I think if we don't win 9 or 10 games this year, he's absolutely on the hot seat. If we finish with less than 8, he might be gone. I think Mcnair will be patient with him, not wanting to blow up the organization again. The "rebuild" excuse is no longer valid IMO. Last season, we were just a few plays (not games) away from being a 9 or 10 win team. Sure, there is still some building to do, but we've got enough pieces that with good coaching we should be able to reach our goal.
i wasn't really looking for perfection...they looked incompetent sunday. they had no answer for the blitz when they knew the blitz was coming. it was like it took them all by surprise. let's see how things progress.
Not to mention the fact that your team's reputation around the league is that of a soft, finesse team. It bothers me greatly that before Sunday's game, the Jets came into Reliant with the attitude that if they gave this team the perverbial punch in the face, that this team would not respond. The fact that they (Jets) COUNTED on this happening should be a source of concern to everyone here.
it's like saying... usain bolt is the poster boy for sprinters. you can't use an unprecedented outlier as a "poster boy." i've posted this repeatedly - they're countless stories behind the anecdotes. it's easy to say, "hey, so-and-so team went from this to that - why can't we?" and i 100% understand that mentality; it’s natural and *is* rooted in a degree of truth. why not us? but if extraordinary circumstances exist that explain the rise from this to that - you can't dismiss those circumstances and then pretend it's an across-the-board standard. i arbitrarily went back to 2000 to identify teams that had a two-year stretch of 5 or fewer wins, to see just how quickly bad teams rebuild. locating back-to-back bad seasons eliminates one-year “loser” wonders – teams that inexplicably have an off-the-charts bad year completely incongruous with their stretch of football at the time. here’re the teams: ’03-’04 CLE (5, 4 wins) win totals since: 6, 4, 10, 4 ’04-’05 TEN (5, 4) win totals since: 8, 10, 13 ’03-’04 OAK (4, 5) win totals since: 4, 2, 4, 5 ’00-’01 SD (1, 5) win totals since: 8, 4, 12, 9, 14, 11, 8 ’00-’01 DAL (5, 5) win totals since: 5, 10, 6, 9, 9, 13, 9 ’01-’02 DET (2, 3) win totals since: 5, 6, 5, 3, 7, 0 ’04-’05 SF (2, 4) win totals since: 7, 5, 7 ’02-’03 ARZ (5, 4) win totals since: 6, 5, 5, 8, 9 looking at the “class” of that group (SD, DAL, TEN), SD actually had *seven* consecutive non-winning seasons before their seemingly sustained breakthrough in 2004. DAL had 4 consecutive non-winning seasons before their breakthrough in 2003 – which was promptly followed by a 6-win season. so it took them *seven* years to post back-to-back winning seasons. that’s right: the dallas cowboys – the nfl’s richest, most prestigious franchise, with bill parcels on board for 4 of those years (overall record: 34-32), were down for nearly an entire decade. of those 8 franchises, only tennessee was a bad team that rebounded quickly – and they still endured three non-winning seasons (which, FYI, is where kubiak is currently) before their 10-win breakthrough in ’06. now, an argument – a pretty persuasive one, in fact - could be made that the other five teams are notoriously among the worst-run franchises in football and heaping the texans in with that bunch only underscores this is a badly-run franchise. and I think there’s *a lot* of merit to that (especially given 2002-2005). but when that list includes three current near-elite to flat-out elite teams… and those teams endured at least 3 non-winning seasons as they rebuilt…… i think a strong case can be made that really bad teams are hard to rebuild overnight in the nfl. (note: the st. louis rams and kansas city chiefs joined the group last year – anyone think they’ll be playoff contenders anytime soon?)
i defend it from drayton's point of view. he was not, no matter what, going to deviate from that plan - and i *understand* (note: that does not mean i agree with) his position. and i agree that there's an inherent value to the franchise in keeping guys like oswalt and berkman life-long astros. but it's NOT what i would have done. i'm on record as advocating blowing it up after the 2007 season when they fired garner and purpura. (was that '07? all blending together now.)
btw, not said enough, if ever - a doff of the cap to a good # of posters in this thread (mostly, everyone after the expected mad rush sunday) - i've enjoyed the conversation: it's been interesting, insightful, & well-mannered. it sounds like we're all - if not on the same page - at least reading the same book - namely that this needs to be *the* year and that was not a good start to *the* year.
it's a valid question. i’ve posted these anecdotes throughout the years but consider: * the texans have 2 players remaining from their inaugural roster and one of them is a kicker. we’re talking about a team that had built-in advantages (extra draft picks, no cap issues, an expansion draft)… and you have just two players left? TWO?!? and only one was a draft choice? we’re talking about guys who should be entering their *8th* year. * between 2002 and 2005, the texans had 17 picks in rounds 2-4, and have 1 player – ONE! – currently on their roster from that stretch. in fact, of the 17 picks used (5 were dealt for babin and buchanon), they produced exactly 4 current NFL’ers and just one starter (pitts, babin, buchanon and gaffney - note, buchanon was not a draft pick. so they hit on 3 of 12 draft choices, with 9 currently being out of football). * of the texans’ first round draft choices between 2002 and 2005 (5 total) – when they never picked lower than 16 – 2 players remain on their roster. did someone say travis johnson is starting in SD? so 2 of the 5 aren't currently starters (but i have to guess TJ is an starter because of an injury??) and only 1 has gone to a pro bowl (aj). * the texans currently have zero free agents on their roster signed between 2002-2005, this, despite having a blank roster and a clean cap. we’re talking about guys that would be no older than roughly 31. and they have zero. i’ve said this repeatedly but I really and truly don’t believe people realize how AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL the previous regime was. I mean, devastatingly, franchise-crushing awful. it’s nearly impossible to accomplish *one* of those 4 “achievements” – the texans hit on all 4. it’s like winning the crap lottery of ****. the unfortunate thing for kubiak is that it was SO bad, he can’t get out of its shadow. i don’t think taking 3-5 years to rebuild a team from scratch when you have no cap flexibility and a need to overturn roughly 90% of the roster is out of the question. but i recognize i'm in the minority with that opinion.
