The 'look how bad the team was five years ago!' excuse needs to go away. Now. However, I don't think McNair is 'content with mediocrity'. I think he just is extra loyal and wants to believe that his guys in place can get it done. The problem might be that he's too eager to 'wait it out' (see: David Carr) and might be loyal to a fault. Hopefully he's right and his guys can get it done.
Why? it's true. And when you have no talent due to horrible personnel decisions, it takes time to get good...and now they are finally getting there
The avg lifespan of most nfl players is like 3 or 4 years. Every year a team goes from like 4-5 wins to 10+. I think what baldinger said is not fair, but giving kub's an extension was premature.
If you think it was premature that's fine but the benefits of extending him now have been laid out and at the end of the day, I think pros outweigh the cons. Fact is, if he fails he's gone no matter what the contract says. well maybe but teams that win 4-5 games still have some talent...it could have just been a down year due to whatever reasons. Those teams that explode for one year are also the ones that fall on their face again the next year. A big one year doesn't mean they have a solid organization built for years to come...it just means they have a good year. ALso, as for the lifespan of average players...average players aren't going to get you to the playoffs. At the end of the day, are the texans been improving under Kubiak? I think the answer is unquestionable, yes.
How long did it take for the Titans to get good again? What about NO? Or the Jets? Or the Packers? Those are the teams that drafted #2-5 in the year the Texans drafted #1. You want to check how they did since that draft? What's really ironic is that of the top 5 picks that year, our pick actually turned out to be the best. Yet somehow we're still so much behind them in the total talent department for these past few years. At least if you judge talent by win totals.
In comparison to the Titans and Saints, the most useful info would be to see how many players are still on the roster for each team from the 2005 season. If all the teams replaced 50 players, then the Texans are behind the curve. If the Texans replaced a lot more players, then it suggests the Jets/Titans had more usable talent already in place.
Titans have had some rebuilding years, but again, they were never as talent depleted as the texans...plus, they do have an amazing coach. NO has been hovering around the .500 mark fince 2000. Jets had the same record as the texans! Plus, they are 3 years removed from a 10 win year. The following year they fell apart but rebounded with 2 9-7 years (mostly due to fortunate timing with teams resting starters). Pakcers are 1 year removed from a 13 win year. But again, NONE of those teams were ever as talent depleted as the texans were after their 2-14 year. Every position was a "need". So, even though the texans have had some luck with the draft the last few years, they had to fill much more spots than the other teams.
They do?! He's got all of 6 winning seasons in a 16 year career. I'm not saying he sucks, but as an X's and O's guy, he defines mediocrity. If he weren't such a great motivator, he'd have been gone long ago. Recently, somebody on this site railed against looking at the "Oilers" as a franchise to emulate. I'd suggest the same when looking at Jeff Fisher.
15 year career, since counting 1994 is kind of disingenuous since he took over with 5 games left in the year. And if we want to play with statistics, you could also say: Jeff Fisher has only posted 4 losing seasons in 15 years. And Ever since his 4th season (exactly where Kubiak is now, remarkably similar circumstances... both rookie coaches who took over 2-14 teams to start their careers and posted .500ish records their first few years at the helm) Fisher has been to playoffs 6 of the those 11 years and he is also 104-72 in that same tenure.
I'm surprise some people are bashing the Texans with their first winning record in franchise history. Sure they miss the playoffs by one game and there were 3 or 4 games that they let slip through their fingers, but they are improving. Lets wait until next year if they miss the playoffs to bash them. And the comment about McNair content with mediocrity is bull. He ain't the Astros owner.
You were doing so well!!!!! But then... aaaah, FAIL. Has he done it wrong? Sure. But "content with mediocrity" is an idiotic accusation of pretty much any owner beyond the Clippers's of the world.
Because it's weak, for many of the reasons the guys above pointed out. Lots of teams have turned around in less time. Lots of teams have horrible talent and crappy squads. The idea that the Texans were in some sort of rare position that is unique to the entire NFL and therefore we should get a pass doesn't fly. It's an excuse, and one that we cling to to justify average season after average season. How many teams in the NFL are using what they looked like 5 years ago as a crutch for their performance in 2009?
