Bud's teams were either good or bad where they were building for the future. I'm pretty sure they were never stuck in perpetual mediocrity, with the Holier than thou attitude of Not Texans Worthy.
Exactly how has McNair been a better owner than Adams. When Adams died McNair called Adams his mentor on channel 13 after the funeral. Two dead peas in a pod if you ask me.
They were, how did you put it? Building for the future a lot: 27 NFL seasons in Houston; they had a non-winning record in 15 of them. If you extend it back to their AFL days, 21 losing seasons out of 37. They posted double-digit wins just 11 times in 37 years, often with loooong gaps between them - once between '62-'77 (when their overall record was 72-127-5); once between '81-'90 (60-91). Yeah, model franchise... You're addicted to a drug called nostalgia; it's clouding your memories. The Oilers had three remarkably memorable stretches, one of which came in an expansion league that no longer exists (and occurred years before most of us were born) and another one that was marred by crushing, historic playoff losses and unfulfilled potential. The third was torpedoed by your favorite owner because he was a terrible owner who made rash, irresponsible decisions. The rest of their tenure in Houston was sub-mediocre.
Yeah... not exactly. There's no 1:1 comparison because the Oilers were never an expansion team in an established league. Their first 17 years, post-NFL merger (which is the only rough equivalent), their track record was *not* better than the Texans': Oilers ('70-'87): 94-153 (.381); 5 winning seasons; 3 playoff appearances Texans ('02-'18): 121-151 (.445); 7 winning seasons; 5 playoff appearances I'll say this again, maybe for the final time? You're mainlining a drug called nostalgia. Has there been an era with the Texans anywhere close to the Luv Ya Blue era? No. Not close. That was unique and special and awesome. But nearly every single thing before and for the ~10 years after.... it was *not* good, no matter how many highlights of Earl Campbell jackhammering Jack Tatum you inject into your veins to try and forget that. The Oilers were a broken clock franchise - right twice and wrong for the other 22 hours.
Skewing the stats. The AFL was just as good as the NFL. Why do you think they merged? BTW, what was the record in the first four SB's? NFL 2, Packers AFL 2, NYJ, Chiefs. Yep they were equal.
They merged in 1970, ten years after the league formed and three years after they (retroactively) launched the Super Bowl (the first two of which, the NFL won by a combined score of 68-24, BTW). In 1960, it was an expansion *league* with 8 teams; 5-6 of which were not very good. Care to guess how many teams posted winning records those first two seasons? 6. 10 did not. Cool that the Oilers won it twice - but hanging your hat on something that happened 60 years ago in a defunct expansion league as proof of a franchise's superiority sort of, kind of undermines your basic premise. Also, stat skewing? Like I said, I was trying to draw a rough equivalent since a direct one does not exist. But, OK: Oilers ('60-'76): 101-131 (.465); 5 winning seasons; 5 playoff appearances (all AFL); 2 championships (AFL) Texans ('02-'18): 121-151 (.445); 7 winning seasons; 5 playoff appearances I'm sure everyone would have loved... Arena League championships had the Texans started there - but they didn't. They instead, unlike the Oilers, started at a distinct disadvantage relative to 31 other, established NFL teams. And yet, they were *still* about where the Oilers were at the end of 17 seasons. I'm not here to argue the Texans have been good because they have not. I'm arguing your nostalgia addiction is causing you to filter out all of your bad memories of the Oilers, leaving you with only the warm and fuzzy ones. They were *not* a good franchise and it was in large part because Bud Adams was an irresponsible, impatient, cheap owner.
So before the merger the SB record was 2-2? The talent level was at least equal. This is what lead to the merger. Carry on
You've ventured so far into the weeds here...... Yes, by the end of the AFL's first decade, the talent had gotten better (which led to better-than-expected ratings, and *that* is the reason the NFL merged, btw. They didn't care about talent; they cared about losing eyeballs). But, we're talking about it's first three years, dude. A merger 9 years after the Oilers' last championship does not retroactively mean the league was always NFL-level talented. The first two Super Bowls bear that out. Hide behind your little flimsy square-footage of "yeah but" all you want - I'm done. You're not interested in actually engaging and debating any of my counterpoints; your only interest is to troll, so... have at it. I've grown bored.
