Sure. But both of those guys are sub-mediocre NFL QBs, and it's not as if Osweiler (who BoB did *not* plan to start in that playoff game, btw) faced a defense full of Connor Cooks. No one should throw anyone a parade; I'm not even really giving BoB any credit, per se. I'm merely pointing out how quickly people want to dismiss BoB's one playoff win while not applying even an ounce of that same thinking to BoB's playoff losses. I mean.... how many coaches - even the good ones - are winning playoff games with Hoyer and/or Osweiler?
Just curious what ball-gargling I'm engaged in? Read through the thread.... I don't think BoB is a very good coach. He's OK. I do think he's better than many Texan fans, who use terms like, "horrible" to describe him. The Texans just went 11-5. I mean... I know fans are more interested in "yeah but"ting it away like it didn't happen... But it did! I thought he did a pretty good job getting everyone focused and bought in after 0-3; navigating an historically bad OL; managing Watson, who wasn't fully healthy for half the season; winning games with Fuller & Coutee out.... I don't think they went 11-5 *in spite* of BoB. I don't think a "horrible" coach would've squeezed 11 wins out of that season. And pointing any of that out - or refusing to participate in group-think outrage - doesn't make me a shameless shill for the team.
I didn't forget it. Context matters, and we're discussing a hypothetical situation involving presumably even teams. With no known factors - other than the Texans are involved - the odds are 50/50. They're certainly not 25/75, as you seem to think.
A good hc wont use those qbs in the first place cause they can see that they werent gud enough. BoB only has himself to blame, he chose to build the team around them/made them starter. It goes to show he has sht qb judgement, having a hard time deciding betweem Savage and Watsom as starter was just laughable.
I think its still silly to blame the franchise for acquiring stop-gaps like Fitz, Mallet, Hoyer, Osweiler, Savage.... First of all, its still not clear which franchise QB out there the Texans willingly passed over, either via the draft or via free agency. Sure, they could have drafted any of the plethora of marginal QB's other teams have taken a chance on (and devoted a rookie salary to)... but unless BOB and the Texans have a secret recipe to developing rookie/talent-poor QB's, there's a good chance those guys are going to end up with careers just as they have. On top of that, some teams significantly delay their development "waiting" on a first-second round QB to find their footing, when in the end they just never may have it (Gabbert with Jacksonville, Bortles with Jacksonville, Winston/Mariota). There's also times where you find a good QB... who's good enough to keep, but maybe not elite enough to get you anywhere significant... but you stick with him because there's just not any clear-cut options (Andy Dalton, Sam Bradford). In the end, the Texans are extremely fortunate that Watson is everything you would hope a franchise QB could be. I wouldn't change anything in their history, if there's a possibility that they don't end up with him because of it. He's commanded the offense from day one of taking the job. Some will say despite BOB and the coaching staff... and if he shows any signs of regression, by all means this coaching staff should be held liable.... but as long as the Texans have him they have a fighting chance to have success.
I find it stupid for anyone to believe every playoff game is 50/50. A qb and a star player goes down b4 first round, both team still has 50/50, bs. With no known factors? What does that even mean, when judging about odds of winning, its all about the factors. Its like u got lazy in analzying the factor and made it an even 50/50 to push the notion that Texans were unlucky not outplayed. If every games 50/50 how come in betting theres the underdog
Its laughable that you accuse them of "building" the team around guys they were willing to move on after one year (or in some cases, one game). At this point, its obvious the guy they have was the franchise QB this team was looking for since its inception. With the extreme few exceptions, teams just don't go from one HOF-potential franchise-level QB to the next. Sure, it may not always take 15 years to find one, but then again it sometimes takes a helluva lot longer. Knowing what you know now, and with all the QB's that have come/gone in the league since, who would have been your choice to be on the Texans during the Fitz/Hoyer/Mallet/Savage era? And is that person decidedly better than Watson? If not, what the hell are we arguing about?
I am not going to paint what if situation for u. Im juat saying BoB is a sht coach who gets his ass blasted in playoffs bc of the team he coach/built. BoB defenders use the qbs he had for the reason of lack of success. The man picked those dudes as his starters it on him for losing, and makes me questioned his qb judging skill. Hell he chose savage over Watson as starter b4 he realized his bumbling mistake.
