Meowgi, that was freaking hilarious. First of all, I went back and fixed that. And, I wasn't addressing these remarks at you. When I type, "There is no such thing as a "TRUE FAN!!!!!" check the context of to whom I'm addressing my remark and the tone with which that person is addressing others. You will find the high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou tone. And you know what, sometimes your posts and mine smack of that tone a little as well. Seriously, it's not hard. I'm not making near the deal of it as you are. Seriously, for the last time, there is no such thing as a "TRUE FAN!!!!". It's a trivial entertainment choice, and such terms glorify it beyond its place IMO. Is that so bad? I didn't equate it. I was referring to the tone employed by these bitter diatribes. You even admit it's often "over the top". All I did was point out my opinion that there is no such thing. Thanks for condescending, however. Your use of bold print, which I've mimicked here, and your adamance that you're not saying your better than someone else sound much more like wadded panties to me. I understand your point of view. I didn't mean to belittle it; only share mine. Or did you miss this:
Apparently you don't understand my point of view. If you can't grasp the fact that there are bigger fans than others, then I don't know what else to say. I'm not making a character evaluation based on how rabid some people are about a team or about who or when they choose to root for a certain team, I'm simply pointing out the basic fact that there are bigger fans than others. I am comfortable saying that I am a bigger Texans fan than MadMax, for example. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than him in any way, shape or form (in fact, it's probably the opposite), just that I like the Texans more than he does. Just like he likes Signs more than I do.
You've got to be freaking kidding me, man. Are you now being belligerent on purpose? I grasp your point of view just fine. I disagreed, and respectfully so. You've shifted the target. I said, "There's no such thing as a 'TRUE FAN!!!!'." You have now changed it to: "there are bigger fans than others," and you've implied that I can't grasp that idea. Thanks for condescending again. Sure, you can be more into the Texans than Max. It's an entertainment choice. A trivial entertainment choice. That's it. I'm not asking you to agree with that; I'm just talking sports. Because I like to. Perhaps going forward I'll qualify all my statements with "IMO" so as not offend those who don't agree. And, there's no such thing as a "TRUE FAN!!!!" (IMO).
I explained two posts ago that in my argument, truer=bigger. Do you not agree that one person can be a bigger fan of a particluar entertainment choice than another person? It doesn't matter how trivial sports or entertainment is. It doesn't change the fact that people have varying interests in their choice of entertainment. That's all I'm saying.
Well, if "does 'bigger' make you feel better" constitutes an explanation, OK. I found your condescending tone pretty unnecessary in that post. Yes. I agree. Now, before you slap me down, please understand that your query here is miles apart from the context of my statement. I'm not asking you to agree, but the concept of "TRUE FAN!!!!" as I read from the bitter diatribes of the holier-than-thou's that employ this term implies that one is either IN or OUT. And, that's horsecrap. If Max, for example (and sorry Max), weren't a "fan" of the Texans, he wouldn't have cared enough to be pissed all year long as DCarr sucked while VY led a Titans resurgence. Yet, he's been accused of not being a "TRUE FAN!!!!" Bull****. So, saying that someone can be a "bigger fan" of the Texans than someone else is a far cry from saying, "If you b**** about DC you're not a TRUE FAN!!!!!" or "if you follow VY's career you're not a TRUE FAN!!!!!". As such, while some people may be more into a sports team than others, there is no such thing as a "TRUE FAN!!!!!!" (IMO). And finally, I find the whole thing far too trivial to be employing words like "true" and "loyal". I'm sorry if this irritates you such that you condescend with stuff like "does 'bigger' make you feel better" and "you're panties are wadded over semantics," but it's my opinion. And I shared it respectfully. And, there's no such thing as a "TRUE FAN!!!!!!" (IMO).
No fair, you edited after I started replying. "People have varying interests in their choices of entertainment" is a very reasonable statement. In fact, that falls right in line with my contention that there's no such thing as a "TRUE FAN!!!!". You may invest more emotionally into a team than Johnny, and he may invest more financially in it. You're both fans, but the levels of interest, investment, and commitment vary. It's not black and white. There is no such thing as a "TRUE FAN" (IMO).
Wow! All of the animosity around here brings back memories of how it was a few years ago on the Rockets forum. At any rate, this discussion appears to be moot because indications are that McNair & Co have locked themselves into the Texans bunker and are prepared to stick which Carr. And if you thought things got ugly around here this year with the David Carr - Vince Young comparisons, next year promises to take this issue to a level undreamed of by mortal men. Say what you will about VY & the Titans. Make all of the cute little jokes about Texas being greater than Tennessee you can now because as things now stand, it's the Titans and not the Texans who are poised to make the most progress next season. The Titans have a ton of money under the cap plus (I believe) 13 draft picks. That beats anything the Texans have (thank you again Charlie Casserly) going for them. The sad truth is that they (Texans) have far more holes to plug than do the Titans and they won't have the benefit of extra draft choices and cap room that Casserly & Capers flushed away to help plug said holes. My guess is that they are at least 2 years away from being considered respectable much less a playoff possibility. And that estimate hinges on them not having to replace David Carr and start over at QB which is not guaranteed. To date, Carr has done very little to justify his being the starter (saying that he'd cost too much under the cap to release is a poor excuse for keeping him on) and if he comes out next year and continues to regress and go fetal, then all bets are off and the VY Hysteria will become a deafening tidal wave that will engulf this franchise for years to come. This is the hand they've dealt themselves and there's nothing that can be done but to wait and see how all of this plays out over the next few years.
