This doesnt really make sense. Just bc someone is a self made billionaire doesnt make them excellent in every facet of life.
Exactly how much shorter should Kubiak have been coach? He'd gone to the playoffs and won the AFC South the previous 2 years before he got canned. What would a couple of games earlier in that dumpster fire of a season have accomplished?
Here's the problem. People b****ed about Schaub, who up until his quick downturn was a lot better than what Foles and Bradford have been. Schaub was borderline Top 10. Foles/Bradford are borderline Top 20. And we committed to Schaub. Several times (w/contract extensions). But in doing so, you tie yourself up money wise and if you want to move on, if there's a better option, it's hard because of how much money (and dead money) you have tied up in this other QB. Now, the Texans moved on from Schaub, but not because they had a better option. And in the process, Schaub counted $10.5 M against our cap, 3rd most on the team and he wasn't even here. We wouldn't have had money to pay another decent QB even if we had the opportunity. So if you add a guy like Foles/Bradford, you're paying at least $12-13M/year for a guy who's not even as good as Schaub was, whose contract you still can't easily get out from under if a better option comes along. Best case scenario is you draft the next superstar and you have a very expensive backup which compromises the quality of the rest of the team. And that doesn't even factor in what it would take to trade for one of those QBs. They traded one QB for another and it wouldn't be so simple with Houston. We'd have to trade players or picks and again compromise the quality of the team to get a QB who's not as good a Schaub who fans love to b**** about. If fans b****ed about Schaub, I guarantee you fans would b**** about Foles/Bradford and how we're never going to win a SB with them and b****ing about not drafting QBs because we already have a lot of money invested in the current QB. The alternative, which the Texans have chosen, is to not commit to any QB. Give short contracts for comparatively little money that gives them the flexibility to make a move if/when one presents itself. Moving on from Hoyer/Mallett is so much easier than moving on from Foles/Bradford. It's a pick your poison scenario. You can pick a mediocre QB and be mediocre (which we already did, with a better QB). I guess you can hope for lightning to strike and to make an unlikely run. But again, we were in the same position with Schaub and fans weren't satisfied. Or you can be patient, build the rest of the team (, and not be as good now, but with the knowledge that you have the flexibility to choose the right QB when the chance comes. I just don't think Texans fans would be satisfied with Bradford/Foles. You think you would because we'd be better than we are now, but we still wouldn't be legit contenders. You have to ask the question, do you want to be consistently good and legit title contenders every year? Or do you just want to be above average, sooner than later. We already had the latter when Schaub was the QB. Fans weren't satisfied. If you want a repeat of that then by all means, settle for a mediocre QB. If you have higher aspirations, you need something better and realize that getting a legit franchise QB isn't quick or easy and requires a degree of patience. Yeah, maybe you can get someone better (and maybe not), but getting someone better doesn't necessarily get you where you want to be and I'd rather hold out for someone that can.
No, Gary Kubiak hired him to be the "GM", but essentially be the cap manager who could deflect some of the front office duties. He obviously wasn't as integral or responsible to what was happening in the Kubiak regime, or else he would have been jettisoned as well with the previous regime. Sure, and you can root for a female to grow testicles... and its going to be just as unlikely to happen. And how do you suppose they magically achieve these things? Also, have you seen him skimping on contract extensions, refusing to sign free agents, or being "cheap" in general? Again, these are all things that the owner has direct control over when it comes to trying to build a winner. I agree with this... it comes down to the coach, his plan/vision, his ideology, his mental fortitude, and his decisions. This is year 2 of a new regimes. Most NFL teams see year 3 as the make/break point in a coaches plan... if not much progress or direction is being made by then, people start looking over their heads. BOB just took a 2-14 team in cap hell and got to a respectable 9-7 (still in pseudo cap hell, and still whiffing on middle round draft picks). I don't think its too early to pull the plug. Again, what the hell does this mean? They've gone through 3 different coaching regimes/GM's/leaders in 13 years (again, don't include Rick Smith in any of this), with the last regime hampered by basically taking over a worse than expansion team in 2006. Their biggest mistake, to date, is hiring Casserly/Capers to build the team from scratch... way too many mistakes were made in that process, which set back the Kubiak regime (and probably is what led to him having 2 more years than he should have). To me, this is the first time a new regime has taken over a established version of the Texans... again, I'm willing to give it more than a year.
You know what? I'm tired of being negative, let's think on the bright side for a while. Maybe Hoyer's entire career has been just a mirage, perhaps starting next week, he'll finally show something for the first time to indicate that BOB isn't completely off his meds when it comes to his analysis of him as a QB. It could happen.
It's like you never learn anything from one conversation to the next. If your intent is merely to troll, then good job, if you are trying to be more than that.....well that's just sad.
He is selecting the front office and the people that make the decisions. Who hired Charley Casserly and Rick Smith? Yeah, you can be a billionaire and be a mediocre sport team owner.
