Put the pink soap away for good: Kubiak extended until 2012

[Carr Bombed]

...and Patriots, Bengals, Miami, and San Francisco. 3 of those games were against playoff teams from this year, or the year previous, and all meant something to the other side.

of course, I'm one of those who don't "actually get it", so what do I know?

Apparently you don't get it.

I'm talking about big games where everybody says "did we turn the corner" and then we go out and lay a freaking egg.

I mean greeeaattt, we beat Cincy after coming out of the gate limping with a 2-3 record with losses to the Jags and NY (rookie QB and rookie head coach). Wow, we beat Cincy and then beat the lowly Raiders and Bills.....maybe just maybe we can freaking parley that into a HUGE win over the Colts and position ourselves great for a playoff run.

WRONG!

Once again when it's "turn the corner" time........we shat all over ourselves. Not only that though, we also start a 4 game freaking division slide.

Now let's get on to the other "signature wins" that you speak of

Miami was a decent win, but Miami wasn't exactly a powerhouse this year and Houston was just doing what they do best....win games after they're elbow deep in the crap that they created. Same for Pats game, we beat a Pats team that didn't exactly have too much to play for. How about we start actually getting wins like that earlier in the season before we all but mathematically eliminate ourselves from the playoffs.

Did we turn a corner this year......umm no, so what's the point in bringing up wins like that when we fell on our face when it mattered? Getting swept by the Jags and going 1-5 in the division including a 4 game divisional slide eliminates any good feeling that going on a run when all counted out would bring (LOL, seriously we do that every damn year....when does it ever carry over?) I'm tired of people pointing to wins this team racks up at the end of the year when they're pretty much eliminated while completely ignoring horrible losses against sub par talent or the inability to get a signature win that would actually put other teams on notice. Yes we beat the Bengals.....who cares, we got swept by Jacksonville which is why people/teams view this franchise as a running joke.

But hey....Kubiak got that 3 year extension regardless of having pretty much having no signature wins as a coach here. (honestly the only really huge win I remember is the victory over the Colts in '06 and that was because it was the first time we ever beat the Colts.....and haven't beat them since). Sorry, after 4 seasons of seeing the same exact thing over and over, I'm not going to suddenly expect things to change, just because we all want it to. This team does the same thing year in and year out and then people get pissed when the same thing happens. I was content with bringing Kubaik back, just because his feet were going to be held to the flames....then our owner had to run off and give him a 3 year extension.

 

[Silver Oak]

Apparently you don't get it.

I'm talking about big games where everybody says "did we turn the corner" and then we go out and lay a freaking egg.

I mean greeeaattt, we beat Cincy after coming out of the gate limping with a 2-3 record with losses to the Jags and NY (rookie QB and rookie head coach). Wow, we beat Cincy and then beat the lowly Raiders and Bills.....maybe just maybe we can freaking parley that into a HUGE win over the Colts and position ourselves great for a playoff run.

WRONG!

Once again when it's "turn the corner" time........we shat all over ourselves. Not only that though, we also start a 4 game freaking division slide.

Now let's get on to the other "signature wins" that you speak of

Miami was a decent win, but Miami wasn't exactly a powerhouse this year and Houston was just doing what they do best....win games after they're elbow deep in the crap that they created. Same for Pats game, we beat a Pats team that didn't exactly have too much to play for. How about we start actually getting wins like that earlier in the season before we all but mathematically eliminate ourselves from the playoffs.

Did we turn a corner this year......umm no, so what's the point in bringing up wins like that when we fell on our face when it mattered? Getting swept by the Jags and going 1-5 in the division including a 4 game divisional slide eliminates any good feeling that going on a run when all counted out would bring (LOL, seriously we do that every damn year....when does it ever carry over?) I'm tired of people pointing to wins this team racks up at the end of the year when they're pretty much eliminated while completely ignoring horrible losses against sub par talent or the inability to get a signature win that would actually put other teams on notice. Yes we beat the Bengals.....who cares, we got swept by Jacksonville which is why people/teams view this franchise as a running joke.

But hey....Kubiak got that 3 year extension regardless of having pretty much no signature as a coach here. (honestly the only really huge win I remember is the victory over the Colts in '06 and that was because it was the first time we ever beat the Colts.....and haven't beat them since). Sorry, after 4 seasons of seeing the same exact thing over and over, I'm not going to suddenly expect things to change, just because we all want it to. This team does the same thing year in and year out and then people get pissed when the same thing happens. I was content with bringing Kubaik back, just because his feet were going to be held to the flames....then our owner had to run off and give him a 3 year extension.

by your post, it looks like you are reluctant to give the team credit when they do beat a good team, yet all too willing to pile on when they lose to a team they're "supposed" to beat.

look at every NFL season in the last decade. each and every week there are upsets, near losses, defeats pulled from the jaws of victory, and vice-versa. welcome to the wonderful world of parity pal!

I would assume it's part of the maturation process a team must go through...or at least most teams. the Texans are no different from the vast majority of them CB. I truly believe that losing the stigma of being a losing franchise is one of the toughest things for a team to overcome. we can point to the Saints and their 42 year struggle to make it to the promised land.

it irritates me to see detractors point to this so called "historical" trend the team has shown. 8 years is an awfully small amount of time to draw any kind of conclusion as to what the personality of the team is...or isn't. IMO, we're just now beginning to see what this coach and GM can do, yet that's the point some want to tear it all down and restart?

 

[Carr Bombed]

by your post, it looks like you are reluctant to give the team credit when they do beat a good team, yet all too willing to pile on when they lose to a team they're "supposed" to beat.

look at every NFL season in the last decade. each and every week there are upsets, near losses, defeats pulled from the jaws of victory, and vice-versa. welcome to the wonderful world of parity pal!

