Kubes on the hotseat????

[dc_txtech]

I don't understand all the Texans><Dolphins talk.

There is only one way to determine who is the best team. Win/Loss record, schedule, injuries are all completely erroneous. What matters is when two teams line up on the field and see who scores more points.

On October 9th 2008 the Texans were the better team.

 

[JCTexan]

I have learned in this thread that I misunderstand a lot, miss points, and most troubling have set up a defense mechanism in my head to protect myself from being crushed by Texan losses. It's weird that I get the first two types of comments from people I don't think understand my point of view or are missing my points.

In reality, I think a lot of the problem may be I'm not au fait with techniques that prove the Texans are one of the best, most successful teams in the league.

How did I miss your point? All I responded to was you saying "1 playoff > 0". I responded by asking what the difference was to the Chargers playoffs to Houston's 8-8. I guess I misunderstood your point, though?

 

[Runner]

How did I miss your point? All I responded to was you saying "1 playoff > 0". I responded by asking what the difference was to the Chargers playoffs to Houston's 8-8. I guess I misunderstood your point, though?

You aren't the only one posting on this thread.

Anyway, sometimes I am just ignoring "points" or dismissing them as erroneous. I am no more required to address all points made by a poster than anyone else is required to do more than highlight a couple of lines in a long post of mine and jump on them.

In fact, if you take that paragraph in its entirety rather than just the last line, I was showing that many people on both sides of an argument do the same things, so it isn't wise to throw stones. This is why context is important. I was trying not to make a lecture about it so I guess I wasn't clear.

=========================

In addition to that, if a poster unfamiliar with the term looks up "au fait" or the idiom "be au fait with" they might discover an interesting or amusing phrase. I do stuff like that for levity, to take the edge off, or out of boredom.

=========================

I guess to draw the complete picture, I should state that sometimes I don't just misunderstand arguments, I disagree with them.

 

[thunderkyss]

I'm still waiting for people to weigh in and tell me what they would pick if they could guarantee the Texans to have one of these options next year. No third options, no ifs or buts - of these two, which do you want to see.

I expect to see a bunch of people say they'd love to see the Texans make a four game improvement and pick B. I do!

I expect a bunch of people to say they would like to maintain the slow and steady pace, because it is the right way to do things and select A.

===================

The reason I want the answers is because I'm sure if the Texans make an incremental improvement, I still won't be happy.

I also imagine that if the Texans blow up and go 12-4 next year, most of the people who picked A will change their tune.

====================

I just want it in writing.

I'll chose B...... I expect Schaub, Dunta, Okoye, TJ, Deljuan, Adibi, Barber, Winston, Duane Brown, everybody who hasn't had a career game. I expect us to host the AFC Championship game.

But I don't expect Kubiak to be fired, if it doesn't happen.

I'm not saying, and I've never said that I expect slow steady incremental changes in the W-L record. I'm just saying I don't think it's a bad thing, or a reflection of how Kubiak is doing as a coach. I wholly expect a huge difference in how we finish next year, because after so many small, incremental improvements, something is going to click, and it will look like overnight success.... it will be an amazing turnaround. Like Jimmy Johnson's Superbowl teams, Like the Colts, like the Patriots,

 

[JCTexan]

You aren't the only one posting on this thread.

I know I'm not, and I never said I was the only one. I will admit I haven't read all 14 pages of this thread. I highlighted one post and responded to it.

Anyway, sometimes I am just ignoring "points" or dismissing them as erroneous. I am no more required to address all points made by a poster than anyone else is required to do more than highlight a couple of lines in a long post of mine and jump on them.

Never said you were required to, but if all you want to highlight from my post is the "if's" then go ahead.

In fact, if you take that paragraph in its entirety rather than just the last line, I was showing that many people on both sides of an argument do the same things, so it isn't wise to throw stones. This is why context is important. I was trying not to make a lecture about it so I guess I wasn't clear.

Sorry, if you thought I was throwing stones. I just thought you missed the point of my post entirely.

I guess to draw the complete picture, I should state that sometimes I don't just misunderstand arguments, I disagree with them.

Nothing wrong with disagreements.

 

[HoustonFrog]

The old run & shoot Oilers used to have the best team in the world...on paper. But, they could never win a playoff game.

Comparing the Texans - a franchise without a winning season, much less a playoff berth - to the defending NFC Champions because of "ifs" and "could haves" is pointless.

IF a my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't, so she's not. And by the same token, the Texans are what they are. That doesn't make me a hater to be pragmatic and accept reality for what it is at the end of the day. I still hope for the best, but I'm not going off the Cliff of Delusion to convince myself that they are as good as one of the Super Bowl teams because of could've/should've/would've scenarios.

Must spread. Thanks for the reality check in here.

 

[JCTexan]

Okay, so what exactly makes Arizona a better team? Is it going to the super-bowl? Just making the playoffs? The Texans would have been out with the same record because of a much stronger division. Is it going 3-7 outside of their division, instead of 6-4? Maybe 6-0 in a much weaker division then 2-4 in a better division? Besides the Cards their division had 13 wins. The Titans by themselves had 13 wins. The Texans division had 30 wins without them. 17 (16 if you count both teams) wins is the difference in the divisions. What exactly makes the Cardinals a better team?

I do realize there are teams better then the Texans. The Colts, Titans, Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Panthers, Falcons & the Ravens to name a few. Just because I don't have the Cardinals there doesn't exactly make me a homer given what I just wrote.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Insane........ Insanity......

Just take a wild freak'n, pull a number out of your but guess, what our record would have been if we played..
NYJ, Ari (without the effects of Hurricane Ike), New England (two games after Brady went down), SanDiego, Miami, Baltimore, Buffalo, Denver, Seattle, Oakland, New England, St Louis, Buffalo, San Fran, KC, NYJ

Then take a guess at what Miami's record would have been, had they played...
Pitts on the road, Tennessee on the Road, Jacksonville on the road, Indy, Houston, Detroit, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Baltimore, Indy, Cleveland, Jax, GB, Tenn, Oakland, & Chicago.

