I think you underestimate the seat-to-population ratio as well as the popularity of the NFL in general. I'm not making this stuff up. The waiting list is a mile long and only getting longer. If you think one crap season after two 10+ win seasons is going to cause a mass exodus (especially after the growth following 2010, arguably the most disappointing season in franchise history), then I don't know what to tell you.
First of all, unless you're stuck in a suspect football market or crap stadium (see Jacksonville, Oakland), no team stays bad for long in this league. Even the 2004 Texans, a team top-to-bottom that was pretty bad (and bottomed out the following year at 2-14), managed to go 7-9. Secondly, the Texans are that popular... have always been that popular... and given the rise in popularity of the league every single year, has no reason to become "unpopular" even when bad. Third of all, the Texans (and McNair) could have "settled" a long time ago. Could have never extended any of their corner stones. Could have let Cushing become a free agent the very following year after an ACL injury. If he was purely in it to "cash in", there are far less expensive routes to do so than spending at or near the salary cap almost every single season.
The same was said about the Longhorns a few years ago - multiyear waiting list for season tickets, etc. Yet today, season tickets are widely available, and Belmont is constantly sending emails about face value tickets to OU and the like.
To clarify - I'm not saying it would happen this year. But tickets are a fickle thing and it can quickly turn on you.
Indeed. If anybody really wanted to go to any game, last two years included, you could. Tickets are always available for a price. Tickets continue to become more available the worse a team is... but technically, there will still be enough of selling power to have "sellouts" and avoid blackouts. (until there's a 6+ year stretch of losing, with no turnaround in sight).
You're comparing UT, where I think they averaged 40K during their darkest days (not that I blame them, there's tons of other awesome stuff to do in Austin if UT is sucking), to the NFL. I'm sorry, but that comparison just doesn't hold any water. Reliant Stadium will continue to sellout next year, regardless of what happens this season.
I remember when you would stop at a Phillips 66 station and the attendant (remember them) would throw Oilers tickets in the window. The good ole days.
Oakland has sucked for the last 10 years, but the fans hasnt left the stadium, the Browns are other team that hasnt been good in several years, and the people still going to the stadium, so no matter how sucky is the team, people always will go to see the texans.
Except they have. They reduced their capacity by 11,000 this season by tarping over seats and still aren't always selling out. Of their last 146 home games, 80 were blacked out. http://espn.go.com/blog/oakland-raiders/post/_/id/743/raiders-sell-out-game-avoid-blackout ALAMEDA, Calif. -- The Oakland Raiders have announced that Sunday’s home game against Washington has sold out and will be broadcast locally. It is the second game this season to avoid a local blackout. Oakland reduced capacity at the O.co Coliseum by about 11,000 this year, from 64,200 to 53,286, by tarping off certain sections of the stadium, including the top of Mount Davis. Including Sunday’s game, the Raiders will have avoided a blackout in 17 of 18 home games, and since taking over their own ticket sales in 2006, they have sold out 37 of 58. For those keeping track at home, the Raiders will now have televised 66 games locally with 80 blackouts since 1995, when they returned after 13 seasons in Los Angeles. The Browns have been much better at avoiding blackouts, but sometimes that's involved buying their own tickets. http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland...ake-advantage-of-new-blackout-policy-1.320646 During the 2009 season, the Browns averted four blackouts by purchasing tickets along with some of their sponsors and television partners. And their attendance is not great - near the bottom of league at around 90% of capacity. http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2012/07/browns-attendance-is-actually-below-average/
I don't think Bob is satisfied with losing as long as he's making money. I know that's a popular opinion around here, but I don't think it's true. I think he wants to win more than anything, but he has a different philosophy about how to go about it. He's said many times he believes in the Pittsburgh mentality of stability. He doesn't want a team with a different coach every 3 years. He honestly believes that the way to get better is to keep things intact and eventually that stability will pay off with a consistent winning product. You can argue that his philosophy on winning is wrong (I think it is), but I don't think you can question his will to win.
BTW, not to completely derail the thread, as I know it has veered in a different direction... but going back to the OP - anyone keeping up with the verstalie, under-utilized "round peg," James Casey, now that the NFL's latest offensive flavor of the month, Chip Kelly, has a hold of him? Five games: one catch, 12 yards. I'll maintain Kubiak, the general manager, is far more problematic than Gary Kubiak, the offensive coordinator.
Yards per play while under-utilizing James Casey: Eagles - 3rd in the NFL (2013) Texans - 15th in the NFL (2012) Makes the Eagles lack of Casey a little more excusable when the offense is humming along like it is.
This. Bob's kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum from Jerry Jones. The Cowboys haven't have a coach stay as long as Kubiak since Tom Landry. Since Jimmy Johnson took over, the average tenure for a Cowboys HC is about 3.5 years. Bob prefers stability and continuity. He views change, for the most part, as a step backwards. The optimal approach is probably somewhere in between the two. Someone who's not going to overreact as fans are prone to do, but will also make changes when it's evident it's not going to work out like you'd hoped. McNair with more accountability and a shorter leash.
It actually speaks to how little he impacts an offense, good or bad. As a football player, he's a total non-factor. Do you honestly think Chip Kelly's attitude is, "Sure, he's good; but this offense doesn't need any more weapons..."?
All it really tells us is that the Eagles have better options. Doesn't tell us whether he is good or bad, just that he isn't as good as what the Eagles currently have, which is understandable.
Casey is a good man with an INCREDIBLE story......just not sure if he's a viable NFL player or not. If he wrote an autobiography, however, I would certainly buy it.
So it was Kubiak's fault here; now it's Philadelphia's abundance of talent that's holding him back? How many more teams and middling seasons do we have to endure before we recognize that maybe James Casey is the issue? Because that's now two teams that have been unable to unlock all of his supposedly untapped potential. I just find it hard to believe that one of the brightest offensive minds in all of football has a limit to the number of playmakers he's willing to utilize. Especially on a team that lost it's WR2 before the season started. McCoy and DJ are definitive NFL weapons; but not appreciably more than Arian and AJ were between 1009 and 2012 when Casey was here - and the rest of their offensive roster isn't any better than Houston's.
All I implied was that with the offense being as erratic as it was last year, Casey deserved more of a chance. It's very possible Casey just sucks butt, but I don't think we ever got a chance to find out. It's not Kubiak's fault if Casey sucks butt, but it is his fault we never got to find out. He showed flashes here, but I certainly don't take his lack of production in Philly as any kind of sure indicator that he does indeed suck said butt. How many times can I say "suck butt" in one post? I must be setting a record here. Suck butt.
The fact that Casey could not garner consistent playing time in pre-season is pretty telling. Hell, even with the Texans he got enough exposure in pre-season to make people giddy with possibilities of what he could do. He's just not really good at anything... he's got average at best hands, not a good blocker, not particularly fast/quick, and doesn't create any sort of mis-match on the field.