I would assume it's part of the maturation process a team must go through...or at least most teams. the Texans are no different from the vast majority of them CB. I truly believe that losing the stigma of being a losing franchise is one of the toughest things for a team to overcome. we can point to the Saints and their 42 year struggle to make it to the promised land.

it irritates me to see detractors point to this so called "historical" trend the team has shown. 8 years is an awfully small amount of time to draw any kind of conclusion as to what the personality of the team is...or isn't. IMO, we're just now beginning to see what this coach and GM can do, yet that's the point some want to tear it all down and restart?

Teams get upset all the time, that's a no brainer.....however teams don't get "upset" or have a inability to win a big game when it's staring them in the face all the time. Which is what has happened with the Texans and Kubiak. You can shrug it off, but it's there staring everybody in the face and for all the world to see. (which is why you have NFL people around the league commenting on it)

Also I don't understand the Saints 42 year analogy, don't understand it at all. It's not like they had one coach for that 42 year stint who everybody was "waiting" for him to get them over the hump. They do however have a coach who just finished his 4th season (like Kubiak) and now he has a SB trophy. As of right now, Kubiak is MUCH closer to one of those no name Saints coaches that they had during that 42 year stretch rather than the guy who got hired the same year as he did. It's funny how some people sit around here and act like it's just a given that Houston is going to have success with Kubiak. I mean why is that...the guy is horrible within his division and has been underachieving the past 2 seasons. 9-7 was NOT a bookmark year for this team, it was NOT a successful year (no matter how much Houston's PR department will try to paint it as one this offseason), but people act like it was because it was the first time we have had a "winning season" and that's what draws me up the wall crazy.

You say I bag on this team and I'm "reluctant to give the team credit when they do beat a good team, yet all too willing to pile on when they lose to a team they're "supposed" to beat". (which isn't true at all...they just haven't had any signature/bookmark wins yet) I say.....after 4 seasons of watching people start "have the Texans turned the corner" threads (puke, vomit, puke...I can't stand those threads and I'm tired of hearing that phrase), how about we actually see this coach bring home a win in one of those games before we jump off the fence and give him a undeserved 3 year extension.

It's getting to the point where people are so freaking scared of another Dom Capers that they are willing to settle for a Gary "king of mediocre and meaningless wins" Kubiak. Yay, we don't suck.....we're just mediocre and irrelevant, which in my eyes is worse than flat out sucking, because at the end of the day you don't know whether to **** or get off the pot with the guy and in the end you just end up wasting years in the process. Nothing is worse than being a year in and year out middle of the pack mediocre team.

I mean, feel free to bump this post at the end of next year.....I'm praying and hoping that I'll have plenty of crow to eat, because it'll be in the Texans' best interest if that happens, but sadly I don't think it will.

 

[Wolf]

Where the Texans have done poorly and somewhat hindered their progress is the Fa signings over 8 years (I am not giving Kubiak an excuse for Casserly and all his draft picks that aren't with us or in the league anymore and that is another story )

Who? in the 8 years of this franchise's existence has really made a splash(been solid) when it came to our FA signings ?

I may have short term memory loss but Pollard made one for us(solidifying the safety position) and jury is still out on Smith(did play better in the last half of the season)

hopefully this year, if the Texans do go with some FA signings, that those players will contribute (and I am not saying McNair needs to be Snyder and break the bank)

reason for the post is Sharper made a huge impact for the Saints this season (that came to mind) along with Greg Williams as DC

 

[Carr Bombed]

reason for the post is Sharper made a huge impact for the Saints this season (that came to mind) along with Greg Williams as DC

You might as well add Drew Brees into that mix as well.....they've kicked ass in FA, but they've also had some duds (Jason David)

Still though...unlike Houston they're outnumbering the duds with great FA acquisitions.

 

[dalemurphy]

2006 : 1st pick of draft ......... 31 teams with better records
2007 : 8th pick of draft ....... 24 teams with better records
2008 : 17th? pick of draft ..... 15 teams with better records
2009 : 20th pick of draft ....... 12 teams with better records

So, we have the youngest team in the NFL and have steadily improved each season. I'm not sure how anyone can dispute those points. If all of the pro-Kubiak crowd acknowledges that the team needs to win more division games and needs to continue to improve... And, of course, if we acknowledge that some head coaches have done a better than he has...

Then, can you Soapers acknowledge that continuous, yearly improvement and the development of young talent and young leaders are reasons to be optimistic going into this season? Furthermore, could you acknowledge that Kubiak deserves credit for the acquisition and development of these players as well as construction of the system many of them are beginning to excel in?

If so, perhaps we can put this thread away until one of the groups overreacts after the first loss/ or win in September.

 

[steelbtexan]

6-10,8-8,9-7

I guess that's improvement.

 

[Wolf]

2006

Indy 12-4
Jags 8-8
Tenn 8-8
Hou 6-10

2007

Indy 13-3
Jags 11- 5
Tenn 10- 6
Hou 8-8

2008
Tenn 13-3
Indy 12-4
Hou 8-8
Jags 5-11



I feel we got better (even though our record was only 1 game better) but so did other teams we played.

bottom line is win within the division

 

[dalemurphy]

2006




I feel we got better *even though our record was only 1 game better) but so did other teams we played.

bottom line is win within the division

I don't remember who made the argument(maybe Lucky).
While I understand that we need to do better in the division, I wasn't seeing how the divisional record reflected as poorly on Kubiak as some have argued it does. But, Lucky, I think had a very good point:

The argument is that there is so much familiarity between divisional opponents that the strengths/weaknesses of coaches will come more into focus, as a result. So, the idea that Kubiak's overall record is so much better than his divisional record is an indication that he can get out-coached.

I disagree with the conclusion. But, it's an interesting and valid argument. And, something I'll be watching for this season. I still tend to believe that the division record disparity is simply a matter of playing in a very difficult division. But, we'll see next season because we play teams like: Baltimore, NYJets, Dallas, NYG, Phillie, SD. All those teams are clearly on par (at least) with Tennessee and much better than Jacksonville. So, it'll be interesting to see if the trend continues.