We're a much better team than the fins.

Sorry but you can't make that argument in my book. You play who is put in front of you. The Fins played down to comp at times. They had off days but still pulled out wins.....look at Texans excuse for Raiders game.....Either way, they WON their games. They might have won their games with the Texans schedule..it may not have been pretty but maybe they had the right mentality.

I can't believe people are using ifs and all to compare teams and iffing the Texans into the SB/playoffs all because of a tough schedule and some ifs. It IS insanity. You see my MAYBES above?It's the same thing. So to make up a fantasy world where they play different schedules and then proclaim that the Texans were better makes no sense. I'd listen more to the simple argument of "scoreboard." The Texans beat them head to head.
Enough said is a stronger argument. If the Texans were a much better TEAM OVERALL though then they wouldn't have laid eggs in games they should/could have won. The Dolphins went from worst to first. All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book.

 

[Texecutioner]

I don't understand all the Texans><Dolphins talk.

There is only one way to determine who is the best team. Win/Loss record, schedule, injuries are all completely erroneous. What matters is when two teams line up on the field and see who scores more points.

On October 9th 2008 the Texans were the better team.

Well if we went by that one game and that logic, then that would mean that the Raiders were better than the Texans last year and I don't believe that was the case. But if you're going to simply use one game as the measuring stick as to who was a better team for the season and not just on that one day, then that would mean that the Raiders were a better team than the Texans were last season.

 

[Runner]

Well if we went by that one game and that logic, then that would mean that the Raiders were better than the Texans last year.

I know the answer to this one!

That's different.




Actually, he neatly avoided this conundrum by including the date. He said the Texans were better that day, not last year.

===========================

I still don't know that everyone would apply the same logic to both games though. Some say the Texans just "didn't come to play" against the Raiders, which is somehow better than getting beat.

 

[NitroGSXR]

I've got a migraine. Too many stale chips being thrown around in here. I know the chips are stale. I still can't stop putting them in my mouth. They're chips.

FWIW, chips = Texans.

I think some Rockets ball would clear that up. What do you all think?

 

[Texecutioner]

I know the answer to this one!

That's different.




Actually, he neatly avoided this conundrum by including the date. He said the Texans were better that day, not last year.

===========================

I still don't know that everyone would apply the same logic to both games though. Some say the Texans just "didn't come to play" against the Raiders, which is somehow better than getting beat.

Yeah, this discussion has definitely gotten pretty predictable.

And pretty soon, I'm sure we'll both be told that we're not true fans.

 

[thunderkyss]

Sorry but you can't make that argument in my book. You play who is put in front of you. The Fins played down to comp at times. They had off days but still pulled out wins.....look at Texans excuse for Raiders game.....Either way, they WON their games. They might have won their games with the Texans schedule..it may not have been pretty but maybe they had the right mentality.

I can't believe people are using ifs and all to compare teams and iffing the Texans into the SB/playoffs all because of a tough schedule and some ifs. It IS insanity. You see my MAYBES above?It's the same thing. So to make up a fantasy world where they play different schedules and then proclaim that the Texans were better makes no sense. I'd listen more to the simple argument of "scoreboard." The Texans beat them head to head.
Enough said is a stronger argument. If the Texans were a much better TEAM OVERALL though then they wouldn't have laid eggs in games they should/could have won. The Dolphins went from worst to first. All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book.

Which team is better, the 12-4 New York Giants, the 12-4 Carolina Panthers, or the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals?

Are those W-Ls enough information for you to determine who the better team is, or do you need more info?

 

[thunderkyss]

I know the answer to this one!

That's different.




Actually, he neatly avoided this conundrum by including the date. He said the Texans were better that day, not last year.

===========================

I still don't know that everyone would apply the same logic to both games though. Some say the Texans just "didn't come to play" against the Raiders, which is somehow better than getting beat.

NO, that proves the best team doesn't always win. & if the best team doesn't always win, the team with the best W-L record isn't necessarily the best team.

 

[JCTexan]

Which team is better, the 12-4 New York Giants, the 12-4 Carolina Panthers, or the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals?

Are those W-Ls enough information for you to determine who the better team is, or do you need more info?

I have another one for you. What about the 11-5 Patriots vs. the 9-7 Cardinals? The Patriots didn't make the playoffs, the Cardinals went to the super-bowl. Just helping with your point.

 

[Runner]

NO, that proves the best team doesn't always win. & if the best team doesn't always win, the team with the best W-L record isn't necessarily the best team.

I think my Better Championship System (BCS) idea is gaining traction. However, only select Texans fans with their clear, true vision of teams and their relative goodness, should be allowed to vote for who gets to go to the playoff. However, in this system a play-off won't be necessary; the voters will just say who the two best teams are and we'll let them play.

I am working one even more forward thinking plan. This will solve the problem of keeping score on the scoreboard, which leads to all kinds of bad things since the best team doesn't always win. At the end of each play, judges will hold up placards to rate the play! It will be like figure skating, and all controversy will be ended!

Who is with me?

 

[Runner]

NO, that proves the best team doesn't always win. & if the best team doesn't always win, the team with the best W-L record isn't necessarily the best team.

I don't care which way a person thinks - the best team doesn't always win or the winner is the best team.

What I find amusing is when single posters will switch back and forth when it is convenient to to do if it "proves" something about how good the Texans are, and stick by that instantiation of the rule for that specific argument no matter what.

=================

Personally, I think the best team usually wins but that certainly isn't an absolute. I also think "not showing up to play" is a bad thing and indicates the team isn't quite as good as was thought.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

I've got a migraine. Too many stale chips being thrown around in here. I know the chips are stale. I still can't stop putting them in my mouth. They're chips.

FWIW, chips = Texans.

I think some Rockets ball would clear that up. What do you all think?

