Solomon: 'Enough is enough,' and Texans should fire Kubiak

Because we need staff change more than we need a one-year, totally gift-wrapped playoff appearance?

Did Jets fans have to deal with 5 seasons of ineptitude from Rex Ryan's staff before their gift was wrapped for them? Last year was his first year as HC, so why would people be bothered by a flukey playoff birth? You can't compare those situations, Ric.

And beyond the obvious difference in the coaching staff tenures/expectations, the Jets playoff birth led to a conference championship appearance, that left their overall record 11-8. A good season for sure.

In the Texans' scenario, we're assuming one-and-done. 9-8. Bleh. Anyone would sing a different tune if Kubiak back-doored his way to the AFC title game this year. But that's a different conversation as far as I'm concerned.

 

No, we didnt .....but u gotta realize that NY fans and media do not stand for the same crap that other teams/cities do...Houston included. I dont think Kubiak and his "aw shucks stuff" would have lasted through one press conference before they would call for his head....its win or go home

 

shocker.

 

Keep Kubiak. Tom Landry didnt take his team to the playoffs until his 7th season. Bill Belichick only had 1 in his first 7.Jeff Fishers first 5 years. 1-5,7-9, and then 3 consecutive 8-8 seasons. Talk about mediocrity right? His 6th year, He took the Titans to the super bowl with virtually the same team. Keeping your coach provides familiarity. I bet those Titans fans were happy they kept Fisher.

 

Many giants fans wanted to miss the playoffs in 2007 so Tom Coughlin would get fired.

this logic is dumb.

 

Yeah, and if we went onto win the freaking Superbowl I'd say it was dumb too.

But I'm not wishing upon a star, Casey.

I want change more than I want one-and-done in the playoffs and more 8-8 football thereafter.

 

But isn't there a chance said totally gift-wrapped appearence could be more than a one-year wonder?

The Texans' primary issue is their inability to get over the hump; who's to say falling backwards over the hump wouldn't be what eventually got them over the hump? If the Jets (which I think is an apt comparison) had played a motivated Colts and/or Bengals team and finished 8-8 or 7-9 and out of the playoffs, does that team stomp into 2010 with a "this is our year" attitude? Do they take go-for-broke chances on Cromartie? Tomlinson? Does the team have the same attitude, perspective, focus, outlook, expectation?

The Oilers were mired in mediocrity for a lot of years, and were probably headed for more in '87 when two scab wins against teams the real Oilers probably wouldn't have beaten opened the floodgates.

No one, anywhere, can convince me a losing season is better than a playoff appearence. Sure, maybe the coaches change, but the players don't. You'd rather fire Gary Kubiak than watch Andre Johnson possibly go Larry Fitzgerald on the AFC? I don't get that line of thinking. If Kubiak is "good" enough to get the Texans in position to fall backwards into the playoffs, then he's not a total failure of a coach. It's not like they'd be making the playoffs with 6 wins.

And that would be foolish, IMO. Why assume anything? Is it really *that* difficult to fathom the Texans beating the Jets (a possible first round opponent)? They were 50 seconds away from doing it two weeks ago.

 

Are you trying to compare Coughlin to Kubiak and NY Fans to Houston fans? Kubiak needed to go at the end of last season but I guess we decided to give him one last chance.

Oh well at least there are good coaches out in the market, Gruden, Cowher, Dungy.

 

I promise you . . . if they win 1 more game
He will be back.

I think he will be back regardless

Rocket River

 

Based on the evidence at hand? Doesn't seem likely. There's *always* a chance. I was firmly in the "Kubiak has earned another year" camp last year, I defended him all off-season, and he pooped the bed again. Enough. I'm tired of "what if", give me something tangible.

Because it is an internet message board, and for the purposes of discussion we have to make hypothetical situations up, and it's not unreasonable to assume that the staff changes that are needed will not be made if fall ass-backwards into the playoffs and get curb-stomped round one. Could they win? Sure they could a playoff game or two. Am I betting they will? Fark no. Would I change my mind about Kubiak & co if they did? Of course. But as things stand now, we are teh suck and teh choke and I want him, or at the very least, Smith & Bush, gone at the end of the year, unless we go on a Cinderella run.

 

I'm hearing this type scenario more and more, but I don't get it. If you're going to take that much power away from him, why keep him in the first place? Is the offense THAT good that we HAVE to hold on to Kubiak? And would Kubiak even hang around under those circumstances. My opinion is that you either keep things as-is or you clean house. No in-between.

Translation: The Texans are 5-7 for the fourth year in a row. To me, none of that other stuff is relevant. It's all about wins and losses. Period.

Ric, I was with you last year on all the "we're 6 plays away from being 9-2" type talk. But after so many years, it becomes a pattern. I'm to the point now, after 4 years of the same thing, that the win-loss record is the only thing you should be judged by as a coach.

 

Not to nitpick (but I will), but this is easy to do in retrospect. To use another sport as an example, the Spurs were much better off with David Robinson getting injured and having one losing season than they were having a healthy Robinson and continuing to never get over the hump with him.

I agree generally with your premise - you play to win the games.

BUT...there is a point where it's pretty obvious losing is better than winning. We can never predict the future. But if the Texans losing out means that the coach and GM are replaced and the next regime brings multiple playoff appearances and a championship or two over the next 5-10 years, then clearly it would have been great that they'd lost out....right?

All this conversation is likely to be pointless anyways, as the Texans will predictably lose to the Ravens next week.

 

10000000000 % THIS^

 

Damn straight.

We dun goofed last year.

But we shouldn't have dun goofed this year.

Time is up. Time to move on.

Otherwise, consequences will never be the same.

 

It seems Rick Smith gets alot more blame that Kubiak around here. . . . why is that?

for a while I got the impression Kubiak was in control of everything and Rick just rubber stamped it.

Rocket River

 

Dennis Green got his team to the playoffs plenty of times and still got the boot.

There comes a point in time where the coaching has to come into question.

 

The primary reason is money. IIRC, he's among the 10 highest-paid coaches in football. If you fire him, and have to eat his guaranteed salary, you're either a) compromising how much you'd be willing to pay his replacement; b) swallowing a boatload of cash if you bring in a big name replacement. And you may be paying both to not coach.

Far cheaper to fire and replace the defensive staff than then entire coaching staff.

As for Kubiak, he'll stay for the same reason you would stay if your boss came to you and offered a reduction in power but position and salary continuity. I mean, he could resign - but I'm not sure he'd ever get another head coaching gig again.

Whoah! I NEVER said that; in fact, I was very careful how I worded it. I would never assume victory.

I was using the "6 plays" as a way to illustrate that, IMO, personnel is the bigger issue. If your coach has his players in position to accomplish elemental things that could impact the outcomes of games, and said players fail: I put that on the GM and players. And to Kubiak's credit: Ch/Kris Brown are gone and have been upgraded.

If they fire Kubiak, I'm OK with it. I would lean toward favoring it. I just continue to think Kubiak, the GM, and the defensive coaches are the bigger issue. They could absolutely sell me on another year of Kubiak with a powerful GM and SB-winning DC.

 

I don't think its blame so much as a perceived need to find a yang to Kubiak's ying. Most of us assume Smith, Bush, et al, are too close to Kubiak to provide contrarian viewpoints.

 

If there's a valid criticism of McNair, this is it.

 

Absolutely.

This whole "Denver East" inbreeding thing is starting to get ridiculous.