it was a fluke, MM; the second time in the entire history of the national football league that a team had a 10-game turnaround. and they did it on the strength of one of the easiest schedules in the history of the nfl. does anybody here really favor a one-year fluke?
A 10 game turnaround is a ridiculous standard though. First off, when there were only 14 games, this was virtually impossible. Even with 16 games, it can really only happen with a team that won 0, 1, or 2 games the previous year, given how rare it is for teams to go 13-3 or better. So your potential sample size of even teams that were realistically capable of having the opportunity at a 10-game turnaround is tiny itself.
The Dolphins are the poster boy because their situation is so dramatic. But the Texans aren't coming off a 1-15 season. They're coming off an 8 win season. We have seen in this league that teams make quicker turn-arounds than they have in the past...and quicker than we typically see in other sports on a regular basis. In fact, that's often touted as one of the strengths of the league. There can be a myriad of reasons for it....scheduling to help out teams that sucked the year before....free agency....but it seems to be the case. I don't have any numbers in the aggregate to make that point. Just antecdotes.
would you really? i'm sincerely asking. you'd trade the hardship and uncertainity of building a sturdy franchise and the stability and consistency it would provide *if* you got it right for a lousy, lousy, lousy, fluke, lousy, lousy, lousy stretch of football? i know you're frustrated, but really? look at the astros - they've been built around the idea of a fluke since 2006. they field a competent (on paper) major league team and then hope 1) that they catch every break possible (hampton works out, ortiz works out, no one gets hurt, no one regresses....), and 2) that their division and or league slides back and keeps them in contention.... it's so far lead to 3 interesting but ultimately lost seasons, a depleted farm system that's going to take years to rebuild, and probably 1 to 3 more years of mediocrity at the major league level. but hey, remember the fun/flukey finishes to '06 and '07?
I disagree and my posts may appear to be more emotional than I actually am. But I have had my doubts and concerns about what Kubiak, Smith, et al have been doing now for a some time now and I am merely stating so. Charlie Pallio answered that defense yesterday quite well: Yes, they were the 3rd ranked offense in terms of yards gained BUT they were still at the bottom of the league in scoring points...like Sunday. And again, I submit to you that I simply am not onboard with Kubiak's ZBS offense because I don't see him addressing its weaknesses or adjusting to what the other teams are doing to stop it. And nowhere in any of my posts have I said something that extreme. I'm not calling for Kubiak's head or anything like that after 1 game because I don't need to - he goes 8-8 or worse and he'll be gone. Also, I just cannot state that just because they appear on paper to be the better team in their matchups against the likes of the Jags, Raiders & Bills that they will actually show it on the field. After all, wasn't that supposed to be the case on Sunday against the Jets? Here's my take: When they have to keep coming out after games and say stuff like "We need to be held accountable" and "we need to play better" and so on, that's a clear signal that they aren't who or what they say they are (q. D Green). If they were, then they wouldn't be just talking about it, they would be out there DOING it.
i'd have to think about whether the MLB comparison is appropriate... but as for the lousy, lousy, lousy, fluke, lousy, lousy, lousy question...we've had 7 seasons of a team that hasn't posted a winning record. looking back, it sure would have been nice to have had one fluke along the way. closest thing we have to that is posting a .500 record once.
So does Kubiak. He inherited a team that had been so poorly structured as an expansion franchise that he needed to turn over nearly the entire roster. Worsening problems was that the contracts that had been handed out to this craptastic roster had put them in a bad salary cap situation. Not Oakland Raider bad from 2002 or so, but bad enough that they didn't really have much flexibility to get top free agents. Just saying.
Haven't you been defending that approach with the Astros, saying you'd rather see that than a full attempt at rebuilding?
Out of curiosity, how long does that kind of roster upheaval take? In other words, at what point is this truly Kubiak's team?
at this point in time yes I would have rather had 6 lousy seasons and one fluke season verse 7 lousy ones But I still think they will be good this year. I'm frustrated by last weekend and I think we lose this weekend, but I think we at least show up, which they didn't last weekend. They would have been better off being a road team last weekend. I still think they sniff the playoffs
I think it is his team at this point. The question is how many years do we think he should be given to build a team virtually from scratch with salary cap problems on top of it? If you feel he's had long enough, I won't argue with it. I don't agree however. Kubiak may not end up being a good headcoach, but I don't think his time here has proven he hasn't done a good enough job building this team. I know people like to point to teams like Miami and Atlanta (or Baltimore) but those teams are totally different. Those teams had good pieces in place and then stumbled due to injuries, retirements, etc. We didn't have good pieces in place beyond Andre Johnson.
Oh - I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or another on Kubiak. I've just been seeing the whole "he had to rebuild from scratch" thing for a couple of years. It's absolutely legit and understandable, but I think at some point that excuse can no longer work. I'm really not sure when, though.
i don't think my problems with kubiak are personnel problems. i don't think that's where most fans feel he's deficient.
I think a lot of things that fans feel are his fault though are just our way of projecting a reason on to things we either don't understand or don't want to believe. Things like toughness and physicality are often words that fans like to harp on when they can't grasp schemes or when they don't understand personnel problems.
i think ultimately when you continue to get your ass handed to you in september and you come out of each halftime flat, something MIGHT be wrong with the coaching staff.
