At least their getting better...
Would be interesting to see how that compares to other franchises
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Front office shake-ups: Texans
- Thread starter axman40
- Start date
At least their getting better...
Would be interesting to see how that compares to other franchises
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Just for comparison with the "best GM" Ozzie Newsome:
2003 - 1
2004 - 1
2005 - 1
2006 - 4 (including a punter)
2007 - 2
2008 - 1
2009 - 5
2010 - 5
19 v. 20
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
So which team is this:
2003: 2/11
2004: 1/7
2005: 1/7
2006: 4/10
2007: 3/7
2008: 2/10 (with an *)
2009: 4/6
2010: 4/7
Total of 21
And which team is this:
2003: 0/10
2004: 0/9
2005: 0/7
2006: 2/7
2007: 2/11
2008: 3/5
2009: 5/7
2010: 4/9
Total of 16
We had 19, which is somewhere in between but not too terribly far from either one.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
I came up with a slightly different count.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
I think we made the same point though.
True, and I started looking at those myself for comparison. What I didn't do is map out the percentages of players who stay with the team that drafted them.
Texans have nobody on the roster they drafted prior to 2008. (Losing AJ shot that up)
Ozzie has at least two from 2006 alone.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
And were those good decisions?
Mario - maybe.
Winston - maybe.
Ryans - no.
Daniels - no.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
But 2005, his only guy remaining is the much travelled QB Derek Anderson.
And although Ozzie had 2 guys from that 2006 draft that still played for his team on 2014, one of them was his punter and the other was Haloti Ngata (who was a great pick) who is now a Detroit Lion, right? So technically, only 1 of Ozzie's guys remain on the team from that draft.
paycheck71
Hall of Fame
Here's a good source for that info for all 32 teams (but only for the 2012-2014 drafts)
Texans draft success
Fair enough, but my point remains valid.
Texans roster, including 2008, contains one Texans drafted player: Brown
Ravens roster, including 2008 contains: Suggs, Koch, Yanda, Flacco
If we add 2009, the Texans are up to 2. The Ravens are up to 5.
Gap closes some...
If we add 2010, the Texans are up to 4. The Ravens are up to 6.
Gap maintained for 2011. Ravens 8, Texans 6.
Troy Chapman
Rookie
So what point are you trying to make?
Troy Chapman
Rookie
Thanks for the link!
I was replying to Cak's comparison of draft picks still in the NFL. he chose Ozzie Newsome. One might imagine that it works better for you if those folks are still on your team.
I was replying to Cak's comparison of draft picks still in the NFL. he chose Ozzie Newsome. One might imagine that it works better for you if those folks are still on your team.
In our case the GM doesn't decide who stays & who goes. Kubiak/OB are in controll of the 53. Players drafted by Smith who are still in the league (starters even) show that Rick's eye for talent is on par with Newsome....
Not that I believe that, just saying that's the point 'cak was making.
I like James Casey, but he hasn't been productive... on our team, or that video game up in Philly. Was not, is not impressed with Barwin, Brooks Reed, or Sherrick McMannis.
I never would have paid Mario anything close to $100M over six... but he was a good pick, best pick of that draft.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
So, in other words, not much of a difference.
See, the problem is that you can look at a series of drafts and say, "Wow, this team drafts terrible" but if you don't compare it to the drafts of other teams, you're basing your judgment on assumptions. Even the best strike out sometimes and difference between good and great isn't all that clear.
Ozzie Newsome is widely considered a great GM when it comes to drafting. The Raider organization (the other team I listed) is widely regarded as really bad. But when you look, as you did, strictly at the number of players still in the league in 2014 from their 2003-2010 drafts, there's only a 5 player difference.
Now, if you start taking which guys are still with the team, how many pro-bowls or all-pro selections they got, etc., that's a different issue.
Or it's a discernible difference in a league where small variances help make 6-10 turn into 11-5. There simply aren't flashing neon signs that show a differential near the middle of the pack.
Example: 2014 PPG Differential:
3 Teams @ 6-10 (-1.2, -1.8, -2.3)
2 Teams @ 11-5 (+.7, +2.5)
(For contrast, the Ravens were at +6.7, Texans were at +4.1)
Imagine a 2.5 PPG differential making a 5-game swing. It happened. It's also less than the difference between the two teams in this discussion.
Sure, there are a myriad of other factors, but every little bit helps. I'm sure with a little more time, I could find statistical outliers that defy the trends (think Seattle).
To TK's point about the GM having no say over the 53, that's not entirely accurate, especially when it comes to offering contracts to pending free agents and his ability to re-sign folks before they reach free agency. I'm not even saying that's a particular weak point of Smith, just that saying "it's all on the coaches" is B.S.
paycheck71
Hall of Fame
Just noticed that 2009-2011 draft stats are there, too
Texans draft retention
Both are as of last fall.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
BUT there's nothing that says that the thing you were looking at, the number of players drafted that are still in the league or still on their original drafting team, having anything to do at all with the point differential you're talking about.