 

[houstonspartan]

I don't remember who made the argument(maybe Lucky).
While I understand that we need to do better in the division, I wasn't seeing how the divisional record reflected as poorly on Kubiak as some have argued it does. But, Lucky, I think had a very good point:

[B]The argument is that there is so much familiarity between divisional opponents that the strengths/weaknesses of coaches will come more into focus, as a result. So, the idea that Kubiak's overall record is so much better than his divisional record is an indication that he can get out-coached.
[/B]
I disagree with the conclusion. But, it's an interesting and valid argument. And, something I'll be watching for this season. I still tend to believe that the division record disparity is simply a matter of playing in a very difficult division. But, we'll see next season because we play teams like: Baltimore, NYJets, Dallas, NYG, Phillie, SD. All those teams are clearly on par (at least) with Tennessee and much better than Jacksonville. So, it'll be interesting to see if the trend continues.

Come on. The divisional record is all that matters.

We have seen these guys twice a year for several years, and we can't figure out their game plan? And, with the exception of Indy, the teams have had the same coaches for the last four years?

Come on.

 

[dalemurphy]

Come on. The divisional record is all that matters.

We have seen these guys twice a year for several years, and we can't figure out their game plan? And, with the exception of Indy, the teams have had the same coaches for the last four years?

Come on.

There is a flipside to your argument... you do realize? I didn't think the Texans looked unprepared in any of those 4 games we lost in November. Nor, did I get that impression last season, with the exception of the defensive gameplan at INDY... but, the DC was replaced.

That being said, there were mistakes: Chris Brown!, the handling of Sexy Rexy when Schaub was injured, allowing R.Mathis to make a play in the 4th quarter even though Freeney wasn't suited up.

If anything, it seemed to me that Indy was totally overwhelmed by our offensive gameplan vs. Indy. Also, Indy struggled with our defense, I thought. I just don't see a distinction between the divisional losses and the loss to Arizona, in terms of coaching.

The only game I felt the coaching staff really looked unprepared and out-coached was vs. NYJets... and, that's not a team in the division. So, I just don't see how we are being out "game planned" in the division.

 

[Texecutioner]

So, I just don't see how we are being out "game planned" in the division.

1-5 is what it says it is.

 

[dalemurphy]

1-5 is what it says it is.

That doesn't mean we're losing because of the game plan, though. As I said, there were certainly costly mistakes by the coaching staff is some of the games but I totally disagree that we had poor game plans. I thought our game plans versus Indy were great for both games.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

1-5 is what it says it is.

So is 8-2.

 

[DexmanC]

So is 8-2.

The big difference is, our division record consistently sucks (1-5, 2-4, 1-5).
Our out-of-division record is consistently good (7-3, 6-4, 8-2).

If we're to believe the year-to-year "improvement," there would be a
reasonable progression against the teams and coaches we see the most.
Such an improvement is NOT there, so it's the bone-of-contention the
"sunshiners" want to downplay, and the "soapers" focus on.

This season will either be a continuation of the previous three years, or
a huge step in either direction (positive or negative.) Anything less than
a marked improvement in the positive direction will result in a huge chunk
of the fanbase identifying Bob Mcnair as a bad owner with a low football
I.Q.

I surely hope such an outcome is not in store for us in 2010.

 

[Wolf]

as I am going to be captain obvious here

winning in the division gives a full game swing in the division standings and we aren't playing the " I hope this team beats that team to get in" so we can hopefully go up a game in the standings

just saying to say.

 

[GuerillaBlack]

Just look at Cincy. Wasn't good outside of the division, but took care of business in their division. They made the playoffs. We need to at least be splitting the series with all the teams in our division.

 

[dalemurphy]

Just look at Cincy. Wasn't good outside of the division, but took care of business in their division. They made the playoffs. We need to at least be splitting the series with all the teams in our division.

Of course we do. Everyone understands that, in order to be successful, it's vital that we do well in our division. Not one person on this board (Joe Texan doesn't count) would argue that point. Of course!

The issue is if the divisional record, in particular, illustrates that the team's weakness is it's coaching. Many of us that believe in Kubiak think it's simply a combination of very tough divisional foes and a little misfortune this season. Some of the Soapers argue that familiarity between teams will tend to highlight coaching deficiencies. I'm not sure who's right.

All that being said, I am sure that Cincy's divisional record this year was an anomaly and doesn't speak to good coaching. Without a doubt, they will fall back in that division and I'd bet the farm they aren't even in the playoff hunt in 2010.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Bacically I saw one game...one game...where the team looked prepared from start to finish..Cincy. Besides that the team either started quick and then got outplanned at half and the other team hung around and made it a game or they started slow and looked uninspired and unprepared and then would come out looking better in half 2. One game out of 16.

 

[b0ng]

Secondly, even though the Patriots didn't play a couple of guys who were hurt, they were playing to win. If that was a give-up game, then Randy Moss and Brady wouldn't have been playing at all.

I'm sorry but you don't march out Brian Hoyer onto the field when Brady is perfectly healthy if you are trying to win.

 

[b0ng]

Bacically I saw one game...one game...where the team looked prepared from start to finish..Cincy. Besides that the team either started quick and then got outplanned at half and the other team hung around and made it a game or they started slow and looked uninspired and unprepared and then would come out looking better in half 2. One game out of 16.

What about the Raider game?

 

[GP]

I'm sorry but you don't march out Brian Hoyer onto the field when Brady is perfectly healthy if you are trying to win.

Uh, they left Brady int the game for a long time, then pulled him.

Then they put Brady BACK in.

Like I said the other day: Bill was Kubiak's daddy. A good daddy, when he's playing a game with his son, sandbags it a little to let the son think he's playing 100%.

