I think the issue is long term vs short term success. The best example of this, in my mind, is UT this year. Once they had lost a few games and all their primary goals were done - national title, big 12 title, south division title - I was OK with them losing the rest of their games. I went to those games, rooted for the team to win, but at the end of the day, I was fine when they didn't. The reason is that Mack Brown is stubborn as hell. Greg Davis needs to go. The team needs an attitude adjustment and change in culture. But if they went 9-3, he was going to stay and nothing was going to change. Which means that next year was going to have the same problems. 5-7, while extreme, forces Mack Brown to make a move. It's kind of like forcing a kid to take their medicine or having an intervention for an alcoholic (or whatever). It sucks in the short-term and make even make things worse, but it's absolutely necessary to ultimately move forward. I think tanking is silly - because if you're intentionally losing, then that's not helping the situation at all or giving you a sense of what needs to be fixed. But I can understand a fan being fine with the team losing. For anyone who wants Kubiak gone, this team is probably perfect. They are competing, showing that they are close and not in need of a total rebuild, but ultimately losing - which will hopefully lead to the necessary changes.
FYI, up until last week, Mack's solution to our offensive problems was to get rid of MacWhorter. It wasn't until some of the big cigars like Jamail and a few others came in with pitchforks that he was forced to can GD. But yeah, totally agree that I'm more than willing to sacrifice the 2010 season at 5-7 since it netted us some much needed wholesale staff changes .
Being "fine" with losses (given certain circumstances), IMO, is a far cry from openly hoping they lose. You rooted for your team to win; these posters are rooting for their team to lose. Mile-wide difference. "Lose and we'll be better" is a bankrupt idea, IMO. A losing culture is just as harmful as a roster full of bad players and/or a staff full of bad coaches. At this point in Kubiak's tenure, from McNair's perspective, 9-7 and no playoffs should = 5-11 and no playoffs; it shouldn't require some massive collapse to convince him Kubiak has taken the team as far as it'll go. We had this same discussion surrounding the Astros: I'd much rather watch a competitive team that has a chance than watch said team utterly collapse and offer consistently bad performances week after week. Getting to experience 9 wins is wholly more satisfying than expereincing 11 losses.
But watching that competitive team in 2008 and 2009 means that 2010 and 2011 were/will be substantially worse because you just tried to avoid the inevitable. If they had traded Oswalt and Berkman two years earlier instead of this year, they'd be much closer to being good in 2011 than they will be now - both because they'd have gotten better prospects and because those prospects would be more major league ready.
The Astros were a bad example on my part; baseball is an entirely different animal and the two teams are not in the same place. Having said that: rooting for the team to rebuild is still an entirely different angle, IMO. I want the Texans, at the very least, to retool significantly around Kubiak. I say that now, and I'll say it again five weeks from now regardless of record. In the interim, I *much* prefer they win than lose. Nothing good comes from losing, even less good comes from losing intentionally.
Where exactly did I advocate losing on purpose? What I said was that a 9-7 season without playoffs is no better than a 5-11 season. Damn it I rooted for the Texans to win so badly over the past 5 weeks but they lost in spite of it. Why can't we hold Kubiak responsible for losing games in the middle and most crucial part of the season rather than focusing on the 2-3 garbage time games he has won at the end of each of the last 3 seasons? Weeks 6 through 12 are were playoff berths are won and lost. The Texans failed badly during that stretch and there is just no excuse for that. It is on Kubiak and Bush, both need to go. Lastly, this is the 3th season straight with 7 or more losses meaning either we end up 9-7 or 8-8 and such. So that's 3 years of no playoffs but also not being able to get a better draft. All I'm advocating is that I rather take a few more losses per season and get a better pick for each of the last few seasons. So instead of Kareem Jackson we get Joe Haden, Earl Thomas, or Maurkice Pouncey. So instead of Duane Brown, we get Jerod Mayo, Leodis McKelvin, or Ryan Clady. Instead of Amobi Okoye we get Adrian Peterson or LaRon Landry. Yeah 3 to 5 positions in the draft can be the difference between landing a future pro-bowler or just another work-in-progress much like the many draft picks we have collected over the last 4-5 years. My motto is still fight and play hard especially in the middle portion of the season but if you still end up at 5-7 after 12 games then by all means start planning for next year. Can you imagine a few spots here and there and just maybe we can end up with Patrick Peterson as our starting CB. I would definitely give up a few meaningless games at the end to get better in the long run.
That's not what I said. Here's what I said: "Lose and we'll be better" is a bankrupt idea. And you then proceeded to advocate that very idea several times throughout this very response:
whatever; we drafted Mario Williams, David Carr, and Amobi Okoye all within the top 10 picks of the draft.