Are we talking about putting stale Texans bull "chips" in your mouth?? Yuck!

 

[Lucky]

I have another one for you. What about the 11-5 Patriots vs. the 9-7 Cardinals? The Patriots didn't make the playoffs, the Cardinals went to the super-bowl. Just helping with your point.

An 11-5 team not gaining a playoff berth has happened once in the past 23 seasons. A fluke among flukes.

Many here feel that the Texans record of 8-8 wasn't indicative of their performance on the field. And the Cardinals weren't a quality team because of their record of 9-7 in the regular season. I think one has to dig just a little deeper to find the truth.

After week 11 of the season, the Texans sat at 3-7 and eliminated from playoff contention. In reality, the loss to the Ravens at Reliant the week prior put the nail in the coffin. That the Texans didn't quit on the season, and finished strong, should be applauded. Hopefully, it bodes well for the 2009 season. Though a similarly strong finish in 2007 didn't transfer to 2008.

The Cardinals held a 7-3 record after week 11. They had all but locked up a postseason berth, which they did a couple of weeks later. At times, teams will relax after clinching a playoff spot. And a case can be made that's what happened in Arizona. Because after a postseason that saw Arizona get 3 victories against opponents with superior regular season records, the 2-4 finish to the regular season looks more flukish than the 7-3 start.

When it mattered, the Texans didn't show. When the Cardinals needed to come up big, they did. Big time. There's no question which team was better in 2008. That's Arizona. That doesn't mean they will be a better team than the Texans in 2009. But to attempt to diminish what the Cardinals and their staff did in 2008 looks foolish.

 

[NitroGSXR]

Are we talking about putting stale Texans bull "chips" in your mouth?? Yuck!

Whatever bag floats your boat. I'm just ready to open a new fresh bag. Problem is... It's not my forte. My NFL knowledge could never come anywhere near what's being discussed. So i've got to piggyback on ideas others come up with.

Texans... I'll read anything that has Texans in it no matter how many times it gets repeated like it has been in this thread. I'm just ready for a new bag.

FWIW, I'm not behind anybody in this thread. I think both sides have had their argument well presented. I like them both. I pretty much agree with what I've been reading in this thread.

This thread has the markings of a monkeys flinging dung sort of thing.

 

[JCTexan]

An 11-5 team not gaining a playoff berth has happened once in the past 23 seasons. A fluke among flukes.

Many here feel that the Texans record of 8-8 wasn't indicative of their performance on the field. And the Cardinals weren't a quality team because of their record of 9-7 in the regular season. I think one has to dig just a little deeper to find the truth.

After week 11 of the season, the Texans sat at 3-7 and eliminated from playoff contention. In reality, the loss to the Ravens at Reliant the week prior put the nail in the coffin. That the Texans didn't quit on the season, and finished strong, should be applauded. Hopefully, it bodes well for the 2009 season. Though a similarly strong finish in 2007 didn't transfer to 2008.

The Cardinals held a 7-3 record after week 11. They had all but locked up a postseason berth, which they did a couple of weeks later. At times, teams will relax after clinching a playoff spot. And a case can be made that's what happened in Arizona. Because after a postseason that saw Arizona get 3 victories against opponents with superior regular season records, the 2-4 finish to the regular season looks more flukish than the 7-3 start.

When it mattered, the Texans didn't show. When the Cardinals needed to come up big, they did. Big time. There's no question which team was better in 2008. That's Arizona. That doesn't mean they will be a better team than the Texans in 2009. But to attempt to diminish what the Cardinals and their staff did in 2008 looks foolish.

My goal was not to diminish what the Cardinals did. They were in the biggest game of the year. Every team besides Pittsburgh wishes they were in that game. A 7-3 record is a good start to the year, but six of their nine wins were against teams inside their division. That's teams with 13 wins altogether. Now that's not to diminish what the Cardinals did, they won their division. They beat the teams they played on their way to the super bowl. 30 teams wanted to be where they were at the end of the year, and weren't. My main point is the Texans record wasn't really worse then a team in the super bowl.

The only reason I mentioned the Patriots is because it ruins the opposite argument. If they say the Cardinals were the better team then it proves that record isn't everything. If they say the Patriots were the better team, then what about the Cardinals playoff run? That's the only reason I used them, to see who people think was the better team last year.

 

[Lucky]

My main point is the Texans record wasn't really worse then a team in the super bowl.

My point is that if you are to discount a team's record based upon whom they played, you have to consider how a team got there. Yes, the Texans finished 8-8. But their 5-1 finish was in essentially garbage time. Their fate had already been decided. The Cards lost some games to teams fighting for the playoffs. But, they avenged a couple of those losses in the playoffs. And if you want to minimize the Cards wins versus their NFC division foes, remember that the Texans picked on the little sisters of the poor, as well. The Texans victories came against opponents that averaged 6.5 wins.

 

[HoustonFrog]

ord is

Which team is better, the 12-4 New York Giants, the 12-4 Carolina Panthers, or the 9-7 Arizona Cardinals?

Are those W-Ls enough information for you to determine who the better team is, or do you need more info?

Definitely more info....my point...."All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book" .....the big picture being many variables such as schedule, overall record, start, finish, injuries, playoff position, division, etc, etc. I'm not sure how that proves your point at all. So you are trying to say that a fantasy scenario where you switch schedules and then look at what the real record was and then make more speculation is more accurate?That is as good as predicting record with the schedule to start a year. Look at Lucky's post. The final fact is that a team like the Cards make the SB so at that point of the season they were better. Saying the Texans were SO much better than the Dolphins when the Dolphins barely lost here on the road and who consistently played and won ALL season says you are off.

BTW, what does this have to do with anything?..for all of us. Kubes is on the hotseat if they don't do well. If you try to add "what ifs" under every coach then you will never get a real picture. Bill Parcells won another SB with the Cowboys a few years back IF Romo didn't drop the snap and IF they would have played well the next round because they were the better team AND IF.............