Time to move on to slurping some more of the j*zz the Texans org is throwing out there. Wake me up when they reach a conference championship game. The Oilers made a conference championship game after 18 yrs.
I can't believe y'all are arguing about the Oilers v. Texans. As someone who fervently loved the former growing up and has never cared about the latter, I think you can reconcile your differing views maybe this way: The only meaningful difference between the relative success of the two franchises was the brief and wondrous career of Earl Campbell. That's really it. (And even then, stupid management allowed that man to be run into the ground.) Otherwise very mediocre on the main for both of those franchises. Right? No real need to elevate one ownership group over the other.
It's official...you're irony's little b****. A stadium that was obsolete before the gates even opened in a third-rate back-water like Nashville. Having to schlep around to two other decrepit buildings before he even got his dump. Some of the worst naming rights deals in all of professional sports. Being forced to watch his betters host the Super Bowl, something he desperately wanted to be a part of. Having to commute back and forth for home games. Of course you don't blame him, you're as ignorant as he was. Please explain to us all, in detail, how leaving Houston for NASHVILLE of all places was a "better deal". This should be good considering you didn't even know he was offered a deal in Houston or that he greedily tried to suck money from a better, smarter and infinitely more successful owner than he ever was or could have been.
I dont know the deal, do you and will you post it if you do. 1. Adams is a businessman and wouldn't have left if he didn't get a better deal. He didn't get the nickname Bottom Line Bud for nothing. 2. The Oilers have been a more successful franchise on the field.
So, you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Well, you've proven, conclusively and unassailably, that you most definitely CANNOT make the argument that Bud was a better owner. You might want to educate your ignorant ass so, that in the future you don't embarrass yourself with what you don't know. Start with Ed Fowler's "Loser Takes All: Bud Adams, Bad Football and Big Business" and John Pirkle's "Oiler Blues: The Story of Pro Football's Most Frustrating Team". That's not one but TWO books outlining what a sh!tty owner he was! Bud Adams is dead. He WAS a businessman and a greedy, ignorant POS when it came to the business of the Oilers. He got the name Bottom Line Bud for doing things like breaking every lease he ever signed, never up grading the Oilers facilities in 37 years, making the county pay for 10,000 seats at the 'dome that he couldn't fill, not allowing tailgating so, fans had to buy food and drinks from him and trying to reap the benefits of the Rockets two championships by making Les his tenant at what would have been one of the worst venues in the NBA. The simple fact of the matter is that there was no deal In Nashville that would have been better than any deal in Houston. Just look at the values of the two franchises today. Moving to Nashville was the dumbest decision he ever made as owner of the Oilers. And that's saying A LOT. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. I mean, who DOESN'T wish we had some more of those back-to-back 1-13 season? Or have fond memories of "Stagger Lee"? Remember blowing out Buffalo in '93? Well, for 2 1/2 quarters anyway? Too bad he moved to Nashville in '96 otherwise you could have jerked off over losing a Super Bowl in the Oilerest way possible!
Yes; that is, more or less, what I've said. There is one - very brief - era of Oiler football that is very nearly above reproach: Luv Ya Blue. The AFL championships were, well, *AFL* championships and happened 60 years ago, and the run-n-shoot era had as much disappointment and frustration as it did success. The only mark against Luv Ya Blue was the owner, who this dullard has been defending, firing Bum Phillips and bringing it to a premature end. (That and it, you know, coinciding with a Steeler dynasty.) The Texans have done little to distinguish the franchise. Having said that, they've been about as un/successful as the Oilers were. (PS My oldest son is named Campbell so, yeah.....)
