I think the primary reason to not have a lameduck coach that you might want to keep is that, if he does well, it leaves him the option of taking a job elsewhere next year or puts you in a position of having to bid on him in the open market. But that can be solved by simple rolling one-year extensions.
These two things don't make any sense together. If we know that Kubiak would be gone next year if he sucks, then players do too. How does that provide stability then? It's not like players are going to be fooled by the contract extension. And how many players really avoid teams because their coach only has 2 years left on a contract instead of 4?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6847569.html what essentially amounts to 2 extra years.
Didn't Cecil Cooper get a one year extension last season before he was axed? A one year extension means nothing and should be looked as severance pay if Kubiak doesn't get it done next season. It's McNair's money so what's the big deal.
The whole discussion was because they were talking about a 3 year extension. The end result instead looks like it became a 2 year extension with a raise this coming year (since they ripped up his current contract).
Yes, I'm not on board with that either. Don't really see the point of giving him an extra 2 years. Sometimes I get the feeling that McNair let's his personal feelings get in the way with business.
A really, really, bad idea! Maybe we are finally waking up to the fact of why the Texans are the Texans. Why reward mediocrity? I am utterly shocked that McNair would do this.
I think it was done to eliminate the lame duck situation that would have come next season during a tough schedule. I thought that Kubiak deserved at least one more shot and while I'm not that enthused with his adherence to the old Denver system (which I never was a fan of), the upcoming schedule should provide some conclusive proof whether or not his way is the right way. It's been 5 years since he took over so the excuse of him inheriting a bad team will no longer hold water - if he can't improve his record inside the division next season, then it will time to bid him sayonara.
well 1) maybe he wouldnt actually be gone. 2) its the nfl, anyone can lose their job at any time. Still, i think it is a sign of trust, faith and stability in that we (and everyone else) knows who the captain of the ship is.
if chris brown had made a few more field goals, we'd been 13-3, 12-4 and probably gone to play the chargers or the colts. kubiak would have an above .500 winning % and this extension wouldn't have come into question. this is not david carr II. kubiak has built a hell of an offense, but still lacks a running game. a defense with almost no secondary skilled players who excel. we're a draft and a few players away from playoffs. kubiak deserves this extension. we'll only get better.
Are you kidding? There's no way if Brown had made "a few more field goals" we'd be talking 12-13 wins. That point only holds water somewhat towards the end of the season when he missed the two field goals in back to back games to force overtime. There's no telling we would have won either of those games, but you have to feel like we would have won at least one of them.
I don't see what's wrong with this. For one thing, there's no way Kubiak gets a motherload in the coaching FA market unless he gets us at least to the Super Bowl. And if he does that, then he'd have deserved a big raise. I understand the whole concept of cost certainty in business. But it's not as if Kubiak will be getting close to Cowher-level dough in the first place. And we're already giving him a raise anyway with this. In the end, the downside seems just way too big for this extension to occur.
I don't think it's so much cost-certainty as coaching certainty. You don't want to be working on an extension during the season, and you don't want to go into the offseason with any more questions than you need to - and head coach is one of those. But that said, there's no need for a multi-year extension to do that. You just need rolling 1-yr extensions. I can't imagine if that's all that was offered, Kubiak would have said no.
Those of you who think Kubiak deserved an extension and is the right man for the job realize that if he goes 8-8 or 9-7 next year, he should be fired, right?
