PDA

View Full Version : Article "Texans Out to Prove Critics Wrong"


Texans_Chick
09-04-2006, 10:49 AM
From the Hartford Courant (http://www.courant.com/sports/football/hc-nflfeat0903.artsep04,0,5954846.story?page=1&coll=hc-headlines-sports):


Look at the Texans," said ESPN analyst Mark Schlereth, a former NFL offensive lineman. "I saw a team before the draft that had a very weak core on defense and the offensive line. I talked to [Texans coach] Gary Kubiak before the draft and he told me that it wouldn't have mattered if they took three Reggie Bushs if they didn't do something to fix the core because they'd never be able to deploy them."

So the Texans defied conventional wisdom and didn't take Bush. They followed their instinct and organizational blueprint, which indicated the way to improve was from the inside out.

"If all I was interested in was selling tickets, my first choice would have been Vince Young [the Texas quarterback]," Texans owner Bob McNair said this summer. "And our fans would have been thrilled with Reggie Bush. But here's how I look at it: For us to make the playoffs, we first have to beat Indianapolis. And the only way to beat Indy is to put pressure on Peyton Manning."

Their solution was Mario Williams, a sack master from N.C. State whom the Texans felt would eventually help repair their competitive disadvantage against the Colts, who have beaten them eight straight times by an average of 15.5 points.

Williams, 6 feet 7, 294 pounds, is fast (4.73 40-yard dash), strong (35 repetitions on the 225-pound bench press) and projected at right end in Houston's new 4-3 defense.

"You build your team to try to be the best you can in your division," Giants coach Tom Coughlin said.

Not everyone agrees.

"The best way to beat the Colts is to outscore them," ESPN's Sean Salisbury said. "You are not going to stop them. Look, I love Charley Casserly [former GM of the Texans]. But I'm also part of the conspiracy theory that believes the NFL needed Reggie Bush to be in New Orleans and there's a reason why Charley left the Texans a couple weeks after [making the pick]. Truth is the Texans left the best player on the board.

"Bush is a great football player. Will Mario Williams be great? He may. But if you talk about everything that goes into a franchise, making your team better, ticket sales ... I'm telling you they left the best guy out there."

The Texans do not agree and much of their ambivalence about the criticism is rooted in the philosophy that Kubiak, longtime offensive coordinator of the Broncos, brought with him Jan. 26 when he was hired to replace Dom Capers.

"There's one thing to remember about where Gary Kubiak comes from," Schlereth said. "The Broncos have the belief - you can call it arrogance if you want - that you can plug anyone in and get a 1,200-yard back.



Newsflash: Sean Salisbury is an idiot. You can make the case that Bush is a great player but his comments on this subject are, well moronic.

Honoring Earl 34
09-04-2006, 10:55 AM
I wonder if the talking sports heads are worried about their credibility ... after hyping Reggie's greatness only to be snubbed . This in my opinion is spin control .

TexanExile
09-04-2006, 11:09 AM
==================================================
Sean Salisbury: "Look, I love Charley Casserly...But I'm also part
of the conspiracy theory that believes the NFL needed Reggie Bush
to be in New Orleans and there's a reason why Charley left the
Texans a couple weeks after [making the pick]."
==================================================

:yikes: Holy ____!! That's the most unbelievable conspiracy theory since...er...never mind, let's stick to football. :spy: Salisbury's eccentric sometimes, but WOW, that's an incredible statement.

I mean, he thinks that's why Casserly left? To get beat out for a league front-office job after carrying out some kind of super-secret draft rigging?

Seriously???

aj.
09-04-2006, 11:12 AM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

TexansFanatic
09-04-2006, 11:18 AM
Newsflash: Sean Salisbury is an idiot. You can make the case that Bush is a great player but his comments on this subject are, well moronic.

You got that right, TC. Salisbury is right up there at the top of the heap of morons in sports broadcasting....

jerek
09-04-2006, 11:19 AM
"You have to outscore the Colts ... you're not going to stop them."

Huh?

After watching the Steelers and Patriots lay the wood to the Colts these last three years, D-ing the fumbling-bumbling-stumbling Peyton Manning off the field, I think it is very clear that you you beat the Colts by "stopping them."

