Who are all these teams who went from dumpster to contender in two years or less? The Saints (who were 10-6, 7-9, 9-7, 8-8, and 8-8 before 2005)? The Dolphins (who suck again)? The Jets (you mean the ones who were neck-and-neck with the Texans until the last ten minutes of the season)? The Bengals (4-12, 6-10, 2-14, 8-8, 8-8, 11-5, 8-8, 7-9, 4-11, 10-6)? All those teams had winning seasons recently before their so-called miraculous turnaround. (or in the Bengals case, were consistently mediocre before drafting a decent QB and having a winning season or two.) In fact, looking at the Saints it's obvious that 2005 was an anomaly rather than 2006 a "miracle". The Texans are building. Settle down, people.
They dismantled what was a pretty good defense and put in a bunch of turds, that's how. How could you forget that? It was unfreakingbelieveable. Nope, that 2005 team was every bit as bad as the record attests. Jabbar "brickhands-bugeyes" Gaffney was the freaking #2!! The defense was a national laughingstock. Don't you remember how much of the roster Kubiak and Smith overturned in that one offseason? We were like, "holy crap!" Agreed!
I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to mention the Saints previous rosters because they have had a complete roster transformation. They picked right after us in 2005, got a new coach and all but 6 new players and just won the Superbowl. Stop using the 2005 roster as a crutch. Kubiak is not the first coach to take over a crap team. You don't need a history of winning to win. You just need the right coaches and players (see the expansion teams before us that had immediate success).
In 1996, the New York Jets finished the season 1-19 Think about that for a second: 1-19 Then they hired Bill Parcells, who brought in quarterback Vinny Testaverde. The following year, in '97-98, they finished 9-7. Parcells immediately brought the team from being the worst in the NFL to having a winning record (how many years did that take the Texans?), and they barely missed the playoffs. The year after that, in '98-99, they won the AFC East with a 12-4 regular season record. In two years, Pacells took the team from that miserable 1-19 record to the playoffs with a strong record. (After 8 years, the Texans have still never made the playoffs). Unfortunately, in game 1 of the next season, Testaverde blew his achilles in their first home game and they finished the season 8-8. If you'd have seen them play, you'd have realized that that team was on track to win it all that year. Coaches (and quarterbacks) CAN make that big of a difference (and that quickly, too)!
So every team that hasn't made the superbowl since 2005 is a failure, then? How about the others I mentioned? "Stop using the 2005 roster as a crutch!!" is the new mantra for folks who want to be negative. Feel free to repeat it ad nauseum while the rest of us actually look at a broad spectrum of facts to see what's going on. List the others, pray tell, and how they did. And yes, the Saints *are* relevant. The team had a history of recent success, regardless of how much turnover they had on their roster. Who else, and how long did it take to build? That was the point of my post -- exactly who? You responded with yet another "Kubiak's not the first!" Perhaps it's not unheard of, but cite an example. Correct! Of course, by your comment here I guess you completely missed my point, which was that folks keep clamoring about how common toilet-to-glory stories are in the "win-now" NFL, and I simply can't find any that actually hold water. Care to list any? Oh indeed, let's. Let's also ignore how the NFL had different sets of rules in place for each. Half the story is *always* better than the whole story, especially when the half one leaves out would hurt his argument.
8-8, 4-12, 8-8, 3-13, 1-15 from '91 through '95. A better example than some of the others, for sure. So we now have one.
It's interesting to note that Testaverde and that great runningback, as well as Brees/Colson/their RB (not Bush, the other guy who's actually good) had just as big, and probably greater, impacts towards the quick improvement than the coach. Had we replaced Carr and RB-of-the-week with Brees and whomever, perhaps Kubiak would be the supergenius today?
and it only took one of the greatest coaches of all time. If kubes isn't as good as parcells than he sucks.
What about JJ and the Cowboys? How many years did it take to move from JJ's inaugural season (which was Aikman's rookie 1-15 campaign, no?) to perennial NFC powerhouse?
having several HOFs on your team from the start of their careers certainly helps. Plus trading walker for 5 players and 6 draft picks certainly helped. But yes. Now you've names 2 of the best coaches of all time. I will name the next one for you...Vince lombardi.
But each of those first two had great talent! Aikman and his hall-of-famers won those SBs, not Jimmy Johnson. Testaverde and a fantastic RB--Curtis Martin--turned the Jets around. Lombardi was a bit before my time.
So who would Bill Cowher or Tony Dungy "bring in" to push us to a Super Bowl? Cause we sure as hell ain't replacing Matt Schaub. Not really convinced by any of this that replacing Kubiak is a good idea as things stand now.
Nope. When did I say that? I don't want to be negative. I'm being realistic and honest, and looking at the facts. Saying we haven't seen the postseason because we had such crap to start with is a cop-out, period. There have been at elast 4 examples in this thread of teams that completely overhauled their rosters and coaches in the same timeframe and made the playoffs, or better. I'm not about to dissect every team in league history over a 5 year span. I looked at some of the other teams from the same period that we sucked in, and found some examples of teams that were arguably just as bad as us...that turned it around, even with a whole new roster and coach (the excuses some keep making for the Texans). So stop saying it "can't happen", or using that excuse. Pointing to seasons prior to that is meaningless when the great majority of the roster changed. The point is simple....in a 5 year span the Saints got a new coach, got rid of every player but 6 and completely rebuilt that team. So please stop saying Kubiak can't have had more success because of the hand he was dealt. There have been at least 4-5 listed in this thread. The Saints history, with their departed coach and departed players really isn't relevant since everything changed. We listed 4-5. You just choose to make an excuse to invalidate them, and a shoddy excuse at that (no offense). It just makes no sense to say the Saints success prior to 2005 had anything to do with their current success when they have a new coach and the entire roster is different. The only way that argument holds weight is if you are arguing that they have superior management (i.e. their owner), and I doubt you would make that claim for their owner. Even considering the new rules, the point is if you get the right coach and right players then you can make it happen. The biggest knocks on this team are the players we spend $$ on/draft and the decisions that our coach makes. For example, we spent a lot of $$ on Smith and blew it. The Saints spent little $$ on Sharper and got it right. Their coach knows when to make a challenge and take a risk. Ours doesn't seem to. Those things are difference makers.
