Baldinger: McNair "content with mediocrity"

You can have the same record as another team and still make the playoffs when you mop them in your head-to-head matchup. And they backed it up by getting to the conf final.

 

I am also tired of this "Kubiak had nothing to work with" excuse, so I looked some things up. Kubiak started after the 2005 season, so I used the roster for that season (for other teams) and compared it to the future successful rosters of those teams.

The Saints picked 2nd in the 2006 NFL draft (right after us). They just won the Superbowl, and only have 6 players from their 2005 roster (John Carney, Charles Grant, Devery Henderson, Rodney Leisle, Mike McKenzie and Will Smith).

The Jets picked 4th in the 2006 NFL draft. They just went to the AFC title game, and trounced us head to head (so please save the we have the same record excuse). They also only have 6 players from their 2005 roster (Jerricho Cotchery, Shaun Ellis, Justin Miller, Sione Pouha, Kerry Rhodes and Bryan Thomas).

The Cardinals almost won the Superbowl last year, and they picked 10th in the NFL draft. They have 13 players from their 2005 roster (J.J. Arrington, Bertrand Berry, Elton Brown, Karlos Dansby, Darnell Dockett, Larry Fitzgerald, Aaron Francisco, Eric Green, Nathan Hodel, Chike Okeafor, Antrel Rolle, Antonio Smith and Reggie Wells).

This is just a small sample, but I think it's proof enough to warrant folks to stop using the lame excuse of how bare the cupboard is. The fact is the NFL is a win now league, and quick turnarounds can happen. Not saying they have to happen, but they can....so those saying he has had long enough to show "more" at least are justified for using that argument.

 

No, I was stating facts to show he's mediocre. And, overall, he is. Especially, again, when you consider X's and O's. I've never said he's "crappy". But, really, "amazing"? Jeff Fisher is "amazing"? Hardly. He's mediocre.

 

and i don't think you remember how bad the texans were. If you have time, go compare.

Yes their have been other expansion teams but they actually got off to good starts in terms of talent. (why capers did well there and not here who knows). Go look at their rosters and it's obvious they did much better and getting quality players right off the bat.

i know..they were a unique turd.

I don't get this making excuses claim. Maybe other but not me. I'm just observing the situtation. And I agree, another 8-8 season and there probably should be a change (depending on the injury situation, however). This team did go 9-7 so i'm not sure why you dwell on the other 8-8 seasons.

Well i think that there has been progress and movement in the right direction. And i think Kubes has deserved to come back to see if the texans can get over the hump. I know at the end of the day, people want playoffs of bust, but hell, even good teams can miss the playoffs. What would have happened if NO fired Payton after 2 mediocre years?

 

true, but they were handed a playoff appearance with 2 teams rolling over for them...but give them credit they did back it up in the playoffs. Having an amazing defense and great ground game definitely helps.

 

Another coach would have come in, won a SB off the talent Payton assembled, and been hailed as a "genius"?

 

BIGGEST difference is that Payton made it all the way to the 2006 NFC Championship game in his first year. After the Saints were 3-13 in 2005. That gives a head coach a pass for a little while.

Going 6-10, 8-8, 8-8, and 9-7 isn't quite the same thing.

 

what if the 9-7 gets you to the playoffs?

 

But it didn't for the Texans because they didn't take care of business and lost the head-to-head game with the Jets, amongst other things.

As already mentioned earlier, the Jets were gift wrapped a playoff berth by the Colts and Bengals. BUT they validated it by making it to the AFC championship game.

 

LOL.

OK, by that standard, I, too, was stating facts to show he's good.

 

But what if it HAD? i'm just asking because others have pointed out how 9-7 is mediocre. But is it mediocre because it's only one game over .500 or is it mediocre because it didnt make the playoffs?

Yes, the Jets did. And whose to say the texans wouldnt have either? Crazy things can happen in the playoffs.

 

Exactly.

The Texans played a full 16 games.

The Jets played 14 games with 2 opponents forfeiting.

The Texans were 9-7, the Jets were essentially 7-7.

Based on what the Jets did in the playoffs at 7-7, the Texans "probably would" have done better.

 

That's some odd logic. The 10-6 Bengals lost in the first round, so based on that, the 9-7 Texans would have done worse. Right?

 

By ignoring 4 entire seasons?! That's 25% of his career. The 25% of his career when he was crappy.

You didn't show he was good. You showed he was mediocre.

At least you've lowered your evaluation from "amazing" to "good".

And, again, he's not good. He's mediocre. By ANY standard.

Wha anyone would aspire to be the "Oilers" is beyond me.

 

They weren't handed an appeareance. They earned it in week 1 by beating the next closest team....us. And they proved they belonged by getting to the conf game.

 

so they beat the colts in the regular season...?

 

Awesome! Thanks for proving my point.

He *was* crappy (exactly when he was supposed to be, taking over a terrible team as a rookie HC)... *now* he's good.

You seem to be thinking that he's mediocre, I guess by giving as much weight to his rookie/rebuilding years as to the past 10 years... which to me, is unfair.

 

Just trying to prove a point that you can't assume the Texans couldn't/wouldn't have done what the Jets did in the playoffs.

 

They beat US in the regular season. Our complaining about others laying down for them sounds silly when they mopped us. To make the playoffs you just have to finish ahead of those behind you. Winning head to head matchups is a big part of that.

 

not complaining, they just got fortunate.

But the head to head wouldnt matter if those last 2 teams didnt lay down.