IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-02-2017, 07:31 PM
bikerack bikerack is offline
Drafted Rookie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 67
Default Kaepernick

Like it or not, Rick Smith was on the phone with the agent for Kaepernick around 5:15 this evening. He was asking about whether the comments from McNair would prevent him from coming in for a tryout or potentially sign. BOB thinks they can use pretty much the same offense that Watson was running if Kaepernick is in playing shape. Going to get interesting. Stay tuned...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-02-2017, 08:15 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,518
Default

I'm not a fan of him as a player but it'd be a great move in a lost season. It instantly erases any ill will from McNair's comment. That's bigger than anything else we could accomplish in this lost season.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-02-2017, 08:25 PM
chuck chuck is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default

Apparently the owner gave his OK to a workout. Kaep is the best fit for the offense assuming he can still play. Maybe he can't, who knows. If he can, though, signing him would be a win win win for all sides. Plus, the local idiots would lose their minds and that would be a nice bonus for me, give me some small reason to keep watching.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-03-2017, 05:19 AM
HPF Bob HPF Bob is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,563
Default

Off the field, it would be "Michael Sam, part 5". The media would be on an orgy of political questions (they'll forget he called for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment roughly a year ago). His girlfriend will come along spouting all her Hate Whitey crap.

If you sign him and don't play him, it will be because or racism. If you do play him, the second you bench him it will be because of racism. If you don't re-sign him and start him next year, it will be because of racism.

Regardless the validity of any of his comments or how nice he may be once you understand him, the hangers-on will concoct a racist conspiracy behind every move and won't STFU.

On the field, it makes perfect sense. Off it, it make about as much sense as a Maxine Waters press conference.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-03-2017, 06:59 AM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob View Post
Off the field, it would be "Michael Sam, part 5". The media would be on an orgy of political questions (they'll forget he called for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment roughly a year ago). His girlfriend will come along spouting all her Hate Whitey crap.

If you sign him and don't play him, it will be because or racism. If you do play him, the second you bench him it will be because of racism. If you don't re-sign him and start him next year, it will be because of racism.

Regardless the validity of any of his comments or how nice he may be once you understand him, the hangers-on will concoct a racist conspiracy behind every move and won't STFU.

On the field, it makes perfect sense. Off it, it make about as much sense as a Maxine Waters press conference.
Chuck was saying about locals freaking out...

Bob, the conspiracy theories you've created don't even make sense. If you sign a guy because your star BLACK QB is injured, you will have no issues when you let him go next year. San Francisco didn't even catch flak for moving on from him to Brian Hoyer. The NFL as a whole gets attacked for him not playing but the only teams I've seen called out are teams like the Dolphins who decided plan C Matt Moore was a better option.

As for media questions, yes, if you sign him you run the risk of the media distractions taking away from what was already a lost 3-4 season and is now destined for 5-11 territory.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-03-2017, 07:25 AM
bikerack bikerack is offline
Drafted Rookie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 67
Default

Kaep still in play but less likely....especially with TJ Yates coming in. Except the QB group to be a revolving door for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-03-2017, 07:59 AM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Barrett,

Didn't Kaep's girlfriend publicly equate Baltimore's owner and Ray Lewis as a slave owner and a house slave while they were considering signing him? What was the logic behind that? Expecting all of the players in this to behave perfectly rational and logical is a conspiracy theory in its own right. Right or wrong, Kaep would be a circus and all sorts of outlandish things will be said no matter how it plays out.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-03-2017, 11:38 AM
nunusguy nunusguy is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
Barrett,

Didn't Kaep's girlfriend publicly equate Baltimore's owner and Ray Lewis as a slave owner and a house slave while they were considering signing him? What was the logic behind that? Expecting all of the players in this to behave perfectly rational and logical is a conspiracy theory in its own right. Right or wrong, Kaep would be a circus and all sorts of outlandish things will be said no matter how it plays out.
So we could expect her to call the owner here and Rick Smith the same as the guys in Baltimore so no big deal. On the subject of kneeling I'm sympathetic and recognize that as their right but it surely is and will continue to be counterproductive for the players, all of the players.
But I agree with Barrett, why not the season is already a lost cause now with Watsons injury and signing Kaep would atleast be a way to redemption for the owner re his stupid remark.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-03-2017, 11:56 AM
chuck chuck is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default

