphat:
 

TheCD

Rookie
McNair is staying the course for one of two reasons:

1. He believes its the best way to get a winning team

2. He believes it will make him the most money


Maybe 1 is true, but it seems like #2 is more likely. We have great attendance, he makes tons of money as is, and keeping Kubiak is a helluva lot cheaper than firing him and getting someone new. Plus, with the lockout looming, its unknown territory.


Maybe 1 is true, or its a combination of 1 and 2, but "staying the course" doesn't always mean the good things Justice seems to imply
I can't understand this line of thinking. Why would McNair not care about winning? Not winning will ultimately equate to less money as fans leave for other teams. In the short term, yes, this would generate more income, but in the long-term he would be seriously regretting that decision.

I find it hard to believe that a man who would pay $700+ million just for the right to start a team would make short-term based decisions. He has to think about his long-term finances in paying off the stadium, paying players and coaches, and revenue sharing. I would expect teams making big splashes constantly to be the franchises interested in making money as those big names would be the kind that would put "fans in the stands" (to quote The Replacements).
 

Texans_Chick

Utopian Dreamer
I can't understand this line of thinking. Why would McNair not care about winning? Not winning will ultimately equate to less money as fans leave for other teams. In the short term, yes, this would generate more income, but in the long-term he would be seriously regretting that decision.

I find it hard to believe that a man who would pay $700+ million just for the right to start a team would make short-term based decisions. He has to think about his long-term finances in paying off the stadium, paying players and coaches, and revenue sharing. I would expect teams making big splashes constantly to be the franchises interested in making money as those big names would be the kind that would put "fans in the stands" (to quote The Replacements).
Bob McNair has given away more money than I will make in my entire life.

He has consistently said that the way the team will make more money and add more value to the franchise is by winning.

From the beginning of the franchise, he has mentioned the Steelers as an organization he admires. Easy to talk about not doing knee jerk moves, harder to actually do that when everyone is calling for your head.
 

IDEXAN

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.
Inferring that the Texans are on track because they are using the template provided by elite franchises like the Packers for success ? Could you give an example of the Texans making a football decision that prempted a decision which would have been more popular with the fan-base on a particular issue, personnel matter, etc ?
 

DX-TEX

#TomSavageDontCare
Has Bob read this yet? I can see the comment now.

"The local media says we are on the right track. I have faithy in gary."

:toropalm:
 

Double Barrel

Texans Talk Admin
Staff member
Contributor's Club
I have no doubt that McNair wants to win. And by the same token, I have no doubt that the other 31 owners want to win. That's pretty much a no-brainer. It's good for business if nothing else.

However, understanding how to achieve a consistently winning franchise is where McNair is nothing like the teams mentioned. They do not tolerate perpetual mediocrity. They simply don't. McNair does, and makes excuses for why he does. It's his team, so he gets that luxury. But it's obvious that he has not hired the right people for the job.

Thanks to Captain Obvious for writing this article. :rolleyes:

Inferring that the Texans are on track because they are using the template provided by elite franchises like the Packers for success ? Could you give an example of the Texans making a football decision that prempted a decision which would have been more popular with the fan-base on a particular issue, personnel matter, etc ?
Good questions. I do not think other teams take into account our team's commitment to "stability, patience and building through the draft" when they play us. If only the NFL gave out shiny participation ribbons! We've have 9 of them hanging from the rafters of Reliant! :D
 

infantrycak

Hall of Fame
Could you give an example of the Texans making a football decision that prempted a decision which would have been more popular with the fan-base on a particular issue, personnel matter, etc ?
Seriously?

Keeping HWWNBN certainly the last year but most likely the year before if we are talking majority.
Not drafting VY or Bush.
Keeping Kubiak.

They may be bad football decisions but they certainly were not the more popular decisions.
 

Yankee_In_TX

Dance Lindsay!
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.
 

TheCD

Rookie
Seriously?

