Kubiak Supporters: Why should he stay?

[thunderkyss]

The Kubiak Supporters are missing ONE HUGE GLARING FLAW in their argument!

This regime has been PERFECTLY CONSISTENT in who they WIN against, AND
who they LOSE to!

Houston Texans 2009 Overall Record: 7-7

Houston Texans record against Teams at .500 or below: 6-1

Houston Texans record against teams with winning records: 1-6

How do you EXPLAIN THIS!!???

Nobody is glossing over this "factual evidence" because it is completely a figure of your imagination. We haven't always been 1-5 in our division, or 1-6 against teams with winning records.

I remember losing to bad Buffalo, NYG, Oakland, & several other bad teams when we played them. We lost to a bad Cowboy team 3 years ago in a game we should have beat their sorry asses in their stadium.

This year, we didn't lose to any bad teams, depending on where you want to put the NYJets.

 

[thunderkyss]

2) Out of Kubiak's 29 wins, only 7 have been against winning teams.

29 wins in 3.75 seasons. 62 games, 29 wins. That makes 33 losses.


Were all 33 losses to bad teams?

How many losses to bad teams this year? How many bad teams did we play this year?

All but two of our losses are to teams with winning records this season, & those two are to the Titans who are playing better than their record suggests.

 

[thunderkyss]

Did you see the first half of the second Indy game? We KICKED THEIR ASSES, up and down the field. With 40 percent of our offensive starters on IR? Hmm. That tells me we can turn it on when we want to.

To me, that's a testament to the depth that everybody says we don't have.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Personally, I don't think the team has progessed much this year overall, but others have claimed that it shows great improvement. Perhaps I'm just not capable of the discernment of which you speak, but I see a pattern of futility: some areas have improved significantly, but some have regressed just as significantly while others stayed about the same. The regression must be subtracted from the progression to get a true picture.

.

One area I keep seeing mentioned...and I find it to be a rather poor argument..is that Kubiak fans are saying that the Texans aren't getting blown out. They aren't pushovers. That they are only losing by 3 points to top teams. Basically "we are no longer an easy out and are sooooooooo close."

I already addressed it in my 7 points a few pages back but to me that may seem like improvement but it is really still a "L" with prettier packaging. Truthfully each season is a separate entity. As TC pointed out in one article, there should be no corrolary between one season and the next. So to think only losing by 3 means you will win those games next year really makes no sense. What if you lose by 1....is that even more improvement?

I think the one answer I've yet to hear, but it may be in what I just said, is how can a team that improves on both sides of the ball every year end up in the same place, .500?

I agree with you. At some point there may be a faction that just thinks refs, injuries, missed kicks, etc are always the excuse to keep going with the plan.

 

[ObsiWan]

Git 'em TK! lol

 

[HoustonFrog]

29 wins in 3.75 seasons. 62 games, 29 wins. That makes 33 losses.


Were all 33 losses to bad teams?

How many losses to bad teams this year? How many bad teams did we play this year?

All but two of our losses are to teams with winning records this season, & those two are to the Titans who are playing better than their record suggests.

I think you are missing the point completely. The point was that they only beat bad teams. That only 7 of 29 wins was against winning teams. Therefore they were beating bad teams. What you are stating makes my point.....that they can't beat good teams and can't compete with good teams despite their "improvements." I broke down who they beat in this thread and took the time to go through all of his years.

 

[Goldensilence]

29 wins in 3.75 seasons. 62 games, 29 wins. That makes 33 losses.


Were all 33 losses to bad teams?

How many losses to bad teams this year? How many bad teams did we play this year?

All but two of our losses are to teams with winning records this season, & those two are to the Titans who are playing better than their record suggests.

TK that's the point. We can sure beat the Rams and Seahawks of the league but, we can't seem to keep up with the Colts, Cards (man that still sounds weird to say), heck even the Jags. Until the Titans started on their run (and if they finish with a better record after starting 0-6 I'm going to be sick) out biggest quality win has been against Cinci (Again weird to say).

Sure we can keep up with them, but until we start to beat teams equal to us or winning teams we've got no chance at the playoffs realistically.

 

[thunderkyss]

I don't see how that statement is accurate in a couple different ways. Number 1 we had a running game last year. If we simply had that running game we would be in the playoffs this year. Number 2 he has done quite a bit to build the running game, it just failed this year. He brought in one of the top three OL coaches, drafted 4 OLmen on the first day (what was traditionally first day) plus grabbed another 1st day guy and fixed his medical issue that got him waived, traded for another OLmen plus drafted Slaton on the 1st day.

He came in saying it was going to take 3 years to build this thing. OF our starting OL, he's had Chester Pitts going on 4 years.

He's had Winston going on 4 years.

Myers & Briesel going on 3 years.

Studdard going on 3 years, what, 13 games as a starter?

White has been here 4 years, this is also his first year as a starter.

Duane Brown going on 2 years.

Caldwell going on 1 year.

I honestly think the line this year has improved dramatically since Pitts went down. I don't think we'll see Pitts on the field as a Texan again.