I'll just add quickly that the 'journalist' who reported that McNeck had OK'd a workout was 'joking,' so we can all forget about Kaep and go back to posting on Infowars. See you guys over there.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-03-2017, 12:10 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
Barrett,

Didn't Kaep's girlfriend publicly equate Baltimore's owner and Ray Lewis as a slave owner and a house slave while they were considering signing him? What was the logic behind that? Expecting all of the players in this to behave perfectly rational and logical is a conspiracy theory in its own right. Right or wrong, Kaep would be a circus and all sorts of outlandish things will be said no matter how it plays out.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-03-2017, 12:14 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy View Post
So we could expect her to call the owner here and Rick Smith the same as the guys in Baltimore so no big deal. On the subject of kneeling I'm sympathetic and recognize that as their right but it surely is and will continue to be counterproductive for the players, all of the players.
But I agree with Barrett, why not the season is already a lost cause now with Watsons injury and signing Kaep would atleast be a way to redemption for the owner re his stupid remark.
Easy for you to say. Do you own a company? If you do, would you hire someone who will very publicly call you a racist at the first opportunity? Seriously, who in their right mind volunteers for that? And for what, to go 7-9 instead of 5-11? The season is lost with or without Kaep.

As for rehabilitating McNair, let's do our own little science fair project right here. Do you think Chuck will quit calling McNair a neck and admit he was wrong if McNair signs Kaep? I'm sure Chuck will provide the answer but I'm not optimistic.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-03-2017, 12:17 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-03-2017, 12:43 PM
chuck chuck is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:09 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:13 PM
nunusguy nunusguy is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
Easy for you to say. Do you own a company? If you do, would you hire someone who will very publicly call you a racist at the first opportunity? Seriously, who in their right mind volunteers for that? And for what, to go 7-9 instead of 5-11? The season is lost with or without Kaep.

As for rehabilitating McNair, let's do our own little science fair project right here. Do you think Chuck will quit calling McNair a neck and admit he was wrong if McNair signs Kaep? I'm sure Chuck will provide the answer but I'm not optimistic.
McNair's Houston Texans is not the typical Mom&POP small business op but rather a very high-profile American sports franchise where PR is an important element to success and while the Texans' owner may be a steller numbers guy he is
stunningly uninformed an incompetent in PR for an NFL owner. He's the one who put himself in the situation he's now in and if he's interested in attracting, oh say, a potential franchise left Tackle in FA to protect his franchise QB he might want to take advantage of an opportunity to rid himself of the trrrible racist reputation he has with the rank & file of the NFLs players. And BTW I will always be grateful to Bob McNair for bringing the NFL back to Houston.
As far as to what the Chuckster would or wouldn't do I have no idea because he's person of great mystery to me, a man of many talents who travels in strange and intriguing ways.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:31 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:36 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:38 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:42 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-03-2017, 01:49 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy View Post
McNair's Houston Texans is not the typical Mom&POP small business op but rather a very high-profile American sports franchise where PR is an important element to success and while the Texans' owner may be a steller numbers guy he is
stunningly uninformed an incompetent in PR for an NFL owner. He's the one who put himself in the situation he's now in and if he's interested in attracting, oh say, a potential franchise left Tackle in FA to protect his franchise QB he might want to take advantage of an opportunity to rid himself of the trrrible racist reputation he has with the rank & file of the NFLs players. And BTW I will always be grateful to Bob McNair for bringing the NFL back to Houston.
As far as to what the Chuckster would or wouldn't do I have no idea because he's person of great mystery to me, a man of many talents who travels in strange and intriguing ways.
You raise an interesting question as to how McNair can help his image with the players. Don't know the answer to that. Maybe signing Kaep would help. Maybe not. I still can't quite wrap my head around the idea that an extremely common expression that I think most have heard/said multiple times in their life (and generally just means that the bosses, not the employees, should run the show) was taken as a literal comparison to inmates.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.