So I says to Mabel, I says…
Aug 30, 2007 Chad Stanley, Jacoby Jones is slighty less unheralded, Matt Turk rules, Ohio State makes baby Jesus cry, Preseason 2007, Preview, Secondary issues are primary
Three player-related notes on the eve of the 53-man roster.
I wonder if Chad Stanley1 woke up this morning with a Jack-Bauer-esque countdown clock in his head. Considering it’s 83.2% certain that Stanley will get the axe2 at some point between now and Saturday afternoon, it’s kind of fun to picture him racing around town today, trying to save his job. It’s even more fun, however, picturing him getting a pink slip on Saturday morning. Lord knows he deserves it.
Jacoby Jones continues to show that he is a pass-catching, punt-returning, country-music-listening3 super ninja bent on total NFL domination. He ended the preseason with 11 catches for two TDs to go along with his two punt return TDs. Which, of course, means that Kevin Walter is still the second WR. Because, you know, those two catches and two drops he had over the past four games were simply dominant.
I have a love-hate relationship with Brandon Mitchell. On the one hand, he worships at the altar of Woody Hayes and, thus, is a soulless puppy-eating incubus. On the other, though, he’s played well enough this preseason that I would actually feel better about our safety depth if he made the roster. Honestly, I would rather have him on the active roster than Brandon Harrison, whom Mitchell has outplayed in three of the four games.
Final roster decisions made today (trimming from 75 to 53) and most likely announced tomorrow. I’ll have my last set of projections up sometime today. Because I’m sure Kubiak is waiting for my input.
1 The turd-eating pederast.
2 Only figuratively, damn it.
3 Huh?
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 8:00 am
So, let me see if I’m keeping score correctly:
- Born in Misery (spelled: Missouri)
- Went to Michigan (and we all know how wolverines naturally feed on buckeyes)
- Now lives in Kansas for pirates (spelled: Arrrr….kansas)
- Somehow along the way, developed an unhealthy passion for Texans…and the football team too.
You get kicked out of a lot (I really, really thought of typing “alot”) of cities & states, don’t you?
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am
Even worse… I didn’t go to Michigan. My dad’s family is from Michigan, so I was indoctrinated into the Maize and Blue at roughly 7 years old.
But, yes, I am often asked to leave.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 11:29 am
Well….as long as he’s not from Oklahoma.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Ewww. That would make me retarded, right?
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Here is your moment of zen.
Why do fans tend to get personal and ugly when a player doesn’t play well? Most players don’t try to suck, and if they do, it’s something that they can’t help. I actually feel badly for players who are trying their hardest and just don’t have it.
And they didn’t sign themselves, the team did. So why wouldn’t you be more sore at the team?
Personally, I think it is better to criticize play of players than the player themselves, unless they are obviously and admittedly loafing or if they are a criminal, or are actually a turd eating pederast.
I know that this sentiment is not very popular in an era of cheap shot sports writing, but it is something that I’ve thought about some after getting all sorts of ugly comments about players in the blogs. People say all sorts of ugly stuff that they would never say to another human being in person.
Lots of times players’ friends and families read Texans blogs hoping to get information about the team. Players are just people, and some of them people happen to be more talented than others.
Anyway, my own guideline is unless the player’s character is bad (lazy or criminal), I try to criticize the play, not the player.
Not trying to slam you in particular, and really just to start a dialogue–I’m just sharing an observation I’ve had over time. Why do we as a society get so personal in the criticism of players? Hmmm.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I think it’s fairly common these days, not just in sports. I mean, I can think of a number of times both in law school and in my current office where someone described someone else with the phrase “she sucks” or “that dude is a douchebag.”
Not saying that it’s how we should be, but it’s just how it is. Besides, if I say Chad Stanley does not punt well, that’s not exactly groundbreaking. If I give him a nickname on this blog, it says the same thing (”we don’t want him on the team”), but in a way that let’s fans laugh and bond over how much they want him gone.
Plus, I feel that as long as you give equal time to the good players and the good things they do–see the DeMeco situation or Jon Abbate or my wanting to vote for Jacoby Jones as Jesus–then it’s not out of place to rail on the bad stuff. Do I really think Chad Stanley eats turds and fondles children? Of course not. But I also don’t think Jones is the son of God. It’s all hyperbole, designed to allow fans a moment of release. I save the “he’s a nice human being, but he wasn’t punting well” stuff for the Chron to write.
Now, I am not saying you are wrong. My point is just that I write this to entertain me and anyone else who finds it amusing. If Mrs. Stanley wants to comment on whether Chad suffers from coprophagia, she’s welcome to. I’m guessing, though, that she knows that the description, while rude, is tongue-in-cheek.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Interesting points. But just to further the dialogue, I think you are a talented enough writer that you can write ridiculously funny stuff without calling folks things. Slightly harder, but it can be done.