Also, as I said, I don't expect them not to do well or Kubes to be in trouble. It SHOULD be a good year. I'm not a doom and gloom person. Just a person who can realistically look at sports without muddying it by making situations better than they are. Teams are what they are.

My point is that if you are to discount a team's record based upon whom they played, you have to consider how a team got there. Yes, the Texans finished 8-8. But their 5-1 finish was in essentially garbage time. Their fate had already been decided. The Cards lost some games to teams fighting for the playoffs. But, they avenged a couple of those losses in the playoffs. And if you want to minimize the Cards wins versus their NFC division foes, remember that the Texans picked on the little sisters of the poor, as well. The Texans victories came against opponents that averaged 6.5 wins.

Word!

 

[JCTexan]

My point is that if you are to discount a team's record based upon whom they played, you have to consider how a team got there. Yes, the Texans finished 8-8. But their 5-1 finish was in essentially garbage time. Their fate had already been decided. The Cards lost some games to teams fighting for the playoffs. But, they avenged a couple of those losses in the playoffs. And if you want to minimize the Cards wins versus their NFC division foes, remember that the Texans picked on the little sisters of the poor, as well.

I know the Texans wins were in garbage time, and I realize the fast start for the Cardinals, but that fast start could be because they played the 49ers, Dolphins (before they started winning), & Bills... instead of Pittsburgh, Tennessee & Indy.

The Texans victories came against opponents that averaged 6.5 wins.

I have already looked at what the teams did whom both the Texans & Cardinals beat last year. The teams the Cardinals beat had 1 (53 to 52) more win then the teams the Texans beat. That's with the Texans having one more loss and playing the Detroit Lions last year. So seven wins= nine, if we're going there.

 

[Lucky]

I know the Texans wins were in garbage time, and I realize the fast start for the Cardinals, but that fast start could be because they played the 49ers, Dolphins (before they started winning), & Bills... instead of Pittsburgh, Tennessee & Indy.

The Bills were 4-0 when the Cardinals gave them their 1st loss of the season. One of the hottest teams in the league. The Dolphins before they started winning? The Texans played Miami just 3 games later.

Let's try to be honest. The Texans weren't beating anyone with the effort they gave in Pittsburgh. Whom they played in that game made no difference. And it's not as if Indy played great in the Rosencopter game. That was completely gift wrapped. That game exemplifies the entire 2008 Texans season. They played well at times. Very well in certain aspects of the game. But, couldn't put it together when it counted. The Texans haven't learned how to win big games. That's why this thread exists and will continue, until this Texans team becomes a winner.

 

[JCTexan]

The Bills were 4-0 when the Cardinals gave them their 1st loss of the season. One of the hottest teams in the league. The Dolphins before they started winning? The Texans played Miami just 3 games later.

Let's try to be honest. The Texans weren't beating anyone with the effort they gave in Pittsburgh. Whom they played in that game made no difference. And it's not as if Indy played great in the Rosencopter game. That was completely gift wrapped. That game exemplifies the entire 2008 Texans season. They played well at times. Very well in certain aspects of the game. But, couldn't put it together when it counted. The Texans haven't learned how to win big games. That's why this thread exists and will continue, until this Texans team becomes a winner.

So the Cardinals started the Bills with their losing? Okay. Yes, the Dolphins before they started winning. They didn't start using their wild-cat offense until week three against the Patriots.

I know the Texans came out flat to start the year, but maybe the Cardinals would have too if they played three straight teams that went to the playoffs to start 08. The Cardinals 7-3 start was against SF, Mia, Buf, Dal, Stl, SF & Sea. Out of every team they played during that stretch only Miami & Carolina made the playoffs. I would expect the Texans to beat at least five of those teams, and they beat Miami last year. Again I'm not trying to diminish anything the Cardinals did in the post-season, just that they didn't have a better regular season then the Texans.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

As has been pointed out so eloquently by Lucky and Frog, many intangibles go into wins and losses. Another significant intangible/tangible that would have to be looked at for each game, is what players were playing in each game.......and for how long...........whether due to injuries, or simply because they were held out near the end of the season, etc.

But also let's be perfectly honest, the standard by which teams and coaches live and die are how far they climb into the playoffs. There is no coincidence to the NFL "Not For Long" label.........and 4years???..............it's time.

 

[thunderkyss]

ord is

Definitely more info....my point...."All of the head to head thing is part of the big picture in my book" .....the big picture being many variables such as schedule, overall record, start, finish, injuries, playoff position, division, etc, etc. I'm not sure how that proves your point at all.

That's my point. The W-L record at the end of the season is not the end all be all of how good a team is. It's a factor.... but there are other things that need to be looked at.

So you are trying to say that a fantasy scenario where you switch schedules and then look at what the real record was and then make more speculation is more accurate?

All the what ifs, were just to point out our record would be different with a different schedule. Doesn't prove we would be better, or worse, we'd be the same team, with a different W-L record, that's all.

That is as good as predicting record with the schedule to start a year. Look at Lucky's post. The final fact is that a team like the Cards make the SB so at that point of the season they were better.

Just to be clear, I never said we were better than the Cardinals.

Saying the Texans were SO much better than the Dolphins when the Dolphins barely lost here on the road and who consistently played and won ALL season says you are off.

Again, never said the Texans were soooo much better than the Dolphins because we beat them.

I think we've got more talent than they do. I believe we've got better talent. I believe we've got more depth.

I think our offensive gameplan is more viable than theirs. I think they are a fad, with no lasting power.

Also, as I said, I don't expect them not to do well or Kubes to be in trouble. It SHOULD be a good year. I'm not a doom and gloom person. Just a person who can realistically look at sports without muddying it by making situations better than they are. Teams are what they are.

I'm saying this years 8-8 team is better than the '07 8-8 team. I'm saying Kubiak is not on any hot seat of any kind in '09.

I'm not saying we're the best team in the league, or that we should have won the Super Bowl. We were what we were, I'm not denying that.