I am sure someone eventually will answer AJ's very pointed question. It ain't gonna be me. :cool:

Houston_Fanatic
09-04-2006, 11:22 AM
But I'm also part of the conspiracy theory that believes the NFL needed Reggie Bush to be in New Orleans and there's a reason why Charley left the Texans a couple weeks after [making the pick].

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a294/sarafina159/roar.gif

TexansFanatic
09-04-2006, 11:25 AM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

AJ--I'll take on your question:

It's never inappropriate to call a player lazy if he is, in fact, lazy. It's never inappropriate to call a talking head an idiot if he continually spews blather with no discernable basis in fact. Salisbury consistently exposes himelf to such criticism by blurting out (loudly) such asinine comments.

Houston_Fanatic
09-04-2006, 11:31 AM
Reggie Bush was a great college football player. He may be a great NFL player, but until he has one NFL season under his belt as a starter then he is unproven, just like all the other rookies - Mario included.

aj.
09-04-2006, 11:32 AM
TF, the question was proposed to be thought provoking and rhetorical, but thanks for the attempt anyway.

'Blather,' 'asinine,' 'moronic,' and 'lazy' can all be in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

DBCooper
09-04-2006, 11:33 AM
Orlando Sentinal:

"Passing on a talent as rare as Bush not only was stupid, it looks to have
brought bad karma, too (if you believe in that stuff). Plus, Bush in
Houston would have made the Texans matter. Who outside the city
limits cares about them now?

Meanwhile, Bush's No. 25 New Orleans Saints jersey is on fire. Bush will
be there soon, having rushed 19 times for 102 yards in the exhibition
season and has brought the buzz everyone figured he would to a
franchise rebounding from Hurricane Katrina and a 3-13 season. And
over in Houston, the Texans will trot out -- ta-da! -- Wali Lundy.

Williams had better be good.

And it still won't be good enough."
I don't care who they put in as RB. They could put in my Grandma if it won some football games. Put her in as DE if she can get after the quarterback.

I am ready to win some football games and get this monkey off our backs!!!

TexansJunkE
09-04-2006, 11:33 AM
Sean Salisbury is a USC suck up. I understand he went their and feels that he should be loyal to the athletes that attend his old school. But the last I checked is that he worked for the East coast Sports Programing Network and should at least try to keep his one sided opinions to himself. :twocents:

Dr. Toro
09-04-2006, 11:47 AM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

Concerning media types... people get mad because the media is "supposed" to inform or be at least moderately objective. Sure, we want them to editorialize, but we want them to rpesent facts as facts and opinions as opinions. I get mad when Merrill Hoge states factually, unequivocally that Vince Young is a horrible, ill prepared QB, when the tape and personnel professionals suggest otherwise. Similarly, when Salisbury throws out a ludicrous conspiracy theory... I don't mind... but when he puts forth a misinformed assessment of "how to beat Indy", I get mad. He's supposed to be a professional, he's supposed to be better than that... it's like a QB forgetting down, distance, and the clocks in a 2 minute drill and making a stupid throw to the middle of the field... it's just not supposed to happen.

Everybody's got a racket... Salisbury is on TV because he's good for ratings, not because he's especially intelligent. He's good on camera, can read a prompter, has his cute little thing with Clayton, etc. Some columnists are there to draw readers by whatever means necessary, others try to stimulate but are also dedicated to presenting a fairly even view of things... Justice catches all kinds of hell from Astros fans undeservingly, when he's among the best informed columnists in baseball. Some reporters trade fluff pieces for scoop, etc. A lot of fans realize there's a lot of BS out there, and some don't. The ones that realize it's BS often get mad and the ones that expect "objectivity" and "professional journalism" often are disappointed and get mad too.

I think the people that blindly lash out at media types are the same sort that begrudge professional athletes for getting paid millions and call them out any time they are short of perfect. Is jealousy a factor... probably, it's only human. Everybody wants to be on that field, and few people would mind being on set on ESPN... when we feel like others aren't deserving or maximizing such fine opportunities we get bitter.

