Might not be his primary role, but when he rushes, he goes nowhere with it. He has regressed from his rookie season, big time.
Most above average offensive teams will script the first 1-2 drives... and then adjust based on what the defense does. Texans do their share of checking into a run from a pass (or vice versa) at the line, but if you want Schaub to be all animated, yelling "kill kill kill!!!" and moving guys around based on every defensive set... you'll be disappointed. Haven't seen much data on whether or not audibilizing at the line is as effective as everybody thinks it is. Peyton Manning is the only one who's had any sort of sustained success, when he's clearly somebody who does it more than average. Same for Brady. A lot of the "predictability" of the offense is because its largely an execution based system, and fans who watch this team often are going to remember the plays that didn't work (poor execution), and ignore the plays that did work. True for most teams, and their fans. Additionally, most teams are not going to be making it up as they go along... they don't have 8 sheet playbooks like they do in Madden. They're going to have a few set core plays per set, and adjust them each game based on what the defense is showing.
Peyton is like an OC on the field. Peyton doesn't even need the ear communication to be honest. Asking Schaub to do that would be a disaster.
Sure... but he still relies on execution from the players surrounding him. Needs the O-line to maintain the pocket, needs WR's to block downfield on screens/run plays, needs WR's to know when to zig rather than zag.
I guess I understand why now but I feel like they're too set with whatever they run sometimes that it leads to a negative play at somewhat crucial moments.
Sure... and those are the plays you remember. Yet nobody remembers the plays that actually do work... which they ran throughout the comebacks in the first two weeks... when they largely are the same set ("predictable") plays there as well. I'd venture to guess most team's fan bases who watch a lot of their games would be well in-tune with their team's offenses.
Whether it's predictability or something else, there is a very clear flaw in this offense: scoring. Here are their yardage ranks the last 6 years: 3, 4, 3, 13, 7, 7 Here are their scoring ranks the last 6 years: 17, 10, 9, 10, 8, 15 In 5 of the years, they are worse at scoring than they should be, and in 4 of those, it's by a notable amount. I'm not sure if its predictability or lack of execution or just a conservative style, but when teams have to, they seem to be able to stop the Texans more than the stats indicate they should.
If you're argument is that Schaub/Kubiak don't have the talent to succeed I will strongly disagree. We have double digit pro bowlers on the roster the last couple of years. Now add Nuk and Lechler to the mix. Honestly, there isn't many teams who can say they have more talent then us. Let's look at last year's SB participants. Last year can you say that SF and BAL had more talent then us? How about NE or DEN, more talent then us?
I didn't expect him to have a good year. I'm just using him by the same rules of everyone else in the model. The point is that would have gotten him fired by every other SB winning organization bc that "one bad year" in his 5th year was preceded by 4 years of not making the playoffs. You're missing the point. They're both in the same boat. Are you arguing that Sherman was terrible in his first 5 years given the circumstances? Bc what I'm saying is given the conditions, both Sherman and Kubiak had relative success. They both didn't deserve to get fired bc there are unfair situations as you have pointed out about Kubiak. What I'm saying is I AGREE, if I was like a friend to each coach. Hell, if I was a boss to each coach, depending upon the model I used to manage I would agree too. The point is Sherman got fired. Dungy got fired. Fassel got fired. Carroll got fired. They were all on shorter leashes than Kubiak and they were all relatively successful: winning records, playoffs wins, division titles, and even SB appearances. Those organizations were more impatient than the Texans, and those organizations hired SB winning coaches who won quickly (w/in 5 years) after those firings. I agree again. I'm just saying your Kubiak exceptions are excuses for the model. If the model was different, I'd argue differently. Besides, you view things through such a Texans centric lense. That happened one year and you're using it as the penultimate excuse? In that 2nd year, 2007, Philadelphia was 8-8 and 4th place in their division. In 2008 Philadelphia was 8-8 and 4th, New Orleans was 8-8 and 4th. It's not a freakin unicorn...it happens. Also, why are you measuring the cellar record of a division as the main indicator of the strength of that division? It is an indicator, but not the be all. I'm not saying I would have for sure. I'm just saying SB winning organizations have historically not tolerated Kubiak's coaching record for his first 5 years. Disagree here. You keep modeling after 1 team when your model is based one descriptive stat that doesn't even apply. The methodology of going back 25 years and analyzing the data year-by-year in a painstaking manner. That's why I