Okay. Cheap place, decent execution, so why didn't I care much for it?
It may have been asthetics: imagine McDonald's type design (uncomfortable tables and chairs designed to get you out as fast as possible) with large crowds, ambient noise maximizing accoustics,stupid fake motorcycle hanging from the ceiling, and contrived efforts at "community building". (Here's a hint, guys: communities evolve naturally, they aren't built. Trying to build a community is a sure way to fail.)
Or it may just have been that my burrito, while admittedly huge, just wasn't all that tasty. The "ass-kicking barbecue" sauce wasn't hot, or spicy, or even more than minimally detectable on my sample. I felt almost like I was chewing my way through a loaf of bread.
This might work for me if it was within walking distance of campus. And if I were still a student. But I'm not, and it isn't. I don't see it having any appeal to a non-student population, and it is a bit far for that population to go for lunch. The dinner (and non-student lunch) trade might keep them alive. But it seems sad to me that the best thing I can say about Freebird's is that they are conviently close to a Marble Slab.
Building a successful restaurant is a lot easier if you get the basics right. Consider the success of Freebird's: A simple idea, well-executed. Offer a limited selection of entrees (mostly burritos), cranked out assembly line fashion, optimized for speed (the idea of including tax and having all the prices in .25 multiples is one I wish more fast food joints would emulate), at a bargin price. Furthermore, a single GBTC assembles your burrito down the line to your specifications, ensuring there are: A.) No screwups, B.) No holdups in the line until you reach the cash register.
And the food itself? Good, cheap, and filling. Having had both the Monster and the Super Monster, I think that the Monster offers the biggest bang for the buck. I get the steak with habanero and/or the "ass kicking BBQ" sauce. In fact, the Monster is more filling but slightly less expensive than a full-sized sub from Delaware, the previous king of grab-and-go eating value. This would explain why Freebird's has a line out the door for lunch.
About the only drawbacks (besides the line) are how closely the tables are packed together and how undersized the men's room is compared to the restaurant.
Well worth a visit if you're hungry and want to fill up cheap.
Lawrence and his crab leg jones again.
Perfectly adequate mass-market chain seafood, but so what?
I like it. It's a chain, but I like it.
There just aren't enough places in town to get crab legs, and Red Lobster serves them up with admirable consistency. The crab legs were excellent, the spicy fries were very good, and the calimari, fried mozzarella, and (free) cheese biscuits were all good. The salads are perfectly adequate. The only dish I was disappointed with were the "Fiesta Lobster Rolls," which didn't seem to have any detectable amount of lobster in them. (Try Cafe Josie's lobster rolls instead.)
The service was very good as well, with Carlos, our waiter, doing a generally admirable job. The only foibles were the other waiter in our era accidentally mixing pitchers of tea and Dr Pepper together (which was worth witnessing for the amusement value alone), and inexplicable extra glasses of ice.
The only real negatives were that you couldn't get Alaskan King Crab legs, and that the jars they serve drawn butter in are far too tiny. Other than that, Red Lobster hits the seafood spot.
Earl does some things right: the appetizers aren't bad, you can get fries, and I enjoy looking at the surroundings.
But the star of the show is supposed to be barbecue, and Earl's is just average: certainly edible, but not something I'd take visitors to eat. Even worse, the portions are small: for the price of a combo plate at Earl's, you can get at least twice as much meat at Artz Rib House: for a few bucks more, you could even get all-you-can-eat at the County Line (and probably impress out of town visitors just as much).
I like Earl. I think he made the right call by telling the Tennesse Traitors (excuse me, Titans) he wouldn't participate in their sham "hall of fame" ceremony. But I don't like him enough to excuse mediocre barbecue.
As a BBQ chef, Earl Campbell is a great running back.
There are a lot of things that Earl Campbell's Lonestar BBQ gets right. The bright lighting and polished wood decor help balance the inevitable sports memorabilia, and the overall result is nicely done. (Plus there are not many restaurants that have a Heisman Trophy on display.) Side dishes are far more varied than your usual BBQ joint, with the potato skins proving quite good and the hot wings entirely adequate (though a bit pricey for what you get). Service was generally attentive, and I got several unasked refills on my ice-free Dr Pepper. You can also get a side salad with your meal (with an interesting house dressing), and the onion rings I had on the side were very tasty.
Alas, all of the forgoing is not enough to offset the fact that Earl serves up mediocre BBQ. The brisket was entirely forgettable, the pork chop, though large, was not flavorful enough (you really need pork chops well marbled with fat to work as BBQ, and these weren't), the pork ribs were passable, but little more, and they were out of beef ribs. The portions were considerably less than generous as well. Also forgettable was Earl's BBQ sauce, though the sweet sauce was more interesting, if not in The Salt Lick's league.
All of which is a crying shame. A lot of thought has gone into crafting the restaurant end of things, but not enough into making the BBQ itself compelling. Earl (or at least his hired hands) needs to spend more time working on grilling technique, or experimenting with sauces. Otherwise, Earl Campbell's Lonestar BBQ might turn out a lot like the Houston Oilers: impressive on paper, but ultimately an chronic underachiever when it comes to crunch time.
What did you think, we were going to have a conspiracy on Christmas Day?
Return to the main Saturday Dining Conspiracy page.