Because I aspire to be nothing moreso than evenhanded,¹ I should point to John McClain's entry from today.²

If the Texans can keep from embarrassing themselves at Oakland the way they did at San Diego and escape with a victory, they'll stop the bleeding momentarily.
[...]
The Texans need to run the ball like they did at San Diego, where they outrushed the Chargers 115 yards to 109 — thanks to Adimchinobe Echemandu. They also must continue to play that kind of run defense, something that had been lacking in recent weeks.

Obviously, the Texans can't continue to turn over the ball. They've committed 23 turnovers, including 11 in the last two games.

And it would help, of course, if the defense could actually force some turnovers.
[...]
If the Texans defeat the Raiders, enter their week off 4-5 and get back Schaub and Johnson, those of us with the glass-is-half-full philosophy will feel better.

The rest of you won't, because your glass is always half-empty, and you expect — indeed, almost welcome — the kind of incompetence the Texans have shown so you can say, "I told you so."

While I still think the playoffs are out of reach already--losing your first three division games and being in last in your division at the half-way point is a big ass mountain to climb--McClain is right in his assertion that this is the last chance to really put together a "good" season. If we lose the Raiders and fall to 3-6, the odds of getting to even .500 are slim. That would require, obviously, a 5-2 record to end the year.³

Not impossible obviously, save for two things. First, teams that start 3-6 rarely decide to right the ship and finish 5-2; there is a reason you get to 3-6 in the first place. Second, the schedule only gets harder from here, with @Titans, Broncos, @Colts, Jaguars, and even a game with the upstart Browns @Cleveland.

Now note: With that kind of road ahead, I am not saying that winning this Sunday and going into the bye week at 4-5 makes us a lock for a winning record. Far from it. Still, I can at least fathom the idea that this team can finish 4-3 and sneak out a win or two against "better" teams. 5-2, on the other hand, seems less likely at this moment than the Patriots going 19-0.

Now we just need to find a way to win without Matt Schaub. Or Andre Johnson. Or Ahman Green. Or Adminchinobe Echemandu.

There's a Halloween scare for you.<sup>4

1</sup> Not counting "rich," "Paris Hilton hot," "the owner of many, many monkeys," "reincarnated as Monica Bellucci's underwear," "quoted in the Wall Street Journal," "tall," and "a ninja."
² We haven't done footnotes in a while, have we? This is fun. Wheeeeeeeeee.
³ Math!
⁴ Not for nothin', but the giving out candy gets more entertaining with each passing beer. Father of the year, bitches!

Labels: 2007 Season, Adimchinobe Echemandu is fun to say, Andre Johnson, Batman, Houston Chronicle, Injury bug, Nigerians, The Schaub Experiment

Posted by matt at 7:18 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Because Baby Jesus has decided that I am not allowed to be happy with anything Texans-related this year, it appears that my latest crush, Adimchinobe Echemandu, might be sidelined with a gimpy hamstring.

He apparently tweaked it in San Diego, most likely as he tried to outrun our ineptitude, and played through the pain.

If Echemandu can't go, we're pretty much screwed Ron Dayne will likely get the carries. (I say this on the far-fetched assumption that Ahman Green won't be healthy). Dayne is not 100% either, however, as in related news, he continues to play through sucky fatness.

Labels: 2007 Season, Adimchinobe Echemandu is fun to say, Batman, Injury bug, Nigerians, Ron Dayne likes pie

Posted by matt at 6:46 PM | Permalink | links to this post

The Chron's coverage of the Texans is like an impacted colon--full of shit, painful to see, and irritating beyond belief. In fact, other than John McClain (who is definitely slipping, but still shows glimpses of the ol' fastball), there is no one writing for pay on that website that I can even tolerate.

Take, for instance, Richard Justice. Dick has always been critical of a certain first overall pick and has made it a point to draw attention to every time Mario made a mistake. Lately, however, Justice has stepped up the attacks, ripping Mario in pretty much everything he writes, regardless as to whether the screed fits his column or even whether it is based in fact. In five randomly chosen recent columns/posts alone, we get the following:

Despite blowing the Mario Williams pick, they'd had two good drafts and did some good things in free agency.

At the moment, two personnel decisions appear to be glaring mistakes. One is Mario Williams. No matter how Gary Kubiak says he's grading out, the truth is that he's far from the impact player the Texans believed he'd be. He has one sack the last six games. That's not a difference maker. He may be doing some good things in the running game, but he didn't get a $54-million contract to be good in the running game.

If you raised your eyebrows when Gary Kubiak said Mario was grading out well, join the club. No amount of spin will change the fact that he's far from the impact player the Texans thought they were getting.

N.D. Kalu and Travis Johnson were solid on the defensive front, but Mario Williams was barely heard from.

Mario Williams still isn't the player the Texans envisioned he'd be. Neither is Travis Johnson. Jason Babin is long gone, and Amobi Okoye is still learning.

Five for five. It looks to me like someone either has a mancrush or has a serious axe to grind.

Ever your intrepid reporter, I decided to email Justice and ask him to explain.

Richard,

I am curious. Did Mario Williams insult your mother recently? I ask because that's about the only justification I can see for your continued petty trashing of Mario and his play. Despite what you say (and what your sycophant readers echo), Mario is not playing poorly right now. No matter how many times you say otherwise, the fact remains that he is playing well and is currently playing better than Reggie Bush. So again I ask: Why do you seem to get your rocks off by slamming him over and over? Mario has 4 sacks. He has a fumble recovery TD. His run defense has been outstanding. Coaches are clearly game-planning for him on passing downs. He is the primary reason that Okoye has played so well, despite the fact that no one with an ounce of sense would line up Mario and Okoye beside one another on a passing down. In short, he's probably our third best defensive player right now behind DeMeco and Dunta. Considering that the learning curve for DEs in the NFL is typically three years, I would say he is right on pace. Yet, to hear you tell it, Mario stands around in the middle of the field, looking scared and confused and just generally being the worst player in the history of pro football.

It is that type of baseless drivel that makes people hate the Chronicle. One wouldn't think it would be hard to find three or four quality football writers in the nation's fourth-largest city, but it is apparently impossible. Still, one would hope that the people who did get to write about the Texans would do so in an intelligent, straight-forward, and entertaining manner. You know, rather than filling half-effort columns with whatever petty grudges the writer holds. If you are trying to stir the pot, you are doing a poor job. If you are trying to convince anyone with any understanding of football that Mario's play has been awful, you are wasting time and ink. (On the plus side, if you are just trying to be a jerk, you are doing a fantastic job.)

It's ironic, though; despite my utter disdain for nearly everything you've written in the past year or so, I just realized that I should actually be thanking you. It is precisely this type of sports "coverage" that encourages people to find alternative writing about their favorite teams. You and those like you are the primary cause for the popularity of sports blogs, especially among the more intelligent fans who are insulted by your lowest-common-denominator approach to writing. So, while our readership does not approach the level of a daily paper, the quality of our average reader far surpasses the "GRATE POST, RICHARD...ALL THESE MARIO FANS NEED TO JUST DEAL WIT TEH TRUTH...HE SUCKS" type of reader/commenter that you rely upon. I'll take that trade any day.


Matt
http://gotexans.blogspot.com/

P.S. Your assertion in Oct. 21's paper that Mario hasn't even shown signs of being an above average defensive end is mind-numbingly stupid. Even you are better than that.

And so I fired the email off into the ether of the internet. Because I have previously heard through the grapevine that Justice is not a fan of DGDB&D, I made it a point to avoid going all potty-mouth in the email, just in an effort to get him to respond. I wasn't really holding my breath that he would, mind you; I was just leaving the door open in case he felt compelled to offer some sort of real argument for his position.

Roughly ten minutes later, Richard replied. His response was clearly well-thought-out and is incredibly convincing. I apologize in advance for its length, but it is worth the read.

He can't play.

BRILLIANT! Rather than reply to any of the points I made about Mario, or engage in a discussion about his strengths/weaknesses, or even address the idea of new vs. old media, Richard just tells it like it is. (He apparently does not see or does not care about the irony of making a baseless assertion as a response to a criticism that he makes baseless assertions, but whatever.)

Of course, in doing so, Justice segues nicely into the second half of my email. I don't see that I am off-base in thinking there should be at least the occasional semblance of quality writing from anyone that is employed by the only paper in the fourth-largest city in America. I mean, the ability to produce solid product should at least be a requirement of the job, right? But we don't get that; we get vindictive assholes with petty grudges that trump true report, mindless twits who only got the job so John McClain has a jerk-off fantasy handy at all times, Ralph-Wiley-wannabes who would rather be tongue-bathing Tom Brady than writing about the Texans, and bland hacks who use their access to lend credence to whatever rumors they want to throw out on a given day. Not exactly a Murder's Row of journalistic quality there. At this point in the season, the majority of columns proffered by that group (that aren't pure Megan Manfull rumormill) can be lumped into one of three categories: (1) Richard Justice bashing Mario Williams like a jilted schoolgirl, (2) blame-laying columns that excoriate the whipping-boy du jour (these are sometimes disguised as Vince-Young-praise columns that excoriate the fact that he was not drafted by Houston), and (3) jump-off-the-bandwagon pieces from the same people who profess to be the biggest cheerleaders.

I've already offered examples of (1). For an example of (2), see pretty much anything written by Jerome Solomon in the last year. For (3), though, look no further than chief knob-polisher Anna-Megan Raley. While we all know how "nice" she is (thanks, Steph), I am beginning to wonder how much of a fan she really is. After all, her latest Pulitzer entry is entitled "Kubiak isn't giving up on the Texans, but I might." Awesome.

Like most of you, I've got an emotional investment in this team, but we're finding out it can be a risky investment for Texans fans right now.

Yeah, A-M, that's kind of the fucking point of being, you know, a FAN. You don't get to only have an emotional investment when things are going well. You don't even get to hedge your investment. Part of being a fan--a real fan--is that you are all in on every hand. That's what makes it so amazingly special when you win and that is why it hurts when you lose.