went back 25 years. I've been viewing the data going backwards and you keep ignoring every SB winning team's coach retention patterns...I'm taking this silly argument seriously here and I think you're just set in stone in your position, picking and choosing misapplied data bc of your bias. And the point extended is next.. Wow, you're completely reaching. I'm saying Cowher's initial run of success bought him stability for his job. They kept him bc he was good, not bc they just wanted to keep the same coach. I'm not saying he should have been fired. All I'm saying is that Cowher is the only exception to the Super Bowl winning coach rule, and if you look at his record from when he started with the Steelers, then you can see why he wasn't fired and given more time: 1st yr - 11-5 division title 2nd yr - 9-7 playoffs 3rd yr - 12-4 division title, AFC championship game 4th yr - 11-5 division title, made the SB 5th yr - 10-6 division title, AFC championship game 6th yr - 11-5 division title, AFC championship game Are you seriously going to arguing that I'm for firing this above? Is that what you've gotten from my writing? If so, then either I'm a terrible communicator or you're not comprehending my argument. And I think you are misunderstanding bc the 5 yr rule, as you already have pointed out, is about Coaches winning the SB w/in their first 5 years. The 2-to-7 year rule is about SB winning organizations firing their coaches w/in that time frame before hiring their next coach who won the SB Cowher didn't get fired after his first 2-7 years with the team bc he was extrodinarily successful. My argument is that Kubiak is not accomplishing anywhere near what Cowher has done early. Now a good situation-specific counter argument is that the clock should start later w/ Kubiak bc the Texans sucked when he got here. If that's your counter-point, then Cowher standard imposed on Kubiak will be that for the next 4 years (including this year) Kubiak should make the playoffs every year, win the division every year but for one, make 2 AFC championship games, and make 1 SB. If Kubiak does that, then that would be an appriopriate comparison between the two if you consider the first 5 years of Kubiak not counting for anything, which means if that's a theoretical model you're applying, the Texans will win the SB a la the Steeler, in yr 14 (+5) of Kubiak, meaning in 2025 or 2024. I don't want to wait that long, even though theoretically, the Texans will be very competitive then. Now I'm sure you're misreading my argument. SB winning organizations hire coaches who win a SB w/in their first 5 years of coaching for that organization. Such a win buys them more time to accumulate more SB wins. This holds true for the last 25 years and I'm not going back further to do more research when the pattern already has shown. And besides, going back more leads to so many more IDV that one can include: different divisions, the era of free agency, different game completely. All I'm saying is Cowher was treated differently, but it's bc he had amazing success to build up his coaching stability. I have. And again, I think you're being fair. I think the next guy the Texans hire would be in a much better position than when Kubiak started. The next guy, according to history, has a much better chance to win the SB in Houston than Kubiak does now. I agree w/ you that it's unfair. I'm just presenting the evidence of what SB winning organizations do. They act unfairly. They are harsh. They have short leashes 2-7 years. And their SB winning coaches win big, win a lot, and win early. Don't you think the next coach in Houston, if starting next year, is expected to win immediately? Again, Houston has already violated the paradigm by keeping Kubiak after that 6-10 season. My argument is that according to NFL standards, if Kubiak makes the playoffs, he won't get fired; however, he should get fired bc his time is too stale in Houston according to the model showing SB winning coaches and the coaches prior to the SB winner, combined with the eye-test of his uncreative offense and stubbornness w/ ST coach and his past stubbornness of sticking to the old DC. I think he should get fired at the end of this year if The Texans don't make some overwhelming strong strides, like minimally the AFC championship game. This is revisit of the last paragraph. I don't want the Texans to act like normally successful NFL teams. I want the organization to run their team modeling SB champs. They failed to do that in retaining Kubiak after year 5 (or year 4, 3 or 2). And according to the evidence, they should probably let him go after this year if that model has any predictive power at all (like what Tampa Bay did to Dungy). And lastly, I'm not arguing that Kubiak can't win a SB eventually. There are two paths to this according to the model. Path 1 is if he continues division titles and playoff success in the next 4 year, then he can stay w/ the Texans and win a SB by 2025. Path 2 is for Kubiak to move on and win w/in 5 years with another team. We'll see what happens. Again, let's see if Cincy, Atlanta, or Houston wins it. Then again, Mike Smith has been pretty damn successful in his first 5 years in Atl (4 playoffs, 2 division titles), so we'll see if that model needs any tweaking.
