Texans' Bernard Pollard Hates Cursing. He Effin' Hates It

• lol @ EarlyC.. they did a 360? they went in a complete circle and ended in the same spot they started.. i think you mean they did a 180 perhaps. and with that, yes, i agree. rock the #^*@ing $#@% out of the other team. hard nose texans 2010 will make the playoffs, possible superbowl.

• Finally, this team has some cajones. Let's keep it that way. Thugs = Championships.

• Love it. Pollard has the secondary turning the corner.

• "Huh? Why would they punt instead of going for the 2 point field goal? Doesn't make any sense." Depending on the character of the game, field position can earn wins. Especially if it takes four FGs to better a TD, instead of three. "Once again, huh? They should always be going for the score at that spot." They should always go for a TD from 10+ yards out? (Which, by the way, includes 90 percent of the field.) Why? Because you like it? "I never said anything about 4th downs." So you're talking about those hellaciously long field goals that today's coaches decide to kick on first, second and third down? What the fuck are you on? "I'm saying kicking hellaciously long field goals seems to be the norm nowdays. It wasn't back in the day. They would actually strive for 7 instead." No, no they wouldn't. Not from 30+ yards out, unless time was running out with the offense down.

• Again you use the expression "back in the day" without defining it.

• "Like I said, if you're not anywhere near the end zone but in field goal range - 30-35 yards out - you're going to be more likely to punt." ------------------------------------------- Huh? Why would they punt instead of going for the 2 point field goal? Doesn't make any sense. "But you underestimate how hard it is to score a touchdown from 10+ yards out when the other team knows you have to go for a score." ------------------------------------------- Once again, huh? They should always be going for the score at that spot. "No 55-yard field goals? Are you really suggesting that old school coaches would go for a TD on fourth down from the 38 yard line? That's just absurd." ------------------------------------------- I never said anything about 4th downs. I'm saying kicking hellaciously long field goals seems to be the norm nowdays. It wasn't back in the day. They would actually strive for 7 instead. They've dulled the game down with all of the conservative decisions and plays, IMO. Why do you think alot of people like college ball better? Because it's more exciting. They take risks. That's why the scores average higher than NFL. I'm done with this one, we'll just have to agree to disagree. OUT

• I think he's having fun with us/talking out of his ass.

• >60 yard NFL field goals: 1970 1984 1991 1991 2002 1998 2006 2006 2009 What's the definition of "back in the day", anyway?

• The easy way out? Boring, maybe. But smart in terms of, you know, winning the game. Get over it.

• "Why do you think it would automatically cause more punts rather than push coaches to actually grow a set and go for the 7 points EVERY TIME rather than settle for field goals?" Like I said, if you're not anywhere near the end zone but in field goal range - 30-35 yards out - you're going to be more likely to punt. Teams aren't (and wouldn't, not even back in the day) going to try for what's essentially a fourth and 30. On the other hand, you're right that it may lead to more TD attempts inside the 10. But you underestimate how hard it is to score a touchdown from 10+ yards out when the other team knows you have to go for a score. No 55-yard field goals? Are you really suggesting that old school coaches would go for a TD on fourth down from the 38 yard line? That's just absurd.

• Kyle-We know you are OK with taking a knee. The easy way out. We know.

• Refuse to address the point? Your ridiculous prediction that it would cause more punts? That point? OK, let's entertain that notion. Why do you think it would automatically cause more punts rather than push coaches to actually grow a set and go for the 7 points EVERY TIME rather than settle for field goals? How many 55 yard field goals did you used to see back in the day as compared to now, hmmm? How many times did they intentionally down the ball with time still on the clock so they could prance off to the locker room for some AC and pampering? It ain't what it used to be, that's for sure! Don't you see what is happening? It's turned into superconservaball where coaches are afraid to do anything that may GASPPP turn the ball over GASPPP. What do they say in gambling? You can't win if you don't put some money on the table. You may be perfectly happy with how the game has changed, but I'm not.

• 15 seconds. To move 77 yards. Against THE COLTS defense. It's not going to happen and it carries significant risk. I like Texans that beat the Colts, not Texans that lose to the Colts with honor, or whatever.

• Again, you call names, then you refuse to address the point. You could argue that play calling has gotten more predictable. But passing has gotten easier and quarterbacks more prolific over the years, by design. And since few are going to try to run the ball on fourth down from more than a few yards out, that's what you're talking about - more passing for TDs. For the top 35 quarterbacks all-time in yards per game, three started their careers before 1980 (Fouts '73, Simms and Montana '79). So tell me again how it used to be? "If there are more incentives to score touchdowns rather than settling for field goals, there will be more touchdowns." And more incentives to punt, depending on field position. "The main goal of the game is to score touchdowns." Yeah, for 50 percent of the team...

