Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Saints-Texans: GP's things he witnessed
- Thread starter GP
- Start date
Follow the conversation.
I'm talking about Miami. They were a hot team before that losing season that led to them getting a new coach, that led to them having a quick "turnaround"
9-7 in 2005 #4 total defense,
6-10 in 2006,
1-15 in 2007 10th ranked defense against the run,
11-5 in 2008
7-9 in 2009
In 2006, they were favored to win the division, until they experienced several injuries, then they had the coaching thing in 2007.
point is, they weren't as bad as their record made them look. They had a top defense, then they had some injuries, including their QB.
We never even had a winning season, then went 2-14 in 2005.
I just don't think it is fair to compare Miami to the Texans.
I'm dead serious.
Remember David Carr looked great in practice, they say the same about Chris Henry.
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
We looked just as bad in 2009 preseason, yes or no?
Then we come out against the Jets, and we're playing on their side of the LOS, yes or no?
we were 2 plays away from shutting down 2009's #1 rushing offense yes or no?
we were 4 plays away from shutting down 2009's #2 rushing offense yes or no?
we were 1 play away from shutting down 2009's #10 rushing offense yes or no?
Pollard came in, and those missed plays stops... more or less, yes or no?
remember, this is after looking just as bad in 2009's preseason games.
it's just practice.
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
Take a good look at how stats can be used to justify anything.
They were 1-15 that season. Teams don't have to run the ball
when they get all they want through the air.
You used the Jets game as an example of "excellent run defense for
3 quarters." I seem to remember Sanchez converting many 3rd-AND-
FOREVERS through the AIR, all game long.
Again
TK Mia. was 6-10 before they went 1-15
Hou. was 7-9 before they went 2-14
O.K. you dont want to compare the Texans to the Dolphins. What other team would you like to compare the Texans too?
Hou. was 7-9 before they went 2-14
O.K. you dont want to compare the Texans to the Dolphins. What other team would you like to compare the Texans too?
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
That was a typo. they were
8th against the run in 2006 (#4 total defense)
32nd against the run in 2007
10th against the run in 2008
They were 9-7 in 2005.
They went 6-10 in 2006, after losing their QB for a good part of the year.
It would be like our expectations of our team with and without Schaub.
Then you have the coaching fiasco in 2007.
2008, they get Ricky Williams back (or was that 2007) either way, they have Ricky Williams, Ronnie Brown, and Chad Pennington for the 11-5 season.
We have had no success at all, before Kubiak took this team. You want to compare Kubiak to another coach, compare him to a coach who took over a team with 4 or more losing seasons before they took the job.
I made the chart to discuss the teams fire, so many tackles for loss... I'm only using it here, out of convenience.
If you have a point you want to prove, bring your own evidence.
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
This back-and-forth is making my mind numb. Can the Texans get
off to a 4-0 start already?
GP
Go Texans!
So you're saying there is no way to judge a good year against all the bad years surrounding it? In essence, even if we got our golden 11-5 season and made the playoffs, we could just as easily drop back to 7-9 the next year? A good year is an apparition of sorts? A mirage?
LOL.
Man, come on.
I knew the Dolphins were one-hit wonders. It was obvious. They goofed around with their Wildcat offense and got some extra wins off those shenanigans. Until defense figured out how to stop it.
The Falcons were one-hit wonders, too. Something I think I also pointed out when it was happening.
And, as I have mentioned before, this all boils down to Texans fans thinking that it sucks to re-build with a new coach...so let's just grind it out and wait for Kubiak to turn into Jeff Fisher or Tony Dungy or Tom Landry, etc.
But you know what? LOL....Gary Kubiak can't even luck into an 11-5 season at all. Others have, but not Gurry Kubiak. How frustrating it must be, to see all these other goof-balls like Tony Sporano luck into a great season...with a SUCKY team.
I think it sounds like you are saying that the one good year is the aberration.
I'm saying the one good year is a logical conclusion in the evolution of the team. Miami had been getting more and more talented as they were playing musical coaches. The year before the 1-15 season they had some big injuries, or Ricky Williams went sailing, or something.
11-5, they got healthy, plus the trick plays, plus they got Pennington.
