Kaepernick

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

Why would I care about Kaep's GF? I am perfectly capable of ignoring him if I choose, and I wouldn't even know how to hear his GF's rambling thoughts.

I was referring to your suggestion that everyone in this ongoing drama will behave logically and rationally. I used her past comments as evidence that this is highly unlikely.

[chuck]

My biggest problem with the owner is not that he gives tons of money to people and causes that embrace, cultivate and disseminate bigotry. He does, of course, but so do lots of other billionaires.

My biggest problem with him - and it's one that I identified many years ago and I have seen nothing to make me change my view, quite the opposite, in fact - is that he is not principally concerned with winning. I understand that his outlook may be born of a series of rational business decisions, but as a fan, I don't really care what his motivations are if he is not doing anything he reasonably can to win. Which he is not. If the team were to work out Kaepernick, that would signal to me that the team wants to win more than they want to punish a fellow whose peaceful protest they deliberately misrepresent. But they don't, and they won't.

And unless you think it's just looney old chuck ranting again, do a quick search on the word Kaepernick and you'll find countless articles written by a diverse group of people that largely do that for a living that believe that there is no football reason for the Texans not to look seriously at Kaepernick.

We all know what the reason is. But yes, if they did work him out or god forbid sign him, I would have no option but to re-evaluate my view regarding the owner's priorities. But they won't.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by chuck

My biggest problem with the owner is not that he gives tons of money to people and causes that embrace, cultivate and disseminate bigotry. He does, of course, but so do lots of other billionaires.

My biggest problem with him - and it's one that I identified many years ago and I have seen nothing to make me change my view, quite the opposite, in fact - is that he is not principally concerned with winning. I understand that his outlook may be born of a series of rational business decisions, but as a fan, I don't really care what his motivations are if he is not doing anything he reasonably can to win. Which he is not. If the team were to work out Kaepernick, that would signal to me that the team wants to win more than they want to punish a fellow whose peaceful protest they deliberately misrepresent. But they don't, and they won't.

And unless you think it's just looney old chuck ranting again, do a quick search on the word Kaepernick and you'll find countless articles written by a diverse group of people that largely do that for a living that believe that there is no football reason for the Texans not to look seriously at Kaepernick.

We all know what the reason is. But yes, if they did work him out or god forbid sign him, I would have no option but to re-evaluate my view regarding the owner's priorities. But they won't.

1) Which causes? I'm honestly curious.

2) if you're main complaint is lack of winning, why do you constantly call him a neck and insinuate or sometimes flat out call him a racist. Shouldn't you just call him a loser? Why do you constantly talk in racially inflammatory terms if simply losing is your true gripe?

3) he runs a business. It would be malpractice to not consider how Kaep would impact the business. And while Kaep might be a marginal improvement over who we currently have, it's not like we become a winner with him (Didn't he lose every game he started last year?). The question McNair has to answer is whether it's worth potentially alienating a nontrivial portion of his fan base/customers (and any personal risk he runs in being branded a racist when things inevitably sour) to bring in a guy that might win an extra game or 2. Put differently, in order to gain your approval, McNair must bear any cost whatsoever (both personal and professional) for an extra game or so?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

1) Which causes? I'm honestly curious.

2) if you're main complaint is lack of winning, why do you constantly call him a neck and insinuate or sometimes flat out call him a racist. Shouldn't you just call him a loser? Why do you constantly talk in racially inflammatory terms if simply losing is your true gripe?

3) he runs a business. It would be malpractice to not consider how Kaep would impact the business. And while Kaep might be a marginal improvement over who we currently have, it's not like we become a winner with him (Didn't he lose every game he started last year?). The question McNair has to answer is whether it's worth potentially alienating a nontrivial portion of his fan base/customers (and any personal risk he runs in being branded a racist when things inevitably sour) to bring in a guy that might win an extra game or 2. Put differently, in order to gain your approval, McNair must bear any cost whatsoever (both personal and professional) for an extra game or so?