Kubiak hired Smith... a full year after Kubiak was hired and oversaw the 2006 draft. Again, he does get the blame for hiring Casserly originally... who should get the blame for everything from 2002-they finally made the playoffs.
Can't wait to see o brian doing some push up AGAIN <iframe src="https://vine.co/v/etFr7iZ2Uij/embed/simple" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>
This isn't a shell game. McNair is the owner of the franchise. He decides who runs the team. You can play semantics about how Kubiak hired Smith. However McNair writes the checks and he is the one that decides who the head coach and GM are. He may allow a coach or GM to make the decision, but that ultimately falls on the owner. The Texans have had one constant, the owner of the team. The organization has been mediocre overall. Now it is the youngest franchise in the league but in the 13 or 14 years it has existed, it has been disappointing. The GM's have been mediocre to bad and ditto for the coaches and overall play. Criticizing the owner is fair game. Luckily Uncle Bob is old, hopefully Cal is luckier or better and deciding who will run the Texans.
Mallett should be the QB next week 1)pressure was on OB all off-season to start Mallett 2)Fans booing and chanting for Mallett and OB giving in towards the end. If you made the unpopular decision of starting Hoyer and then giving in and playing Mallet, even if it was for "garbage time' reasons, there's no way you can come back from it. If he was gonna keep Hoyer the starter, then he would've played him the duration of the game, cuz God knows he needs the rep. Once you go with who the fans/media wanted all along, in the very first game, than it's hard to revert back without huge repercussion. Going back to Hoyer now will be have an even worst reaction for the Media than if he had just played Hoyer the entire game. I'm sure OB knew what he was doing when he put Mallett in. There no going back now IMO, at least til Mallett sucks too
His first year, we went 6-10. Then we went 8-8. Then we went 8-8. Then we went 9-7. Then, we signed him to a 3 year extension. (WHHHYYYYY?) Then we went 6-10. Basically, the reason we ended up doing well for a couple seasons is because Wade came in and turned that entire defense around. It wasn't because of Kubiak. Kubs was nothing more than the very average of coaches. He should have been canned after the 6-10 season. He'd make a very nice offensive coordinator, but he had no business, whatsoever, of being the head coach for as long as he was.
Nick, it starts with Bob, it's as simple as that. He is the one in charge of hiring other people in the organization and assigning roles. He sucks at that because he's worried more about having a pretty boy image and showing loyalty rather than putting a winning product on the field. Once he gets serious about winning, then the team will get serious about putting the right pieces in play. The OB hire was a good start, but at some point, the owner needs to demand that we actually try to get a QB for this team. Maybe another mediocre year or two will make him understand that if he cares about winning, he should make the necessary adjustments for that to happen. Or, he could just be happy with the value of the franchise and keep taking the Kubiak route…8-8…average…not the worst, but never the best. We'll see if he ever "gets" it.
Seriously? You're smarter than this. Pretty boy image? The guy has a likely less than 10 year life expectancy... I'm pretty sure he wasn't complaining when this team finally started winning after the awful/regressing start of the expansion franchise. Pretty sure it was BOB's call to not give up resources/trade up for Bridgewater or Manziel. If you want to blame everything on that, so be it... because I'm not sure which QB you'd have wanted them to draft this off-season. Every "We need a QB argument" starts and ends with last year's draft... the year before, they were locked into Schaub... who's contract looks more than fair, compared to some of the other contracts being handed out to similarly accomplished QB's today. If that were the case, why ever get rid of him and that regime? Hell, a supposed SB contender just picked them both up (kubiak/Wade)... is John Elway also not serious about winning and keeping his pretty boy image up? If you truly believe it starts at the top... and nothing will get better till theres a change "there"... I'm not really sure how you can continue to follow this team in earnest. You'll always just go back to that facet when things go south, as its not changing any time soon (unless Cal decides to become cheap when he inherits the team).
Per ESPN, Texans now saying starter will be a mystery until the first snap of the next game. This is too good. I guess they don't want the opposing team to get *too* excited over whichever crappy QB y'all trot out.
They are probably just keeping it a secret so they are out of town when they announce Hoyer still starting. The hope then will be that he can have one of his only halfway decent games of his career before coming back to Houston. It's much easier to piss off the entire fanbase when you are hundreds of miles away.
What do you think the fanbase will do if he announces it tomorrow? Some of you guys are pretty delusional about how these teams really operate.
The fanbase would go nuts and the pressure would be ratcheted up a lot. We know BOB hears the talk, he whined about people not being "proud" of Hoyer during camp. An announcement of Hoyer as the starter tomorrow would have fans and media calling for his job and that talk would only get louder after Hoyer leads the team to another loss. He's already going to have to deal with that eventually, but if he waits till Sunday to announce, there's the small chance Houston wins the game and they won't have to deal with the distraction of an entire city against him the entire week leading up to the game.