The Titans were a better team than we were in '08.... most likely will be in '09. Indy, New England, Pittsburgh, even Baltimore, all better than the '08 Texans.

 

[HoustonFrog]

I'm saying this years 8-8 team is better than the '07 8-8 team.
.

I think we are all splitting hairs....I said this same thing in an earlier post. When I first came in here I did say I thought the team should do well and that the 8-8 teams seemed different despite the record. I just think there is a harsh reality that 8-8, after all the variables, ends up being mediocre and that a coach will be on the hotseat if it happens again. There will be questions. That is where we disagree. If learning from your past is something that has to be done in the NFL then letting people slide for mediocre results should not be accepted. So even though this years 8-8 seemed more talented, the reality is they started weakly and didn't get over the hump. There is a time where "ifs" and excuses should not be accepted. To me that is an expansion mentality. They are way beyond that. I think that one area is where people are drawing the line here.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

If I recollect, we are the only expansion team that has not reached the playoffs by the 4th year. This is our 8th year........our 4th year into this regime...........it's time.

 

[beerlover]

If I recollect, we are the only expansion team that has not reached the playoffs by the 4th year. This is our 8th year........our 4th year into this regime...........it's time.

then it will happen.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

A NEW chapter of The Sunshine Club, The ULTRA Sunshine Club, has emerged beyond this board. This grossly unbalanced piece points out every best case scenario explaining what kept us out of the playoffs last year...............and the best case scenario, realistic or not (of course, the one we are all hoping for), for the upcoming season............the AFC championship. [LINK]

 

[GP]

The Texans. Hands down. To be fair, the Texans were in year 3 of the latest regime. That was year one of the Parcells/Sparano Project. Not that we're ever fair to other NFL team's success around here.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Texans had superior talent to the Dolphins in 2008. Yet, the Dolphins were 11-5. The Texans went 8-8. Which team had the superior coaching in 2008?

I feel like Michael Corleone. "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

Well, in our head-to-head matchup with the Dolphins, Kubiak was the smarter coach. He allowed the Dolphins to score a TD really quick instead of trying to stop them...which gave us time to run down the field. And Sporano was dumb for not having his team draw it out and kill the clock some more.

The Dolphins spectacular crash in the playoffs was alos a key indication that that team was not any sort of real contender.

I've been trying to say that if you're not a true contender, then you're just a pretender. And that equals a season ender. So big freaking whoop if Kubiak makes it to the playoffs this year. We're easily a ways away from being a true contender. Our defense will be better, but not "deep into the playoffs" better (see, I'm not that much of a homer. I know our limitations).

The Dolphins making the playoffs did nothing for me in terms of comparing it to the Texans. No teams will sleep on the Dolphins this season--Much like the Patriots finally woke up against them in the second '08 meeting.

To hell with making the playoffs. If we don't make it to round 2 of the playoffs, it's a disappointing year. Just getting into the playoffs, and losing in the first round, is the same to me as if we had just missed the playoffs. Off the top of your head, without googling it, name all the first round losers in the last playoffs? See...it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

 

[JCTexan]

Well, in our head-to-head matchup with the Dolphins, Kubiak was the smarter coach. He allowed the Dolphins to score a TD really quick instead of trying to stop them...which gave us time to run down the field. And Sporano was dumb for not having his team draw it out and kill the clock some more.

The Dolphins spectacular crash in the playoffs was alos a key indication that that team was not any sort of real contender.

I've been trying to say that if you're not a true contender, then you're just a pretender. And that equals a season ender. So big freaking whoop if Kubiak makes it to the playoffs this year. We're easily a ways away from being a true contender. Our defense will be better, but not "deep into the playoffs" better (see, I'm not that much of a homer. I know our limitations).

The Dolphins making the playoffs did nothing for me in terms of comparing it to the Texans. No teams will sleep on the Dolphins this season--Much like the Patriots finally woke up against them in the second '08 meeting.

To hell with making the playoffs. If we don't make it to round 2 of the playoffs, it's a disappointing year. Just getting into the playoffs, and losing in the first round, is the same to me as if we had just missed the playoffs. Off the top of your head, without googling it, name all the first round losers in the last playoffs? See...it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

Let me try. San Diego, Atlanta, Minnesota, Indy. Is that right?

 

[JCTexan]

Let me try. San Diego, Atlanta, Minnesota, Indy. Is that right?

Wow. He just said the Dolphins didn't get past the first round, and they're the only team I missed... SD beat Indy in the first round, so there goes my argument for them being worse then Houston. Indy, Miami, Minnesota & Atlanta lost in the 1st round. I'm disappointed I missed one.

 

[HoustonFrog]

To hell with making the playoffs. If we don't make it to round 2 of the playoffs, it's a disappointing year. Just getting into the playoffs, and losing in the first round, is the same to me as if we had just missed the playoffs. Off the top of your head, without googling it, name all the first round losers in the last playoffs? See...it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

It matters big time. You are in the dance. You never know if you are going to make the second round unless you play the first round...something fans and players alike would be chomping at the bit for. People made the Cards out to be first round fodder and they got to the SB. I know what you are saying...not making it and losing in round 1 is like kissing your mother... but you can't just jump to Rd 2 without playing Rd 1. Losing it someday means you are in the mix and that stinging disappointment is what drives teams and what makes them work harder.

 

[thunderkyss]

... but you can't just jump to Rd 2 without playing Rd 1.

If we're the 1 or 2 seed, we don't have to play the first round.


But what I think GP is saying, is if we get to the playoffs, and lose Wild Card weekend..... it's just like not going at all.

Say we were 8-8 like the Chargers.... we lost that first weekend... you know we weren't very good anyway, and that's the point.

GP, like me and some others want the Texans to be a good team, more than just getting to the play-offs. For some, it doesn't matter if we back door in with a 9-7 record, as long as we get there. For others, getting there is just the beginning.

