Post-Game Breakdown: Cardinals Hold When It Counts
I thought letting an extra day pass would make Sunday's loss a bit easier to digest. It hasn't.
What we witnessed on Sunday was a microcosm of the alternately thrilling and nauseating roller coaster that has been your 2009 Houston Texans. The first half featured a defense that couldn't stop anyone (if not for Eugene Wilson's hit and DeMeco Ryans' recovery on the goal line, the score would've been 28-0 at half) and an offense that couldn't move the ball against anyone. The second half featured a stifling defense and an offense that was as nasty as any team's in the league (excepting Schaub's INT, which was pretty bad, and the infamous goal line stand by the Cardinals). Watching this team is like furiously pounding beers in between hits of meth--highs and lows, crushing agony and glorious ecstasy. Part of me would actually prefer getting blown out to experiencing the emotional floor going out from underneath me at various points each Sunday. At least then I wouldn't be the completely manic lunatic that is increasingly leaning toward watching all Texans games by himself to avoid subjecting others to his wild mood swings. If this keeps up, I'm checking myself into a sanitarium.
Thoughts from the game:
1. In looking at the offense thus far this season, we've got (1) a poor two halves against the Jets; (2) two pretty strong halves against the Titans; (3) two salty halves against the Jaguars; (4) a somewhat strong first half, followed by a just-protect-the-lead second half against the Raiders; and (5) a horrific first half, followed by a furious-why-can't-they-do-this-every-week half against the Cardinals. In other words, the offense has played about 1.5 games of below-average football through five games. With a defense that could be labeled as "reprehensible" for every bit of three full games (entire Jets game, half of the Titans game, entire Jaguars game, and half of the Cardinals game) thus far, the offense doesn't have the luxury of misfiring for an entire half.
2. What I've really seen is that the offense goes completely as Matt Schaub goes. This might seem somewhat obvious, what with him being the QB and all, but I think it bears noting because...
3. The running game is almost completely useless. Steve Slaton has shown a few brief flashes of what he was last year. That's it. And the offensive line...well, they've been close to exceptional in the passing game. The running game? I honestly don't know if Slaton is the problem, or if it's more a function of his line. What I do know is that the OL seems to get thrown backward far more often than I remember last year. I don't see it getting any better, either. Early returns indicate that the drop off from Chester Pitts to Kasey Studdard is substantial, and there's no reason to feel good about a switch from Mike Brisiel to Chris White or Antoine Caldwell. Now you've got Chris Myers flanked by Studdard and White or Caldwell. Running between the tackles could prove to be totally futile, and as neat as it's been to see some success running wide, it's extraordinarily rare for a running attack to succeed in the NFL with its running backs trying to make a living by running for the sideline. The defenses are simply too fast.
4. All of this is to say, I guess, that Kubes' attempts to force a running game are going to get even more frustrating. What we've seen so far isn't working, but we haven't seen any inclination that there'll be any changes.
5. We can complain about Chris Brown not being a goal line back all we want, but I don't know who could have broken the plane with the way the middle of the offensive line got lit up on that last series. It was doomed from the start, which is why...
6. I don't understand for the life of me why Kubes or Kyle Shanahan would try to run the ball, straight up the gut, on fourth down, with the game on the line. They should know their offensive line can't get a push, and they should know that trying to run the ball up the middle won't work. It hasn't worked all year. Ideally, your offensive line and running back should be able to pick up half of a yard. Unfortunately, this is reality, and we have not seen any evidence that the interior of the Houston OL and/or Chris Brown can consistently pick up half a yard. You know that. I know that. How can the coaching staff not know that? The Texans' greatest asset is their receiving corps. Why not spread the field out to make the defense account for those weapons? More importantly...
7. WHY IS THE BEST WIDE RECEIVER ON THE PLANET STANDING ON THE SIDELINES DURING THE BIGGEST PLAY OF THE GAME? HE'S ANDRE FREAKING JOHNSON! HE'S ALREADY NOTCHED TWO TOUCHDOWNS, ONE OF WHICH FEATURED HIM HANDLING CONTACT BETTER THAN ANY RUNNING BACK ON THE ROSTER! LOUD NOISES!
8. One more note about Schaub...we need to accept that he's good for at least one turnover a game. Yes, this hurts. The good news is that Schaub seems to be good for 2-3 TDs a game. Give me that TD/TO ratio any day of the week.
