McNair: "We're not going to do something we think is crazy"

[thunderkyss]

Four 5-7 starts to seasons in a row speak volumes about BoB, Gary and Ricks competence. But TK and Mr.Tex cant see the forrest for the trees.

No, I agree with that. You can't find anything I've said since 2009 to refute that.

Some of the arguments made against the Texans M.O. doesn't make sense. Bob is trying IMO, sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. He's not doing as many things 180 degrees from what successful owners are doing, as some would have you think.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[gary]

I just think Wade fits the mold of McNair being Bum's boy and all.

 

[Texecutioner]

No, I agree with that. You can't find anything I've said since 2009 to refute that.

Well there is like hundreds of posts from all last season and the one before that where you didn't agree. Do you think people have amnesia around here or something? You repped Kubiak as this great coach in the making all year long and made every attempt that you could to belittle other coaches who have achieved a lot more in your persuit to defend Kubiak. Are you denying this?

 

[Rey]

You are making my point and I said nothing about hopes. If Wade does a reasonable job then I expect 9+ wins and in that event I doubt McNair fires Kubiak unless the offense has regressed. If Wade doesn't build a mid-pack D then we might not get the 9+ wins but then it makes no sense to promote the guy who failed and fire the guy who succeeded in their specialty areas. I think if Kubiak is gone, everyone is gone.

I really think it depends on how you see the Texans offense. Personally, I think some of our numbers were inflated due to getting behind early and having to air it out late.

There were quite a few games where the offense did not perform as expected. There were also a few times where the offense failed to convert in "must get" situations. Granted, they did have their fair share of clutch performances but we have not really seen how they play when it's a close game all day long...

Yes the offense has put up some good numbers, but I wouldn't call them a sure thing. Will Foster/the running game keep it up? Will a key player or two go down? Do the Titans and/or Jags improve?

There are lots of factors involved in wins and losses.

I could easily see a scenario where the defense makes a dramatic improvement but we still come out with a losing record.

 

[infantrycak]

There were quite a few games where the offense did not perform as expected. There were also a few times where the offense failed to convert in "must get" situations.

Identify the games where the O failed and then tally it up against the games where the D failed.

Bottom line is the O put up 24.4 points per game. That should be enough to win if the D shows up. Only one team with that or more points failed to get to .500 and the majority were playoff teams. The SB winner was at 24.2 ppg.

I could easily see a scenario where the defense makes a dramatic improvement but we still come out with a losing record.

That was the unless the offense regresses part of that post. If it doesn't and the D makes a dramatic improvement there is no reasonable expectation of a losing record.

 

[Texecutioner]

Identify the games where the O failed and then tally it up against the games where the D failed.

Bottom line is the O put up 24.4 points per game. That should be enough to win if the D shows up. Only one team with that or more points failed to get to .500 and the majority were playoff teams. The SB winner was at 24.2 ppg.



That was the unless the offense regresses part of that post. If it doesn't and the D makes a dramatic improvement there is no reasonable expectation of a losing record.

You missed his point entirely. He said that the Texans offense had nice stats, but he felt that they were over blown stats that looked good on paper for the most part. He mentioned the fact that several games the Texans took to long to start scoring while the defense started giving up to many points early on and the offense was just throwing the ball around like crazy playing catch up to get higher points and in many situations the offense had the ball to clinch a game and couldn't do it or would lose the ball. There were problems with the offense.

 

[infantrycak]

You missed his point entirely. He said that the Texans offense had nice stats, but he felt that they were over blown stats that looked good on paper for the most part. He mentioned the fact that several games the Texans took to long to start scoring while the defense started giving up to many points early on and the offense was just throwing the ball around like crazy playing catch up to get higher points and in many situations the offense had the ball to clinch a game and couldn't do it or would lose the ball. There were problems with the offense.

Then name the games where the O failed. I didn't miss the point, I don't think it is true. Notice I didn't mention any stat but the one that determines games - points. With a halfway decent D last year we win 9-11 games. Not claiming the O is perfect at all.

It is really pretty simple. Every D was scared of our O. No O was scared of our D.

 

[Rey]

Identify the games where the O failed and then tally it up against the games where the D failed.

We all know that the O performed better than one of the worst defenses in league history.

The point is that they have shown that they are more than capable of playing awful. They have had some bad starts and some bad finishes...and there were some games where they just stunk all the way through.

