Baldinger: Bob McNair "content with mediocrity"

[dalemurphy]

Switzer?!?!?! the dude won a Super Bowl. his teams came out prepared and ready to play. contrary to sheeple opinion, it wasn't just Jimmy's team. It was the team Jimmy assembled but that was a different team and was 2 years removed from Jimmy when they won.

Switzer was a HELLUVA coach both in college and NFL. He probably should have won 2 Super Bowls if not for the turnover issue the Cowboys had in Candlestick the year after Jimmy left.
Geez, I just don't get it. Guys win Super Bowls and they should be run out of town, but a guy has a .500 record and he is God.

I blame the Texas educational system for cranking out people this ignorant.

So, you excuse Switzer's failings because of turnovers but you blame Kubiak for missed FGs and turnovers... interesting.

You are restating my point. Sometimes, because of all kinds of variables, poor coaches can have success, good ones can fail (Belichek in Cleveland). It happens. If you think that Barry Switzer is a good NFL head coach then you clearly are delirious. He was a fool! He was a 57 year old man that attempted to carry a handgun on to a commercial airline. What does that say about his decision-making ability to you?

By the way, have you ever listened to Moos Johnston talk about that Superbowl win? His RB coach, the name eludes me, walked up to him after the game and said that was the greatest performance by a group of players in the history of the NFL. Referencing winning a superbowl inspite of the awful head coach.

 

[Hardcore Texan]

basically, nothing is the fault of the coach. not the poor in-game adjustmenst, not the team comign out flat 75% of the season, not the poor halftime adjustments, not the being able to keep team inspired for a full game. .

Now these are some the same very things I was very upset with Kubiak about, and since he is coming back I hope we don't see any of this next year. Another one was coming out flat against the Jets in the opener and getting man-handled. I was so pissed off about that and lay all that blame on the HC.

I would have definitely supported bringing in Cowher, but I don't who else out there besides him would be a definite upgrade over Kubiak.

 

[dalemurphy]

I'm not quite sure what you just said...

Arbitrary is defined: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

It seems to me that McNair is basing decisions on arbitrary standards, whereas other owners have firm goals that must be met in order to earn an extension.

Every team in the league experiences "variables and circumstances which can not be forecast ahead of time" every year. There are reasons and there are excuses, and often they are the same thing. It depends on which side of the aisle you're on, I guess.

You say that our our owner is 'holistic' in his decisions (whatever that means), then it stands to reason that his obvious arbitrary standards reveal his true feelings.

And that is clearly a sense of contentment with the direction of this team by granting Kubiak not only a 'stay of execution' but a pardon with a two year extension.

I'm not arguing about the pro/con of keeping Kubiak. He's our head coach for 2010 and most likely beyond.

What Baldinger said is probably closer to the truth than not. Flower the language all you want, but the support of Baldinger's perspective is in action, not words. McNair's actions clearly reveal his position on the subject.

You are calling McNair a liar and saying that Baldinger knows better what is in McNair's head/heart than many of us do. Why?

McNair said that he believes the stability of the organization with Kubiak in place is the best way to achieve success next year and the years' following. Why is he lying?... He could be wrong, certainly.

 

[dalemurphy]

Throwing out the David Carr card is pretty dirty, I think racial slurs should be more welcomed around here than that!

 

[Hardcore Texan]

I'm not quite sure what you just said...

Arbitrary is defined: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

It seems to me that McNair is basing decisions on arbitrary standards, whereas other owners have firm goals that must be met in order to earn an extension.

Every team in the league experiences "variables and circumstances which can not be forecast ahead of time" every year. There are reasons and there are excuses, and often they are the same thing. It depends on which side of the aisle you're on, I guess.

You say that our our owner is 'holistic' in his decisions (whatever that means), then it stands to reason that his obvious arbitrary standards reveal his true feelings.

And that is clearly a sense of contentment with the direction of this team by granting Kubiak not only a 'stay of execution' but a pardon with a two year extension.

I'm not arguing about the pro/con of keeping Kubiak. He's our head coach for 2010 and most likely beyond.

What Baldinger said is probably closer to the truth than not. Flower the language all you want, but the support of Baldinger's perspective is in action, not words. McNair's actions clearly reveal his position on the subject.

Maybe McNair didn't think he could get a better replacement or had a better option for next year, maybe he wanted to give Kubiak one more season and did the extension as a show of public backing of his coach. Maybe he spoke to Cowher or another coach offline. We don't know, that's part of the point. And for Baldinger or anyone else to infer that he is content with being mediocre is BS. They have no clue what went into McNair's decision.

Me personally, I would not have done the extension. And if I could not have had a significant upgrade at the HC spot I would have made the move. Anything less than a significant upgrade (a proven winner) gives us a lesser chance to be successful next year IMO. I would have not done the extension and told Kubiak, this year is for all the marbles, it's a contract year for you and this team has to get it done or it's game over.

 

[GP]

For me I guess it is like the old saying I can talk about my family but if someone else does, the fighting begins. If you want to criticise my team, then go through each game with them (and me) & I might respect your POV.Swoop in with negative comments once or twice does not convince me you know anything but are probably regurgitating what you heard someone else say. I truly doubt the players on any team listen to these bozos so why should we?

Only one problem with this line of reasoning you have:

1a. If Baldinger or King says something GOOD about us, there will be a rush by everyone to post it as a new thread and brag about how someone "seems to finally give the Texans some love for a change!"