Keeping HWWNBN certainly the last year but most likely the year before if we are talking majority.
Not drafting VY or Bush.
Keeping Kubiak.

They may be bad football decisions but they certainly were not the more popular decisions.
This may be really random, but you're post got me thinking.

I remember when old "Penny-Pincher Bob" and the organization took a serious run a Orlando Pace. Boy how different this team could have turned out if we'd gotten him...
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
This may be really random, but you're post got me thinking.

I remember when old "Penny-Pincher Bob" and the organization took a serious run a Orlando Pace. Boy how different this team could have turned out if we'd gotten him...
ewww i doubt Pace would of helped solve anything and i bet we still would have 0 play-off apperances.
 

IDEXAN

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Seriously?

Keeping HWWNBN certainly the last year but most likely the year before if we are talking majority.
Not drafting VY or Bush.
Keeping Kubiak.

They may be bad football decisions but they certainly were not the more popular decisions.
Well done ! Drafting Mario Williams over Vince Young (and to a lesser degree Bush) would be the iconic representation of a football decision which was so unpopular it stirred local fan wrath for not taking a local hero. And as we've learned it turned out to be a smart football decision.
Re retentions like Kubia or David Carr is not the same, and may be more the owner favoring certain personalities and not cases where football decisions won out over more popular choices ?
 

markn

All Pro
The best teams in the league make their player acquisitions based on what is best for their team, and not what is most popular.
Sadly, it appears the Texans have perfected the 'not what is most popular' clause of the tenet while ignoring the 'best for their team'.
 

OzzO

.. and then?
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.
Heh - I found that funny. If it weren't for that one little thing.....
 

Hagar

Drink up yall, its the Texans!
I've said for the last few years we're building a very stable organization that could be a dynasty.

The only catch is we're not winning. If we start winning, I think we would have a core that would last for years.

Whether the current group can do that or not is a whole other thread.
That's a big IF right there.

The problem with trying to build a dynasty without getting into the playoff is that you don't know what you don't know. As we all know, there's a big difference between thinking you know how to do something and actually doing it. GM whose never been a GM, HC whose never been a HC. Using mostly draftees who have never won a playoff game. All major unknowns.
 

infantrycak

Hall of Fame
Re retentions like Kubia or David Carr is not the same, and may be more the owner favoring certain personalities and not cases where football decisions won out over more popular choices ?
We will never know if they were attempt at best football judgment decisions but they certainly were both bucking the local polling numbers.
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
I have no doubt that McNair wants to win. And by the same token, I have no doubt that the other 31 owners want to win. That's pretty much a no-brainer. It's good for business if nothing else.

However, understanding how to achieve a consistently winning franchise is where McNair is nothing like the teams mentioned. They do not tolerate perpetual mediocrity. They simply don't. McNair does, and makes excuses for why he does. It's his team, so he gets that luxury. But it's obvious that he has not hired the right people for the job.

Thanks to Captain Obvious for writing this article. :rolleyes:



Good questions. I do not think other teams take into account our team's commitment to "stability, patience and building through the draft" when they play us. If only the NFL gave out shiny participation ribbons! We've have 9 of them hanging from the rafters of Reliant! :D
Repped

This is what I've been trying to say.

I would like to take time to thank BoB,Gary and Rick for wasting 5 going on 6 yrs football watching fun. Andre Johnson you deserve better than to waste your career with such a dysfunctional franchise.
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
Repped

This is what I've been trying to say.

I would like to take time to thank BoB,Gary and Rick for wasting 5 going on 6 yrs football watching fun. Andre Johnson you deserve better than to waste your career with such a dysfunctional franchise.
A.J knows he could get good money and play any where he wants, i dont feel sorry for a guy who chooses to stay and loves this organization.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
However, understanding how to achieve a consistently winning franchise is where McNair is nothing like the teams mentioned. They do not tolerate perpetual mediocrity. They simply don't.
From 1968, after winning two Super Bowls, Green Bay had four winning seasons for the next 24 years, with two playoff appearances.