I also think White & Caldwell have been swapping at RG, because one of the two will be our starting Center next year & Kubiak is getting them the experience they need.

 

[thunderkyss]

TK that's the point. We can sure beat the Rams and Seahawks of the league but, we can't seem to keep up with the Colts, Cards (man that still sounds weird to say), heck even the Jags.

No, the point is that in the past, we lost to bad teams just as frequently (I think) as we lost to good teams.

We are now, actually better than half the teams in the NFL, when before we were as bad as the worse teams in the NFL.

& we lost to the Cards, we beat the Bengals.

We haven't lost to any team this year, that does not have at least a 7-7 record.

Might not be what you want to hear, and you can jumble the numbers however you want to prove your point, but for my argument, No losses to losing teams is a sign of improvement.

Winning on the road is also a sign, but that's a different story.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Kubiak sucks. That is all. Thank you and good night.

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.


Gary, this is the type of post that Katie was referring to.

 

[thunderkyss]

I think you are missing the point completely. The point was that they only beat bad teams. That only 7 of 29 wins was against winning teams. Therefore they were beating bad teams. What you are stating makes my point.....that they can't beat good teams and can't compete with good teams despite their "improvements." I broke down who they beat in this thread and took the time to go through all of his years.

I'm not missing the point, I'm looking from a glass half full perspective.

At the beginning of every season, we go through our schedule, and mark W's by bad teams & L's by good teams. We factor in that we'll win a game or two that we shouldn't (usually a Colts game) & we'll lose a game we shouldn't.

Nobody ever thinks that the other team fans are doing the same thing, & 99% are putting Ws for their team against the Texans. Even the Seattle Seahawks fans & Rams fans & Oakland fans. We've been a "should win" game for every team in the NFL.

This year, we won all the should win games (the Jets were 9-7 last year, & will probably be 9-7 again this year).

I can make an argument for natural progression of things, win some games, win all "easy" games, win all "easy" games & some difficult games....

& it would be pretty easy to point to that, & say, "this is where we were, this is where we are, & this is where we will be if we continue to progress as we have been."

 

[spurstexanstros]

I hate to repeat myself...but

Kubiak and Smith have put the team in positions to win it was up to the players to excecute.

Chris Brown's fumble
Matt Schaub's pic 6 to DRC on possible game winning drive.
Kris Brown's missed FGs that could have won or tied three games.
Ryan Moats fumble ( ok Kubiak should have told matt to snap the ball)

Obviously the players did not excecute....and that is what cost the Texans this year.

( I will save the drafting running back I told you so's for another thread)

 

[HoustonFrog]

No, the point is that in the past, we lost to bad teams just as frequently (I think) as we lost to good teams.

We are now, actually better than half the teams in the NFL, when before we were as bad as the worse teams in the NFL.

& we lost to the Cards, we beat the Bengals.

We haven't lost to any team this year, that does not have at least a 7-7 record.

Might not be what you want to hear, and you can jumble the numbers however you want to prove your point, but for my argument, No losses to losing teams is a sign of improvement.

Winning on the road is also a sign, but that's a different story.

I find this idea warped in a way. If you end up 8-8 every year and you are losing to good teams and getting by on horrible teams, it means your record is a mirage. You can't compete with the big boys, thus negating the improvement argument. If improvement, to you, is not losing to bad teams...I'm not sure what to say. They ended last season losing to a really bad Raider team. You have to take into context how bad those losing teams were and here is the list of the wins up until this year


2006: 6-10: Dolphins (6-10), Jags (twice) (8-8), Oakland (2-14), Indy (12-4), Cleveland (4-12)....there is 1

2007: 8-8: KC (4-12), Carolina (7-9), Miami (1-15), Oakland (4-12), New Orleans (7-9), Tampa (9-7), Denver (7-9), J'Ville (11-5)....there is 2

2008: 8-8: Miami(11-5), Detroit (0-16), Cincy (4-11-1), Cleveland (4-12), J'Ville (5-11), Green Bay (6-10), Tennessee (13-3), Chicago(9-7)....so there is 3.

So you can take what you want from it and I respect that....I just have nothing to add because I think we have two very different views on what is "improvement" and what a teams standards of excellence should be.

 

[Goldensilence]

No, the point is that in the past, we lost to bad teams just as frequently (I think) as we lost to good teams.

We are now, actually better than half the teams in the NFL, when before we were as bad as the worse teams in the NFL.

& we lost to the Cards, we beat the Bengals.

We haven't lost to any team this year, that does not have at least a 7-7 record.

Might not be what you want to hear, and you can jumble the numbers however you want to prove your point, but for my argument, No losses to losing teams is a sign of improvement.

Winning on the road is also a sign, but that's a different story.

Actually since 2007 we've done a fairly good job of beating bad teams, though granted at times it's just been slipping by ex: Rams last week.

Will grant either if we win in Miami for the first time under Kubiak we'll have a winning record on the road. If we lose well I guess .500 is the name of the game overall. I guess getting to .500 on the road is tremendous improvement.

