Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller
Bob, I understand your point about the turnover, and I understand your choice of the Saints.
My point is I want this team to model the great franchises not the weak ones. Pittsburgh during this Kubiak era changed HC and have won another Super Bowl. The core of players did not change with the coaching change. They have 26 players still on the roster that where on the roster in 2006.
The HC they hired was not a 3-4 guy, but the team had a system in place and they would not mess with it. So they have core of veteran players familiar with the system.
Now BTW the Steelers have lost coach after coach and yet they keep on winning.
Now my biggest point is we have never had the 26 veteran players worth keeping, heck even 15 players would have us ahead of where we are now.
I agree the defensive change has something to do with this, but we only have 2 offensive guys left.
edit note -------------------------------------------
I just compared the Saints rosters and they 17 players still on the roster. 3 times the players. I think I have a valid point.
|
While I certainly see your point and agree that ideally the Texans would resemble a team like the Steelers, this seems to confuse what we all wanted the 2005 Texans to be with what they were. I'm pretty sure Bob wasn't recommending that we model ourselves after the 2005 Saints (and I doubt even Casserly and Capers were doing that, they just weren't good at their jobs). He was just saying that in 2005, like it or not, we were quite similar to the Saints in our level of suckitude. As much as I hate it, that was just the case. No amount of wishing can turn back the clock and change this fact. Simply put, Kubiak took over a cellar dweller and there is no getting around the fact that that was the hand he was dealt. Thus, any comparisons of what Kubiak has done has to be measured against others in similar situations. I haven't looked at the numbers so I have no idea whether only having 6 players after a regime change is unusual. Although my gut tells me that is exceptionally low, even for teams which have bottomed out, I am curious as the the typical amount of turnover for bad teams who clean house. But this is what we should be looking at to decide if Kubiak was truly handed an unprecedentedly bad organization or just your standard run-of-the-mill bad team.
The Steelers just don't offer a good comparison to the Texans that Kubiak took over. Although the Steelers had a coaching change, it wasn't the typical firing of an ineffective coach, rather Cowher simply retired and could have stayed if he had so chose. Also, the new coach was only the 3rd head coach in about 30 years and he kept the prior D coordinator to continue running the D. Unfortunately, it's apples and oranges. Hopefully, in the near future, the Steelers will be a decent comparison but not yet.
I guess all I'm saying is what I consider fairly self evident - bad teams clean more house than teams like the Steelers because they are bad teams. Despite a coaching change, the Steelers have (for the most part) not been a bad team in over a decade. If all you are saying is that you would rather have had Casserly and Capers draft exceptionally, make the playoffs for a few years (with one Super Bowl title), have Capers retire to glowing tributes from all, and have his replacement pretty much pick up where he left off, well, yeah, me too. I'll also take a pony.