Legacy

[painekiller]

Kris Brown
Chester Pitts
Andre Johnson
Dunta Robinson
Travis Johnson

What do these 5 guys have in common? They are all that is left of the roster that Gary Kubiak inherited from Dom Capers. Talk about a whole lot of nothing.

Yes the NFL is about turnover of rosters, but you will be hard pressed to find a team that has had this much turnover in less than 3 years.

Why an I pointing this out? A few reasons come to mind. One is the people who are saying Kubiak is on a hot seat. Look what he had to work with, one superstar and few solid players. Look at the roaster today and you see a core of solid players on the verge of their NFL prime.

Established NFL teams usually maintain a core of 10 to 15 player that have been with the team for some time. I am not talking about bad organizations like the 49ers and Rams, but about the Eagles and Pats. Kubiak had to create that group of guys and grow them up.

2nd Wolf a regular poster on the TT.com found this article from the Bleacher Report

Are the Houston Texans on the verge of becoming pro football’s next great dynasty?

Give owner Bob McNair’s management team credit: GM Rick Smith and head coach Gary Kubiak have assembled a lot of the right elements. The trick will be bringing those elements together to translate to success on the field.

When you compare what the Texans will be fielding in 2009 with some of the great NFL dynasties of the past, the parallels are there.

In this article it talks about the coaches the QB, and the new defense. Giving what little talent Kubiak was handed, and the salary cap issues (dead weight player that had to be cut) for this team to be considered a team on the verge is simply amazing.

I predict that the next draft might only find one player capable of starting his rookie year. BTW that is a good thing. I predict depth will still hurt us this season. But next year and the year after will see us as a top AFC contender.

[HPF Bob]

Well, let's see them win a playoff game before we get carried away with the d-word.

As for roster turnover, Kubiak inherited a 2-14 team that ran a 3-4 defense and ran an offense similar to but not entirely like Denver's. It really shouldn't be surprising that so few players from the old regime are left.

[NBT]

Casserly did well in helping McNair set up this team, but as a talent evaluater he stunk. McNair had some hard decisions to make 3+ years ago and he made the right ones. This team is finally on the right track.

[Nconroe]

I think we have pretty good depth at all positions now, although still very young. We'll be winning more and more games for next several years, and the defense will be better than most expect right now. It is surprizing to see how few we have left from previous management legacy view.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Well, let's see them win a playoff game before we get carried away with the d-word.

As for roster turnover, Kubiak inherited a 2-14 team that ran a 3-4 defense and ran an offense similar to but not entirely like Denver's. It really shouldn't be surprising that so few players from the old regime are left.

Only one offensive lineman, for a young team that is ridiculous. Only one DB, again for a young team that is ridiculous. Not a single TE, no RB or QB survive. I am sorry, in my sleep I would have had more guys still here.

How many 1st day picks of Casserly are already out of the league? Forget the late picks, just look at Weary, Hill, Joppru, Peek, Wand, Ragone, Babin, Morency, and Hollings. Only 6 guys Casserly/Capers drafted on the 1st day are still in the league (not counting Kubiaks 1st year).

Bob, the numbers say more to me than just a change in style.

Kubiak has done a heck of job of picking guys they can make football players out of.

And Bob can't an Aggie and long time Houston sports fan hope for a "d" word team sometime in my life? Heck my San Fran brother in law and nephew love to point out the rings they have.

[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

[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 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.

[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.