Claim: The Texans Have an Elite Offense

Id venture to say that every offense in the NFL could use upgrading somewhere, but lets not act like our offense isnt at least top 10 in the NFL. We could not make one improvement on the offensive side of the ball this offseason and we'd still be more than okay.

 

Offense is top 5 in talent but only top 10-15 in coaching/gameplan. They could take the same players with someone calling the plays who could come up with a solid gameplan and make some decent playcalls and make major improvements next season.

 

But the Texans also had no running game last year... Both TOs and the ability to score TDs in the red zone factor greatly in yardsoints ratio.

Texans has always had pieces, they just never seem to come together to click in the same year. This year's offense with last year's defense would be a 10-6 team IMO. But Foster and the running game's resurgence coincided with our worst defense ever.

 

I understand your position, but when you say things like this:

When you absolutely, positively HAVE to overhaul your defensive approach, scheme and personnel, it makes sense to not use up resources trying to also “fix” an offense that isn’t even remotely near as broken.

That's not a "given that they're keeping Kubiak, a good DC is a reasonable option" argument. That's saying that it is a better option to keep Kubiak so you don't have to spend resources fixing the offense than it is to get rid of him and have to fix the offense.

 

He probably goes through his old year books and Facebook/Match.com photos to see which one of his childhood bff's, past aquitances, his own "Turtle's and Drama's and E's" he can hire next to work on the coaching staff

 

Look, Ric defends the organization decisions consistently. That's not going to change. It will be better if we all learn to think of him as Bob's godson.

 

This is the key to me. The excuses that are being/have been used by Ric, Bob McNair, the Houston media members like John McClain, etc. are so pathetic. You would think the Houston Texans were in some sort of unique situation that no team has faced before.

Let's call a spade a spade. 5 years in this coach has had one winning season and regressed after it to 6-10. He was lucky to even get to 6-10, benefiting from getting wins against 3 backup quarterbacks.

He's being given another year because the owner likes him personally/and or is not willing to spend money on another head coach. The rest of the excuses are just lame excuses that could be used to keep almost any coach in history from being fired, but somehow all of those other franchises braved the great unknown and boldly fired unsuccessful coaches. Shockingly, none of them fell into the abyss, never to be seen again.

 

I have never heard once that McNair say that he was not willing to spend money on another head coach. Link?

 

Or Foster could have fumbled the ball and the Ravens D walked it in.

 

Or an asteroid could have fallen from the sky and obliterated everyone.

 

It was 4.5 years, actually, and in the interim, after their 2-14 season, the Oilers/Titans finished went 7-9, 8-8, 8-8 and 8-8.

It’s not easy to transition from one extreme to another.

Books don't start with chapter 2, ima. For once, it'd be nice if, when/while the offense was ineffective, the defense was effective. So that when the offense inevitably does turn it on (as they did in very nearly every game this year), they're not down 21-0.

Do we really want to start divvying up blame for losses this year? How about we list the number of games where the defensive play/playcalling *won* the game for us. It's a REALLY short list.

Look, *every* team has an off-quarter, half and/or game. The Patriots lost this year to the Browns, for heaven’s sake. The offense will sputter, the defense will sputter; the coach will make a poor decision, the players will make a critical mistake. Obviously, we’re more hyper-focused on the Texans – but it’s not uncommon. Ask an Eagle fan about Andy Reid – he drives them CRAZY and all the guy does is post 10+ wins every year.

But when you have a part of your team that is reliable only in how completely unreliable it is, those failed 3rd-and-1s, those scoreless halves, those pick 6s are exasperated because we really and truly only have one means to win: And that is to outscore our opponent. It’s all on the offense. The defense is not going to shut a team down and give the offense a week off. (Unless the opponent is starting a 3rd string, 6th round pick. I mean, even a Garrard- and MJD-less Jacksonville hung 17 on the Texans in the first half.)

We are playing with one arm tied behind our backs. I’m not claiming the offense doesn’t share in some of the blame; I just think the defense was so historically bad that it seeped into every phase of the game.