• If there are more incentives to score touchdowns rather than settling for field goals, there will be more touchdowns. This isn't rocket science. The main goal of the game is to score touchdowns. You do know that, right? Perhaps you need to go back and look at some old footage of how it used to be before all of this super conservative game play came about.

• *put

• Wyatt, out the bong down, you are rambling like an idiot again.

• Do you actually like football? When it comes to movies, you're one of those people who needs an explosion every five minutes, aren't you? Long attempts at TDs, especially in the NFL, almost never work when the other team knows they're coming. You know that, right? Shave a point of FGs and you'll have a lot more punts from the 30-35. I guess you could use your method and just tell the offense to not fail. But what if the other coach tells his defense to not fail, too?! Unstoppable forces, unmovable walls, Armageddon. Why the fuck do you hate existence, USA1

• *off

• Crawl back under your rock, AH.

• BTW: USA1 was one of the brave Marines braving bullet and shrapnel, hoisting the flag at Iwo Jima, hence he's no puss, bona fide.

• Pollard- Those little clear dishes the guys hold are "microphones". heheh

• No, actually it would result in more touchdowns. You know...the whole goal (I know, bad pun) of the game.

• No, actually it would result in more touchdowns. You know...the whole goal (I know, bad pun) of the game.

• But that's against USA1's rules. Also, USA, you do realize that your proposed changes would result in a lot more drives just ending in punts, correct? EXCITING!

• No, now that the Texans are beating the Colts for the second time in franchise history amid 15 losses I am going to trust their judgement. Their chances of getting from their own 23 to a TD or FG in 15 seconds of game time are approximately zero and the chances of throwing another interception, especially when Schaub might already be frazzled from an interception minutes earlier, is somewhat more significant. No, I think they did the right thing. Kneel it and take it back to the locker room for a pep talk and prep for the return.

• ALSO THERE ARE WOLVES ON THE FIELD "Easy fix: Don't throw it away, or fumble it." Damn, that was easier than everyone though. Just don't do it, dummies!

• Some new rules I propose: No kneeling. If there is time on the clock, play. Field goals are only worth 2 points which will force them to go for touchdowns instead of the usual 55 yard field goals. One team has to score at least one touchdown or the game is a draw.

• Easy fix: Don't throw it away, or fumble it. It's just like any other play. Enough wussy calls and super conservative play. Enough settling for 3 instead of gambling on 6. No more kneeling like a bunch of sissies. Throw it in the end zone. Is this the grid iron, or kindergarten recess?

• USA1, an interception or a fumble can put points on the scoreboard, but not the sort that one wants. They were getting it back second half anyway. Why take a chance when a score is highly unlikely? Just a few minutes earlier Schaub had thrown an interception which resulted in a touchdown.

• Yeah, but from that far away going into the half and against a prevent defense, scoring is less likely than a costly turnover. Punting doesn't put points on the board, either, but it's often he smart move. Of course, you might actually be smarter than 99 percent of NFL coaches ever.

• Downing the ball doesn't put points on the scoreboard.

• Yeah, tell that to Tashard Choice. Numbers-wise, the spike is almost certainly the smarter play. Shit, maybe I do argue too much.

• I was cussing when they downed the ball at the end of the first half with 10 seconds still on the clock, a 1st down, and 1 timeout remaining. WTF!? Pussball!

• mollusk- Son of a bitch, your right. Man, this Monday really has me off of my game. Thanks for pointing that out. Wyatt- Please see the above lame ass excuse. I don't know what the hell is wrong with me today.

• For what it's worth, if you turn something completely around, it is a 180 degree change. 360 describes a full circle. Just sayin'

• More like you saying the sky is purple and me correcting you. Sometimes, Early, it is purple. Probably. Other times, what are you talking about? I guess the motivation is player safety, especially since so many former players have serious health problems. Of course, lots of them came up before things got really big and don't have serious money to go with those problems.

• Wyatt- I could say the sky is blue and you would chime in to disagree with me. That's cool. However, you are correct that I went a little overboard with the PC thing. Now this is thing that I don't get, a lot of the NFL's fan base is going to buy their schwag regardless of how many points are scored, so why penalize the teams and the people that appreciate the game itself by making it a glorified flag football game?

• Sounds like Wayne was jawing at him first. And it's not PC -- "softer" rules are a liability/protection-of-investment issue, and, when it comes to the secondary, an attempt to allow for higher scoring, which apparently is more exciting. You might be right about a lot of it being skewed too far in favor of the offense, but I really doubt the far-far right-wing top brass (owners included) of the NFL has gone all liberal-girly on everyone.

• I'm just a little puzzled what he's upset about.

• Considering the Texan's collective attitude has done a 360 since Mr. Pollard has joined the team, I think his colorful language can be forgiven Connelly. I am sure you really enjoy all the new rules to protect the offensive players that is turning the NFL into pussy-ball don't you? Remember when a player could deliver a totally legal hard hit and not get penalized for it? No longer, political correctness has infiltrated the NFL.

TotalComments: 41