Guest viewing is limited

Welcome To The HFBM Boards
Hockey, Football, Baseball & MMA

Status
Not open for further replies.
go titans !!!!

i have never been ashame to call myself a titans fan ...... never will.

I will always have love for Mcnair ......... Just not the Ravens.

Every dog will have its day. Ours was lasted a long time and will come again ...
 
RollTide said:
Loyalty does not require one to sit back like a vegetable and not criticise things you disagree with or complaining that your team sucks.
It's funny that your opinion is exactly the opposite when it comes to political threads...
 
Starkiller...

When have i ever suggested that people shouldn't voice their opinions about anything? Or didn't have the right to do so?

Politics is different, no matter what a president does the other side will criticise it and success or failure in something like a war is a matter of debate and opinion.

Winning and losing is pretty straight forward isn't it? Nobody is going to come along and say that we won that game monday..
 
For me, we are so bad, it is amusing. I'm actually having fun everytime we throw an int, cause it is to the point, that it's almost ludicrous. I'm way past frustrated and now I just laugh at it. It really is a bad team. I root for them every sunday, and pull for them, but my amusement level is much higher this year. You wonder how bad can they be, and then they show you another level of bad. I think our loyalty is incredibly high, cause we are still here, and we are probably one season away from putting paper bags over our heads, cutting holes for the eyes, nose, and ears, and gutting it out yet again. We are as loyal as it gets, and it's a fun ride. I've been here before.

We were 1-13 '72
We were 1-13 '73 --------> Got to 10-4 in '75

We were 2-14 '83
We were 3-13 '84 ----------> Got to 10-6 '88

We were 2-14 '94-----------> Got to 13-3 '99

It's a five year plan once we hit rock bottom. The only question, is have we hit it yet.

We should be making our run in 2010.
 
Starkiller said:
It's funny that your opinion is exactly the opposite when it comes to political threads...

Politics and religion involve deeper things like philosophy of life and how governments should govern the people. The issues are alot more complicated. Even if I wasn't 100% in agreement with specific individuals in power I would still not neccessarily change my position on the issues.

Here we are talking about a game where the team we are "loyal" to is getting their arse handed to them each Sunday. Most of us should care less who is on the field or coaching but mainly if we are winning. The philosophy matters not to me how we win as long as we win.
 
Is it being said that a few fans, myself included, are not loyal because we complain about not winning? What's the purpose of the game?
 
Soxcat said:
Politics and religion involve deeper things like philosophy of life and how governments should govern the people. The issues are alot more complicated. Even if I wasn't 100% in agreement with specific individuals in power I would still not neccessarily change my position on the issues.
RollTide said:
Loyalty does not require one to sit back like a vegetable and not criticise things you disagree with
Yet you guys call people on the other side of the spectrum un-American...

I won't get into any political debating because of the board rules, but you guys need to pick a definition of loyalty and stick with it.
 
I can't relate to this thread topic at all. Sure, if I have "declared" the Titans as my team and invested nothing except emotion in them, then I have no problem with people who say loyalty is sticking with them through "thick and thin". Conversely, for those who are PSL holders and have invested financially (IMO the seats are very expensive), then they have EVERY right to criticize, be pissed, or even leave early when the team is not winning or the product sucks. THERE IS NO LOYALTY IN BUSINESS. NFL IS A BUSINESS- it isn't high school ball where emotional investment and pride are the highest stakes. It is an entity where money has legally been introduced to elevate the play of the game. With that compromise comes all the trappings that consumerism brings with it. Namely- accountability and market competition.

A person who continues to throw good money after bad is considered a fool in business. That person has every right to go financially support another team that is delivering a better product. We don't hear anything about "TICKET PRICE REDUCTION" during crappy seasons do we? NO. The business of NFL is a 2 way street. Paying fans (customers) have every right to purchase a better product. If the organization wants to keep things the way they are, they better make sure their customers are satisfied or show enough evidence that things will soon be the way the customers want it.

