It seems everytime a Texan fan gets into this they say things like "Don't live in the past." Ok, lets not go back to the 90's, lets go back to the most recent example we can take Last year: Cowboys: Playoffs Texans: Not even close to playoffs. 19-10 ! Remember the Alamo!
How could opening night on National TV for the Cowboys facing the new state rival not mean a lot to the Cowboys? While the 'Boys were facing an expansion team, I am sure there was extra motivation for Dallas to hand Houston its first regular season loss and for Dallas to begin the season with a 'W' in a game that the Cowboys should have won. Yeah it meant a lot for the Texans, but to say that the opening game meant little to a professional football team would put into question the goals of the team.
I was really talking more about the fans. I wasn't trying to suggest that the Cowboys weren't trying to win the game.
Drew -- come on...it was the Texans first game in franchise history. people were saying they would only win 1-2 games all season long, and it CERTAINLY wouldn't be their first real game together, ever. it was a celebration of the return of the NFL to Houston...I was at the game, and lost my voice after the first offensive series. from a Houston fan's perspective, it was one of the greatest sports moments of my life. and a big part of that was because it was against the cowboys. that's how it goes. you will ALWAYS hear about 19-10...and the good news is that the outcome helps to build the rivalry.
right. exactly. good point. is your middle name "de"? there are battles Houston sports fans should try to fight, and the professional football battle with the Dallas Cowboys isn't one of them. I'm sure that, at some point, the Clippers have probably gotten a game from the Lakers, too. honestly, as someone who grew up mostly in Houston, the incessant 19-10'ing just makes the town and its fans look kind of pathetic. when 19-10 is what you have to hang your hat on, you don't have much to hang your hat on. give it time, nephew.
Of course, it took more than two seasons to build up this playoff team. They were 5-11 in the 2002 season (and 2001, and 2000). Seems to me that if the Texans make the playoffs for the 2005 season, their recent history would pretty well match that of the Cowboys.
I do think it's impossible to compare two teams that don't have similar starting points, which is actually what made the 19-10 game so meaningful. The Texans couldn't compare to the Cowboys. They shouldn't have been able to compare to the Cowboys even on that day, but they did. I've heard stories about people who watched the Cowboys in 1960. That team didn't win a single game. The closest they came was a tie, but that tie game vs. the Giants in the next to the last game of the season meant a lot to the fans of the young team. If the Cowboys had held on to beat the Steelers in that first game in 1960, it likely would've sustained a lot of the fans for years. And had the Internet existed at the time, you can bet that Cowboys fans would've been all over Steelers fans about it. Personally, I'm hoping the Texans don't match the early record of the Cowboys. I would consider it a failure if it took the Texans six seasons to post a winning record. I'm hoping it isn't even as long as it took the Cowboys to get back to a winning record the last time around (they went 8-8, 5-11, 5-11, 5-11 following their last playoff appearance prior to the 2003 season, and that last winning record prior to 2003 was immediately after a 6-10 season).
So, what, the Texans-Cowboys game is not relevant now? Fine, I'll hang my hat on this: Dallas Cowboys' first 2 years of existence: 1960: 0-11-1 1961: 4-9-1 14.3% win average Houston Texans' first 2 years of existence: 2002: 4-12 2003: 5-11 35.2% win average 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10! 19-10!
It obviously means something to you or it wouldn't bother you so much to hear it mentioned so often. You'd just ignore it instead of trying so hard to convince everyone that you don't care anything about it and trying to defend the Cowboys. If it's obvious that that game is so unimportant, then it would go without saying.
fair enough. I hope rooting for the Texans gives you as much joy as rooting for the Cowboys has given me. and in fairness, it took those Cowboys that long because it wasn't the free agency, and they were competing against a much smaller talent pool. but that's a whole other discussion.
that it means enough to me to talk about it doesn't exactly extend to the rest of the entire Cowboys nation. it bugs me because I'm essentially from Houston [though I was born in Dallas]. it's like having an embarrassingly loud uncle. but I realize that there's nothing else Texans fans can say [aside from what Vescey]. as of this very moment, I'm content with the entire thing.
I really think it's hard to compare any of the past with today. Even the early 1990s were different in terms of how teams were built and what they could and couldn't do in terms of attaining and retaining players. Or, even trying to compare the Cowboys rebuilding from that Super Bowl run vs. the Texans trying to build from scratch is difficult. There are many advantages to having an ongoing team that an expansion team does not have. And there are probably a couple of advantages that an expansion team has that an ongoing team doesn't (the Texans would not have had some of the salary cap issues that the Cowboys have had in recent years. Though the Cowboys seem to be past that now. The Texans started out with the 1st overall pick, the Cowboys have not been bad enough in recent years to pick that high, etc.) Now, one could probably compare the Oilers history with that of the Cowboys. The Oilers came into existence at the same time as the Cowboys, and even though they were in different leagues originally, it didn't stay that way for long. Certainly the Cowboys far outperformed the Oilers.
I live in Dallas, and there's almost nothing worse than the smug Cowboy fan around here, so anything that can be used to take them down a peg is worth it. It's just always weird to have people try to prove the worth of the current team based on things that happened thirty or more years ago. To me, I don't particularly care whether the Cowboys won the Super Bowl after the 1971 season. I was six months old at that point. Just like those two AFL Championships the Oilers won never meant anything to me, not because they were just AFL championships, but because they happened years before I was born. The fun of championships to me is the games that I watched and memories I make while watching them. I can look back on those games and remember the good time it was (or the heartbreak at times my teams didn't quite make it). It has died down in recent years, but there was always this air of superiority spewing from Cowboys fans. I'll never forget listening to the radio in 1997, during a 6-10 Cowboys campaign and hearing the callers talk about how the Cowboys were still going to make the playoffs (seriously, even at 6-9, there would be callers talking about how the math could work to allow the Cowboys to make the playoffs) and that other teams didn't have a chance against them (including the Oilers). And invariably, whenever someone would talk about the weaknesses in that 1997 team, the Cowboy fan would bark about the five Lombardi Trophies and eight Super Bowl appearances as if it made any difference to that team competing that week. I don't have a problem with Cowboys fans enjoying current success, and I don't have a problem with them enjoying their memories of their past success. But that past really is irrelevant to today (as is 19-10, though we can obviously enjoy that success. I don't think people really consider 19-10 to be relevant to what's happening with the Texans today).
back to the original topic: CC made a good move, but let's not call it brilliant. the 6th rounder last year is worth a 5th rounder this year and a 4th rounder in 2005. So basically he moved up a spot, which is commendable, but hardly the deal of the century. CC has been a good GM. No doubt. But let's not lost perspective. And the Hollings thing is yet to be determined. The only move that I have questions about is the 3rd round pick of Ragone.
I knew there was a time value of money, but I didn't realize there was a time value of draft picks. All in all, the Henson trade's success will depend on who the Texans get with that pick vs. who they could've gotten with the 6th rounder two years ago if they hadn't picked Henson.