1b. Heck, there is a gaggle of people on here who get their undies all bunched up if we are too far down in someone's Power Rankings or Post-Draft Report. I used to be one those, until I realized that I got to take the bad along with the good.

1c. Also, we post threads all the time, and take great joy in them, when an analyst rips Vince Young or Reggie Bush. LOL. Right? That analyst suddenly becomes the smartest person in the world. Unless he messes with US.

Not every review is going to be a glowing review of our team. And TC is pretty accurate when she says she doesn't listen to the voices--I, too, limit my intake to the people who seem to put forth the most honest effort.

I trust Baldinger above almost every other of his colleagues out there. His film dissection of Carr and Schaub, when the whole deal went down for Schaub, was soooo accurate that it was creepy freaky good.

Michael Smith is also someone who is not a hack; someone who seems to be objective and not silly all the time.

There is something to the idea/theory of being a homer and how it clouds a fan's thought process.

 

[dalemurphy]

Now these are some the same very things I was very upset with Kubiak about, and since he is coming back I hope we don't see any of this next year. Another one was coming out flat against the Jets in the opener and getting man-handled. I was so pissed off about that and lay all that blame on the HC.
I would have definitely supported bringing in Cowher, but I don't who else out there besides him would be a definite upgrade over Kubiak.

I was livid. It was the only game I've ever walked out on early. I left in the middle of the 3rd quarter. That was a disgrace and I think Kubiak deserves a lot of blame for that one. Not just for them being flat, but also for being unprepared for the A gap blitzes. And, for the safety situation. They should've never gone into the season without upgrading at safety.

I think the other bad showing by Kubiak was the home game versus Jacksonville. The way they handled Grossman was a mistake as well as the Chris Brown HB pass fiasco.

However, I can't escape the fact that this young team continues to improve and play hard under him. I really believe its on the cusp and think blowing it up right now would be a mistake. Barring catastrophic injuries next season, I can't imagine still being supportive of Kubiak if the Texans don't win at least 10-11 games.

 

[infantrycak]

The reason the Cowboys lost their dynasty-like run wasn't because of JJ leaving, it was because they lost Irvin who was the heart and soul of that team.

Irvin was lost 2 seasons after Switzer was fired.

Switzer was a poor choice to follow JJ particularly because their Hall of Fame QB had purposely gone to a different school to avoid Switzer in college.

It was the team Jimmy assembled but that was a different team and was 2 years removed from Jimmy when they won.

Switzer was a HELLUVA coach both in college and NFL.

I'm sorry but I just can't give too much credit to a guy taking over a back to back SB team and then winning one with essentially the same team. And I was a Cowboys fan in that era. Switzer was sitting on the sideline watching JJ's team win.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one and some people are one.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Throwing out the David Carr card is pretty dirty, I think racial slurs should be more welcomed around here than that!

BTW, I mentioned your Carr view on page 1 not to throw it in your face but to show that we all aren't "experts" on this team or any team despite thinking to know every little move. It also shows that any one of our heart felt opinions can be off. I think Baldinger is a guy that studies his stuff. I think King says some really stupid stuff at times and can be a blowhard. But I also think they talk to people within organizations and around the league all day, every day and that they might have a better feel for some situations than any of us. I think alot of what we process is the b.s. we get fed.

 

[WWJD]

I bet Marc needed a Vanderhug after Brian's harsh words...

 

[dalemurphy]

BTW, I mentioned your Carr view on page 1 not to throw it in your face but to show that we all aren't "experts" on this team or any team despite thinking to know every little move. It also shows that any one of our heart felt opinions can be off. I think Baldinger is a guy that studies his stuff. I think King says some really stupid stuff at times and can be a blowhard. But I also think they talk to people within organizations and around the league all day, every day and that they might have a better feel for some situations than any of us. I think alot of what we process is the b.s. we get fed.

I agree. And, I do understand that I'm an optimist-leaning fan. That is intentional. It doesn't mean I'm delusional or I don't pay attention.

My point regarding Baldinger and where I think you are wrong is that I don't think he does a lot of homework regarding the interworkings of the organization. To Texanchicks point, it's not feasable. He covers 32 teams and frankly has a job in media instead of coaching because he values his free time. So, I doubt he does the serious homework you think he does. That being said, if he made a point on coaching tape about the Texans, I would certainly be inclined to respect it.

 

[Double Barrel]

I do know more about the Texans than King or Baldinger... without a doubt. So do you. That doesn't mean that I know more about football than they do.

Baldinger has been propping the Texans all season long. He's been one of the more fairer analysts on NFL Playbook (NFLN) about the Texans because he bases his opinions on game tape and not the general sense of the 'expansion' Houston Texans.

His views have always been objective, and he's been saying all along that the Texans have the talent to make the playoffs, but they are inconsistent in playcalling and execution. He places responsibility on both the players and the coaches.

In this story, he was asked specifically about the extension to Kubiak. Based upon what he has seen ALL season in game film, it is his take that Kubiak is not leading this team to the level that it could be at. Our four game losing streak to division opponents showed a lot of folks that we have the talent but seem to be missing some intangible(s) that would push these players to finish games strong when it really matters. That is one of the responsibilities of coaching.

You are just proving my earlier point that if he had supported the extension, you'd be cheering him right now.

You are calling McNair a liar and saying that Baldinger knows better what is in McNair's head/heart than many of us do. Why?

McNair said that he believes the stability of the organization with Kubiak in place is the best way to achieve success next year and the years' following. Why is he lying?... He could be wrong, certainly.

I never called McNair a liar. That is a disingenuous and intellectually dishonest statement on your part. I could take that as an insult if I was so inclined, but I find it more laughable than anything.