I like college ball because I have emotional allegiance to a certain team. I stick with them and cheer for them through thick and thin. I like pro-ball better for many reasons, one of which is I can without guilt criticize the coaches, players, and front office.
 
fitantitans said:
Is it being said that a few fans, myself included, are not loyal because we complain about not winning? What's the purpose of the game?

I have no problem with complaining about not winning. You wouldn't be a fan if you didn't.

My issue is with the "fan" who backs a player or coach during that person's time with the fan's favorite team. Yet when that player leaves that team not only are all allegiances to that person are gone, some "fans" feel the need to dump all over these people.

Why?

Aside from finding another place of work (which many people here have done) they've done nothing criminal.
 
For every *****wipe that leaves for more money (Runyan), there's always a good guy, who still has good years left in him, that's let go like yesterday's news (Neal). I don't recall Floyd Reese making any kind of effort to keep his core, and the only times he did, he didn't exactly save the franchise (Sirmon, Kassell). Neal was let go for nothing, no effort was made to keep Runyan, Mason, Rolle, Carter and Kearse were salary cap casualties, and players were traded cuz they wanted "too" much money (McNair, McCareins).

Meanwhile, studs were signed, such as Pickens and Thigpen.

Yeah, good job guys, we're loyal to you... NOT
 
Sledge said:
For every *****wipe that leaves for more money (Runyan), there's always a good guy, who still has good years left in him, that's let go like yesterday's news (Neal).

Do you really think that LoNeal is what this team is in dire need of, right now. He may be a nice guy. And, I like him. He was a Titan.

But, he's a blocking back.

Yes, every team needs one. But, keep in mind. He wasn't brought into SD until after LT was drafted. He was he while EG was here. And yes, he has blocked for other 1,000 yard backs. But, ask yourself if maybe there's a reason why he's being asked to open those holes instead of run through them.
 
moose4now said:
My issue is with the "fan" who backs a player or coach during that person's time with the fan's favorite team. Yet when that player leaves that team not only are all allegiances to that person are gone, some "fans" feel the need to dump all over these people.

I think you might have forgotten the definition of "fan" which is short for "fanatic"... A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm.

Key word in there is unreasoning. Love the Titans, throw out reason. That's what fans do. You are a Titan? You're the man! You're not a Titan? You stink!

This isn't supposed to be logical. Real world rules don't apply here. We're not talking about dumping on your best friend because he moved to a different city.

This is about being a company yes man. This is about drinking kool-aid. There's no reason in fanaticism! :))
 
moose4now said:
Recently there has been a lot of talk about the future of Jeff Fisher and Floyd Reese. And, through all of this there have been people calling for the firing of both people who have done so much for the Oilers/Titans organizations.


Many great people throughout history have, at some point, acheived their point of incompetence. Though I don't have my library any more, you can check with Amy Wallace and David Wallachinski and their Book Of Lists series, which contains a list of great leaders who reached their point of incompetence. I do remember Napolean and Hitler being on that list for (I think) the same reason: thinking they were powerful enough to defeat Moscow in winter. Both took huge losses trying to do what everyone knew could not be done.

It can be argued that Fisher has reached that point. It appeared to start during the year that he filed for divorce.
 
avvie said:
Many great people throughout history have, at some point, acheived their point of incompetence. Though I don't have my library any more, you can check with Amy Wallace and David Wallachinski and their Book Of Lists series, which contains a list of great leaders who reached their point of incompetence. I do remember Napolean and Hitler being on that list.

It can be argued that Fisher has reached that point. It appeared to start during the year that he filed for divorce.


Regardless of the point you are trying to make Avvie, I never thought I'd ever see Fisher compared to a 'great' leader such as Hitler.

Ouch:eek:
 
Childress79 said:
Regardless of the point you are trying to make Avvie, I never thought I'd ever see Fisher compared to a 'great' leader such as Hitler.

Ouch:eek:

I think Avvie means great as in historically powerful. People like Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Cæsar, etc. are all great leaders in that respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top