Freeman: Would you?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

If Kubiak felt strongly about him and he was sold on the idea that he would have to earn the job, I am okay with.this. I suspect, though, that he would find better offers.

He might get more direct paths to a starting job or maybe a longer deal somewhere else, but if I am a young QB who was considered a franchise guy just a few years ago, I'd prefer a 1 year deal with a QB teacher who can restore my image and give me access to a higher level job with a longer term pay off.

Basically I would bet on myself and take a 1 year deal (especially since backup QB has almost no injury risk), and I would hope to take a much better job from Schaub at best, or rehab my image and have a better chance at a good job at worst. The guy is still only 25 and has the time that he doesn't have to panic. If he'd rather go compete for a cleveland type job, I wouldn't want him anyways.

[barrett]

And just for perspective, when the relationship soured between Freeman and Schiano it was around the midpoint of last season. Since then TB is 1-10, worst record in football. Before that point Freeman had 16 TDs and 3 INTs, and 8.6 YPA on the season. Combine that with a fantastic 2010 (25/6 TD/INT at 22 years old), all the measurables, and you see why a good QB coach would look at him and say, "I can get consistency out of that guy."

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

... I'd prefer a 1 year deal with a QB teacher who can restore my image and give me access to a higher level job with a longer term pay off.

How effective is Kubiak as a quarterback coach? I've been in the vanguard at promoting this idea, but a little thought proves it to be little more than a myth.

Let's see whom he's tutored as Texans and what they've accomplished after their Texans tenure:

David Carr: No need to scratch at scar tissue here

Sage Rosenfels: No meaningful playing time post-Texans

Rex Grossman: Went to Washington and briefly started

Dan Orlovsky: Started a few games in Indy in 2011 including a win over the Texans, no success beyond that

Matt Leinart: Failed in Oakland and Buffalo, that should tell you something

Jake Delhomme: Nothing as a Texan, nothing post-Texans

Jeff Garcia: Nothing as a Texan, nothing post-Texans

Matt Schaub: I don't know if you could argue that he's better today than he was in 2007

Maybe Kubiak is a great quarterback coach but it certainly isn't reflected in the play of the quarterbacks he's coached with the Texans.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

How effective is Kubiak as a quarterback coach? I've been in the vanguard at promoting this idea, but a little thought proves it to be little more than a myth.

Let's see whom he's tutored as Texans and what they've accomplished after their Texans tenure:

David Carr: No need to scratch at scar tissue here

Sage Rosenfels: No meaningful playing time post-Texans

Rex Grossman: Went to Washington and briefly started

Dan Orlovsky: Started a few games in Indy in 2011 including a win over the Texans, no success beyond that

Matt Leinart: Failed in Oakland and Buffalo, that should tell you something

Jake Delhomme: Nothing as a Texan, nothing post-Texans

Jeff Garcia: Nothing as a Texan, nothing post-Texans

Matt Schaub: I don't know if you could argue that he's better today than he was in 2007

Maybe Kubiak is a great quarterback coach but it certainly isn't reflected in the play of the quarterbacks he's coached with the Texans.

I don't look at that list and question Kubiak. I look at that list and praise him. Not one QB on our roster was a starting QB the year before coming here. That means nobody else in the NFL has ever evaluated a guy as a starter before arriving here. Or after for that matter.

That means with the rest of the league's backups we have become a successful NFL franchise. Maybe I am not a huge Kubiak fan, maybe I think Schaub needs to go before we take another step, but I have to tip my cap at Kubs winning as many games as he has in a QB driven league with Rick Smith providing him with table scraps at the league's most important position.

I mean, doesn't it say something that the extremely limited Matt Schaub is the most talented guy on that list?

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

I mean, doesn't it say something that the extremely limited Matt Schaub is the most talented guy on that list?

I understand what you're saying but I think most people would concede that the Texans' success has often been in spite of the team's quarterback play rather than because of it.