 

[mussop]

No, the point is that in the past, we lost to bad teams just as frequently (I think) as we lost to good teams.

We are now, actually better than half the teams in the NFL, when before we were as bad as the worse teams in the NFL.

& we lost to the Cards, we beat the Bengals.

We haven't lost to any team this year, that does not have at least a 7-7 record.

Might not be what you want to hear, and you can jumble the numbers however you want to prove your point, but for my argument, No losses to losing teams is a sign of improvement.

Winning on the road is also a sign, but that's a different story.

Think about what you are saying. Kubiaks 4th season as head coach is a success because we beat crappy teams now. It doesnt matter that we still cant beat good teams? Im sorry but your standards are way to low.

Question for you, Obviously you are ok with where the team is, how do you feel about Kubiaks ability to make in-game adjustments, overall game management and personell decisions as in who gets playing time and when?

 

[Texan_Bill]

Yeah, because the Bengals suck.

 

[ObsiWan]

I'm not missing the point, I'm looking from a glass half full perspective.

At the beginning of every season, we go through our schedule, and mark W's by bad teams & L's by good teams. We factor in that we'll win a game or two that we shouldn't (usually a Colts game) & we'll lose a game we shouldn't.

Nobody ever thinks that the other team fans are doing the same thing, & 99% are putting Ws for their team against the Texans. Even the Seattle Seahawks fans & Rams fans & Oakland fans. We've been a "should win" game for every team in the NFL.

This year, we won all the should win games (the Jets were 9-7 last year, & will probably be 9-7 again this year).

I can make an argument for natural progression of things, win some games, win all "easy" games, win all "easy" games & some difficult games....

& it would be pretty easy to point to that, & say, "this is where we were, this is where we are, & this is where we will be if we continue to progress as we have been."

[must spread rep]
And it's that progress that I see and think will get us where we want to be.

 

[HoustonFrog]

[must spread rep]
And it's that progress that I see and think will get us where we want to be. Why change what seems to be working?

My post right above at the top. Again, respectful but that is a poor standard of excellence. I doubt if you polled every team in the NFL and asked their 4 year goals, the answers would be "to beat the bad teams every year and maybe we can beat the good ones and make the playoffs." Most answer 1) Winning records 2) Win Division 3) Win playoff games 4) Win the big game and they cross them off. And these goals are usually made for each season too.

One area I keep seeing mentioned...and I find it to be a rather poor argument..is that Kubiak fans are saying that the Texans aren't getting blown out. They aren't pushovers. That they are only losing by 3 points to top teams. Basically "we are no longer an easy out and are sooooooooo close."

I already addressed it in my 7 points a few pages back but to me that may seem like improvement but it is really still a "L" with prettier packaging. Truthfully each season is a separate entity. As TC pointed out in one article, there should be no corrolary between one season and the next. So to think only losing by 3 means you will win those games next year really makes no sense. What if you lose by 1....is that even more improvement?

I think the one answer I've yet to hear, but it may be in what I just said, is how can a team that improves on both sides of the ball every year end up in the same place, .500?

I agree with you. At some point there may be a faction that just thinks refs, injuries, missed kicks, etc are always the excuse to keep going with the plan.

 

[thunderkyss]

If the 2010 Texans go 8-8 with the same "improvement" as this year, should Kubiak get a new contract?

For me, it isn't about W-L, yet. Next year, if something happens that would have affected The Chin, Jimmy Johnson, or Vince Lombardi himself, I'm not going to hold that against Kubiak.

I've stated in another thread, I expect this team to be playing so well next year, that anything less than 10 wins will be a disappointment, I think they'll be playing that well, a year from now if they continue to progress as they have.

Go back and look at some of Texans Chicks blogs, there were some about "the truth behind the numbers" or something like that. Was the defense really playing that well, or did we just catch the easy part of the schedule.... & stuff like that. We weren't really playing very well last year. Our run game was mostly Steve Slaton, and we all saw that at the beginning of the year. The OL was playing better than they did last year, & he was noticebly slower, his vision appeared impaired, & he did not have that burst.

But there were still improvements that made that 8-8 team better than the team the year before. & there are definite improvements in this team, even if they end up 7-9 that makes them better than last years team.

A lot of the things we wanted to see improvements in this year, we have. The Defense, damn near every aspect is improved over last year. Red Zone, Away Games, Turnovers, etc...

If there is obvious regression.... I want him gone. But as long as he keeps doing the right things, I want him to stay.

 

[Ndevine7]

Kubiak has helped this franchise in so many different aspects. He has brought this team from a cellar dweller to a team that is feared around the league and has arguably one of the top offenses in the league when healthy. Bringing in a new coach will slow down this teams development because what are the chances that players that thrive in Kubiaks system will thrive in this new coaches system. If not for the Brown's this year failing in crucial situations this team would be a playoff team no doubt about it. Let Kubiak have one more and if he fails agian then i think it is time to give him the boot.

 

[ObsiWan]

I hate to repeat myself...but

Kubiak and Smith have put the team in positions to win it was up to the players to excecute.

