Kaepernick

[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.....

[HPF Bob]

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.

Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?

He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.

Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.

It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".

The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.

Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.

Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?

He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.

Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.

It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".

The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.

Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.

I agree 100% Bob. I don't think George W. Bush was a perfect president but he gave an amazing quote last year at the Dallas Police Officers' Memorial. He said that...

Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

This is worst in arguments where people think painting the other side worse makes their side stronger. So we end up with wild accusations as the norm.

The only thing I'll add to your other comments is that McNair's players/employees were not really protesting during the Anthem. They held arms once but nobody was kneeling. Texans ratings weren't down and Texans seats were being filled. Deshaun Watson was a guarantee of fan interest for another decade. Everything was great in Houston and the owner's bottom line wasn't threatened. We weren't the 49ers with 2 years of ongoing protests. We weren't the Jaguars standing for God save the queen and kneeling for the anthem. McNair had always wanted choir boys on his team and those choir boys had mostly behaved like choir boys. JJ Watt was still helping the franchise bathe in the glow of $40 million raised for hurricane relief. And into that positive situation McNair decided that after years of being opinionless with his NFL peers, he wanted to choose now to assert himself with an all-time boneheaded comment.

So are guys who stood in respect for the anthem feel betrayed by an owner they previously had no complaints about. Our only malcontent with no business sense (Duane Brown) gets to grind his axe. We make a smart football trade that still must alienate some players on the team. And for every militant player in the league who thinks their must be racist owners, we announce that ours is the one they know about.