(I know you weren't going here, but I want to comment on this. Sorry for the rabbit trail.) ...and I believe the fault for that lies entirely with the journalists. Entirely. As in 100%. All. In sum. Completely. Everyone may not have seen what the Internet would become in terms of average-joe-publishing-his-average-thoughts 15 years ago, but *everyone* saw it coming 5 and 7 years ago. If anyone should have seen it, journalists should have. I remember magazines and rags as early as the late 90s making plans and adjustments to the impact Internet news and opinion sites were going to have on their market share. If the average joe (like myself, for example) was going to be able to opine with a similar exposure, or perhaps an even greater exposure, as your average mid-90s journalist, then the journalist (you know, the ones with the education on journalism and the use of prose and journalism ethics, etc., not to mention the level of access they have to politicians, sports figures, etc. depending upon their market) had the opportunity to step up his game. Do better research. Make more connections. I swear, Richard Justice smarts off and waffles every week and drops names because his job has put him in a position to shake hands with some folks. I could do that. I want to see these guys do something their positions and education allow them to do that I cannot. They've probably forgotten more than I've ever learned about whatever their market is due to their intimate level of exposure to it--now prove it to me by delivering something better than some lame smart-alec diatribe that any 19-year-old mailboy could deliver at the water cooler! [/rant (sorry) ]
MSN, listening to Kubiak is the equivalent of watching Groundhog Day over and over and over ad nausem: "we didn't play well", "I've got to evealuate myself and everybody else", "we've got to work harder", "I've got to do a better job" and on and on. And let us not forget the players: "we are embarassed", "I thought we were past this", yada yada yada. It's gotten so bad that I'd rather they simply say nothing at all when they stink up the place. Maybe they should adopt the Bill Belichick manner of press conferences where he says as little as possible. That would mean that guys like Pitts would have to STFU. Cut Ric a little slack as he's merely bending over backwards to find some positives in this situation. That's the kid of person Ric is and I admire him for being so. And no, I'm not ascribing Ric's position to the Texans official stance at all. In fact, I'm in total agreement with YOU about this. I'm calling it a copout because that's exactly the way I see it.
You don't have to believe it but it's true. I can accept losing IF it leads to something better. That's why I don't get caught up in win-loss predictions or expectations. If this team is on the right track, you should be able to see it in their attitude and how hard they play but more importantly, you should be able to FEEL it. Do you? Do you truly feel that they are getting better - that they are making strides toward being a serious football team much less a potential champion one day and that everyone is over-reacting? If you do, then I am happy for you. But I just don't get that feeling about them at all. In fact, watching them is akin to watching the Oilers as they stumbled and bumbled along year in and year out. Now, I lived and died (mostly died) with the Houston Oilers so I learned to accept losing - everybody loses. But I also developed an intolerance for inept losing. And that's what I see happening here now and that is why I'm taking such a hardline toward Kubiak, Smith and McNair on the direction of this team.
Is it silly knee-jerk hyperbole to at the very least expect this team to show up and perform? That's all I or anyone else here is asking. If that's too much to ask, then we are in deep deep trouble. If I were to take your tack, then anytime they face a team that's got its act together we should automatically start rolling out the excuses. So they went 8-8 last year and 2-14 the year before. That sounds as hollow to me as when the Cowsheep fans point to their winning the NFC East last year with a 13-3 record while sending 13 players to the Pro Bowl. Carr was Kubiak's first mistake. Period. He should have never been kept. If your offensive-minded, quarterback-friendly coach had been honest with himself, he would have known that. Green is simply the latest example of this IMO. Sorry but that's not the way Schaub was sold to us. He was supposed to be at the cusp and ready to step up and be the man that David Carr never was. He was supposed to be the better option than taking a rookie QB in 2006. Now, 2 years later, we are hearing that he has to develop. Sorry, but I can see why the Sage contingent can't buy into Kubiak's argument that he is the right one for the job. Now this is where I've shifted my position on GK because I once thought exactly like you. It's not that he doesn't see that things aren't working - rather, it's that he seems so at a loss as to what to do next to make things right. And that concerns me greatly because I don't want to see the Texans get caught up in the same blame-the-coach, fire-the-coach, hire-another-coach, blame-the-coach the Rockets have been stuck in for years. I actually like the guy and want him to succeed because as corny as it sounds, I feel that Houston deserves a winning football team and I want to live to see Houston celebrate an NFL championship because unlike here (Dallas), I know that Houston fans would appreciate it. We have to disagree here because if I understand you correctly, you're saying that he had no idea how upset and impatient fans were with this team. I find that a bit hard to believe. If he was as good as advertised, the he had to know what he was walking into. As usual, you completely miss my point because I'm talking about heart, effort, attitude and desire and those are things that I have seen you dismiss as irrelevant in the past so I don't expect you to understand my feelings here. I love how Madden put his stamp on the Raiders. I hated the Raiders because of him - because of the way he got them to play. I suppose the most recent example of what I'm talking about would be the Pats under Belichick. I hate the Pats in the same way but I want that for the Texans under Kubiak more than anything.