Bill pulled and/or yanked Tom Brady according to how much he felt he needed to win the game. Do we do that, b0ng? Do yuou see us pulling Schaub and inserting our backup because we can coast along? Nope.

Once Bill saw that he needed a boost, back came Tom Brady.

He was trying to minimize the chances of Tom Brady getting hurt.

You guys are not admitting that Tom Brady was not pulled for the remainder of the game. He was in and out, as needed. And they still almost beat us.

This argument, like the HB pass play argument, is dead.

 

[b0ng]

Uh, they left Brady int the game for a long time, then pulled him.

Then they put Brady BACK in.

Like I said the other day: Bill was Kubiak's daddy. A good daddy, when he's playing a game with his son, sandbags it a little to let the son think he's playing 100%.

Bill pulled and/or yanked Tom Brady according to how much he felt he needed to win the game. Do we do that, b0ng? Do yuou see us pulling Schaub and inserting our backup because we can coast along? Nope.

Once Bill saw that he needed a boost, back came Tom Brady.

He was trying to minimize the chances of Tom Brady getting hurt.

You guys are not admitting that Tom Brady was not pulled for the remainder of the game. He was in and out, as needed. And they still almost beat us.

This argument, like the HB pass play argument, is dead.

What? Are you saying the Pats were trying to win that game? I find that hard to believe when you are putting your 2nd string QB in for no reason at all at random times throughout the game.

If Belichik wanted to win that game he wouldn't have pulled Brady at all, but he really didn't care since it was the last game of the season. At best, at best, the only reason I can even see putting Brady back out on the field is if you say "Well, we need to get Tom some reps with Julian Edelman" and that's probably it.

I will say it again for emphasis, there is no way you are trying to win the game when you march out 2nd string QB for no apparent reason (Brady wasn't injured, game was still in contention).

That father/son analogy is just plain weird. Why would Belichik have any feeling about Gary good or bad? Because the Broncos dusted off NE in the 2005 playoffs? I don't get it.

 

[HoustonFrog]

What about the Raider game?

No. The score was lopsided but that game had the above problems I mentioned. They came out relatively slow and then had a very nice 2nd quarter. But the offense was stagnant the second half and Oakland shut them down. The scores were a safety and a kickoff return. The only thing I took from that game was that Oakland was one of the worst teams I had seen play in years.

 

[b0ng]

No. The score was lopsided but that game had the above problems I mentioned. They came out relatively slow and then had a very nice 2nd quarter. But the offense was stagnant the second half and Oakland shut them down. The scores were a safety and a kickoff return. The only thing I took from that game was that Oakland was one of the worst teams I had seen play in years.

The Texans played conservatively in the 2nd half to run down the clock once they saw that the Oakland O had absolutely no answers for their defense. People gripe about the 2nd half of that game because the Texans didn't put up another 20 point half but why air the ball out all over the field when you are up 29-6? Less hits on Schaub and you get a chance to try to work out the issues in the running game (Of course this obviously did not do much to help them in the long run of the season but hey, why not).

Matt Schaub had all of 2 passes on 4 possessions in the 4th quarter alone, and they (The Texans offense) shut down the passing game pretty much after Schaub got sacked by Richardson in the 3rd.

 

[infantrycak]

If the game really meant something to the Patriots, they wouldn't have keep pulling Brady/Moss in and out. Brady didn't even play on the last drive.

Brady didn't play on the last drive because he got CRUSHED by Mario on the past play of the penultimate drive. Brady was in for the entire game except for 2 drives. Moss was in for most of the game, I'd have to go back and check to see if he got pulled more than normal.

What Pencil said. If they didn't care Brady would have stayed out of the game once pulled. Instead they put him back in to play almost the entire game until he got crushed by Mario and threw a pick. There is no explanation for putting Brady back in the game other than trying to win.

reason for the post is Sharper made a huge impact for the Saints this season (that came to mind) along with Greg Williams as DC

Sharper was a huge fluke in an older player suddenly revitalizing his play and Bush improved the Texans D far more than Greg Williams improved the Saints D.

Come on. The divisional record is all that matters.

Bad year to make this assertion since the divisional record had zero to do with the Texans not making the playoffs. They could have won any one of the seven losses and made the playoffs. They also could have had exactly the same record and made the playoffs if they beat the Jets (a non-divisional game) and lost another game elsewhere. So yes the divisional record was annoying but it was not all that mattered.

What? Are you saying the Pats were trying to win that game? I find that hard to believe when you are putting your 2nd string QB in for no reason at all at random times throughout the game.

Random times. Try end of the half with a lead and then after your star QB gets plastered. That's not random. Brady only missed 2 series in the game.

 

[HoustonFrog]

The Texans played conservatively in the 2nd half to run down the clock once they saw that the Oakland O had absolutely no answers for their defense. People gripe about the 2nd half of that game because the Texans didn't put up another 20 point half but why air the ball out all over the field when you are up 29-6? Less hits on Schaub and you get a chance to try to work out the issues in the running game (Of course this obviously did not do much to help them in the long run of the season but hey, why not).

Matt Schaub had all of 2 passes on 4 possessions in the 4th quarter alone, and they (The Texans offense) shut down the passing game pretty much after Schaub got sacked by Richardson in the 3rd.

Still, until about midway through the 3rd the score was still a 2 TD game and wasn't over. It wasn't like the offense decided to slow play it to start the half. They couldn't put up points. The 4th quarter was a non-factor because of the kickoff return but the offense didn't perform the second half coming out.

I'm sorry but you don't march out Brian Hoyer onto the field when Brady is perfectly healthy if you are trying to win.

Agree, they can spin the Pats game but the Pats didn't care. In fact Belichick had been known to tank games before to get the lower seed for a better matchup. 3 or 4 didn't matter to them at the time except where they went next. And 4 would have been a date with the Colts if they win, a game Belichick loves. They sat 3 DBs who could have played but sat. Brady had cracked ribs for weeks and they were just trying to get him some rhythm and see what happened. Moss got sat some series too and he was doing pretty well up until that. They were basically playing around in that game with lineups.

