Jump to content

UncleBuck

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    4368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by UncleBuck

  1.  

    Wow, so this thread took a turn.

    Look, of course "chili" is just meat and the gravy, (onions etc...). Somewhere along the line tomatoes became acceptable, so whatever. But no filler. And when I see a thread called "chili w/o beans," I find "w/o beans" to be redundant tbh. There's chili, and then there's chili WITH something else added. Or there's cowboy chili, or whatever other names you want to call chili that has had fillers added. Do I like Skyline Chili? No, but good on them for at least clarifying that it's not "chili" chili. We all love Frito pie, but that's no longer chili either, it's Frito pie. I think we can all agree with that, right? Okay, good...  

    BUT.....

    ...to say the chili queens didn't add other stuff to their chili on occasion is just inaccurate. You can argue about beans all you want, but how about peas? Yes, there is mention of peas being put into chili by chili queens to stretch it out toward the end of the day/night. Chili and beans, in some instances, were at least eaten on the same plates served by chili queens as early as the 1880s or so, I've seen that. Mixed beforehand? That I have not seen, but I don't see why that would be strange in an effort to stretch it out, seeing it had even been done with peas. BUT once this happened, it was no longer just chili. It was chili and/with peas. Chili and/with beans. Chili and/with whatever (or whatever names they may have had for it).

    Chili can be a starting point if you wish. You can throw chips and beans and cheese and noodles and potatoes and corn and rice and whatever else you want to into it after that, but it needs to be noted that it is no longer simply "chili." Names, words, they matter. Tradition matters.. The name "chili" should not be bastardized into meaning anything other than what it is, or we'll lose it. 

  2. See you guys speaking of Kerrville places. We ate at Billy Gene's(?) last year. I remember it being pretty decent. Don't even remember what I had, tbh. Think a burger/patty melt or something. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, tejas60 said:

    wait, she was surprised that huevos rancheros had a tortilla under the eggs???

    Lol. We live further south than that and it's not really a thing down this way. Maybe it skipped us. 

  4. We went up to SA this weekend and hit a few joints. These were all first timers for me.

    Went straight to Chris Madrids. Once I got around the cheddar cheese, the burger was good. This isn't really a complaint. You know what you're getting yourself into when you order it, it was just more than I expected. Also, home-cut fries were good.

    Image

     

    For breakfast the next morning I decided on Pete's Taco house. The Lady ordered papas rancheras w/bacon and carne asada. I got my normal bacon egg and cheese and then carne guisada w/cheese for the kicker. The guisada was good, maybe coulda taken some more salt, but I get it that some joints cut back on salt. The tortillas were like soft, fluffy quilts that you barely noticed were there after taken a bite, yet they held up to the gravy. Image

     

    Sunday morning before leaving town we went to El Milagrito Cafe. Had I known ahead of time that someone had dropped a bomb on the street construction situation in that area, maybe I'd have not gone, but am glad we did. I had, again my usual bacon egg and cheese, and then for the kicker I got their picadillo taco cut the lettuce and tomato. Wife got huevos rancheros plate with a pork chop. The rancheros suace was good, and she liked that the potatoes had chorizo in them, and also that the eggs had a fried corn tortilla under them.

    The tacos there were good, and though not as fluffy as at Pete's, it was that same softness, that still held up to the picadillo. Also I liked all of their salsas. 

    Image

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Drool 2
  5. 24 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

    Whoever asked about Rolando's Super Taco upthread.... I have been informed that it is now back open for dine-in and has been for about 3 months. And it was supposedly really good via reliable sources.

    That was me. Had edited my reply to that because it appeared via some recent picture reviews that there was inside dining. We didn't make it there this weekend, as simple traditional puffy tacos were the main target on the tex-mex side, and the ones at Rolando's look a bit too large and not of the experience I was after. 

    Thanks, though. 

  6. 11 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

    Southerleigh has been fantastic the 4 or 5 times Ive been there. I'm not a fan of Boiler House though 

    Was my second time, and we haven't been disappointed. As I alluded to in my post up a few, the only disappointment this last time was the 45min-1hr wait turned into only 10 minutes, which only sucked because I wanted to drink next door longer. 

    1st time I had the beef cheek stroganoff. Don't believe that's on the menu right now, but when it is: do it!

  7. Was able to knock out a few decent meals this weekend in SA

    Got there too late Friday Night for anything really but to walk around and drink down town. 