Since their last Super Bowl appearance in 1997, not including this year, they averaged 9-7 over a nine year span, making the playoffs in only half the years and compiled a 2-5 post-season record.

Looks like Green Bay tolerated a hell of a lot of mediocrity over the years.
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
Andre apparently disagrees with you. Somehow him being on the inside and us not, well you can guess where that would go.
i agree, ANY team would pay him more money than GOD to play for them, and he chooses to stay with the Texans. I admire the man, All the money these guys make and he has always been humble. I will be proud to see him retire a Texan knowing he choose to stay is the best thing about it.
 

Double Barrel

Texans Talk Admin
Staff member
Contributor's Club
From 1968, after winning two Super Bowls, Green Bay had four winning seasons for the next 24 years, with two playoff appearances.

Since their last Super Bowl appearance in 1997, not including this year, they averaged 9-7 over a nine year span, making the playoffs in only half the years and compiled a 2-5 post-season record.

Looks like Green Bay tolerated a hell of a lot of mediocrity over the years.
I'm fairly confident that the article was using the successful years of the Packers with the "stability, patience and building through the draft" comparison. This is the perspective that I was addressing, not the 24 years that you are referring to in your post. The point of the article doesn't work if you go with the period that you bring up.

But, using that 24 years as an example for the Texans, do you know the reasons behind that long stretch of mediocrity? Poor personnel decisions made by unqualified coaches and an inept front office.

You see, the Packers hired a very good (and proven) GM with Ron Wolf in 1991. The next year he hired Holmgren, and the rest is history.

Hmmmm, there's a lesson in there somewhere... :um: ...but you have to remove the blinders to see it...
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
I'm fairly confident that the article was using the successful years of the Packers with the "stability, patience and building through the draft" comparison. This is the perspective that I was addressing, not the 24 years that you are referring to in your post. The point of the article doesn't work if you go with the period that you bring up.

But, using that 24 years as an example for the Texans, do you know the reasons behind that long stretch of mediocrity? Poor personnel decisions made by unqualified coaches and an inept front office.

You see, the Packers hired a very good (and proven) GM with Ron Wolf in 1991. The next year he hired Holmgren, and the rest is history.

Hmmmm, there's a lesson in there somewhere... :um: ...but you have to remove the blinders to see it...
OK, but outside of the '94-'98 seasons where they averaged 12-4 and went to 2 SB's, success since '91 must have been defined by three 8-8 seasons, four 9-7 seasons and two 10-6 seasons in nine of the other twelve seasons.

The point I am trying is that Texan fan is saying year after year of 8-8 or 9-7 is mediocrity for the Texans, but was part of a 'successful model' for Green Bay? Heck, they were 4-12 two years ago! Green Bay was great for four seasons, and a slightly better than average team for the majority of the rest of the time.
 

Double Barrel

Texans Talk Admin
Staff member
Contributor's Club
OK, but outside of the '94-'98 seasons where they averaged 12-4 and went to 2 SB's, success since '91 must have been defined by three 8-8 seasons, four 9-7 seasons and two 10-6 seasons in nine of the other twelve seasons.

The point I am trying is that Texan fan is saying year after year of 8-8 or 9-7 is mediocrity for the Texans, but was part of a 'successful model' for Green Bay? Heck, they were 4-12 two years ago! Green Bay was great for four seasons, and a slightly better than average team for the majority of the rest of the time.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Green Bay has had 2 losing seasons since 1992. That's a pretty successful franchise in the past two decades, all things considered. Packers fans might disagree...I don't know...but from our perspective as Texans fans, I'd be happy with that kind of record.

My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Green Bay has had 2 losing seasons since 1992. That's a pretty successful franchise in the past two decades, all things considered. Packers fans might disagree...I don't know...but from our perspective as Texans fans, I'd be happy with that kind of record.

