The Tuna and that team in Texas

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:36 am

What's so stupid about it? to me Houston is
a 3rd rate city with a bottom feeding loser
franchise. LA should have been granted the
rights to a franchise before Useless I mean
Houston was given one

Any ways they can their meaningless little
team any ways. since it won't be long before
the Texans like the Oilers move and Houston
is teamless once again

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:47 pm

But isn't LA the kingdom of lost franchises?

Texas Hog · Post by **Texas Hog** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:07 pm

That bottom feeder loser franchise had a better record than that other lowlife team from Texas this season. Why would a puke fan dog another city and team for that matter within his own state? Envy?

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:46 pm

Texas Hog wrote:That bottom feeder loser franchise had a better record than that other lowlife team from Texas this season. Why would a puke fan dog another city and team for that matter within his own state? Envy?

A better record are you kidding me? a losing record is a
losing record no matter how many wins you get. the loses
out weigh the wins and in the end if your not the one out
of 31 other teams winning the super bowl. why should any
one really care about wins/loses and what you did? it
don't matter what you did their is no second place

All that matters is 1 team becomes champ 31 other teams
rebuild and start at the bottom of the moutain to get to
the top

Clinton Portis · Post by **Clinton Portis** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:16 pm

They still finished better than you guys, they were one win away from a winning season.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:37 pm

TexasCowboy wrote:What's so stupid about it? to me Houston is
a 3rd rate city with a bottom feeding loser
franchise.

I am sure they love you guys for all this and more... :roll:

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:57 pm

Clinton Portis wrote:They still finished better than you guys, they were one win away from a winning season.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda the plea of an excuse maker lookin
to find some answer in a terrible season. just a shame
that in the end nobody cares what you coulda done or
shoulda done. one win less or one win more doeen't
change who you are with the number of loses next to
your teams name.

That's right a loser is a loser no matter what your win
column says. I don't care if you just win 1 game in the
end their is only 1 champ the rest are chumps. That's
right even the Texans in their horrible 7 wins are still
chumps and nothing more.

The same goes with Dallas Washington and New York who all
finished with the same record. you are what your record
says you are. so their for the Texans like the Cowboys
the Redskins and Giants are all bad teams

and since their is no second place in football their is
nothing else to debate

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:53 pm

I think the 90's have spoiled you, TC :lol:

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:21 pm

Primetime42 wrote:I think the 90's have spoiled you, TC

Darn right they spoiled me just as the Cowboys success
durin the 70's have spoiled me. It taught me that the
true meaning of success was not the number of wins that
make you a winner. It's the number of times you win a
championship that makes you a winner. it all so taught
me the meaning of never being satisfied with anything
less then knowing your team has a ring on their finger
to show what they have done. It has all so taught me
that their is no second place.

That second place is for losers those who are just
content with what their meaningless wins and pitiful division titles and their sorry excuse cries of atleast
we got their or we finished ahead of you.

so you better believe I am spoiled by success and I'm
happy I'm spoiled by it. because it's opened my eyes
to what matters and what don't

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:23 pm

The spirit of Lombardi lives in you :shock:

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:58 pm

Primetime42 wrote:The spirit of Lombardi lives in you

Lombardi and Landry both believed the same thing winners
win championships. you don't play the game for any other
reason then to be champions. not confernce champs or
division champs. but super bowl champs that's it!

They had a champions mentality it's not like you see today with all these numb skull fans running around. telling you how great their team is because of the
number of wins they have or the meaningless titles
they carry which bear nothing.

Winners think ultimate goal and never settle for anything
less

Redskins Rule · Post by **Redskins Rule** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:43 am

How many times have the Texans beat down the Cowboys? I forgot.......

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

TexasCowboy wrote:winners win championships.

That is the most brilliant statement I have ever read......I always thought losers won championships. Thanks for the information. The world makes since now that I have cleared that up.

Clinton Portis · Post by **Clinton Portis** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:02 pm

Redskins Rule wrote:How many times have the Texans beat down the Cowboys? I forgot.......

Ouch.

Its probaly something like:

"So far the Cowboys or 0-3 at Reliant Stadium"

Not sure tho.

I don't believe that championship mess. A good team is a good team and you can see that in the way they play. Sure theres 31 losers, but people who are really fans know if their team is good or not. So to TEXANS fans, being one win away from a winning record was a very big goal for them being a new franchise. Maybe one day they will make the Superbowl, you never kno.
I mean the Indianapolis Colts didnt beat the Patriots, but remember those 49 TD throws? Thats how legends are made.

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:07 pm

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:08 pm

Clinton Portis · Post by **Clinton Portis** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:08 pm

I said the stat would be somethin like that...not that it is

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:04 pm

Redskins Rule wrote:How many times have the Texans beat down the Cowboys? I forgot.......

It doesn't matter how many times it has never been when
it counted so cares

Texas Hog · Post by **Texas Hog** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:44 pm

I care...that was one of the best games I've ever seen....to see an expansion team from Houston beat the pukes the first time they played was classic......and solidified my allegiance to the Texans as my AFC team of choice.

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:01 pm

Texas Hog wrote:I care...that was one of the best games I've ever seen....to see an expansion team from Houston beat the pukes the first time they played was classic......and solidified my allegiance to the Texans as my AFC team of choice.

Big deal it must have made you proud that your allegiance to a fraud was exposed. when that same Texans team managed
a 5 week losing streak after their "supposed" first win
ever.

sounds to me your allegiance got tainted to a pathetic
bunch who can't even post a winning record. who can't
even make it to the post season or win their division

sounds to me like the Texans are frauds and their week 1
win was just a fluke of nature nothing more.

Texas Hog · Post by **Texas Hog** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:48 pm

again...check the comparative records this season. oh that's right those don't matter...it's all just a big "fraud"

Clinton Portis · Post by **Clinton Portis** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:08 pm

In support of Texas Hog, they are my favorite AFC team as well.

Because Texas doesnt have a Texas NFC team I like, and me, I like Texas perfectly fine, so its good the Texans are around, give me a good alternative to my NFC team.

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:12 pm

Dumb question but why would anyone need a second team to
cheer for? since you all ready have a team who you are
loyal to. so it serves no purpose that anyone should
cheer on another team after theirs is done playing

For me once Dallas is done playing win/lose or draw my
sunday ends. the rest of the NFL is of no interest to
me at all. so what purpose does it serve to say you
have 2 teams you cheer for?

welch · Post by **welch** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:00 pm

Dumb question but why would anyone need a second team to
cheer for?

I have a polite local interest in the Jets. Try as I do, it's hard to avoid Giants/Jets news in the New York area. No, I don't go out of my way to cheer for them, and, like you, once my team if finished, I watch the playoffs more for the aesthetics...good play, good run, smasho hit, good game, etc. Can't say I care a lot.

Herman Edwards does have a special claim, though.

The NFL wanted to play the Sunday after 9/11, and Edwards broke out of "your cliches" (cf, "Bull Durham") in his weekly news conference. Said something like, "Hey, we are human beings, not just football players. We don't feel like playing. Have you forgotten what happend day-before-yesterday?"

Good for him.

TexasCowboy · Post by **TexasCowboy** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:10 pm

That's the differnce when my team is done playing that's
it. I don't watch other games, I'm in Yahoo chat talkin
about the game. breaking things down seein what we did
right and wrong durin the game. my mind is more on
Dallas rather then watching other games that might be
on TV to watch. I don't even watch pre game shows or
NFL primetime. My TV is off when I get online I don't
want no distractions, I want total concentration when
I enter the chat. my mind is straight forward Dallas
and what happend durin todays game

The rest to me don't matter