BigDTexansFan
09-04-2006, 11:53 AM
From the Hartford Courant (http://www.courant.com/sports/football/hc-nflfeat0903.artsep04,0,5954846.story?page=1&coll=hc-headlines-sports):






Newsflash: Sean Salisbury is an idiot. You can make the case that Bush is a great player but his comments on this subject are, well moronic.

Sean Salisbury is a Graduate of USC, AND the world's biggest HOMER, if he was GM or Head Coach they would only draft USC players no matter how bad they were. He had Reggie Bush running wild over University of Texas defense, a feat he has yet to accomplish against average preaseason defenses!!!:yawn:

Houston_Fanatic
09-04-2006, 11:55 AM
I think the people that blindly lash out at media types are the same sort that begrudge professional athletes for getting paid millions and call them out any time they are short of perfect. Is jealousy a factor... probably, it's only human. Everybody wants to be on that field, and few people would mind being on set on ESPN... when we feel like others aren't deserving or maximizing such fine opportunities we get bitter.

blindly lash? bitter?

Nah - it's not that dramatic and the analysis is much simpler......

Salisbury really is a moron.

texan279
09-04-2006, 11:59 AM
We just need to bookmark all of these ridiculous articles and hang on to them until the end of the season to see how everything pans out. I also love this quote from Kubiak...

I talked to [Texans coach] Gary Kubiak before the draft and he told me that it wouldn't have mattered if they took three Reggie Bushs if they didn't do something to fix the core because they'd never be able to deploy them."

South Texan
09-04-2006, 11:59 AM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.


I agree with the sentiment.

In my book, there are two kind of analists. Type A does his homework (research), puts in some careful thought, and forms an opinion. Type B reads everyone else's columns and jumps on the bandwagon. I may disagree with type A but still respect him. Type B needs to stick to high school sports.

Playerwise, IMO you have to respect the talent of anyone that makes it to the NFL. However, a team of 53 egomaniacs is destined to lose. There is a difference between confidence and arrogance. Confidence is knowing you have the talent to help your team be winners, arrogance is thinking you are the only one it takes to win the Superbowl, and when that doesn't happen you shoot off your mouth and can bring a franchise down. (Ask Philly about that.) And, unfortunately, there are a few players that figure that since they have made it to the big time, they can cruize.

So I have no problem with people pointing out idiots and egomaniacs, but I hope we all can respect those who deserve it, even if we disagree.

Dr. Toro
09-04-2006, 12:00 PM
blindly lash? bitter?

Nah - it's not that dramatic and the analysis is much simpler......

Salisbury really is a moron.

I don't think Salisbury's very good... I said as much in my original post... that is simple... but the answer to AJ's question requires a bit more thought than just saying Salisbury is a moron.

Chato
09-04-2006, 12:12 PM
I saw Salisbury say that on NFL Live. Its gonna be an interesting season.

Thanks for posting those articles.

BigDTexansFan
09-04-2006, 12:18 PM
Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

THE MEDIA still talks about us running 3-4 defense, they neglect to notice ANY free agent signings or how draft picks are doing. They regurgitate the same old garbage' we have heard for last 4 seasons. you in scanning this MB or even reading a few stories online, have done more homework that 90% of the media that covers Pro Football..SURELY hearing Sean Salisbury saying we tanked on pick so we could help New Orleans/NFL out of trouble does make him a MORON or at least an IDIOT.

The kid as you call him, is inexperienced with a promise of potential so he is given a chance to show (as Domanick Davis did), that he is worthy of the praise and adulation. He could be LAZY, or it could be something we don't know about (an injury, personal problem) that we have only the media to report on so we get no information.

The media is paid to be a professional, thorough, informed and yet open to changes that show a difference in potential. For most part they fail to do 25% of that job, that they are paid to do and given quite a bit of press over their ability to inform.

I don't respect the media, because they will slobber over a team (Indianapolis Colts) that has failed to make hurdle to big game loses one of it's primary offensive weapons and yet is a LOCK to win it all. It is like this EVERY season year in and year out, you can pretty much list 10 teams go to predictions and I bet all 10 of those teams are selected to do everything from winning the division to winning it all.