 

You've taken what I said out of context. We weren't discussing the decision but rather Kubiak's importance to the offense and whether it could thrive in his absence. If you'll note, in the preceding paragraph, I posted: ”I think the more accurate assessment is that his *system* is important.”

That doesn’t mean *Kubiak* is important. But you’ve assembled personnel specifically to run his system. Potentially flushing that out creates an additional need to restock offensive personnel, etc., in the face of absolutely having to do the same on the defensive side of the ball.

We can go ‘round and ‘round on how long it would take to build a new system; but it’s undeniably easier to rebuild half your roster than your entire roster.

That doesn't mean keep Kubiak so much as keep the system.

 

I’m somewhat flabbergasted how black and white this is to so many people. Is there never a flip side?

What’s wrong with trying to understand the team’s perspective and reevaluating whether their thinking has any merit? Here's the issue, IMO: Everyone looks at this from *their* own perspective; what they would do. And that then dictates their response. I see the same thing happen every April – when the team doesn’t draft the player the fan knows/wants, then the draft is bust, “I’m never watching this team again!” etc.

I would have fired Gary Kubiak. With absolutely, positively no conditions. I think they’re making a bad decision. But does that mean it has to be a wholly bad decision? There’s no space for reasonable discourse? It’s all or none? It’s not possible that, while he has absolutely failed as a whole, that he might have had success in parts?

I just don’t react with that much bluster/hatred/anger/passion – whatever. That doesn’t mean I’m defending the decision. But no amount of whining about it is going to change it. So where do we go from here?

Let me ask you this: Do you consider Wade Phillips an upgrade over Frank Bush? Do you agree, over the course of the past two years, that the offense has consistently been the best thing about this team and that, more often than not, above average and effective? Can they win with Schaub, Foster, Johnson, Daniels? Can they win with this system?

I think the answer to those questions are "yes." I think most people would answer "yes." So while it wouldn't be my course of action, *their* course of action is not completely merit-less. IMO, of course. I'm not going to let my frustration over Kubiak blind me to whether their changes might work.

I heard on the radio the other day a caller rant and rave about how they weren't making any changes. And Rich Lord jumped in and sais, "Whoa - they're absolutely making changes!" Bingo. Are they the changes *you* would have made? Likely not. But that doesn't mean they haven't made changes.

I agree. But let me flip it: Were they also not *un*lucky to lose three games on last-second heroics at the feet of an historically bad defense?

That’s not me defending the team - I’m firmly in the “You are what your record says you are” camp – but me simply trying to balance out your frustration. You can’t ying without yang. You’re not wrong; but neither am I - can we meet in the middle?

I think - *think* - the lockout is looming over everything, and not just in Houston. Long way to go but it’s looking more and more like the big-name, expensive coaches are going to remain on the sideline this offseason.

If I had McNair’s money, maybe I’d think differently. Maybe I’d be writing checks left and right. I don’t know. But I *understand* how the lockout might be altering perspectives and plans. There is absolutely merit in discussing the cost issue – doesn’t mean you have to agree; but you can’t pretend it’s not a stumbling block, IMO. And I think there’s absolutely additional merit in considering how long the lockout might last and how that might impact a new staff. Is the team better with amended status quo or a new direction, given the coaching staff might not have access to its players for months on end? Would the team be better off setting its sights on 2012?

IMO, I think this is what they're doing. They'll give Kubiak one more chance - not because he earned it but because, for right now, it's the easier of two roads (in their opinion). If they're anything less than 10-6 and/or in the playoffs next year, I think they'll blow the whole thing to smithereens.

 

Ric -

you said you believed x's and o's weren't the problem. that talent was the problem. you said that quite a few times during the season.

if you were/are right. and if that's the case... they can bring in all the defensive coordinators they want...but as long as kubiak and smith are calling the shots on draft day, nothing is going to change.

so was there a change (like rich lord said)? sure. there was A change. but THE changes that needed to happen did not happen.

that's why it's black and white to me.

and again...i'm confused by your takes...because for so long you told us bringing in a new coach, particularly Cowher, would mean bringing in a 3-4, potentially...and that we weren't built for that. and that there would be years of building to account for that. now...it appears we're bringing in someone who will be bringing a 3-4. ??? how are your concerns put to rest?