This is the first time you've mentioned "presumably even teams" as far as I can recall. It certainly wasn't anywhere in the posts I quoted. Not sure why you're mentioning it now, except for that it completely changes you're argument. So now, if we're talking about two teams where evertying is as even as possible (talent, coaching, location, health, etc.), the odds are probably close to 50/50!! Damn.. super enlightening! What's the point of this line of thinking, lol? Moreover, talking about context. I said: "The comical part to me is that there are fans who would prefer 9-11 win seasons, but a 25% playoff win percentage, then actually having a chance to make and win a Super Bowl." Why did I say this? Because this is EXACTLY what we've got with BillyO so far. I also CLEARLY said "But sure, the 25% in a playoff game this upcoming season is a random estimate and no more right or wrong than your 50%". See... I not only never said an individual random playoff game was 25%/75%, I clearly said it was the opposite and further said "50% is also of course wrong. The odds for most playoff games are not 50/50. We know that, because we can actually look at the odds of past playoff games. Oddsmakers aren't always right, but they are more often than not.". I clearly said there are already experts out there (Vegas) that make probabilistic predictions which you are most likely not going to do better than - even though they're not always right. I also clearly laid out that in my hypothetical, which you took offense to, that the hypothetical tells you what happens... "The Texans don't get far in the playoffs. There win % in the payoffs is at best 50% - not their odds to win a game, there actual win % (assuming a first round win, second round loss).". Why did I do that? Because I was making up a hypothetical, lol. I was asking what is preferably, an 8-4 start on the way to an early playoff exit, or a 4-8 start and a guarantee BillyO was let go. Not that complicated. In short, when you say I clearly never thought that. I also said "Hopefully he (BillyO) proves me wrong". It's certainly still possible for them to have big success in the playoffs, to have a high likelihood of winning most of their playoff games this year per oddsmakers, or to even win the Super Bowl. Based on past data, it's statistically not likely - see % of coaches that win SBs after 5 years without that success, see likelihood of making SB as a wild-card (albeit Texans COULD get a first round bye), etc. ---- In short, relative to BillyO, I (we?) are using eye test PLUS data. Data says that he isn't likely to win a SB ring with the Texans. Data says that he's whiffed on o-line over and over. Data says that his run the ball up the middle approach isn't just a laughable inside joke among Texans fans, but statistically horrible playcalling. And the only point to my hypothetical would be, at THIS point, another early playoff exit, even though technically a more successful season than a 6-10 campaign (or the like), would not be moving the Texans in the right direction given the likelihood that it means BillyO continues to steer the ship going forward. He is our coach, this is our team, I will be rooting for them just as hard as any true fan every game, if its over after a first or even second round exit, I will once again question why we continue to spin our wheels. Mind you, this isn't just me talking, or the data talking, or whatever. NFL organizations have proven over and over again, even with MUCH MUCH more successful coaches than BillyO (eg. Bum, Andy Reid, Brian Billick, Jim Harbaugh, Mike McCarthy, and on and on), that eventually spinning the wheel means time to move on.
With no known factors? What does that even mean, when judging about odds of winning, its all about the factors. Its like u got lazy in analzying the factor and made it an even 50/50 to push the notion that Texans were unlucky not outplayed. If every games 50/50 how come in betting theres the underdog[/QUOTE] Yes, factors are absolutely important - that's why, when we're talking about a hypothetical playoff game five months in the future, all you can reasonably assume - minus those factors (like the opponent, location, injuries...) - is that the two teams will be relatively equal.
...It's actually not. (emphasis added) Try harder... That's not my argument, and I'm growing tired of having to explain it to you... A hypothetical playoff game being played five months from today, in which we don't know anything about the match-up other than the Texans will be involved - a team that, per *your* hypothetical, would be 8-4 and on pace to win 11 games - would be a coin flip. It certainly would *not* be 25/75 because Bill O'Brien has previously won 25% of his playoff games. And yes, that is EXACTLY what you said. Multiple times. And then you said it again in this every response. You think the Texans' chances of winning any one random playoff game - in which we don't know any factors - is 25%, therefore you'd rather the team NOT start 8-4. Give me 8-4 and a playoff game in which *anything* could happen over 4-8 & a rebuild ANY DAY.
At the same time, detractors like to point out that he was "dedicated" to those QB's when they were clearly not. Including the Savage debacle in which his supreme dedication lasted only one half. Which ironically most fans, including many complaining about BOB, were saying Watson "wasn't ready", based on the pre-season action, and were willing to take the patient approach. Then when it turned out the Watson is football Jesus incarnate, it turns into the narrative of how could anybody bench this guy ever. The goal-post can literally shift any way you want it. If he's great, its BOB's fault for not playing him. If he's bad, its BOB's fault for not taking the patient approach that has worked with several HOF QB's. BOB is clearly a better "leader of men" (whatever that is) vs. a good coach. NFL history is littered with head coaches (who had success) who were better motivators, unifiers, and ultimately winners vs. being a master strategist-x's/o's savant. Likewise, there have been plenty of mediocre head coaches who were perfect strategizers/schemers. While a BOB head-coached team will almost always have issues with in-game clock/timeout management, or initial game plans that end up needing tweaking/adjustments... you also don't really ever see a fractured locker room, malcontents that end up "running the asylum", or in general a team that lacks chemistry/cohesiveness. In the end, you can pick and choose what to root for with any team. I do choose Watson and being competitive in games, without locker room or off the field drama. This is a make/break season (as last year was also a make/break season). If they don't respond to adversity, could easily see a change. There's also now limited chance of a coaching shift significantly altering Watson's development (which is why I wasn't on board with something before last year, when Watson had yet to play a full season).