Bottom line is the O put up 24.4 points per game. That should be enough to win if the D shows up. Only one team with that or more points failed to get to .500 and the majority were playoff teams. The SB winner was at 24.2 ppg.

I don't think that is a reliable indicator.

The Texans haven't always been as bad on defense as they were last year. Under Kubiak the offense has consistently hovered around 24 pts/gm yet we've never made the play-offs and have only gotten above .500 once...

That was the unless the offense regresses part of that post.

Huh? You said that if the defense makes a reasonable improvement then you expect 9+ wins and you don't expect to see Kubiak gone unless the offense has regressed...

I said I could see a scenario where the defense improves a lot, but we still have a losing record. 9+ wins is not a losing record...

 

[Rey]

Every D was scared of our O. No O was scared of our D.

I don't think there were many teams that were scared of either unit. Sure they respected our offense more, but I don't see many teams shaking in their boots because the Texans offense is coming to town...

Respect/knowing we're capable of putting up points isn't the same thing as fear.

I think teams probably feared Vick and the Eagles, Peyton, Brady...Our offense doesn't strike that kind of fear...mainly because we don't really win anything...

 

[Texecutioner]

I don't think there were many teams that were scared of either unit. Sure they respected our offense more, but I don't see many

Respect/knowing we're capable of putting up points isn't the same thing as fear.

Exactly. No defense was in total fear of the Texans. Come on man, who are we kidding. Teams respected our offense, but they were nothing to fear except for that 2nd half blast that would always come when the offense wouldn't hardly do a thing for the first half, but all to frequently it would be to late.

I think teams probably feared Vick and the Eagles, Peyton, Brady...Our offense doesn't strike that kind of fear...mainly because we don't really win anything...

No question they feared those teams more. They've all had historically consistent teams that made the post season year after year in the last decade. The Texans haven't sniffed the post season yet. I don't know why some people don't seem to get that we're looked at just like another Detroit Lions around the league. We've had more embarrassing losses than most teams around the league the last two seasons.

 

[infantrycak]

I don't think that is a reliable indicator.

It's called scoreboard. It is the most reliable indicator out there. Look at winning teams and they do one or both of scoring more than league average or holding teams to under league average. Our D out sucked our O.

Huh? You said that if the defense makes a reasonable improvement then you expect 9+ wins and you don't expect to see Kubiak gone unless the offense has regressed...

Huh back at you. Yeah if the O is as good as the last two years I expect 9+ wins if the D gets to mid-pack.

I don't think there were many teams that were scared of either unit.

Then you are fooling yourself. You don't hang 28 points on a Ravens D that normally gives up 16.9, hang 27 on a Jets D that normally gives up 19, and recover from 14 and 21 point deficits multiple times and not get respected by other teams.

 

[Texecutioner]

Then you are fooling yourself. You don't hang 28 points on a Ravens D that normally gives up 16.9, hang 27 on a Jets D that normally gives up 19, and recover from 14 and 21 point deficits multiple times and not get respected by other teams.

You just brought up a game that further helped out Rey's point though. Against the Ravens the offense had the ball to where all they needed to do was march down the field and get into FG position and they threw a pick 6 ending the game. That was a game where this supposed great offense had their opportunity to clinch and failed. One of Rey's points about the offense were that "There were also a few times where the offense failed to convert in "must get" situations. That was one of those obvious situations. They also did the same thing against the Jags and didn't convert. They lost the ball on a fumble. I've mentioned this multiple times over the last two seasons when people try acting like this offense is so great. When we're in "must get" situations where the game is on the line and we need to close we all to often have that epic fail moment instead of closing the game. That's not what top notch offenses do that NFL defenses feel they need to fear.

 

[infantrycak]

You just brought up a game that further helped out Rey's point though. Against the Ravens the offense had the ball to where all they needed to do was march down the field and get into FG position and they threw a pick 6 ending the game. That was a game where this supposed great offense had their opportunity to clinch and failed. One of Rey's points about the offense were that "There were also a few times where the offense failed to convert in "must get" situations. That was one of those obvious situations. They also did the same thing against the Jags and didn't convert. They lost the ball on a fumble. I've mentioned this multiple times over the last two seasons when people try acting like this offense is so great. When we're in "must get" situations where the game is on the line and we need to close we all to often have that epic fail moment instead of closing the game. That's not what top notch offenses do that NFL defenses feel they need to fear.