Chris Brown's fumble
Matt Schaub's pic 6 to DRC on possible game winning drive.
Kris Brown's missed FGs that could have won or tied three games.
Ryan Moats fumble ( ok Kubiak should have told matt to snap the ball)

Obviously the players did not excecute....and that is what cost the Texans this year.

( I will save the drafting running back I told you so's for another thread)

This has been a key part of my argument too. Yet, some folks want the coach's head and the players get off with a stern finger wag in a message board.

As an example:
Don't you think they practiced that HB pass to death and don't you think that Chris Brown had been nailing that HB pass in practice? As paranoid as Kubiak is about turnovers and reluctant as he is about trick plays (how many do you remember?), don't you think he and young Shanny thought they had that nailed?? But when the time came to do it in the game, Brown screwed the pooch. In my mind that's on Brown, not Shanny or Kubiak.

 

[HoustonFrog]

For me, it isn't about W-L, yet. Next year, if something happens that would have affected The Chin, Jimmy Johnson, or Vince Lombardi himself, I'm not going to hold that against Kubiak.

I've stated in another thread, I expect this team to be playing so well next year, that anything less than 10 wins will be a disappointment, I think they'll be playing that well, a year from now if they continue to progress as they have.

Go back and look at some of Texans Chicks blogs, there were some about "the truth behind the numbers" or something like that. Was the defense really playing that well, or did we just catch the easy part of the schedule.... & stuff like that. We weren't really playing very well last year. Our run game was mostly Steve Slaton, and we all saw that at the beginning of the year. The OL was playing better than they did last year, & he was noticebly slower, his vision appeared impaired, & he did not have that burst.

But there were still improvements that made that 8-8 team better than the team the year before. & there are definite improvements in this team, even if they end up 7-9 that makes them better than last years team.

A lot of the things we wanted to see improvements in this year, we have. The Defense, damn near every aspect is improved over last year. Red Zone, Away Games, Turnovers, etc...

If there is obvious regression.... I want him gone. But as long as he keeps doing the right things, I want him to stay.

I really have to ask you..... And again, I'm just trying to understand the mentality...you think this "standard" of judging a coach in todays NFL is normal?You really think just as long as the team looks better, even if they end up 7-9 or 8-8, that it is ok?Because if you are really improving then it should then reflect in the record. Really. That is what the league is about. The Texans aren't in a bubble in a division called AFC Candyland where trying hard, looking good and being diappointed but ok with it is acceptable. I just want to know why this franchise has to set such low standards. No other team does this that I know of. I just want it explained. Why is a perceived improvement despite the same results ok?

And for those here thinking both sides are beating a dead horse....I'm just trying to get an explanation to better understand the argument. Because it isn't my mindset or how I was brought up when watching the Cowboys, etc.

 

[houstonspartan]

My post right above at the top. Again, respectful but that is a poor standard of excellence. I doubt if you polled every team in the NFL and asked their 4 year goals, the answers would be "to beat the bad teams every year and maybe we can beat the good ones and make the playoffs." Most answer 1) Winning records 2) Win Division 3) Win playoff games 4) Win the big game and they cross them off. And these goals are usually made for each season too.

Agree with everything Frog has said. It's really sad when people say that W-L's aren't important or that division games aren't important. If you pull back the curtain on Kubiaks 8-8 record for both years, you will find some very, very nasty stats.

 

[Ndevine7]

This has been a key part of my argument too. Yet, some folks want the coach's head and the players get off with a stern finger wag in a message board.

As an example:
Don't you think they practiced that HB pass to death and don't you think that Chris Brown had been nailing that HB pass in practice? As paranoid as Kubiak is about turnovers and reluctant as he is about trick plays (how many do you remember?), don't you think he and young Shanny thought they had that nailed?? But when the time came to do it in the game, Brown screwed the pooch. In my mind that's on Brown, not Shanny or Kubiak.

I disagree with you on how that is on Brown and not Shanny or Kubiak. That was just a dumb play to call in the situation they were in at the goal-line in a tight game. They are all in fault but this does not warrent Kubiak to get the boot. Without him this team would be no where close to where it is now.

 

[Goldensilence]

This has been a key part of my argument too. Yet, some folks want the coach's head and the players get off with a stern finger wag in a message board.

As an example:
Don't you think they practiced that HB pass to death and don't you think that Chris Brown had been nailing that HB pass in practice? As paranoid as Kubiak is about turnovers and reluctant as he is about trick plays (how many do you remember?), don't you think he and young Shanny thought they had that nailed?? But when the time came to do it in the game, Brown screwed the pooch. In my mind that's on Brown, not Shanny or Kubiak.

Maybe I'm just crazy here or something...but why put the ball in Brown's hands? Why not your 4,000 yard QB or all world WR?

Hell if Shanahan or Gary wanted to be cute in the red zone why not a reverse to AJ?

In my mind it's on Shanny and Kubiak for deciding to put the ball in the hands of someone who has continued to fail to get the job done RUNNING much less THROWING.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Maybe I'm just crazy here or something...but why put the ball in Brown's hands? Why not your 4,000 yard QB or all world WR?