Like I said, I'm not arguing pro/con of Kubiak. He's our HC. Period.

But what Baldinger stated could be perceived as right if you look at it from some perspectives, and that's all I'm trying to point out. Blink twice if you can at least comprehend this statement (even if you disagree with it, comprehension does not equal agreement).

Please try to be a little less emotional in your defense of your position.

 

[Mailman]

earth to dalemurphy. earth to dalemurphy. HE DID CAUSE THAT!!

he called a timeout for crying out loud. did you even watch the games? he gave Caldwell a timeout so he could look and see if it was worth reviewing.

DID YOU WATCH THE GAME? Do you not remember how quickly it all unfolded?

This is the most unfair line of attack on Kubiak all year, but that should surprise no one since you've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to be an fair analyst. By any objective measure, blaming that sequence of events on the least culpable individual is absurd. The culpable parties are the replay official for overturning the call on the field with a horribly wrong decision (and we KNOW it was the WRONG CALL!!!) and Moats for fumbling the ball in the first place. The argument that Kubiak caused it all by letting the clock wind down to the two-minute warning (not a called timeout, btw) is simplistic hogwash that ignores the totality of circumstance. Yes, we were all screaming at our TVs for the Texans to hurry up and run a play but--and here's the key that you intentionally ignore--Gary Kubiak and Matt Schaub weren't sitting on their sofas watching the game on a big ass HDTV. They were trying to call the next play, score a TD, and do it by using the most time possible to keep The Peyton off the field. Nobody on the Texans sideline had any clue that the play was even remotely controvertible because all the players and the officials acted as if it was a routine fumble out of bounds. And guess what? IT WAS!!!!

Yet you blame that whole sequence on Gary Kubiak? Not Moats, not the dumbass replay official, but the coach on the sideline who was never told by any of his players or his assistant coaches that the play was questionable.

If you refuse to analyze that series of events as they unfolded from the perspective of a coach on the sideline and not a fan sitting at home with the advantage of replay in real time, then you have no credibility on the Kubiak topic whatsoever.

 

[Double Barrel]

and BOOM! goes the thread.

[off topic] it is amazing to me that something so destructive and powerful as a nuke can be so amazing to look at. Nice, but very scary, pic, man.

 

[infantrycak]

But what Baldinger stated could be perceived as right if you look at it from some perspectives, and that's all I'm trying to point out.

From the could be perceived part absolutely. I don't have a problem with Baldinger or anyone thinking Kubiak should be gone or shouldn't have been extended. I do think his manner of expression is wrong and displays something seen around here a lot - attempting to characterize the intent or belief of someone else. I understand saying McNair made a mistake because of X, Y and Z. I think it is wrong to say McNair is "content" or that other MB members are "content." It's a not very subtle form of character assassination spun off a disagreement on conclusions.

 

[Mailman]

"My whole mindset in that scenario right there, really, what had happened over there (with the fumble), the topic never came up that there was a problem over there. So I was strictly trying to control the game from the standpoint of hoping not to put our defense back on the field and give Peyton (Manning) the ball with too much time. I was very comfortable. I think it would've been second-and-two. We go to the two-minute warning. Hopefully we score on second down, if we don't, we score on third. We're taking time off the clock, so we don't put our defense in a bad situation and we go in 13-7 at the half. So I'm trying to control the football game from that standpoint. Obviously, when we come back from the two-minute warning, then the discussion starts. ‘Oh, they're looking at this play. This ball might be out.' So at that point it's too late, but it was not a discussion up until that point."

SH blames Kubiak even though Kubiak wasn't told anything by anyone!

What an objective guy.

 

[Double Barrel]

From the could be perceived part absolutely. I don't have a problem with Baldinger or anyone thinking Kubiak should be gone or shouldn't have been extended. I do think his manner of expression is wrong and displays something seen around here a lot - attempting to characterize the intent or belief of someone else. I understand saying McNair made a mistake because of X, Y and Z. I think it is wrong to say McNair is "content" or that other MB members are "content." It's a not very subtle form of character assassination spun off a disagreement on conclusions.

But, would you agree that McNair is not discontent with the example of providing a two year extension? If you think McNair is discontented at this point, please provide an explanation to support this view.

Content just means satisfied. And satisfied is a temporary feeling at a specific point in time. I don't see why this is an issue that has so many inflamed. We are a mediocre team with lots of promise, and I know quite a few fans (including MB members) that are content with our progress to this point.

I do not see Baldinger trying to make inflammatory statements. He's just calling it like he sees it, and his case can be made with supporting evidence. It's not a big deal, folks.

 

[GP]

However, I can't escape the fact that this young team continues to improve and play hard under him. I really believe its on the cusp and think blowing it up right now would be a mistake. Barring catastrophic injuries next season, I can't imagine still being supportive of Kubiak if the Texans don't win at least 10-11 games.

I'm just throwing this out there as a possible explanation of why you feel how you feel, particularly the statement of yours that I bolded.

Maybe, as it has been theorized, Gary Kubiak does the following very well:

1. He has a fairly good knack for seeing what a team's needs are. This means he makes a pretty good "scout" and identifies talent. We know he has done a better job at that than the Capers-Casserly era. Would everyone agree with that? A good 90% of us would, IMO.

2. He has definitely pinpointed that Schaub could do better than Carr, and he has built a nice offense that is vastly better than what we had with Capers-Casserly. Scouting of Schaub + Better offense scheme + AJ = Improvement.

