Bob McNair: We’re working on getting a quarterback

OK fair point on the patience. Maybe he figures it out like Kubiak

But fact that Rick Smith seems to be involved in another power struggle. That's on the owner to settle.

Also, it wasn't supposed to be a rebuild according to McNair.

If we're talking more about the owner than the coach, he seems pretty lost

 

You didn't like the hire from the start... and you've continued to complain about every single move since, despite the team still putting up more wins than losses. Not really being patient, are we?

Also, its an overblown power struggle... BOB isn't going anywhere and will have the final say as long as he's here.

You should put this on your head-stone, as you repeat it non-stop like a parrot.... you need to come to grips that when you go 2-14, get rid of the entire coaching staff, and employ brand new systems on both sides of the ball... its going to be a re-built team/work in progress. On the one hand, you paint McNair as an incompetent owner... but yet you hang on to this quote like its some sort of gospel, and that whatever he says is the for-sure/ultimate truth.

The fact that they've still managed to go 9-7 (albeit by mostly beating the teams they were supposed to beat) has to be a positive sign for the coaching staff.

 

That's not true. I didn't dislike the hire until the middle or so of last year. I watched Hard Knocks. I had no problem with OBrien then.

I've only repeated the its not a rebuild thing like 3 times total. That team imploded because of Schaub, it had a lot of talent.

 

Nah, you've pretty much mentioned it every single time we've discussed anything.

Which is it? Is McNair some all-knowing individual that is always right? Or is he some incompetent owner who requires consultants and makes token hires or simply the wrong hire?

You can't argue it both ways to try and support your biased viewpoint.

And in the end, despite the handful of talented players that stayed here, it still an entirely new regime... new schemes/system... new everything. Its not the expansion-level team that Kubiak had to rebuild, but you don't turn everything around overnight... and at the very least, you don't start becoming hypercritical during year 1-2 of a new regime unless you have some sort of other agenda/axe to grind.

Sure you didn't... and yet you're complaining about the lack of interviewed candidates just one page ago. We all get it that you liked Kubiak, didn't think he should have been fired, and you don't like his replacement... just be truthful with yourself and stop trying to hide your clear stance on this whole thing.

 

Quick question for Mr. Clutch.


Do you truly believe O'Brien fully believed in Mallett and Hoyer, or do you think he realized they were among the best options he had, and wasn't going to go out there and say that he wished he had better quarterbacks?

I mean, he only traded a sixth round pick for Mallett. If he believed in him, or even thought he was more than a lottery ticket, surely we'd have given up at least a fourth round pick.

I am still of the belief that O'Brien, at least in a small way, was biding his time for Hackenberg. I know that seems largely improbable. But if and when we draft him, it will all make sense.


I, for the life of me, don't understand people's complaints about O'Brien when it comes to quarterbacks. That's possibly one of the things his done best in his tenure. He's used 7 or 8 quarterbacks in two years. Every one has performed the best they have in their career. We've gone 18-14 as a team. Show me someone that argues against that and my mirror will show you someone that shouldn't be armchairing it.

 

Any team in a division with Jacksonville and Tennessee in it should not crow about their record. That's 4 wins that pretty much every team in the league would have had 4 wins against. Take those out, because they are not a true measure of where the team is.

So 9-7 goes to 5-7. Not a total train-wreck, but 5-7 is a much more accurate picture of where the Texans are as a team *in the context of the rest of the league* than 9-7.

5-7 tells them 'Oh crap, we need to FIX this mess!'

9-7 tells them 'Hey, we are pretty good, we just need a few tweaks here and there!'

This team needs wayyyy more than a few tweaks.

 

Who says they simply need a few tweaks? I'm considering them to be going into year 3 of a total rebuild, all the while still not being a total embarrassment on the field over the course of the season.

Just saying that its hard to have a winning record in this league, regardless of your division (although it certainly helps). Hence why I said the vast majority of their wins are against teams they "should" beat. Also, just as recently as 2 years ago, they went 1-3 vs. an even worse Jacksonville/Tennessee teams (with the 1 win also requiring a fluke-ish comeback).

So yeah, while they're winning games/beating teams they "should" beat... bad/below-average teams still lose those games. Teams in a similar rebuilding position (Tennessee and Jacksonville) also don't seem to be looking as respectable, despite having consistently high draft picks and cap space.

 

They didn't do any type of total rebuild. They were a 10-12 win team that had an implosion one season at QB and lost a ridiculous number of games but retained immense talent all over the field. This wasn't a team like JAX or TEN or CLE that has sucked for an extended period and needed a total overhaul.

 

They had far more issues than simply the QB. And you then deal with the critics that felt the team that won 12 games the year before overachieved and really wasn't as good as their record was. Again, can't have it both ways.

New coaching staff, new training camp regimens, new play books/systems, new players on both sides... These are underrated aspects of a rebuild regardless of the retaining of the roster composition. No team ever guts the entire roster during regime changes... But whenever that sort of coaching turnover commences, I consider it to be a new start (a rebuild).

Also, those teams that suck for an extended time squander all sorts of high picks/talent/cap space due to poor coaching regimes (or quick trigger regime changes) as well.

 

Who do you think told him to hire Gary Kubiak? (Hint: it rhymes with Stan Greeves...)