Everything just seems so negative about the Texans right now, so I've been wondering: What is something, if anything, positive about this team?

Seriously? How about DeMeco Ryans establishing himself as one of the best young linebackers in the league? How about the sudden emergence of Kevin Walter? How about the renewed career of Andre Davis? How about...

Which brings us back to the second half of my email.

On the one hand, as we've seen, you have people being paid to write about the team we love. They have access that we could only dream of having. They have a platform that reaches more people in an afternoon than I reach all week. They have (in theory) the talent to use that access and that platform to inform and enlighten an enormous number of people. And, most importantly, they have the security of knowing that almost nothing they write today will prevent their work from reaching the same audience the next day and the next day and so on.

On the other, you have a small group of people donating their time and effort into writing about the same team. We have no access to anything but the game on TV or in person. We have a platform that relies solely on word of mouth--there is no daily anything that delivers our content every morning. We have a desire to be informative, funny, entertaining, truthful, and insightful and we do it all under the watchful eye of a readership that is lightning quick to call out bullshit or half-truths. And, unlike the paper, if we want to keep reaching people, we have to bring our A game (or, at minimum, our B game) 75% of the time.

As an aside, it may be because we have to offer quality far more often than not, but I would honestly put up any of the real (read: not dick jokes, poop jokes, conversations between body parts, etc.) writing done by the Texans blogs against any of the writing the Chron has puked forth in the last year. In my mind, it is not even close as to who the winner of that matchup would be.

This collective excellence on the part of bloggers is a huge reason why my annoyance with the Chronicle's writers is tempered a bit; without their collective shortcomings as a newspaper staff, my blog (and BRB and Stephanie and Texans Tailgate and any others) would not find such ready acceptance and loyal readership. Even better, the readers we attract are likely to be the more intelligent, more vocal, and more dedicated fans because that type of person is less likely to rely on the daily hatchet jobs and blatant bandwagoneering the paper offers.

If you want proof, you need look no further than the difference between comments left on articles over there and comments left here and at BRB. Those of you who are regular readers of this blog, for instance, enjoy talk about Xs and Os. You offer up differing viewpoints instead of being docile lapdogs like the people who agree with everything written by the Chronicle. You bring humor and insight to the party. Hell, I'll go so far as to say the comments are one of the primary reasons I do this because they are one of the very best parts of this blog. No one in his or her right mind would say that the comments to a typical Chron post are anything but infrequently comprehensible.

I did not mean for this post to become a blogger/blog reader circle jerk. Honest. That said, I do not feel like I am overreaching here. I truly believe that the exploding popularity of sports blogs is due in large part to the piss-poor job the local papers and traditional journalists do of covering their respective teams. While I can't say that the writers at the Chronicle are the worst staff in America, I can say with first-hand knowledge that they are certainly far below even cities like Kansas City and St. Louis. Holier-than-thou, dickhead responses like the one I received from Richard Justice do little to make me think that the Chronicle is going to improve any time soon.

(In case you were wondering, I did reply to his reply.

Insightful. I now completely buy your arguments and understand your continued employment. Keep up the fantastic work.

I never said I was mature. Only that I do a better job than he does where it really matters.)

Labels: Athletes who don't stab people, Bloggerating, Dunta Robinson, Houston Chronicle, Richard Justice is a no-talent assclown, Righteous Indignation, Self-Referential Stuff, Super Mario

Posted by matt at 5:02 PM | Permalink | links to this post

At some point on Tuesday, assuming Blogger doesn't crash, this little corner of blogodelphia will cross the 40,000 hit threshold. Thus proving that there is always a market for jokes about beer-soaked underwear, Peyton Manning's sex life, and Travis Johnson's body parts.

I am as baffled as you.

(Thanks.)

UPDATE: Because a couple people have emailed and said that they are unable to register and leave comments here, I've switched the comments to allow unregistered commenters.

UPDATE 2: Of course, having posted this, Sitemeter appears broken today. Unless there have really been no readers in the last four hours.

UPDATE 3: Reader #40,000 was from Gonzaga University. Odd.

Labels: Beer, Holy Crap did you see the end of the Packers game?, I really dig my readers, Peyton Manning's lovelife, Self-Referential Stuff, Travis Johnson

Posted by matt at 10:25 PM | Permalink | links to this post

64 Rushing Yards on 10 carries (...to Aaron Stecker's 12) with a long of 20, 7 catches for 49 yards, 0 TD

Point of reference: Adimchinobe Echemandu had 62 yards on 10 carries

Labels: 2007 Season, Inanity, Nigerians, Reggie Bush, Teams that aren't the Texans

Posted by matt at 8:45 PM | Permalink | links to this post

I suppose it goes without saying that this is not exactly where I hoped we would be at the halfway point. But I am going to say it anyway.

I hoped that this season would be the equivalent of sipping Clos du Mesnil 1995 with a supermodel on board your private jet.

I expected that this season would be the equivalent of enjoying Chateau Mouton Rothschild Pauillac 1986 on the patio of your 12,000 square foot oceanside villa.

Right now, this season is the equivalent of sucking stale PBR out of the G-string of a male stripper in the bathroom of a truckstop in Shamrock, TX.

You could say it's not quite living up to expectations.

Look, I realize that we have been ravaged--decimated even--by injuries. Not many teams could lose their biggest weapon, their starting running back, both of their kick/punt returners, a starting safety and the safety's first replacement, and their starting center and expect to contend for anything. Well, unless they were in the NFC, but that's a different story.

The injuries are still no excuse for the play we've seen since kickoff of the Atlanta game. Poor (at best) defensive play-calling, mediocre clock-management, questionable roster decisions, the continued employment of Petey Faggins...any one of these would be troublesome. Having all of them? Well, that explains the current record.

I am currently trying to answer the question of "where do we go from here?" At our current level of play, the answer is 3-13. A more realistic number, barring some major changes, is probably 6-10. A best-case scenario would be 8-8.

I am going to split the baby and peg us at no more than 7 wins. Which would be the equivalent of drinking Chimay Bleue poolside with a couple of hot redheads who are milking you for free drinks and will absolutely not sleep with you.

Sad part is, with the taste of warm PBR still in your throat, that overpriced cocktease seems like a win.

Labels: 2007 Season, Beer, Boobies, Demarcus Faggins sucks, Disturbing (yet accurate) Metaphors, Gary Kubiak might be high, Inanity, Injury bug

Posted by matt at 10:26 AM | Permalink | links to this post

1. Whose bright idea was it to assign Petey Faggins to cover Antonio Gates (on the play where it looked like no one was even in Gates' area code)? Because, call me crazy, but putting the worst starting defensive back in football on the prototype for mutant TE/WR hybrids is likely not going to yield good results.

2. I know it's only one game, but is there any way Adimchinobe Echemandu isn't starting next week? I mean, in a rational universe.

3. I didn't get to see it, so could someone tell me how Mario Williams' sack looked? (Did he beat someone off the end or was it a busted play or what?)

4. Speaking of Adimchinobe Echemandu, which is as fun to type as it is to say, can I drive the bandwagon?

5. So, given the utter lack of blitzes (again) and the subsequent lack of pressure, combined with the "play" of Petey Faggins, would it really be a bad move to fire Richard Smith in the middle of the season? Couldn't we just have a "be D-coordinator for a day" radio contest or something?

6. I ask the following with only the slightest touch of sarcasm. Can someone please name two or three good moves Gary Kubiak has made with regard to players playing (or not playing) based on health, score, etc? Because I can quickly tick off some bad ones (Andre Johnson getting hurt, Jacoby Jones starting last week, Petey Faggins continued role on the team, starting Matt Schaub today, keeping Sam Gado around far too long), but the only good one I am coming up with is sticking with Kevin Walter. Maybe Adimchinobe Echimandu becomes a great move--god, I hope--but that's not exactly an overwhelming list. (I don't give him credit for going to Ephraim Salaam over Jordan Black because choosing Black would have been like choosing herpes over the common cold.)

7. Who exactly did we piss off to deserve the amount of injuries we've sustained this year? Whoever it was, I am pretty sure he or she is related to Antonio Cromartie.

9. I have a draft related post that I am working on, but should I consider this season a dismal failure if I am already talking '08 Draft before Halloween? Or can I just pretend that I am so eaten up with football minutiae that this type of thing is not reflective of our 3-5 record?

10. Reader Interaction Time!!!! What are the three biggest necessities for the offseason as you see them? Bonus questions: What expletive did you yell when Petey failed to wrap up his tackle, gifting the Chargers a TD? Would our defense actually improve if Faggins were just placed on IR?

Labels: 2007 Season, 2008 Draft, Demarcus Faggins sucks, Injury bug, Nigerians, Posts that list too many players

Posted by matt at 7:34 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Ugh. A Friday without internet access at work. I was way too productive yesterday. I'm mailing some of these in, by the way. So consider yourself warned.

Last week: 6-8. The slide continues.
Season: 58-44

Week 8 Picks

Byes: Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Falcons, Dallas Cowboys, Arizona Cardinals, Seattle Seahawks, Baltimore Ravens

Detroit @ Chicago. One half of a phone conversation made prior to last week's games: "Hey, Kris? Yeah. This is Brian. Brian Griese. So, uhh, I was just wondering if you still had Satan's phone number? Why? Oh, well, you know...I just saw you hit that 57-yarder and, well, if it works for you, I don't see why it wouldn't work for me." Of course, the good news is this makes the QB matchup in this game one of massive religious consequence. Pick: Chicago.