[HPF Bob]

That list is a bit misleading. Delhomme and Garcia were emergencies brought out of retirement. He only had one year with Carr and some of the others were just passing through town.

The reputation comes from developing guys like Brian Griese and Jake Plummer, not the guys at the Texans other than Schaub.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

The reputation comes from developing guys like Brian Griese and Jake Plummer, not the guys at the Texans other than Schaub.

Well then, Kubiak's reputation is cemented. Think of how much poorer that pantheon of positional greats would be without Brian Griese and Jake Plummer. And for heaven's sake do not forget Bradlee Van Pelt.

[Nconroe]

I suppose the QB thing started with this from Wikipedia

""Kubiak won his first Super Bowl serving as the quarterbacks coach for the San Francisco 49ers in 1994,[5] guiding Hall of Fame quarterback Steve Young to one of his best seasons. Young received his second NFL MVP and captured Super Bowl XXIX MVP honors by throwing a record six touchdowns in San Francisco’s 49–26 win over the San Diego Chargers""

I thinlk he coached John Elway after that.

That seems like pretty good references.

And you likely knew that.

[barrett]

This just got a whole lot less hypothetical for me.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

This just got a whole lot less hypothetical for me.

Fire his dumb ass and let him go back to Denver to coach Peyton. Think about how sweet that would look on the old resume! Steve Young, John Elway, Peyton Manning? What's the common thread? Gary Kubiak, noted genius.

The idea that some palm-licking retard like Kubiak had any positive input into the careers of the likes of Young or Elway is laughable.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

Fire his dumb ass and let him go back to Denver to coach Peyton. Think about how sweet that would look on the old resume! Steve Young, John Elway, Peyton Manning? What's the common thread? Gary Kubiak, noted genius.

The idea that some palm-licking retard like Kubiak had any positive input into the careers of the likes of Young or Elway is laughable.

I think you replied to the wrong post. Either way you're an idiot if you think Kubiak is always responsible when things go wrong but never a part of it when things go right.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

I think you replied to the wrong post. Either way you're an idiot if you think Kubiak is always responsible when things go wrong but never a part of it when things go right.

No, you're right. Let's give Kubiak all the credit he's due for the excellent defense under the outstanding leadership of DC Frank Bush.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

No, you're right. Let's give Kubiak all the credit he's due for the excellent defense under the outstanding leadership of DC Frank Bush.

Again you want to blame him for Bush and give no credit for Wade. It's one or the other. If he gets no credit for Wade he gets no blame for Bush and vice versa.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

Again you want to blame him for Bush and give no credit for Wade. It's one or the other. If he gets no credit for Wade he gets no blame for Bush and vice versa.

Actually, in those particular scenarios, a good argument could be made for what you said. Bush was promoted after everyone else was fired on what was one of the worst defenses in league history. Further, no one was even interviewed. There was never even an attempt to explain this ridiculousness other than Bush was Kubiak's buddy.

As for Wade, there has been serious speculation that he was forced on Kubiak. I guess we don't know for sure but considering his previous hires, it's not an unreasonable conclusion. So, a strong argument could be made that he does bear responsibility for Bush but deserves little credit for Wade.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Joshua

As for Wade, there has been serious speculation that he was forced on Kubiak. I guess we don't know for sure but considering his previous hires, it's not an unreasonable conclusion. So, a strong argument could be made that he does bear responsibility for Bush but deserves little credit for Wade.

This is so staggeringly obvious that anyone taking a position otherwise can only be defending the palm-licker simply to be contrary.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

Actually, in those particular scenarios, a good argument could be made for what you said. Bush was promoted after everyone else was fired on what was one of the worst defenses in league history. Further, no one was even interviewed. There was never even an attempt to explain this ridiculousness other than Bush was Kubiak's buddy.

