I approach each season fresh, in a vaccum. Every team gets a clean slate with me. I can understand the frustration of having to watch the same mistakes and shortcomings over and over and over, each year - but I don't get those feelings carrying over into a season like this, the one we've all been waiting for since 1994. Furthermore, I don't know about anyone else but I now feel... better about '09 and '10. It's not 100% Frank Bush's fault (well... 2010 was) - but I firmly believe, coaching and personnel shortcomings aside (and there were plenty of those, too), that had a Wade Phillips type been the choice over Bush in '09, we win 10 games that year (making the playoffs and walloping Cincinnati) and win anywhere from 8-10 last year. I believe it with all my heart. Prior to this year, I was at a loss to try and figure out how we came up short in '09 and imploded last year. Was it bad drafting? That was certainly a suspect. Coaching? Yeah, very possible. Overrated personnel? Well, Schaub doesn't audible... Now I have a much better handle and just feel a little relieved looking back; it makes more sense to me.
Sure he does! Gotta get credit for something or doing something right around here! 6 years in, surely he has done something right to stick around so long. Bitter and angry is my name! Better late than never - yeah I guess. 6 years in, I hope you get it right at least once. But I don't know, just hard to enjoy it for me. It is what it is. And I dont want to take away the enjoyment or success from anyone else. People/Texans fans have waited for this and deserve to enjoy it. Really is a shame. And I applaud you(serious) for turning the page. Something , for whatever reason, I haven't been able to do. Again, I don't know. I haven't been able to turn that page. I have that loser's and negative mentality stuck with me and can't seem to shed it. So I try to avoid the Texans board now. With that said, all the best to them this season. Maybe they really have put it all together and if so, good for them. You are exactly right, the city and the fans deserve a winner and/or quality team after all these years. This is what you and so many others have waited for and I'm not going to take away from that. That wouldn't be right or fair.
Don't waste your time, because Ric already doesn't agree with your analysis so I doubt he will agree with your other examples either. You've proven your point though.
It is so long as you have the football, sure. If you turn it over, though... But generally speaking, your odds of putting points up there do not for some reason increase. The field is (very likely) long, the clock short, and you're down to one, maybe no TOs. That's not an ideal situation. This is a detour into pure supposition and conjecture. What happened, happened. We can both play good/bad WHAT IFs to bolster our case (WHAT IF we call a TO and they convert the 3rd and 17? As is, they picked up 15. A TO there and no stop greatly increases their chances of turning a FG into a TD)... but it's just make believe. Maybe. Again, I'm not arguing *against* Kim's stratgey so much as I am the notion it cost them the game. Further, that Kubiak made the *wrong* decision. He was justified in playing it conservatively and it didn't cost them the game. Apparently, neither is 33. Can we agree that the 4Q defensive implosion on top of the 4Q turnover were far greater culprits than a 90-second stretch at the end of the first half?
Further proof that you don't actually read my posts. I've repeatedly agreed that Kim's strategy has considerable merit; I'm arguing only that it didn't cost them the game (which is what started this discussion and something even Kim has coped to) and that Kubiak's decision was certainly justifiable.
I really don't see too much wrong with being risk adverse at the half of a game in a hostile environment after you had pretty much dominated the first half. In all 3 of those games, the texans had a lead going into the half. You might not agree with the philosophy of playing it safe at the end of a half when you have a lead, but it's certainly not a bad strategy. Hell, if the defense stepped up in the 4th quarter of the NO game, that same strategy would have yielded a win.
imagine if Kubiak called that timeout and with 90 seconds left he tried to go down the field and Schaub throws an INT in NO territory like he did in the 4th quarter. he would get REAMED for not going conservative with a lead before the half.
Look, he took over a terrible franchise in total chaos - can we at least agree on that? This wasn't an underachieving 6-win team in 2005. It was (probably an overachieving) 2-win team. They had no talent on the roster; their drafts had been horrible; their free agent signings horrible; player development horrible... I said then, it was like taking over a college program that had been given the death penalty. So I certainly understand and respect that they underachieved and blew a wonderful opprotunity in '09 and inexplicably imploded last year. But let's not paint years 1-3 as total failures, too. He took over a 2-14 team and were 8-8 in two years. That's impressive by any measure. And while he did stall at 8-8 for two years, it was primarily because his QB missed significant time. And then they had a near-impossible-to-believe 4-game stretch in '09 and then his defense blew its own brains out, yada, yada... If they finish this year with a trip to the playoffs... I don't know how you can rate Kubiak's tenure anything beyond a success. Not an A+ success; maybe not even a B+ success. And he'd still need to do it again next year to really solidify his tenure. But... this isn't Rod Marinelli and it seems like he's being treated as if he is.
What's ironic about all this incessant dissecting of the N.O. game is that if we had Foster healthy, those 1st half FG's would have most likely been TD's and we wouldn't even be talking about the possession before halftime. Not a slam on you, Kim....I actually agree with most of your points. But again....it was 6 weeks ago. We're 4-2 since that game. The Ravens are 6-2. I doubt their fans are still dissecting their Week 2 loss to the titans. Just saying...