Pittsburgh @ Cincinnati. Pierogi v. Skyline Chili. Hmm. I do love me some pierogi. Pick: Pittsburgh

New York Giants "@" Miami. I don't really care one way or the other if the NFL plays games in countries outside America. Maybe it's a good idea. Whatever. Regardless, the Dolphins suck in any time zone. Pick: New York Giants

Philadelphia @ Minnesota. Here's the thing. After watching Brian Greise put together a game-winning drive against Philly, I want to pick Minnesota. Except Minny's QB situation makes Brian Greise look like Joe Montana. Pick: Philadelphia

Cleveland @ St. Louis. I'm still not over the Indians game. Pick: St. Louis

Indianapolis @ Carolina. Pick: Indianapolis

Oakland @ Tennessee. Pick: Oakland

JUGGERNAUT @ San Diego. So, the game is in San Diego as planned after all. Shady San Diegans; I swear that started that fire just to throw the location and time of the game into confusion. They know they can't beat us straight up. Cheaters. Pick: San Diego

Jacksonville @ Tampa Bay. David Garrard should find success against this Tampa Bay defense, especially if they are able to establish MoJo Drew and the running game. What? What's that? Out four weeks? Questionable? Pick: Tampa Bay

Buffalo @ New York Jets. Buffalo has wings. Jets have wings. Weird. Also weird? That the Bills beat Baltimore last week. Raise your hot-sauce-covered hand if you saw that one coming. Pick: Buffalo

Washington @ New England. To the best of my knowledge, Jason Campbell has not had sex with any supermodels. Which really isn't determinative for this game, but I sure it means something. Somewhat related, to the best of knowledge, Carlos Rogers has yet to stop any WRs. Ever. Pick: New England.

New Orleans @ San Francisco. Pick: New Orleans

Green Bay @ Denver. It's like Super Bowl XXXIII, but not. I'm just glad that I get Favre back for my fantasy team, because Matt Schaub would have been more help had he just not shown up last week. Pick: Green Bay

Labels: 2007 Season, Posts that list too many players, Predictions Guaranteed To Go Wrong, Teams that aren't the Texans

Posted by matt at 8:35 AM | Permalink | links to this post

Thank reader Jersey Bill for this one.

Mister Mittens.

Yeah, it's what you'd think.

Labels: Inanity, Zoolander's snazzy handwear

Posted by matt at 4:10 PM | Permalink | links to this post

So, we are supposed to learn today where Sunday's game will be played (and if it will even be on Sunday). The current realistic choices are Reliant, Texas Stadium, University of Phoenix Stadium, this guy's backyard, and Qualcomm. If the game is at Qualcomm and (possibly) if the game is at U-Phoenix, odds are it will be a Monday night game. Taking those options in order:

• Reliant. This makes the most sense to me. I mean, in theory, if you are supposed to play a game with a team and you are unable to host it, the default should be to have it at their stadium and just call you the "home" team. Baseball does this all the time, most recently with some Cleveland and Seattle games (though, to be fair, those games were played later in the year instead of the day of the original game, but baseball has that kind of logistical flexibility). Still, I can see the Chargers and (more accurately) their fans getting all up in arms about this scenario. To which I say, "why do you hate charity?" You see, as Steph pointed out to me, if they are going to use this game to raise money for San Diegans, the Houston is a perfect locale. First, Bob McNair did all sorts of fundrasie-y type stuff for the Katrina victims, including shelling out $1MM of his own cash--by the way, Bob, this blog would gladly accept a sugar daddy--so it's not like using a game at Reliant to raise cash is out of left field or anything. Second, I assume that tickets to this game will just go on general sale to the public instead of being part of the season tickets, which means that nearly everyone who buys tickets will be doing it because they want to see the game, meaning that the disaffected season ticket holders who don't even sit in their seats will be kept to a minimum.
• Texas Stadium. Let's be really blunt about something. Texas Stadium is a festering shitbox. And it's not just because of the team that plays there. No, it really is a disgusting, run-down facility. Of ALL the options on that list, it is hands-down the worst if only because of the structure. On top of which, last I checked, Dallas was primarily full of mouth-breathing yokels and credit card millionaires. (Dallas residents who read this blog are excluded from that characterization.) Not exactly a polo match crowd. Which might be what they want, with the theory being that the people who show up will do so to boo the Texans. Brilliant. Let's hold a game in a place where you have to bank on animus to drive ticket sales. I'm sure that is going to raise as much money as the game at Reliant. Assbags.
• University of Phoenix Stadium. This is easily the nicest stadium sponsored by an online university. Kidding aside, this plan at least makes logistical sense in that San Diegans could migrate to the game if they were so inclined. And if their cars hadn't burned up. The problem is, apparently someone else has rented out the whole complex for some kind of something until Sunday, which would make preparations a problem. The game would have to be played on Monday, which, while that would not be a problem were it in San Diego (more on that in a minute), asking fans of either team to get to a game like that on a weekday night is probably stretching it. Update: I took a break from writing this to go to lunch and, upon returning, saw that UoPS had been eliminated due to the obligations through Sunday. This is good.
• That guy's backyard. Unlikely. Though, judging by the pictures of both, it is probably nicer than Texas Stadium.
• Qualcomm. Word has come out today that they might actually get to play the game at Qualcomm. They have cleared out most of the evacuees, with the number currently holed up in the stadium at around 5,000. If they can get everyone out and if they can get the place cleaned up and ready, then the game would be held there. Possibly--again, assuming the ifs--on Sunday as planned. I wouldn't hold my breath (unless I was near the wildfires), though. The league has said that they will give the organization as much time as possible to figure out if Qualcomm will work.

In other news, I cannot believe I waited this long to mention that Sam Gado was asked to turn in his playbook, pack his 2 yards/carry, and head to somewhere other than Reliant Stadium. This is good news. Perhaps even better news, though, is that the team activated recent signee, liason to Nnamdi Asomugha, and has-to-be-better-than-Gado RB Adimchinobe Echemandu (Joe Echema, for the Nigerian-impaired). You could say I am a little happy about this. He might turn out to be a total bust, but I'll take that kind of chance on 4.33 speed any day.

Labels: 2007 Season, Fuck the Cowboys, Nigerians, Nnamdi Asomugha, RB free-for-all, Teams that aren't the Texans

Posted by matt at 10:10 AM | Permalink | links to this post

John Fox: Ahh...the long weekend of the bye week. The team is taking three days off, there are no secretaries around...nothing like having a little Me Time. Just a coach, his private office, no pants, and two-and-a-half Gigs of Cytherea porn. Time to rub one out.

*phone rings*

Fox: Fuck!

*answers phone* Who is it?

Voice: Coach, this is Pat Yasinskas from the Charlotte Observer. I was just wondering about the quarterba--

Fox: No comment.

Yasinskas: Well, it's just that the fans want to know who will be sta--

Fox: I said no comment.

*hangs up phone*

Jesus. Now, where was I? Ah, yes...Squirtwoman 2. Very nice. Oooh. Ahhhh. Yeah. Mmmhmm. Ooooooh.

*phone rings*

Fox: *answers phone* Speak.

Second Voice: Oh, sorry. Is this a bad time?

Fox: Who is this?

SV: I'm from the Associated Press. What's the quarterback situation there in Carolina?

Fox: One's gay and one's old.

*hangs up phone* Come to papa, Cytherea. Heh... "come." Ah. Grr. Hnnngh. Ffffft. Ah Ah AHHHH--

*phone rings*

Fox: SWEET FUCKING CHRIST ON THE CROSS! WHAT DOES A GUY HAVE TO DO TO FUCKING WHACK OFF AROUND HERE??!

*answers phone*

WHAT?!

Third Voice: Hey, Coach. It's Dave. I just thought I should tell you that my back is feeling pretty good and I th--

Fox: Feeling good, huh?

Carr: Yeah.

Fox: Nice and limber?

Carr: Yep.

Fox: Then you won't have any problem when you GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!

*slams phone down* OK, now I can handle my bus--well, if this isn't fucking fantastic. My dick's gone softer than Dan Morgan's brain. Now...Just calm down, John. Get a hold of yourself. That glovewearing Nancy may have fucked up the team, but he won't fuck this up. Just breathe and watch the pretty little porn slut get freak nasty with that double-ender. Squirtwoman is your favorite; you love her. Remember that.

*watches porn*

*looks angrily at penis*

*watches porn*

*looks angrily at penis*

*turns off monitor*

*weeps*

Labels: 2007 Season, Fake Conversations with Real People, Inanity, Injury bug, Sucks to be John Fox, Zoolander's snazzy handwear

Posted by matt at 2:00 PM | Permalink | links to this post

17 carries, 54 yards (3.2/carry), 0 TD
5 catches, 19 yards (3.8/catch), 1 TD

(Full disclosure: Captain Hype actually had a good game the week before this one, racking up 97 rushing yards (5.1) and 44 receiving (7.3). Of course, he also didn't score and lost a fumble. So, you know, he wasn't exactly great.)

Labels: 2007 Season, Inanity, Reggie Bush, Stats

Posted by matt at 12:22 PM | Permalink | links to this post

I know we haven't been running a 4-3 defense very long. I know that there are probably still some kinks and growing pains that we are trying to work through. Nevertheless, I am beginning to wonder if Richard Smith even knows how to use a 4-3. In fact, taking it a step further, as each week passes, I am more and more sure that he's unaware we are even running a 4-3. How else can you explain the following:

1. Why does Morlon Greenwood hardly (if ever) blitz?

I ask this because Morlon is ostensibly our weakside linebacker, right? I mean, that's what it says on this depth chart and that's how Kubiak referred to him through the preseason, so I assume that's the role he's actually playing. As the WLB in a 4-3, one would generally assume that he would be asked to blitz.

[begin tedious primer for sake of exposition of idea, despite fact that most readers already know forthcoming info]

Look, it breaks down like this: In the theoretical 4-3, each of the three linebackers serves a different purpose. The middle (MLB) is by far the most important, as the whole defense is designed to funnel plays back toward the middle. He lines up in the 0- or (occasionally) 1-technique (i.e. usually directly over the center, but occasionally offset over either shoulder of the center) and has responsibility for the A and B gaps (the holes between the center and guard or the guard and tackle). From that position, he keys off of the fullback and to determine run/pass, and has to maintain interior defense on outside runs until he is sure there is no cutback. DeMeco Ryans does all of this and does it ungodly well.