As for Wade, there has been serious speculation that he was forced on Kubiak. I guess we don't know for sure but considering his previous hires, it's not an unreasonable conclusion. So, a strong argument could be made that he does bear responsibility for Bush but deserves little credit for Wade.

And it would be a hollow argument. Either Kubiak makes the hires and is responsible for the whole team or he is not. I personally think he does not have a huge hand in our defense, other than protecting them with TOP and a good running game. But Bill Bellachik is a defensive coach who gets all the credit for the Pats offense and none of the blame for the crappy defense of the past 5 years. That is what being the HEAD coach means. You are responsible. It is hollow to put it all on the head coach when a team loses and not when they win. That would be like saying we lost today because we are a pathetic group that turtles up when things get tough, because that is our head coach's personality. But we won late against SD and TEN and it has nothing to do with our HC's personality.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

And it would be a hollow argument. Either Kubiak makes the hires and is responsible for the whole team or he is not. I personally think he does not have a huge hand in our defense, other than protecting them with TOP and a good running game. But Bill Bellachik is a defensive coach who gets all the credit for the Pats offense and none of the blame for the crappy defense of the past 5 years. That is what being the HEAD coach means. You are responsible. It is hollow to put it all on the head coach when a team loses and not when they win. That would be like saying we lost today because we are a pathetic group that turtles up when things get tough, because that is our head coach's personality. But we won late against SD and TEN and it has nothing to do with our HC's personality.

No, the hollow argument is attributing the same responsibilty/credit to both decisions when it is very likely that only one decision was his (hint-the bad one) and the other decision was made in spite of his wishes (another hint-the good one).

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

No, the hollow argument is attributing the same responsibilty/credit to both decisions when it is very likely that only one decision was his (hint-the bad one) and the other decision was made in spite of his wishes (another hint-the good one).

Very likely? According to what, the crack reporters at the Chronicle? You don't have a clue about either situation and are painting them how you want to fit a pre-determined argument. Head coaches get the blame and the credit, simple as that. Kubiak gets the blame today for Schaub even though we were a well coached team. And he got the credit when Hopkins jumped over a guys head on a crappy pass to set us up to win in OT. We can't cherry pick when he is the head coach and when he isn't really the head coach.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

Very likely? According to what, the crack reporters at the Chronicle? You don't have a clue about either situation and are painting them how you want to fit a pre-determined argument. Head coaches get the blame and the credit, simple as that. Kubiak gets the blame today for Schaub even though we were a well coached team. And he got the credit when Hopkins jumped over a guys head on a crappy pass to set us up to win in OT. We can't cherry pick when he is the head coach and when he isn't really the head coach.

Everyone here has to make some educated guesses based on the info. we have. You do it, I do it. We all do it. If you now object to that, i guess we should all just go home because none of us have keys to Reliant.

I don't have the time or inclination to go find articles from 3 years ago, but you know as well as I that it was largely believed that Wade was forced on Kubiak by McNair. At least my speculation has some support.

As for Kubiak, I'm actually more torn than you might expect. I give him a fair amount of credit for our drafts because i think he's heavily involved in the draft and I'm not sure anyone has drafted better than us in the last 4 years. However, since you think such speculation on my part is improper since I'm not there and don't know this for a fact, I guess I should judge him solely on gamedays from now on.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by chuck

This is so staggeringly obvious that anyone taking a position otherwise can only be defending the palm-licker simply to be contrary.

Chuck, you are so transparent. You piss and whine about every loss but never give any credit for a win. Seriously, I have never seen you make a single positive comment about a coach for our franchise. Every win is in spite of them and every loss because of them. You are a broken record.

It's "staggeringly obvious" to you that we should be 4-0, but the guys who assembled and coached the team that should be 4-0 are palm-licking retards. That is what I mean by hollow. You give NO credit and all blame. Kubiak is the all powerful boogie man behind every failure but the impotent figure head behind every success. It can't be both ways. It's an intellectually dishonest argument.