That wasn't my point. My point is that Peyton Manning isn't doing it all on his own... he needs the same team-wide execution that Schaub needs for his offense to click. Sure, he does a better job of making less mistakes, recognizing defensive patterns DURING games, and is a more talented decision maker of where to throw the ball to... he's amazing. But, like all QB's in this league, he doesn't do it on his own.
They're certainly not guilty of "running up the score" on teams when they are up. That's the conservative style. Their defense is also one of the worst scoring defenses (and worst at forcing turnovers regardless). Not even going to begin to start with special teams. The offense also took a severe dive after 10 games in 2011 (Schaub injury). They were possibly on their way to a top 5 scoring season to that point. Red zone execution has improved... but its also worth noting that the Texans don't get many scores OUTSIDE the red zone (ie - no deep passes/long runs). Overall, you have a valid point.
I agree on that point. For me, the frustrating part is this is probably the greatest collection of talent a Houston football team has had since the Pardee/Gilbride/Eddy/Ryan teams of the early 90's. I don't want Bob McNair to waste this generation of players on Kubes and Schaub. I hope Kubes and Schaub prove me wrong THIS year.
I don't disagree with any of this. If he doesn't make the playoffs then he'll be due to get fired. I mean even himself he has set the bar pretty high for this team. With that said figuring in his last two seasons It's kind of silly to be talking about whether he should be fired week 3 or not. But especially if they win the division again he should keep the job, moreso because he'd be actually winning a what seems (still too early to tell) to be a tough division this time.
Sure... but this talent didn't just come out of the sky. A lot of it is based on Kubiak's schemes, talent evaluation, drafting prowress, and ability to develop QB's. Guys like Owen Daniels, Arian Foster, Chris Myers, and Matt Schaub may not be multi- pro bowlers elsewhere. Only talent that was here before Kubiak was Andre Johnson. Now, if you want to talk about wasted talent... you could go back to the Moon era, where the run and shoot was run exclusively... and led to things like 32 point comebacks, Moon being sacked 5-6 times/game, a talented running game used only as a "change up", and defenses that were usually gassed due to the offenses' inability to run clock (hence Buddy Ryan punching people).
I guess the difference here is that you are counting the years he had to turn the team around and I'm not. Again though, they were fired after BAD seasons. Except for Dungy, all of those guys were fired after bad seasons. What other indicators of strength of a division do we have besides win-loss record? That's pretty much the main thing. Also yes it happens and when it does it's usually not considered a failure. It means your team played in a tough as nails division then and if you had a few more breaks you would have made the playoffs. I'm not counting the first year at all, I guess that's the difference. If you simply don't count that first year then his 5th year is the year they go 10-6 had a GREAT team that was wrecked with injuries and with a 3rd string QB still managed to almost beat Baltimore. I also doubt McNair put much stock into those early years, it was well known I think then that Kubiak had a little leash because he was taking over a horrible team. What are you disagreeing with? The Steelers ARE the most successful franchise in the NFL and must be the best organization unless you're counting...I don't know what else we'd be counting except for wins. It's also true that these teams do not fire coaches taking their teams to the playoffs. They fire them after bad years. Yes because... If it is as simple as "You win the superbowl in 5 years or you are out" then he would have been fired. Again I'm not counting Kubiak's first year and even you say it's not fair to count it so why are we counting it? But you're looking at this WAY too mechanically. The clock starts later with Kubiak...but then you don't say "Well now he should accomplish what Cowher does, playoffs every year, make 2 AFCCG, etc..." like it's a checklist. No, Kubiak will make his own history no matter if it's good or bad. Or that under this model that Kubiak will then win the superbowl 2025 or 2024... There is no model, it's as simple as him making the playoffs and maintaining success here. The guy could be the next Knoll, win 4 superbowls and coach here for 15+ years...or he could be the next Reid and never win a superbowl but continues to be good enough to keep the job...or he could be somewhere in between. The point is, you can't fire him if his team is making the playoffs. So if you start the clock later on Kubiak as one should I feel, then how can you fire him? You're right, the eras change things...but it still does not change the way a coach can adapt and learn from his mistakes. Learn how to deal with certain things. You never know, Kubiak could fire Joe after this week and look at things