What did you think it was going to take? 1 year? 4?
If you wanted us to load up on Free agents and win right away... I can understand you being upset after that first year. Maybe even that second year.
After year three, it should be pretty obvious that wasn't the plan.
At that point, you should either make good with it, accept the fact that they aren't going to do it for whatever reason.
Yes, we could have signed half a dozen free agents like Payton did, like Parcells did, like they did in Atlanta... & we could have been winning a long time ago.
I don't doubt that at all.
I'm hoping Kubiak's approach is a little more permanent, and we dominate our conference like the Colts & Patriots.
Miami didn't... Atlanta didn't... Baltimore didn't...
The only team that looks like they may be onto something is the Saints. & with that Super Bowl, does it really matter? I mean he can probably have six mediocre seasons & it'll still be worth it right?
But think about all the teams that have tried it that way, and failed.
St.Louis, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, Baltimore, Oakland, Kansas City...
I think what Kubiak is doing is a lot more like what Jimmy Johnson did in Dallas. Except it's going to take Kubiak 5 years to do what Jimmy did in 4.
Think about it. How much more talented was the '92 team than the '91 team?
GP
Go Texans!
Well, IIRC, the Cowboys traded Herschel Walker to the Vikings and landed a crap-load of draft picks. In fact, I think the league sometime afterward decided that a trade like that can't go down again.
Jimmy Johnson had Grade A coordinators on both sides of the ball. His staff struck gold with their draft picks, as they each grew into their role at about the same pace. Yes, the '91 year wasn't as good as the '92 year.
I would grade Kubiak at a B for coordinators and a B for draft picks, if we compare the two coaches. I also think Jimmy Johnson had a different leadership style. He also came off a huge winning tradition at the U. So people bought into his style, and he surrounded himself with players of that style.
Kubiak is more like Tom Landry, in a sense.
But I have severe reservations that he is going to win like landry.
That was a good read. I'd give you rep for it, but we just ain't seeing eye to eye right now.
Tell me this. With all that against him, everything in that article. If we win 10+ games in 2010, will you admit the GK is a bad motherF@#er?
That's all I want to know.
GP
Go Texans!
I think you have to take so much into consideration, TK.
How did we get those 10 wins? Were any of them situations where we shouldn't have won a game here or there, due to scenarios that fall outside of the realm of "how good we are." Meaning this: If we get a win or two where it was gifted or we lucked into something, then I have to analyze that and weight it.
Were there losses that SHOULD have been wins, hands down, but we royally blew it somehow.
It's a subjective math system, for me. How many wins were wins where we played like champs, and how many wins were wins that we were gifted, how many losses were a result of us playing out-of-our-mind insanely good but the other team found a way to be 1% better than us, and how many losses were the result of us being sloppy and not focused on playing t-e-a-m football.
I see far too much of the wins that were gifts, and far too much of the losses where we dogged it out there. Those two types of scenarios are outweighing the times when we took a better team to task and beat them because we wroked harder AND smarter than them.
Wins are not all equal. Losses are not all equal. Wins and losses DO get you into the playoffs where anything can happen. The Jets somehow made it to the AFC championship game with this attitude. If Rex Ryan can identify and correctly alter what it was that cost him the AFC title game, he might be in the Super Bowl this year. I don't think they're a fluke. If the QB settles down and plays within himself, they'll be alright.
I'd like us to get into the playoffs because we earned it and not from the league's mathematical tie-breaking system. If we win our division, I will admit that the guy is true head coach who belongs. Even if we lost a first round game, but had won our division, I can admit that Kubiak should stay.bar is set at winning the division. If he can outsmart the divisional coaches and get enough wins to beat out the Jags, Titans, and Colts, then I'm down.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
We can win the division and not have a winning record in our division.
Normally, the team that wins the division does have at least a winning record in the divisional games. The worst divisional records I can recall for teams that won their divisions were 3-3. The Colts and Seahawks were both 3-3 in their division in 2006 and the Seahawks were 3-3 in 2003 and won their division. There are lots of instances of teams doing well in the division and having the best divisional record but not winning the division.
But it's mathematically possible to lose all your divisional games and still win the divison.