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group. McNair's a 'Neck' because he's southern and white, while Rick Smith is an Uncle Tom because he's black and doesn't hold the opinions that Chuck thinks black people should hold.

And your #3 is blown way out of proportion. The fans who will walk over Kaep will walk whether he plays for Houston or not. They will walk whether people stand for the anthem or not. They are hypocrites and liars. They complained about the anthem and then they booed just as loudly when the kneeling was before the anthem and then they stood for the anthem.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group. McNair's a 'Neck' because he's southern and white, while Rick Smith is an Uncle Tom because he's black and doesn't hold the opinions that Chuck thinks black people should hold.

And your #3 is blown way out of proportion. The fans who will walk over Kaep will walk whether he plays for Houston or not. They will walk whether people stand for the anthem or not. They are hypocrites and liars. They complained about the anthem and then they booed just as loudly when the kneeling was before the anthem and then they stood for the anthem.

What is truly ironic is McNair's greatest failing as it relates to winning is his affection and loyalty to Smith. So, he's branded a racist for sticking with an African American.

And I may be overreacting, but the owners seem extremely concerned by the impact on their business and I presume they have better data than me.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

What is truly ironic is McNair's greatest failing as it relates to winning is his affection and loyalty to Smith. So, he's branded a racist for sticking with an African American.

And I may be overreacting, but the owners seem extremely concerned by the impact on their business and I presume they have better data than me.

The first half is you being extremely disingenuous. You know him being loyal to Smith has nothing to do with him being called a racist. When people purposely twist words and put out false arguments like this it accomplishes nothing.

Regarding the 2nd part, the protests have clearly had a negative affect on business, I am not saying otherwise. I am saying that the impact has already happened. Look at this story for the Saints. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/03/ne...-refuses-award . The Saints protested during the anthem one time and stopped. Since then they have stood for the anthem every time. But because it happened once they lost this fan and he has picked a public fight with them. The damage of the anthem has happened and those fans aren't being won back by anything short of drastic measures like cutting guys who protest. So signing Kaepernick will inflame the minority of fans who have already walked, it will be ignored by the fans who ignore everything already, and it will win over the 50% of players who are angry at Texans ownership right now.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group.

Misanthropy rather than prejudice. And you have the second bit backwards. I carefully evaluate and then, largely to amuse myself, create flamboyant caricatures. I could be more measured in my commentary I suppose but at the end of the day I'm arguing about sports with rednecks over the internet. This is not exactly a scholarly journal.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by chuck

This is not exactly a scholarly journal.

Et tu, Brute?

[Arky]

Well, sounds like the Texans have elected to go with McGloin and Yates so it seems Kaepernick is not a possibility unless there is another injury. There's another thread for Bob McNair.

-----------------------------------------------

Not to derail but something I find similar is the Breast Cancer Awareness deal. The NFL readily adopted this - every year we get a week or month of pink clothing on the football field. After several years of this, I think most of us are aware of breast cancer and most of us know where to go if we desire to donate to the pink ribbon (and it is a worthy cause). I'm just not quite sure why the NFL continues to do this..... Is the advertising a tax write-off for the NFL? Maybe if they continue with this, they could just drop the "Awareness" part - call it Breast Cancer Research (or something) - cause I don't know about you, but I'm plenty aware of the condition.....

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

I was referring to your suggestion that everyone in this ongoing drama will behave logically and rationally. I used her past comments as evidence that this is highly unlikely.

I never meant to suggest anything like that. I simply said in this context you could get rid of Kaep no problem. As I pointed out, SF got rid of him without trouble even without a better option or a black replacement. We could kick him to the curb in 10 games and never look back.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

I never meant to suggest anything like that. I simply said in this context you could get rid of Kaep no problem. As I pointed out, SF got rid of him without trouble even without a better option or a black replacement. We could kick him to the curb in 10 games and never look back.

You may be right but I don't think that's a given. Kaep has become a cause de jour.