completely differently from now on. Any ways I'm not saying we should all blindly hope that this will happen. I don't think he will as he's loyal to a fault to his guys he has shown...but him making the playoffs last year buys him this entire year at least I think we would all agree on that. As interim coaches are usually a waste of time anyways. He would be expected to win early yes because of the team he's inherited. At the same time though these teams are not firing coaches who take their teams to the playoffs. Which I guess is my point. If you look at it through that lens you'll see that the 5th year Kubiak would have made the playoffs and has done so twice now so that would move him into the can't be fired range. You could say he should have after the 6-10 year...but if McNair is looking at it this is what he's going to see. 6-10...ehh he had to take over a pretty bad team. 8-8...man we played in a tough division, if only we had a break this game or that one we'd be in the playoffs. 8-8...^ 6-10...this was a bad year. **** happens, if he has another he's gone. And remember there was that pressure put on him going into the 10-6 season. Even ESPN had him on the hot-seat and McNair said some vague things about everyone's job would have to be looked over. Problem is for the anti-kubiak guys is he had a 10-6 season that was wrecked by injuries and still almost beat a good team on a 3rd string QB. The fire Kubiak thing wouldn't show up in Houston Media until they lost embarrassingly to the Pats and Packers because they actually looked great to start the season last year. I just don't see it that way, or that there is this 5 years that coaches should be judged on. I'm just looking at all the circumstances and I see a guy who took the Bobcats of the NFL and made them the Jazz (don't hate me.) a respectable franchise that is searching for that success. Because not even these teams give bad coaches 5 years, you have two losing seasons in the NFL you're job is on the line or you or out. The key for Kubiak keeping his job is making the playoffs. Which isn't a easy task in the NFL in the first place. Path 1 could include more than one superbowl and come in any other year than 2025. Path 2 is actually worse for the Texans because it's like trading that top 5 pick in the NBA in his 2nd year. You never know if you'll find a coach as good as Kubiak again like the Chargers or the Jags...
To your point about firing a coach after a bad season. My whole point was, those coaches didn't get more time to come back with a good season. Kubiak could have been fired after year 2, 3, 4 or 5. SB winning teams have fired their prior coaches after year 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 7....so it happens. I guess only time will tell. Judging each coach by their own circumstance is fair, but I think many coaches who don't meet expectations encounter unfair circumstances all the time. This model isn't scientific rule, but I think it has predictive value. It's not impossible for Kubiak or Marvin Lewis or Mike Smith to win the SB with their current teams. I'm just saying history is against them, and I'd be betting against it As for going to the next guy, it's true that the unknown is potentially worse, but at the same time, if evidence is pointing to the known as most likely not going to win the SB, then I'm all for making a change. And to clarify one last thing. The rule of firing is you have 2-7 years to show extreme success, then you're fired if you don't. The 5 year rule is everyone one wins the SB w/in 5 years of his new team except for Cowher. They are two separate things. The Texans have violated both and who know if they brought in someone else after that 6-10 season if that would have been better or worse for now? We don't know. And with the Kubiak Cowher comparision, let's say the first 5 years don't count, which I disagree with, but I see merit behind that argument of bringing the Texans to a new level of success. If that's the case, then let's hold Kubiak to the same standards of every SB winning organizations starting at year 6 (two years ago). I disagree with this method, but it seems like that's how you and the Texans are doing things. I really hope they make history. But again, I disagree with the premise that it takes 5 years from bringing a bad team to a quality team. He didn't make any sort of great unequaled success gains there. Stop comparing basketball to football. Bad teams get good in football in less than 5 years.
I never said the first 5 years didn't count. I gave him the first year only, so I'm not arguing for ANY coach to get 5 years for free. I said the first year he gets off considering the team he took over. The other two years were 8-8 which are good or bad depending on who you are talking to. That would make his 5th year the 10-6 year and following the method that those teams don't fire coaches who... *Have a single bad year *Make the playoffs Then just not counting the first year Kubiak falls under the same umbrella of standards all those other teams have had. It also took Kubiak one year to take a bad team to a quality team.