3. He seems to deflect praise when we win, and absorb responsibility when we lose. That's admirable.

On the flip side:

1. Goofy roster decisions, which includes questionable handling of running backs and what I consider to be a favor towards certain wide receivers, as well as the issue with our kicker. Hindsight claims are just weak, to me. If you and I see it...shouldn't the coach see it, too? Simple stuff. Supposedly.

2. Coming out VERY flat when there's no reason for it. I still don't know how this is an issue with the players. I really think the guy is a Practice kind of coach, and he runs games like he's in practice drills. It's good to be chill, but is he frozen out there?

3. The in-game situations that he ought to be in control of more. It was quoted at the end of 2008 by a few people with the Texans, including Kubiak, that he was going to be a HEAD COACH on gameday in 2009, instead of micro-managing the playcalling. Hmmm.....well....uh.....NOT. Chalk it up to Kyle maybe not doing his job as well as he could have, maybe? Maybe.

4. His squeamish reactions to big, game-deciding plays. OK, so maybe this is a personal preference thing. I don;t think this is what MAKES him a bad coach, but I do think it's one of the symptoms of the problem he has with being a better head coach.

5. So are we not really prepared on game day? Someone here caught the statement by Kubiak that they had used some of the bye week this year to not just prepare for the MNF game vs. Titans...but that he also tried to get them ready for the Colts a little bit, too. Seirously? Just concede the Colts game already! I am 100% serious. The MNF game should have been THE only ting you focus on. No Manning, No Colts, no ANYTHING but the Titans. Destroy the Titans, in our house, and we are in the playoffs the way it went the rest of the season.

6. But he can't win against divisional rivals. No sugar-coating this one.

RESULT OF ANALYSIS:

Gary Kubiak is good at finding talent, taking crap and making it better. He is good at building a competent and viable offense in today's NFL. But in terms of the other half of being a head coach? He isn;t there. It's not even close.

So maybe the tiger can change those stripes. Maybe he can't.

To me, Kubiak making the turn and biringing it all home to us Texans fans is like trying to hit a bulls-eye, from 1,000 yards, with a BB gun. You have the rifle, the ammo, and maybe even a scope. But you don't have the full, logistical requirements to hit the mark that's there in the NFL world.

Not now, at least. And who is to say he will or won't in 2010? Or beyond? None of us do. But I think we have a good betting line to start with.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

"Content with mediocrity," based on results is exactly right. We have never had a winning record in our conference, we have never had a winning record in our division and Kubiak's overall record is 31-33. We are a mediocre team, with a coach who calls his players kids and can't watch important plays. BTW, he is in a conference that he played and coached his whole professional life.

Kubiak in my opinion has done a decent job in getting us out of the Capers/Casserly mess, but this is looking more and more like the Peter Principle coming into play. The coach needs to change his approach/messaging in my opinion. Perhaps, we will see the Year 5 plan define his players as men, and he will act like a man on the sidelines.

 

[infantrycak]

But, would you agree that McNair is not discontent with the example of providing a two year extension? If you think McNair is discontented at this point, please provide an explanation to support this view.

Content just means satisfied. And satisfied is a temporary feeling at a specific point in time. I don't see why this is an issue that has so many inflamed. We are a mediocre team with lots of promise, and I know quite a few fans (including MB members) that are content with our progress to this point.

I do not see Baldinger trying to make inflammatory statements. He's just calling it like he sees it, and his case can be made with supporting evidence. It's not a big deal, folks.

Well I shorthanded by only typing content but the quote in the title is the real point, "content with mediocrity." To me that means an assertion by Baldy or the folks around here that McNair thinks the team and coach are mediocre and he is still satisfied or content. That's an assertion independent of any merits argument for either side on Kubiak's performance. It's an attack on his character and thinking. It's displayed here in people saying he doesn't care about the team's results as long as the marketing department keeps pulling in revenue. I don't think there is a shred of evidence for that kind of attack or any reason to believe McNair isn't doing what he believes is best for the team. There are good arguments against Kubiak but content with mediocrity is an assertion McNair actually believes Kubiak is not the best guy for the job but just doesn't care enough to do anything about it. I just don't buy that. I think he simply came to a different conclusion, that Kubiak is the best guy to take the Texans to the next level.

 

[dalemurphy]

I'm just throwing this out there as a possible explanation of why you feel how you feel, particularly the statement of yours that I bolded.

Maybe, as it has been theorized, Gary Kubiak does the following very well:

1. He has a fairly good knack for seeing what a team's needs are. This means he makes a pretty good "scout" and identifies talent. We know he has done a better job at that than the Capers-Casserly era. Would everyone agree with that? A good 90% of us would, IMO.

2. He has definitely pinpointed that Schaub could do better than Carr, and he has built a nice offense that is vastly better than what we had with Capers-Casserly. Scouting of Schaub + Better offense scheme + AJ = Improvement.

3. He seems to deflect praise when we win, and absorb responsibility when we lose. That's admirable.

On the flip side:

1. Goofy roster decisions, which includes questionable handling of running backs and what I consider to be a favor towards certain wide receivers, as well as the issue with our kicker. Hindsight claims are just weak, to me. If you and I see it...shouldn't the coach see it, too? Simple stuff. Supposedly.

2. Coming out VERY flat when there's no reason for it. I still don't know how this is an issue with the players. I really think the guy is a Practice kind of coach, and he runs games like he's in practice drills. It's good to be chill, but is he frozen out there?

