To respond to the "it's okay to get in a lead and blow that lead, but not okay to be in a hole and come back", WTF!? At first when I made this thread, I thought there was something I missed. Now, I'm just convinced that there's something wrong with certain Texans fans here. I'm just flabbergasted. What's so ironic is that on this same board, we blast the Rockets constantly for their inability to hold on to leads. Yet that is apparently the good way to play sports now!? Okay. I give up. If you people think that it's better go up 21-0 and lose 28-31, then to go down 0-21 and lose 28-31, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree. So by this logic, should we start a "trade Andre Johnson for Jordy Nelson" thread? After all, one is a SB WR, the other is a WR on a 6-10 team. Andre Johnson, as the best player for a 6-10 team, is obviously a problem that needs to be solved.
Spoken like a true Texan fan! I started a similar thread a few months ago. All I was trying to say was that when your team goes 6-10, there is plenty of blame to go around. Others took it as me saying the offense was just as bad as the defense. Like some others have said, I think the biggest problem with the offense last year was the playcalling. Seems like if you have a horrible defense (which we did) and a great running game (which we also did) it would make sense to play ball-control and keep the defense off the field for as long as possible. Run the ball, keep the clock moving, always win the TOP battle. Of course, you have to have a lead for that to happen and that was rarely the case. Bottom line is this team SUCKS. Had the titans and Jags not started their 3rd and 2nd string QB's against us respectively, we would have finished the season on a 10-game losing streak. And we kept our coach anyway. After all, we looked GREAT against the Jags (who were missing their 2 best players) the last game of the season. We have a new DC and the loss against the Ravens was close, so everything is okay.
It's not okay to lose, no matter how you do it. Let me ask you this: at what point this year did we blow a sustainable lead (10+) and lose? I think the answer is probably zero. Because when we did show up in the first half and build leads, we typically won. You're whole first paragraph really doesn't make much sense, because we didn't really blow any big leads this year. Without knowing the statistics, I'm willing to bet that teams that go up at least 14 points by halftime overwhelmingly win a large percentage of games (I'd guess at least 70%), and that would obviously put the teams that are down by that much on the opposite end of that. You're just looking at the final score and saying, "What's the difference if we came back and lost or blew a lead?" I think there's a huge difference when you're looking at it over the course of 16 games. It's all about margin for error. If you routinely play two solid halves of offense (and don't have a piss poor defense), and build halftime leads, odds are you're going to win more games. If you routinely are down at halftime, you have less room for error and odds are you are going to lose more games. The Texans probably defied logic with their ability to comeback this year, but if you ask me if I'm okay with them sucking it up in the first half as long as they adjust in the second half, I'm not. Good football teams don't consistently have to put together huge comebacks. Period. Obviously our defense had a lot to do with that, but even with a good defense, we would've been playing from behind more often than not this year. I like our offense and I hope this year was an anomoly. If we can show up for two halves AND have a respectable defense, we'll be on to something.
Hold up - let’s take a step back. Arian Foster carried the ball 327 times last year, most in team history and third most in the NFL. (As a point of comparison, Steve Slaton, in his rookie breakout year in 2008, carried the ball 268 times.) Foster averaged 20.4 carries a game, also third-most in the NFL. Michael Turner led the league with 20.8/game (with one additional start, BTW). And Atlanta’s defense didn’t give up 427 points last year nor did the team lose 10 games. I absolutely think Kubiak got in his own way too much last year. BUT… let’s not foget that our far and away best offensive player is a wide receiver. And our second-best *established* offensive player (let’s see Foster do it for more than one year) is a quarterback. And those two, along with our Pro Bowl tight end, put up HUGE offensive passing numbers last year. Historically huge. It wasn’t Kubiak abandoning Foster so that David Carr could throw 3-yard slants to Jabar Gaffney. I think that needs to be stated. Well, I don’t think the vast majority of fans think everything is OK – but I wish people weren’t so dismissive of the DC hiring. That is not, by any measure, an insignificant move. And I think it’s a pretty telling one in that I think it was clearly a McNair-mandated hire that hints at Kubiak possibly losing some power within the organization. They have absolutely built a successful offensive system. They now, finally, have someone who should be able to do the same on the defensive side of the ball. If Phillips can, this team immediately improves and quite drastically, IMO.