 

[GP]

What? Are you saying the Pats were trying to win that game? I find that hard to believe when you are putting your 2nd string QB in for no reason at all at random times throughout the game.

If Belichik wanted to win that game he wouldn't have pulled Brady at all, but he really didn't care since it was the last game of the season. At best, at best, the only reason I can even see putting Brady back out on the field is if you say "Well, we need to get Tom some reps with Julian Edelman" and that's probably it.

I will say it again for emphasis, there is no way you are trying to win the game when you march out 2nd string QB for no apparent reason (Brady wasn't injured, game was still in contention).

That father/son analogy is just plain weird. Why would Belichik have any feeling about Gary good or bad? Because the Broncos dusted off NE in the 2005 playoffs? I don't get it.

Others are backing up what I am saying: Bill pulled and re-inserted Brady as needed, to make sure he had a shot at winning while minimizing chances of hurting Brady. 2 drives is all the backup had, and one of those was after Brady got touched up by Mario at the very end.

My father-son example was just for fun. As in "Kubiak is 11 and Bill is a grown man." That's all.

 

[b0ng]

Others are backing up what I am saying: Bill pulled and re-inserted Brady as needed, to make sure he had a shot at winning while minimizing chances of hurting Brady. 2 drives is all the backup had, and one of those was after Brady got touched up by Mario at the very end.

My father-son example was just for fun. As in "Kubiak is 11 and Bill is a grown man." That's all.

Belichik takes the ball out of his star QB's hands when the score is 34-27 on the last drive in the 4th quarter, come on now, how is that trying to win? NE had all their TO's to work with.

HFrog: I'm going to sit on the Texans basically playing a complete game and shutting down the Raiders offense the entire time allowed the staff to futz with the running game in the 2nd half to try to get them rolling. Sure Schaub threw a couple of passes here and there but it was nothing like that first half. You can tell that going into the 2nd half up 20-6 on a team that is QB'd by Jamarcus Russell that the Texans were happy with how the D was playing and decided to play the offense at a neutered level to focus on the run game. I would say (And this is a total prediction on my part) that if the Raiders scored a TD at any time during the 2nd half that the offense would've come out throwing a lot more than what they did.

 

[HOU-TEX]

Belichik takes the ball out of his star QB's hands when the score is 34-27 on the last drive in the 4th quarter, come on now, how is that trying to win?

That was because the turf was bad.. I thought you were better than that, Hoody.....mmkay, no I didn't. Puh C.

 

[Second Honeymoon]

Gilbride's been a pretty good OC for a long time in this league. He's never been the greatest, but come on he helped anchor the Oilers to some great offenses where Warren Moon always threw that classic pick in so many games. And that horrible playoff game was on Buddy Ryan's defense. They gave up a 32 point lead for heaven's sake. And hell, Gilbride just won a SB ring with Eli Manning as his QB of that offense.

the 35-3 debacle was why Ryan was brought to Houston. Jim Eddy was the defensive coordinator for the 35-3 season. You know, Jim Eddy, the guy that looked like a retarded version of Jonathan Winters.

Ryan was brought in and we instantly became the best defense in the league. Joe Montana did drive down the field to win the game in our only home playoff game in the Astrodome at the end of the game, but at least it was Montana...and if not for Gilbride/Moon's stat farming, Marcus Robertson probably breaks up that play to Kerry Cash over the middle for a TD. I will remember Cash throwing the football into that fan-made portrait banner of Buddy Ryan's face till the end of eternity. Closest I have come to crying at a sporting event. Thought we were destined for Super Bowl that year.

Ryan was a great coach and it was because of Moon and Gilbride trying to farm for stats that led to the interception, which put Ryan's defense back on the field when they should have been hitting the locker room. If the game is in the bag, and its a meaningless end of season game, why do you have to try and pad your stats. It was on both Gilbride and Moon.

I know you have some family connections to Gilbride, so I don't expect to change your opinion. I am just saying that Ryan was 10 times the coach that Gilbride was and Ryan was the reason we went 13-3 that year. Gilbride had to coach for another nearly 20 years to even get a sniff of a ring. He got one and kudos to him, but Buddy already had one.

Buddy is my guy though. I am blatantly biased and very partial. Totally admit it. That was a magical year but we just couldn't get past the Montana magic. Imagine if we win that game. I think we would have rolled the Bills in a revenge matchup against them in Astrodome just hte year after 35-3. Then guess what. We would have got the matchup we have all clamored for in the Super Bowl. Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys v. Buddy Ryan's Oilers. OMFG, that would have been a bloodbath. But Joe punked us and then had a bad game against the Bills and lost int he AFC Championship Game. Then the Bills got rolled by JJ's Cowboys for the Pokes' 4th Lombardi Trophy.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I'm sorry but you don't march out Brian Hoyer onto the field when Brady is perfectly healthy if you are trying to win.

Then Belichik is a fool for not making up his mind and running the risk of losing all of them. He should have either not played them at all or he should have played them to win.

I think Brady got pulled for the last drive because he got crushed by Mario on that interception and Belichik decided it was a better thing to pull him than him get hurt, too.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Belichik takes the ball out of his star QB's hands when the score is 34-27 on the last drive in the 4th quarter, come on now, how is that trying to win? NE had all their TO's to work with.

HFrog: I'm going to sit on the Texans basically playing a complete game and shutting down the Raiders offense the entire time allowed the staff to futz with the running game in the 2nd half to try to get them rolling. Sure Schaub threw a couple of passes here and there but it was nothing like that first half. You can tell that going into the 2nd half up 20-6 on a team that is QB'd by Jamarcus Russell that the Texans were happy with how the D was playing and decided to play the offense at a neutered level to focus on the run game. I would say (And this is a total prediction on my part) that if the Raiders scored a TD at any time during the 2nd half that the offense would've come out throwing a lot more than what they did.