3. The in-game situations that he ought to be in control of more. It was quoted at the end of 2008 by a few people with the Texans, including Kubiak, that he was going to be a HEAD COACH on gameday in 2009, instead of micro-managing the playcalling. Hmmm.....well....uh.....NOT. Chalk it up to Kyle maybe not doing his job as well as he could have, maybe? Maybe.

4. His squeamish reactions to big, game-deciding plays. OK, so maybe this is a personal preference thing. I don;t think this is what MAKES him a bad coach, but I do think it's one of the symptoms of the problem he has with being a better head coach.

5. So are we not really prepared on game day? Someone here caught the statement by Kubiak that they had used some of the bye week this year to not just prepare for the MNF game vs. Titans...but that he also tried to get them ready for the Colts a little bit, too. Seirously? Just concede the Colts game already! I am 100% serious. The MNF game should have been THE only ting you focus on. No Manning, No Colts, no ANYTHING but the Titans. Destroy the Titans, in our house, and we are in the playoffs the way it went the rest of the season.

6. But he can't win against divisional rivals. No sugar-coating this one.

RESULT OF ANALYSIS:

Gary Kubiak is good at finding talent, taking crap and making it better. He is good at building a competent and viable offense in today's NFL. But in terms of the other half of being a head coach? He isn;t there. It's not even close.

So maybe the tiger can change those stripes. Maybe he can't.

To me, Kubiak making the turn and biringing it all home to us Texans fans is like trying to hit a bulls-eye, from 1,000 yards, with a BB gun. You have the rifle, the ammo, and maybe even a scope. But you don't have the full, logistical requirements to hit the mark that's there in the NFL world.

Not now, at least. And who is to say he will or won't in 2010? Or beyond? None of us do. But I think we have a good betting line to start with.

I wouldn't characterize some of the points the way that you did... particularly the bullseye/BB gun analogy. But, it's a good post and there isn't a lot there to squabble with. I would probably add a few in his Pros column. But, until there are more results, I think it's a fair list.

 

[Mailman]

Here's a thought experiment for the bottom-liners like Baldinger and others who use the playoffs as a results-based metric for Gary Kubiak's performance and Bob McNair's assessment of his franchise:

Let's assume the Bengals and/or Colts decided to play their starters in the last two weeks of the season and the Jets lost one of those games. Gary Kubiak's Texans finish with the same 9-7 record, but *this* 9-7 record gets them into the playoffs. Same team, same coach, same record, same owner, same everything....but they're a playoff team. All because of events they did not control.

Does this make Kubiak a better coach? Does it make McNair an owner who wants to win? Does it change the debate at all?

 

[Kaiser Toro]

Here's a thought experiment for the bottom-liners like Baldinger and others who use the playoffs as a results-based metric for Gary Kubiak's performance and Bob McNair's assessment of his franchise:

Let's assume the Bengals and/or Colts decided to play their starters in the last two weeks of the season and the Jets lost one of those games. Gary Kubiak's Texans finish with the same 9-7 record, but *this* 9-7 record gets them into the playoffs. Same team, same coach, same record, same owner, same everything....but they're a playoff team. All because of events they did not control.

Does this make Kubiak a better coach? Does it make McNair an owner who wants to win? Does it change the debate at all?

No, it does not for me. He can't get his teams ready to play until the end of the year, which suggests to me he is a slow/hesitant learner or implementer, or that his team has to much pride.

I want Kubiak to succeed, but historicals and feel provide me no comfort like some of y'all.

 

[Texans_Chick]

It's quite obvious McNair is content with mediocrity based on the moves he has made in coaching, the moves he has made in free agent personnel, and the moves he has made in marketing. McNair lost me when he said they gave Kubiak an extension after comparing him to other coaches that had been hired since Kubiak. That is a freaking joke. No way in hell is that true. Kubiak hasn't done diddly but half of yall want a freaking statue of the guy for getting to the Mt.Everest-like peak of 9-7.

Screw these losers and screw the people that keep making excuses for their failures.

Hey, I personally can see the pros and cons of giving Kubiak another contract, letting him lame duck, or firing him.

But I think what we can all agree on is that there's no reason to disagree in a disagreeable way.

There is enough nastiness in the world without increasing it.

People tend to get particularly testy in the offseason because there's no new stuff to talk about so they get into some poster on poster violence. But there's no need for message board drama. I think everyone wants to see the team win more, it's just that different people have different thoughts on what the best way of doing that is. If they happen to end up being right, a lot of time it is more likely due to providence then particular prognostication skills.

Let's get along peoples. Disagree with people's arguments, not so much being nasty towards people.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

exactly thorn. is kubiak going to get us to the Super Bowl? its obvious he isn't....so why the hell are we extending him?

he is the guy to keep us mediocre...and keep the sheeple moving through the turnstile.

local legend my ass, he is an average HC at best

This is the part we disagree with.

If it was obvious that Kubiak wasn't the guy to get us to the Super Bowl, then we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

[infantrycak]

No, it does not for me. He can't get his teams ready to play until the end of the year, which suggests to me he is a slow/hesitant learner or implementer, or that his team has to much pride.

I want Kubiak to succeed, but historicals and feel provide me no comfort like some of y'all.

We were 5-3 at the half way point. We had a better 1st half of the season than 2nd and that was with 3 games played with the worst D in football.

 

[JB]

We were 5-3 at the half way point. We had a better 1st half of the season than 2nd and that was with 3 games played with the worst D in football.

Facts have no place in this discussion!

