Odd. I believe this post was to excuse McNair's decision-making. Yet I just read it as McNair having a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to land a big-named coach given no competition, and decides to keep his money in the bank instead. You know, the same McNair who had an uncapped year to work with, and decided to get rid of their starting CBs instead. It's a shame I have no photoshop skills. Otherwise I'd photoshop this for the Texans Spoiler
I read an interview McNair did with Bloomberg before the season where he said that do to the economic downturn, teams weren't turning profits, Texans included. As such, teams weren't spending big bucks in free agency. Also, because of rules that went along with the uncapped year, fewer players were allowed to become unrestricted free agents, so the crop was smaller. He said that if he raised payroll, he'd have to offset it by raising ticket prices and that he didn't want to do that. Take it for what it's worth.
So if the Texans, the #3 most valuable NFL franchise is not turning a profit, what does that make the Falcons or the Bears? The two teams that have Byes, and spent a ton on FA? I guess this teams that their owners are much more humanitarian than McNair? Because that seems to be the case to me, as they apparently will go deeper into the red in order to bring their fans the joys of winning football. Also, didn't McNair just give Kubiak a fat extension and made Phillips the highest paid DC in the NFL?
That is pure bullcrap. Texans not turning a profit? Yeah sure And as others have said, he raised ticket prices anyway.
It was all posturing, setting up the fight over the CBA. The teams turned a profit. Based on the financial windfall from the television deals and the fact that the Texans sell out it would be almost impossible for them NOT turn to a profit, particularly since they were something like $23 million under the cap the last year there was one.
Cinci, Ten and Miami are bringing back coaches who have recently been to the playoffs. Carolina is hiring a guy who has been a hot name coordinator, same for Minnesota. Dallas is hiring a coordinator that the owner has been fascinated with for years. So really Denver and Oakland are the only two who are possibly going the cheap route, but to be fair Denver WANTED to get Harbaugh, he just spurned them. They are also interested in bringing in John Fox. So REALLY, the only team that might go cheap is Oakland, and the truth is they couldn't get anyone to come that was high profile to begin with and again, the owner is in love with a coordinator. So really what I'm saying is your post defending the Texans is ONCE AGAIN useless and is nothing more than another example of you carrying water for this franchise.
True, forgot that. This idea that the lockout had anything to do with anything is bogus and it actually personally offends me that Ric has taken that hook and is giving the Texans justification.
Like it or not, Ric is right. The 2011 football offseason is going to be marked by teams going conservative with coaching changes (and salaries), a bunch of rookies being drafted (and to a lesser extent, free agents) that have virtually no impact on their new respective teams due to the lack of organized team activities they get to participate in before the season, thus making overspending on these things a real tough pill to swallow for most owners. The teams that have the advantage in 2011 are the ones who 1) kept their coaching cores together and 2) had the least amount of turnover on their roster from 2010 to 2011.
[BSPN Insider] The Texans and Asomugha Anyone have Insider to post this article? http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/feat....go.com/nfl/features/rumors?date=20110112#TOP TIA.
Even if that 2010 coaching core and roster was good for exactly jack diddly ****?? I understand that taking an unmitigated risk on big named free agents CAN be a recipe for disaster when you have no time to get everybody on the same page. But, the things those guys bring to the table are what MAKE them big names in the first place, and that's what will always come in handy. Instinct, experience, talent, and knowledge are all irreplaceable commodities, and when you bring IN a guy like Asomugha, Bailey, Taylor, etc, you're not only getting the player, you're also getting everything he's seen. In a shortened season like the one we're facing, wouldn't you rather go to battle with guys who have seen every scenario possible, rather than guys who are lucky to keep their balance on the field?
McClain, for once, is probably right. The 2011 NFL season is basically going to begin with 2 weeks lead time. That means that if you're bringing in a new HC, you will be severely behind the 8-ball when trying to put a new scheme/team/philosophy together compared to another team, even a dogcrap one, that has had several years in a system. I'm hoping this won't bite Wade in his ass, but I think defenses are more talent dependent than scheme really, so I'm hoping it won't (which doesn't bode well for us if McNair doesn't add some players).
Prove this empirically. After last season there were 3 head coaching changes. After 2009 season there were 11 (2 were retirements, so lets really call it 9) After this season there were 7 head coaching changes. 4 were filled by either a hot shot coordinator or a coordinator that the owner was in love with. (OAK and Dallas) One was filled with an expensive college head coach. That particular coach was sought after by two other teams, one that didn't fire their current coach since they couldn't get him. The Dolphins wanted to fire their coach for Harbaugh AND for Cowher, but didn't want to give team control to Cowher.