The second most important backer in this defense is the strongside (SLB). He lines up on whichever side has more blockers (TEs, offset RBs/FBs, even slot WRs) and has four responsibilities. First, he is responsible for filling the D gap (which, actually, isn't even a gap--it's the area just outside the TE) and turning the run back toward the middle. Second, if the running back is attempt to run between the tackles, the SLB is supposed to jam the TE and keep the TE from getting to and blocking the MLB. Third, on a pass play, the SLB usually picks up the releasing TE and covers him. Fourth, he is expected to maintain backside contain on runs away from him and protect against anything that would reverse the direction of the play.

Finally, we get to the point of this primer--the weakside (WLB). If the offense lines up with two TEs, the WLB lines up and plays his position just like the SLB with the same responsibilities. In normal, one TE situations, however, his role is different. In those cases, the WLB's two main duties are to backside protect against reverses and misdirection plays (which is why you will often see the WLB trail a pulling guard) and to pick up the swing/screen passes thrown to his side. But--and here's the rub--he has that second duty because the WLB sees more of those passes because the WLB is asked usually to blitz more than the other linebackers. And this makes sense, if you think about it--after all, the WLB is the one LB who has the fewest blockers to pick him up if he blitzes.

[/end tedium...for a moment]

Despite all of this, Greenwood is hardly ever sent after the QB. Heck, the reason that Shantee Orr got to play as much as he did last year was because he was a good pass rusher...from the SLB position. How does that make sense, except perhaps if you are technically running a 4-3 where you have Left and Right OLBs and you don't differentiate between the weak and strong sides except in name?

Now, I am on the record repeatedly as saying that I like Greenwood and that he is underrated. After seeing him in person, my opinion hasn't changed. He's fast, he tackles well, and he seems to have very good football instincts. All of which plays into why he makes a good WLB. But if you are going to run a 4-3, and you don't get pressure from your front four, you have to blitz. Wait...I'm getting ahead of myself.

2a. Why aren't we at least blitzing someone with any regularity?

[fire up the tedious, pedantic football primer again]

The greatest strength of the 3-4 defense is its flexibility. Because the defense requires faster players at key positions, teams can move seamlessly between the base 3-4, an old-school 5-2 (from which they can either all rush, slide into a 2-deep zone, or even run a basic zone-blitz), and even a 4-2-5 zone. Given that flexibility plus the speed inherent in the personnel, a person might wonder why all teams don't run the 3-4. Well, aside from the fact that it's not always easy to put together that personnel (as our first years demonstrated), the answer is that the 3-4 is much easier for teams to run against. Because the players in the 3-4 are smaller, a good running team with a large line can dominate the nose tackle, crash down on the middle linebackers, and create some great running holes.

The 4-3, on the other hand, gives you an additional defensive tackle and makes it easier to keep the offensive linemen from getting to the second level and neutralizing your MLB. And, if you find four really good linemen, the 4-3 offers the opportunity to get good pressure on the offense without sending a linebacker. This is helpful because the base 4-3 generally features man coverage on the WRs. If the front four can get pressure, however, the linebackers and DBs can drop into a 2- or 3-deep zone, increasing your chances for a hurried throw and possible interception.

THAT SAID (and that's a very big "that said"), if you don't have a defensive line that can get pressure all by itself--few teams do--you have to create pressure. It doesn't matter how good or flexible your linebackers are, if the front four cannot get after the QB alone, all but the most inept NFL QBs can sit back there and pick apart a zone defense. See, e.g, Collins, Kerry.

[end primer...for the moment]

OK, so back to my pre-primer question: Why aren't we at least blitzing someone with any regularity?

I know that the pat answer is "because we need our LBs in coverage." Except that is circular logic. If you aren't blitzing because you aren't getting pressure and, thus, your suspect secondary is getting exposed, then it is the dropping of LBs into coverage that is creating the need for the LBs in coverage.

Look, like I said up there a while ago, if you aren't getting pressure from the front four in a 4-3, then you have to create pressure by blitzing. It's that simple. This is doubly true when your secondary is shaky at best. Pressure creates turnovers through hurried throws and forced fumbles and it forces clowns like Petey Faggins to have to cover for a shorter time (thus limiting the amount of time he has to grab hold of the WRs jersey). There are no three linebackers in the world who can help enough to counter a QB having all day to pick apart a feeble secondary.

For a perfect example of this, you need look no further than last year's Washington Redskins. When injuries at corner made it so that they basically couldn't cover anyone, their response was to drop everyone into coverage and play a soft cover 2. The result: QBs had all day (because Washington's front four couldn't get any pressure at all) and the Skins were the worst deep ball defense in the league last year. The lesson: QB pressure makes the entire defense better in ways that extra coverage cannot, or, alternatively, any amount of coverage gets beat when the QB has enough time.

Which is not to say that I advocate sending ALL of your linebackers...

2b. So, then...how should we go about blitzing (other than with the aforementioned proper use of the WLB)? The answer is simple: the zone blitz

[4-3 defense 102 here. Feel free to skip ahead.]

The idea behind the zone blitz is two-fold. First, duh, create pressure. Second, however, it tries to confuse the offense's blocking calls by sending any of the three linebackers (or, occasionally, a safety) while someone else fills the space left by the vacating backer. In that way, the defense does not lose the extra hands in coverage, but should still be able to get penetration because the offensive line will not know where the blitz is coming from on a given play.

For example, the zone blitz allows the MLB to blitz through the A-gap, while the nose tackle stunts over through the B-gap. In coverage, the WLB fills the space vacated by the MLB and the RDE drops back and out into the space that WLB would fill in a standard two deep zone. So, when the QB sees the MLB attack, his natural reaction is to look to throw at where the blitz came from (or, if he's guessing that the WLB will fill, to where the WLB came from), only to find the ball thrown right at a defender.

Then, on the very next play, with the very same package, the team could go with a more traditional WLB blitz, but have the RDE slide back to fill. We saw this play once or twice in the preseason with Shantee Orr lined up outside the RDE and it was effective.

An added bonus of blitzing out of a two-deep zone is that it allows our best defensive player to make even more of an impact on the game. DeMeco Ryans has two sacks this season, both of which have come on a straight blitz. On both plays, he came more or less untouched (one against Harrington late in the game when we decided to actually play D and the one last week where he nearly killed Kerry Collins) because he was allowed to read the offensive line and choose between the A- and B-gap and he smacked the QB right in the mouth. He has also been asked to run blitz a couple times and he's found success there. So, if we start using him on some zone blitzes, teams will have to account for him more. Meaning that blitzes from other positions--say Danny Clark stunting over the LDE with Morlon Greenwood dropping back to the middle and DeMeco filling the space where the SLB would normally be--a team throwing over the blitz would be throwing the ball right at our best defensive weapon. Likewise, letting DeMeco creep up and show blitz, especially if he'd already had success, would create more chances for the d-linemen on either side of him to get ignored by an overzealous o-lineman. And so on, and so forth.

[/4-3 Defense 102]

I cannot state this strongly enough. Blitzing is a necessity when you have 1/4th of a real secondary. Zone blitzing allows for our strong front seven to create mismatches while still keeping two or three extra bodies in coverage and allowing our best defensive player to better impact the game. While you cannot necessarily use the zone blitz on every down (it becomes less effective at some point), how is this not a better option than dropping the three LBs, relying entirely on your front four for any pressure on the QB, and watching the QB have time to locate and throw at Petey Faggins?

3. Why do we use our front four in such a vanilla manner?

Just like you can't run the zone blitz on every defensive snap, if you do anything over and over, eventually everyone in the NFL will know your tendencies. (By "eventually," I mean "by next week.") Right now, we have the same formulaic defensive line positions. Mario at RDE on running plays, Mario at LDE on passing plays, blah blah blah.

Why?

First of all, backing up a step, why when Mario moves to LDE--a move I really, really like--do the tackles not flip-flop so that Amobi Okoye is not beside Mario? We've covered this before. Yes, I am fully aware that Amobi has four sacks and that, on three of those, Mario is clearly occupying at least two blockers. That's all well and good, but, like we said before, it's not really the highest, best use of their talents. Flipping Amobi puts your two-gap, big-bodied tackle between Mario and Okoye. It is this player's goal to pick up two blockers, which means that either Amobi or Mario (or, possibly, both) would draw single blocking more often than not. Meaning, oh I don't know, that we would get more consistent penetration from both sides of the line.

But, back to where we started question 3: why even have a definite set order for your defensive linemen? I mean, sure, if you are going to have set positions based on down and distance, then for god's sake, do it correctly within the constraints of the 4-3. But do you really even have to have set positions? Right now, you have Mario Williams who, though Richard Justice would disagree, is actually playing very well. You have Amobi Okoye, who is playing the pass-rush role as well as we hoped and playing the running game better than we hoped. AND you have Travis Johnson who is just playing some inspired football right now, hustling, hitting people, and playing like you would hope a first-round DT would. That's three real pass rushers, plus we haven't even touched on Kalu, Weaver, Maddox, etc.

With that kind of ability up front, why become so predictable that teams can game plan and negate some of the advantage you have? Mix it up a little. Go big on one play and have Mario, Maddox, Johnson, and Amobi from left to right. Next time out, go with your more traditional base. Then turn around and go small (relatively speaking) with Mario, Okoye, Cochran, and Orr. Create a mismatch by putting Mario at under tackle and then having him twist-stunt with Weaver lined up at DE. The possibilities are vast...if you will just use them.

