Petey Faggins Discusses Texans Locker Room [ESPN.com AFC South blog]

[nero THE zero]

Originally Posted by barrett

My reply starts with "The Texans' locker room may be tense. They also may have had bad backpedal coaching in the past." How is that a denial of a possible problem? You are digging at something that just isn't there. If anything the fans on this board are more critical (in a smart way) than they are blind eyed loyalists.

Yea, you began it with that and ended it with a paragraph suggesting, and even explicitly stating, that Faggins' motive to say such things was that he is an ex-Texan rather than it being the truth.

Some half-empty caveat doesn't absolve you from being guilty of such.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

Yea, you began it with that and ended it with a paragraph suggesting, and even explicitly stating, that Faggins' motive to say such things was that he is an ex-Texan rather than it being the truth.

Some half-empty caveat doesn't absolve you from being guilty of such.

Guilty of what? Was a crime committed?

Did I disagree with you about Faggins objectivity? You stated that people are dismissing the possibility of a negative aspect of the team. That is simply not happening here.

As for thinking Petey has multiple motives in saying the Titans organization is the best, consider me "guilty as you charged." And like I pointed out (and you took out of my post to argue only with what you wanted to), it is no more objective when a Texans employee says good things about the Texans than when a Titans employee says the Titans are the best. They are simply not objective in any way. I would think that is obvious.

Again, you are trying to create an issue where there simply isn't one. Nobody on the board is bashing ex-players or dismissing possible/probable team problems. We just realize that Petey Faggins now has his checks signed by Bud Adams so it is in his best interest to say Bud's boys are the best.

[superbowlbound]

The fact of the matter is, not one player on this planet is EVER going to respond to a question regarding which team he likes better, his old one or the one he's on now with "You know, I'd really rather be back where i was. Atmosphere was better" It's just not going to happen. period. Is there some truth to his statements? probably. Should they be taken with a grain of salt? Absolutely, no two-ways about it. I think that is the primary point these guys were trying to make. The comments can't just be taken at face value, is all.


Also, i've never played corner, so I guess I don't really know, but I'd think it'd be pretty tough to effectively run press coverage when you're starting off with a 13 yard cushion. Am I wrong?

[kravix]

1) If you arent winning there is definatley bound to be tension, its human nature which is usually magnified in an athlete.

2) When opposing recievers send you jelly baskets every monday your bound to be tense, no matter how much you love jelly on your toast.

3) When the 3rd ranked offense is supported by 26th(i didnt look it up, but its close enough) ranked def, there is bound to be tension between the two.

4) When the 3rd ranked Off pulls helicopter moves out of their playbook, there is bound to be tension when the Def was actually doing well.

5) When there are only 4 players on the team who are not worried about losing a starting spot, there is bound to be tension.

Honestly, only AJ, Schaub, Mario, and Demeco are locked in. Kubiak has shown that he will replace players, not always on time, but he will do it. Bennet over Faggins, Diles over Greenwood, Wilson, Ferguson-- that is the short list.

There are plenty of reasons to have tension in the locker room.

At the same time... Imagine sitting down with your boss and him asking you for feedback on how he runs things(I do this from time to time, humility is good for the soul). You would never say, unless you want to get fired, "well boss your swell and all, and I like you, but my last boss makes you look like an elvis impersonator on crack."

Last but not least, do not ever discredit human nature. Faggins had a ride here, he was the entrenched starter even when he shouldnt have been, was supplanted by a rookie, and then he couldnt even get invited back to camp. Potential recipe for bitterness.

Originally Posted by superbowlbound

Also, i've never played corner, so I guess I don't really know, but I'd think it'd be pretty tough to effectively run press coverage when you're starting off with a 13 yard cushion. Am I wrong?

Definately wrong, press coverage has nothing to do with "pressing" the reciever at the los, and everything to do with giving up quick 4-10yrd passes.

I liked Petey, I think he had a fire in him for awhile, but when he lost it he lost it. His remark wasnt derogatory towards the team, he could have said alot worse given the circumstances.

[Nconroe]

Press - The term refers to the pass coverage technique when the defensive back is aligned as tight to the wide receiver as possible. The technique can be used in tight man-to-man coverage (bump-and-run) or also in zone coverage where the corner's responsibility is the short flat.

that taken from http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...000&type=story

Looks like Texans used the second definition, zone coverage in short flat, it sure wasn't bump and run coverage

Now, this year Texans actually have a lot of people in same position as last year, but most of time Petey was here there was a lot of annual turnover in positions. And sure Petey went from being a favorite his first couple years to being perhaps seen as part of defense problem in years after that, so change of scenery is good for him.

The more stability and team comaraderie you have the better in general, likely Titans have that stability and winning history for now

[kravix]

And then there is always Solomons take on it.

Although his opening statement is quite distastfull, the rest of the blog gives a perspective we havent covered yet.

[nero THE zero]

Originally Posted by kravix

And then there is always Solomons take on it.

Although his opening statement is quite distastfull, the rest of the blog gives a perspective we havent covered yet.

Yikes.

Dunta Robinson and Chester Pitts are clear team spokesmen and locker room leaders. Confident and poised, these two have set a good tone in the locker room.

