The Jets (only 6 players from 2005, new QB, new coach) and the Cardinals (13 players from their 2005 roster, so 75% of the roster changed...and a new coach and new QB). Plus the Saints and that's 3. And I believe someone else mentioned the Parcells Jet's (although I haven't looked at their roster). So that's 4 teams. That's a fact, not a generalization. I gave a brief list of teams that made a quick turnaround. You choose to dismiss them for a very silly reason (the reason is silly, not you). I've given examples. It can happen. I'm not about to go through the annals of NFL history trying to find more exmples for you, especially when you can't find a legit reason to knock the limited ones I gave off the top of my head. The Saints are a clear as day example, and you are trying to argue that their pre 2005 success had something to do with their success today when only 6 players remain. I mentioned the Cardinals and Jets, and you still are asking me to show other examples besides the Saints (they were all listed in the same post). Then please explain how it isn't. If the entire team and coach is different, then how is one connected to the other, outside of management. Are you really going to argue that the Saints, Jets or Cardinals had a history of good management and winning? For example, if the Lakers had an off year and then got good again with everything else new besides management...well we know they are committed to winning. The same goes for the Yankees, Cowboys and even our Rockets. But the teams I mentioned? How exactly was his starting point easier? His team drafted right behind us. He cleaned house just like Kubiak did. He replaced the entire roster. I never said I was giving examples of teams going from toilet to glory in two years or less. Kubiak has been here since 2005. That's plenty of time to turn a team around, and make the playoffs, even if you have to change the majority of the roster. 3 other teams from the same draft managed to do this. Two of them managed to make super bowls. I am going to go on a limb and say when 75% of your roster changes, then you have done a massive roster overhaul. My point is it's silly to say he couldn't have turned things around by now because of the hand he was dealt. Other teams that were just as bad have flipped things in the same amount of time, with completely different teams. You surely don't give him an extension when he hasn't done much winning. We are stuck on mediocore. I can maybe see extending someone when their contract is up, but not with a year left.
If that was the case, I have no problem with that. As I said, the excuse is weak in 2009 and shouldn't even be brought up in 2010 (if things go poorly). But that's not what we are discussing. Essentially, this: When I said we shouldn't use that excuse anymore. That's what I don't agree with. See above. I'm not the one hanging onto 2005. That's exactly what I don't want.
I think his point is comparing the Houston as an expansion team to the success the expansion teams shortly before the Texans came into existence is greatly flawed because the rules for all the new expansion team including the Texans is quite a bit different making it harder for expansion teams to experience immediate success like some of the recent examples prior to the Texans.
Unless you are trying to fill vacant coaching positions. I imagine it's much easier to get the coaches you want in those positions if they feel like they might have some security rather than thinking the head coach is going to be gone at the end of the next season and they will be right out of work again. You might get some coaches to go to a place like that, but probably not the ones you want. Plus, there might be a work stoppage after next year. Not that the extension is really that big of a deal, if he does a bad job he can still be fired...... big deal.
But I'm not only comparing them to expansion teams. An expansion team can add all new players and have success. The rules have changed to prevent this (for expansion teams). Other teams just as bad as us turned over their entire roster and coaching staff and have had playoff success in the same amount of time Kubiak has been here, so it's silly to use that as a crutch. The general point is if you have the right coaches in place and get the right players, a quick turnaround is possible. Saying we started with garbage a full 5 years ago is not a good excuse. So did the team that just won the Super Bowl, and one of the other teams that just went to the conference game.
I think this specific part was the issue. You are correct that there were expansion teams before the Texans that had immediate success, but they played by a different set of rules that made immediate success much more attainable. During the Texans expansion, they had different rules which prevents that from happening as easily.
Oh, and I do agree that our team is progressing slowly compared to some other teams, but it IS still progressing, and granting an extension to Kubiak isn't a bad thing AS LONG AS McNair is willing to fire him after this season if the team doesn't get any better or gets worse. Make the playoffs, win more games, or get canned. Honestly, I think he should have been allowed to play out the final year of his contract, and as long as he suffers the consequences of not progressing next season, then who cares if he got a two year extension?
So we're comparing the texans to the cardinals? without surrounding them with the rams, seahawks, and 49ers? The Texans would win the division playing each of those teams twice. And what is mediocrity? If we're the 2008 patriots with a record of 11-5 but miss the playoffs because an 8-8 chargers team got in...are we still mediocre? The Jets and the ravens all lost games they should have won. They weren't more deserving than us, but they got in..good for them. It happens. The fact is, we finally have a football team that can compete and defeat any team in the league. This team is ready for showtime. My only problem is that they resigned kubiak before resigning some of our great players. Yeah, i get it..no negotiations during the season.=/
The previous expansion teams were only mentioned to highlight how a team can have immediate success by adding the right players and coaches. Again, other teams like the Saints have had a complete overhaul in the same time frame and won a title. The point of both examples is to highlight that if you have the right coach and pick the right players, you can change things quickly in the NFL. Saying we had crap to start with 5 years ago is an excuse. So did other teams.
Its just frustrating as a Texans fan to see Miami go from 1-15 to the playoffs the next season, The Falcons go 4-12 coach quit midseason and qb legal issues and they go 11-5 into the postseason the next year and The Saints play in 3 different home stadiums in 2005 win only 3 games and the next season they are in the conference championship. If we're not in the playoffs in 2010 then its time for a change. No excuses. Wex and Matt J hit the nail on the head when they said McNair is insane for comparing Kubiak to Bill Cowher. Cowher went to the postseason his first 6 seasons I believe.