Note: I am fully aware that Mario moved around a lot last year and that some of the coaching staff thought that might have been his "problem." You know, rather than just having an injured foot and being a rookie at a tough position. That's all well and good, but setting up your front so that he is guaranteed to get doubled on every single play is hardly the answer.

I guess the bigger point here for question three is JUST DO SOMETHING. Don't keep running out there with a predictable front four rotation, no blitz packages to speak of, and a secondary that can't cover for as long as you are asking them to. DO SOMETHING.

The great thing about the 4-3 is the balance. But that balance is in terms of playing the run versus playing the pass, meaning you still have to play to the strengths of your D. Consistency in game planning will always equal regression in the NFL; worse, consistently planning in the same incorrect manner will always equal failure.

[Author's note: I wrote this in about five different pieces, so I apologize if it rambles. Please point out any inconsistencies in it.]

Labels: 2007 Season, Amobi Okoye is 20, Athletes who don't stab people, Demarcus Faggins sucks, DeMeco Ryans, Football 101, Secondary issues are primary, Super Mario, Travis Johnson

Posted by matt at 7:26 PM | Permalink | links to this post

I was going to write up something about the debacle/miracle/heartbreak that was Sunday, but--thankfully--Tim beat me to it. I don't have anything of any importance to add, so I just link to his here (offense) and here (defense). I really am glad he took the time and effort, because I am not sure that I could have gone in depth on that game without throwing up all over my computer.

Update: I will mention that Travis Johnson's performance on Sunday was amazingly bizarre. I mentioned somewhere that I am too lazy to link to right now that he won me over somewhat in camp, as he really seemed to be working. Then, after the Trent Green episode, I actually found myself rooting for the guy. Still, none of that prepared me for seeing Travis effin' Johnson running sideline to sideline, making hits, playing well, and talking smack after big plays.

OK, maybe I was sorta prepared for the smack talking, but not the other stuff.

Labels: 2007 Season, Demarcus Faggins sucks, DeMeco Ryans, Offensive (punch)Line, Secondary issues are primary, Shit, Travis Johnson

Posted by matt at 5:16 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Two final thoughts on how a game ain't over until it's over (and I promise a recap/rant/plea for merciful death is coming soon).

1. You would think that, of anyone, Houston football fans would know the dangers of assuming victory or defeat. I mean, January 3, 1993 did actually happen, right?¹ I didn't just make that up in my over-active imagination, did I?

2. I stopped reading Gregg Easterbrook after my last rant, but someone pointed me in the direction of this nugget:

As the hundreds and hundreds still inside the stadium celebrated the 36-35 lead, TMQ thought, "This game isn't over." Tennessee had 57 seconds and all three timeouts; the Flaming Thumbtacks needed only a field goal. Because the crowd had left, there was no deafening noise as the visitors staged their final drive: Imagine if 71,054 lunatics had been screaming and pounding their feet instead.

He's still an elitist ass goblin, and he ignores the number of seats that were either empty from the outset or filled with Titans fans, but at least we can agree on the underlying premise.



¹ My apologies for posting that link. It just really drives home the point, you know. Strangely, however, the lack of crowd did not jinx Buffalo late in the game. I chalk that up to God enjoying watching them fail in Super Bowls.

Labels: 2007 Season, TMQ still sucks, Vinsanity

Posted by matt at 2:15 PM | Permalink | links to this post

There are few rules when it comes to rooting for a team. Generally, you can do whatever you want and no one will say much of anything. I'm not saying that you won't get a look or three because of what you are wearing, what you have painted on the side of your $60,000 RV, or what you convinced your wife to tattoo on her cleavage, but in the end, all anyone asks is that you are loyal to your team.

One of the few rules that does exist as part of being loyal, however, is that you never, ever, EVER leave a game before it is literally impossible for your team to win/lose the game. And I do mean "literally;" "unlikely" is not the same thing. So, it is in that vein that I would like to offer a sincere and heartfelt "fuck you" to all of the Texans fans who left the game early yesterday. That was just as disappointing as anything else that happened.

When I saw how many fewer seats were occupied following halftime, I was mildly annoyed. I chalked that up to people who were really there only to see Vince Young. After all, it's not like the place ever filled up yesterday--plenty of seats never had an ass in them because it was known that Vince was not starting. Still, I assumed that few Texans fans were among the exodus.

When my wife called during the early third quarter to tell me that the television announcers were joking about the parking lot filling up with people returning to their tailgates, I was even more peeved. Way to stick it out and cheer for your team, ya know? Hell, I don't even understand the mindset that would say, "hey, Earl, we're losing; let's go outside and listen to the game on radio instead of sitting here in this seat we paid for and actually watching the game."

And so it went that each hiccup by the Texans sent more and more people fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. At no point did any of them stop to think that there was a chance we might come back. Was it likely? Fuck no. Was it technically possible? Fuck yes. Obviously. Yet none of the departed seemed to even consider the possibility, however remote.

As disheartening as it was to see the empty seats during the comeback, the real slap in the face didn't come until after Andre Davis' miraculous TD catch. When Tennessee got the ball back and had to put together a drive, the few of us remaining were screaming our lungs out. We wanted to make it impossible for Collins to hear or audible and make the offensive line jump because they couldn't hear the snap count. We screamed. We beat the empty seats with bottles. We clapped until our hands hurt. And, obviously, we were unsuccessful. One-fifth of a stadium full of people can't do a whole lot, especially when a not-small percentage of that fifth is composed of Titans/VY fans.

Would it have made a difference if the place was packed? Who knows? That's not really the point. The point is that I shouldn't have to sit here and wonder "what if;" I should already know whether a packed house (or a reasonable approximation of a packed house) could have created a din that would throw the Titans off in that last, crucial minute.

Right about now, someone reading this is thinking that I am a dumbshit for suggesting that you stay even when the odds are 1-in-a-whole-fucking-lot that the outcome could change. Yet, that is exactly what this dumbshit is saying. If it is possible for your team to win/lose, you keep yourself in the stadium and see what happens. If you want to leave at the two-minute warning when your team is losing by four possessions, go ahead. If you want to start heading toward the exit as soon as one team begins the kneel-downs or even as soon as they get the first down that will let them start kneeling, be my guest. But until then, don't even consider leaving. Because only an asshole would do that. Nobody likes an asshole.

Look, maybe I am just venting because I saw the whole thing happen live. Losing like that, there is a feeling of disgust that no TV or radio broadcast can convey. The old lady who hugged me when Andre scored looked like she was going to cry when the field goal sailed through. We'd witnessed thirteen minutes of amazing comeback, only to have our hearts torn out at the end, so it's possible that I am simply bitter that the people who left early escaped the first-hand heartbreak. Then again, at least I can say that I saw that unbelievable rally live and--even better--I can tell people that I stuck it out even as the score climbed to 32-7. Maybe I left felling like I got kicked in the nuts, but I at least I had the balls to stick it out.

I'll get down off the soapbox now.

Labels: 2007 Season, Fuck, Ranting, Righteous Indignation, Self-Referential Stuff

Posted by matt at 9:48 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Recap coming. Plus a rant about people who suck. Eventually.

Fuck.

Labels: Damn it, Fuck, I hate everything, Shit

Posted by matt at 11:38 AM | Permalink | links to this post

Come 6AM tomorrow, I will be on my way to H-town. Anyone within shouting distance of the Bayou City who enjoys such things as, say, the Texans and alcohol should stop by Jimmie's Place, 2803 White Oak Dr, 77007 at some time after 7PM. Those who do not like the Texans and alcohol are probably reading the wrong blog. May I suggest a different one which you might find more comfortable, comrade?

Expect nothing from me until Monday. Oh, and someone feed the dogs while I am gone.

Labels: Beer, Bloggerating, Boobies?, Drunky Drunkerton, Self-Referential Stuff

Posted by matt at 8:55 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Stephanie offers up a great column on the likelihood of Vince Young playing in Sunday's game. I am a sucker for solid medical research and logical arguments--two things certain writers don't even come close to offering--and I think Steph is on to something here.

Given Young's annoyance in talking about his injury, I am guessing it is not likely he is going to play because he sounds like a guy who is grumpy about not playing. Don't take my word for it, this doctor guy says that re-injury to the quad is a real possibility. Also the less time the injury has to heal, the more likely that re-injury could occur, or perhaps a worse injury. Even a basic look-see on the internet has tons of stories of these sorts of quad injuries gone bad. Like this one:

Resting may be the common sense approach, but it is one that is often ignored by competitive athletes. This is unwise, since it does not take much to turn a grade one Thigh strain into a grade two, or a grade two Thigh strain into a grade three.

Why? Because athletes feel like they can function with this sort of quad strain unless they try to do something like kicking or sprinting. I'm guessing a double-threat quarterback with a chronically bad wheel would not be something that Fisher would want to cause by starting Young. A grade three thigh strain is one that requires surgery.

If he does play and, as Steph suggests, manages to further injure the quad, we in attendance might actually get to bear witness to a Madden Curse injury firsthand. That would be kinda cool.

On the other hand, I've said before and I'll say again that I don't care one iota whether Vince plays. I don't buy into the "hope he plays so we see if we can beat him" spiel. If we were 6-0, maybe I would be pulling for him to play; at 3-3, the only thing that matters is the scoreboard. So, if he plays and I get to see him get hurt alongside a win, it's all good. If he doesn't play and we win, it's still all good. If we lose, the name on the back of the Titans QB's jersey should be meaningless to any sane Texans fan.

When you look at it that way, something else becomes painfully obvious. Namely, that this is the most important game in the franchise's history. For the sake of clarification, let's remember that the Colts game from earlier this season was our biggest (though not most important) game to date and that the inaugural game victory over the ladies from up north remains our biggest (and possibly most important) win. Prior to this Sunday, our most important game was (arguably) the week 17 game against Cleveland in 2004. Glad we cleared that up. Moving on.