So, 6 winning seasons, 4 losing seasons, 5 .500 seasons. Um, pretty much the definition of mediocre. How does any coach look when you remove 4 crappy years from their resume? Overall, he's been mediocre. Especially when you consider X's and O's. However, he's a TREMENDOUS motivator.
yes, and i responded to each in detail. Yes, they were in rare position. excuse or reason...whatever you want to call it. I'm not saying texans fans should be happy about 2 8-8 seasons but it sure as hell beat 2-14. And 9-7 isnt average...THEY HAVE IMPROVED. bottom line. I don't see why people are so up in arms. the Lions How many teams were a new franchise? Like it it not, Texans have been in a very unique situation during their tenure. Hell, if you think about it, Kubiak and company havent had to rebuild. They have had to build first because nothing was there before
You make it sound like they're on a ten-year run of averageness. They've only been average three years. Before that, they were abysmal. This team looks every bit like it's heading the right direction. People wring their hands and moan while comparing this team to the Saints or the Jets or the Dolphins -- the Dolphins were a one-year fluke, the Jets didn't finish nearly as strongly as they started, and the Saints were *not* as bad as that 3-13 year. If you want to draw comparisons, draw *all* of the comparisons. Yes, the Saints and at least ten other franchises are currently doing better. How many franchises are doing *worse*? Do we want the Texans to be the very, very best? Of course! But to act like they're the Lions or Raiders because they're two games over .500 the last three years is just silly.
Exactly, i can understand someone not liking the decision but to be all up in arms about it with disgust is just ridiculous.
To say that McNair is content with mediocrity is not so much a statement of fact but more so an expression of a growing impatience with his inability to put together a winning organization. Look, I actually LIKE McNair. As a Houston native who grew up with the total embarassment that was the Houston Oilers when you compare him to that POS Bud Adams, he's actually a decent human being. But all he's been able to show so far is that he's as clueless as Adams in getting it right. As I posted before, McNair did nearly everything right in bringing an NFL team back to Houston and for that he is to be commended. BUT, his hire of Capers & Casserly and his sticking with them for so long when faced with clear evidence of their incompetence has done nothing but revisit the Houston Oiler experience. And I'm not referring to the Luv Ya Blue years here. As such, it is certainly understandable to me why some long suffering Houston football fans are at the limits of their patience with this team and its management.
It's also disingenuous when you say any "4 crappy years", its not just cherry picking, its taking the "building" years out from their resume. Not to mention the years that a rookie head coach would spend learning the ropes of how to actually *be* a head coach. You were playing with statistics to make Fisher look crappy, so I did the same to show the opposite.
And before that, they were, what, 7-9? You and I are talking about the same thing, which is: Exactly my point. Teams face highs and lows all the time. Some people are making the excuse as though the Texans are the only team to have to rebuild from being horrible. That's just laughable. I am not lamenting some long history of losing. In fact, that's the very thing I am wanting to avoid. I also believe that they could be improving. I simply said that the 'oh we were so bad five years ago though' excuse is a copout and needs to end - especially once we are into the 2010 season. Trying to blame five seasons ago is a crutch, and not something 'good' teams will do. Lots of teams have been through bad times, lots of teams have been horrible and get better, lots of teams have been horrible and stay horrible for a long time. Those are usually the teams that make excuses like that. I don't want the Texans to be one of those teams...though it seems some fans are willing to take that chance. And I don't think you really remember some of the rosters for those bad teams. No, they weren't. There have been other expansion teams. There have been other 2-14 teams. There have been other horrible rosters. The Texans are not a beautiful snowflake. I'm not up in arms, just amazed how far people are willing to go to make excuses. I don't think it's such a controversial statement to say that if, God forbid, another 8-8 season happens it might be a good idea to make a change. And yet it seems like some of you are still leaving open the chance to say 'aww, let's go another year' if that happens, and the 2005 season will be trotted out again. That's crazy. Even after 4 years of rebuilding, using that excuse is tenuous at best. In 2010, it will be completely ridiculous.
