I do not get this logic. This "risk" comes with the territory when you own an NFL team. Every other team in the league runs this same risk when they hire a coach. Why is this all the sudden so unique to the Texans? And why is it even being debated as a risk we should or shouldn't be willing to take? It's like saying you don't want to play your star QB in the playoffs because you run the risk of him suffering a career-ending injury. Sure, it could happen, but it's a risk you take anyway because it comes with the territory. Obviously.
can't spread rep, yo! remember how awesome bill parcells tenure was in dallas? they won what, 18 playoff games and 7 super bowls, right? let's go for a billick/lewis reunion.
Because they can't fail a third time. They'll be starting their TENTH season next fall - I don't think fans have 2-3 more years of patience while we wait for plan C to get it done. This has to be fixed *this offseason*. In terms of weighing risk, I just think new GM/Marv Lewis is a much safer - but still highly effective - approach: it absolutely addresses needs and makes you a better team. If they bring in Kubiak, Jr., and watch him stall at 8-9 wins and no playoffs............ I mean, how many more years are you willing to give them to figure it out? I think the *only* way they can buy time - if needed - is with a Cowher-like hire.
By going with the "safest" approach, you're not maximizing your chance to succeed though. You're just minimizing your chance of failure (the definition of safe). I would argue that between the choice of New Unproven Coach (NUC, for simplicity) and Weakened-Kubiak (WK): NUC: higher chance to strongly succeed higher chance to miserably fail lower chance of status quo WK: lower chance to strongly succeed lower chance to miserably fail higher chance of status quo I don't think you can ever really sell an agitated fanbase on the latter. Fans want bold, big, daring - not incremental change. WK would get much less of a leash from fans than NUC would. (on a side note: If you believe that WK actually has a higher chance to strongly succeed, then you're not really arguing that it's the safer approach. You're simply arguing that it's the better approach, because there is no drawback to it in that scenario.)
Several teams have fixed their teams in ONE offseason since Gary was hired. Both new coaches and old. It's over. Get him out of here. I trust a new coach to get us to the playoffs NEXT year over Gary.
I'm saying a Holmgren type move to oversee operations plus a temporary (as temporary as possible) reprieve for Kubiak is better than throwing everyone out, striking out on Cowher, Gruden, Dungy, et al, and signing the next Josh McDaniels to a 4 year deal. 1 year of at least slight improvement followed by a major step forward beats a desperation move that locks us up into another 3+ years of 0.500 BS football. A lot of you are acting as if that's what I want. It's not, it's a distant second choice, a back up plan. I want Cowher, and I was saying that 12 months ago. The reason I'm saying it is if McNair can't admit Kubiak's extension was as dumb as Carr's, eat that contract, and bring in Cowher at full asking price....I want them to still make a serious shift in direction. It's not enough to Fire Team Bush and allow Smith/Kubiak to restock the staff. If McNair fires Kubiak but is too cheap to pay Cowher because he's still paying Kubiak, or if Cowher turns us down, I don't want to see some loser like Dick Jauron come on board. I don't want a Kyle Shanahan or Bob Stoops locked up for 4 years. I'm done with those high risk dice rolls. Cowher is option 1, 2, 3. High Profile GM is option 4, with Kubiak out in 12 months or less. Random shots in the dark because any change is better is not something I want to see.
But that's just your opinion, Major - and I don't agree with it. I would ask you to look at the Saints, who rolled the dice on a high-profile DC - worked out pretty well for them. Dom Capers has turned Green Bay's defense into a championship quality defense. Rod Marinelli is taking a team with no offensive playmakers and one of the worst OL in football to a likely division crown. Romeo Crennell has turned a bunch of rookies and no-names into an 8-5 playoff contender. Mike Tomlin has a SB ring thanks to Dick LaBeau. I think some of you are missing why the defensive coordinator route might measure as infinitely better. We have no way of knowing if (insert upcoming NFL assistant here) can make the transition to HC; but we know for sure that Marv Lewis was once a terrific defensive coordinator (a best-ever candidate, based on how good those '00 Ravens were), and he'd join a long list of former head coaches who went back to their primary calling and enjoyed great success. Heck, we saw it happen here in Houston 17 years ago. And I'm of the opinion a non-Kubiak sanctioned GM and non-Denver pipeline DC would represent a *major* overhaul. It is every bit as bold, big, daring as a new HC; there's nothing incremental about it, IMO.
If they couldn't get Cowher or Gruden or Dungy and took this approach rather than some OC or DC somewhere, it wouldn't bother too badly.
The risk of keeping Kubiak and failing again is HUGE! Much higher than the "risk" of bringing in another coach. Kubiak is a proven non-winner. But I am very confident he's a goner. It's to the point now that if McNair keeps Kubiak, I might even bail on the team for a year and I've never done that before. McNair will do the right thing and bring in another head guy.