Hell if Shanahan or Gary wanted to be cute in the red zone why not a reverse to AJ?

In my mind it's on Shanny and Kubiak for deciding to put the ball in the hands of someone who has continued to fail to get the job done RUNNING much less THROWING.

Not crazy. Coaches put players in the position they are in. Chris Brown shouldn't be your goal line guy...three times....fumble, stopped and pass. You shouldn't let time run out and wait for your kicker to kick a long FG when you can get in extra play and get some more yards, etc, etc. That is all coaching.

 

[mussop]

I hate to repeat myself...but

Kubiak and Smith have put the team in positions to win it was up to the players to excecute.

It could actually be said that the talent got the team in positions to win and poor decisions by Kubiak is what led to the misshaps that lost us the games.

Chris Brown's fumble

No one outside our brilliant head coach thought Brown was a goal line or short yardage back.

Matt Schaub's pic 6 to DRC on possible game winning drive.

That was a terrible play call. . Throwing a deep out at that time like that is just asking a good corner to pick it off.

Kris Brown's missed FGs that could have won or tied three games.

Which missed FG could of won a game? The one in Indy to tie the game was set up by a poor decision that left a struggleing kicker a 49 yarder.

Ryan Moats fumble ( ok Kubiak should have told matt to snap the ball)

Refresh me.

How about adding the stagger brown to these as well?

Good coaches know that in crunch time you go to your goto players. You dont put the game in the hands of backups and you deffinatly dont try and force plays through the weakest part of your team.

Obviously the players did not excecute....and that is what cost the Texans this year.

Is it out of the question to think that coach that better prepared his team and made better personell and game decisions would of had better results?

( I will save the drafting running back I told you so's for another thread)

Im not sure what you are saying here????

You could argue that the talent is or isnt here or that the players have or havent executed and you could be right either way. But what you cant argue, what is undeniably a fact is that Kubiak is not a good game manager or good at preparing this team or good at making personell decisions realted to playing time or making in-game adjustments.

Why should Kubiak not be evaluated for handling his responsibilities just like the players? What is it that Kubiak does that makes people think a better more experienced proven coach couldnt do more with this talent?

 

[Texan_Bill]

I disagree with you on how that is on Brown and not Shanny or Kubiak. That was just a dumb play to call in the situation they were in at the goal-line in a tight game. They are all in fault but this does not warrent Kubiak to get the boot. Without him this team would be no where close to where it is now.

That play was equally a coach FAIL and a player FAIL. Thus my quoting DB for my sig... It's a symbiosis of suck.

A) The play shouldn't have been called, although it's been very successful for some other teams in that situation.

B) Chris Brown needs to be a football player in that situation. Throw the ball to the 15th row. Run out of bounds. Eat it. Whatever. Do NOT girly throw it. Hell my sister throws a better ball than that.

 

[Double Barrel]

I hate to repeat myself...but

Kubiak and Smith have put the team in positions to win it was up to the players to excecute.

Chris Brown's fumble
Matt Schaub's pic 6 to DRC on possible game winning drive.
Kris Brown's missed FGs that could have won or tied three games.
Ryan Moats fumble ( ok Kubiak should have told matt to snap the ball)

Obviously the players did not excecute....and that is what cost the Texans this year.

( I will save the drafting running back I told you so's for another thread)

psssst...little secret, man....

Every losing head coach in the history of the NFL can point to the players not executing. I do not believe any given unsuccessful head coach purposefully put their team in a position to lose, so inversely, they all tried to put their teams in position to win. In every case, the players did not execute.

Like mentioned in another thread, Kubiak is the longest tenured head coach that does not have a winning record. There is 1 out of 32 owners that finds a way to accept that glaring mediocrity. But there's no secret to which owner I'm referring to here.

 

[Texan_Bill]

psssst...little secret, man....

Every losing head coach in the history of the NFL can point to the players not executing. I do not believe any given unsuccessful head coach purposefully put their team in a position to lose, so inversely, they all tried to put their teams in position to win. In every case, the players did not execute.

Like mentioned in another thread, Kubiak is the longest tenured head coach that does not have a winning record. There is 1 out of 32 owners that finds a way to accept that glaring mediocrity. But there's no secret to which owner I'm referring to here.

Yet the longest tenured coach today didn't have his first winning season until his 5th full season.

 

[DexmanC]

That play was equally a coach FAIL and a player FAIL. Thus my quoting DB for my sig... It's a symbiosis of suck.

A) The play shouldn't have been called, although it's been very successful for some other teams in that situation.

B) Chris Brown needs to be a football player in that situation. Throw the ball to the 15th row. Run out of bounds. Eat it. Whatever. Do NOT girly throw it. Hell my sister throws a better ball than that.

Nice try at having it both ways. The COACHING calls the play, AND selects
the PERSONNEL to execute the play. In goal-to-go situations, the coaches
need to get the ball into the hands of the proper PERSONNEL. When you
have Kevin Walter, James Casey, Andre Johnson, Jacoby Jones, Ryan Moats,
Joel Dreesen, etc., you have a myriad of BETTER OPTIONS to go to in that
SITUATION.

