exposure doesn't matter with the nfl. i'm sure you got a lot of exposure in new orleans in 2003. its the same reason two years ago the kids thought larry was better than andre. two good defensive backs can turn this team around, if it that happens, this team will be on national television five to six times a season
No offense, but who the hell gave you the authority to decide what the Texans' perception is? You can give your own opinion, and that's fine. But to act as if you know what the outside perception is is just silly. The NFL is a league where fluke seasons happen all the time, based on the small sample. The Saints were 8-8 before winning the Super Bowl the following season with a virtually identical cast. In 2010, the Texans had some of the most absurd, ridiculous misfortune of any team I've watched in 20+ years. And I'm not alone in that line of thinking (and no, I'm not referring to Texan diehards). Since then, the Texans brought in a proven defensive coordinator, had what most analysts lauded as a very good draft, and should have money to spend in free agency. Meanwhile, on offense, they have loads of talent. Most importantly, they have continuity at quarterback, the game's premium position. Compare that to the Redskins. One year ago, the Bengals were coming off an 11-5 season with a division championship, while the Steelers were coming off an 8-8 year with no playoffs. I'm guessing, by your "standings" logic, that you assumed the Bengals were the better team, correct? After all, flukes never happen in 16 games and the direction of a franchise can be accurately judged by one year, right? PS: Might as well be playing in Barcelona? You're unbelievable. Houston is one of the most popular offseason homes for athletes with a fanbase that's sold out every game in franchise history. It's the fourth-largest city in the US with facilities as good as any in the league. I can absolutely, positively promise you this, having talked to numerous players, executives, writers, etc. with NO AFFILIATION to Houston: if you think the Texans aren't seen as a legitimate destination, you're dead wrong. As far as the comparison to Dallas, that's just bizarre. The Texans aren't even in the same conference as the Cowboys and rarely compete with them for anything. What the hell relevance does that have to anything? The Eagles aren't quite as popular as the same-state Steelers. Somehow, Philadelphia is still able to have a successful franchise. Whoa, whoa. Since when did distribution enter the conversation? I thought we were talking about prominence and/or spotlight. ESPN may utilize a different line of thinking when they create their matchups (they tend to go with young, up-and-comers), but we're talking about the national relevance of Monday Night Football compared with Sunday Night Football. It seems kind of hypocritical for you - the guy going on and on about the Redskins and Cowboys and their supposedly incredible exposure, regardless of record - to then turn around and use wins/losses as your only measuring stick for NBC vs. ESPN. Which is it? I was going under the hypothetical that he was at the beginning of his career. Anyway, I'll revise the statement. If Larry Fitzgerald were a free agent right now, and the Texans and Redskins were the top bidders (equal), I'd bet almost every cent I own that he takes the Houston offer. With the lockout, TV networks didn't have the luxury they normally do in observing free agent changes before making their schedule. The context of our discussion, and Asomugha's hypothetical decision, are how these teams look with Nnamdi Asomugha on them. Are you seriously comparing Phillips as a DC to his role as a head coach? Yes, an outsider who has no understanding of football or sports might draw that conclusion. I try to focus on observers with common sense. The Texans had a historically bad defense. They've since brought in a proven successful defensive coordinator, are returning a Pro Bowl LB, spent three picks in the top two rounds on defenders, and could add Nnamdi Asomugha or other marquee free agents. With the exception of Phillips, those things all happened AFTER networks had to make a decision on schedule. This isn't mindless optimism from myself. This is shared by numerous legitimate analysts around the league. Clark Judge from CBS is the latest to jump on the Texans playoff bandwagon, based largely on things that happened post-April 20 and/or are likely to happen in the near future. Again, I don't think most players or fans look at the Texans as a 6-10 situation. You can disagree, and that's fine - but that's not how most folks that I've listened to see it. I said all things being equal. The Redskins were willing to offer Haynesworth $41 million guaranteed, a figure no other team would even come close to. To no surprise, he took the money. Thanks for another example of my point. That's exactly the opposite of what Houston is. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Cat, I wrote up another long, detailed response and then realized that this was quickly splintering into minutia and that we were way off topic over here and arguing about something insignificant over there and so… Here’s my bottom line. I mostly agree with *your* perception of the Texans. A lot of people here think I actually work for the team, LOL, so, yeah – I’m mostly optimistic, etc. about the 2011 team. But I don’t think most 25-year old, multi-millionaire athletes give it near as much thought or study as you or I might. I’m guessing they see what is readily seeable: 6-10; year after year of unfulfilled promise; no playoff appearances; no national exposure; no history; etc. The Redskins, meanwhile, have an owner that will spend and spend stupidly. And when good, we *know* that they receive maximum exposure from the national media. Their history is long and storied, their support is unrivaled and they play every year against other high-profile NFL franchises that also receive maximum national exposure. They’re down now – but universally, they are among the upper-tier of NFL franchises. If you think players see the two destinations as roughly equal, let’s agree to disagree and not bog down the forum with our round and round because I’ll never believe that. Yes, if the Texans are 10-6 over the course of multiple seasons and highly competitive overall while the Redskins falter and sink into, well, current Texan territory – sure, the Texans would have a leg-up. That's true of any successful team v. unsuccessful team. I’m only arguing that a team like the Redskins or Cowboys or Steelers or Packers – when good – offer more than a team like the Texans can, even if they’re equally as good. (Or bad, as the current case is currently.) (And no, Larry Fitzgerald would not come here to play Andre Johnson’s caddy if the alternative is to be top dog on the Washington Redskins. If you honestly believe that…….. I don’t know what to say. Does *any*one else think he’d choose Houston over Washington? Again, I’m often accused of being a massive Texan homer and even I find that unfathomable.)
thanks, i like reading you guys' posts but i hate that quote response quote response, it prevents me from reading posts. not just on this forum, i try to avoid doing that myself.
