Do you want the Texans to reclaim the Oilers name and history?

And there was a NFL team in Dallas named the Texans. Gross.

Houston only went 3 years without a franchise. That's pretty decent compared to the vast majority of cities that lose and then get another team. Cleveland is a bad example since the grant of their team was part of the agreement for the city to drop their lawsuit against the NFL.

I mean... the Oilers weren't a person. It didn't leave you. The owner of the team decided to leave and took the team with him.I think a better comparison would be if your girlfriend breaks up with you and takes your dog with her. The dog was neutral in all of it.


I guess a different problem I might have would be the declining role of Oil in Houston and the downward slump it seems to be in. Might be a kind of depressing name but I don't live in Houston or really follow the business there so I have no idea.

I would be VERY happy to see the Texans change their color scheme to baby blue, white and red. That isn't even a Oilers thing. I just really like that color scheme. Our Blue is so boring. The red jerseys are much nicer but still not very unique. I get that those are the colors of the Texas flag but Jesus let's give that a rest. The team is already called the Texans. That should be enough.

 

As a non Oiler/Texans fan who grew up watching football with both teams I would love to see the Oilers name return to Houston along with the same logo and color scheme. For me the look and colors of those Oilers team where simple and worked. Also the Oil Rig on the helmet always looked cool to me.

 

history sure, and maybe we can do a throwback game once or twice a year where we wear the jerseys and honor legends. but that's it. no need to go back.

i actually think we are cursed by bud adams and the oilers. and we will continue to be cursed until we take down the astrodome. the curse even showed its head in the super bowl! sorry falcons. the texans jersey with oilers colors is so lame ewww

 

They should at least get the history back. The Adams family may have owned the team all those years, but they shouldn't get to own those moments in history. Those should belong to the fans, and those fans are in the city of Houston, not Tennessee. As for the name, I'd actually support this if only because I think "Texans" is a terrible, generic name for a professional sports team. But with all of the marketing they've done and as successful as they've been from a monetary standpoint, I seriously doubt they would change the name even if they could.

 

I think I would like the name back. When you say Oilers, everyone everywhere thinks Houston. It's the perfect name for a Houston team. The Oiler name and the team doesn't really exist anymore. That team in Tennessee isn't the Oilers. No one associates Earl Campbell or any former Oiler players with Tennessee. All those Oiler players and Oiler teams belong to Houston.

The Oiler name won't be coming back, I know that. It's just a shame that Houston wasn't able to keep the Oiler name the way that Cleveland was able to keep the Browns name.

 

There are plenty worse names but the team names have been around so long we don't think anything of it. If the name "Browns" never existed and in 2001 Houston said lets name our new franchise the Browns and for a logo we'll have a...brown helmet or we can name them the Texans. I'm going with the Texans.

 

The history (and name, frankly) should end as soon as the team crosses state lines, IMO. It makes ZERO sense to import Houston history to Tennessee, even less sense for people in Tennessee to celebrate it.

Having said that, I think it's been long enough that the Oilers have passed into that nostalgic haze that tends to heighten the good stuff and lessen the bad stuff. But it was an historically bad franchise, minus 1960-1962; 1978-1980; and some but obviously not all of 1987-1993. Essentially, 12 good years; 24 objectively shitty ones.

 

my thoughts exactly. Maybe its because Im only 26 but the Oilers mean nothing to me, sadly the Texans do lol.

 

IMO, leaving the name should always be a stipulation when a team abandons a city.

 

Texans have NOTHING to do with the Oilers. So this is a MOOT point. IF the city wants to reclaim the Oilers history fine. The Texans have built their brand and will never change to Oilers. If you are less than 20 years old, you have no connection to the Oilers. If the city is able to reclaim the history, the Texans could do special days honoring the History....but that will be extent of it.

 

Can we call them the Houston Frackers?

 

Five; the team's final year was 1996 & the Texans' first year was 2002.

 

The Deep Steel Blue looks much better than Columbia Blue. I like the bull logo slightly better than the derrick. The Texans tailgating and game day experience blows away the Oiler's experience, as does NRG's sight lines. The Texans name is meh, however. Both the Texans and Oilers fight songs suck. The Roughneck would kick Toro's arse. The cheerleaders were comparable.

This is all academic as I am pretty sure Bob is enamored with being the "founder" of the team and doesn't give two sheets about the Oilers.

 

As I said in the Superbowl thread....

 

You didn't make him take that **** off immediately?? Either that, or watch the game through the window like a heathen?

 

The team's first year was 1999. They started to play in 2002 but the city only went 3 years without a franchise. Getting a new franchise from the NFL in 3 years is very lucky. It only happened because LA couldn't get their **** together. They originally were granted the NFL's 32nd team.

By "actually" do you mean not really? Do you believe in curses? magic?

 

If he wasn't 1) a really cool dude and 2) legitimately a lifelong fan of the team and its history (he was like 5 years old when the team made the move to Tennessee) I would have absolutely made him sit in the corner of shame.

You're counting the "inception" years? Eh.

 

Inception years? There is no such thing. The Houston Texans became a NFL franchise in 1999, period. They waited to play until their stadium was built. His original point was that the city went too long without a team. It's extremely important to note that Houston had the fewest amount of years between two different franchises in the NFL by a WIDE margin. As I said, the Browns expansion team were a part of the relocation of the Ravens. The NFL didn't revisit putting a team in Cleveland years later. I don't understand the original point if this doesn't seem to matter. It's seems extremely winey to complain that Houston pulled off the incredible feet of getting a brand new team within 3 years of losing one and having to wait for a new stadium to be built. The closest city to them would be St. Louis I believe who went 7 years without a team but it would have been 10 years if they didn't have a stadium already under construction or a multipurpose venue that hadn't already been shut down. Plus, that was an existing team that moved and not an expansion franchise that had to be started from nothing. Most cities wait at least a decade. Maybe I just don't understand his original point.

 

Houstonians weren't following a football team from 1996 till 2002. They weren't watching them on TV in 1999, they weren't spending money on game tickets in 1999, and they weren't devoting hours calling into talk-radio or pouring over the BBS to discuss them in 1999.