AND, even with point differential which should be one of the best statistics for determining whether a team is in the playoffs or not, it's not a cut and dried thing. You had a team with a positive point differential (+4.6) not make the playoffs while teams with lesser point differentials (like 0.69) or even a negative differential (-1.8) does.
So until you can show some causation between who drafted the players and who ended up with them with winning more or less games, this doesn't appear to be a statistic with any strong value.
Do we want our team to be composed mostly of guys we've drafted who are pro-bowlers? Yes, of course we do. But that doesn't happen that often. Ultimately, it's just about putting the right team together using the draft, trades, and free agency to win games, and then being able to find street free-agents to fill in any gaps and provide depth.
I'm convinced more than anything it's the mix of players and coaches you have. All team have warts, and the truly star players will shine but the team that will win more often than not is the best TEAM. When people know and do their jobs and stop trying to do your job.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
The Rams MUST be coming off four straight superbowl wins if retention is the key to success.
This sh!t makes me LOL, Smith on par with Newsome. It isn't about how many players stick with the team. It's about the quality of those players. Of course Ozzie has an advantage in that the players he picks don't have Texans worthy. Ngata was the best pick in that draft gues who picked him and didn't have to pay #1 $$$$.
Funny thing is that Ozzie got his franchise QB with the Texans pick. All of these stat geeks only prove one thing, stats lie. If Rick = Ozzie there's only one stat that matters (Rings) and those are in short supply down on Kirby.
So, I refute the flimsy assumption on your part that Ozzie & Rick are equal and you're going to ***** and tell me that correlation isn't necessarily equal to causation? I can't tell you how shocked I am.
:vincepalm:
Go back and read that sentence on outliers as well, since you seem to have glossed over it. (Probably should have done that before your little quip about the two outliers you posted.)
Let's hear your theory on associative statistics as it relates to draft picks, retention and player ability beyond the first contract. I'm all ears.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
Apparently, you need to get your eyes and ears checked if you think that I'm assuming that Rick Smith and Ozzie Newsome are anywhere close to being equal.
You're the one who's placing an inordinate amount of credence on a statistic that means absolutely nothing. Ozzie Newsome isn't a better GM because he's had a couple more players stay in the NFL than Rick Smith has. You're concentrating on the wrong damned thing.
Let's try this quote in there again, since you seem to have missed it as well.
It's your OPINION that the stat means nothing and no correlation exists at all, not even a trend. Feel free to back up your assertion. As before, I'm still waiting to hear your theory, beyond "Well anyone can see Ozzie is better!"
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
Let's try this quote in there again, since you seem to have missed it as well.
It's your OPINION that the stat means nothing and no correlation exists at all, not even a trend. Feel free to back up your assertion. As before, I'm still waiting to hear your theory, beyond "Well anyone can see Ozzie is better!"
Prove that it helps.
I'm not the one making the wild assed assertion, you are. So prove it. Go ahead. I'm waiting. Show us some proof that having two more people in the NFL, possibly not even for his own team, is what has made the Ravens a better team.
Because that's what you're asserting.
Oh, wait, no. That's right. You're basing your entire argument on "every little bit helps."
:kubepalm:
I've already shown a correlation. You know it, you saw it. You even went and looked for outliers in an attempt to shown there isn't 1-1 correlation. C'mon, you can admit it...or can you?
I never claimed one data point was the end all / be all of a successful team. I'm pretty sure NFL GMs would love to hear that there was. Evidently, that's what you keep choosing to hear though.
So, since you're unwilling to "put up or shut up" as you've been asked twice (unless we count the "Ozzie isn't anywhere close to Rick" deep analysis you provided), why don't you have a nice glass of **** off?
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
You are so stuck up on the Texan Worthy thing it makes me think you're a low life scumbag who got kicked off a football team at times. The hatred of anything character related is suspicious, though not proof of anything.
Once again I note that forgiveness of the repentant is not the same thing as tolerance of misbehavior.
Troy Chapman
Rookie
cland
Rookie
Haha, exactly. Have to evacuate before I get taken down by dueling spitballers.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Wow, 1 little data point sure got spun all to hell.
????? I am the furthest from an Aggie. Don't know where you get that
I've already shown a correlation. You know it, you saw it. You even went and looked for outliers in an attempt to shown there isn't 1-1 correlation. C'mon, you can admit it...or can you?
I never claimed one data point was the end all / be all of a successful team. I'm pretty sure NFL GMs would love to hear that there was. Evidently, that's what you keep choosing to hear though.
So, since you're unwilling to "put up or shut up" as you've been asked twice (unless we count the "Ozzie isn't anywhere close to Rick" deep analysis you provided), why don't you have a nice glass of **** off?
Correlation =/= Causation
I underlined selected teams, some with a high retention percentage and others that folks have pointed to a models for success. We've kept a higher percentage of draftees than N.E. so they should be doing worse than we are, right? And the Jets should be winning SB after SB due to their high retention percentage.