Two isn't enough, though. But the good news for Texans fans is there are a host of others whose leadership should show even more this season.

To this point, Mario Williams hasn't been capable of leading his teammates anywhere. For one, it's not his personality and secondly, he has been busy establishing an identity in the league.

DeMeco Ryans, Eric Winston and Owen Daniels have more developed leadership skills, but again, we're talking about guys who have played only three seasons in the league and have never been on a winning team at this level.

3 of the 6 he cites as leaders are under intense contract disputes.

[nero THE zero]

Originally Posted by superbowlbound

The fact of the matter is, not one player on this planet is EVER going to respond to a question regarding which team he likes better, his old one or the one he's on now with "You know, I'd really rather be back where i was. Atmosphere was better" It's just not going to happen. period. Is there some truth to his statements? probably. Should they be taken with a grain of salt? Absolutely, no two-ways about it. I think that is the primary point these guys were trying to make. The comments can't just be taken at face value, is all.


Also, i've never played corner, so I guess I don't really know, but I'd think it'd be pretty tough to effectively run press coverage when you're starting off with a 13 yard cushion. Am I wrong?

See, that's where I think this is different than most vague comments made by players when they arrive with a new team. That's why I think Barrett's Smith analogy is irrelevant. These guys aren't arriving with their new teams and making generic statements like, "I'm really excited with the direction of this team, and I feel like they provide me with the best opportunity I've had in my career to compete for a Super Bowl."

There have been two different guys make specific comments about the team chemistry. There's a common thread there, which is why I take exception when people dismiss it as, "Faggins is more about sour grapes & bad apples."

Whatever. Just because Faggins is a dime corner and CC Brown is a mediocre safety doesn't make then unqualified from commenting on the quality of the Texans' lockerroom.

Here's to hoping that the chemistry changes as the quality of play does.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

See, that's where I think this is different than most vague comments made by players when they arrive with a new team. That's why I think Barrett's Smith analogy is irrelevant. These guys aren't arriving with their new teams and making generic statements like, "I'm really excited with the direction of this team, and I feel like they provide me with the best opportunity I've had in my career to compete for a Super Bowl."

There have been two different guys make specific comments about the team chemistry. There's a common thread there, which is why I take exception when people dismiss it as, "Faggins is more about sour grapes & bad apples."

Whatever. Just because Faggins is a dime corner and CC Brown is a mediocre safety doesn't make then unqualified from commenting on the quality of the Texans' lockerroom.

Here's to hoping that the chemistry changes as the quality of play does.

He was specifically asked after a training camp practice what the differences are between his current Team and his old one. He did not bring this up on his own. It was an answer to a direct question. That is far different than if he left the team and trashed the Texans. He didn't. He was asked a question and he gave a honest but positive answer. Not a ground breaking expose.

Now if long time Texans retire and bash the team on their own (as opposed to answering questions about their new team), then I would take notice. This just doesn't seem like a big deal.

[nero THE zero]

Originally Posted by barrett

He was specifically asked after a training camp practice what the differences are between his current Team and his old one. He did not bring this up on his own. It was an answer to a direct question. That is far different than if he left the team and trashed the Texans. He didn't. He was asked a question and he gave a honest but positive answer. Not a ground breaking expose.

Now if long time Texans retire and bash the team on their own (as opposed to answering questions about their new team), then I would take notice. This just doesn't seem like a big deal.

Right. He was asked about the differences and specifically mentioned the team chemistry, out of the thousands of other things that could have been mentioned, as did fellow ex-Texan CC Brown. There's a common thread there.

You're not disputing anything I've said, and obviously you agree that there must be a problem with the chemistry. So, I don't know why you have to dismiss it because it was an ex-player who said it (like a current player is going to come out and blast the team chemistry) and then try and bait me into a sematical argument about how you think there's a problem but for whatever reason Petey Faggins' word ins't acceptable on the matter.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

Right. He was asked about the differences and specifically mentioned the team chemistry, out of the thousands of other things that could have been mentioned, as did fellow ex-Texan CC Brown. There's a common thread there.

You're not disputing anything I've said, and obviously you agree that there must be a problem with the chemistry. So, I don't know why you have to dismiss it because it was an ex-player who said it (like a current player is going to come out and blast the team chemistry) and then try and bait me into a sematical argument about how you think there's a problem but for whatever reason Petey Faggins' word ins't acceptable on the matter.

This is not a semantics argument. I am not disagreeing with how you say it, I am disagreeing with you. I am saying unequivocally that Petey Faggins is not a good source for Titans team comparisons as long as he is a member of the Titans.

As you stated, no current Texans player will speak out. I assume you come to this conclusion based on them being a current employee who is relying on Bob McNair for their well being. How can you understand this but not the conflict of interest for Petey saying his current team is better than the old one.

That's why I mentioned if a retired player said something I would listen, because they have no stake in any direction. They have no motive and no boss to answer to. They have total objectivity. If Petey retires and still makes this comment I'll listen. I'd also listen if Petey played for the 49ers next year and compared the Titans and the Texans because neither would be his boss. But right now he has no objectivity to compare the Titans and Texans when one currently pays his bills.