The play was dead as soon as it hit the speakers in Matt Schaub's helmet.

That's on the coaching.

P.S. Chris Brown ain't Ronnie Brown, NOR Joseph Addai! Hell, he's a THIRD STRING BACK! who's
constantly being run down everyone's throat by Kubiak. Our coach is HORRIBLE at consistently
selecting the PROPER PERSONNEL for his playcalls!

 

[mussop]

Not crazy. Coaches put players in the position they are in. Chris Brown shouldn't be your goal line guy...three times....fumble, stopped and pass. You shouldn't let time run out and wait for your kicker to kick a long FG when you can get in extra play and get some more yards, etc, etc. That is all coaching.

They dont seem to want to acknowledge this.

 

[Double Barrel]

Yet the longest tenured coach today didn't have his first winning season until his 5th full season.

Apples and kumquats, my friend. Four different home stadiums in four seasons might have had something to do with that, too.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Apples and kumquats, my friend. Four different home stadiums in four seasons might have had something to do with that, too.

Of course its different, because Fisher actually inherited some talent.

 

[Double Barrel]

Of course its different, because Fisher actually inherited some talent.

Yep, and the team played in four different home stadiums in four seasons.

This is still not a solid argument for Kubiak, though. However, it's a GREAT argument on behalf of Jeff Fisher.

 

[ObsiWan]

It could actually be said that the talent got the team in positions to win and poor decisions by Kubiak is what led to the misshaps that lost us the games.

That logic escapes me. The players committed those "mishaps" yet it's the coach's fault???

No one outside our brilliant head coach thought Brown was a goal line or short yardage back.

Wasn't it Rick Smith who said, "we've got a good second back in this building..." when asked why not draft another RB? Put the blame for Chris Brown where it belongs.

That was a terrible play call. . Throwing a deep out at that time like that is just asking a good corner to pick it off.

That wasn't a deep ball. That was a 10-15 yd out that Schaub threw a second late. It was also an example of where we tried to go to our "best weapon" and got burned.

How about adding the stagger brown to these as well?

Good coaches know that in crunch time we're gonna try and go to your goto players. You dont put the game in the hands of backups and you deffinatly dont try and force plays through the weakest part of your team.

Sooo the other coach is not going to double or triple our best weapon in those situations..?? They get paid to make adjustments too. To assume that we can just throw the ball to A.J. everytime we get in a pinch is a nice dream, but not necessarily reality.

Is it out of the question to think that coach that better prepared his team and made better personell and game decisions would of had better results?

Is it out of the question to think that if the players correctly executed the plays that were called that they would work? Every play is designed to achieve an objective. But to achieve that objective every player has to do his job. If that doesn't happen, if a guy fumbles or there's a missed block or a dropped pass or a missed read or a late/underthrown ball or a missed kick - all things the players have been "prepared" to do properly - then the play will likely fail. That's on the players.

Why should Kubiak not be evaluated for handling his responsibilities just like the players? What is it that Kubiak does that makes people think a better more experienced proven coach couldnt do more with this talent?

Let me flip that on you; what makes you so sure someone else would have done any better?? We both know that there's no way to know if anyone could have gotten more out of the players on this team.

And you're going against the Soapers theme that they only bring facts to the discussion. To say someone, anyone, could have done better is totally unprovable speculation - not "fact". You may be right. But there's no way to prove it.
Lastly, Kubiak SHOULD be evaluated for handling his responsibilities. No question. No one says he shouldn't.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Yep, and the team played in four different home stadiums in four seasons.

This is still not a solid argument for Kubiak, though. However, it's a GREAT argument on behalf of Jeff Fisher.

It's an absolutely credible argument..

Christal Chandelier / Steve McNair > HWSRN
Eddie George > Wali Lundy
Frank Wychek > Owen Daniels (as a rookie)
Bruce Mathews, Brad Hopkins, Mark Stepnoski > any O-line we've ever had
Cris Dishman > Dunta "pay me rick" Robinson
etc. etc.

 

[HoustonFrog]

It's an absolutely credible argument..

Christal Chandelier / Steve McNair > HWSRN
Eddie George > Wali Lundy
Frank Wychek > Owen Daniels (as a rookie)
Bruce Mathews, Brad Hopkins, Mark Stepnoski > any O-line we've ever had
Cris Dishman > Dunta "pay me rick" Robinson
etc. etc.

I still think the 4 stadiums in 4 years trumps all of this. This about all fo the talk last year and how the Texans got screwed because of the Katrina (guys weren't sleeping at home, had no permanent place to call home, practices were thrown off, homefield jacked) Then do that 4 years straight where every season was jacked up. To me I think it is even more incredible that he got them to where they were.