So, what if Kubiak goes 6-0 in the division? Is that a sign of good coaching even if he only wins 2 non-divisional games and ends up 8-8?
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
If he wins the division, he will have needed to get better or equal
overall records to the Colts, Jags, and Titans AND hold all tiebreakers
over them. Bottom line: The hypothetical 6-0 in the division, 2-8 every
where else WILL NOT get him the division title, because the AFC South
Division Champion has NEVER won the title with an 8-8 record.
I get your overal point, but your hypothetical lacks reality.
I think that is exactly what he said.
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
Also, to win tiebreakers against your divisional foes, you actually have to
BEAT them. 3*-15 against the AFC South in the last three years didn't cut it then,
and it won't cut it this year, either.
(The Jags did a complete laydown in 2007 so that the Texans could claim
their "First NON-Losing Season.")
Why doesn't he talk about the fact that the Texans are the youngest team in the league having an impact on their psyche?
Seems like he just has a problem with how Kubiak does things in certain situations so he ran with it.
IMO, Kubiak is a lot more fired up than Dungy was and Dungy was a hell of a coach.
I don't get how the comments Kubiak makes to the media after losses has anything to do with anything. There have been plenty of coaches that got up on the podium and threw tantrums, screamed and yelled...
I guess this guy wants Denny Green or Jim Mora on the podium.
I'll pass on that.
I've found that people respond better to leadership that remains consistent in their approach. If Kubiak gets up there and starts losing it or acting out of character I think that would negatively affect his players psyche even more.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
In a game where every game means so much how can you say wins & losses are not equal? Wins are wins, & losses are losses & they are equal no matter how you got them.
You think the 91' giants care that they essentially "lucked" up & won SB XXV when norwood choked & missed wide right? How about the Falcons in 99' when mr. perfect gary anderson just happens to miss his 1 & only FG of the year in the biggest game of the season for the vikings essentially costing them a shot at the SB?
If this were the NBA where teams get a series to prove who's the best, then i'd agree but it's not. It's a league where 1 game means alot & in the playoffs decides the fate of your season & you can either get incredibly lucky or unlucky as i described above. Plus, every guy who has ever played in the NFL & won a superbowl or had an unbelievable run for 1 year cites that ol' phrase "you need a little luck" at times. So whether it was b/c a massive hurricane hit our city or b/c a certain team sat its starters in the final game of the season we beat who was in front of us & why penalize us for something that every team partake's in every year?
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
Can't use the "hurricane" excuse. Sean Payton had one hit HIS city, and
it actually KILLED a bunch of people. He only lead his squad to FIGHT
to the NFC Championship. They didn't crater, and go 0-4 to start the
season, when the city NEEDED them.
Being young means the team is highly impressionable to its leadership (coach.)
The Astros are young now, but they are fighting their asses off every inning.
Youth, is NO excuse for coming out flat. Youth depends HEAVILY on
leadership, which a lot of us are saying is "lacking" from the head coach
position.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
that was the year after.....the year of katrina...they were putrid & understandbly so, they had no home games..payton comes in the next year, the superdome is repaired, they have a new qb etc....
& just curious, what gives u the impression that leadership is lacking when absolutely no player has come out and said, or given so much as an inkling that this is the case?
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Yup. Three big factors for the Saints turnaround and I really don't get why people keep bringing them up - (1) Katrina, (2) Deuce went down - that made the horrid season that got Payton brought in - then (3) their gamble on Brees worked out.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
Basically, you're saying what I was saying. You can go 6-0 in the division and lose the division. Which was one of my points.
But to clarify, if you have a better overall record to the teams in your division, you win the division. Period. You don't have to hold ALL tiebreakers over them. You only have to hold the tie-breaker over any team you happen to be tied with.
And one of my other points was that you can have a better overall record than the teams in your division and have a losing record in the division. That hasn't ever been done. But a few teams have had an even record in their division and won their division. So, having a winning record in the division is not a requirement to winning your division. It helps, but it's not a requirement.
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
Speaking in the context of the AFC South, that hypothetical doesn't apply.
It may be the case in the AFC West, NFC West, or even the NFC South.