 

Let's choose our words carefully.

We all know "elite" offenses when we see them. Greatest show on Turf. Montana's 49ers. Cowboy's triplets (gag, full gag, puke...).
The Pats. Colts. To a lesser degree of elite - Chargers and Saints.

"Elite" offenses are feared. "Elite" offenses blow people away, overpower them, seem unstoppable. You cannot allow an "Elite" offense to have the last possession b/c you will lose. People, quit grinding through the stats. Great stats are necessary, but not sufficient to be elite. This is how you determine "elite."

The Texans are not "elite." The Texans are a good or above average offense. They're not elite because they're not any of the things above. If the Texans have the ball for a game winning drive, the other team isn't thinking that they're screwed. They're waiting for us to F--- up, whether it's Shaub throwing a pick, the OL blowing an assignment, or Kubiak not managing the clock or calling the right play.

I agree that Kubiak's system is important, but also that Kubiak isn't getting as much out of the offense as he should.

As to the first point, that the system is important -- I think it works well under the salary cap. Your undersized OL personnel do not require high draft picks and eat less cap space. (Now, I think the plug and play RB theory is a crock. Terrell Davis was a great back. Foster is a great, talented back. They are making the ZBS work. Notice how we're good in the red zone in short yardage situations all of a sudden? How we can rip off large chunks of yards? It's Foster that's the difference.)

I don't think Kubiak is getting all he can out of the offense because his freaking stated goal is to hope to play in close games and make enough plays in the 4th Quarter to win. Great teams don't just win close games. Great teams often don't play in them.

 

I agree. What’s your issue? I’ve said all along that my plan A was a regime change; plan B was stripping Kubiak of personnel control and hiring non-pipeline GM and DC. I’ve posted this repeatedly.

And I disagree “nothing” will change. It will be a better defense. Wade Phillips is a better coach than Frank Bush. Even if you hate the Phillips hiring (and I wouldn’t say I love it), it’s an upgrade.

Again, I agree. 100%. Look back through my posts this year: I’ve consistently called out Kubiak and Smith for their personnel decisions.

In terms of reacting to what they *did* do, I guess my thought process is: It could have been worse. In an environment in which Kubiak talked his way into a sixth year and Smith isn’t being held accountable for terrible personnel management, bringing Bush back wasn’t as far-fetched as I guess some assumed. So that they at least remedied that part of the problem – and, let’s be honest: It was a HUGE problem – soothed my disappointment somewhat.

Wade Phillips is not my choice. But he undoubtedly makes this team, warts and all, *better*. I’m not going to argue 10+ wins better. I’m not going to argue playoffs better. But they’ll be better. And I think, regardless of who’s coaching what, that, as is, if the defense improves, the team as a whole will benefit. You simply can’t carry that bad a defense and not have it seep into your entire organization.

My concerns with Cowher were, IIRC, *months* ago, well before the season started. They may have even been during the 2009 season. (If I’ve posted objections more recently, I honestly don’t remember them. We had our first child in July and I stopped posting here for a looooong time and much of the past six months run together for me. I do remember, though, what prompted my return was me calling for Kubiak to be fired and imploring McNair to get an early jump on Cowher’s interest/availability… so I don’t believe I’ve posted those objections in a long time. Again, if I’m wrong, I apologize; I’m not purposefully trying to be obtuse about it.)

Regardless, it’s a dynamic situation. If I felt that way even a month ago, it’s likely I’ve changed my mind. I really believed the defense would get better as the season wore on; that once Cushing returned to form and Jackson got more experience that they would finish the second half strong. But it got worse. And worse. And worse. To the point now where – 4-3, 3-4: They don’t have the personnel to run *ANY* defense so what the hell?

(Also, it should be pointed out that Phillips can and has run a variety of defenses, including the 4-3. Heck, he was Buddy Ryan’s DC in Philly. So I don’t even know if they’re going to run the 3-4. I hope they choose the best fit for their personnel.)