That is just ignoring the entirety of the game and frankly any football reality. No offense is perfect. Never has been, never will be. They all have fumbles and INT's. We never would have been in position to as you "it's oh so easy" say drive 99 yards down the field if the offense hadn't already driven 99 yds and 95 yds with a 2 pt. conversion already. The O came back from being down 21 pts. twice. Bottom line the O dramatically outscored the opposing D's average in the Ravens game and the D dramatically allowed more points than the opposing O normally scored. In the Jags game the D gave up 66 yards and a TD in 8 seconds.

 

[Rey]

It's called scoreboard. It is the most reliable indicator out there. Look at winning teams and they do one or both of scoring more than league average or holding teams to under league average. Our D out sucked our O.

Then why have the Texans only gotten above .500 once since Kubiak has been here?

The D hasn't always been as bad as they were last year. Sure they've never been great, but they have done enough in games in past years and we've still lost.

I look at games individually. A team can get a high scoring avg. by scoring a lot of points in one or two games.

Then you are fooling yourself. You don't hang 28 points on a Ravens D that normally gives up 16.9, hang 27 on a Jets D that normally gives up 19, and recover from 14 and 21 point deficits multiple times and not get respected by other teams.

Sorry, but teams don't fear sub .500 ball clubs.

I really think it's kind of silly to say that teams were scared of any unit we put on the field.

1) If I'm on defense I know that if I give up points that my offense will have no trouble scoring them back

2) Despite the scoring avg. the Texans offense looked inept often last year. Relying on late game comebacks to boost your offensive stats are not what good offenses tend to do.

Consistently put up points. Score early and often.

Then maybe teams will fear the Texans offense. Until that time, they will only fear guys like Andre and Foster, but not the unit as a whole.

 

[steelbtexan]

I think it depends on the circumstances. IF the O regresses for some reason and the D is top ten then I could see a transition to Wade as HC. 9-7 makes the playoffs for some teams almost every year. If they make the playoffs then I don't see anyone fired. If the O is an explosive top 5 O but the D still fails but shows some improvement then I suspect everyone stays. If the O falters and the D doesn't develop then I could see everyone blown out

.



I said 9+ wins to not be overly optimistic. In any event, how the 9 wins come and what they mean are significant. Arizona got to the SB on 9 wins.

If 9-7 gets Gary to the playoffs. I can livve with it. But not be thrilled with the progress this team has made.

If they finish 9-7 and dont make the playofffs. I will feel like a lab rat chasing cheese if no changes are made.

 

[Rey]

That is just ignoring the entirety of the game and frankly any football reality. No offense is perfect. Never has been, never will be. They all have fumbles and INT's. We never would have been in position to as you "it's oh so easy" say drive 99 yards down the field if the offense hadn't already driven 99 yds and 95 yds with a 2 pt. conversion already. The O came back from being down 21 pts. twice. Bottom line the O dramatically outscored the opposing D's average in the Ravens game and the D dramatically allowed more points than the opposing O normally scored. In the Jags game the D gave up 66 yards and a TD in 8 seconds.

Cak, had the defense not nutted up and made some key stops then we can't make a comeback either.

Doesn't mean the defense had a good game.

The units work together.

You're talking about other offenses, but "feared" offenses aren't throwing game winning TD's to the other team...Feared offenses aren't putting their defense in bad situations for entire halves.

The scoring avg is great, but playing one good half of football is bad and not anything to fear no matter how you slice it.

 

[steelbtexan]

No, I agree with that. You can't find anything I've said since 2009 to refute that.

Some of the arguments made against the Texans M.O. doesn't make sense. Bob is trying IMO, sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. He's not doing as many things 180 degrees from what successful owners are doing, as some would have you think.

That's all I'm saying.

Which successful owner has kept a .500 or less GM/HC for 5 /going on 6 yrs.?

 

[gary]

I don't know I just know I am off the Kubiak bandwagon and hope that he proves me wrong at this point.

 

[dalemurphy]

Which successful owner has kept a .500 or less GM/HC for 5 /going on 6 yrs.?

Bob McNair.

 

[leebigeztx]

To me, a good offense comes into a game and impose their will. The texans didnt do that. Despit the so called explosive offense, oakland scored more. Despite the explosive offense, 70% of the passes were 7 yds or less. The best example I can give is the game vs denver. a explosive offense wouldve scored 40 againsr the after a 21 pt lead.

 

[Lucky]

Which successful owner has kept a .500 or less GM/HC for 5 /going on 6 yrs.?

Bob McNair.

If you define success as making $$$, then dale is correct. Otherwise, I haven't a clue as to what he's referring to.