9. Soooooo...how 'bout that Houston defense? For the record, I disagree with BFD about whether the defense looked better in the second half, versus the notion that we simply benefited from Arizona playing not to lose when they had the ball. While there's little doubt Arizona got conservative, they did try to open it back up as the half progressed and the Texans cut into the lead. And instead of reverting to first-half form, the Texans' defense responded and held the line. Jacques Reeves was a clear upgrade in the secondary, and I remain encouraged by what Bernard Pollard and Glover Quin bring to the table (that is, they actually tackle). If Frank Bush learns nothing else from the game, I hope that it's the idea that he can and should get creative with bringing pressure from the linebackers. Bush has increasingly turned Cushing loose after the QB, but Sunday was the first time I remember seeing Captain 'Meco hounding the QB more than once or twice. It was a welcome sign.
10. I'd write something positive about the return game here, but I don't want to jinx it.
11. Bottom line is that the Texans once again failed to show up when the game started. They were a different team after halftime, and that does speak to the fact that they responded to adversity. The issue is, of course, that they had a huge handle in creating that adversity with the way they played in the first half. No matter how big of a Kubes fan you are, you have to admit that it does not bode well that he and/or his staff have failed to have the Texans ready to play at the start of 40% of their games this young season.
On to Cincinnati to play a suprising Bengals squad, albeit one that could well be primed for a letdown after all the tight division wins they've pulled out. If the Texans are truly going to break the mold of inconsistency and mediocrity, they must win on Sunday. First step toward achieving that goal is actually showing up ready to play.
0 recs |
52 comments
|
Comments
i disagree.
not only must they win…..
they must MAUL the bengals.
im talkin like… 34-3 type ass whuppin. show some anger! get fired up and go whup some ass! bengals, niners, billz, go into the colt game with 3 wins under our belt and fire in our belly!
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 13, 2009 3:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
fuck
I wish the game wasn’t in 5 days. I must be a glutton for punishment because I can’t fucking wait.
by nolander on Oct 13, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always
Feel the same way…and I did even in the 2-14 season. Masochism I guess.
by JimboTexan on Oct 13, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im too excited as well
I wonder if the rams or raiders or chiefs have any o line we could steal
by AllenOU on Oct 13, 2009 4:09 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Good sir
I respectfully request you read the names of those teams and answer the question yourself.
by nolander on Oct 13, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
HAAAAAAAA!
i love a good comeback.
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 13, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colt just released
Ed Johnson, according to them. I say pick him up, can’t be much worse than Shaun Cody.
You are banned from Music City Miracles.
Happy Now Tits?
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by CFHTim on Oct 13, 2009 4:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
#7
Was the be all and end all for me. I can handle all the other miscues and bad play calls and slow starts… But when one of the best in the game is standing on the sideline instead of at the very least posing as a decoy for a goal line play, that’s where I draw the line.
by Art_M on Oct 13, 2009 4:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good write up
I agree that no one could have got that 1/2 yard the way the o-line played (or lack of). Agree that the defense played well and it was a great hit by Wilson to get the ball free but I don’t like it when you say it could have been 28-0 at half but also remeber we could be 4-1 but that’s just not what happened and also I blame the offense and play calling for the AZ TD right before half. I have been trying to give Kubiak a break and hope for the best but even after the last game he is still being quoted THIS WEEK that we are not giving up on establishing the run and that’s what helps our offense open up the pass game. REALLY??? Even in my comatose drunken state every game I can tell you nobody gives a shit about the Texans run game. No one respects it so how does that open it up for you? It will not happen kubiak! Our strength is passing so use it. I agree with others – spread out the offense and keep one back in the back field. Then you can run a lot of draws, screens and shovel passes. Almost a kind of run and shoot/wildcat (although you know Schaub wont run it – but you can leave that up to Slaton). This would keep the other defense guessing and they would have to respect either run or pass and play wide to prevent the screens (keep them on their heels). The shovel passes and screens seem to get us a lot of yards when we use them. Why is Kubiak hell bent on some sort of conventional system. You have to use your weapons and your advantages to exploit the other team – don’t try and create something that is not there and be willing to lose just to prove you can run. Why does he always seem so worried about ball control? I didn’t know ball control wins games – I thought who scored the most points wins the game. You use ball control when you NEED to. I think for Kubiak it would be ok to hold on to the ball for 50 minutes with 150 rushing yards and lose 10-0 because then that would prove his point about ball control and running- oh wait it doesn’t. All he needs to do is look at the Colts. One game they had the ball right under 20 minutes and WON the freakin game. Peyton is playing lights out and they aren’t running the ball – he is throwing the shit out of it and every team going in to play them knows that yet they are 5-0. The Saints run over 100 yards/game and it is set up by THE PASS, again 5-0. KUBIAK – use your strengths to win games. Don’t worry about ball control – just go out and keep scoring points till the game ends. Play to win the game! Running the ball doesn’t win games – scoring more points than the other team does and I don’t give a crap what you have to do to get those points. I’m just upset with Kubiak’s game plan and execution. I want him to do well i guess that’s why it gets me so upset. If he insists on wasting another half of football this week trying to establish the run be prepared for part 2 of this rant. Ok, I’m done ranting and feel a little better. With all that said, Let’s Go Texans!
