I think Kim is mostly right on the Super Bowl coaching moves. Kubiak's had a longer leash than needed Though I think even the harshest critic could sensibly excuse Kubiak's first 2 years in the 5-Years and Less formula. Kubiak's first year it was Charley Casserley still hovering around the draft, Dan Reeves giving "consultation". With the smoke still clearing out of 2nd and mid round draft picks blown up in smoke reaching for the Bennie Joppru, Phillip Buchanon, Jason Babin reaches. And the venerable David Carr still as qb, enough said. This is the 3rd year of true "Super Bowl" aspirations and Texans finally being a legitimate franchise, instead of just dont be a doormat expectations. Can see how itd seem hasty to rush the coach out the door who built the team up from crap. That said, plenty fair to put Kubiak on the hot seat. And a firing for another good but not great season or postseason wouldnt be too ridiculous. I dont want the team to lose 5 in a row or more though to force change, its tough to sacrifice the little weekly wins for that. But (another) end of season poor finish might do it
I think the main attribute people are citing is the "uncreative" and "stubborn" part. It means inability to adapt, to make NECESSARY adjustments. It means after the system has been put together in its concept and running optimally, then it has PEAKED. If youre not gonna tweak anything, it means you just "are what you are" It means growth potential is LIMITED. Or outright NO MORE improvement. That is not positive traits in today's nfl. Tom Coughlin does inspire confidence in the Kubiak approach, his team has similar team strengths. Belichick does too hes tight end happy like Kubiak, with sneaky effective ground game. But we dont see the loyal to a fault foundation approach either. No Joe Marciano's hanging around too long
Man, can you guys imagine that with jacksonville on the path of getting number 1 pick and them selecting Bridgewater... bah. Worst nightmare slowly coming to reality, all our divisional foes have elite qbs and we are stuck with Schaub. Not to be bashing the dude, but we are not going to win a superbowl with him...
Titans still have an average qb. With Jacksonville we will have to worry about Clowney killing our qb or Bridgewater torching our secondary.
Kubes publicly stated at the luncheon SB or bust in different words. He should be held accountable to his words.
Belichick's system changes a lot from year to year, but he's certainly the exception to that. Most coaches do what they do and the only reason they find the success they do is because they know their system, they know the players that fit into it. Like how Kubiak has always look at a RB and know that this guy could fit into his system, same with the Oline. I think he has made huge changes though, he has adapted at times. When the team had no run game they were a pass happy high-flying offense. The team since Tate and Foster has become more balanced for better or worse (I say worse because Schaub now settles for the short routes...) and he allowed his defensive scheme to change entirely. But if a team does something well they aren't really changing it. Watt was asked if the Ravens did anything different and he said nope, nothing he saw. Way too early to tell, I'm not like these folks jumping off the bridge because the team lost a game...but those improvements for a coach like Kubiak comes in the form of getting better players. If Hopkins proves to be a stud for example or Brandon Brooks start helping out. Wade is the same way, he has a system and philosphy that he doesn't stray far from. For better or worse. The thing these guys have in problem is that EVEN when the talent isn't really there, the team is still a good respectable team. That's the sign of a good coach. That they have a model of consistency of success...which so far in Kubes short career he has. Not always going to be a successful season where the team goes deep into the playoffs. No team does that. I'd say people are really forgetting what they accomplished. You even said take away the first 2 years...so that means he'd start off 8-8. Great. Had a down year. Hey it happens to a lot of coaches. 12-4 year completely wrecked by injuries, despite that they almost beat the Ravens in 2nd round game. 10-6 year that they started off on fire and finished poorly. Couldn't get past the Pats in the end. I don't see how you fire him. I'll say it again though, teams do not fire coaches for making the playoffs. It happens but it's not usual and it is certainly not what the model franchises do. Guys like Reid and Fisher were fired after bad years, terrible years actually.
