Legacy

[HPF Bob]

The NFL is a high-turnover "what have you done for me lately" type of league and it is even moreso with the salary cap. If you're a veteran, you are less appealing to most teams than a rookie or a practice squad guy because you cost more due to the vet minimum so, unless you're a player who produces well in your first 1-2 years, you're yesterday's news and nobody wants to pay to find out what you have left.

I'm not saying that to defend Casserly who obviously made bad choices but just to say I'm not shocked at the turnover rate three years into a new regime. Go look at the Saints and find out how many players are still heldover from before Sean Payton was hired.

As for dreaming of dynasties, knock yourself out. But reality tells me otherwise.

[NBT]

Bob, what is wrong with dreaming of a Texan dynasty? I, for one, would love to see the Cowgirls record diminished. And who better to do it than the Texans?

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

The NFL is a high-turnover "what have you done for me lately" type of league and it is even moreso with the salary cap. If you're a veteran, you are less appealing to most teams than a rookie or a practice squad guy because you cost more due to the vet minimum so, unless you're a player who produces well in your first 1-2 years, you're yesterday's news and nobody wants to pay to find out what you have left.

I'm not saying that to defend Casserly who obviously made bad choices but just to say I'm not shocked at the turnover rate three years into a new regime. Go look at the Saints and find out how many players are still heldover from before Sean Payton was hired.

As for dreaming of dynasties, knock yourself out. But reality tells me otherwise.

Bob I would rather look at the Steelers, they are closer to what a team should be. Give me a little time and I will report back to you on there turnover.

I get your point Bob, we changed styles and thus type of players needed, but to be an elite team you have to be consistent and that is where we should strive to be, A team like the Colts, Titans or Steelers, not a team like the Raiders.

[HPF Bob]

I picked the Saints specifically because they had the second-worst record the same year we had the worst. They changed coaches. We changed coaches. They drafted Reggie Bush. We drafted Mario Williams. So they make a very good comparison. They hit bottom the same time we did and changed coaches the same time we did (there was even yammering the next year that the Texans screwed up and named the wrong coach).

So if the Saints have twice the holdovers after three years of Payton than the Texans have after three years of Kubiak then it supports your point that Kubiak cleaned out an empty cupboard. If they didn't, then it supports my theory that new regimes taking over bad teams get rid of all the holdovers as part of their mission to remake the ballclub in their own image plus the natural turnover that happens on a modern NFL roster.

Heck, I'm watching Josh McDaniels do that now in Denver and he took over an 8-8 team. My guess is that, by 2012, you can count on one hand the remaining Broncos who played under Shanahan.

[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.

[barrett]

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.

Are you calculating the # of Texans on the Roster since 2006 or since 2005 (capers last team)? It seems you are calculating from the 2005 team if those are the only 5 you are counting.

If that is the case you must calculate from 2005 for the steelers and saints and you say you are calculating from 2006.

The only Saints left from 2005 are Jamaal Brown, Charles Grant, Devery Henderson, Jamar Nesbit, and Will Smith. That makes the exact same 5 from 2005 that we are left with. And we were definitely left with a better 5 than they were. IT seems Bob had a great point.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...005_roster.htm
http://www.nfl.com/teams/neworleanss...roster?team=NO

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by barrett

Are you calculating the # of Texans on the Roster since 2006 or since 2005 (capers last team)? It seems you are calculating from the 2005 team if those are the only 5 you are counting.

If that is the case you must calculate from 2005 for the steelers and saints and you say you are calculating from 2006.

The only Saints left from 2005 are Jamaal Brown, Charles Grant, Devery Henderson, Jamar Nesbit, and Will Smith. That makes the exact same 5 from 2005 that we are left with. And we were definitely left with a better 5 than they were. IT seems Bob had a great point.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...005_roster.htm
http://www.nfl.com/teams/neworleanss...roster?team=NO

My mistake, I did use 2006 and I should have used 2005. I will go back and redo the Steelers also to be fair. I stand corrected on this, dang it Bob got me again.

[Joshua]

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.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by Joshua

The Steelers just don't offer a good comparison to the Texans that Kubiak took over.

Strong points.

But they are the model we should strive to be. Agreed?

As for your question about rebuilding teams and roster turnover, I bet the Lions end up with one guy left over.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Strong points.

But they are the model we should strive to be. Agreed?

As for your question about rebuilding teams and roster turnover, I bet the Lions end up with one guy left over.

Absolutely agree that a team like the Steelers is what we should strive to be.

I do think you raise an interesting question as to just how bare a cupboard Casserly and Capers left. I would be interested in knowing whether Kubiak was dealt a historically bad team or a typical bad team. How much of a roster the new regime turns over seems to be a pretty decent indicator of that. If only 5 or 6 players remaining is typical after 4 years or so, I must say I'm surprised that the turnover is that high.

As for the Lions, I suspect I know who the 1 player might be.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Strong points.

But they are the model we should strive to be. Agreed?

As for your question about rebuilding teams and roster turnover, I bet the Lions end up with one guy left over.

Absolutely. The steelers are a great model to follow in organizational terms. They do a great job of replacing players with home grown draft picks. Over and over (1) they have a guy become a star, (2) he leaves for more money, (3) they replace him with a 2-3 year vet who has contributed part time for them, (4) the replacement gives them the same production. This is what it takes to have long term success in the NFL without rebuilding.