Confucius says "man who stands on toilet, high on pot".
by Bobobigbro on Oct 13, 2009 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
a)How many long bombs from Schuab to Johnson have we seen made possible by play action.
b)I doubt if they were abandoning the run they would announce it to the bengals publicly(I don’t expect them to abandon it either way.
c) I think a running game is important. If nothing else then to keep them honest and prevent schuab from being pass rushed on every single down.
by nolander on Oct 13, 2009 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's important.
But we can’t do it. So our plans need to adjust accordingly.
by JimboTexan on Oct 13, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
did I just make the record skip??
You’re much better at the brevity, Mr. Lander.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Oct 13, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
translation..
I said the exact same thing in my “silly talk” response below. You just did it better and shorter.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Oct 14, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't get me wrong
i’m not saying to abandon the running game completely you just have to approach it a different way – not smash mouth up the gut running.
A)No team respects our run game. So I’m not sure that our play action this year (last year it worked) is opening it up down field. We have great receivers (AJ being the best in the league) and a good QB so it could just be that the Texans can complete a pass down field without having to run a play action.
B)agreed
C)agree but i’m not sure how honest it is keeping teams at this point. right now i think it hinders our progress of moving the ball down the field.
D)My point is use the pass game to open up the run game and the way the Texans can throw and move the ball I think it would really work for them.
Confucius says "man who stands on toilet, high on pot".
by Bobobigbro on Oct 14, 2009 7:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wall of text critically hits you for 7472979875! You die!
PARAGRAPHS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!
"An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."
The ROSENFAIL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKAKE-uq-8&feature=related
by TexansForever on Oct 13, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
silly talk...
I understand all your frustrations, but the offense we have installed NEEDS THE RUNNING GAME, or at least a threat of a running game. you’ve seen all those play action bootlegs we run, and normally get a pretty good gain on, right? Well, if we never ran the ball, do you think they’d still fall for those?
Normally, you’re pretty on point, bobo, so I’ll just assume this was your frustration talking, which is warranted. You’re talking about cutting off the nose to spite the face, though.
Also, it should be said that no one should be upset with Kubes for saying he’s going to keep trying to run it, because it’s the same thing. We have to at least have the idea out there that we’re still going to try to run it. Even if he does get to the point that he’s given up on it, he should never say it to anyone.
Now, just take a deep breath… If you must unleash the fury, focus on the players that are messing up a good, tried and true system.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Oct 13, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
anyone know about this guy???
Colts made a move today we’ve seen before – they cut DT Ed Johnson.
42 minutes ago from UberTwitter
Adam_Schefter
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 13, 2009 5:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The colts are good, but their D line has really never been anything special.
by nolander on Oct 13, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
possibly, but....
Kubes has shown the penchant for picking up players released from divisional opponents, if for no other reason than to get some insight.
Not saying he’ll do it here, but he’s got a record of doing it.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Oct 13, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We do seem to like to pick up the Tits sloppy running back seconds. Is it more sad that they failed so hard so many times at drafting a rb(which really if you actually try should be pretty damn easy), or that we keep signing them after the tits are done with them?
by nolander on Oct 14, 2009 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if they cut Chris Johnson...
I hope that trend continues.
by Nashmeister on Oct 14, 2009 5:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we pick him up...
…it’ll only be after his 15th ACL replacement.
Note to self: Insert something witty here.
by bigfatdrunk on Oct 14, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
go back and review past signings...
Chris Henry is not the only one from the AFC South.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Oct 14, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has a long history of off the field problems.
For the colts to cut him when their he is an integral part of their cuirrent defensive success, and he is, speaks volumes about the issues surrounding him.
Someone will grab him, but I don’t see McNair signing off on this guy.
"An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."
The ROSENFAIL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKAKE-uq-8&feature=related
by TexansForever on Oct 14, 2009 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At some point
winning should be more important than every person on the team being a saint.
You are banned from Music City Miracles.
Happy Now Tits?