Or, perhaps he merely extends earlier drives and drains more of the clock. And he absolutely greatly impacts the 4Q, when it was obvious Kubiak did not yet trust Ben Tate, putting the ball in Schaub's hands instead.
Yes, we can agree on that. yada, yada, yada, tell me about it Kidding aside, progress was being made only until it wasnt. 2-14 to 6-10 to 8-8 to (you hope perhaps 9-7+ but) 8-8 to 9-7 back to 6-10. That should've been it. Outside of a 'great' offense, what did he prove to stick around another year? 1 playoff appearance in 6 years is success? 2 winning seasons in 6 years success? I wouldnt call that success and not nearly failure either. Just average/mediocre if that. Certainly right that he'd need to do it again the following year(and likely year after imo). And certainly right this aint Rod Marinelli bad. Enough from me though. You don't have to respond to this.
I read the posts, and after seeing comments like the ones below, I don't see the point in him giving you further examples: I wanted to comment on this one specifically. No, it isn't make believe. It's a clear example of a situation where a coach didn't maximize his assets (time on the clock, timeouts and an offense that's moving the ball) to try to get more points. Dismiss it all you like but that's absolutely the case. The Pats would try to get more points in that situation. So would the Saints. So would Manning for sure. So would the Packers. So would the Eagles (they tried before halftime on MNF but weren't successful). Etc...but basically agressive coaches/qbs. What "happened" is a coach had a chance to get the ball back with enough time on the clock to try something and he declined. And Kim can give you more examples, but what's the point when you can't even admit that this was an example of that? No matter how much you say his argument has merit, you are still debating with two dudes on how it really doesn't. In other words, your responses are "your argument has merit, but let me list why it really has no merit". The point of their posts is that Kubiak left possible points on the board, and that good coaches typically try to score as many times as they can. Since you mention reading posts, neither said doing that led directly to a loss. More like it contributed to a loss and the smart thing to do in a game against a high powered offense like NO is to score as many points as possible. Especially if they get the ball back in the 2nd half (I believe this was the case but could be wrong). And you don't need to be an NFL coach to figure that out.
I would need to look at stats to see if he made a good or a bad decision here, but it looks like he made a mistake here. For as horrible a decision that was, the Texans scored 33 points. Great coaching lead to the 33 points.
Great coaching led to the Rangers being within 1 strike of winning the World Series.....twice. Would someone be wrong for saying some poor coaching decisions had something to do with them losing? If they were discussing head coaches would they be wrong for bringing that moment up? Because IIRC, there were plenty of posts jumping on their manager for blowing a chance to put more points on the board during a certain inning in G6. Yes, I know it's a different sport. Just trying to highlight why it's not improper to say that was an example of bad coaching. And trust me, no one is talking about all the good coaching that led to them coming within 1 strike twice. They are focusing over the mistakes. Maybe we are wrong for looking at things that way but that's typically how things are remembered. You can play like garbage, make a big play and go down a hero. You can play great, make one crucial error and go down a goat (ala Chris Webber and his timeout...do we remember his Michigan days for that or how great he played leading them to the NC game?). I think Kim has given pretty concrete examples, but it's obvious some don't see them that way and some do. That's cool...everyone has an opinion. I just don't see the need for him to spend his time giving more when the same folks won't even agree with his initial one. I'm sure it takes time to go back through the other games.
I realize this isn't my fight, but I want to point out that it is possible to acknowledge someone else's viewpoint and its merits and then present one's own contrary viewpoint. That's the point of discussion--it doesn't always have to end in one party being "right" and one party being "wrong". An "I see where you're coming from" goes a long way.
didn't Kubiak go for it on 4th down in the first half of the Raiders and Ravens game? both times the Texans did not convert, leaving 3 points on the board. so he wasn't aggressive as you'd like him to be at a certain junction. at least acknowledge that when he is aggressive it could also cost us the game.
It's an attempt to bolster their position by drawing favorable conclusions in the absence of any evidence. There's nothing wrong with that - they're not *wrong* and it's the very basis of why they think what they think so it has obvious valdity and merit. My point is just that BOTH sides can do that until everyone is blue in the face and it ultimately leads to nothing. As I've said, I don't disagree with Kim's strategy; I disagree that that moment cost the Texans that game. I further think that the alternative to being aggressive in that situation is absolutely justifiable. Neither is right necessarily; but they're certainly not wrong. You're arguing with yourself; I've readily accepted his positon as viable. No, I'm not. I'm arguing that, while it has merit, it did not cost the Texans the game. That's what started this discussion - someone, 77 pages ago, made the usual empty, "Kubiak costs us games" remark - I challenged them. Kim, who did not make the original remark, jumped in. But even he has copped to the fact he's not sure it cost them the game. Kim did, originally; that's why he jumped into the discussion about which games Kubiak has been outcoached. They scored 33 points, including 17 in the second half. This argument has a lot more teeth if they lose... 40-19. They didn't. So, while - yes, scoring as many points as you can is generally a good idea, the Texans scored plenty - plenty enough to win even if we all agree they mangled the end of the first half.