Finally. Of course, this isn't what my original point was, but I'll grant you this list. However, I think you make too much out of turnover. How many teams that didn't make the playoffs have had just as much turnover? How much turnover have the Colts and Patriots had? In other words, everything beyond the top 22 is interchangeable bit pieces. And there is plenty of flux in the top 22 because this is the FA era. I would hazard a guess that every NFL team has had at least a 50% turnover, if not higher, in the same time frame. In other words, this whole standard you've laid out here is a scarecrow as far as I'm concerned. I already granted you that Payton has (of course) done a better job than Kubiak. That simply wasn't my point. It's your opinion, and it's a generalization. Although you have finally, finally provided some examples to give your opinion some weight. Hold on here, please see below... And here is the gap in our discussion. Can teams go from 2-14 to better than 9-7 in four years? Certainly. Have organizations done better than the Texans the last four years? Of course (but less than half the NFL). My question when I popped in here was: "where are all these teams that turned it around in two years or less?" because that is the standard many have measured Kubiak against -- pointing to, for example, the Dolphins, who went from 1-15 to the playoffs (while ignoring the rest of the context), or the Saints who went from 3-13 to the NFC title game (when there was *not* a 80% turnover on that roster, the team had enjoyed recent success, and they added Drew Freaking Brees). But seriously, you were arguing that Kubes has had four years and could have done better (although he didn't do poorly), and I missed it; I remained focused on my original question (toilet-to-glory in two years or less). My bad. If this whole time your point has been: ...then I won't argue except to ask if the other 28 teams are failures? And I'll go out on the opposite limb and submit that perhaps a 75% overhaul over four years is not that uncommon in the free agency era. But based on the teams you listed, if he did then he is an incredibly elite coach. I wish we had one of those. But at least we have a good one. I wasn't sure about the extension, either. Now, some have made excellent points about the business nature of it -- the whole bit about the possible work stoppage, etc., and also it would cost less to cut Kubiak loose with two years left than to try to lock him up if he wins 12 games... Those points make sense to me, and while I wouldn't argue them as "truth" I certainly wouldn't go the other route and scream that McNair is "content with mediocrity". That is equally silly.
Precisely. Each and every example provided, isolated out of its own context, looks stronger than it really is. But don't look at context, because that's "silly".
true, but those were one year flukes. Miami and the Falcons both missed the playoffs this year. Personally, i'd rather have a sustainable good team than a one year fluke to make the playoffs. as for the saints, there were never as bad as the 3 wins for various reasons but especially the one you mentioned. Whose comparing kubes to cowher?
After 8 years of nothing I wouldnt mind a fluke year. But Matt Thompson (whoever that is) asked McNair about Kubiaks deal and McNair said "well Cowher didnt really do much when he first came in the league". Thats why the callers and Wex said Cowher went to the postseason his first 6yrs and its crazy to compare Kubiak to him.
Please stop saying finally, as I posted my list around page 4 of this thread. When I made that post it wasn't in response to any point you made (since you mention your original point). My point was saying he had crap to start with isn't a valid excuse, because so did some other teams. And you are right that 50% of a roster can change every year, but the Jets and Saints only have 6 players from that team. The Cardinals only had 13. And there has been a QB change in all 3 of those teams, unlike the Patriots or Saints...and I doubt 75% of their roster has been overhauled. All 28 other teams aren't missing the postseason. I do think the Texans and their players considered missing the postseason this year a failure. If it's not uncommon, then that doesn't exactly give validity to the "look at the crap he inherited" excuse. If anything, it would show you can have a quick turnarond with the right coaches and acquired players. I don't think Rex Ryan has proved to be an elite coach. This was his first season.
sweet jesus. stop going round and round if none of y'all are not going to change your opinions or at least come to a common ground. 1) texans have improved and only slightly missed the playoffs due to unkind circumstances. 2) yes, some teams have had quick turn around to get to the super bowl. since the cards and saints keep getting used that is 2 teams in 3 years. Texans clearly didnt fall into that 2% category. 3) if a failure is not making the playoffs to you then this year was a failure. If reaching the playoffs was a goal, then the goal was not attained...however failure is a harsh term. It's hard to call the best season for the texans ever a failure. 4) no one is excusing not making the playoffs this year because of 2005. All the 2005 "excuse" (if you want to call it that) simply indicated that Kubes got a break the first couple years for rebuilding which would lead to 2 seasons where he can be judged without exceptions. He went 17-15. NOt world beating, but harldy bad (especially given injuries). 5) Are texans fans frustrated and want some success? of course, however a little realism is called for, i.e. yes some teams have quick turn arounds but by and large those are exceptions and rare circumstances. 6) It could always be worse so be grateful for at least being in contention this past year...afterall, we could be Detroit fans
I am so sick of people saying how good the Jets are.....the only freakin reason they were not 7-9 was because two teams who had already made the playoffs LAID DOWN and gave them 2 victories....Tired of hearing about Rex Ryan and how great of a coach he is, that team was 9-7 the year before and already had a great running game and defense before he got there. So what was so great about his coaching.....
The last three years the Texans have finished their season strong, either against teams coasting into the playoffs or playing out the string. Without the help, the Texans would have had three losing seasons and ftm a new coach by now. My point is that the Texans as well as the Jets have benefitted from easy end of season games.