Anyway, October 21 is the most important game we've ever had for a number of reasons, the overwhelming majority of which have nothing to do with the 2006 draft. First, there is the simple fact that, despite starting 2-0 for the first time ever and having our first winning record after five games ever, we are currently on the doorstep of falling below .500 on the year. Now, following that 2-0 start, people started actually believing in the idea of our first winning record. While it's certainly true that people might have been expecting too much, too soon (like the people who were suddenly talking about 10 or 11 wins), some of those expectations were justified. After all, this is Texans v.2.0. The old Texans were the ones who went on 1-4 slides; the new bunch are supposed to be better than that. Right?

Second, but somewhat related to the first, is the finality of a loss this week. Fact of the matter is, lose and we can completely forget about the playoffs. We'll be dead last in the best division in football, 1.5 games behind third place, and without a single divisional win. Were the playoffs ever a realistic goal for this season? That part is debatable. What is not debatable, though, is that at least the idea of the playoffs was something that fans could suddenly buy into. Losing that possibility this early in the year was not supposed to be part of the new Texans reality.

Third, a loss on anything other than a last second miracle or a fluke play is going to cause people--myself included--to question Gary Kubiak's coaching. The first two weeks of the season, when our defense looked stifling and our offense was running roughshod over the Chiefs and Panthers, Kubiak looked like a genius. Hell, even in week 3, when we managed to keep the game against the Colts close all the way to the end, despite the lack of Andre Johnson, Kubiak looked like he was more or less in control. Since then? Yikes. We have had absolutely no red zone offense, yet Owen Daniels doesn't have a TD catch because all of our red zone plays seem to be ill-advised fades and/or runs right into the back of our o-line. Speaking of, we've had nothing that would resemble an NFL running game. Some of that can be chalked up to injury, but a bigger chunk can be placed on the steadfast reliance upon Sam Gado and Jameel Cook. Oh, and while we are on the subject of injuries, the fact that Andre Johnson is still not back in the starting lineup is at least partly Kubiak's fault for not taking him out.

In short, one could argue, Kubiak has been flat out-coached for the past three games, as evinced by his shoddy clock management, his inattention to details like being cheated out of 14 seconds, his horribly predictable play-calling (raise your hand if you've more or less known what we were going to do inside the 20 every single time), and even his complete surprise and the surprise of his team at the idea that an opponent might kick onside in the second quarter. Up to this point, though, the complaints about all of these things have been nothing more than whispers from the media and from blogodelphia. A loss on Sunday stemming from running right into their strengths and not scoring in the red zone will make those whispers much, much louder.

Finally, and despite my assertion that the only thing that matters is winning, this game has importance to many people because of Vince Young. To that not-small-in-size group of fans and detractors alike, beating Vince (and beating him handily) is the only thing that will ever exorcise those demons. Losing to him for a third straight time, on the other hand, will make the backlash from his OT run last year look like a spirited bridge club conversation.

Clearly, Vince alone does not make this the most important game in team history? But Vince's presence--if he plays--definitely adds to the emotional pain that would accompany a loss. If this were any other team coming into Reliant, those first three points above would still be valid and it would still be arguably the most important game in team history. When you throw Young on top of that, though, the longterm mental well-being of a majority of the fanbase makes winning that much more important.

Labels: 2006 Draft, 2007 Season, Andre Johnson, Gary Kubiak might be high, Injury bug, Vinsanity

Posted by matt at 11:20 AM | Permalink | links to this post

I was sitting at my desk, thinking about the Cleveland Indians and tonight's game and all the stuff that goes along with such thoughts. This line of thinking turned into a somewhat introspective look at my favorite teams in each sport and, more importantly, why they are my favorites. Anyway, while pondering this, I realized something odd. Namely, that my fandom for each of these teams has absolutely nothing to do with geography, which is to say I do not root for any of the teams simply because of where they play.

Now, I will grant you that not all of my reasons for specific fandom are "normal." For instance, I have been a Wolverines fan for 22 years and that rooting interest stems wholly from my grandmother's family living near Ann Arbor and sending me Michigan paraphernalia at every holiday. At seven years old, this is enough to make you decide to like a team.

Want to know why I root for the Cleveland Indians? Because of a damned movie. When Major League came out, I was a baseball-obsessed sixth grader who lived 250 miles from the nearest team. So I decided that I'd root for the Indians--the real ones, not the players in the movie--and I have ever since. It never dawned on me that I wasn't supposed to like them because of where they played.

Basketball? I'm a Rockets fan solely because I hated Michael Jordan and I hated that my friends were all sporting Bulls jackets through junior high. When the Rockets came along and won in 1994, I said to myself, "self, this is your team." Yeah, I was being a front-runner (and slightly hypocritical, considering my stance on the Bulls "fans" around me), but I was 15 and 15-year-olds are stupid like that. Still, the rooting interest stuck.

Then we have the Texans. Long story, short, they were new, had no history of success (meaning I could get in on the ground floor), and had a fanbase that hated the Cowboys (which is something any sane person can get behind). I was sold.

I realize that I am somewhat alone in this, but does that necessarily mean that I am wrong? When you really think about it, isn't there something inherently odd about rooting for a team primarily because of where your parents chose to live while you were forming opinions about sports? Maybe I am totally off-base simply because I didn't grow up within the borders of a city with its own sports identity. Totally possible. But, for my money, if I am going to have a vested interest in the outcome of sporting events--if I am going to keep coming back with renewed hope every year despite following teams that have brought me far more heartbreak than joy--then I want to have a say in the teams I am rooting for. I am not saying that people who do root for all their hometown teams are wrong, mind you. Just that I don't understand the idea of geography as a determining factor in team selection.

Last week: 5-8. Wretched.
Season: 52-36

Week 7 Picks

Byes: Carolina, Cleveland, Green Bay, San Diego

Tennessee @ JUGGERNAUT. "Vince Young. Vince Young. Vince Young. Vince Young." --Houston Chronicle. Pick: Houston

Tampa Bay @ Detroit. Other than Calvin Johnson, there is not a player on either of these rosters that I like. Not one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I actively dislike both Kitna and Garcia. Roy Williams got a couple bonus points in my book by being a cheap bastard, but he blew that by selling out and delivering pizzas. Pick: Tampa Bay

Atlanta @ New Orleans. With all the press about how Reggie Bush had a dominant game last week against the Seahawks, one would assume that he, you know, scored a TD. Nope. Apparently, when you are the shoulda-been-#1 pick in the draft, a 97 yard rushing day is proof that you are on your way to being Gale Sayers. Still, it's hard not to pick New Orleans when you think of the pressure they got against Matt Hasselbeck last year and the fact that Byron Leftwich is the opposite of mobile. Pick: New Orleans

Baltimore @ Buffalo. Hey, Trent Edwards is starting this week! Hey, the Bills still suck! Pick: Baltimore

San Francisco @ New York Giants. After this game, the Giants head across the pond to play the hapless Dolphins in Miami. I'm sure my Giants-fan friends are incredibly thrilled with this idea. Still, there is a very good chance that the Giants will go into their bye at 6-2, drastically reducing the odds that Tom Coughlin gets fired. Big Blue fans, welcome to your own personal dystopia. Pick: New York Giants

Arizona @ Washington. So, let's see. Arizona is basically relying on Tim Rattay to beat the #5 passing defense in the NFL? Ah, what the hell... let's roll the dice. Pick: Arizona

New England @ Miami. I'm still not buying the idea of undefeated season, but there is zero chance the Pats lose this game. By the way, I picture Ronnie Brown hearing the news about the Chambers trade and totally flipping out. That thought makes me smile. Pick: New England

Kansas City @ Oakland. The last time the Raiders beat the Chiefs was December 28, 2002. Since then, the Silver and Black have been owned by Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson. Unfortunately for the Raiders, both of those backs are on the KC roster at the moment. Fortunately for them, though, I hate the Chiefs enough to pick the Raiders anyway. Pick: Oakland

New York Jets @ Cincinnati. I like Chad Johnson as much as any non-Bengals fan can, I suppose. I generally think he's funny and I like the spirit he brings to the game. That said, were I Marvin Lewis, when Johnson walked away from me last week as I was trying to talk to him, I'd have punched him in the back of the head and benched him for a week. Which is probably why no one really lets me be in charge of anything. Pick: Cincinnati

Minnesota @ Dallas. Some years ago, I was in Dallas (well, Arlington) and I hooked up with this chick named Shawna that I met at the Rawlings Grille inside the ballpark. Then I promptly never called her again. I mention this only because Minnesota is going to feel similarly used following this game. The circle of life is complete. Pick: Dallas

Chicago @ Philadelphia. Remember when people were calling this a possible NFC Championship matchup? Or when people were calling a Cubs-Phillies NLCS? People are idiots. Pick: Philadelphia

St. Louis @ Seattle. Marc Bulger is back, which is good news for everyone except Marc Bulger. This Rams team looks like they are good enough to challenge for the first overall pick. With which they will not take Glenn Dorsey because they refuse to address their D. Pick: Seattle

Pittsburgh @ Denver. You really think an Indians fan is going to pick Denver to win anything at all right now? I hope Troy Tulowitzki gets the clap. From Todd Helton's mother. Pick: Pittsburgh

Labels: 2007 Season, Predictions Guaranteed To Go Wrong, Reggie Bush, Teams that aren't the Texans

Posted by matt at 9:35 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Good news, Texans fans! The ever-insightful Jerome Solomon offers up this fantastic nugget of insight: Only time will tell if Titans' Young can play.

How very astute, Jerome.

Of course, that is kind of what "day-to-day" means, but your fourteen paragraphs of VY-fellating wisdom explain that concept much better than any silly three word designation ever could. I mean, does "day-to-day" really tell us that "Young is unlikely to practice this week, but Titans coach Jeff Fisher said that wouldn't prevent the second-year player from taking the field?" Maybe. Well actually, yes, but not nearly in such an eloquent manner.