I'm going to research this even further, and we've already agreed to disagree (but you do bring up cogent points). He should have been fired after year 5 going 6-10 with stubborn loyalty to a bad DC and bad ST coach, when they forced him to bring in Wade when he had talent and an under-performing team. No SB winning team lately (I'll keep researching) has kept the coach for 5 straight non-playoff years w/ the last year going 6-10. GB fired Sherman after 3 division titles in a row and 4 playoffs in 5 seasons and missing the last year after 3 early season IR pro-bowlers. Green Bay wouldn't have kept Kubiak. The Texans would have kept Sherman. Is it unfair? Possibly? Should every organization be judged uniquely? Yes? I agree with you there. But even though luck does play a factor as you state, I just can't see Kubiak winning the SB not only for eye-test reasons (uncreative offense, SP coach loyalty, inability to adapt) but also for being part of such a unique path to win. Only Bill Cowher and The Steelers have had the loyalty shown by The Texans towards Kubiak. But Cowher started off going to 6 straight playoffs, 5 division titles, and going to the SB in his 4th year. That success allowed the organization to continue to keep him stable as it bought him good will when they missed the playoffs for 3 year rebuilding (7-9, 6-10, 9-7), then he made the playoffs again 4 out of the next 5 years winning 3 more division titles and then the Superbowl in his 14th year. Success breeds stability. Cowher is the exception to the SB winning rule, but he was still vastly successful. Every other SB winning organization w/in the last 20 years has had their coach win the SB w/in his first 5 years with the team. The prior coach only had 3 to 7 years to get the job done, and even multiple division titles and a SB appearance isn't enough to keep that job w/ SB winning organizations. Kubiak has done good things given the circumstance, but I'm just a very model oriented person and he completely doesn't fit the rule (everyone) nor the exception (Cowher) in this SB organization model. For every piece of good will he's built over the last 2 years of winning, I consider that a complete gift by the McNair to Kubiak. No other SB winning organization has tolerated what Kubiak did in years 1 through 5. You make fair points, but for me, it's all about the Super Bowl title...that's the most important goal for me.
That's not necessarily true. Harbaugh and Shanahan are examples of coaches that changed their style completely last year. Harbaugh even did it midseason and benched a QB that led them to the NFC Title game the previous year and had a 100+ QB rating at the time of his benching.
Before John Harbaugh there was Brian Billick who won a SB. Before Tom Coughlin, there was Jim Fassel who was58-53 in 7 years, making the playoffs in his 1st, 4th (made the SB), and 6th year. Before Mike McCarthy there was Mike Sherman who was 57-39 in 6 years, making the playoffs 4 times and winning the division 3 times. Before Sean Payton there was Jim Haslett who was 45-51 in 6 year, making the playoffs only in his 1st year. Before Mike Tomlin there was Bill Cowher who won a SB. Before Tony Dungy there was Jim Mora who was 32-32 in 4 years, making the playoffs in his middle two years. Before Bill Belichick there was Pete Carroll who was 27-21 in 3 years, making the playoffs his first two years. ^that was posted in pg 4...let's keep going back to more predecessors to SB winning coahces: Before John Gruden there was Tony Dungy who was 54-42 in 6 years, making the playoffs 4 times, including his last 3 years, winning the division 1 (when there were fewer divisions back then). He got fired after going 9-7 and making the playoffs. Before Brian Billick there was Ted Marchibroda who was 16-31-1 in 3 years. Before Dick Vermeil there was Rich Brooks who was 13-19 in 2 years. Before Mike Shanahan there was Wade Phillips who was 16-16 in 2 years, winning 1 division title and making the playoffs his 1st year. Before Mike Holmgren there was Lindy Infante who was 24-40 in 4 years. Before Barry Swizter there was Jimmy Johnson who won SBs. Before George Seifert there was Bill Walsh who won SBs. Before Joe Gibbs there was Jack Pardee who was 24-24 in 3 years. Before Bill Parcells there was Ray Perkins who went 23-34 in 4 years going to the playoffs once. Okay, I've gone back to the 80's and I think that's enough evidence to put to rest this misconception. SB winning teams do not just ride it out with their coaches regardless of SB success. SB wins matter. The coaches prior to SB winning teams either won the SB themselves (4 examples) or they had only 2 to 7 years to get it done, mostly the lower end: 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 7. That's not this super stability of maintaining coaches for the hell of it. Coaches only stay long-term if they win SBs. Sherman was as winner and got fired for his SB winning replacement. Dungy was a winner and got fired for his SB winning replacement. Dungy then on to win a SB himself after replacing Mora. Fassel was a winner who went to a SB who got fired. Carroll was a winner who got fired after division title, playoffs, then 1 yr 8-8. Everyone gets fired in the NFL. SB organizations aren't different...they fire their coaches if they don't win SBs...that's just how it's been. Winning SB or the one exception, winning a lot (Cowher), keeps you around...nothing else will. I am convinced that the Stability argument is a sham....that is a variable that is completely dependent on winning and winning big.