Because he's not set in his ways; for instance: he's adapted his offense, week-to-week, to accommodate what's been a revolving door at the QB position.

Couple of things... I think it's a stretch to say that BOB "believed" in any of these guys. He was basically at the grocery store the day before a hurricane, OK? The pickings were slim and he obviously favored familiarity.

Until he chooses Mallett at the expense of a Brees, or a Mariotta - or something truly egregious like that, I don't think he should be kicked for the QB situation. He's stuck in no man's land.

Who are we talking about here? Sua'Filo and Strong? Let's circle back to the patience thing... Strong showed flashes as a rookie; Sua'Filo was starting by season's end.

And they still managed to go 9-7 both years...

I don't know why that's a concern... how many guys from Fox's era did Kubiak just ride to a Super Bowl?

And let's not pretend they haven't added talent; they have. Remember, Kubiak, who, like BOB, took over a 2-14 team, was 6-10 and 8-8 in his first two years.

A QB would solve *a lot*... The Texans have more overall talent than the Colts, IMO. Are you suggesting this isn't a 10+-win team with Andrew Luck?

 

Yeah; I agree. While I favored the regime change, those '11-'12 teams were too good to view 2-14 as anything other than an extreme anomaly (much like 6-10 in '10).

Ultimately, and in hindsight, I think the Schaub situation was more toxic than we realized. I think there was division within the organization and it likely carried over to the team. After his performance in '12, I think the players were starting to lose faith in him and when things went south in '13 (over the course of two huge weeks: Seattle and then San Francisco), it became a runaway lose-lose situation. He was still probably the best option on the team - but he had lost all credibility. AJ's post-Texan comments, about never playing with a good QB... leads me to wonder if there wasn't a Schaub rift much sooner than the '13 meltdown.

 

Actually, wasn't there a report that Dan Reeves was upset because he thought he was going to get hired?

 

Seriously. Back to back winning records and the current division championship and all you see is whiny b**** fans who act like the Texans are the Titans or Jags. It's pretty pathetic.

 

At the time I was fine with firing Kubiak and hiring OBrien. Go back and read the threads if you want. I just think it was a mistake in retrospect.

This thread is about McNair. My point is he doesn't know what he's doing, hence his comment about it not being a rebuilding year.

 

He also signed Mallet to an extension and gave him a raise. This to a guy with worse stats than Tebow.

Yes I think he believed in those guys. But more he believed in himself and his ability to be a Guru.

 

This is my view.

Maybe it's wrong but it seems like we are winning based on much of the same talent

 

Good point on Dan Reeves, I stand corrected. Although there was the whole thing where he came out and said he didn't support keeping David Carr. And that brings me to another point- was McNair really against drafting Derek because of his last name?

On the picks, the first one was Nix who is out of the league I believe. And then there were the cuts of Manning (who we resigned) and Owen Daniels which cost us compensatory picks.

Yes I think this team is a 10 win team with Luck, but we need to reload too because we have big holes and big impending free agents.

Why do you say BOB was at the grocery store before a hurricane? He had two drafts, two free agent periods. He could have also resigned average Fitz as an indefinite placeholder. Im not saying he absolutely needed to find a star QB already, bu there was absolutely no need for the Mallet Experience.

 

To clarify: Mallett was a free agent; it was not an extension. That might ultimately be semantics but I think there IS a difference.

 

When you get your a$$ beat at home in the playoffs by Alex Freaking Smith 30-nothing..

What exactly do you expect people to do?

Again, this team is FAR closer to being a 4-5 win team than being a championship contender, and everyone who has been watching it over the years KNOWS it. We don't want Division banners, trumpeting about how we can win what is arguably the worst division in football. We want Super Bowl runs.

 

Derek's situation here would have absolutely been unique from the other 31 franchises; those are i's and t's I think you need to cross; irresponsible (IMO) if they hadn't.

The two emerging storylines from David's era were a) he was a family man first; football player second; 2) his dad was present and meddlesome.

I think it's totally fair to be concerned about both issues with Derek, with #2 potentially being too big to overlook.

Jeez, yeah... Nix. I've already forgotten... I don't know, man... I tend to lean tough luck over stupid on that one. He was generally considered a top 50 prospect and they landed him in the 3rd round?...

I don't really understand the issue with (especially) Manning and Daniels. Daniels has made some big catches - and he's better than any TE we've had since... but he hasn't been an exceptionally great TE. ~45/500 3/4 TDs - nice and, again, way better than our motley crew. But he's also been with a coach who drafted and developed him in an offense that he knows and has always been very TE-friendly.

Teams are always reloading...

A good QB fixes a lot of problems with this team.

Who did he pass on to trade for and resign Mallett? Mallett wasn't a Texan when they drafted in 2014;. And he signed a remarkably small deal in '15: 2/$7MM with less than $2MM guaranteed. He would have been one of the cheaper *back-ups*, let alone starters.

But, it's not like... Drew Brees was available and BOB went Mallett. You know who was available? Brian Hoyer.

The Fitz-for-Hoyer deal was far worse; though, again, I think it was fairly justifiable at the time (and let's not pretend Fitz really isn't just an older, maybe sightly better version of Brian Hoyer).