My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.
OK, maybe I am confused. The general consensus on this board is that 8-8 and 9-7 will no longer be tolerated by the fans. That it is mediocrity. That this team needs to be winning 10 games or more to be considered successful.

But yet, Green Bay has had six seasons of 8-8 or 9-7 during this period considered as 'successful' for them. Was it considered successful because they interspersed these average seasons with a few good ones and got to the Super Bowl?

I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.
 

TheCD

Rookie
OK, maybe I am confused. The general consensus on this board is that 8-8 and 9-7 will no longer be tolerated by the fans. That it is mediocrity. That this team needs to be winning 10 games or more to be considered successful.

But yet, Green Bay has had six seasons of 8-8 or 9-7 during this period considered as 'successful' for them. Was it considered successful because they interspersed these average seasons with a few good ones and got to the Super Bowl?

I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.
In short, yes. The thing is that the people who are saying this are saying it because we have no history of success. While I view our 9-7 poorly, we were still only a fluke play here and there, a yard here, a field goal here and there, plus a 2-game back-in into the playoffs for the Jets away from the playoffs. Had any of that gone differently the outlook would be much brighter.
 

HoustonFrog

Dallas Frog
In short, yes. The thing is that the people who are saying this are saying it because we have no history of success. While I view our 9-7 poorly, we were still only a fluke play here and there, a yard here, a field goal here and there, plus a 2-game back-in into the playoffs for the Jets away from the playoffs. Had any of that gone differently the outlook would be much brighter.
That is alot of " we were onlys." Remember that works towards the losing side too.

As for GB. They have a rich history. During that time they had some playoff time. That is why a guy like Mike Sherman was always on the hot seat. Some found him to be a solid coach while others didn't think he did enough. I don't think it was accepted there at all but they stuck with some of the seasons to see if they could pull it out. Probably easier to do when your franchise is a storied franchise. When your franchise has never won anything then celebrating a non-playoff 9-7 or "being on the right track" seems hollow.
 
Last edited:

Double Barrel

Texans Talk Admin
Staff member
Contributor's Club
OK, maybe I am confused. The general consensus on this board is that 8-8 and 9-7 will no longer be tolerated by the fans. That it is mediocrity. That this team needs to be winning 10 games or more to be considered successful.

But yet, Green Bay has had six seasons of 8-8 or 9-7 during this period considered as 'successful' for them. Was it considered successful because they interspersed these average seasons with a few good ones and got to the Super Bowl?

I'm just trying to figure out what makes 9-7 successful for GB and mediocre for Houston.
Okay, I gotcha'. My speculation would be that it comes down to perspective. Sort like one of those optical illusions where the shade of gray is really the same but looks different if it's surrounded by white or surrounded by black (abstract example, I know).

The Packers went to the post-season 13 times since the '92 season. Perhaps going to playoffs and winning championships makes those 8-8 and 9-7 records bearable? So regardless of an individual season, they have long term hope because they have experienced success. And since '92, the Packers never went beyond two seasons without making the playoffs.

For us, however, those 8-8 / 9-7 records are the peaks. And without any post-season appearances in 9 years, it feels hopeless sometimes.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
Gonna Data Integrity Police myself after realizing that I was missing some data points for a few seasons.
 
Last edited:

CharloTex

Rookie
If Bob, Smithiak continue their present decision-making pattern of "self inflicted wounds," they will likely remain afflicted.:tiphat:
I agree. And this is from a medical professional (doctor). So bank it. I don't know enough about Smith to understand to what degree he is the % of the problem. But what I know about Kubes - the coach, not the man - I believe he is 75% of the problem, until proven otherwise.
 

CharloTex

Rookie
So let me play What If:

2007: 8-8
2008: 8-8
2009: 9-7
2010: 6-10

What If 2011 is 9-7 for the Texans? Is that success or mediocrity?

Because what is listed above is not very different from what Green Bay experienced before this year.