But those aren't excuses. I hear you; I get tired of it (I was much, much more tired of it was Capers by the third or fourth year of it), too. It rings hollow, but it's not excuse-making. This is going to sound ugly and confrontational, and I don't mean to be, but I don't know how else to word it, so I'm sorry in advance. But, I'm sorry, but that, to me, is just a whole bunch of poppycock. I like to see a fiery presence on the field as much as anybody, but you're dismissing the 1967 and 1968 Raiders, the former who went to the SuperBowl and the latter who won 12 (out of 14!) games, because they didn't yet have the Madden-instilled "heart, effort, attitude, and desire"? I gotta tell you, man--the Texans can wear pink tu-tu's for all I care, if they win 12 games and go to a SuperBowl: I'll take it over this.
no, of course not. but it IS silly knee-jerk hyperbole to assume two games are a definitive portend of things to come. take last year: the texans started 2-0; man, they must’ve won 12, 13 games and stormed into the playoffs, right?... and your complaints after two weeks ring about as hollow as the same fans making super bowl plans because the cowboys are 3-0. a mistake that he copped to and cut his loses with it about as quickly as he possibly could have, short of releasing him mid-season. capers and casserly kept running him out there/ruining him week after week for four straight years. and you’re either forgetting or ignoring that taking on carr likely was a mandatory provision for taking the job. HillBoy, i’ve gone over this with you before: schaub’s #s in his first year as a starter were better than young and leinart’s in their rookie seasons. (and they’ve both now been benched, btw.) cutler’s a better QB (right now); but he didn’t start until the 10th-ish game of his rookie season and last year, posted an ever-so-slightly better rating than schaub. bottom line, i’d rather have schaub and williams than just young or leinart or even cutler. i disagree. i see more adjustments under kubiak than i ever did under capers (though i realize that’s damning with faint praise). but keep in mind: so many things with this team have been in a near-constant state of flux the past 2+ years: he’s had two QBs in his first two years and he’s battled through a seemingly endless list of injuries (including losing 2 of the team’s 4 best players for extended stretches). this year, he’s starting a rookie RB and LT and the offensive line (with three new starters) is learning a brand new scheme. he’s lost an offensive coordinator, a co-defensive coordinator…. and on top of all that, he’s turned the roster over very nearly 100%. i think he’s been somewhat hand-cuffed by all the upheaval. there’s been no consistency and you simply can’t discount that. i’m sure he’d like to do this or that – but if the OL, for instance, isn’t ready to handle this or that… what can he do but weather the storm? that’s why i keep focusing on next year as being the year when he should have a lot of these wrinkles, not to mention another offseason of talent influx, smoothed out. oh, i’m sure he did (he lives here in the offseason, right?); but he can’t let that dictate his grand plan. in many ways, i think he’s taking the same approach mclane and wade are with the astros: they recognize they’re years away from having a consistently competitive team with a strong, youthful foundation so while they build that, they’re going to try and deliver something – anything – to keep fans interested. green, flannigan, and veterans of their ilk are the equivalent of tejada, wolf, etc. – a shot at trying to fill what would otherwise be an empty void. no, i didn’t miss your point; here’s what you initially said (emphasis mine): Before the wins started coming, he infused an attitude toward the game that made the subsequent winning possible. the wins were coming BEFORE madden; they continued AFTER madden, too (they won a super bowl two years after he retired). it wasn’t about an attitude, or heart, or any of that other made-up mumbojumbo: it was about having the most talent and finding a way to maximize it. period. tell ya what: let’s see if belichick’s brand of “heart, effort, attitude and desire” makes matt cassell a better QB… if it doesn’t, i think it’s safe to assume having the best QB and best WR on the planet, not to mention quite possibly the smartest Xs and Os head coach on the planet, in addition to a host of other really good players up and down the roster, all played a bigger part in their success than “heart, effort, attitude and desire” or any other make-believe intangibles.