 

[threetoedpete]

Well all I know is don't get your hand between two dogs and a bone. The basic problem has always been....and I understand those of you with an agenda, that you really high balled the talent on the roster when Kubiak took over. We switched defenses. Switched quarterbacks....switched offensive schemes. And any one of those things would of set the club back four of five years. Any one of those things. And we had three of them piled on top of one another. And the fourth thing is the Colts. They've out drafted us and Manning has flat out out played us.

Lastly, we run the Denver West Coast offense. The main bomb thrower in here ...if you believe that Cower, or Gruden, Dungy, or Mariochie or anyone is not going to tear down the roster once again and bring in his system and his philosophies, and his players...you're just a fool. You are going to have the same kind of roster turn over you had with Kubiak. Someone posted it the other day what was it 80% ? And the very first guy who would go is Andre Johnson. Because he is the most valuable piece we have on the roster. He has the highest resale value.

The very first thing you have to have as an organization is stability. And that, with all due respect to Bladinger and the monkeys at sports610 radio, is what the owner just bought for us....believe it or not.

 

[Texan_Bill]

We were 5-3 at the half way point. We had a better 1st half of the season than 2nd and that was with 3 games played with the worst D in football.

Looks like another myth busted.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

We were 5-3 at the half way point. We had a better 1st half of the season than 2nd and that was with 3 games played with the worst D in football.

I was there for the 5-3 start, and saw the annual AFC South Slide. If it were not for another strong finish, we would most likely not be having this discussion.

And that was good for another......Wayne Fontes moment!

 

[thunderkyss]

Not saying we haven't all been wrong or that Kubes won't succeed but I wouldn't be so over the top since it seems the "Carr-Haters" are now your "Pink-Soapers."

I'm not a Pink-Soaper.

I'm a Carr Hater.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Well all I know is don't get your hand between two dogs and a bone. The basic problem has always been....and I understand those of you with an agenda, that you really high balled the talent on the roster when Kubiak took over. We switched defenses. Switched quarterbacks....switched offensive schemes. And any one of those things would of set the club back four of five years. Any one of those things. And we had three of them piled on top of one another. And the fourth thing is the Colts. They've out drafted us and Manning has flat out out played us.

Lastly, we run the Denver West Coast offense. The main bomb thrower in here ...if you believe that Cower, or Gruden, Dungy, or Mariochie or anyone is not going to tear down the roster once again and bring in his system and his philosophies, and his players...you're just a fool. You are going to have the same kind of roster turn over you had with Kubiak. Someone posted it the other day what was it 80% ? And the very first guy who would go is Andre Johnson. Because he is the most valuable piece we have on the roster. He has the highest resale value.

The very first thing you have to have as an organization is stability. And that, with all due respect to Bladiner and the monkeys at sports610 radio, is what the owner just bought for us....believe it or not.

1 Bolded) Again, part of the debate. No team takes 4-5 seasons to implement systems. Most don't have the time or patience. This day and age I give teams 2 to get it out there(1st to learn and get the vocab, etc and the 2nd to pick up little nuances and start to see it as a while) and by the 3rd you should be going...when it comes to a system. You can win in that time too but I'd say the 3rd is when you click.

2 Bolded) Not true either. No coach tears down full teams with talent. They bring in their type guys, sure, but top coaches will adjust to the talent and then mix in their guys. That is what used to set Parcells apart. He could collect his guys in a hurry and turn teams.

I'm not a Pink-Soaper.

I'm a Carr Hater.

I was just talking in parallels between those debates and this one when it came to how he categorized the other side, not as to where everyone still falls.

 

[Thorn]

I'm not a Pink-Soaper.

I'm a Carr Hater.

I like pistachios.

 

[Grams]

Don't confuse people with facts.

 

[threetoedpete]

1 Bolded) Again, part of the debate. No team takes 4-5 seasons to implement systems. Most don't have the time or patience. This day and age I give teams 2 to get it out there(1st to learn and get the vocab, etc and the 2nd to pick up little nuances and start to see it as a while) and by the 3rd you should be going...when it comes to a system. You can win in that time too but I'd say the 3rd is when you click.

2 Bolded) Not true either. No coach tears down full teasm with talent. They bring in their type guys, sure but top coaches will adjust to the talent and then mix in their guys. That is what used to set Parcells apart. He could collect his guys in a hurry and turn teams.

1. Obviously this one is.
2. And yes they do. It's happening right now in Detroit, and Kansas City. And soon it will happen in San Diego. And three years after that, New Orleans. The NFL is always an ebb and flow. The tide is either coming in or going out. And , obviuosly, for Robert C. McNair the tide for the next three years is coming in.
And his opinion is the one that counts..doesn't it ?

And we can both watch with great anticipation what happens in Arizona with their QB switch and see just how long it takes them, without roster moves, to reach the NFC championship once again. Under you're point, shouldn't take very long should it ?

....two years as you post ? three ?

 

[The Pencil Neck]

RESULT OF ANALYSIS:

Gary Kubiak is good at finding talent, taking crap and making it better. He is good at building a competent and viable offense in today's NFL. But in terms of the other half of being a head coach? He isn;t there. It's not even close.

So maybe the tiger can change those stripes. Maybe he can't.

To me, Kubiak making the turn and biringing it all home to us Texans fans is like trying to hit a bulls-eye, from 1,000 yards, with a BB gun. You have the rifle, the ammo, and maybe even a scope. But you don't have the full, logistical requirements to hit the mark that's there in the NFL world.

Not now, at least. And who is to say he will or won't in 2010? Or beyond? None of us do. But I think we have a good betting line to start with.