 

[Mr teX]

To me, a good offense comes into a game and impose their will. The texans didnt do that. Despit the so called explosive offense, oakland scored more. Despite the explosive offense, 70% of the passes were 7 yds or less. The best example I can give is the game vs denver. a explosive offense wouldve scored 40 againsr the after a 21 pt lead.

C'mon, now you guys are just nitpicking. Noone's offense shows up 16 out of 16 weeks and plays awesome. Every team's offense has games where they struggle. That doesn't mean that they're not an explosive offense. Using your criteria, only the 98' vikings & the 05' patriots would qualify as being explosive.

 

[Rey]

C'mon, now you guys are just nitpicking. Noone's offense shows up 16 out of 16 weeks and plays awesome. Every team's offense has games where they struggle. That doesn't mean that they're not an explosive offense. Using your criteria, only the 98' vikings & the 05' patriots would qualify as being explosive.

I agree. The Texans offense can be explosive. Just about everyone's offense has the potential to be explosive.

 

[dalemurphy]

If you define success as making $$$, then dale is correct. Otherwise, I haven't a clue as to what he's referring to.

referring to Humor.

 

[drs23]

There you go again, spouting off with more inaccuracies. How do you live with yourself lying to all of us day after day? Gary Kubiak has the worst hair of any coach in the NFL! Have you seen a closeup of his receding hairline? It looks like a boomerang landed on his forehead, or maybe he's trying to channel his inner-Manning...

It's just awful, stop pretending like Kubiak has the greatest hair just because you love him so much. If you could take a step back from humping his leg, you might be able to see how bad his hair really is. It's all frizzy and carelessly stuffed under his headset, he certainly doesn't maintain it as well as other coaches like Mike Tomlin, Bill Belichek and Sean Payton. Even Jack Del Rio had a great year in 2006 where he looked quite dashing after switching to TRESemme.

Year after year, we have to deal with the shortcomings of his poor taste and stupid hair stylist. Seriously, what is he thinking surrounding himself with a stylist that agrees this is the look for him? He's had 6 years to find a competent hair dresser, but each time he fails because he wants one of his buddies to do it. If only he would go to Sportclips and get a new one who will challenge his attempt to pick a halfway decent look, then maybe he could command an NFL team properly.

I think given his track record of years of incompetence and poor taste, the only solution is to fire him and bring in a head coach with some real style. Someone who knows how to be a trendsetter and boldly don a style that he made his own. That's right, I'm talking about the man and his legendary mustache, Bill Cowher! Only he can redeem this franchise from 10 years of bad haircuts and no style!

Well presented factual case. Well documeted with visual aids. No holes in your case whatsoever. Well done young man.

MSR

 

[ObsiWan]

C'mon, now you guys are just nitpicking. Noone's offense shows up 16 out of 16 weeks and plays awesome. Every team's offense has games where they struggle. That doesn't mean that they're not an explosive offense. Using your criteria, only the 98' vikings & the 05' patriots would qualify as being explosive.

you forgot to mention that both of those "explosive offenses" were slowed down in playoff time. as you said, every offense, even these record breaking ones, has games where they struggle.

 

[thunderkyss]

Well there is like hundreds of posts from all last season and the one before that where you didn't agree. Do you think people have amnesia around here or something? You repped Kubiak as this great coach in the making all year long and made every attempt that you could to belittle other coaches who have achieved a lot more in your persuit to defend Kubiak. Are you denying this?

No, I think people have agendas.

My stance before the 2010 season, was that the team was ready. My belief was that any coach could take that team to 10+ wins. Gary built that team, so we might as well let him stay there & be the guy.

I also painted a picture of a 10 win season that I believe should still culminate in Gary Kubiak's firing. If we got to Jan 2, 2011 at 10-5, with a win against the Jags putting us in the play-offs, & a loss meaning we watch...... I wanted Gary gone.

I have stated that it makes no sense to me that Kubiak was still part of this organization after Jan 3rd, unless McNair doesn't want to do the new HC & new GM again at the same time. But I expected Rick Smith to be gone by now in that event.

I'm holding on to hope of hopes, that Rick Smith was told get Aso or be gone...... but we won't know if that is the case for another 2 or 3 months at least.

My arguments have been against arguments that simply don't make sense. That we need to be active in FA & overpay to get talent if we want to win. Greenbay didn't do it, they've been as inactive in FA as we have. So has Indianapolis, so has Pittsburgh.