A lot of us feel the exact opposite. This move doesn't signal a huge change in the status quo, it seems like a plug-and-play type of change. Out goes Bush and his boys, in comes Wade and his, voila. Same delegation of responsibilities, new guys in the office chairs. That's all. A DC change like this one (virtually no competition/interviews for the job, position given to a guy with family/historical ties to organization/city) seems about as insignificant as could possibly be, considering what should have happened (i.e. Kubiak getting canned). You add in the fact that, despite being one of the worst defenses in the NFL last year, that Phillips immediately comes in towing McNair's line about not needing much, if any, personnel changes, and you've got an entire fanbase thinking that we're about to take another deep-steel-blue flavored urine shower only to be told, once again, that it's raining. I think Wade is a good coach, and an even better DC, and I don't doubt he can help us, but I have my doubts that this is as big of a deal in terms of dramatic change within the organization as you're making it out to be. When the results called for dynamite (not getting into the keep vs fire kubiak argument again, but no coach in the league would have survived a 5 year tenure like Gary's), Bob used a roman candle. Let's hope to god Wade makes this his crowning achievement. *edit: the one way I think we can say that this change is a shift from the status quo is the fact that this wasn't a Kubiak hire... it was a McNair hire... Kubiak had hired two Denver drinking buddies in a row that failed miserably, which is a huge black mark on his coaching resume... but if there's one guy who knows less about defensive coaching than Kubiak, it's probably McNair, which scares me. But Phillips is a big name with a good track record, so that allays that fear... but my biggest worry is that Wade will just coast through this gig. Valid or not, it just seemed all too much like a good ol' boy hire.
I think ima's argument centers more around the timing/situations in which Kubiak abandoned the run, not really how much he ran it vs. passed it. Which was fairly balanced. It seemed like when we needed Arian the most, Kubiak totally forgot about him.
How can I not? 1. I started this thread is about the Texans offense. 2. You responded by saying that because it's 6-10, people can complain about the offense. 3. So I conclude, given that AJ is the best player on the offense, shouldn't we have to address his inability to take us to more than 6 wins?
If we had the best 2nd half offense in the NFL, and have a big lead in the 1st half, I guess my response is, duh? Again, duh? If a team is capable of playing great offense and great defense to the point where they can outscore their opponent by 14 in 2Qs, yeah, they would likely go on to win the game. Give the Texans the Patriots offense and you're not going to see us consistently being up by 14 at halftimes. This logic makes no sense to me. If the Texans were a better 1st half offense, but a worse 2nd half offense to achieve "balance", why would they win any more games? I mean, yes, they'd be closer at the end of the half. But they'd suck more in the 2nd half, meaning less points, less time of possession, and more of their crappy defense going out and sucking. Good football teams tend not to have one of the worst defenses in the history of the NFL. Are we talking about offense now or the entire team? If you want to bash the entire team, go ahead. I'm with you. But it would be in a different thread though.
I didn't mean to imply it was the most significant move they could have made; merely that it is, indeed, a significant move, for a lot of irrefutable reasons. If Mcnair was dead set on keeping Kubiak, right or wrong, how is bringing in and paying a big name DC not at least a decent band-aid? I agree with the distaste over the "coaching search", et al. But that doesn't change the fact Phillips has proven to be an effective DC with a peidgree of making immediate positive impact. Well, that's certainly one, yeah - I mentioned it. He's never paid a DC this amount of cash, either, nor has Kubiak ever had a DC with as much resume clout. Phillips is a peer and, in a lot of ways, a guy with a lot more skins on the wall. And his unit can't help but go up, putting pressure on Kubiak to not screw things up on his side of the ball. It's undeniably a pretty big shift based on the first five years of this regime.
That's just it Ric. McNair was deadset on keeping Kubiak - and it was wrong. That's why a lot of us are pissed off. You seem to have accepted that, but a lot of us are still pissed off about it. Bringing in Bum's son and trying to revive the good ol' Luv Ya Blue days isn't going to placate us. It's not as if bringing in a new DC was a huge statement that made everyone stand up and take notice that the Texans aren't going to sit by and accept losing anymore. It was just a no-brainer. You have the worst defense in the league, so you fire your DC. It didn't take any forethought at all. And the way it was done (no search, no other candidates interviewed or even considered) required even LESS forethought. This was just McNair doing what he had to do - but nothing more. God forbid we fire a coach who takes 5 years to go from 6-10 to 6-10. That's pretty much the definition of a failed regime. But it's okay because the defensive coaching (or lack thereof) is the ONLY problem with this organization - and Bum's son is here to make it all better. He's going to turn former TE Connor Barwin into the next DeMarcus Ware. Problem solved! Totally disagree with the bolded part. I think you're giving McNair and the organization WAY too much credit here. He did the absolute minimum he had to do and nothing more. And I just don't buy this "the defense has nowhere to go but up" mentality. Of course it has nowhere to go but up - only because it was so historically terrible last year. It's almost like saying if we go 8-8 next year, it's okay because we were 6-10 this year and that's a 2-game improvement. And to tell you the truth, that's exactly how I see next year going...