Think about guys like Tony Dungy and Bill Cowher and Marty Schottenheimer. These guys built good teams and still couldn't get into the Super Bowl. For years and years. Dungy and Cower finally made it and finally won. But prior to them finally winning, a lot of people wanted to get rid of them as coaches and bring in someone to close the deal. Fisher, Dennis Green, Schottenheimer, Levy, Reeves, Wade Phillips, ... a lot of really good coaches have never closed the deal.

You say that Kubiak isn't a head coach because he's made some bad game day decisions and because there have been times when his teams have come out flat. But you can't find a coach in the league who hasn't made bad game day decisions and most of them have had teams that have come out flat. This team has also fought back and fought hard.

This team has continued to improve. The talent is getting deeper. Our play on both sides of the ball is getting better. I don't see any reason to believe that it won't continue to improve.

So to me, it comes down to strategy. And I believe in a stable organization. I don't believe that making changes every couple of years is a good strategy. And if we clean house and start over, there's no guarantee that whoever we bring in is going to do better no matter how big or small the reputation and there's a good chance we'll get worse. If we clean house, there's actually a higher chance of getting worse than there is of getting better. You can point to the Ravens or the Dolphins or the Jets all you want but the reality is that teams that get into that 2-3 years or bust mentality usually bust.

Until Kubiak shows me that he's doing a bad job, I'm going to continue to back him. I think he's doing a good job. I think our 2009 team was undeniably better than our 2008 team which was undeniably better than our 2007 team which was ... And until we are undeniably worse, I go for stability and even then, those people who are calling for Kubiak's head but using Fischer as an example of a good coach, there's a precedent with guys like Fischer for letting them re-load when the team falls apart.

And for those who bring up HWWNBN, although I was for giving him a chance to prove himself in a real offense, when he failed to prove himself, I was one of the most vocal that he should be gotten rid of. I haven't seen anything from Kubiak that makes me think he's not up to this job. And, yes, I've already seen all the games and plays that you point to as evidence that he's incompetent as a head coach and I don't see it.

 

[HOU-TEX]

I like pistachios.

I like beer.

 

[Mailman]

No, it does not for me...

Right. Your agreement illustrates the points many of us are making about judging Kubiak's performance. Many fans are rightly frustrated with the franchise's inability to get to the postseason. Houston hasn't sniffed an NFL playoff game since, what, 1994? However, I don't think we should allow that win-or-else, playoffs-or-bust sentiment born of years of frustration to cloud our ability to judge the coach's performance. Our scrutiny should not end with the team's record or whether they made the playoffs. I understand the NFL is a results-oriented league, but "results" go beyond wins and losses. It's not just about what the record is but how the team arrived there. How did they play? Where did the team improve? Did it regress in areas that were unexpected? What role, if any, did injuries play? How tough was your division that year?

The bottom-liners will likely dismiss these questions as excuse-making, whereas many of us will likely see them as potential reasons worth discussing.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Well all I know is don't get your hand between two dogs and a bone. The basic problem has always been....and I understand those of you with an agenda, that you really high balled the talent on the roster when Kubiak took over. We switched defenses. Switched quarterbacks....switched offensive schemes. And any one of those things would of set the club back four of five years. Any one of those things. And we had three of them piled on top of one another. And the fourth thing is the Colts. They've out drafted us and Manning has flat out out played us.

Lastly, we run the Denver West Coast offense. The main bomb thrower in here ...if you believe that Cower, or Gruden, Dungy, or Mariochie or anyone is not going to tear down the roster once again and bring in his system and his philosophies, and his players...you're just a fool. You are going to have the same kind of roster turn over you had with Kubiak. Someone posted it the other day what was it 80% ? And the very first guy who would go is Andre Johnson. Because he is the most valuable piece we have on the roster. He has the highest resale value.

The very first thing you have to have as an organization is stability. And that, with all due respect to Bladinger and the monkeys at sports610 radio, is what the owner just bought for us....believe it or not.

And, guys, you should all know that if TTP and I agree about something other than needing to improve our offensive line, it's one of the signs of the apocalypse.

 

[LonerATO]

Add to Peter King speaking the truth this morning as well on 610.

King:"Listen, we sit every Sunday and wonder...how are the Texans going to screw up this game. It's not like they are going to get beat...they are going to find somehow to lose the game. Also, tell me a meaningful game that they have played in and won in the past three years. What, they beat the Colts once?"

Vandermeer: "Yeah, but we put on the 4 game winning streak at the end of the season to close out strong".

King: "But the barn door is shut at 5-7, I'm sorry. They shouldn't be in that situation."

Spoke the truth...and it hurts. I'm sure his podcast will be up shortly.

God I hate Peter King so much and its not because he is saying this about the Texans.

 

[No More 8-8's]

You know alot of these guys would have wanted Jeff Fisher fired after his first couple years too.

 

[HoustonFrog]

1. Obviously this one is.
2. And yes they do. It's happening right now in Detroit. And soon it will happen in San Diego. And three years after that, New Orleans. The NFL is always an ebb and flow. The tide is either coming in or going out. And , obviuosly, for Robert C. McNair the tide for the next three years is coming in.
And his opinion is the one that counts..doesn't it ?

And we can both watch with great anticipation what happens in Arizona with their QB switch and see just how long it takes them, without roster moves, to reach the NFC championship once again. Under you're point, shouldn't take very long should it ?

....two years as you post ?

I think you are off on what I said. The reason why Arizona will have trouble isn't their system, it is their QB...Leinert is a huge step back. It has nothing to do with their system and implementing it. He knows the system and isn't as good as Warner, plain and simple. They still have talent.

