What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The loss of Gary Kubiak to the Texans (1 Viewer)

toastedgnome

Footballguy
Listening to the podcast interview with taht Texans blogger got me thinking about Gary Kubiak. Many of us diehard Broncos fans still root for Kubes. The Texans are a team on the rise (who play in a brutal division). I always thought and hoped that one day coach Kubiak would take over for Shanahan. So my question to the shark pool is this:

Will the Texans end up being a better team than the Broncos in the long run? Shanahan isn't referred to as "mastermind" anymore, how much of that has to do with the loss of Gary Kubiak? Who would you rather have as the head coach of your team, Shanny or Kubes?

:lol:

 
I agree that Shanahan's stature as a coach at this point tends to be overstated given the advantages he enjoyed with Elway and some important assistants like Gibbs and Kubiak, but Kubiak's done exactly nothing so far as a head coach. It's a bit premature to say that he's superior to a guy who won two Super Bowls.

 
toastedgnome said:
Listening to the podcast interview with taht Texans blogger got me thinking about Gary Kubiak. Many of us diehard Broncos fans still root for Kubes. The Texans are a team on the rise (who play in a brutal division). I always thought and hoped that one day coach Kubiak would take over for Shanahan. So my question to the shark pool is this:Will the Texans end up being a better team than the Broncos in the long run? Shanahan isn't referred to as "mastermind" anymore, how much of that has to do with the loss of Gary Kubiak? Who would you rather have as the head coach of your team, Shanny or Kubes? :lmao:
As a Broncos fan, there is one thing I attribute the Broncos' current slide to... and that's talent acquisition.In the mid-to-late 90s, Denver acquired LOADS of talent. They got McCaffrey, Rod Smith, Tom Nalen, Dan Neil, Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson, John Mobley, Ian Gold, Terrell Davis, Gary Zimmerman, Mark Schlereth, and so on, and so on, and so on. Pro bowlers, all pros, and borderline HoFers by the fistful. The result of that bonanza was two SB victories, the best 3-year run in NFL history, and the ability to sustain some level of success even after Elway retired.Then the early 2000's hit, and everything went south. Here's a complete list of players acquired by the Broncos between 2000 and 2003 who are still with the team: Ben Hamilton. That's it, and even he might not make the team if his concussion issues don't go well. Now it's 2006, 2007, and those guys are the guys who Denver should be counting on as its veteran core. Denver simply didn't have a veteran core. It was then forced to try to bring in overpriced free agents, none of whom were really core guys... because teams don't let core guys leave in free agency (exception: a lucky break on Lynch not being as washed up as was commonly believed, and a stroke of genius in trading his one core chip in Portis for an even bigger core chip in Bailey).Simply put, the fact that this team is even competitive at a time when the entire talent base it's supposed to be relying on is gone is a testament to Shanahan's coaching skills. I also feel like Denver has turned a corner in talent acquisition, and since 2004 they've steadily been rebuilding their veteran core (D.J. Williams, the late Darrent Williams, Elvis Dumervil, Brandon Marshall, Tony Scheffler, and most importantly, Jay Cutler- these are all guys you can build a team around). In addition, there are several other promising young players with the potential to join that veteran core (Jarvis Moss, Tim Crowder, Marcus Thomas, Ryan Harris, Ryan Clady- you have to think that at least two of the six will make the jump), and there are other young players who were lightly regarded coming out who might be making a name for themselves (starting with Selvin Young). I think in 2-3 years, once Denver has that solid core built up again, we aren't going to be having this conversation anymore. In the meantime, I think Shanahan's still one hell of a coach who is just facing too deep of a hole (which, to be fair, he dug for himself as a front office executive through the most brutal series of drafts at the beginning of the decade that I've seen this side of Detroit).I think the big thing that Kubiak was always known for was mentoring QBs, but even then, he's still just Shanahan's protege. Kubiak's resume consists of getting career years out of Griese, Plummer, and Schaub. Shanahan's resume consists of helping build Elway, Steve Young, and now possibly Jay Cutler into franchise-changers.I still think Kubiak is a hell of a coach, and that he's going to make Houston VERY happy for a very long time... I just think it's premature to discuss whether the student has surpassed the mentor yet.
 
Bad luck, bad picks, nothing they can do about that I guess.

The borderline arrogance with developping talent, I think Shanny ate his crow and has improved dramatically. He's a very good coach and it'll start to be obvious again to those that doubt him.

 
SSOG,

are you forgiving and throw some losing up to rebuilding years, or do you think the GM/front office should have known some of those players were older and replaced them better?