Ok, so even if we agree to disagree and I give you that game that would be 2 complete games. Not perfect mind you but complete games. Still pretty sketchy for a season. I also don't mean complete as every second of every quarter is played perfectly. Just competing and game planning.. a chess match. The feeling that you aren't watching 2 separate teams.

 

[b0ng]

Ok, so even if we agree to disagree and I give you that game that would be 2 complete games. Not perfect mind you but complete games. Still pretty sketchy for a season. I also don't mean complete as every second of every quarter is played perfectly. Just competing and game planning.. a chess match. The feeling that you aren't watching 2 separate teams.

Of course. I didn't mention any other games because that was literally the only other one I could even think of that could possibly be called a great win for the Texans on all sides of the ball.

 

[Texan_Bill]

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results."

~Benjamin Franklin

 

[GP]

Belichik takes the ball out of his star QB's hands when the score is 34-27 on the last drive in the 4th quarter, come on now, how is that trying to win? NE had all their TO's to work with.

You're saying that the Patriots DID NOT try to win the game due to Brady not being in on the final drive?

So this means the other 98% of the game, we didn't see the Patriots trying to win the game? Your idea of the Patriots mailing it in is wrapped up in one drive? Come on, now.

The Colts started Manning against the Jets and then they pulled him. They pulled him a LOT earlier than Bill pulled Tom Brady. And Tom Brady got put back into the game vs. the Texans. Then was pulled again.

Which gives off the impression that the Patriots were coasting, then accelerating, then coasting, so on and so forth.

They were trying to win the game. They did not mail it in. We played a Patriots team that was "on the ropes," but we were not putting them away. It took a huge comeback, one that was improbable based on points and time left in the game.

If that game is played in week 7 or week 10, we lose the game in all practicality. And we almost lost in the last week vs. the Pats when they were jacking around with their starting lineup all game long.

That was Bill doing the bare minimum he had to do in order to win while he thought he could win, or pack it up once it was clear he wasn't going to win. He didn't really mail it in until the very last minute.

Again: This is futile to try to argue against it. Just as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, the Patriots were winning that game handily, then yanking starters, then putting them back in when it got close again. There was no "mailing it in" until it was obvious that there was more for Bill to lose by keeping the guys in there.

The Colts and the Bengals were full-fledged cowards. Bill, even after losing Welker, still has his guys in there as much as possible to win the game. That's some stones, IMO.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

as I am going to be captain obvious here

winning in the division gives a full game swing in the division standings and we aren't playing the " I hope this team beats that team to get in" so we can hopefully go up a game in the standings

just saying to say.

Of course you want to win your divisional games. Winning teams generally win in their division. And winning a divisional game gives you a full game swing with that divisional opponent. BUT. Ultimately your divisional standings are based on your entire record. You can win all your divisional games and go 6-10 and you can lose all your divisional games and go 10-6. It is mathematically possible, although highly unlikely, to lose all your divisonal games and win the division. Your divisional w/l record only applies to tie-breakers when you've got the same record as a divisonal opponent.

Cincy is being held up as an example. And they're an example if your goal is only to reach the playoffs. They were able to dominate their division and win enough non-divisional games to get win their division. But then, because they sucked outside of their division, they lost their first game in the playoffs. Bad.

Do we need to win more divisional games? Of course we do. But having a bad divisional record to this point isn't a sign that Kubiak needed to get canned this year.

 

[b0ng]

Then Belichik is a fool for not making up his mind and running the risk of losing all of them. He should have either not played them at all or he should have played them to win.

I think Brady got pulled for the last drive because he got crushed by Mario on that interception and Belichik decided it was a better thing to pull him than him get hurt, too.

At that point though, when you decide to pull Brady when you are within a TD of tying the game, you are not trying to win.

The 2 drives that Brady got pulled for? Both of them were the final drives for NE at the end of each respective half. Whatever the reasoning behind it is, I can guarantee that "we're trying to win here!" isn't it. At that point the Pats were packing their bags and thinking about how to get out quickly. There was to be no answering drive to score, there would be no late game magic because they did not want to even try for it.

The Texans had to work hard to win the game, but in no way does that mean the Pats were trying throughout the whole game.

 

[dalemurphy]

Ok, so even if we agree to disagree and I give you that game that would be 2 complete games. Not perfect mind you but complete games. Still pretty sketchy for a season. I also don't mean complete as every second of every quarter is played perfectly. Just competing and game planning.. a chess match. The feeling that you aren't watching 2 separate teams.

Seattle.
at Cincinnati.
Oakland.
at Buffalo.
NE.
at INDY
vs. Tenn.

Those are all games where the team looked prepared or made quick adjustments and seemed to have a good plan to win the game.

By the way, I'd love to see your list for other teams in the NFL. Because what you are looking for doesn't happen often in the NFL. So, show me all the "complete games" that these teams played:

Arizona
Baltimore
NE
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Green Bay
Dallas

There's a group of teams that made the playoffs. Show me a list of any of their "complete games" using the same standards that you hold the Texans to.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

At that point though, when you decide to pull Brady when you are within a TD of tying the game, you are not trying to win.

The 2 drives that Brady got pulled for? Both of them were the final drives for NE at the end of each respective half. Whatever the reasoning behind it is, I can guarantee that "we're trying to win here!" isn't it. At that point the Pats were packing their bags and thinking about how to get out quickly. There was to be no answering drive to score, there would be no late game magic because they did not want to even try for it.

The Texans had to work hard to win the game, but in no way does that mean the Pats were trying throughout the whole game.

Removing a team's will to win is a winning strategy. Making the other team surrender is a winning strategy.