We tripled our win total from last year. We were 6-10 this year, not 2-14. Only 2 fewer wins than your precious titans. If the titans have a future HOF'er at QB, how is it that they only managed 2 more wins than the Texans, who have David freakin' Carr at QB? Yes, I know the titans finished strong, but the Texans won their final 2 games and the titans went 1-1. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but most Texan fans don't agree with your doomsday scenario. This team can only get better and we have a lot to look forward to, even without Vince ( ). I'm interested to see who we draft and who we sign during the offseason to improve this team. Also can't wait to see Mario at 100% (for a change) next year. But, yeah, I know it's oh so hip to rag on the Texans for their past mistakes instead of looking forward to the future, so you just keep doing what you do.
"I don't wear no Stetson, but I'm willing to bet, son, that I'm as big a Texan [fan] as you are." -- Terry Allen
ima -- i don't want to be Mr. Pessimist, but i'm guessing you would have written this exact same post after we won 7 games in 2004. i don't think you can say, "this team can only get better." I wish you could.
the titans' "resurgence" and, more specifically, vy's role in it have both been completely overblown and misappropriated, and it's kind of devilishly fun because a lotof people are going to be blind-sided next year when they fail to show much, if any, progress. during their 8-3 finish, the team was actually outscored, 265-264; that is the very definition of average. they won riding a wave of good fortune, and sometimes, in spite of vy, who was, by any individual measure, mediocre. do you really think next year's team, with the 19th pick and a tougher schedule, is going to hit another 60-yard FG? is going to watch another team choke up a 21-point 4Q lead? win the overtime coin flip on the road? they're headed in the right direction, sure - and they have some pieces in place, yes - but they're further away than you think, and closer to the texans than you care to admit. when average teams overachieve (see the 05 bucs or 01 bears), they almost universally regress the following year. i would be shocked if the titans exceeded their 2006 win total.
The big difference between 2004 and 2006 is two fold: ( I promised myself I would find a way to use the phrase "two fold" sometime today. It makes me sound smarter than I really am. My only hope is that I used it correctly, or, more specifically, in the correct context.) 1.) The addition of Gary Kubiak - I never was a fan of Dom, his boring offense and his 3-4 defense which caused us to pass up good players in the draft because they "didn't fit the system". Derek Johnson, anyone? 2.) The subtraction of Charlie Casserly - I never was a fan of Casserly...well, DUH...who was? This years draft was the first draft ever where we actually got some players who could play. I am hoping this trend will continue. Charlie Casserly is gone forever and he's never coming back.
And one more thing. You can use this same argument about the titans 8-8 season this year. Even their 8-3 finish. After the J-ville home game in 2004, we were 5-2. Then it all came crashing down. How can you be sure the same thing won't happen to the titans next year? Or any team for that matter?
far too many people overrated the 2004 team, including, unfortunately, the team's management. they took the record to mean unequivocal progress, period. end of story. we are going to stick our fingers in our ear and move forward - playoffs here we come!!! but the truth was actually that the texans still had a long way to go after that season. during a 6-week stretch, after starting 4-3, they played five eventual playoff teams and lost by a combined score of 148-61. but, hey, they beat chicago and jacksonville, so yea! we're almost there... they weren't. but the team had bought into it, and so they stupidly traded much-needed picks for guys like buchanon, released vets like sharper and glenn... and then they played 6 eventual playoff teams (including both SB participants) plus the 10-6 chiefs in their first 10 weeks last year, and, shockingly, went 1-9 while being outscored 392-141.... when the schedule eased up, they were a better, if beaten team. they lost twice in OT; twice more by a field goal. i would contend the 04 team wasn't appreciably better than the 05 team; it merely had an easier, more fortuitous schedule. ima's right; this regime seems intimately more cognizant of what the team really is - they know they have a long way to go. thus, i don't anticipate all the mistakes casserly and capers made after 2004 you won't (can't?) dispute what i offered beyond dismissing me as a blowhard cockbag or a mentally r****ded monkey? i think i deserve better than that.
you do, it was meant more as a joke. Those paragraphs just looked like something Hoge would say and it made me laugh
btw, footnote - for those who are staunchly in the anti-carr camp, his regression from september 04 to december 05 offers definitive proof that he seems to be nothing more than a product of his enviroment. when things are going well, he does well. when they're not, he's not. and i do think that's the proper order, not the other way around, ie when he's good, the team is good; when he's bad, the team is bad. which is why i don't paticularly fret over his status so much. if they can build a competent team around him, he'll thrive - go back and look at the first 7 weeks of the 04 season. if they can't, he'll continue to struggle. sorry; i know how much everyone loves discussing carr.............
you're absolutely right about the 2004 team. and it's real easy to say with hindsight, isn't it? but i know that many of us here thought we would be knocking on the door of the playoffs in 2005. the preseason was a rude awakening in that regard. my point is, from year to year, i'm just not sure. the statement, "this team can only get better," just doesn't ring true to me.
well, some of us, coughcough, didn't need hindsight. that's why the removal of those who did is a giant step in the right direction, imo. and why it's far easier to assume the team will get better. it IS better.