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by CFHTim on Oct 14, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question regarding our goal-line offense:
Forget that Chris Brown probably isn’t the right guy for the job. Let’s say we have two options: the conservative, smash-mouth option calls for keeping it between the tackles. We either give Slaton the ball, try a QB sneak, or maybe give Leach a shot. Regardless, it comes down to interior offensive line play, and it’s a battle we aren’t usually going to win. However, given three or four chances, even the worst offense should be able to punch one in.
The second option is to get cute. Maybe you try a pitch outside, a QB draw (don’t pick this option just because it worked for us once), a quick screen pass and give Andre a chance to run over a DB (my preferred method, for the record), a quick slant, or a roll-out. This method probably has a better chance of working for our offense, but there’s also more risk involved (especially if it’s a tie-game instead of playing from behind).
Which would you prefer?
I’ve gone back and forth on this. Last season I got pissed off when they tried to get cute. I came to the conclusion that if you can’t punch one in from the one with three or four tries, you don’t deserve to win the game. And considering how Kubiak talked about wanting to become a power-running team during every press conference, he seemed to cop out every time we were actually in that situation. But now, our interior running game seems to have taken a turn for the worse, and I’m starting to have second thoughts.
Obviously I’d always rather win the game, but I can’t fault the coaches for trying two vanilla runs at the end of that game.
by Nashmeister on Oct 14, 2009 5:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Pound with Slaton or Leach
Agree we don’t have the o-line personnel for it, but don’t compound the matter by putting the wrong RB in to do the job.
I’m not much for cute, either, but we do need to have it ready. The order of the calls wasn’t necessarily bad (getting cute on 3rd), but the 4th down play was the third time they’d run it at 50/50 success. Seems, to me, each additional time lowers your chance for success.
Note to self: Insert something witty here.
by bigfatdrunk on Oct 14, 2009 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell if your just going to run the wrong guy into the D-Line over and over...
….SIGN ME! I will take league minimum to repeatedly fail to gain a yard. I can even pretty much garauntee fumbles on a regular basis.
Seems I would fit right in.
"An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."
The ROSENFAIL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKAKE-uq-8&feature=related
by TexansForever on Oct 14, 2009 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
PAY ME RICK!
Confucius says "man who stands on toilet, high on pot".
by Bobobigbro on Oct 14, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
no pay me!
i wont even complain about getting franchised!
FRANCHISE MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(that’s what she said)
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 14, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: cuteness
That kind of stuff is why we’ve had so many redzone turnovers since Kubes showed up. He got so sick of having to do that, he’d prolly much prefer not scoring on 4 downs to turning the ball over trying to be cute with it.
You nailed it on being confused about how to feel about it. All I can say is, those redzone turnovers were killers, and we were out of alot more games back then than we are now because of them. Kubes is prolly about to pull his hair out with that confusion.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Oct 14, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Myers and the tackles
I don’t think it was Brown’s fault and I don’t think switching RBs would do anything. Leach got stoood up right behind Myers at line. For 6-4, 300 lbs Myers plays small and weak. I would like to see a new center in Houston soon. He seems to get pushed around every game. That said Mr. Myers I’m sure you could push me around and kill me with your pinky.
Also, at some point I would have liked to see them toss the ball wide to Slaton on the goal line. Early in the game they had pretty good success tossing it to Stevie. He’s slippery out there, let him do what he’s good at.
by RenoTexans on Oct 14, 2009 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guards
pardon me, I meant guards, not tackles…
by RenoTexans on Oct 14, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andre Johnson...POINT 7...and points 3 and 6
This AJ-on-the-sidelines thing is something that happened last year too. At key moments of the game, especially near the goalline, the coaching staff pulls their offensive leader and best player on the team. The coaches are stubborn because they didn’t learn from last year’s failings. I find it hard to argue for their position. Instead, even if you’re planning to run the ball, why not put Andre Johnson out wide? He takes two guys to stop. The other team can either commit those two guys, which counts as effective blocks on both of them, or take a chance with single coverage. If Schaub sees single coverage, he should nonverbally audible to a throw to Andre Johnson. No one should even have to say anything. I like our chances either way. Not playing Andre is like playing chess without your queen.
Kubiak is trying to create a Super Bowl caliber running game that will work in the meat of the playoffs, not just win a few extra games with the passing attack to move back a few draft spots or snag the last wild card slot. His experience at Denver with Elway’s failings until Terrell Davis’ arrival makes that tantamount in importance in his mind. Kubiak knows he’ll be back next year no matter what. He has to have the right defense and running game next year or else. The Texans have failed twice from one yard out when they’ve needed that yard to stay in the game. Here, we can talk playoffs all we want, but if you can’t get that yard running the ball, from Kubiak’s perspective, there’s no point in talking playoffs.