    Went to the Pearl area Saturday for lunch. Had a drink at the Sternewirth while waiting on our table at Southerleigh. Southerleigh got us in quick (too quick, I could sit in the Sternewirth and drink all day). Got the Steak and Eggs Insert Something French I'm Guessing For Potatoes. Was very good. 

    image.thumb.jpeg.ebd88177b67284cebd6903ac4d707f63.jpeg

     

    We ate at some place on the river walk for "kinda" dinner/giant sangria margarita, just a small meal. Was saving up my calories for El Weinecero, a little "Mexican Inspired Gourmet Hotdogs" stand on Houston street just around the corner from Hotel Gibbs where we were staying. I got the Perro y Gallo. The hotdog is wrapped in bacon and toasted up, then onto the bun and topped with pico and an avocado sauce. Was excellent. Ran about $10. 

    image.thumb.jpeg.1a7f05fd6516420dcf3fd3e672af7a44.jpegFl7X5DrWAAESxKE.thumb.jpg.5c3b14b67096b93f24c7c1399d8f9df4.jpg

    Finally wrapped things up Sunday with lunch at Taco House. I got the puffy taco plate, one beef and one chicken. Picture sucks and does it no justice at all. Obviously, no tomatoes. Just lettuce and guac, then drenched in salsas. Also had a guisada and cheese taco on the side to try along with my wife. Really enjoyed the guisada taco and obviously the puffy tacos. Place was legit, IMO. Did not disappoint. 

    Fl-aT8LWYAAOOlH.thumb.jpg.fd7da595f8af495b4eb68b1474354968.jpg

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 3
    • Drool 2
  8. Are the puffy tacos good at Taco Haven? Because their other tacos look legit.

    Getting a lot of recommendations for Pete's. Obviously Ray's and Henry's.

    Taco House? The rest of their menu good? 

  9. 18 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

    For my money, if you're from out of town and in San Antonio you should eat Mexican food. Even if you are from San Antonio, you should eat Mexican food. La Fonda on Main is a good call for more upscale-ish Mexican. Great patio too if the weather is nice. I don't know if that is fancy enough for what you're looking for though. 

    Other than that for non-Mexican.. you have all the aforementioned Pearl options - Mon chou chou, Cured, Southerleigh, Supper at Hotel Emma, etc.

    I'm a big fan of the Magpie -- they only have about 4 tables and a few bar seats so you need a reservation -- but it may be more downtown that you want. It's also not super fancy, but the food is, and it's a great cozy date place.

     

     

    x2 on Southerleigh. Will be in SA this weekend and we'll hit it. 

    Now just looking for something mexican/texican. All of the time I've spent in SA, I've never had a puffy taco, so I need to knock a couple out. I don't need the best, just a solid representation with the rest of the menu being good as well. 

  10. 58 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

    Last I checked and it's been a few months, Rolando's was only open for pick up -- no dine in since the pandy. I think they just said fuck it but things may have changed. 

    Yah, I was afraid of that when I was looking at their site. That really sucks. 

     

    EDIT: Looking at some recent reviews on google, it looks like they might be open for dine-in now. Went ahead and shot an email. 

  11. Bringing this back to the top, but not just for ceramic, but for pretty much any type of grill etc... I've been researching it and it seems people do it all types of ways, from reserve sear, to searing it before cooking up to temp. Have seen where some people just smoke it at around 275 up to temp without any searing. Have read where you just roast it on your pit at around 350 or so. Scary. 

  12. 15 hours ago, Richard Kimball said:

    The reason they have so many interviews with coaches is because they need the content. It's a 24 hour media cycle. There are 8,760 hours in a year. A college team playing fourteen games at roughly four hours a game is 56 hours. Actual snap to whistle in a game is about eleven to fifteen minutes of action per game. That's a little less than three hours of actual game footage per team per year. They have to have something to fill that content, and interviews with losing coaches are some of the most entertaining dramedy to come out of sports. 

    So what you're saying is that.... they need the filler? As I've already said a few times here? Yes, I absolutely understand that. They'll have to work a lot harder to pump out content without all of the cliches and coach speak etc..  -->World's smallest fiddle and such.<--

    Touche to your point about the great moments we've gotten from some of these pressers. It also goes to my point that it's not of any substance as it relates to the actual question or the team itself. But I'll give you that one. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 15 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    Maybe I do not realize how much media availability coach Gundy does.  Does he have multiple availabilities during the next couple of weeks.  If so, then maybe the question could be asked at one of those sessions.  My understanding is that this is likely the last media availability until he likely does one after signing day in early February.  If that is the case, my guess is that he would come up with some rant about how that was about these kids big day following their dreams and the reporter should not be soiling their big day by asking questions at that time.