 
SSOG,are you forgiving and throw some losing up to rebuilding years, or do you think the GM/front office should have known some of those players were older and replaced them better?
Denver is never rebuilding. Shanahan always goes into every season thinking he's going to win it all- and as 2005 demonstrated, it's not that crazy of a thought. I mean, who would have said before 2005 that the Broncos would be 13-3, arguably the best team in the entire NFL, and hosting the AFCCG with that roster? In fact, some might argue that the Broncos current talent scarcity is a direct result of them refusing to rebuild.Personally, I think it just boils down to bad picks. It's not like Denver didn't realize its veteran core was aging and try to replace them- they were TRYING to replace the players, the picks just weren't working out. Denver acquired no talent from 2000-2003. They've acquired a glut of talent from 2004-2007. The people making the picks has been the same. The thought process behind the picks has been the same (retool, not rebuild). The only difference is that some picks worked, and some didn't... and that the ones that didn't happened to be clustered together from 2000 to 2003. Some of those bad picks were just bad luck (Paul Toviessi springs to mind), while some were bad decisions or reaches (George Foster)... but even then, Denver "reached" on Tony Scheffler and "reached" on Jay Cutler (or, rather, traded up to get him when they already had a pro-bowl QB on their roster), and both of those moves are big reasons why their fortunes appear to be shifting. I have yet to see anything to suggest that there's any deeper reason behind Denver's "Hot, Cold, Hot" luck with talent acquisition other than simple chance.As for forgiving and letting some losing slide... absolutely I'm willing to cut Shanahan some slack. In 13 years, he's produced 4 championship-caliber teams (teams that were arguably the best in the entire NFL)... and two sub-.500 teams. That's still a good enough success rate for me to be very happy with the power structure currently in place. He could post back-to-back losing seasons over the next two years and I'd still be here singing his praises. He's a hell of a coach, and not nearly as bad of a General Manager as he's painted as.
 
there's no "arguably the best" when we have a SuperBowl to determine the best...cmon now

Otherwise, nice post

 
there's no "arguably the best" when we have a SuperBowl to determine the best...cmon nowOtherwise, nice post
The best team is not always the team that wins the Superbowl, and the team that wins the Superbowl is not always the best team. Sometimes, the better team loses.
 
there's no "arguably the best" when we have a SuperBowl to determine the best...cmon nowOtherwise, nice post
The best team is not always the team that wins the Superbowl, and the team that wins the Superbowl is not always the best team. Sometimes, the better team loses.
So if you don't win the Superbowl and have the better team... does that then speak to the coaching? :goodposting:
 
there's no "arguably the best" when we have a SuperBowl to determine the best...cmon nowOtherwise, nice post
The best team is not always the team that wins the Superbowl, and the team that wins the Superbowl is not always the best team. Sometimes, the better team loses.
So if you don't win the Superbowl and have the better team... does that then speak to the coaching? :confused:
No, that speaks to random chance. People don't want to admit it, but random chance plays a huge role in football (and any other sport, for that matter). Look at the Bills/Giants superbowl. If Scott Norwood makes his kick to win the game, is Bill Parcells a worse coach than Marv Levy? Are the Giants a worse team than the Bills? If Norwood misses the kick, is the opposite true? Was New York's defensive gameplan only brilliant because a guy who made 72% of his attempts in his career wound up missing one? Is **** Vermeil only a good coach because Kevin Dyson's reach isn't a yard longer? Is Bill Belichick only a better coach than Mike Martz and John Gruden because Adam Vinatieri made some field goals? Look back at 2004. The best team in the league (14-2 New England Patriots) wound up losing to the worst team in the league (4-12 Miami Dolphins). Is it because the Dolphins were a better team than the Pats? Is Jim Bates a better coach than Bill Belichick? Or is it possible that sometimes the better team simply loses?The only good way to measure the quality of a coach, a team, or anything else in an environment so dominated by dumb luck as football is, is to look at long term success and long term results rather than focusing on the short term. Shanahan has 4 championship-caliber teams, 2 SB wins, a 60+% career winning percentage, triple digit career wins, and only two losing seasons in Denver. The short term might have been 7-9, but the only way to really get a good sense of a coach is by looking at the big picture. Sometimes it's hard, because the immediate stuff just seems so much bigger and more important... but it's really not. Just look at Bill Cowher in Pittsburgh. The Steelers start struggling and everyone calls for his head... and the Steelers respond by going 15-1 one year and winning the SB the next. Cowher didn't forget how to coach, everyone ELSE forgot that he knew how to coach.
 
"If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?"

"There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game and that is first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay and I never want to finish second again."

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
Vince Lombardi
 
"If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?"

"There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game and that is first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay and I never want to finish second again."

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
Vince Lombardi
I'm sure a team would rather be a worse team that wins than a better team that loses. Doesn't make them a better team, though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top