The true test in the life of a Texans fan is how gracefully you endure it.
by TexanKurt on Oct 14, 2009 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
on the goal line package.
Koob said on tv this week that AJ has never been on the goal line package, they prefer KW for some reason. i dont understand it, and the reasoning was fairly half-assed.
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 14, 2009 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't surprise me at all.
The true test in the life of a Texans fan is how gracefully you endure it.
by TexanKurt on Oct 14, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kubiak's ideal...
Kubiak seems to have this ideal model for winning championships based on his Denver experience. He’s trying to mold this team around that model, and he appears to stubbornly cling to this football-righteous ideal he holds in his head. I think he’s going to sink or swim with his “business model”, even if the reasoning is half-assed.
Why do they prefer KW to AJ? Because AJ’s too tall, man! HAHA.
The true test in the life of a Texans fan is how gracefully you endure it.
by TexanKurt on Oct 14, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually....
KW is a better blocker. remember the Tennessee game? CB scores if AJ blocks Finnegan. fast forward to the Raiders game. Did you see that block that KW laid on that corner? so i can understand going with your strengths, and the fact is AJ is not as GOOD a run blocker as KW.
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 14, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno...after watching him layout that linebacker on the reception.....
"An open mind is like a fortress with it's gates unbarred and unguarded."
The ROSENFAIL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKAKE-uq-8&feature=related
by TexansForever on Oct 14, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
somehow having a guy launch himself at you and bounce off doesn’t seem like a block to me.
by nolander on Oct 14, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
saw the same play
and would have to say i bet the man can block and do a better job at it than KW. I’m mean, he is the best in the game at everything he does.
Confucius says "man who stands on toilet, high on pot".
by Bobobigbro on Oct 14, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is...
Andre Johnson’s receiving threat means he doesn’t have to block. He indirectly blocks by virtue of attracting defenders to cover him.
The true test in the life of a Texans fan is how gracefully you endure it.
by TexanKurt on Oct 14, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Send Andre to the corner.
2. Loft ball ten feet above said corner.
3. Profit.
When I'm on the mic, I'm like global warming, you can't ignore me.
by tehGrindCrusher on Oct 14, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We tried that twice in the game and schuab fucked i up both times.
by nolander on Oct 14, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But isn't that just telling
the defense you intend to run when KW is on field and AJ is on sideline? I would rather have AJ out there no matter his blocking skills, which are above average.
You are banned from Music City Miracles.
Happy Now Tits?
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by CFHTim on Oct 14, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY!
he has this ideal model in his head to winning in the NFL yet he does not know what pieces he is playing with. I don’t understand why he can’t realize not all teams are the same. Not every team can be a 50/50 (run/pass) team. The Saints can’t be a 50/50 team or they would have lost some games this year trying to play that way. The same can be said for the Colts and a few others. We are not a balanced team this year so play higher to your advantage which is the pass. I agree that Kubiak uses half-assed reasoning to try and make himself feel like he is making the right decision.
Confucius says "man who stands on toilet, high on pot".
by Bobobigbro on Oct 14, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol......
@OGOchoCinco
Thank you Motorola, I can finally get off this damn minute plan, I didn’t even have free nights and weekend minutes!!!
37 minutes ago from txt
doobieman21 @OGOchoCinco u are gonna need em after sunday so everyone can call and tell you how sorry they are that you lost to the TEXANS! WHAT!
less than 5 seconds ago from web in reply to OGOchoCinco
You are banned from Music City Miracles. (twice)
You are banned from Blogging The Boys.
by chrisd21 on Oct 14, 2009 11:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
SUNDAY'S LET DOWN!!!!!!!
HEY GUYS’ WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? WE ARE BETTER THAN THE WAY WE PLAYED THIS PAST SUNDAY. ANDREA JOHNSON TRIED TO WIN BUT NO ONE ELSE.
STOP BEING AFRAID TO GIVE YOUR ALL FOR THE TEAM ,THE CITY, AND THE FANS. WE WANT A WINNER AND NOT A BUNCH OF LOSER JUST HERE FOR A PAYCHECK. WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE, BLOCK DAMMIT
BLOCK !!!! RUN LIKE YOU GOT A PAIR, COACH WITH SOME NUTTS. STOP PLAYING NOT TO LOSE AND PLAY TO WIN. WE ARE TIRED !! WE ARE TIRED ! WE ARE TIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by craigsemiens on Oct 15, 2009 7:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 






