    Again, I'm not saying Gundy handled things correctly here. I'm not really speaking about Gundy much at all. I just think there are two things here. One: it's silly that there is an expectation that these questions be asked at all knowing we're not going to get anything of substance in response, as it relates to the team and the actual question. Two: It's just common sense that such a question being asked at that time and in that situation might receive a more hostile answer than after a day or two. It's not important to me whether he has another media availability in the next couple of weeks or not, my point with that shouldn't be asked then (in a perfect world). Have a big ole post-season press conference a week later and ask it then (if you really feel you have to). 

  14. 20 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    But if that is the reasoning, why even have media availability at all.  We might as well just wait until Oklahoma makes a press release.  I'm sure that is what coaches would prefer.

     

    I won't pretend to have the perfect answers, I just think it could use a change. I think the media availabilities should be fewer, and a bit more regulated. Right now you have a coach talking after the game on the field. After the game at the podium. Then Monday. During the week/Friday. Then on the phone with the opposing media/national etc... Anything of substance (mainly injuries, starter changes etc...) can be updated by the team in media releases etc..  With fewer availabilities, maybe journalists will ask better questions more consistently. Pay attention to questions that have already been asked. And also maybe the coaches will be more willing to give better answers because they're not tired of talking to the media every other day (it seems).

    Talk to the winning coach and a player or two coming off the field. No need to talk to a losing coach/player until the next day/following Monday. 

    As a Texans fan, I can only listen to Lovie Smith say "we've got to learn how to finish" so many times on Sunday. Monday. Wednesday etc... He's not lying, they need to learn how to finish, so he's probably going to say it a lot. Then I have to listen to the sports media criticize him "ughhh I wish he'd say something else." Same. Same. 

     

  15. 1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

    Answering those questions comes with the territory of being a football coach too. Kind of a high stakes job. People are going to ask stuff like that. Maybe be prepared for it. Again, not even really a tough question. At all.

    Yah, you're missing my entire point I've been trying to make in my replies here. Yes, it comes with the territory. But should it? No. The majority of the time (basically always), no coach is going to give any useful information for such a question, just an empty quote a journalist can fill a report with. Filler. Sure, there's different ways to correctly answer that question: "Like every offseason, we're going to sit down and evaluate everything, from staff to players, where we got better during the season, things we can get better at, and then go from there." That's a correct answer. Also, absolutely zero useful information. No value whatsoever outside of giving a journalist/reporter extra words to fill paper/air time with. It's a joke and has been. 

    I guess if you like such wisdom as, "we're gunna work on it,"/"we gotta try harder."/"that one's one me."/"gotta play better." yada yada presser after presser, week after week, then I probably won't change your mind. 

     

  16. 2 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

    It was a really nice way of asking "hey, is anyone gonna be held accountable for the dogshit performances that your team has put on the field during the second half of this season?"

     

     

    And as we've learned over the past 70 or so years, coaches don't like talking to reporters about stuff like that. 

    Literally the biggest thing that question accomplished was to remind everyone that the HC of Okie Steak once wore an OAN T-Shirt fishing. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 1 minute ago, UncleSonny said:

    Yeah…that’s not at all what the reporter asked. He asked him if he anticipated making any staff changes. Completely reasonable question, and if Gundy didn’t want to answer candidly all he had to do was give the same non answer we’ve heard a million coaches give:

    ”Well, none of those decisions have been made yet. We’re going to do what we always do after the season, sit down and evaluate every part of this program from the top down and we’ll go from there”

    Instead of saying that he decided to have a little tantrum. Mainly because he’s a thin skinned asshole who was in his feelings after seeing his team completely crumble over the second half of the season. 

    Eh, it was hyperbole. And sure, it's a reasonable question for the reporter to ask given the environment of sports and sports media reporting, I just happen to disagree with that environment existing as it does. Questions as such five minutes (<--also hyperbole, as it's normally somewhere more around 20-30) after a loss, or at any time tbh, rarely if ever generate any answers of substance, and do not really benefit a coach to answer honestly. It's just a meaningless dog and pony show that I believe could be made to provide more relevant content if managed better. 

  18. 1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    I'm with Gundy on this one... it's not the reporters job to ask him stupid questions knowing Gundy would be an ass to answer it right there.

    I'm with Gundy on this one, but unfortunately it is the reporter's job to ask, even though you could argue they shouldn't. It's just the nature of that beast. Maybe once ever has anything good or important ever come out of putting some coach on stage to answer reporters' questions immediately after they lost a game. I don't see why we needed to hear from him or those players. Entirely too much access to coaches and players vs. any true, real, and/or relevant information we get. 

×
×
  • Create New...