IF the media that does read this MB wants respect, stop kissing Reggie "underacheiving" Bush's butt. Admit he has an amazing upside, but can he do same thing he did against lower ranked division 1 teams and 1-AA teams against ELITE of NFL. Admit that there is a bias based on PAST history, I have seen 3 predictions for Dallas Cowboys to win their division and NFC (this a team that struggled to get a FG against Minnesota's 1st team defense in preseason). Open your eyes and look at your predictions do they match up with 90% of NFL media predictions, then go back at look at end of season. I am betting they are less than 40% correct, it's that way every year.

I am human so is media, but when you want to be treated like a god for correctly picking a team (which is your job). and you start believing your press, then act like you are so much smarter than most of the fans. you fail to be anything but someone to be disdained.

That is why players given a chance and media is not

veazeyt
09-04-2006, 12:23 PM
Once we win a couple games this season, the 'experts' are going to start talking about everything they didnt know before about the Texans.

Especially if we beat the Eagles. I am sure then, we will pop a lot of NFL 'expert' egos.

Dr. Toro
09-04-2006, 12:28 PM
If Carr is league average we'll surprise a lot of people. If Mario is a force of nature we'll surprise everybody.

Runner
09-04-2006, 12:41 PM
Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

My own rule is to try to be intelligent enough to make a point without resorting to public name calling. Maybe I've just been out of fifth grade for too long.

I guess a pattern of work in the same vein could lead to an accurate conclusion though.

Calling a player/coach/reporter lazy or whatever doesn't seem very valid without a reasonable length record of proof. However, saying an article wasn't well researched might well be accurate and isn't a personal attack.

I think lazy thinkers resort to name calling - it's easier. Oops. :rolleyes:

cuppacoffee
09-04-2006, 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj.
Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.


Let me preface my question with a comment. I appreciate all of the information and opinions that AJ posts on this forum.

My question is what rules are AJ talking about here? I know it is against board rules to attack another poster in such a manner, and for good reason.

It seems that in todays world all the kid gloves are off.

It is easier to remember trash talk and curse words instead of actual adjectives in todays discussions and writings. Pet peeve.

Demonstrates lack of decent education. IMHO of course.

:coffee:

Texans_Chick
09-04-2006, 01:23 PM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

I am a Texans fan.

I am not, obviously, terribly much of a Sean Salisbury fan.

As for Salisbury not being an idiot or moronic in the literal sense, his whole Reggie Bush conspiracy-Casserly thing tends to speak otherwise.

There ain't no internets police. People often say ugly things about players, sometimes with information backing up what they are saying and sometimes just pulling it out of their behinds. Usually if ugly things are said about anyone without much tangible backing it up, it says more about the opiner than the person being opined about.

JMO.

GP
09-04-2006, 01:34 PM
1. Salisbury is not unbiased. He likes his team, he likes their players. He prolly considered it a slap on HIS face when we passed on the immortal Reggie Bush. So, keep that in mind when reading/listening to his analysis of our team. We're already on his doo-doo list to begin with.

2. If you though it was bad in the ofseason, all his Reggie-Is_God talk, then you are going to be really angry during the season when he commentates on the NFL shows after every game. He'll be privately cheering Reggie and jeering our team every Sunday. Bank on it. And it'll seep out during his on-air analysis. Get the ear muffs ready.

3. Schlereth is a Bronco. He played in the system. He believes in the system. Thus, he is also biased a little bit. But he's biased to the side that says, "You don't need Superman at RB if you want to play smart with the owner's money." Schlereth is very intelligent. Salisbury is definitely a smack talking hot head who just blurts out what he feels without truly filtering it through the his head like Schlereth does. That much is obvious. It's "fun" to listen to Salisbury sometimes because of his to-the-point and spontaneous quips. But it's more INSIGHTFUL to listen to Schlereth offer what I feel is better analaysis in the longrun.