The major concern is . . .this is your NEXT Coach. If the Texans are 2-6 at the 8 game mark . . McNair might THEN pull the trigger on firing Kubiak. [I just don't trust the concept that. . Wade is not interested in being a Head Coach] If the Historically Bad Defense. . . becomes #16 in the league and we still losing . . .. someone will spark the idea. . WOW!!! HE IMPROVED THE DEFENSE SO MUCH . . IMAGE IF HE HAD CONTROL OF THE WHOLE TEAM!! Rocket River
I think we're just on two different wavelengths. I don't know any other way to put it, but you can't put up a 3-7 point first half and expect to win on a regular basis, no matter how good or bad the defense is or how good you are in the second half. That's all I'm saying. And yes, when you score the points does have an effect on the game IMO -- momentum is a factor. Wearing out a defense early and often is better than coming alive in the 4th quarter, and it keeps the opposing offense off the field. Even if we ended averaging the same amount of points, I think it's beneficial to be able to be productive over the entire game.
I still don't understand your point, but let me just say that I have a problem with people thinking that the 2010 defense is the ONLY problem with the entire organization from top to bottom and once we fix that, everything will be peachy. The problems with this team/organization run MUCH deeper than just last year's defense. That's all I'm saying.
Don't care - he should have had more carries. Chris Johnson in 2009 had 358 carries Peterson in 2008 had 363 Turner in 2008 had 376 I'm not say that Foster's 327 attempts were low in absolute numbers, but they weren't earth shatteringly high. When you have a guy this effeective and dominant....when your passing game is shakier than it was a year ago....ride the hot hand. More to the point: 17 carries against Dallas despite 6 ypc and Matt Schaub misfiring to the tune of a 77 rating. The inexcusable 15 carries at Indy (7 ypc) with Schaub throwing up on himself and Kubiak making it clear he was never in the gameplan. 15 carries at Jax I'm not going to list every time he got less than 20 attempts (9) since a couple were excusable (Giants) and I don't want to nit pick. 2009 Schaub, AJ, and OD....that's true. But 2010 Schaub, nagging ankle AJ, and largely MIA OD were NOWHERE near as effective as Foster last year. Foster was by far the most potent weapon in the arsenal in 2010. Things change rapidly in the NFL - you can't ride a lame horse just because he won the derby a year ago. Kubiak blew the second Indy game because he refused to employ Foster. We saw it coming, and he played right into their hands, pressing with Schaub (1st half QB rating of 12) and keeping Indy's offense on the field building leads. Spot on.
Ric, they HAD to fire the DC. Had to. Arguably the worst defense EVER. The DC was getting fired regardless. No question about it. There's nothing "big" or unique about that. Hell, Phillips is the 3rd DC of Kubiak's regime, right? What's significant there? What gives the fan base any reason to believe it's going to be different, especially when Phillips comes in mouthing McNair's, "we're almost there!!!" crap??
Precisely freaking exactly. Reading this post got me pissed at Kubiak all over again. There was no excuse for that fail at Indy.
That was the worst...absolutely. At halftime he had 8 carries for a little over 60 yards...roughly 8 ypc. My 10 year old son (are you freaking kidding me???!!!) says, "Dad...they're gonna run Arian in the second half. He's killing them at 8 ypc. They'll run him and we'll win this game. JUST LIKE WE DID THE FIRST GAME AGAINST THEM!" IN the second half, Foster got 7 CARRIES!!!! ONE LESS THAN HE HAD IN THE FIRST HALF!!! And remember...this was on the heels of arguably the most impressive win in franchise history, when Foster absolutely ran wild on the Colts in opening week. They could not contain that guy. Oh, and there's the issue of ball control when your team has arguably the worst defense ever and the opposing team has one of the best QB's to ever lace 'em up. But instead...we run him LESS. Your word, "inexcusable" is dead right.