What misconception? I said that coaches are not fired after going to the playoffs, they are fired after having bad years. Every single one of those coaches you mentioned were fired after having a bad year. Billick 5-11 Fassel- 4-12 Mike Sherman- 4-12 Jim Haslett - 3-13 Bill Cowher - 8-8 but he retired Jim Mora- 6-10 Tony Dungy- The exception, went to the playoffs and was replaced. Ted Marchibroda - Obviously was a bad coach. Rich Brooks- Another coach that was not winning at all. Wade Phillips - The year he was fired missed the playoffs, went 7-9 Lindy Infante- Another bad coach that was given plenty of time too to boot. Jimmy Johnson - Circumstances, Jones and him had a falling out. Everyone knows that. Bill Walsh- retired...went to coach college Jack Pardee- 6-10...fired... Ray Perkins- sounds like another losing coach... So as I maintain, these teams are not firing coaches AFTER going to the playoffs. Only one of those teams did, the Bucs. The rest of those coaches were fired after bad years. Just like Capers was too. If Kubiak gets his team to the playoffs again and McNair lets him coach another year he'd be doing the same thing all those other teams do.
But they're operating under a completely new paradigm, once they decided to keep Kubiak beyond 5 years and going 6-10 that 5th yr and not making any playoffs yet. They are creating their own model towards SB success. No SB teams gave the coach prior to the SB winning coach 8 years like Kubiak is in now, other than Cowher, whose successes are already covered.
A lot of those coaches that did win superbowls had bad years before even doing so. If you look back it seems about half of them have. If you look at it simply that coaches just aren't usually fired if they are taking their team to the playoffs, then this is nothing abnormal. It's just McNair realizing that there is no shame in losing to the Patriots and Ravens (in a very close game at that). You can say he should have been fired after the 6-10 year, but the circumstances were pretty specific...in that he took a crappy team to a mediocre team after one 6-10 season...then had two 8-8 years that were only good for 4th and 3rd place in the division. It's not like he was having bad years and still getting the time, and yeah he should have had a leash considering the trash heap he was given when he came here, which he turned around very quickly.
I think Gruden would be a good fit if he wanted to coach again... but he'd need a good defensive guy to run that side. Dungy would fit as well... but would need a good offensive guy.
But they all won within 5 years. And a lot of coaches who were fired by SB organizations prior to their SB coach had more or equal success in their 2 to 7 years than Kubiak had. Did Kubiak deserve to get fired after 5 years? The answer to that depends on the model of organization one subscribes to. If the criteria is that the Texans were a unique situation and Kubiak helped make strides in certain areas to bring the Texans forward, then it's arguable that the he deserved to stay. If the criteria is that of one in which every SB winning organization has subscribed to, then yes he did deserve to get fired. SB winning organizations, fairly or not, have had higher standards of accountability than the Texans when it comes to head coach retention. That is what the evidence says to me. Kubiak has gotten a longer leash than Mike Sherman, Jim Fassel, Pete Carroll, Tony Dungy...coaches w/ winning records, playoff wins and division titles, and all predecessors to SB winning coaches. It is arguable that all of them were unfairly fired given their relative success. It is arguable, with merit (as you have argued), that it would be unfair to fire Kubiak. I am just seeing through a different scope. My point is that SB winning organizations have been unfair in this manner and held their coaches to a higher level of accountability when it comes to them keeping their jobs than the Texans have w/ Kubiak. Kubiak would have never had a chance to succeed if he were judged under the same criteria as all the other SB winning organizations. Does this have predictive value? Perhaps. I see it as a combination of the him failing the eye-test and not meeting the SB winning model as to why the Texans won't win with Kubiak as head coach. There are plenty of teams with coaches that make playoffs that keep their coaches and don't win the SB. The Texans are operating in that model. I just don't think it's the best model to follow if winning the SB is the # goal...it might be the best model if other organizational factors are #1, like comfort, profit, winning enough....but to me, that's not my #1 goal. At the end of the year, they need to bring in another HC imo to take the team to the next level while their team talent is still at a SB potential winning level...just my opinion.
That's just not true unless you are counting the first year he coached here. I am not. I doubt McNair counted it. He saw one bad year and gave him a 2nd chance, seems pretty reasonable. But I just disagree here. I don't think those coaches were unfairly fired, maybe dungy...but the rest of those guys had bad years before being fired. That's because that is the norm for the NFL. Making the playoffs is always the goal, it's nice to set your standards high...but it's bad that if you reach the bar right below and then consider that a failure. That would make most of the world compromised of failures. Owners are buisnessmen, they understand you can't be #1 at everything you do...but they also understand that you don't mess with a good thing. Making the playoffs is a good thing, you make a wide sweeping change and you can take steps back and never get back. Besides, most people here would have fired Harbaugh and there was certainly that talk as the Ravens ended their regular season on a downer. The best organization are the Steelers, and most teams try to follow their model. You'll always hear this when they make changes. The browns FO even said this earlier this year. Something to the tune of stability is the key and we are trying to do what the Steelers have done. What the Steelers have done is have 3 coaches in the span of 45 years. Well, depends on how they do does it not? Results should be the factor. If they don't make the playoffs then his job will be up in the air...if they do he'll be bought back.