 

[HoustonFrog]

If we're the 1 or 2 seed, we don't have to play the first round.


But what I think GP is saying, is if we get to the playoffs, and lose Wild Card weekend..... it's just like not going at all.

Say we were 8-8 like the Chargers.... we lost that first weekend... you know we weren't very good anyway, and that's the point.

GP, like me and some others want the Texans to be a good team, more than just getting to the play-offs. For some, it doesn't matter if we back door in with a 9-7 record, as long as we get there. For others, getting there is just the beginning.

This whole time I've been advocating not accepting 8-8 and taking a harder look at Kubes while you defend the records and say he isn't on the hot seat....now you are saying you want more than just the first round.....two vastly different things and a standard that most have been trying to put on the coach at times. Respectively, I think you are missing the point though. EVERYONE wants the Texans to be good...really good. You are again making up fact scenarios. GP didn't specify whether they were 8-8 and squeaked in to lose a wild card game. He also didn't specify whether not winning was the wild card game or the official "1st round." My point was that many teams made progress over the years and you have to get a taste to improve. I said I got GPs point about it. It's like kissing your mother...you should strive for more. Right. But you use San Diego as an example but they beat Indy. If that was the Texans this past season, the players would be talking about getting back and how they are hungry for more. Sitting here after all of these years and then being picky and saying..screw the start of the playoffs, I want more or it is a bust isn't realistic to me. The NFL is full of parity. The playoffs is the goal. Then you are in the dance and can make some noise. Getting farther should be the goal for everyone but saying that a season is a bust for not winning first round makes no sense to me. What if you are 11-5 in a competitive AFC and you lose?That's real progress. What if there was a rough patch for 4 games because AJ went down but you still fight for 9-7 and make it in...well then you deserve it. Again, there are so many factors.

Just to clairify..I'm not advocating sliding into the playoffs. I'm just saying each year presents different issues but you can't jump from being ok with "better 8-8" seasons and keeping a coach to "I'm not satisfied unless we win a playoff round." They are two opposed standards.

So my two points all along

1) You can't accept an expansion mentality and if you string together a 3rd and 4th 8-8 season, though the team seems to be progressing, it means that someone is not getting the team over the top and usually that is the coach. Expect more..this year playoffs.

2) Having a stepping stone season where you make the playoffs with say a 9-7 record due to certain circumstances over the season isn't a horrible thing if you build on it and it lights a fire because you got a taste. Not going past a round isn't a prereq. Now if you keep accepting the mediocre results that might let you slide in, then you revert to Point #1. I think many teams on the rise have one of these seasons that gives them the taste and then they learn and the goal is SB or bust.

 

[Runner]

GP, like me and some others want the Texans to be a good team, more than just getting to the play-offs. For some, it doesn't matter if we back door in with a 9-7 record, as long as we get there. For others, getting there is just the beginning.

This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

 

[Polo]

This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

I would not prefer small steps, but I will accept small steps if I think that a big step will eventually come.

Yet, I think that "small step" is defined by the individual.

Personally, I think that this team is monumental steps ahead of where they were 3 years ago. Of course they need to go out and prove that though.

 

[GP]

I would not prefer small steps, but I will accept small steps if I think that a big step will eventually come.

Yet, I think that "small step" is defined by the individual.

Personally, I think that this team is monumental steps ahead of where they were 3 years ago. Of course they need to go out and prove that though.

I thought of something over the weekend, and it ties into what you just said.

I think the frequent use of Sparano in this thread has accidentally swerved into an examination of the Dolphins' head coaches since Don Shula.

The Dolphins had an iconic coach in Don Shula. He coached the Fins from 1970-1995, and won only 2 Super Bowls ('72 and '73). He won 5 AFC Championships. Regardless of whether he should have won more SBs, the guy was consistently fielding competitive teams. No team dominates for a span of 25 years. You are bad some years, good some years, and great some years. And some teams like the Bengals and Lions? They've been bad for a loooong time.

But let's examine the HCs for the Dolphins and what they did in the playoffs, since the playoffs seems to be the main attraction here:

1970-1995: Shula coached 31 playoff games and was 17-14 (.548)

1996-1999: Jimmy Johnson coached 5 playoff games and was 2-3 (.400)

2000-2004: Dave Wannstedt coached 3 playoff games and was 1-2 (.333)

2005-2006: Nick Saban went 15-17 in two seasons (.469) & no playoff games

2007: Cam Cameron went 1-15 (.063) & no playoff games

2008: Tony Sparano went 11-5 (.688) & 0-1 in the playoffs

Over the 13 years since Shula, the Dolphins have won 3 out of the 6 playoff games they have played. In the past 13 years, they have had 5 different head coaches which averages about one coach every 2 years.

You can go a long time, and change coaches every 2 or 3 years (searching for that special head coach), and really not make very much noise...even if you make the playoffs.

This is one of the reasons I have said that the NFL is different from other sports. In golf and tennis, there are several championships to play for all year long. In NBA, MLB, and NHL, those teams have "best of" series where you can level out a bad game by winning the next game or two (to advance in the playoffs). In the NFL, and even in NCAA football, it's a one-and-you're-done playoff structure. There are no second chances. So, IMO, the NFL is a cold, hard place for coaches, GMs, and players.

I like who we have. Maybe he can deliver, and maybe he won't. But he's done a solid of job of proving that he's no team wrecker. I guess it's time to step away and just see what we have. I think McNair's trigger finger is not as itchy as it would be if we fell below 8-8 this past season. To me, that was a fairly remarkable job by all personnel involved to salvage the '08 season.

 

[spurstexanstros]

I think the slow starts have killed this team, last year was an anomoly for two reaseons: 1. The schedule was by far the toughest opening schedule I have seen. Three out of first 4 teams made the playoffs from the year before. It was almost like Jerry was on the schedule commitee.
2. Ike was a devastating storm to the city of Houston and the Texans. The team had to play three games on the road to start a season, then they get home and have one of the most monumental collapses in NFL history. Ike is not an excuse, but a significant enough reason for the Texans to have a 2 win season. Kubiak pulled the team together and had yet another great finish.