All that to say that retention rate means squat. It's WHO you keep, as someone else already said.
Marshall
Not pretty, but ALIVE!
I'll have to get used to going to an expanded link in order to reply to a thread.
Anyway, this data cries out for a CHART with the retention rates charted against wins to see if there is a trend or if it's more like random data points. I'd do it, but I'm geek challenged when it comes to graphics.
I can't even post pictures rather than links, though I'm sure that would be so simple to some that it is laughable. My only excuse is that it isn't FORTRAN, COBAL or BASIC with punch cards, which is the era I'm stuck in.
Anyway, this data cries out for a CHART with the retention rates charted against wins to see if there is a trend or if it's more like random data points. I'd do it, but I'm geek challenged when it comes to graphics.
I can't even post pictures rather than links, though I'm sure that would be so simple to some that it is laughable. My only excuse is that it isn't FORTRAN, COBAL or BASIC with punch cards, which is the era I'm stuck in.
Low life scumbag, thanks for the LOL, if you knew me you would know how funny this post is.
I just want a winning team like all of the other posters. So far the Texans org has failed on that little thingy. So, yes maybe it's time for them to change how they do business. Unless you're OK with status quo. Some seem to be good with the way things are over on Kirby, which is their perogative.
Mmmm... the Texans have had winning seasons In three of the last four. If we're going to have to wait until they have a winning record over their entire existence it's probably going to take a while.
Or is a Super Bowl the only measure of success you'll accept?
Yep, everything is great over there on Kirby, they're right up there with the Pats/Seahawks/Ravens etc....
All of which experienced some very lean years before they learned how to win.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
I don't understand the reasoning behind this response.
It's called sarcasm.
I should've put up the sarcasm thingy.
BTW, yrs ago, the Texans and Seahawks were in the same place record wise. The 2 teams chose different paths.
Don't see how you get that. The Seahawks went to the conf. championship in 1983 while still in the AFC. Had numerous winning seasons before ever moving to the NFC.
Since 2002 they've had one 4-12 record, nothing worse.
They've had 35 years to learn how to win, but you expect us to equal that in less than 15?
I think the culture is changing on Kirby and we will get there, it's not as fast as any could have hoped but it's not as dire as you seem to believe
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
I understood that you were trying to be sarcastic but for me at least, it didn't work that way because it created a strawman argument. If someone says that we've had winning records for 3 out of the last 4 years that doesn't mean that they're saying that everything is hunky dory and that we're as good as teams that have made it to the SB.
So I'll ask TK's question again but a little bit different, if Rick Smith was part of an organization that won a SB for the Texans, would you get off his and the McNair's asses or would you just chalk it up to dumb luck and keep on bitching and moaning about them?
No bitching here, just think the Texans aren't doing everything possible to put the best team possible on the field and having corporate appeal is the most important thing to the Texans org.
If the Texans were to win a SB I would give them the credit that champions have earned, but I wouldn't count on that happening anytime soon. The Texans are in yr 1 of a rebuild. IMHO
Scary part is this is Rick Smith's 2nd rebuild. Hope it goes better than the last rebuild.
Hope you're right, maybe McNair will turn into Paul Allen. How long has Allen owned the team? because it has taken him how many yrs until he hired Schnieder/Carroll to bring a winner to the Pacific Northwest. Not 35 yrs as you claim. Even though I can see how you would buy into that narrative. As a fan you want to have hope that someday the McNair's will somehow get it. (Whatever it is)
Y'all know how I feel so I'm pretty much done with this topic until the season starts.
Thing is when Allen had to make changes in his organization he cleaned house. GM/HC/Scouts/Probably secretaries. McNair not so much and until these changes are made I don't expect any Lombardi's down on Kirby.
I think you hold the Texans to unrealistic standards. We all want a winner as do the fans of 31 other teams.
Let me ask you a question. What profession are you in?
I don't l I ke Rick Smith. I think he and/or Kubiak should have been fired after the 2010 season. However, whatever McNair decided since then seems to have been working out better for our team & not just in the corporate marketing department.
I've tried arguing that Smith should be gone.... but after our players continue to be picked up by other teams & continue to contribute to those teams, it's hard to say our lack of success has been because of a lack of talent. For me anyway.
Fire Smith. I really don't care. I'm just saying it's hard to argue against him & while I know you'll point to some horrendous drafts, the further we get from them the more it looks like they weren't very good drafts for anybody.
Again, like I've said before. McNair made his adjustment, I'll watch & see how it plays out. Yeah, may not be any better than before, but there was a definite step change the last time. Another step in the same direction is good for the on field product.
Vance87
All Pro
You know, I've noticed an infestation here. Everywhere I look, in fact. Nothing but undeveloped, unevolved, barely conscious pond scum, totally convinced of their own superiority as they scurry about their short, pointless lives.