That we have to hire a "proven winner" in a coach. Miami didn't, Atlanta didn't, Baltimore didn't, Greenbay didn't.

I think Kubiak has done an outstanding job with our offense, & I've said as much. I haven't said one good thing about Gary Kubiak the head coach since the end of 2009.

 

[NBT]

Let me get this straight, you want the owner and his team to go away? And yet you still sport an an avatar supporting said team and post on a message board dedicated to them? Ok, makes sense I suppose.

It goes under the heading of "think before you Post"!
We didn't like Bud Adams so we sacrificed the Oilers, and were without a Pro team for 6 years of absolute boredom. We have the Texans now and we damn sure don't want to lose them. What, hopefully will happen is that McNair will get more savy as the team matures. At least I hope so.

 

[Double Barrel]

We didn't like Bud Adams so we sacrificed the Oilers...

"we" ??? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Historical evidence reveals that ONE MAN made the decision to move that team, and it was not a fan, local politician, or any other person not named Bud Adams.

Fans had nothing to do with that decision, and if that fat greedy rat had just been patient and willing to work with the Houston Rodeo, he'd be the overlord of a shiny new stadium on Kirby.

Sorry, just had to clarify that situation.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Here is where I'd like to see the team...on this list

http://twitter.com/#!/evansilva



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/09/2011-draft-visits-and-workouts-tracker/

They are up to 4 on the new list, including a TE...hip-hip horray

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/09/2011-draft-visits-and-workouts-tracker/

 

[GP]

"we" ??? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Historical evidence reveals that ONE MAN made the decision to move that team, and it was not a fan, local politician, or any other person not named Bud Adams.

Fans had nothing to do with that decision, and if that fat greedy rat had just been patient and willing to work with the Houston Rodeo, he'd be the overlord of a shiny new stadium on Kirby.

Sorry, just had to clarify that situation.

I've been thinking about this (several of you are cringing right now)...

Had Bud Adams stayed here, right now we'd be enduring his senile behavior. And, we see what he bases his draft picks upon (which means God only knows what we'd have on the field right now). Although there's no way of knowing if the Houston Oilers (all these past years) would have equaled or even surpassed what the Tennessee Titans have produced, we still would have had today's weirdo Bud Adams running the show.

So all things considered, maybe our current Texans situation is at least a little less embarrassing version of what Bud Adams is displaying these days? I dunno, maybe I'm just grasping at straws (at this point) to convince myself that things aren't as bad here as I believe them to be! LOL.

It's the whole, "Well, at least we're not THEM" rationlization game. See my sig photo, below.

Rule No. 1 in life: Always surround yourself with people inferior to you, so that you look a little better than everyone else. Hey, it's worked for Gary Kubiak so far!

 

[Texecutioner]

I've been thinking about this (several of you are cringing right now)...

Had Bud Adams stayed here, right now we'd be enduring his senile behavior. And, we see what he bases his draft picks upon (which means God only knows what we'd have on the field right now). Although there's no way of knowing if the Houston Oilers (all these past years) would have equaled or even surpassed what the Tennessee Titans have produced, we still would have had today's weirdo Bud Adams running the show.

So all things considered, maybe our current Texans situation is at least a little less embarrassing version of what Bud Adams is displaying these days? I dunno, maybe I'm just grasping at straws (at this point) to convince myself that things aren't as bad here as I believe them to be! LOL.

It's the whole, "Well, at least we're not THEM" rationlization game. See my sig photo, below.

Rule No. 1 in life: Always surround yourself with people inferior to you, so that you look a little better than everyone else. Hey, it's worked for Gary Kubiak so far!

The Titans have had a lot more success than the Texans have since the Texans have been in existence. Bud has done much better than Mcnair has.

 

[GP]

The Titans have had a lot more success than the Texans have since the Texans have been in existence. Bud has done much better than Mcnair has.

I think it might fall under the "it's all relative" heading, though.

He didn't win a Super Bowl, and now his team looks completely clueless with their QB situation, Adams' numerous fines from the league due to poor conduct, a new inexperienced head coach and "friends of Munchak" syndrome hitting their locker room. Therefore, any success he had has now become eroded.

Once again: There's no way of knowing what the current Houston Oilers would look like (had they been here all these past years). But I think it's certain that Bud Adams is growing senile and kookier by the year. In fact, I'm almost certain that had he not moved the franchise when he did...he would have moved it a year or two later anyways. Or, what if he had just moved it a few years ago? Then we'd have no NFL football to discuss, as it pertains to "our team" we have now.