I think if the Texans can put together a great start and split or win some division series they will put themselves in a position for a playoff berth. next years schedule is one of the easiest they have had (as of now) Next year is their time to take the next step and win at least 10 games. If not Kubiak may be under some pressure.

 

[thunderkyss]

This whole time I've been advocating not accepting 8-8 and taking a harder look at Kubes while you defend the records and say he isn't on the hot seat....now you are saying you want more than just the first round.....two vastly different things and a standard that most have been trying to put on the coach at times. Respectively, I think you are missing the point though. EVERYONE wants the Texans to be good...really good.

If the Texans go 8-8, I don't believe Kubiak will be going anywhere. I don't think McNair will even consider moving Kubiak, because we went 8-8.

That's one opinion I have. He's not on the hot seat.

I want the Texans to win the Super Bowl in '09. That's not to say that I want Kubiak gone, if we don't.

Again, in my made up scenario, 8-8 isn't the "proof" that a team isn't very good...... going 8-8, then losing Wildcard weekend are two pieces of evidence supporting that the team wasn't very good.

All I ever said, was that the W-L is not the "proof" of whether a team is good or not.

This totally misrepresents what I and others have been saying. I want to be a team that can make a big step in a single year and is ALSO a good team in the playoffs. I think that is preferrable to taking three years of small steps to be a good team in the playoffs. It is not mutually exclusive that a team makes rapid progress and is actually good.

My post said nothing about baby steps vs big steps. Only that I want the team to be good.

I wouldn't have had a problem if we went from 1-15 to 15-1. But I wouldn't think we were a great team, just because we went 15-1.

Like the Saints that went 2-14 in '05. They were a better team than that, but Katrina really kicked their but.

I have asked twice on this thread if people want a small step this year or a big step. Only one person answered, and he didn't prefer the small step. I hope a small step isn't the goal of the coaches, front office, and players either.

I thought I answered.... I want big steps... I'll be satisfied with small steps. I believe '09 will be a big step, unless there are some unforseen major problems. I don't want to say what they could be, for fear of jinxing our players/team...... I'm just saying if Kubiak is 8-8 in '09 I don't think it will be because we don't have a good team, or because he hasn't caught up to speed with NFL head coaching.

I think that looking at small steps as the right way to build works best in hindsight. Few people would really prefer year after year of incremental improvement that isn't leading to tangible results.

Again, I've said the results should be tangible. Just that the W-L column is not the only relative stat. We've got the 3rd most prolific offense in the whole league.... We've got three Pro Bowlers. Our OL is avg at worst. Our Rookie RB rushed for more yards than any other Rookie RB this year. Andre Johnson caught more balls than anyone else in the league, and caught for more yards than anyone else in the league...... We cut Greenwood & Weaver.......

 

[Texecutioner]

If the Texans go 8-8, I don't believe Kubiak will be going anywhere. I don't think McNair will even consider moving Kubiak, because we went 8-8.

That's one opinion I have. He's not on the hot seat.

I want the Texans to win the Super Bowl in '09. That's not to say that I want Kubiak gone, if we don't.

Again, in my made up scenario, 8-8 isn't the "proof" that a team isn't very good...... going 8-8, then losing Wildcard weekend are two pieces of evidence supporting that the team wasn't very good.

All I ever said, was that the W-L is not the "proof" of whether a team is good or not.


My post said nothing about baby steps vs big steps. Only that I want the team to be good.

I wouldn't have had a problem if we went from 1-15 to 15-1. But I wouldn't think we were a great team, just because we went 15-1.

Like the Saints that went 2-14 in '05. They were a better team than that, but Katrina really kicked their but.

I thought I answered.... I want big steps... I'll be satisfied with small steps. I believe '09 will be a big step, unless there are some unforseen major problems. I don't want to say what they could be, for fear of jinxing our players/team...... I'm just saying if Kubiak is 8-8 in '09 I don't think it will be because we don't have a good team, or because he hasn't caught up to speed with NFL head coaching.


Again, I've said the results should be tangible. Just that the W-L column is not the only relative stat. We've got the 3rd most prolific offense in the whole league.... We've got three Pro Bowlers. Our OL is avg at worst. Our Rookie RB rushed for more yards than any other Rookie RB this year. Andre Johnson caught more balls than anyone else in the league, and caught for more yards than anyone else in the league...... We cut Greenwood & Weaver.......

The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?

You want to see who the best defense is? Look at how many points teams average against them every week.

I remember years and years ago one of those Eagles teams that went to the NFC championship was getting dogged throughout the season on their defense because of how many yards they gave up every game, but it was a pretty abusrd criticism by some of the ESPN analysts, because the Eagles had by far the best Red Zone defense in the league that year and were like in the top 3 of all defenses for what teams would average against them as far as the score board.

It's nice to see us up there in yards and categories like that, because it does show very nice signs of improvements but we had some awful red zone issues that stopped a lot of potential points from being on the score board for us.

We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

 

[GP]

The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?

You want to see who the best defense is? Look at how many points teams average against them every week.

I remember years and years ago one of those Eagles teams that went to the NFC championship was getting dogged throughout the season on their defense because of how many yards they gave up every game, but it was a pretty abusrd criticism by some of the ESPN analysts, because the Eagles had by far the best Red Zone defense in the league that year and were like in the top 3 of all defenses for what teams would average against them as far as the score board.

It's nice to see us up there in yards and categories like that, because it does show very nice signs of improvements but we had some awful red zone issues that stopped a lot of potential points from being on the score board for us.

We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

That's on Richard Smith then.

I wailed and gnashed (sp?) my teeth about how there was NO way that Richard Smith could have been "the" best candidate for d-coord when Kubiak hired him on as our d-coord. I questioned the spending (like thereof, actually) by McNair and was skewered on here by the very ones who are griping about how Kubiak (a) chose him in the first place and (b) kept him on a lot longer than he should have.