I wouldn't have believed it before July 8, 2010. Sadly, I don't think the "top dog" tag means that much to most modern athletes. I think most of the elite types now want to play with their friends, believing it will enhance their exposure (winning) regardless of media/fan perception. (Assuming the money is equal, of course.) I hope I'm wrong and you're right, for the sake of competition. But I don't see it.
perhaps that viewpoint gives "the Decision" far too much credence? i'm not sure the tide of how elite athletes make their decisions has universally changed based on what two prima donnas and their tag-along did a year ago.
I hope so. And certainly, there are a few Kobe Bryant/Kevin Durant types that take enough pride in their craft and have enough respect for competition not to go that route. But for the majority, the rumors since then, along with Twitter posts and the small handful of athletes I've talked to myself, have me skeptical. As it is, this would probably be best for another thread, since a debate over whether it matters to be the "top dog" probably won't be applicable to anyone the Texans will go after. I do hope I'm wrong, though.
To the Redskins topic - I think most points being made are valid, if exaggerated. It helps that Snyder's developed a rep for pushing the envelope on the cap rules to wiggle in a financial advantage (like Jerry Jones). Given their mediocrity limbo, coaching carousel, and numerous falling outs with players, I wouldn't call DC "elite" in terms of recruitment these days. The virtue of their history (really, we could just call this Gibbs' first run) is virtually negated by the past 15 years of swill. The NFC East feasts on having the most competitive rivalries in the league, challenged only by the NFC North (and if the Lions are for real, it'll be serious challenge). All 4 teams go at it. All 4 fanbases are rabid and hate each other to death. All 4 are old school franchises. Old School owns New School in the NFL. Old School fans get buried in their team's blanket. It's night and day versus the NBA. For a New School team to be marquee, they have to set the league completely on fire. Old school teams just need to vie for a wild card. Back to the point, I think "exposure" on the Skins gets balanced out by a few things by the Texans: Player's Coach vs Coach that lost half his locker room by midseason Tax Free State Electric Offense vs Sputtering Offense Good QB vs One of the Most QB-Plagued Franchises of the past two decades (Receivers kind of sort of want the ball)
haynesworth went to the redskins, who else a washed up mcnabb. why can't they ever find a quality receiver, a quality every down back, its a silly claim.
Houston is easily just as attractive of a location as Washington. In the end, money talks...not what a team did 20 years ago. Warm weather, low cost of living, no state income tax, and some hot ass girls... The history of the redskins isn't enough to sway a 25 yr old dude...it's all about "what can you offer me now?".
The history sways the networks - they view Washington (when good, obviously) as a premiere franchise. (And they still value them even when they're not paticularly good; see this year's MNF schedule.) Thus, the Redskins are much more likely to generate national coverage. And that absolutely plays to these guys. Very few of them want to spend their careers in obscruity.
Don't those players have to be available, though? (And didn't Chad Johnson attempt to manufacture a trade there several years ago, didn't he?)
playing in the NFC East would seem to be a real draw. everything else mentioned, however, seems a stretch. I mean I can logically see how you could surmise or speculate that TV appearances would mean something to a player; I just don't buy it nearly as much as $$$$$ and an opportunity to win.
Playing an extra nationally televised game doesn't take someone from obscurity to fame...a player isn't going to take a contract that is less money to play in an extra Sunday nighter. With the flex scheduling...the good teams will always win out...not the team that played in a superbowl 20 years ago. Money is the most important factor. After that, it's the chance to win (which brings with it the national coverage). Those are the two main factors in swaying players to join a team.
I think it's much more on point to say they view NFC East Rivalry games as ratings in the bank and the Was/Dal rivalry games as signature. 2011: Was/Dal (MNF) 2010: Was/Phi (MNF), Was/Dal (SNF*) 2009: Was/Phi, Was/NYG (MNF), Was/Dal (SNF) If you replaced Washington with Dallas in all of your posts, I'd agree 100%. But Washington gets almost all of its exposure because of its NFC East connections. Network execs get wet whenever the Cowboys come out of the gates looking strong. Not even the Eagles and Giants have that same level of pull, and the Skins are a solid step below that. Skins are to Lions as Cowboys are to Packers. *Also a rare non-NFC-E appearance: Was/Colts
I 99.999999999% agree. I don't think there's a set pecking order behind Dallas, though - I think it's whichever is the 2nd best team (or even best team, as Dallas' standing is almost universally irrelevant). I know they'd prefer that team be the Giants but...
michael turner went to probably the least popular division in football. he had to be one of the biggest free agent backs in the last five seasons.
You can't cherry pick one guy and say, "See???" Besides, Clinton Portis was coming off a 1,200-yard season and was made the highest-paid RB in football three years prior. And the guy was 26. They likely had no interest in Michael Turner.