 

[thunderkyss]

I really have to ask you..... And again, I'm just trying to understand the mentality...you think this "standard" of judging a coach in todays NFL is normal?You really think just as long as the team looks better, even if they end up 7-9 or 8-8, that it is ok?Because if you are really improving then it should then reflect in the record. Really. That is what the league is about. The Texans aren't in a bubble in a division called AFC Candyland where trying hard, looking good and being diappointed but ok with it is acceptable. I just want to know why this franchise has to set such low standards. No other team does this that I know of. I just want it explained. Why is a perceived improvement despite the same results ok?

And for those here thinking both sides are beating a dead horse....I'm just trying to get an explanation to better understand the argument. Because it isn't my mindset or how I was brought up when watching the Cowboys, etc.

For this team, the Arizona Cardinals (until recently), the Detroit Lions, the SF 49ers, the Tampa Bay Bucaneers (Pre-Dungy), and any other team that just can't seem to get it right (The Dallas Cowboys), before they can put too much stock in winning & loosing games, they need to be doing the right things right, & playing good football.

The Cowboys have been up & down ever since Jimmy Johnson left, because (IMHO) the focus isn't on playing good football, the focus is on winning games. If winning & loosing games is all that matters, & you're only worried about what it takes to win or lose, you're going to be swinging from a 6-10 team to a 10-6 team & not be able to explain it.

If you're playing good football, & what Kubiak has done with this team takes that to many different levels. But if you're playing good football, it's only a matter of time that it will show up in the record. The Colts, the Pats, the Steelers, they have a system, they have a formula. When something goes wrong, they can go back & look at what happened, address it, & get back to their winning ways.

We're blocking better, throwing better, catching better, running better routes, tackling better, covering better, penetrating better, everything better. We're playing as a team now, where we weren't before.

We're tied for 5th in sacks allowed... have we ever done that before this late in the season if not ever?

We're second in passing offense, 7th in total offense (with no running game), 8th in Time of Possession, 11th in points per game, 7th in first downs per game. 14th in 3rd down conversions (not that great, but better than 50% of the NFL).

We're 12th in total defense (1st year in this system), 8th in defensive ToP, & we've dramatically improved in every defensive stat as the year progressed.

I think we are playing good football now. Next year's W-L will mean more than it does now. I think we've got enough talent & depth that loosing one or two players won't mean as much as it does now.

I expected all this to happen sooner than it had. I believe we are one year behind where we should be. There are things that happened this year, that explains why we are where we are, & I think they are good reasons/excuses. I am not happy about where we are, but I can accept it. Some of it is squarely on Gary's shoulders. Some of it not.

 

[Double Barrel]

It's an absolutely credible argument..

Christal Chandelier / Steve McNair > HWSRN
Eddie George > Wali Lundy
Frank Wychek > Owen Daniels (as a rookie)
Bruce Mathews, Brad Hopkins, Mark Stepnoski > any O-line we've ever had
Cris Dishman > Dunta "pay me rick" Robinson
etc. etc.

Wait a minute, let's re-examine your initial statement:

Of course its different, because Fisher actually inherited some talent.

Fisher was hired as HC in November 1994.

He did not inherit Eddie George. Fisher drafted him in 1996.

He did not inherit Frank Wycheck. He picked him up from the Redskins in 1995.

Dishman filed for free agency after the 1996 season and did not play for the Oilers after that point.

And let's not act like ANYONE on the Oilers even compared to Andre Johnson. Seriously, bro', Kubiak - an offensive minded coach - inherited his BEST OFFENSIVE WEAPON.

AJ > entire 1994 Oilers team that Fisher inherited.

And Fisher's team played in four different home stadiums in four seasons.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Wait a minute, let's re-examine your initial statement:



Fisher was hired as HC in November 1994.

He did not inherit Eddie George. Fisher drafted him in 1996.

He did not inherit Frank Wycheck. He picked him up from the Redskins in 1995.

Dishman filed for free agency after the 1996 season and did not play for the Oilers after that point.

And let's not act like ANYONE on the Oilers even compared to Andre Johnson. Seriously, bro', Kubiak - an offensive minded coach - inherited his BEST OFFENSIVE WEAPON.

AJ > entire 1994 Oilers team that Fisher inherited.

And Fisher's team played in four different home stadiums in four seasons.

Ooops. My bad. He inherited Lorenzo White and Gary Brown. He inherited Ernest Givens, Webster Slaughter and Haywood Jeffries. He inherited Al Smith, Blaine Bishop, and Lamar Lathon.

AJ alone is not > Ernest Givens, Webster Slaughter and Haywood Jeffries combined.... Individually yes, absolutely. Combined, no.

 

[Silver Oak]

uggh. this thread deserved a Dr. Kevorkian pages ago.

 

[mussop]

Yet the longest tenured coach today didn't have his first winning season until his 5th full season.

Good lord Bill, your still harping of this.

Of course, you are leaving a couple of things out of this coach-comparing analysis. At the 60-game mark, Kubiak's Texans were 5-7, having lost four straight, and had essentially been eliminated from playoff contention.