I addressed this: (on a side note: If you believe that WK actually has a higher chance to strongly succeed, then you're not really arguing that it's the safer approach. You're simply arguing that it's the better approach, because there is no drawback to it in that scenario.) What you're now arguing is not the safer approach as you were before. You're now arguing that you think it's the approach that has the greatest likelihood of success - ie, that it's the *better* approach. I disagree with that, but if that's the argument, then it has nothing to do with placating a fanbase or needing to get this hire right or anything else. You're just advocating the approach you think has the highest likelihood of success. In that scenario, it's the move you should make no matter what - the fanbase stuff is all irrelevant. The problem I have with this argument is that we don't know if Gary Kubiak can make the transition to HC either. So far, he hasn't done well in selecting personnel, motivating the team, gameday management, or hiring good coaches. The only thing he has really proven to be good at is calling offensive plays. So yes, maybe if he becomes a glorified offensive coordinator without any of the control or responsibilities of a normal head coach (for example, picking his own staff), then he might be able to be successful. But he's otherwise just as unproven as your (upcoming NFL assistant). Or in many ways, he's already failed in many of the things your (upcoming NFL assistant) hasn't. Why not get the (upcoming NFL assistant) and the new GM and the proven defensive coordinator?
Safer... better - same thing to me: it all leads to (hopefully) the same destination. As for placating the fanbase - winning does that. Oh, I disagree: I think we have a *really* good idea what Gary does well and what he does poorly; thus, far easier to build the proper infrastructure around him.
How about Bo Pelini as head coach? He is a tough minded coach who will improve the defense. I know most college coaches don't have success in the NFL but he did coach in the NFL as an assistant for 8 years. Always had great defenses wherever he was whether in college or the NFL.
after 5 years, i'm still waiting on that, Ric. this organization needs cultural change. if i could replace the owner, i would. short of that, i'd replace the 2 guys just below him: kubiak and smith. this is pro sports...it's a bottom line business. and the bottom line stinks for this group.
guaging how pissed off the fan base could be after the 2011 season: not making the playoffs with kubicak>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not making the playoffs with a new coach.
Let me try and get this through one last time. I (and I don't believe Ric) is saying "Keep Kubiak!" What I'm saying is: Hire a STUD coach and let him run the show (1st priority) or Hire a STUD President/GM and let him run the show Option 2 *may* give Kubiak an extra 12 months on the job as OC, which isn't the end of the world.....but maybe he does go just as quickly as Frank Bush. Keep Kubiak and let him have one more chance to get it right isn't an option. I won't be able to take it if we lock up another high risk/reward guy for 4 years and he pulls an Eric Mangini or Josh McDaniels (more common than hitting paydirt with a Sean Payton). I'll cut myself if we hire a proven loser like Herm Edwards. ABK is a bad way to go. You could say that with Capers, but not this time.
I don't believe I've said otherwise. Fans would absolutely, positively embrace a change. They always do. But for how long, assuming change doesn't bring with it winning? Are we going to give the next guy 3, 4, 5 years? At this point, Cowher, Kubiak, unknown rising NFL assistant, big-time college coach - whoever, it doesn't matter: They all get *this* offseason to figure it out. There are no more "x-year plans," no more "waiting for next year." This has to be fixed *now*. IMO, it's not (necessarily) about stomaching another year of Kubiak; it's about stomaching another year of 8-9 wins with no playoffs - *that's* the issue. If (IF, IF, IF) they can do that by hiring a new GM/DC route, no one is going to care that they kept Kubiak.
It is a pretty black and white issue. You *know* Kubiak is a failure, and incomplete/incapable as a head coach. You do *not* know if the next guy will be a failure, whether he has 5 superbowl rings already or has only 5 years experience. At this point, doing anything but moving forward without Kubiak is an acceptance of failure. Firing Smith and Bush is basically the diet coke version of firing Kubiak, IMO that will just delay the inevitable. And I believe that will be what happens because of the labor situation, the lack of ready/willing candidates, and McNair's pride and loyalty complex... or some combination thereof.
It's interesting to me that some fans are so afraid of change and like the offense so much that they are basically advocating "head coach by committee." What does Kubiak do well that doesn't fall under the purview of Offensive Coordinator? There is just no reason to keep him imo. I was at one point ok with the neuter the coach angle, but I think it's worthless at this point. He still has to be the ultimate decision maker if you keep him and all the things he does as a head coach that hurt this team would still be there. Time management, challenges, play calling at end of half, etc. He's just not a good head coach. Even if you end up striking out on a Cowher, I'd rather gamble on a new assistant somewhere that can come in and fix the defense and hire a Josh McDaniels to be his O-Coordinator. Kubiak has proven he isn't a good head coach.
I understand this. I do. I can only speak for myself, but I think most other people who have been keeping up understand it as well. But what I am saying (and others as well, I think) is that we are willing to risk another coach going 8-8 more than we are willing to risk Kubiak going 8-8 again. It's a risk we're willing to take. We want change. If for nothing else, just for the sake of change. And hiring a new DC and keeping Kubiak isn't enough. I would venture to guess that about 83.7% of the fanbase feels the same way. You seem to assume that a new coach is going to go 8-8. Why? The bottom line is that the fans want to think the owner is at least TRYING to get better. Bringing in Scottie Pippen was, in hindsight, a HORRIBLE decision. But do you hear anyone blaming our front office for it? They rolled the dice hoping to improve the team instead of standing pat and accepting the status quo. That's what good organizations do. Sometime it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. Most fans understand that. When you've got a flush, you have to go all-in, not check because you think the other guy might have a straight flush.