Bad teams are bad for a reason. The number one reason is incompetence at the top of the organization and that starts with McNair. He hired those bozos and he stuck with them until it was so obvious a change was needed that a blind man could see it. SO because after 8 years, the team manages to finally crack the .500 barrier, we are supposed to rejoice and celebrate? I don't think so. What we are seeing now is what we should have been seeing in year 3 or 4 of the previous regime but we didn't and that was due to McNair being MIA or simply clueless. If a team owner wants excellence from his team, he has to demand and not just simply hope it comes about. And I'm not talking about empty slogans like that of the Raiders (Commitment To Excellence Ha!) - I'm talking about tangible, concrete actions designed to put a winning product on the field. Now, what I find interesting when discussing the Texans is how so many people can rationalize what they (McNair, Capers & Casserly) did to screw this franchise into the ground. The fact that the NFL is the only game in town - a monopoly - means that no matter what they're cooking, dedicated football fans have to eat it. And I spent decades eating the Bud's bad cooking before he closed shop and opened a new kitchen in Nashville. Bob's a nice guy - he's actually a decent human being which is more than I can say for that a**hole Bud. But he's just as clueless about how to have a winning football team as BA ever was.
well to mcnair's credit, capers and CC were well respected I can't remember, but i doubt people thought that these were "bad" hires at the time...capers had successful experience building a franchise before
smith was pricey, and got off to a slow year but he did play very well down the stretch. Also, texans needed a DE badly. As for safety...they seemed to do pretty well by signing a guy off the street (pollard) that will be around for awhile. But yes, right coach and right players do = win. Maybe we don't have the right coach....we certainly don't have the right players ...yet.
I'm sorry, I really can't follow anything you're saying, and you didn't hardly talk about any of the things I asked you to clarify. But you're entitled to be pissed off for your own reasons, I suppose.
I think 8-8 he stays losing season is fired. This year. .. I think the Texans were easily a 12 win team but inexperience in coaching and players caught up with them Next year. . I think they should be at least an 11 win team Rocket River They have the talent. . they have to put together COMPLETE games
just clarifying. Dude. That's all you ever post -- ever. You don't care whether the glass is half-full, you'll point out that it's defective and it doesn't matter how much liquid is in it. You mean you're being objective. So am I. We can draw different opinions and conclusions from that because we see it differently, and that's fine. Not "period". In your opinion. No, there haven't. The Saints and who? Read: "Let me make my generalizations without any facts to back them up and leave me alone!!!" Who got a whole new roster other than the Saints? And keep in mind, this is the FA era, so roster turnover is no big deal. When did I say that? I asked you to show me. No, it isn't. When the hell did I say that????? Did Payton (is that with an 'a' or an 'e'?) do a better job than Kubiak? Of freaking course he did. Did he have a little bit easier starting point? yes, despite all your denials. but that does not take away from what Payton has done--it's been awesome, and good for the Saints. Horsecrap. And don't say something rude then cop out with "no offense". That is so freaking lame. I looked at the examples in their larger context. What research have you done? I've asked for examples of teams who went from toilet-to-glory in two years or less, and you still provided me with a grand total of ZERO. Sure doesn't. Good thing that's not what I said. Look, if your point is that there are coaches that have done better than Kubiak, well of course there are (duh). My only point is the sudden, miraculous one-year turnaround is so rare it is nearly a myth. And you've done nothing to prove to me otherwise. And for those who have pulled it off: Jimmy Johnson (perhaps), Bill Parcells, and Lombardi -- how many other coaches are there for every "miracle-worker"? Do you fire your coach if he's not the second coming of Vince Lombardi?
Hey if you really like what you have seen these past 7+ years and are seeing from the Kubiak & the Texans now, then by all means be my guest. Myself, I see an NFL version of the Rockets under Carroll Dawson. But I'm not pissed off because that would mean that I have an emotional investment in the Texans which I don't. Had one while growing up with the Oilers but that's been dead a long time now (something about "Buffalo"). It's really very simple: I happen to hold McNair responsible for what has gone down since 2002 because HE was the owner and HE was responsible for the Capers & Casserly Clown Circus. A lot of folks here give him a free pass from blame because without his efforts, there'd be no NFL in Houston. That much is true. But, for a guy who did so many things right in bringing the NFL back, he's done just about everything wrong creating a winning organization. What I take issue with is his invisibility during the years Dom & Dumber were playing Three Stooges with his team. I just feel that a stronger owner - a more assertive owner would not have settled for what went down and that this franchise would be so much farther along in terms of making it. But that's just my opinion - the reality is that one of two possible scenarios will occur: (A) Kubiak tweaks his systems and with along with some good drafting+FA signings, the Texans bust through and make the playoffs in 2010 or (B) They fall victim to their 2010 schedule and stumble back to .500 or below and Kubiak gets the axe. McNair starts over again with coaching hire #3.