They were 10-6, 10-6, 4-12 and 8-8.

Then they win the Super Bowl this year...
Disagree. 10-6 are SUCCESSFUL seasons. Did they make the playoffs in any of those years? That also makes for a successful year. 9-7 cannot be classified as a successful year, especially without a playoff appearance. It can be called a "positive" year, better than average, winning year, but in no way successful, unless it was followed by 4 additional post season wins.
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
Disagree. 10-6 are SUCCESSFUL seasons. Did they make the playoffs in any of those years? That also makes for a successful year. 9-7 cannot be classified as a successful year, especially without a playoff appearance. It can be called a "positive" year, better than average, winning year, but in no way successful, unless it was followed by 4 additional post season wins.
actually i don't think its successful if you don't win the Superbowl isn't that the whole point of playing the game. Play-offs with no Lombardi trophy mean nothing.
 

CharloTex

Rookie
From 1968, after winning two Super Bowls, Green Bay had four winning seasons for the next 24 years, with two playoff appearances.

Since their last Super Bowl appearance in 1997, not including this year, they averaged 9-7 over a nine year span, making the playoffs in only half the years and compiled a 2-5 post-season record.

Looks like Green Bay tolerated a hell of a lot of mediocrity over the years.
Making the playoffs in half of all years is holding up their end of the bargain, considering a team would mathematically be expected to trip into the playoffs every 2.67 years under an "all things equal" state. So every other year is even better.
 

Double Barrel

Texans Talk Admin
Staff member
Contributor's Club
actually i don't think its successful if you don't win the Superbowl isn't that the whole point of playing the game. Play-offs with no Lombardi trophy mean nothing.
C'mon, man, we're Texans fans. We have much lower standards for defining success. :winky:
 

CharloTex

Rookie
actually i don't think its successful if you don't win the Superbowl isn't that the whole point of playing the game. Play-offs with no Lombardi trophy mean nothing.
Winning the Super Bowl would be termed football "perfection" or "the pinnacle". Do you think the Rooney family is berating the Steelers as we speak for not having a successful year?
 

EllisUnit

Vote RED!!!
Winning the Super Bowl would be termed football "perfection" or "the pinnacle". Do you think the Rooney family is berating the Steelers as we speak for not having a successful year?
Success without reaching the main goal is an opinion. So really the Steelers Failed to do the job they were supposed to do. which is reach the Superbowl.
 

CharloTex

Rookie
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Green Bay has had 2 losing seasons since 1992. That's a pretty successful franchise in the past two decades, all things considered. Packers fans might disagree...I don't know...but from our perspective as Texans fans, I'd be happy with that kind of record.

My point is that "stability, patience and building through the draft" works if you've hired the right people. Otherwise, it's perpetual mediocrity, which is certainly represented by one winning season in 9 years.
I wish I had said that.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
Disagree. 10-6 are SUCCESSFUL seasons. Did they make the playoffs in any of those years? That also makes for a successful year. 9-7 cannot be classified as a successful year, especially without a playoff appearance. It can be called a "positive" year, better than average, winning year, but in no way successful, unless it was followed by 4 additional post season wins.
I don't want to argue for arguing sake, and I feel like I am doing that at this point. What originally set me off was the comment about GB and Pittsburgh not accepting mediocrity. My personal opinion is that, in Green Bay's case, they are more willing to accept average and mediocre, even losing seasons, because they come after some very successful seasons. But let's not say that they have not had trends of "Kubiak" in their record. They haven't woke up every morning since '91 and pissed Excellence.

It's a lot like last year when the Saints won, and everyone wanted to compare how Payton took NO to the SB in only four seasons, while all Gary could do was 9-7, completely ignoring that they took over two entirely different teams.

I guess as fans it is natural to compare our team to the one that wins it all and talk about all the ways we don't do it like the winners did. But in the last 15 years, 10 different teams have won. So who do we want to the team to be modeled after?
 
Top