Re: Post #1068: I agree it has been a less than dismal history but for everything you point out here, the fault, blame or responsibility has to rest on Bob McNair's shoulders. Like where was he while Capers, Casserly and the rest of Three Stooges was running his franchise into the ground? He did so many things right to get the NFL to place another team here and then he sat back and watched them ruin what should have been a happy rebirth of pro football in Houston. Now, I may not be a Gary Kubiak fan but I did post that when he got here, he inherited a disaster and had zero margin for error. That's why I continue to be so critical of what I perceive to be arrogance and inflexibility in his coaching philosophy - two things that will ultimately lead to his downfall here if he can't get this team over the perverbial hump.
To be fair, he fired them after the disaster season. Prior to that, we had shown improvement in the win column each year (enough to generate playoff talk after going 7-9) and when it comes down to it that's all that matters.
Awesome post. Food for thought, Jeff Fisher didn't post a winning record as a coach his first 5 years with the Oilers.... and he turned out OK I guess.
Did Fisher inherit a mess? Wasn't he at the helm already when the whole moving thing started? I can't stand that franchise, but he did a remarkable job guiding that thing through that, erm, "poop"storm.
thanks guys. the funny thing is that i've been posting that same information (in various forms, and probably with a lot more venom and anger, and in the heat of much hotter moments, i'm sure) for 3.5 years now, lol. but the fact its actually being read and processed now is a testament (among other things) to us having moved beyond the previous regime, 2-14, david carr, the 2006 draft and all the other crap that too often took the focus off what was happening with the team. i'm less inclined to hold purposefully passive owners *too* accountable. i don't think hiring and then trusting/expecting those hires to get it done is a sin any owner should have to apologize for, assuming they're providing those hires everything they need to succeed. and by all accounts, mcnair has. i think there's a chance the texans are going to win 7-9 games this year and miss the playoffs. and if that happens, i can't see mcnair bringing kubiak back as i imagine the rancor from fans will be too intense. they'll bring in a new guy, he'll get a 1-2 year grace period (more than enough time to finish what kubiak started with the roster) and he'll wind up the guy who opens the peanut butter jar after the first 3 loosened it. regardless, i think the team is really close. and if it does end up another guy finishes it, it'll be because kubiak gave him a pretty remarkable head start, imo.
That sounds pretty plausible. Is there a chance, should that play out, that the next guy's head start is pretty much all personnel? I mean it seems that some (*not* all, maybe not even most) of what holds this team back at times is scheme/decisions/preparedness moreso than personnel. Whereas back in the Dark Ages it was both.
Ric, I think you document well a variety of impressions I have had since the beginning of the franchise. The first and foremost has to do with the evaluation of talent. With some exceptions they have not drafted well. Second, the available talent has not been assembled well (management and coaching), and, third, the available talent has not been utilized well (coaching). The most glaring example is the offensive line: largely neglected through the years and a major problem. Another example, making Carr the centerpiece, hanging on when he didn't measure up and then ending up with Shaub. I still don't think they have the right coach. McNair seems like such a great guy, his management teams have just not come through for him. The Texans have a great stadium, great uniforms, excellent marketing and support services and a lousy, semi-talented, unmotivated team It is really a shame, and I see no quick fix.
i actually vehemently dislike their uniforms, and have from the very beginning. just FYI. i don't think the team is lousy (i know people aren't thrilled about it, but back-to-back 8-8 is not, by *any* measure, lousy) and i think there's a foundation of genuine talent (at least on paper) up and down the roster. kubiak and/or his system may not be the answer. but i think it'd be a mistake not to bring him back for one more year, assuming this year doesn't become another 2005.
i don't agree the system can't succeed in the nfl; it can. BUT: the offense has to - has to, has to, has to - establish the run first or the whole thing goes to **** (see: sunday v. jets). if you're having to throw a lot, and not by design, you're in trouble - this line is too small to pass block for 60 minutes. (and that is *not*, btw, exclusive to this system; it's far easier to run block than spend the day backpedaling while trying to hold off linemen rushing at you who know you have to pass.) i think that explains some of what you might think is a preparation issue - there's not a really a plan b so if the run game is getting blown up, they're kind of screwed and, thus, can look unprepared. decision-wise, i'm not *as* concerned about kubiak. he's had some issues; but a HC makes 4,000,000 decisions a game - it's a little too easy to isolate what doesn't work, be oblivious to the other 3,999,999 decisions that did work, and then blow the lone bad decision out of proportion. that's not to say its not an issue; i just haven't seen cost them games.
Undoubtedly, I hope you are right, but the "lifeless" preseason and the "lifeless" first game have just sapped by positivity for the season. It is one thing to play with great intensity despite being less talented, it is another to look totally clueless. The Texans could be compared to a relatively good looking house built on a cracked foundation. Tinkering with this or that just doesn't fix anything. Anyway, it is just sports and I have other interests. It would really be fun though to have a competitive team. Can't believe you don't like the uniforms. How about the logo?