Jeff Fisher who was working under some very strange conditions when he reached game 60 of his coaching career. Fisher took over the Houston Oilers in midseason, replacing a fired Jack Pardee. Fisher went 1-5 that season. The next year, 1995, the Oilers were 7-9, but the whole uproar over whether the Oilers were getting a new stadium or were departing for Nashville was already well underway. The team went 8-8 under difficult circumstances in 1996 and 8-8 in 1997 as the team practiced in Nashville and played games in Memphis.

The Tennessee Oilers were 3-3 when Fisher hit the 60-game mark in 1998. They would finish that season at 8-8, and the next year, they would go to the Super Bowl. So while it's rather nice of you to provide us with those comparisons, they're not really apt comparisons.

After all, Kubiak's not dealing with the distraction of a franchise moving to another city.

 

[Texan_Bill]

I still think the 4 stadiums in 4 years trumps all of this. This about all fo the talk last year and how the Texans got screwed because of the Katrina (guys weren't sleeping at home, had no permanent place to call home, practices were thrown off, homefield jacked) Then do that 4 years straight where every season was jacked up. To me I think it is even more incredible that he got them to where they were.

He had 2 1/2 years at the Dome (or for Mussop 38 games) before the move to Memphis. The Hurricane Ike and the Memphis / Vanderbilt / Adelphia Coloseum comparison is apples and oranges.

 

[Texan_Bill]

uggh. this thread deserved a Dr. Kevorkian pages ago.

How appropriate. Right on, SO!!!

 

[Double Barrel]

Ooops. My bad. He inherited Lorenzo White and Gary Brown. He inherited Ernest Givens, Webster Slaughter and Haywood Jeffries. He inherited Al Smith, Blaine Bishop, and Lamar Lathon.

AJ alone is not > Ernest Givens, Webster Slaughter and Haywood Jeffries combined.... Individually yes, absolutely. Combined, no.

Givins was gone after 1994. He played with the Jags in 1995.

Slaughter was gone after 1994, as well. He went on to play for the Chiefs, Jets, and Chargers.

Jeffires last season with the Oilers was 1995. He played for the Saints to end his career.

So yeah, I think a very credible case is made that AJ in his fourth year is > that all of those washed up receivers at the end of their careers. History is what it is.

Al Smith - gone in 1996.

Lamar Lathon - gone in 1994.

Fisher inherited a crappy team, just like Kubiak. There was a reason Adams fired Pardee in the middle of the season. They were 1-9.

 

[Double Barrel]

uggh. this thread deserved a Dr. Kevorkian pages ago.

There is a simple solution for you. Don't click the link that says "Kubiak Supporters: Why should he stay?" and you will never be bothered by it.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Givins was gone after 1994. He played with the Jags in 1995.

Slaughter was gone after 1994, as well. He went on to play for the Chiefs, Jets, and Chargers.

Jeffires last season with the Oilers was 1995. He played for the Saints to end his career.

So yeah, I think a very credible case is made that AJ in his fourth year is > that all of those washed up receivers at the end of their careers. History is what it is.

Al Smith - gone in 1996.

Lamar Lathon - gone in 1994.

Fisher inherited a crappy team, just like Kubiak. There was a reason Adams fired Pardee in the middle of the season. They were 1-9.

Please see Silver Oaks post.

 

[mussop]

That logic escapes me. The players committed those "mishaps" yet it's the coach's fault???


Wasn't it Rick Smith who said, "we've got a good second back in this building..." when asked why not draft another RB? Put the blame for Chris Brown where it belongs.




That wasn't a deep ball. That was a 10-15 yd out that Schaub threw a second late. It was also an example of where we tried to go to our "best weapon" and got burned.


Sooo the other coach is not going to double or triple our best weapon in those situations..?? They get paid to make adjustments too. To assume that we can just throw the ball to A.J. everytime we get in a pinch is a nice dream, but not necessarily reality.


Is it out of the question to think that if the players correctly executed the plays that were called that they would work? Every play is designed to achieve an objective. But to achieve that objective every player has to do his job. If that doesn't happen, if a guy fumbles or there's a missed block or a dropped pass or a missed read or a late/underthrown ball or a missed kick - all things the players have been "prepared" to do properly - then the play will likely fail. That's on the players.


Let me flip that on you; what makes you so sure someone else would have done any better?? We both know that there's no way to know if anyone could have gotten more out of the players on this team.

And you're going against the Soapers theme that they only bring facts to the discussion. To say someone, anyone, could have done better is totally unprovable speculation - not "fact". You may be right. But there's no way to prove it.
Lastly, Kubiak SHOULD be evaluated for handling his responsibilities. No question. No one says he shouldn't.

Im done with this subject. Its gone on too long and to much is getting taken out of context. At this point no one is going to change anyone elses mind. It really doesnt matter anymore, everyone has stated their feelings and made their opinions known. You guys have fun.

I have no doubt that if Kubiak does come back he will continue to hold this team back with poor coaching. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I actually hope I am wrong because I would like to see Kubiak be the one that turns this thing around.

 

[Texan_Bill]

There is a simple solution for you. Don't click the link that says "Kubiak Supporters: Why should he stay?" and you will never be bothered by it.

Done!!!