Bro, I can't reconcile the things you're saying here. Help me understand what you mean. How on earth do you advocate "giving up a few meaningless games at the end" and "taking a few more losses per season" but not "losing on purpose" or "tanking"? Doesn't "give up a few meaningless games" imply losing on purpose? Aren't they one in the same? Either you play to win or you don't. What you're saying here just doesn't make any sense.
Well either u are advocating tanking or u are saying, bench Schaub, Foster, AJ etc and if we win with the 2nd team, so be it.....which is it?
If he's really injured it's not tanking. If he has a headache or a blister (in other words if they're fabricating an injury) then yes, it's tanking.
You play to win definitely but if your are 5-7 then I don't see much benefit of winning the last 4 games and going 9-7. That's all. The playoffs are a pipe dream at this point. Also if you think teams don't lose a game or two to get a better draft pick than you are delusional. 2006 Viking (Adrian Peterson) - After a mediocre season and a record of 6-7 heading into week 14, the Vikings lost 3 straight including a 9-7 score to Green Bay and a 41-21 pounding at the hands of a mediocre Rams teams. 2007 Falcons (Matt Ryan) - Mike Vick went to jail and what did the Falcons do? They tanked their asses to lose 6 straight near the end to secure Ryan. Even Bobby Petrino left for Arkansas right in the middle of the season. Some reports suggest Arthur Blank called for the tank job wanting to find a quick replacement for Vick rather than go through the rebuilding process. 2003 New York Giants (Eli Manning) - After starting 4-4, the Giants lost 8 straight to move up in order to get Manning or Rivers. Eventually they settled on a trade with San Diego. These are just a few examples of teams giving up one season in order to get better in the long run. Would the Vikings, Falcons, and Giants be better off without Peterson, Ryan, and Manning respectively? That is a tough choice to make because every draft has only a handful of real franchise players and football requires talent at almost every position.
U are the delusional one i think.....pro athletes dont go 1/2 speed...throw intentional picks, etc in hopes of losing. Its not in their blood. If you think that the Giants decided that after a 4-4 start to throw in the towel, you are out of your mind dude. The Seahawks made the playoffs at 10-6 that year....that certainly wasnt out of reach after starting 4-4 As for the Ryan, AP and Manning examples...u dont know what ur talking about. Ryan was picked 3rd....THIRD...not 1st....so he could have easily gone to another team AP was drafted 7th or 8th if I recall......he, also could have gone to another team Manning? he was drafted FIRST.....and the Giants had no idea until after the season and combines that Eli was going to pout like a baby and cry to daddy if the Chargers drafted him with the first pick....nor could they be sure that Rivers would still be there at 4 when they hoped to draft and trade him.
The Giants tanked even the NY media reported so. They wanted a QB and Manning and Rivers were projected to go in the top 5 so they tanked. Go back and watch replays of the 19-13 loss to the Bucs, the 45-7 loss to the Saints, or the 19-3 loss to the Cowboys. Then come back and tell me that teams don't throw in the towel. Tanking is not always about the no 1 pick. Some teams lose just at few games to secure the 7th pick (Peterson) instead of the 10th pick (Amobi Okoye). Yeah its not that hard to pull off. Teams always take into consideration what other teams are likely to do with their pick. But the overall goal of tanking is not the no 1 pick. Actually, it's about the getting the most favorable pick possible without going 0-16. Oops! Actually the Lions did just that a few years ago to get Stafford. Every draft board had Manning and Rivers going in the top 5 long before the draft. It was no secret the Giants wanted a QB and did everything to move up into the top 5. It is the same as last year when Ndamakong Suh was projected top 3 even before the end of the season. Lions and Rams knew long before who they were going to pick with the 1st and 2nd pick.
cant wait to read the article u link that was written after week 8 of 2003 as for the rest of the nonsense u posted, its a nice fictional theory, but that is about it
I'm pretty excited for the Texans to go either 6-10 or 7-9, finish 3rd in the division (which means a MUCH easier schedule next year), bring in an entirely new coaching staff, get a decent draft pick, and reload this team with a new winning attitude. I think we, for the most part, have the pieces to be a really good team. What we are lacking is distinct leadership, and the fire to win game in and game out in the NFL. I think both can be brought in with a new head coach. However, just because I am excited for these things does not mean they are going to happen. I am fully expecting this team to win 3 of the final 4, finish 8-8, or maybe even 9-7, finish in SECOND in the division (which means another difficult schedule), keeping Kubiak and his reign of mediocrity, get an average to below average draft pick, and maintain the same "aw shucks, maybe next time" persona this team has had since day 1 under Kubiak. Bob McNair lacks the stones to go out and do ANYTHING that may be deemed as being risky, and there is no way he gets rid of Kubiak if the Texans finish .500 or better.