And yes, it is an ebb and flow but you have to be successful to see the one side or the other. Detroit has switched coaches because their management was horrible. It's an overhaul because Millen gave them nothing but a few guys. Why San Diego? Norv is doing pretty well. Their QB is young enough and they have options behind LT.

Again, if Kubiak wasn't here and someone else came in to take the talent they have now...they wouldn't need 4-5 years. That is just a fallacy that people bring up with coaching changes.

You know alot of these guys would have wanted Jeff Fisher fired after his first couple years too.

This statement gets made every debate and it is a completely different situation. People said the Texans got a pass with Katrina. The Oiler/Titans were moving all over his first 3 years and as someone went through in another thread, they were also losing alot of the talent they had. It is like the Landry analogy. Why is it always the few guys he comapres to and not the majority that fail?It's like everyone in a past life was someone famous and not a **** shoveler behind Ye Olde Store.

 

[ChampionTexan]

I like beer.

Does it make you a jolly good fellow?

 

[The Pencil Neck]

You know alot of these guys would have wanted Jeff Fisher fired after his first couple years too.

Just think if our coach went 5-11 and 4-12 like Fisher did in 2004 and 2005?

 

[Txn_in_FL]

Houston hasn't sniffed an NFL playoff game since, what, 1994?

I've seen this said before and I don't understand how people can involve the team we have now in discussions about not being in the playoffs since 1994.

Like it or not this was a from scratch expansion team, not an established team that unfortunately **** the bed and has been locked in a perpetual hell after much success as a franchise.

I've done my share of complaining about this team this year but to call them mediocre is pushing it a bit.

 

[thunderkyss]

I'm not quite sure what you just said...

Arbitrary is defined: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

It seems to me that McNair is basing decisions on arbitrary standards, whereas other owners have firm goals that must be met in order to earn an extension.

So if the Jets lost that Sunday Night game..... Kubiak earned his extension?

I know my arguments are hard to follow .. but try to see what I'm saying.

Had the Jets lost, we would have made the play-offs, in reality, Kubiak wouldn't have done any better or worse than what he did.....

making the play-offs that way is arbitrary... the Jets making the play-offs was arbitrary.

It wasn't you, but someone said Ryans turned things around..... the Jets got into the play-offs, because Baltimore lost Week 16 to an amazing last second catch in the end-zone. But Rex Ryans' 9-7 is better than Kubiak's 9-7 because Ryans got to the play-offs?

I'm not getting it.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Again, if Kubiak wasn't here and someone else came in to take the talent they have now...they wouldn't need 4-5 years. That is just a fallacy that people bring up with coaching changes.

Historically since 1990 (not including last year), teams that are 7-9 to 9-7 and change coaches do 1-2 games worse. There are cases where they improve but on average, they don't.

I ran the numbers myself.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

Right. Your agreement illustrates the points many of us are making about judging Kubiak's performance. Many fans are rightly frustrated with the franchise's inability to get to the postseason. Houston hasn't sniffed an NFL playoff game since, what, 1994? However, I don't think we should allow that win-or-else, playoffs-or-bust sentiment born of years of frustration to cloud our ability to judge the coach's performance. Our scrutiny should not end with the team's record or whether they made the playoffs. I understand the NFL is a results-oriented league, but "results" go beyond wins and losses. It's not just about what the record is but how the team arrived there. How did they play? Where did the team improve? Did it regress in areas that were unexpected? What role, if any, did injuries play? How tough was your division that year?

The bottom-liners will likely dismiss these questions as excuse-making, whereas many of us will likely see them as potential reasons worth discussing.

I can't speak to Houston issues with success on the football field given I was a Cowboys fan until 1999, but I am quite aware of the lament that Houston folks have. Given that, I am not one that believes in long term fixes for professional sports franchises, save for new franchises, with no history. Personnel, staff, and money can all have an immediate impact on attitude. Right now, for this fan I have to rely on one player bringing the attitude on every play, a rookie, while the coach cowers.

As much as you would like to paint me with a label, it is off. Kubiak has served this team well from where he took it over, granted his erroneous declaration that he could save Carr may have held us back one year. I firmly believe that McNair is doing the right thing with the extension he provided. Kubiak does need to grow a pair, it is BS if you do not think the other players do not talk about him not watching a big play go down.

How did they play? They were on a record pace to be the worst defense of all time after three games. Running game was horrendous. They were 1-6 against the division. I did not think they played well enough to be a playoff team.

Where did the team improve? Passing game - Schaub starting 16 games better happen again next year; Turnover Ratio - we still had a negative number against our opponents; YoY Sacks made (+5) and given up (-7)

Did it regress in areas that were unexpected? Running game. Injuries happen, not an excuse in professional sports with such a short window.

Division toughness? Could care less, the object is to win more than your lose.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Historically since 1990 (not including last year), teams that are 7-9 to 9-7 and change coaches do 1-2 games worse. There are cases where they improve but on average, they don't.

I ran the numbers myself.

Sure, it could but 4-5 years? A new coach doesn't mean starting from scratch. Sometimes its an attitude adjustment and you can see how their systems fit. As I've used before..the Chiefs in the late 80s were ok under John Mackovic and then were 8-24 under Frank Gansz. Then Schottenheimer comes in, has 2 drafts that net Neil Smith and Derrick Thomas and they are on a playoff run for years starting that second season. The Texans have talent to work with and anyone who might have come in wasn't destined to just rebuild for years.