I'm not an emergent apologist or anything, just saying it's interesting (to me) to think about the What If's, etc.

 

[steelbtexan]

The Tacks have been way more successful than the Texans.

If winning is the only priority, the Texans have been the Tacks b....

You not only have Bud to blame. But also Buds minions. Along with that wife beating,philandering,choking,racist that is Warren Moon.

 

[HoustonFrog]

I think it might fall under the "it's all relative" heading, though.

He didn't win a Super Bowl, and now his team looks completely clueless with their QB situation, Adams' numerous fines from the league due to poor conduct, a new inexperienced head coach and "friends of Munchak" syndrome hitting their locker room. Therefore, any success he had has now become eroded.

Once again: There's no way of knowing what the current Houston Oilers would look like (had they been here all these past years). But I think it's certain that Bud Adams is growing senile and kookier by the year. In fact, I'm almost certain that had he not moved the franchise when he did...he would have moved it a year or two later anyways. Or, what if he had just moved it a few years ago? Then we'd have no NFL football to discuss, as it pertains to "our team" we have now.

I'm not an emergent apologist or anything, just saying it's interesting (to me) to think about the What If's, etc.

The above bolded is going to be an interesting experiment. Maybe "Friends of Gary" just suck alot worse than "Friends of Mike." So we will see how any "Friends of" works out. I know some coaching circles are people you know but there is a difference between familiarity and "give my buddy a shot."

 

[Double Barrel]

I've been thinking about this (several of you are cringing right now)...

Had Bud Adams stayed here, right now we'd be enduring his senile behavior. And, we see what he bases his draft picks upon (which means God only knows what we'd have on the field right now). Although there's no way of knowing if the Houston Oilers (all these past years) would have equaled or even surpassed what the Tennessee Titans have produced, we still would have had today's weirdo Bud Adams running the show.

So all things considered, maybe our current Texans situation is at least a little less embarrassing version of what Bud Adams is displaying these days? I dunno, maybe I'm just grasping at straws (at this point) to convince myself that things aren't as bad here as I believe them to be! LOL.

It's the whole, "Well, at least we're not THEM" rationlization game. See my sig photo, below.

Rule No. 1 in life: Always surround yourself with people inferior to you, so that you look a little better than everyone else. Hey, it's worked for Gary Kubiak so far!

You need to read "Oiler Blues: The Story of Pro Football's Most Frustrating Team" sometime. You'd quickly realize that Houston endured his 'senile' behavior for decades! Seriously, old Bud pales in comparison to young Bud.

As far as "what if...", the fact of the matter is that the majority of the star players that took the Titans to the Super Bowl were drafted as Oilers. I have little doubt that this team would have made it to the Super Bowl if they had still been in Houston.

To Bud's credit (and I rarely give him any), he did admit that his biggest mistake was not letting the Astros leave town first. So I think the Oilers would still be here if he had played the game and been patient for a stadium deal, but true to his nature, greed got the better of him and the rest is history.

As far as Bud vs. Bob...m'eh, different times in history. Bud was a big part of the AFL's success and eventual merger with the NFL, so I've got to give him that credit. Back then, it was not a sure fire investment with pro football, and certainly nothing like it is today where you have an almost guarantee on your investment (as close as it could ever be, at least).

The Oilers are a part of my history as a football fan. That connection was forged through great wins and heartbreaking failure. And while I'm a Texans fan for as long as they have Houston in the name, I have yet to feel the emotional connection to the team like I did with the Oilers many years ago. Most likely because the Texans have always...well, to be honest...sucked.

 

[texanchris]

http://houston.sbnation.com/houston-texans/2011/4/5/2092823/jonathan-joseph-nnamdi-asomugha-texans-offseason-vonta-leach-2011-rumors
Looks like they are interested in Jonathan Joseph according to McClain. I would be happy with this signing because Joseph can be a good number 1 corner and not take up a lot of the cap space that Asomugha would.

 

[False Start]

http://houston.sbnation.com/houston-texans/2011/4/5/2092823/jonathan-joseph-nnamdi-asomugha-texans-offseason-vonta-leach-2011-rumors
Looks like they are interested in Jonathan Joseph according to McClain. I would be happy with this signing because Joseph can be a good number 1 corner and not take up a lot of the cap space that Asomugha would.

From that link, if they don't resign Leach, I really think its gonna come back to bite them in the ass big time!