Mario's hit on Brady removed Belichik's will to win. He started off the game wanting to win it and expecting to win it. He was going to play Brady for a half and expected to coast to a win after that. But it didn't work out that way, I'm sure Brady lobbied to be put back in so they could win the game. And at the end, we removed Belichik's desire to compete.

That's a good win in my book.

 

[b0ng]

Removing a team's will to win is a winning strategy. Making the other team surrender is a winning strategy.

Mario's hit on Brady removed Belichik's will to win. He started off the game wanting to win it and expecting to win it. He was going to play Brady for a half and expected to coast to a win after that. But it didn't work out that way, I'm sure Brady lobbied to be put back in so they could win the game. And at the end, we removed Belichik's desire to compete.

That's a good win in my book.

You can attribute the win as much to the Texans as you could the playing field if that is the case. The grass did as much to sap Belichik's will to win as much as any play the Texans D made that game.

 

[Silver Oak]

Seattle.
at Cincinnati.
Oakland.
at Buffalo.
NE.
at INDY
vs. Tenn.

Those are all games where the team looked prepared or made quick adjustments and seemed to have a good plan to win the game.

By the way, I'd love to see your list for other teams in the NFL. Because what you are looking for doesn't happen often in the NFL. So, show me all the "complete games" that these teams played:

Arizona
Baltimore
NE
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Green Bay
Dallas

There's a group of teams that made the playoffs. Show me a list of any of their "complete games" using the same standards that you hold the Texans to.

I did a quick look over at NFL.com, and very first Dallas game I clicked on had an interesting headline pop up...

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092800/2009/REG3/panthers@cowboys

 

[dalemurphy]

You can attribute the win as much to the Texans as you could the playing field if that is the case. The grass did as much to sap Belichik's will to win as much as any play the Texans D made that game.

For the sake of consistency, how do you feel about the Jets last two wins that allowed them to make the playoffs instead of the Texans?

 

[b0ng]

For the sake of consistency, how do you feel about the Jets last two wins that allowed them to make the playoffs instead of the Texans?

The Jets were basically gift wrapped a playoff spot. It is more debateable that the Pats tried harder than the Colts or the Bengals did, but in the end all 3 teams in each scenario (Colts, Bengals, Pats) played like they did not give a hoot about the games.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

You can attribute the win as much to the Texans as you could the playing field if that is the case. The grass did as much to sap Belichik's will to win as much as any play the Texans D made that game.

If that were the case, Brady would have been out in the first quarter.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Seattle.
at Cincinnati.
Oakland.
at Buffalo.
NE.
at INDY
vs. Tenn.

Those are all games where the team looked prepared or made quick adjustments and seemed to have a good plan to win the game.

By the way, I'd love to see your list for other teams in the NFL. Because what you are looking for doesn't happen often in the NFL. So, show me all the "complete games" that these teams played:

Arizona
Baltimore
NE
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Green Bay
Dallas

There's a group of teams that made the playoffs. Show me a list of any of their "complete games" using the same standards that you hold the Texans to.

You're kidding right? We are talking Texans here. So stay on point. I know that is hard in spin land where you throw out other teams and try and deflect but you have to concentrate. If you really think those were all complete games then you are looking final score and just ignoring the football played.

Cincy--the game I admitted

Oakland--IO said I didn't think was but can see the argument

Buffalo--Really?The game where one of the worst teams in the league was winning at half. Their inept offense was moving the ball all first half. How is that a complete game? 3 turnovers in the first half? Out prepared. They didn't show up until the 4th.

NE--Are you serious?Again, a win. But they were as flat as a pancake the first half. There was zero urgency. In fact, go find the game thread. There were many of us that were stating that the team was sleepwalking for 3 quarters and then started playing for their lives in the 4th. Not a complete game. Missed assignments left and right. Missed FGs. Sloppy play. 4th quarter was what they should have looked like playing for their lives

at Indy--Seriously Dale, this is one of the games that everyone points to that shows the split of first vs 2nd half. The first half was completely dominated by the Colts. Manning was 19-of-25 for 176 yards in the 1st quarter alone. They went up 13-0 and the Texans hadn't gotten a 1st down yet until midway through the 2nd. They were lucky it wasn't worse. Then they woke up.

vs Tenn--You mean the game where no one was covering a RB at WR and where Tenn was killing them while the defense broke down over and over to start the game..that game?

You are incredible. As I said, complete game don't have to be perfect games, they don't have to be pretty games. Just games where a team competes and is prepared and fighing for a majority of all 4 quarters. It was uncanny how many games the Texans had either a bad first or second half or just looked flat at times...in big games. Not all NFL teams do it all the time. But I bet they do it 4 times more than twice. Did you see the Colts or any top teams have many games where they were off?The Saints had a few stinker games but they also had a ton that were complete whippings.

 

[dalemurphy]

You're kidding right? We are talking Texans here. So stay on point. I know that is hard in spin land where you throw out other teams and try and deflect but you have to concentrate. If you really think those were all complete games then you are looking final score and just ignoring the football played.

Cincy--the game I admitted

Oakland--IO said I didn't think was but can see the argument

Buffalo--Really?The game where one of the worst teams in the league was winning at half. Their inept offense was moving the ball all first half. How is that a complete game? 3 turnovers in the first half? Out prepared. They didn't show up until the 4th.

NE--Are you serious?Again, a win. But they were as flat as a pancake the first half. There was zero urgency. In fact, go find the game thread. There were many of us that were stating that the team was sleepwalking for 3 quarters and then started playing for their lives in the 4th. Not a complete game. Missed assignments left and right. Missed FGs. Sloppy play. 4th quarter was what they should have looked like playing for their lives

at Indy--Seriously Dale, this is one of the games that everyone points to that shows the split of first vs 2nd half. The first half was completely dominated by the Colts. Manning was 19-of-25 for 176 yards in the 1st quarter alone. They went up 13-0 and the Texans hadn't gotten a 1st down yet until midway through the 2nd. They were lucky it wasn't worse. Then they woke up.

vs Tenn--You mean the game where no one was covering a RB at WR and where Tenn was killing them while the defense broke down over and over to start the game..that game?