4. Yes, the ESPN guys are definitely rooting for Reggie. It's a feel-good story about a savior playing in the embattled bayou...trying to lift the spirits of the beleagured swampland. Boo-hoo-hoo. Get ready for the big "specials" on the NFL shows with Lord and Savior Reggie Bush at the top of the heap. 100% of their storyline and planning is about Reggie Bush and New Orleans. It's going to be very syrup-ey and sugar-coated for the first week or two. Be sure to make an appointment with your dentist.

pancho
09-04-2006, 02:08 PM
ESPN was just saying Bush had a great pre-season but wondered if he could keep it up. Wonder what they were watching?

Malloy
09-04-2006, 02:33 PM
My own rule is to try to be intelligent enough to make a point without resorting to public name calling.

Runner, I still remember the Bobo incident ;)

Dr. Toro
09-04-2006, 02:40 PM
3. Schlereth is a Bronco. He played in the system. He believes in the system. Thus, he is also biased a little bit. But he's biased to the side that says, "You don't need Superman at RB if you want to play smart with the owner's money." Schlereth is very intelligent. Salisbury is definitely a smack talking hot head who just blurts out what he feels without truly filtering it through the his head like Schlereth does. That much is obvious. It's "fun" to listen to Salisbury sometimes because of his to-the-point and spontaneous quips. But it's more INSIGHTFUL to listen to Schlereth offer what I feel is better analaysis in the longrun.


Schlereth is very good. Salisbury and Hoge are brutal. Theismann is pretty bad. Jaworski is pretty good. Golic ain't bad.

PapaL
09-04-2006, 02:46 PM
So the Texans defied conventional wisdom and didn't take Bush. They followed their instinct and organizational blueprint, which indicated the way to improve was from the inside out.


So has that been our problem from jump? Building from the outside in? First players ever taken by us...OL and DL. Granted they didnt work out, but thats building from the inside out. Thats how you build a team. Dominate at the LOS. Just didnt work out for us like we planned.

BradK10
09-04-2006, 02:57 PM
Schlereth is very good. Salisbury and Hoge are brutal. Theismann is pretty bad. Jaworski is pretty good. Golic ain't bad.

Stink is great. Jaworski has the greatest job in the world.

Maddict5
09-04-2006, 04:08 PM
There ain't no internets police.

There are internet police???:bananasplit: ...just messing

and that conspiracy theory is the most dumb, :homer: stupid,:shoot: idiotic, retarded, dumbass thing i ever heard

Tulip
09-04-2006, 04:10 PM
Well, I agree - he's an idiot. Or worse - he's one of the growing trend of sports personalities who are willing to sacrifice their credibility (or perception of their intellect) in order to get more attention.

kbourda
09-04-2006, 04:55 PM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

Bravo, AJ! Maybe you need to resubmit this post for people to get the understanding of it. I think these posts are just about as pointless as the person making statements like Salisbury does. The cure for all of this talk is winning. I'd perfer to see a good team on the field than have someone tell me about the potential of one. Cause at this point in the Texans franchise all we are is potential. Are some of you people kidding me? We were tied for the WORST record in the NFL. At the end of the day, we are what we are. Yes, Capers was a problem but he was not the only person with faults on the team. Contrary to most beliefs on this MB. Respect is earned not given.

Texans_Chick
09-04-2006, 04:59 PM
At the end of the day, we are what we are.

We're undefeated, baby. :redtowel:

kbourda
09-04-2006, 05:03 PM
We're undefeated, baby. :redtowel:

I agree with you. But the pre-season wins are great for morale! I'm excited too but to let a fool like Salisbury get everyone all uptight. It is pointless.

kbourda
09-04-2006, 05:04 PM
We're undefeated, baby. :redtowel:
But the bad thing about that is so is everyone else.

Runner
09-04-2006, 05:32 PM
Runner, I still remember the Bobo incident ;)

Refresh my memory - do you mean when I mentioned the Urban Dictionary?

barzilla
09-04-2006, 08:07 PM
On one hand, we have professional football players making or trying to make a living by playing a game. On the other hand we have members of the media making or trying to make a living by talking and writing about the game.

It seems that this board accepts calling the media types morons and idiots, but dare call a player lazy and the sensitivity police come running down the halls to whack you on the knuckles with a ruler and the world spins off its axis.

