Legacy

[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.

[Joshua]

To me, the best lesson to be taken from the Steelers is that they know what they want to be on both offense and defense and then are successful at finding players who are good fits for them. This is their greatest strength. Simply put, they don't seem to evaluate guys generally. Instead, they seem to solely evaluate guys are their ability to succeed in the Steelers' scheme regardless of what anyone else thinks of them. Thus, I suspect they would pass on lots of highly regarded players for players that are perceived to be lower rated because they see a better fit. I really think this is key.

On offense, the Texans have already shown some ability to do this. Their zone blocking scheme requires certain attributes from its linemen and they seem to be looking for players who have those attributes, rather than just the highest rated. Same thing with running backs. As a result, we've seen excellent production from middle and late round picks (Winston, Slaton, Daniels, Anderson, etc.).

My primary complaint under Kubiak is that they haven't done this on D. The defense has consistently lacked an identity and no clear idea of what they are trying to be. Not only does this hurt on the field but it hurts at draft time because it's hard to find someone that's a specific fit for your system when you don't really have a system. Exhibit A on this front is Okoye. The only reason he was a 1st round talent was his gap shooting abilities. However, we draft him and then make him play "react" football which negates his one good skill. To date, he has been a very poor fit for us because it seems like they just drafted the highest rated player without any thought of how they would use him in our system. I'm hoping that this year the Texans D will have some type of identity and they can then start looking for players with the skills to execute their gameplans.

[HPF Bob]

If we're going to use the Steelers as a model, it should be noted that our original head coach was a product of the Steelers system. That's why he was dogmatic about the 3-4 defense and why he was so adamant about drafting Jason Babin.

So, I would conclude that trying to "be like the Steelers" was already tried.

Granted, the defense wasn't that bad for an expansion team but the offense, filled with rookies, was pathetic and by the time the offense found some players, the veteran defense collapsed.

Now, our offense is better than our defense so it all goes round in circles. If Kubiak gets the hook in the next year or two, expect the new HC to be a defensive coach. That's just the way the doggie-tail-chasing NFL goes.

[NBT]

HPF - I disagree with you on the NOLA comparison because they had a better fundamental core of players than we did, having had so many more years to accumulate it. To say that the Texans were similar is just too far of a stretch for me. We actually had a better core from the expansion draft than we did at the end of the C & C era.