How come Gary Kubiak isn't lauded more in the NFL?

[Championshiporbust]

He was a great offensive coordinator for the Broncos for 10 years when he coached Terrell Davis, John Elway, Ed McCaffrey and Shannon Sharpe, he won 2 AFC South titles, and his crowning achievement, he won Super Bowl 50 with Peyton Manning in a swan song for Peyton...

[Trojan]

He won 3 more SBs as an assistant it's not just the one as HC with Peyton Manning, the 49ers Steve Young one and the two Broncos Elway ones.

He isn't more lauded because the Texans were largely mid and that's the bulk of his career as HC.

[y*so*blu]

Kubiak was the Norv Turner of his day. A great offensive coordinator, but a guy who couldn't really get it done as head coach. He did finally get over the hump in 2015 but it took a lot of luck and a historically great defense.

[Jakuvious]

Like Trojan said, he was very mid as head coach of the Texans, and that is what he's most known for.

It doesn't help that his more successful stints, no one really sees him as the driving force behind them. Yeah, he did well as the OC for the Broncos, but absolutely no one sees that as Kubiak's offense. Ask anyone, whether it's right or wrong, and they'll tell you it was Shanahan's system.

Even less credit for his HC stint in Denver, where he came in, took over a 12-4 team, went 12-4, won a superbowl off of an elite defense he had basically nothing to do with, and then promptly walked away.

So when he was the guy, he was just okay. When he was most successful, he was kind of just an accessory.

[ET80]

21 hours ago, Trojan said:

He isn't more lauded because the Texans were largely mid and that's the bulk of his career as HC.

 

5 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Like Trojan said, he was very mid as head coach of the Texans, and that is what he's most known for.

Bingo. He had a string of 8-8 runs with the Texans, had some offensive firepower with Andre Johnson and Arian Foster as the focal point of that Shanahan offense, but he wasn't able to get over that 8-8 hump until he was forced to bring in Wade Phillips as his DC. Phillips had a hand in bringing in JJ Watt to Houston, which cranked up their defense to compete with their offense - but then Matt Schaub started to go down with injuries and inept play.

The team sort of floundered with Kubs - never fully bottomed out until 2013, but never got over the hump.

[Calamity_Cometh]

I, for one, consider him Broncos royalty if nothing else.

[SteelKing728]

I enjoyed him that one year as the Vikings OC.

...not so much his kid though.

[ronjon1990]

Like others have said, he was sort of just "there" as the main guy having success. 

His Houston teams arguably underacheived a bit. Further, though it doesn't fall on him alone, he never had much success building his own squad. He definitely had pieces- Johnson, Foster, Steve Slaton that one year, etc. But the squad that he had his best success with was basically built for him amd he was just hired to oversee. 

I don't want to say anyone could have taken that Denver team all the way. I've seen the hatchet job Josh McDaniels and Lane Kiffin can do to a team. Kubiak clearly doesn't fall into the "terrible" coach category by any stretch of the imagination. But....a lot of coaches could have taken that Denver squad to a Superbowl. Too many to attribute much of the success to a HC that was installed to administer, rather than build something. 

He was a good coach. He was a guy you could trust to hold down the fort and with the right players have some success. But what's the real difference between he and, say, Ken Whisenhut? Had the Cardinals won that Superbowl, he would have had a ring. But he wasn't really the driving force behind Warner, Boldin, Breaston, and Fitzgerald. He was sort of just there for the ride and without 3 of those guys being HOF caliber transcendent players, what would Ken's legacy be? He wasn't successful without them. Maybe not terrible, but hardly a success. Same with Kubiak- without that Broncos offense he didn't have much of a hand in, he's a mediocre HC. 

In 25 years, he'll probably be listed as one of the top 100 OCs of all time or something. His name will long outlive him, especially in Broncos circles for his time as OC and HC. But outside of that, what's to remember about the bulk of his height of exposure?

[AngusMcFife]

On 4/17/2024 at 10:57 AM, ronjon1990 said:

Like others have said, he was sort of just "there" as the main guy having success. 

His Houston teams arguably underacheived a bit. Further, though it doesn't fall on him alone, he never had much success building his own squad. He definitely had pieces- Johnson, Foster, Steve Slaton that one year, etc. But the squad that he had his best success with was basically built for him amd he was just hired to oversee. 