Doesn't apply in the AFC South, though.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
No hurricane has ever hit New Orleans while Payton was the coach. It hit New Orleans the year before and cost Jim Haslett his job and gave them the #2 pick in the draft.
Which is why people have been saying that Payton inherited a better team than Kubiak. The Saints record from the previous season was unnaturally depressed.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
The Colts won the AFC South with a 3-3 divisional record in 2006.
So apparently it does apply to the AFC South.
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
Didn't take five seasons to make postseason, though. I do agree
with Thunderkiss though. There should be NO way to credibly
lobby for a sixth season on Kubiak. He has ALWAYS FAILED when
the pressure was on. 2010 MUST be different, although we've only
seen more-of-the-same so far.
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
They also needed at least 10 games to clinch the title. It's my point
that 8-8 will not get you an AFC South title, nor would 9-7.
Texans have to make good on 10 maybe 11 games to win the AFC South.
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
So... you're not actually referring to anything I actually said?
OK.
GP said that he'd be happy if we swept our divisional games and won the division. My response to him was that we could sweep our divisional games and not win the division because it's entirely possible to win our 6 divisional games and end up 8-8 and that's probably not going to win the division. Although we could conceivably go 3-3 in our division and still get 10-13 wins and win it (I did not state it that explicitly.)
I felt GP was concentrating too much on our divisional record. While, we need to do better than 1-5, we would have been 11-5 if we had just gone 3-3 in our division last year. We don't need to have a winning record in our division (although, like I said, it would be nice.)
DexmanC
Hall of Fame
My bad. We both agree here. Kubiak gets props for me if the Texans
clinch the AFC South Championship, due to the fact you have to win
12 times minimum. The Texans would be hitting multiple goals, just
by winning one of the most difficult divisions in the NFL.
GP
Go Texans!
You're not seeing the dogging it or gifted wins because it diminishes your view of this team. You don't want to think our guys slack off or get wins handed to them. In your opinion, they give 100% all the time and they always win games because they rightfully earned them.
I don't think like that anymore. Used to. Not anymore.
Not saying they collectively suck on purpose, but that there are definitely times when they dog it. The Saints game was an example. LZ even admitted it. Thanks to Double Barrel for posting LZ's take on it, btw.
I'm essentially intolerant of their half-ass efforts and basically expect them to invoke the persona of Pollard and Cushing. Every single one of them should act like every play is the last play of their lives. I know that sounds corny, but the Saints game was a joke. A complete waste of time. They weren't lookin' at anything, TK. No alternative defense style was being tested. It was a zombie performance. And the Saints were shooting each of them through the skull. Ping. Pow. Zip. Clunk. (sigh) Oh well...
Don't forget Brooks. He was especially bad that year. Hence the need for a new QB, instead of Benson asking Payton if he could win with Brooks, he just said, "do what you do."
That didn't happen n Houston, & our Deuce never came back.
I'm sorry, I see you said three things that led to the turnaround.
If you're talking about New England, I will admit it would have been a different game, if the Patriots really wanted to win it. But I don't believe it's automatic we lose that game.
There is no doubt in my mind (or any sane person's) that the Jets would have lost that game if Peyton played 4 Qtrs.
Which other win do you think was gifted?
What I don't understand about your take, is why is it that we dogged it to lose 7 games, but the Jets didn't? They just got beat by better teams 7 times. Buffalo, Miami Twice, Jacksonville, New England, New Orleans, Atlanta. Are you telling me Buffalo outplayed the NYJets?
Everybody talks about the "pressure" the Jets put on the QB, while we dogged it. They put up 32 sacks in 2009. We put up 30. But we were doggin it.
Could have sworn I saw Pollard and Cushing "Practicing" out there like the rest of the team.
Practice
Again, I know this is the same thing we were thinking Last year, before the season started. When the season started, whatever they were looking at, whatever they were working on, they got it to work.
Unless you are talking about the offense dogging it?? I don't know.
But defensively, we were playing very well. Not anywhere near as bad as we had in the preseason. In the preseason, we were being ran over on every play. Against the Jets, only 2 out of 17 carries. Against Tennessee only 4 times on 19 carries, against Jacksonville only once in 23 carries.
After Pollard got here, not once.