You are 100% correct, Jerome; time will tell if Young can play. Just like it will tell if the sun will come up tomorrow, if the US dollar can rebound against the British pound, and pretty much anything else that isn't happening right this second. Heck, time will even tell if you will ever write something that doesn't make most Texans fans want to throw you down a flight of stairs.

Thank you so very, very much for opening our collective eyes to this fact. Time will tell if anyone will ever be able write something so utterly groundbreaking as your column.

Labels: 2007 Season, Houston Chronicle, Inanity, Injury bug, Vinsanity

Posted by matt at 1:22 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Dear God,

Hey, how's it goin', big guy? Things good up in the Big End Zone In The Sky?

Look, I know we haven't talked in a while. That's my bad, I guess. But still, I have to ask, why do you hate me? I mean, hating me is pretty much the only way to explain why Andre Johnson is still at least a week away. (It's also a fairly good explanation for the continued playing time of Petey Faggins, the fact that a twit like Megan Manfull gets access to my favorite team that I cannot get, and even the popularity of Kenny Chesney, but none of that is at issue here.)

Anyway, yeah, why the hate, God? Is it because I laughed at the end of City of Angels? Surely you didn't like that piece of shit movie. Is it because I called Reggie Bush "GOD'S FAVORITE SON, WHOM HE LOVES MUCH MORE THAN JESUS?" I was just paraphrasing what ESPN keeps telling me. Honest, I know you don't love any running back who can't average more than 3.5/carry.

I think we can both agree that I am a worthless turd. That said, please don't take your displeasure with me out on poor Andre. By all accounts, he's a hell of a nice guy and totally deserving of your healing touch. Vince Young, on the other hand, is rumored to consider Satan his personal Dark Lord and Savior. I hear he also once punched a priest, drop kicked an infant, and then peed in some holy water. So maybe just take out your aggression on him. Or at least make sure that quad doesn't heal.

Hugs and kisses,
Matt

P.S. Can Ray Charles see in Heaven? I've always wondered how that worked.

Labels: Andre Johnson, Blasphemy, Demarcus Faggins sucks, Inanity, Open Letters

Posted by matt at 9:01 AM | Permalink | links to this post

By the way, if you think that you are likely to show up to the human sacrifice party, let me know either in the comments or by email so we can try to snag as much seating as we will need.

Update: We've bumped the start time for this soiree to 7PM in order to accomodate the geriatric crowd. The end time will likely not change.

Labels: Beer, Bloggerating, Drunky Drunkerton, Self-Referential Stuff

Posted by matt at 9:12 PM | Permalink | links to this post

A person could make the argument that a number of Texans are worthy of Pro Bowl votes. Matt Turk comes to mind, as do Dunta Robinson, Kris Brown, Vonta Leach, and both of the busts on the defensive line. A vote for any or all of them would be rational and not simply chalked up to blind homerism.

That said, the most worthy of our players is none other than this blog's namesake, DeMeco Ryans. Currently tied for second in the NFL in solo tackles, Ryans is the unquestioned leader of the Texans defense and has gotten so good so quickly that he routinely makes the extraordinary look ordinary.

Therefore, it is the goal of this blog to GET DEMECO RYANS ELECTED TO THE 2008 PRO BOWL! He (and I) can't do it without you, though. Click that link. Vote early, vote often. Vote DeMeco!

Note: When filling out the ballot, if you are pressed for time, you can click and go directly to inside linebackers, vote for Ryans, and click submit without voting for any other positions. Or you can just fill out the whole thing, though I would suggest only voting for one AFC Inside LB (Ryans) instead of two, just to prevent other candidates from picking up extra votes.

Seriously, go vote. It's your civic duty.

This message paid for by DeMeco Ryans For Pro Bowl, Matt Campbell treasurer

Labels: 2007 Season, Athletes who don't stab people, DeMeco Ryans, Dunta Robinson, Kris Brown's golden leg, Matt Turk rules, Pro Bowl 2008, Super Mario

Posted by matt at 5:51 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

David Carr: You wanted to see me, Coach?

John Fox: Yeah. Have a seat, Nancy.

Carr: I really wish you wouldn--

Fox: So, Sissyphus, I was hoping you could help me with a little puzzle. How is it that a 43-year-old man can sign with this team on Wednesday and, by Sunday, look as comfortable running the offense as you would be playing Monster Rain?

Carr: With all due respect, sir, I thin--

Fox: Because I think the answer is "he's smart enough to throw the ball to Steve." Which is another way of saying "He's not retarded." Which is my way of suggesting that maybe you are retarded.

Carr: Now, wait. I jus--

Fox: But being retarded isn't enough, is it? No, you had to go and get a fucking minor injury that should be healed by the time we play again, so I now have a quarterback controversy between Father Time and Retard McFaggygloves. Great. Do you know how fucking annoying this is?

Carr: I can--

Fox: It's more annoying than late night phone calls to your wife that you are sure are being made by Chris Weinke. It's that fucking irritating. I would honestly rather have someone pluck out my left eyeball and fuck my brain than have to deal with ridiculous shit.

Carr: I'm sor--

Fox: Unless you are offering to walk into oncoming traffic, fucking save it, douchenozzle. I have to figure out how to deal with this shit. The goddamned press is going to have a field day with this.

*phone rings*

Fox: This is Coach Fox.

Voice: Yeah, I was just callin' to see if y'all needed a quarterback?

Fox: Goddamnit, Kubiak, this shit isn't funny anymore!

*slams phone down*

Fox: See what you've done, you fancy-haired shithead?

Carr: If you'll jus--

Fox: Shut up. Shut the goddamned fuck up before I punch you in the neck. Let me tell you what's going to happen. You and Vinnie are going to fight it out to see who starts.

Carr: You mean based on how well we practice?

Fox: No, uber-puss, I mean "fight it out." What part of that confuses you? Two men enter, one man leaves, motherfucker. Punch, stab, whatever. No rules. Et cetera. Get it?

Carr: I am pretty sure that is against the collective bargaining agreement, sir.

Fox: And I am pretty sure I don't give a goddamn. I don't want to deal with the shit that you caused, so you two are going to figure it out amongst yourselves. You might want to stand up.

*throws closet door open*

Vinnie Testaverde: It's go time, gayness! Knuckle up! I'm Vinnie fucking Testaverde!!!

Labels: 2007 Season, Fake Conversations with Real People, Sucks to be John Fox, Teams that aren't the Texans, Zoolander's snazzy handwear

Posted by matt at 2:43 PM | Permalink | links to this post

Reader VincentRobert Vega points me in the direction of John McClain's latest "column." While I am all in favor of making up conversations in the name of humor (see here), McClain seems to be using the approach to make the same short-sighted, asinine, revisionist points about Mario Williams that he has been vomiting into cyberspace for 22 regular season games.

I was lying in bed Monday night, reading the Chronicle sports section and trying to watch a late edition of SportsCenter, when the spirit of Joel Buchsbaum visited me.

All this lede is missing is "Dear Penthouse Forum" and a reference to "throbbing member" and/or "dripping honeypot."

Perhaps it was a dream, but it just seemed so real. I could swear I had a conversation with the late, great Buchsbaum about Mario Williams.

“Mario? You just scared the bejabbers out of me to talk about Mario Williams?”

Joel turned up his nose.

I like him, but I don’t love him.

Yeah, but do you LIKE HIM like him? Also, why am I not surprised that John McClain has imaginary conversations with people who agree with him about Mario?

I didn’t want to insult him, because Buchsbaum, as the NFL editor and draft guru for Pro Football Weekly, was the greatest personnel geek in the country.

He left a legacy that hasn’t been matched and probably never will be.

And yet, I am reasonably sure that he is rolling over in his grave right now. Good job.

“You’re being kind, Joel. Most Texans fan would evaluate his performance with the kind of colorful descriptions that would cause me to be fired if I tried to use them in the Chronicle. But I know you want me to ask: Why don’t you love Mario?”

Not true. Most fans who don't understand football and the learning curve for defensive ends would describe him that way, but those fans are generally mouth-breathing retards. Fans with any sort of football IQ recognize how well Mario is playing right now. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Because he looks like Tarzan and hits like Jane.

“Wow, I’ve never heard that one. Is that the best you can do?”

Did you just make a stupid joke and then rip on your imagination in response to it? Sounds like someone ran out of lorazepam today.

I don’t like his mo-ta.

“His what?”

His mo-ta. You know, his mota doesn’t always run full speed.

Your hu-ma seems to be running a little below top end as well. Just a suggestion from an idiot blogger, but if you are going to use the fake conversation construct to make some sort of point, you might want to get near the point in the first half of the article.

Also, saying his "mo-ta" doesn't run at full speed is dumb. Have you seen him play this year? Did you see him get a one-handed sack while being blocked? That looked to me like someone who absolutely did not give up on a play. Or how about teams running away from him, yet Mario frequently being in on the tackle or in the picture when the tackle is made on the other side of the field? No, he doesn't go 100% on every play, but I don't know too many defensive linemen who do, especially on running plays. Hell, look at Julius Peppers--he seems to be taking entire series off this year.

“Oh, now I get it. Well, that’s nothing new, either.”

Neither is anything you've said so far.

I mean, he’s got a Lamborghini body with a go-kart mo-ta. He reminds me of Mamula.

“Mike Mamula? Now that’s hitting below the belt, Joel. Mario is playing much better than in his rookie year, when he played hurt the second half of the season. He’s got three sacks. He’s played the run well at times. I admit he’s been inconsistent. With all due respect, Joel, even you have to admit he’s playing better this season.

Wait a second. Did you just defend Mario? I'm getting dizzy. Still, you seem to be ignoring the almost universal truth that the learning curve for defensive ends is generally three years. In fact, now that I think about it, I don't know that I've ever seen you mention that. Ever. Though that's probably just because you are pandering to the lapdogs who leave you "Grate articul, jeneral!" comments after everything you post. But I digress.