You are incredible. As I said, complete game don't have to be perfect games, they don't have to be pretty games. Just games where a team competes and is prepared and fighing for a majority of all 4 quarters. It was uncanny how many games the Texans had either a bad first or second half or just looked flat at times...in big games. Not all NFL teams do it all the time. But I bet they do it 4 times more than twice. Did you see the Colts or any top teams have many games where they were off?The Saints had a few stinker games but they also had a ton that were complete whippings.

The elite teams can play poorly and still control games sometimes. That's the only difference. How prepared did the Colts look in the first half at HOuston or in the 2nd half vs. Houston. Wouldn't your argument cut both ways?

Regarding Buffalo, I don't see how 3 turnovers = a lack of preparation. By the way, Buffalo was coming off a win vs. NYJets, who turned it over 6 time.

Vs. Tennessee was the Monday night game. It was a well played game that came down to field goals. I don't see the lack of preparation there.

The reality is that you are holding the Texans to a higher standard than is realistic in the NFL. Teams win ugly. It happens all the time. Teams lose ugly, too. You are criticizing the Texans for behaving the way almost every team in the NFL does. The competitive balance is such that this happens all the time. Just look at any of the teams who won between 8 and 11 games and you are going to see it all the time. Until we are great, we aren't!

 

[Joe Texan]

You're kidding right? We are talking Texans here. So stay on point. I know that is hard in spin land where you throw out other teams and try and deflect but you have to concentrate. If you really think those were all complete games then you are looking final score and just ignoring the football played.

Cincy--the game I admitted

Oakland--IO said I didn't think was but can see the argument

Buffalo--Really?The game where one of the worst teams in the league was winning at half. Their inept offense was moving the ball all first half. How is that a complete game? 3 turnovers in the first half? Out prepared. They didn't show up until the 4th.

NE--Are you serious?Again, a win. But they were as flat as a pancake the first half. There was zero urgency. In fact, go find the game thread. There were many of us that were stating that the team was sleepwalking for 3 quarters and then started playing for their lives in the 4th. Not a complete game. Missed assignments left and right. Missed FGs. Sloppy play. 4th quarter was what they should have looked like playing for their lives

at Indy--Seriously Dale, this is one of the games that everyone points to that shows the split of first vs 2nd half. The first half was completely dominated by the Colts. Manning was 19-of-25 for 176 yards in the 1st quarter alone. They went up 13-0 and the Texans hadn't gotten a 1st down yet until midway through the 2nd. They were lucky it wasn't worse. Then they woke up.

vs Tenn--You mean the game where no one was covering a RB at WR and where Tenn was killing them while the defense broke down over and over to start the game..that game?

You are incredible. As I said, complete game don't have to be perfect games, they don't have to be pretty games. Just games where a team competes and is prepared and fighing for a majority of all 4 quarters. It was uncanny how many games the Texans had either a bad first or second half or just looked flat at times...in big games. Not all NFL teams do it all the time. But I bet they do it 4 times more than twice. Did you see the Colts or any top teams have many games where they were off?The Saints had a few stinker games but they also had a ton that were complete whippings.

Spoken like a true Cowboy fan would love to see it. To win a game in the NFL is as difficult one week as the next, to say that the team played flat but won then STFU the win is a win is a win, just like 19 to 10 when cowpukes cried about it being Campos team W is all it is. We played well enough to win games we lost due to rotten luck and bad calls as well as mistakes.
Your just a cowboy fan that is bitter cause he cannot be a full blown Texan Fan. Come on Frog quit hopping in the mud and get on the waggon.

 

[b0ng]

If that were the case, Brady would have been out in the first quarter.

1st qtr or game winning drive, the end result was the same. If you're going to say that Belichik was trying to win in every way imaginable while putting Brian Hoyer out there for what could be a game saving drive then I don't know what to say.

 

[HoustonFrog]

Spoken like a true Cowboy fan would love to see it. To win a game in the NFL is as difficult one week as the next, to say that the team played flat but won then STFU the win is a win is a win, just like 19 to 10 when cowpukes cried about it being Campos team W is all it is. We played well enough to win games we lost due to rotten luck and bad calls as well as mistakes.
Your just a cowboy fan that is bitter cause he cannot be a full blown Texan Fan. Come on Frog quit hopping in the mud and get on the waggon.

I lost you at 19-10

My arguments have nothing to do with being a Cowboy fan. Purely from watching all these games and having the same comments in one half or another...."why do they look flat in such a big game;" "what is the defense doing" and "the offense is out of sync."

The elite teams can play poorly and still control games sometimes. That's the only difference. How prepared did the Colts look in the first half at HOuston or in the 2nd half vs. Houston. Wouldn't your argument cut both ways?

Regarding Buffalo, I don't see how 3 turnovers = a lack of preparation. By the way, Buffalo was coming off a win vs. NYJets, who turned it over 6 time.

Vs. Tennessee was the Monday night game. It was a well played game that came down to field goals. I don't see the lack of preparation there.

The reality is that you are holding the Texans to a higher standard than is realistic in the NFL. Teams win ugly. It happens all the time. Teams lose ugly, too. You are criticizing the Texans for behaving the way almost every team in the NFL does. The competitive balance is such that this happens all the time. Just look at any of the teams who won between 8 and 11 games and you are going to see it all the time. Until we are great, we aren't!

As my old coach would say, "turnovers and sloppy play are from a lack of concentration." When you practice and prepare sloppy, you play sloppy. The Bills offense was putrid. Their point total wasn't high but they were moving it. The Texans were completely out of sync. I agree....yack ..with JT that some wins are just going to be sloppy but they count. My standard is that you should have more that 2 games where the team shows up for one half.