It always just seemed weird to me that fans, often ones who would literally die if they tried doing two-a-days in the Texans heat, feel the need to say ugly things about players who are trying their best at a profession that they will soon be vacating.
And besides, What Would DeMeco Want You To Do?
Hate the plays, not the player.
Okay, I am now prepared to be clowned for being too niiiiiiiice.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
You can’t be clowned for that because everyone already knows that you are the nicest one around here. You are the one who actually gives the rest of us some credibility.
Anyway… you could be right that it’s possible to be entertaining without calling names. (And I thank you for the compliment.) For the most part, I try to avoid it, if only because I’m trying to appeal to as many casual fans as possible.
That said (and, yes, that is my favorite transition in the whole world), there are times when I just get on a kick. TEP as a nickname spawned from sheer annoyance during one of the preseason games and it stuck. The more I wrote it, the funner I thought it was. I mean, good Lord, can you think of a worse combination of fetishes?
Still, you have a point. I will definitely keep it under consideration as I go forward. I guess the only thing that keeps me going back to the well for stuff like this is it seems like DGDB&D is the only place where I (and commenters) can literally saying whatever. I know Tim doesn’t care if people curse, but the general atmosphere at BRB is such that people seem not to (for the most part). People don’t swear or be insulting at Fanhouse. You pretty much can’t say this sort of stuff at TexansTalk. Etc.
I do think this is a worthwhile conversation, however.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
So, if we don’t call them names….can we still work to organize a lynch mob, armed with sacks full of doorknobs?
I’m not picking either side of the debate right now. I just need to know, because if not….well, I am going to have a lot of doorknobs to offload on the free market.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
If we can’t be a lynch mob, I don’t even want to play anymore. My pillowcase full of doorknobs says it’s ok, though.
(click arrow to reply)
August 31st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention above, I don’t think vitriol or ad hominem attacks on players have anything to do with whether the commenter/writer could survive two-a-days. I fully admit that Chad Stanley kicks a ball better than I do; it’s his inability to kick it better than 80% of the other punters in the league that makes me attack.
(click arrow to reply)
September 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
As for the surviving two-a-days comment, it is just something that is fascinating to me. You know, when you listen to talk radio about this or that player being a (lazy insert insult here), and the guy calling is probably sitting on his couch wiping his cheeto- stained fingers on his shirt that can barely hold his gut.
Of course, that is its own sort of hyperbole, but even most the most athletic arm chair quarterbacks couldn’t come close to hanging with these guys. Maybe I am overly empathetic–when I played sports, I was a try-hard, gamer with little innate athletic talent. (I would self identify with Troy Evans, who by the way, is a really nice, try hard guy who made the Saints roster. Hurray).
I’ve had the interesting experience of meeting some of the worst Texans players in the history of the franchise. And the funny thing is, they were all really nice human beings. They were probably nicer people than they were horrible athletes.
And I think that if folks got to know the players some, they would be less apt to call them ugly names or organize lynch mobs armed with door knob sacks, and more likely just to rag on their performance.
Well that, and if you saw them and they knew who they are, they might take offense to you calling them bad names. Sort of like Jim Rome doing the Chrissy Evert thing on the radio and then getting nailed by the guy after he was a jerk to his face.
I would tell you to intensely pray for the player’s improved performance, but given David Carr’s time with the Texans, I am not sure that God wants to influence play on the field.
But there is something to be said for that. For every horrible player on the field, they are a placeholder until the team has the money, ability and space to get someone better. So, I guess praying for better is a good thing because a lot of times cussing the player out is just spitting in the wind.
I also think it is a karmic jinx to be ugly. You know, like if you call a player too many ugly names, you will end up getting a series of bad players to replace them. I would call that the Matt Stevens rule. If Matt Schaub struggles, I will blame your S.V. Carr blasts.
And as long as I am doing a tour of world religions, I will go all Buddhist on you and suggest that all life is suffering, especially as a Texan fan, and to break out of that suffering you need to detach from your anger toward individuals. That extremism towards either indifference or anger is not the answer, but instead you should chose the middle way and merely discuss what you see and not impugn who people are.
Okay, that swerved into pukey. Apologies.
BTW, at FanHouse they can be plenty insulting towards individuals. Actually part of the fun is to see how far they can push the envelope without actually saying bad words. The mighty mjd is a master of that. The Debriefing is a must read.
Of course, it is easier to be ridiculously ugly towards people if you are doing it under a pen name than when you are doing it under your own.
Free speech and its intersection with manners, morality, karma, suffering….I swear I haven’t been drinking, though it probably isn’t a bad idea.
I feel freer with my speech when I am comfortable that I will still be happy with what I wrote no matter who reads it or what time I read it down the road. It is more of a self-restraint than anything else. What I feel good in doing.
Everybody has to do whatever works for them. It makes for an interesting discussion though. I think the subject of blog tone is really interesting, but I think this discussion goes beyond that to the nature of player hating and why people do that.