“If you want to see his motor run full speed, you just watch him Sunday, and — hey, I just thought of something: You didn’t appear to me because this is ‘You Know Who Week’ in Houston, did you?”

You know who?

Ah-ha! There we go. This entire column was a way for you to rehash the "Vince is great, he's a winner, I want to kiss him on the mouth and possibly bear his children" spiel that you drop on us every couple months. Brilliant. Wait until the week of the game--quite possibly the most important game this franchise has played for a number of reasons--to stir the pot and get your least-common-denominator readers to whine about who we "shoulda" drafted. What a lame, chickenshit, yet utterly unsurprising move.

Here's an idea--and, again, this is just a dipshit blogger talking--maybe you should spend this week talking about how well Mario has played and how poorly Reggie Bush has played. You know, considering that no one outside of UT fans who are also Texans fans were really considering Vince Young. This revisionist shit, where you talk about Vince being the "obvious" draft pick is irritating beyond belief. The ONLY decision (and the team has since admitted as much) was between Mario and Eric Metcalf, Jr. That's it. Would Vince have made sense? From a marketing standpoint, definitely. But if we'd taken him and he wasn't a "winna" with legs of gold and balls of brass, I'm reasonably sure that you and your cronies would be faulting us for not taking Reggie Bush.

Also, I find it humorous that you rehash the poor decision in taking Mario Williams, yet you yourself said it was a good pick right after the draft. Oh, yes you did, John. Houston's Clear Thinkers preserved your words for posterity.

“Yeah, ‘You Know Who.’ At Reliant Stadium this week, we’re not allowed to speak his name. You better not be here to blast Bob McNair for taking him over the other guy. That’s so tiresome and, frankly, Joel, just out of style. Not that you were an out-of-style guy or anything.”

Call the quarterback — can I call him the quarterback this week? — anything you want, but the guy’s a leed-a. Where I’m from, everybody agrees the kid’s special because all he does is win. And if you don’t believe me, you should come to one of our tailgate parties. We’ve got Lombardi, Landry, Unitas, Van Brocklin, Graham, Gillman, and they all agree: The kid’s a winna.

I have to admit--this approach of having your imaginary friend make your arguments is novel, if not particularly entertaining. Do you really think it's Vince Young delivering that team to victory? Because I think--and maybe I'm just an asshole--that it might have a little something to do with that Titan defense playing ridiculously well. Haynesworth and Bulluck deserve WAY more credit for the winning being done in Tennessee this year, just like Pacman Jones was far more instrumental in winning games than was Vince last year.

And, you know what, I don't even think that Vince is an awful QB. Just an overrated QB, who happens to have landed with a team and a system that works for him AND with a defense that can make up for his frequent fumbles and INTs. He's not all that different from a Rex Grossman, circa 2006. More consistent (who isn't?) and more entertaining to watch, but a very similar situation. He might develop into the next Steve Young, but for now, he's a QB with the ability to make the occasional big play and a good enough defense to rescue him when he doesn't.

“Wow, Joel, that’s some tailgate party you guys have up there. What an honor that would be. But hopefully, it’ll be a couple of more decades before I can hang with you, assuming I’m headed in your direction, of course.

“Not to be disrespectful, because you know I always considered you the best. I seldom missed your weekly show on KTRH, and if you remember, I was the only writer you invited to visit you in your Brooklyn apartment. But I have to be honest: I’ve heard it all before. It’s like a broken record. Just e-mail my blog like everybody else. What’s done is done.”

You've heard it all before because you've said it all before, ad nauseum. God, I feel like I am beating my face against a brick wall.

Look, Mario Williams was the ultimate workout warrior, a combine freak, but what’s he done to prove he’s worth $28 mil guaranteed? Didn’t they draft him to get to Peyton Manning? Has he gotten close enough to see what num-ba Manning wears?

“But Joel, they’re only six games into their second season, and so much can happen.”

Exactly! But look at what has already happened--Mario has emerged as a good enough pass rusher to draw double-teams nearly all the time. Watch Amobi's sacks. Three of the four came when Mario was not just being double-teamed, but was practically being gang-raped.

As for the Manning reference, Peyton has only been sacked three times all year...and one of those was courtesy of Amobi Okoye. Do you honestly think a rookie DT gets Manning if Mario is not being targeted by multiple blockers? If so, there is no convincing you that Mario was the right pick, regardless of facts. If not, then this whole "conversation" is somewhat hypocritical.

Yeah, but ‘You Know Who’ is up 2-0, right? Let me tell you something: If Mario wants to be known for something besides breaking the speed barri-a in North Carolina, Sunday would be the time to do it. Everybody will be watching. And I do mean everybody.

Again...if your only measure of Mario's impact is his sack total, then this is a pointless debate. Opposing offensive coordinators already know that Mario can be dominant. That is why they game plan with a focus on slowing him down. Which is a huge reason why Manchild is looking dominant at times--he's getting single blockers in the form of a guard or center (big mistake). And if your measure of whether Mario is successful hinges on the TEAM'S record against Tennessee, then I don't even know where to start.

“Fine, Joel, but Kerry Collins might play. Haven’t you heard? The quarterback’s hurt, and he’s day-to-day.”

Oh, he’s going to play, all right. Trust me on this.

“Oh, yeah? Why should I trust you on this? You got inside information or something?”

Well, as a matter of fact, I do. The quarterback’s leg will be touched and healed this week. And I don’t mean by Lombardi or Landry.

Look, it doesn't matter who plays QB for the Titans in this game. The only important thing is that we win. If we can win against Vince, I suppose that's all the better for shutting up you and your ilk, but it's still only important to someone with an ounce of sense because it's a win and not because of Young.

[Insert noise of exasperation here.]

Reading back over this post, I realize that it is almost as pointless as your article. I mean, everyone gets it: You think they should have taken Vince Young, I think Mario was a good pick and I don't think that Vince was ever really an option. Whatever.

Still, coming out with this article--especially in a format that let's you say "see, I was defending Mario" should he do well on Sunday--during the week of the Titans game smacks of something unseemly. It looks like you are actively rooting for Mario to fail so that you can say "See! See! I told you!" for the next 15 years (assuming you live that long). But considering you defended the pick when it was made and that you profess to be a Texans fan, rooting against Mario now just makes you a crawfishing asshole.

Labels: 2006 Draft, 2006 Season, 2007 Season, Houston Chronicle, McTard, Reggie Bush, Super Mario, Teams that aren't the Texans, Vinsanity

Posted by matt at 10:29 AM | Permalink | links to this post

After much hand-wringing, a few minutes of logistical planning, and even a little bit of skullduggery, the details for The Greatest Party Featuring Two Texans Blogs In The History Of The Universe Part Deux have been finalized.

Who: Anyone who can read this.

What: Drinking. Mocking one another. More drinking. Possibly lighting a bag of poop and putting it on Petey's doorstep.

When: October 20, 2007, at 8:30PM 7:00PM

Where: Jimmie's Place. 2803 White Oak Dr, Houston, TX 77007. The Houston Press describes Jimmie's as:

a fine place to explore the dark depths of your musical pedigree, as the jukebox could be made to sing by a tone-deaf primate. Jef, a.k.a. Shaggy, one of Jimmie's barkeeps, claims responsibility for its gem of a juke, which has been assembled with the kind of care and personality you just can't get from a soulless Internet jukebox. Iggy and the Stooges, David Byrne, Loretta Lynn, the Cars, Bob Marley, GNR and a smattering of truly golden oldies don't lie.

Why: Um... you did see the part about "Drinking," right?

Labels: Beer, Bloggerating, Demarcus Faggins sucks, Self-Referential Stuff

Posted by matt at 10:08 AM | Permalink | links to this post

A number of people have posted this link and/or emailed it to me. Apparently, there are rumors--granted, they stem from a chat at the Chron, so take them with a pound of salt--that Ahman Green could be "one and done" with the Texans.

The Houston Chronicle believes the Texans' signing of Ahman Green could wind up being "a one-year stint."

Green has been unproductive and hurt during his first six games as a Texan, and the contract he signed in March was only a year-to-year commitment. Beat ["]writer["] Megan Manfull indicates that Houston's willingness to keep Green will depend on whether he can stay healthy during the second half.

Ignoring the redundancy in the second paragraph (all NFL contracts are nothing more than a "year-to-year" or even "week-to-week" commitment), this would seem to make sense. The reasons behind getting Green were (a) we needed a running back, (b) we thought he had enough left in the tank to give us 14 or 15 solid games, and (c) he knew the system by virtue of having played under Mike Sherman in Green Bay. Now, while (a) seems to still be very true and (c) is arguably still correct, (b) looks like a pretty faulty assumption. On top of which, this upcoming drafted is ridiculously loaded with RBs, especially first-round quality RBs. If we can punt Ahman's salary for next season and use it on a Steve Slaton or Felix Jones (or, if we keep playing like we did last week, Darren McFadden), we're probably better off longterm. So, I guess you could put me down in the "yeah, that makes sense" camp regarding this story.

In somewhat-related-but-not-really news, Vince Young is currently listed as day-to-day, which might be the least insightful label a coach can put on a player. All that really means is, what, that he's alive today and likely will be alive tomorrow? Whatever. Anyway, this is great news for those of us who are far more concerned with "win the fucking game" than with "see if we can beat Vince." I really have no issues with us having LenDale White killed--can you imagine the amount of jerky you could make from his corpse?--and tipping off police to the child porn that we had surreptitiously placed on Keith Bulluck's cell phone. I just want to win the game, goddamnit.

Elsewhere on the injury front, Kubiak is apparently "hopeful" that Andre Johnson will be ready to go this week. This version of "hopeful" is somehow different from the "hopeful" of previous weeks, in that this one is grounded in some sort of reality. Nice. Considering the state of our offense over the past three weeks, Andre starting would make me happier than just about anything in the whole universe that didn't involve boobies or beer.