If they weren't "gud" enough, and BoB is a horrible head coach... how did he manage to win 27 games with them? This is an indictment of BoB's skills as a general manager, not as a coach. On that front, you'll get no argument from me as he seems to struggle with player evaluation.
This will be my last response. As I said already, before being sucked back in, its not worth arguing about this with you. You've been doing this on this board for a decade plus, and your shtick is always the same and always, big picture, wrong. I did not try hard, and I definitely won't try harder. Why...? Because, congrats, you got me!! Honestly I have absolutely no desire to argue with someone whose core point is, I guess, is that two even teams have an even shot at winning a game. Congrats, you win that completely useless argument. If I knew I was arguing about a point so dumb as to think no one would ever mention it, I would have exited stage left before starting. I don't really care what your argument is. You're apparently too dumb to comprehend a hypothetical where we know exactly what happens in the future playoffs because I entirely made it up and said what would happen. I never engaged you on your argument. I responded to your offense about my hypothetical. That's it. The end. You quoting me: The comical part to me is that there are fans who would prefer 9-11 win seasons, but a 25% playoff win percentage, then actually having a chance to make and win a Super Bowl. Congrats!! You've proved that I laid out the exact history of BillyO's tenure, not that I said a future playoff game would be 25%/75%. I clearly laid out what the future playoff games would look like (both (i) specifically in my hypothetical - a first or second round exit, and (ii) more generally with stats as well as referencing Vegas odds). But that's over your head, so you keep going with your coin flip hypothetical that basically never happens in real life. You quoting me: The Texans are 1-3 in the playoffs under BillyO. That's a 25% win percentage. The one win came against a team led by Connor Cook. But sure, the 25% in a playoff game this upcoming season is a random estimate and no more right or wrong than your 50%. Again, thanks for proving my point and that you have no reading comprehension skills!!! Once again, I've clearly laid out what BillyO's current playoff record is and that any number for an actual (not the future hypothetical) future playoff game at this point is a random estimate and as equally right or wrong as some other random number. I don't really know how else to put this, Ric, but as simple as I've laid this out, it's apparently still too complex for you to figure out. Lol. You can keep saying what I said, or keep arguing some random hypothetical (that the Texans are going to be exactly evenly matched against every playoff opponent... something that, given home field advantage, isn't even possible) that has absolutely nothing to do with the one I laid out that you took offense to. I really don't care. I recognize now that this is too complicated for you. ---- For the rest of the readers, it's not complicated. Data says wild card teams have a VERY LOW chance of making it to the SuperBowl. Data says that head coaches with more than 5 years of experience winning a superbowl in their 6th+ year after having not done so in years 1-5 is incredible rare. Data says that BillyO's play-calling has been suspect. Data says that BillyO's approach to the offensive line has been atrocious. All that said, would you rather a solid winning record but GUARANTEED early playoff exit (sorry I wrote guaranteed in capitals, but in case Ric is still reading, maybe he'll get it now, though I doubt it), or a under .500 record and GUARANTEE that BillyO isn't back next year?
HOLY CRAP THIS. And after spending all preseason...the plan got junked within football minutes of the first game.
Winning in regular season is all fine and dandy, but we have yet to have any great success in playoffs where it actually matters. We have a HC in his sixth year, and his best playoff success was winning the first round against a 3rd string qb.
1. This is stupid, you ignore factors, made both team equal to prove what point? Texans has a coin flip chance in playoffs? Using your weird ass logic, I can say every team even the shtty ones has an equal chance to win the superbowl. Since i ignore all factors and made the teams all equal when in fact they are not. 2. And there we go folks the mentality of a fan okay with this mediocre franchise. Getting regular season wins literally means nothing if you can't get the ring. Sure u get the glory of getting into playoffs, but it doesn't hide the fact that we haven't gone far, our stars r getting older, oline is sht and many other weaknesses. U dont seem to b patient with building a team that has a legit chance for the superbowl and seem content with winning the AFC South Division Title and making it into playoffs = quite sad. 3. Playoff wise he's not good at all, there's no way u can spin that. His record is sht, his stat is sht, his team plays like sht. It could be a combination of many things but as the HC when your 11-5 team goes in and get literally sht on by the division rival in single game elimination, goes to show he's not preparing his team well enough. not Good enough or not good at all, it's doesnt erase the fact that both characterization of his coaching ability will still result in no Superbowl glory under BoB leadership
Hey, if you think that BoB is the coach to lead this team into future promised lands...great for you. I don't understand it, haven't for a couple of years now, but ok then. Jeff Luhnow took over, hired a coach, fired his ass 2 years later when he realized they didn't see eye-to-eye, then won a WS with his new hire. Just saying. GMs are fun like that.
In the NFL, the head coach often hires the GM (more than likely to be a cap manager), not the other way around. Very little chance a NFL head coach has zero input on personnel. In baseball, its rare that the GM ever played baseball.