We've gone over this ad nauseum infinitum as well, but these intangibles are categorically not "make-believe". They exist, they are plainly observable for even the most casual onlooker. BUT: (and here is where I gravitate a lot closer to your position) they are not measurable and their impact on wins and losses is severely overplayed, overstated, overestimated, overhyped, and over-everythinged in our media-frenzied society. The post above is an excellent example.
Great...be analytical and assume no one else is because they feel differently about it than you do. Be reflective and write a Hallmark card about it. I want a freaking win. I want my team to look like they're actually an NFL team. This is a product, and I'm a fan. I'm not happy with the product. I think they suck and are intensely boring. Give me a 1,000 different reasons why that's the case with all the reflection and analysis you want, but it doesn't make it any less true to me.
How dare you. That image's rightful place is HOUSTON. If I posted how I felt right now, I'd be banned. But I've got a word for you that starts with "F".
There is no oil in Nashville, save off the faces of those greasy, toothless rednecks that call it home.
Where is your Bob Lanier now? Nashville has the Oilers while we have Bob's (McNair) billion dollar bumbling stooges. Al returned the Raiders...maybe someday Bud's offspring will bring back the Houston Oilers. I am smoking cause it will NEVER happen.
I could give a rat's you-know-what where any of those clowns are. and that's the travesty. How I wish Houston had the stones that Cleveland did (or the foresight, as Cleveland benefitted from seeing what we went through) to demand that Bud leave our football history in Houston where it freaking belongs. "Nashville has the Oilers", indeed. Warren Moon and Mike Munchak's jerseys hanging in the rafters in freaking Nashville. It's a travesty, a sham, and a mockery. It's a TRAVESHAMOCKERY!
then i'd suggest logging off and giving the monsters of the midday a call - i'm sure they'd love to hear from you...
what should be categorically obvious to even casual onlookers, if they bothered to actually look at anything beneath the surface, is that these intangibles are always, always, always (coincidentally, i'm sure) tied to the success or failure of the individual's performance and/or team. vince young was a leader who rallied teammates and made everyone play better/harder... when the titans were winning. where are those stories now that's he's in the corner sucking his thumb and nursing a sore woman's part? belichick has brought endless "heart, effort, attitude and desire" to the patriots... i guess he just hadn't perfected those traits while he was losing constantly in cleveland...
you've admitted to only being a casual texan watcher and i know you no longer watch the astros (you jumped ship when they gave away those valuable prospects and dipped into their limited supply of cash to needlessly sign wolf and hawkins - anybody remember those two losers????), so i'm certain you've missed how *tangibly* distracted and apathetic they've both looked since the storm, made even more tangible because a lot of us can personally relate.
Au contraire, my friend. Earl Campbell (iirc), Jeff Bagwell, and Craig Biggio locally, just off the top of my head, are two non-fiery, non-heart-displaying, calm, cool, collected guys with lots and lots of success. Remember Campbell just coming to work, running guys over, and calmly handing the ball to the ref in the end zone? Lance Berkman's another one. No "fire" there, just solid, year-to-year MVP caliber production (minus this year and last). Then there's the Raiders example--the poster didn't like th '67 Raiders, because they had no "fire", yet they won 12 freaking games. That stuff, or the absence of it, is categorically obvious--but it doesn't have near the impact on actual W's that people like to say it does. Not even close. In fact, people don't like to mention those that have lots of "heart" and "fieriness" but just plain suck. Like me some Lima circa 2000. Lots of emotion, lots of fist pumps, lots of losing. It was obvious he had "heart". It was obvious he was a vocal leader. It was also obvious that the Astros sucked that year, to the tune of 72-90. Some people want to see that (the emotion, not the losing). They want to see players who are outwardly, demonstrably vested emotionally in their performance and their team's performance. Me, while some of that's fun to see, I could care less as long as they actually win something. For example, I'd take the mid-90s Oilers defenses any day over Travis Johnson celebrating over the RB he just half-tackled after giving up a three-yard gain.
IN all honestly, that's the meanest insult anyone has thrown my way. I can't help being upset. Sorry...I hope that doesn't make a monster. I think it would be worse if I didn't care.
According to you, all players play at the same level of energy no matter what, because they are all paid professionals. Nothing makes them play harder or less hard. Or at least, that used to be your argument. A hurricane shouldn't change that if you choose to be consistent. Or, if a hurricane can make people less focused and play less well, then other things (intangibles) can make them more focused and play better. You can't have it both ways.