While players' family and friends often read this board, many of the media members who are castigated also read this board.

Just trying to figure out the rules here. What's the difference? Is it because players are just young kids trying to make it, and the media types are older and established? When is it appropriate to call someone (anyone) a moron and an idiot when they obviously aren't in the literal sense? Is it only when the media type writes or says something contrary to popular (and homer opinion? Help me out here.

Taking on your question. Why is it "okay" to trash reporters/analysts and not professional athletes?

Personally, I feel uncomfortable trashing both, but I think it is warranted if done so in a respectful way. However, it is easy to attack an idea as moronic because it is easy to verify it's absence of intelligent thought. I don't feel comfortable calling Salisbury a moron because everyone has moments where they say something stupid. However, the idea was moronic and I think you should always attack the idea (although I admit I'm not always successful at making the distinction).

It is more difficult to call players lazy because most of us know that someone that looks "lazy" might be underperforming for other reasons. Also, it is easier to envision yourself as an analyst than a professional athlete. Heck, many of us spend hours of free time researching sports for our own amusement. It is mind-boggling when someone that gets paid to do it doesn't do their homework. I guess you could call it jealousy and that would be true. After all, wouldn't all of us love to get paid to talk about sports and do remote broadcasts from sports bars where we eat for free?

TexanSam
09-04-2006, 09:49 PM
"Bush is a great football player. Will Mario Williams be great? He may. But if you talk about everything that goes into a franchise, making your team better, ticket sales ... I'm telling you they left the best guy out there."

This is a ridiculous statement. Bush hasn't proven anything in the NFL and neither has Mario Williams. You read between the lines (which isn't hard with Salisbury) and he's basically saying Reggie Bush is already one of the top running backs in the league. You know, if half of these so called analysts backed up their points I'd give them some credit. I may not agree with them, but at least they tried to make their point credible. Instead, they all blast out their opinions and I guess they want us to agree with them just because they are "experts".

Malloy
09-05-2006, 12:15 AM
Refresh my memory - do you mean when I mentioned the Urban Dictionary?

Yes, and I still agree, he WAS quite the Bobo :)

Runner
09-05-2006, 06:02 AM
Yes, and I still agree, he WAS quite the Bobo :)

Wow. You have a good memory. That post was only out there for about 5 minutes.

Good thing I said "try" in my first post that you quoted so I have some waffle room. :cool:

Bobo was special case though.

El Tejano
09-05-2006, 08:10 AM
I just want Williams to succeed because I feel if he does we will have far exceeded our expectations for this year.

I will be praying for both him and Carr.

Sportsfan
09-05-2006, 08:28 AM
Man i'd like to punch Salisbury in the face.

tulexan
09-05-2006, 09:32 AM
If Casserly was part of a grand conspiracy, wouldn't he have received that job in the NFL front office instead of being snubbed?

thunderkyss
09-05-2006, 10:10 AM
Once we win a couple games this season, the 'experts' are going to start talking about everything they didnt know before about the Texans.

Especially if we beat the Eagles. I am sure then, we will pop a lot of NFL 'expert' egos.

Sorry to say, this is not true.

If we get to the SuperBowl & lose, it will be because we didn't draft Reggie.

If we win, we'd have won by a greater margin if we had drafted Reggie.

There is no way this will ever make sense to anyone outside of Houston.

thunderkyss
09-05-2006, 10:17 AM
Well, I agree - he's an idiot. Or worse - he's one of the growing trend of sports personalities who are willing to sacrifice their credibility (or perception of their intellect) in order to get more attention.

The last time I can remember anything like this happening, was with the Colts picking EdgerinJames over RickyWilliams.

I don't remember it being this bad....... but I wasn't a Colts fan, and I didn't frequent MBs at the time, so who knows.

We'll see how it all works out, but I don't anyone outside of Houston will hold this against the talking heads a couple of years from now.

AFD1717
09-05-2006, 10:36 AM
Why on earth would the nfl want Bush in New Orleans? So that a small market can go out and buy his jersey? Why not put him with the Jets if the nfl is going to pull strings? This is bs.