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

Point to me where he blamed execution and defended the coaches, because I don't see that. I see him saying some players aren't playing hard enough, but I don't see him defending coaches beyond what it means to job security for the players. His only fear seems to be losing his gig, not that he thinks these coaches are any good and he doesn't want them to be out.

 

I'm not big on just firing guys, but I think kubiak has to go. The fact that in 06 they had the top pick and of the top 6 teams in that draft, only oakland and sf have fared worse. Think about it, the texans,saints,titans,jets,raiders,packers,49ers were the top drafting teams that year. Of those, only the raiders,49ers,and texans have yet to make the playoffs.

 

"We're not who we think we are," Pollard said. "It's about us going out there and playing. The last time I checked, Frank, Kube and the coaches don't have numbers on their backs. They don't make plays. They don't put on cleats. They coach. It's on us.

 

Thanks, wasn't originally posted here I guess?

That's still not really a defense of the coaches. At no point do I see him saying he thinks they are doing a good job. I read his defense of the coaching staff as nothing more than wanting to make sure he keeps his own job.

 

Nothing surprises me about that article or those statements by Pollard. No player...especially one of Pollards caliber (meaning he is NOT a superstar) is going to call out their current coach

 

Sorry, what I mean was a defense of the job they're doing. I don't think he's saying they are doing a good job.

 

He said, in pretty simple terms, that it isn't the coaches fault, it's the players' fault.

That sounds like a defense of them to me.

 

He says in simple terms that the players are to blame, yes, and that the coaches aren't the ones on the field, but he also puts it out there that players on the team obviously want change and his only defense against that is that it could mean a lot of the players are out of work.

My overall read on what is being said by him is that he doesn't want to end up getting cut so he's trying to play hard to help the coaching staff keep their jobs.

 

Okay, just read the entire article.

Yeah, I agree. He seems to be calling out some teammates who might be hoping for a coaching change - and basically telling them to be careful what they wish for. Most of the young guys drafted by the Texans have never experienced a coaching change and really don't understand how that might affect their careers.

The interesting part of that is that it's now clear that the guys are talking about it. Sounds like some are even resigned to it happening sooner rather than later. Interesting.

 

He didn't say that, though.

He didn't praise them, he didn't say he wants to play for them. He said guys (like Jackson, Quin, Nolan, etc) better not get excited about the idea of a new coach, cause if Kubiak/Bush are gone, they may be too.

He deflected criticism of the coaches, but he wasn't falling over defending them. He wasn't making an argument that Bush was the right guy for the job. He simply refocused the brunt of the blame onto the defensive players.

 

BINGO

 

Whether his motive is self serving or not, he is still actively defending the coaches by going out of his way to say it isn't their fault.

If he hadn't said anything about how it wasn't their fault, I'd say he wasn't defending them.

 

But you didn't bold this, which I thought was telling: "You're in the huddle and you want to see guys fired, guys who play with passion."

That would seem to indicate, to me, not so much that players have quit but that some have never started. Piggybacking on Amobi's comments a few weeks back, it sounds like they have a few too many who simply don't care, regardless of the regime.

If true - who? Cushing doesn't seem likely. I don't get the sense Smith is going through the motions. Ryans? Mario? Or are they simply populated by a bunch of never-weres who don't care? Are the Diles and Wilsons and Codys of the team bringing everyone down?

Thing I've always found interesting is that this team has never quit on Kubiak. If they were put out by him, they've had two years running to sell him out and jettison him with poor performance down the stretch. Instead, they've consistently finished strong and essentially saved his job. So if guys are, now, quitting - have they reached their limits with Gary or is this directed at Bush?

 

Yeah, I agree. His statements can certainly be read as, at the very least, a backhanded defense of the coaches.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say the DL and DBs are the most likely culprits.

Those guys may be getting a lot of flack from the coaches for underperforming over the past couple of years and they may be hoping for a new staff.

Amobi, Cody, Mitchell, McCain, McManis, Kareem, Molden, Nolan... they are probably in the "yeah, whatever" camp by now.

 

But isn't the "coaches aren't out there playing, we are" shtick just a typical cliche players use when the team is losing?

 

As cliche as it may be, nobody forced him to do it.

That is the kind of talk you hear after a blowout loss to excuse a poor performance, not the kind of talk you hear after a season of monumental failure on one side of the ball.

 

Depends on how it’s handled. If they go get - and I don’t know who might be available/interested – but let’s say: the next Scott Pioli and… Marv Lewis. I think you address the team’s two biggest issues (IMO) - personnel and defense - and keep in place what has been consistently working. The new hires would presumably be non-pipeline and it would send a definitive message to Kubiak, as well as the fans. I think people would get on board with that; some maybe begrudgingly – but it would represent a pretty sweeping change without an out-and-out overhaul.

Again, this is a top offense. The team – for all its warts – is just an average defense away from being a legitimate playoff contender. Not a great or even good defense; just one that can accomplish essentially elemental assignments.

Again, very similar to what the Oilers did in ’93 when they brought in Buddy Ryan.

Understood. I just think people need to brace themselves for a Kubiak-level replacement if he is fired: an unproven, cheaper coordinator type. I just don’t see McNair eating Kubiak’s salary and opening the bank to land a Cowher-type.

Agree to disagree. It’s easy for us to spend $10M of his money. I would certainly understand if McNair wasn’t wild about paying two guys to not coach his football team. “Value” is on paper; coaches’ salaries are not, especially given that he is, apparently, one of the hardline, “save us from ourselves” owners.

I’m fine with firing Kubiak; I would agree they’ve probably hit their ceiling with him. BUT… I would argue they’ve reached their ceiling with him because a) he’s been stuck with a below-average-to-bad GM (himself); b) he’s been too stubborn when it comes to coaching and personnel decisions; specifically, I can’t understand why he would turn his defense and the entire secondary (coaches and all) over to inexperienced rookies or newcomers.

Firing Rick Smith and the defensive coaching staff, and replacing them with non-pipeline candidates who would bring a new perspective to the table, IMO, completely changes the landscape of this team. It’s a seismic shift.

Again, ’93: I don’t know where you were or what you were doing in ’93 – but everyone and their dog’s chew toy wanted Jack Pardee, every coach and every player jettisoned after the Buffalo debacle. Instead, the team fired the defensive staff and brought in Buddy Ryan. And it worked: it energized the fan base and, once Moon got healthy and the defense caught on – it was off.

This is a very similar opportunity, IMO.

 

And what I am saying is, it's not an active defense of the coaches, it's a passive one.

Nowhere, NOWHERE in the article does he come close to saying the coaches are doing their job. I disagree with the notion that he "went out of his way to say it isn't their fault."

He says it's on us (players). He says the coaching grass may not be greener on the other side. That's it.