Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

New Poll on NFL.com regarding Kubes and other new coaches

Bobo said:
If you were going to hire a new coach, which shouldn't have happened in the first place, then there were plenty of better choices out there than Kubiak. If you're going to fire Capers for one bad year, then you have to say you would have fired both Holmgren and Cowher before their SB runs.
Click to expand...


:D

Kids, don't smoke crack rock.
 
Yes, we all know that a 6-10 season (both Cowhers and Holmgrens worst seasons) are a reason to fire a HC that has show consistent success in the past, including one with a SB ring. By the way... Holmgran went to the SB with Packers.... long before his "worst" season of 6-10 with the Seahawks. Get your info straight. Go figure.
 
TexansLucky13 said:
Yes, we all know that a 6-10 season (both Cowhers and Holmgrens worst seasons) are a reason to fire a HC that has show consistent success in the past, including one with a SB ring. By the way... Holmgran went to the SB with Packers.... long before his "worst" season of 6-10 with the Seahawks. Get your info straight. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I do believe I said that Holmgren one a SB ring with a team that had been around for years and years with a firm infrastructure in place. Like I aid, Capers showed consistent success in his first three years here. If that wasn't the case, then why was everyone predicting playoffs in his fourth season?
 
Bobo said:
Er, yes. That's why the poll has them that way. And it seems to me that the "circus" factor was irrelevant because the team was doing surprisingly well during that time. Cowart certainly is no loss to them and the Vikes have always been strong at the RB position. The Vikes QB sure isn't too shabby since he did pretty well last year when Culpepper was injured. If you think the Texans are going to do better than the Vikes, then you must also believe in jackalopes. And why don't you just call the guy Kubiak? There's no reason trying to act like you all are his best pal and giving him nicknames. But then again, maybe that goes along with the fantasy aspect of all this. I wouldn't know.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that they have been strong in the RB position. Did they not have Mike Bennett starting (who sucked), then Mo Williams (sucked), then Mewelde Moore (started 3 games in 2004 and played some in the end of the 2005 season decently)? Their run offense was a joke.
 
and as of now their depth chart has Mewelde Moore as their #1 with two no names following behind. I personally do not see Moore as a huge back for them, but that is simply my opinion.
 
To be honest, after reviewing their roster, I don;t see how anyone can think that they would do any better than the Texans next year, based on team talent and coaching. We both have new coaches. We both will have new faces due to the draft and FA, but they have lost more talent than they have gained. They have added a new running back in Chester Taylor (who did do decent last season) and a Pro Bowl guard, but they lost an amazing QB, starting MLB, their only good WR, and their best CB. The Texans on the other hand have losted no one and improved their defensive line personnal and upgraded the LB core. Also, they are making moves to improve the offensive side of the ball. , including a better standing the draft than the Vikings. The only validity to the proposal that the Vikings will have a better record than the Texans next year is the schedule that we each face.
First of all, the Vikings are in the worst division in the NFC, playing the Lions and Packers twice. The Texans on the other hand are in a semi-difficult division with a much improved Jaguar team, a high-powered Colt offense, and a Allstar-FA filled Titan team, and we are also facing the NFC's Cowboys, Redskins, and Giants; 2 of which have made significant acquisitions in FA.
 
wolf123 said:
Do you honestly believe that they have been strong in the RB position. Did they not have Mike Bennett starting (who sucked), then Mo Williams (sucked), then Mewelde Moore (started 3 games in 2004 and played some in the end of the 2005 season decently)? Their run offense was a joke.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that all three of these options are solid. That's why they move them in and out. Seems to me that when the Vikes played the Texans at Reliant Stadium that the Vikes RBs were pretty good.
 
wolf123 said:
To be honest, after reviewing their roster, I don;t see how anyone can think that they would do any better than the Texans next year, based on team talent and coaching. We both have new coaches. We both will have new faces due to the draft and FA, but they have lost more talent than they have gained. They have added a new running back in Chester Taylor (who did do decent last season) and a Pro Bowl guard, but they lost an amazing QB, starting MLB, their only good WR, and their best CB. The Texans on the other hand have losted no one and improved their defensive line personnal and upgraded the LB core. Also, they are making moves to improve the offensive side of the ball. , including a better standing the draft than the Vikings. The only validity to the proposal that the Vikings will have a better record than the Texans next year is the schedule that we each face.
First of all, the Vikings are in the worst division in the NFC, playing the Lions and Packers twice. The Texans on the other hand are in a semi-difficult division with a much improved Jaguar team, a high-powered Colt offense, and a Allstar-FA filled Titan team, and we are also facing the NFC's Cowboys, Redskins, and Giants; 2 of which have made significant acquisitions in FA.
Click to expand...

Culpepper's best years were behind him. He threw a ton of interceptions early on and was awful when he got hurt. Brad Johnson turned that team around and almost got them into the playoffs -- something the Vikes have been in contention for years now and something the Texans never have gotten close to. The strength of sked is just another reason why Childress will get more wins than Kubiak for sure.
 
The running backs were moved in and out b/c they couldn't find one that would produce consistently and could help the team. Brad Johnson did do well for them last year but they also had WR talent, this year (so far) they do not. But, we do agree that strength of schedule will be the real reason why Childress will most likely have more wins
 
childress is a damn ***** for that culpepper trade....i'm not saying kubiak is a shoe-in by any means....but i don't think the quarterback and number 1 or 2 WR-less Vikings will win much.
 
I think we'll be the best team with a new head coach next season, but I really doubt we'll have the most wins with that schedule. Which of NE, Miami, Philly, NYG, Washington and Dallas do you think we'll beat? Do you really think we'll get more than one win out of the Colts and Jags combined? I'd be pretty surprised if we went more than 7-9 - not that 7-9 wouldn't be a very worthwhile achievement, mind - but at least one of the Vikings, Lions and Rams will do better against their softer schedules. The 20% of people who voted for either the Packers or the Jets, meanwhile, are out of their tiny minds: those are going to be two horrible teams in 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top