Agreed. What's funny is the logic, or lack thereof, in the proclamations. In many cases, when someone refers to the Texans excellent draft as a whole last year, VinceFan/TexanHater is quick to point out that you can't really judge a draft until after 3 or 4 years and thus it's too soon to give the Texans credit. However, in the same breath, they've already determined that Mario Williams is a bust and Vince Young is destined for the Hall of Fame and that the Titans are a lock to make the playoffs and contend for the Super Bowl for 10 years, right up there with the Colts.
You don't necessarily have to go to college OT. There are alternatives. Perhaps make it where both teams get one possession, and if it's still tied, go to sudden death. That makes it where a defense only has to keep a team out of the end zone to give the offense a chance to win, instead of hold them to 30 yards and under. It also gives you the chance to go for two if you're really desperate to avoid sudden death, etc. The system as it's set up now is silly. It's too easy, especially for teams with great quarterbacks and great offenses. If the Colts get the ball to start an overtime, it's game over. It shouldn't be as simple as it is in many cases, which is win a coin toss and immediately win the game. Make the catalyst something on the field.
I'm telling yall that home team should get to decide who gets the ball (at the start of games and overtimes). That way all teams have equal say over the season and it is earned in the playoffs. One team could lose or win the coin flip all year. Leave nothing to chance. Now the Superbowl, I dont know...
I hate college overtime for some reason -- the NFL coin flip isn't much better. They should change it from sudden death so that the other team gets at least one opportunity to tie or win. You'd obviously have to tweak a lot of little rules, but ya'll catch my drift.
It has nothing to do with one pick, but one pick in the context of 6 years of failure. The texans have been one of the worst franchises in NFL history by any standard, have a history of bonehead moves, and managed to do it stultifyingly boring fashion. They're not even lovable losers like the Cubs. And this has been against the backdrop of an era in the NFL when teams are able to retool and rebuild more quickly than in previous decades. Of course people criticize them. It's not like somebody second guessing JVG when we lose to Phoenix and have to settle for a 51 win season. The Texans have earned their place as whipping boys. Football fans in Houston waited a long time (and pay a lot of money) for the NFL and their returns thus far are unsatisfying, to put it kindly.
they're certainly the worst expansion franchise since the merger, but they're not even the worst franchise in the history of houston; the early 70s and 80s oilers were far worse and for much longer periods. i don't even think they're the worse franchise in football right now - would you trade the texans for oakland or detroit? not that there's any pride in any of this, but the hyperbole...
I like the Fifa overtime rules.... First you play 2 small halves, then if you are still tied you go to a shootout..... Well, I like everything until the shootout bit. DD
I'm talking about the totality of their history. At the very least other moribund franchises have past glory or character or whatever you want to call it. Even other johnny come-lately sad sack franchises like the Buccaneers, who were awful throughout most of their early history, had some early playoff appearances to brag about with the first first few years. They gave their fans something. The Texans have yet to do that, with the exception of the first game. It is not the texans fault for being born late, but it is their problem when they have pretty much treaded water since.
and that's because other franchises have a track record longer than five seasons. look, i'm not defending the team or its history; just combating the ever-present hyperbole - it's tiresome.
like david carr has had to play with like the worst team in nfl history. I know the hyperbole is tiresome.
I agree and I think some heads should roll because of it, starting with Charlie Casserly and Dom Capers. Seriously, maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm pretty excited to see where this team is going to be in another year or two. I know that's not a very popular opinion around here and probably sounds pretty silly until they start winning, but I do think sacking Casserly and Capers was a HUGE step in the right direction. I guess my feelings as a Texan fan can be summed up with a line from Lou Mannheim, portrayed brilliantly by famous character actor Hal Holbrook in the 1987 smash hit Wall Street: "Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
No, that's a cop out. Even modern expansion franchises - the Seahawks, the Bucs, the new Browns, the Jags, the Panthers - managed to give their fans something to cheer about with a playoff shot or two within their first five seasons. [EDIT: scratch that, the Seahawks did not make the playoffs in the first 5 but did manage to put together back to back 9-7 seasons in year 3 and 4) Even by that low standard, the Texans are the bottom of the barrel. And people have a right to be upset about that, because they reallly do deserve better.
the Rockets have a HD scoreboard and better food. Then again it is TOYOTA CENTER, Toyota is known for great reliability, technology and great quality The Texans play in Reliant Stadium, a company known to screw the public with high prices and not add any additional service.
exactly - who's EVER said this? i've already posted (often, for instance earlier in this thread) that they're the worst expansion franchise since the 1970 merger. i guess we're splitting hairs, here - one of the worst franchises in NFL history...? no, not yet. 3-4 more years of this kind of futility? absolutely. but not currently.
No that's not what I'm saying. Unlike some I fully recognize David Carr's role in helping to make the Texans the worst team in the modern era. Well through 5 years they're worse than all other expansion franchises, at least in terms of giving their fans something to cheer about such as a playoff season, or a winning season. That sure sounds like "currently" to me.
i guess we'll agree to disagree. the nfl landscape is littered with teams that endured much longer streaks of futility. averaging 5 wins a year, while not good by any measure, is not, by any stretch, a qualification for worst ever. again, it's not even the worst houston franchise ever. the oilers were 9-45-2 over a four-year stretch beginning in 1970, including an 18-game losing streak and back-to-back 1-13 seasons. incredibly, over a 29-game stretch during those 4 years, they lost 28. between 1982 and 1985, they were 11-46 with a 17-game losing streak.
I don't care what samfisher is saying. pgabriel is saying everyone uses hyperbole to make their argument, so to sit here and say you're tired of the hyperbole when you've said the offensive line is one of the worst in history and the other players around carr is, is ridiculous. especially to now back up an argument saying that the team is the worst. now that's funny.
I believe that was my first post in this argument. And yeah, what am I smoking to believe that an OL that allowed a QB to be sacked more than any QB ever has in one season could be considered one of the worst ever?