I don't want to say anyone could have taken that Denver team all the way. I've seen the hatchet job Josh McDaniels and Lane Kiffin can do to a team. Kubiak clearly doesn't fall into the "terrible" coach category by any stretch of the imagination. But....a lot of coaches could have taken that Denver squad to a Superbowl. Too many to attribute much of the success to a HC that was installed to administer, rather than build something. 

He was a good coach. He was a guy you could trust to hold down the fort and with the right players have some success. But what's the real difference between he and, say, Ken Whisenhut? Had the Cardinals won that Superbowl, he would have had a ring. But he wasn't really the driving force behind Warner, Boldin, Breaston, and Fitzgerald. He was sort of just there for the ride and without 3 of those guys being HOF caliber transcendent players, what would Ken's legacy be? He wasn't successful without them. Maybe not terrible, but hardly a success. Same with Kubiak- without that Broncos offense he didn't have much of a hand in, he's a mediocre HC. 

In 25 years, he'll probably be listed as one of the top 100 OCs of all time or something. His name will long outlive him, especially in Broncos circles for his time as OC and HC. But outside of that, what's to remember about the bulk of his height of exposure?

He should be credited with implementing the zone blocking scheme at the highest level.

It shouldn't not be considered a Shanahan-style offense, but rather the Shanahan-Kubiak style of offense.

Just looking at wins and losses misses his schematic contribution.

[ronjon1990]

27 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

He should be credited with implementing the zone blocking scheme at the highest level.

It shouldn't not be considered a Shanahan-style offense, but rather the Shanahan-Kubiak style of offense.

Just looking at wins and losses misses his schematic contribution.

OK so he was second fiddle to Shanahan and surpassed by Shanaha's kid by miles as a HC while never really replicating said second fiddle success away from Shanahan or ever even having what anyone would call a "good" offense as a HC in Houston. 

Those types of coaches are literally a dine a dozen. 

[AngusMcFife]

34 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

OK so he was second fiddle to Shanahan and surpassed by Shanaha's kid by miles as a HC while never really replicating said second fiddle success away from Shanahan or ever even having what anyone would call a "good" offense as a HC in Houston. 

Those types of coaches are literally a dine a dozen. 

Not sure you can say he's been surpassed by Kyle Shanahan when Kubiak has a ring as HC and 2 rings as OC to one of the greatest rushing attacks in league history and Kyle has incredible assemblage of talent but still chokes the season away every year.

I'd also argue that those Texans offenses were very difficult to deal with defensively, they were very strong offensives despite the fact that they were led by Schaub at QB who was mid at best but Kubiak got great production out of him.

I don't know how you can say those Texan offenses weren't "good".

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

Not sure you can say he's been surpassed by Kyle Shanahan when Kubiak has a ring as HC and 2 rings as OC to one of the greatest rushing attacks in league history and Kyle has incredible assemblage of talent but still chokes the season away every year.

I'd also argue that those Texans offenses were very difficult to deal with defensively, they were very strong offensives despite the fact that they were led by Schaub at QB who was mid at best but Kubiak got great production out of him.

I don't know how you can say those Texan offenses weren't "good".

Because context exists.

[AngusMcFife]

3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Because context exists.

Kyle Shanahan:
64-51 regular season (.557)
8-4 postseason (.667)

Gary Kubiak:
82-75 regular season (.522)
5-2 (.714)
1 Super Bowl as HC
2 Super Bowls as OC
1 Super Bowl as QB coach (1994 49ers)

I'm sorry but I don't think it's fair to say Kyle Shanahan is miles ahead of Kubiak as a coach. Kubiak was the coach of one of the most pathetic loser franchises in the league with Matt Schaub at QB and still put together some very tough teams. The first year he coached for a good franchise he won the Super Bowl. If Kubiak had a loaded roster like Shanahan his regular season win % would be better.

[AngusMcFife]

I will add that as a Ravens fan, 2014 was the year Gary Kubiak was their OC and it was BY FAR the best coached offense the Ravens ever had. Yes there have been better years with Lamar at QB, but in terms of being crisp, organized, detailed-oriented, getting that absolute max out of every player, and just very schematically clever and advanced, it was extremely impressive. The year was a real diamond in the rough in terms of Ravens offense history. They put up 31 vs. the Pats in Foxboro in the playoffs but lost.