The reason I was skewered? The short answer: "There was really nobody else out there at the time..." That was it. Debate over. The reason I was given by the majority of posters around here was that RS was all there was at the time, and the other heavily favored candidates were taken or weren't interested...or, as I theorized, were not heavily tempted by McNair's offer. Nonetheless, it couldn't possibly be because McNair was a tightwad. He spent millions upon millions to bring football back, and a lot of posters here stopped just short of asking me to turn in my keyboard because I dared to say "I think Kubiak didn't get a better d-coord than RS because BM's tight purse strings."

Now? He's a dunce for (a) choosing him in the first place, and (b) keeping him longer than he did. I agree with Kubiak keeping RS a season longer than he should have, but to his credit...he gave RS a fighting chance and a long period of time to show he could stick around. While we most certainly suffered for it, via the whole "scoreboard" thing, it is what it is.

People are worried that Bush is RS version 2.0, and they are worried that Antonio Smith is Weaver version 2.0, and they are worried that Barwin is Babin version 2.0, and they don't like the familial style of having Shanny Jr. and then two Gibbs on our staff, etc. I think that's playing a huge part of the edgy mood of some of the posters around here. It's been building, and the draft just added fuel to the fire.

We are easily one of the best offenses in the NFL, but our defense had been too awful to really make it count for anything. Nothing has my attention more than the defense this year. We're virtually loaded and ready to fire on the offense, and I am anxious to see if Bush is all talk or if we're going to see it flesh itself out on the field.

 

[GP]

Remember that Kubiak tried to make David Carr fit into the system, and Kubiak gave him a full season to live up to McNair's hopes. That's when you saw Rick Smith and Gary Kubiak pull the trigger on acquiring Matt Schaub. The jury is still somewhat "out" on Matt because of health/injury concerns, but it was obviously a better route than to stick with Carr. So, Kubiak tried it McNair's way and he exchanged one part (Carr) for another part (Schaub).

Kubiak, in my speculative opinion, was really hog-tied with the selection of Richard Smith as d-coord. I seriously doubt that RS is who Kubiak wanted all along, but he tried to make it work. I think there was a similar "deal" worked out with Kubiak and McNair as was worked when Kubiak was saddled with Carr: "Hey, Gary. Just try it and see. If it fails, cut bait and we'll get who you want." So, Kubiak tried it (theoritically) with Richard Smith and he has now exchanged that part (Smith) for another part (Bush).

Side note: Is it possible that McNair refused to let Gary have who he wanted for d-coord, in essence taking a GM-type role and selecting "his guy" for Kubiak to work with for a certain period of time before allowing Kubiak to choose his own d-coord? I mean, I just cannot begin to believe that Gary Kubiak would choose Richard Smith. There HAD to be something else going on. And remember, Rick Smith was not yet GM when Richard Smith was hired...that was still down the road, a bit, from Kubiak's selection of his coaching staff. I just have a hunch that Richard was McNair's effort to control some aspect of the team; some sort of attempt to influence one side of the team in case Kubiak couldn't deliver on the offense.

What I see developing is this: McNair sees that Kubiak is open to giving people a chance, maybe TOO much of a chance. I think Kubiak has played ball with McNair more than most coaches would with their owner(s). And I think that's earned Kubiak a certain level of rapport with McNair. It's not a big stretch to see that this team is way more competitive than Capers' 2-14 disaster. There's signs of real improvement, and I don't even think you could call it "baby steps" in terms of overall competitiveness between the best of Capers' team(s) and the current Kubiak team.

And I think that's why there is no hot seat. It would take a Capers'esque debacle for there to be a hot seat.

 

[barrett]

Go Texans.

You guys type alot.

 

[thunderkyss]

The Texans were not the thrid best offense in the league. I swear if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that on this site I'd be rich. It isn't true though. They may have been up there in yards per game, but they weren't the third best scoring team on average points per game and that is all that matters which is how many points you score.

YOu want to see who the best offense is? Look at how many points they average per week?


We weren't the third best offensive team in the league last season. When it came down to points per game we were like 15th or 16th and points is what matters. YOu can put all the yards you want in a game, you can have a RB that tears it up all game and a WR who catches a ton of balls piling on the stat sheet, but the only stat that matters in the end is the points stat, because that is what determines a winner from a loser at the end of the game and football is about points.

I agree.... never said other wise. But it is a stepping stone, and something for this team/franchise/fans.... to feel good about.

just in case I wasn't clear...... prolific is not synonymous with best.

 

[Texecutioner]

I agree.... never said other wise. But it is a stepping stone, and something for this team/franchise/fans.... to feel good about.

just in case I wasn't clear...... prolific is not synonymous with best.

Cool. Believe me, I was very happy to see the improvements with our offense last year for sure, it's just that so many people keep saying that we had the third best offense in the NFL and that just wasn't true.

We made some great strides though and were able to do it with our back up QB playing almost half of the season, so that right there is something to hang our hats on. I think we'll get better this season as well, but we've got to get those RZ issues out of the way, and that isn't as easy as some people seem to think it is. Getting 60 yards down the field sometimes can be a lot easier than getting positive gains when the field is so much shorter, and that was our problem last season.

I really hope that we're able to use this Casey guy in a lot of ways like some people think we will. Hopefully a good bruising RB becomes available for us to pick up as well.

 

[thunderkyss]

....but we've got to get those RZ issues out of the way, and that isn't as easy as some people seem to think it is.

Agreed, and this is one of the things, I'll be watching.... IMHO, this is one area that Kubiak has got to improve on, regardless how we finish the season, we've got to improve here. The overall percentage has to go up, and we've got to do well against good defensive teams.

If our numbers go up..... & we're extremely good against bad teams, and extremely bad against good teams, IMHO, we didn't improve at all.