NFL 2021 - The Houston Texans v Deshaun Watson

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough.  When I asked "are the Texans owned by the Trumps," you could've just responded "basically, yes."

If they were trying to keep him why did they give Tyrod Taylor $12 million?  Again, if you're saying they're crazy, can't argue with that.  But it's rather impossible to rationalize this otherwise.

My poor, poor, DMC.

Rational has nothing to do with it.

Think about the forces at work in that building. You've got the puppet owner and the puppet master who are in a war with the QB.

You have this patsy David Culley and the most pre-doomed coaching staff I've ever seen (straight-up, I feel terrible for Lovie Smith). Your boy 'Soups wouldn't have taken that job. "No future in it." He would've said.

And then you have this former Patriots guy to bring Patriots culture or whatever. All of them have competing agendas.

Puppet and Master are interested in keeping Master in power.

Coaches are interested in coaching what pathetic talent is available with their pathetic talents (Pep Hamilton? The guy had a personal mission to turn Andrew Luck into Andy Dalton). Because I'm sure they talked themselves into believing there will be a second season for their coaching to really take root.

And then Patriots guy has to prove he's not a Bill Belichick copying New England guy. And the only way to do that is to be a New England guy.

Signing Tyrod is actually the only prudent thing they've done this whole time in my opinion. Watson ain't playing for them. I'd imagine that one came from the GM and coaches teaming up to beg the puppet to let them have a starting QB.

[briantw]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

If they were trying to keep him why did they give Tyrod Taylor $12 million?  

Because Watson is very likely to hold out for at least a year, assuming he's not suspended over all of this.

I thought it was significantly more likely to be a smear campaign when it was just the first masseuse, as that particular accusation was incredibly thin and certainly wouldn't hold up in court.  The more women that come forward, the less that seems likely.

But you can't help but keep coming back to that damn attorney choice.  

Anyway, I'm in wait and see mode now.  

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

My poor, poor, DMC.

Rational has nothing to do with it.

Don't bring my finances into this.  If you think they're crazy and enjoy conspiracy theorizing, have at it.

3 minutes ago, briantw said:

Because Watson is very likely to hold out for at least a year, assuming he's not suspended over all of this.

Right, signing Taylor makes sense if you think Watson is gonna hold out - or if you're gonna trade him.  But it doesn't make sense if you're trying to smear him in an attempt to force him to stay.

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

54 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, signing Taylor makes sense if you think Watson is gonna hold out - or if you're gonna trade him.  But it doesn't make sense if you're trying to smear him in an attempt to force him to stay.

I'm not sure how it doesn't make sense; you're making him not particularly valuable to any team other than yours and you're showing that he has less leverage against you as well. Basically the vague rationale would be something like telling Watson that no one will ever love you and you should be grateful that we're even going to give you a chance here, because we don't actually need you. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Karlbear said:

Basically the vague rationale would be something like telling Watson that no one will ever love you and you should be grateful that we're even going to give you a chance here, because we don't actually need you. 

Again, it doesn't make sense if you're trying to get Watson to play this year.  Because then, you just payed $12 million for a backup.  I'm not sure how that's not clear.

Although, I just saw that Taylor's contract is actually ~$6 million and the rest are incentives.  That makes sense, but I didn't know that until now.

[briantw]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, it doesn't make sense if you're trying to get Watson to play this year.  Because then, you just payed $12 million for a backup.  I'm not sure how that's not clear.

Although, I just saw that Taylor's contract is actually ~$6 million and the rest are incentives.  That makes sense, but I didn't know that until now.

Why do they care if Watson plays this year?  They're going to be bad either way.  Almost better if Watson is out the entire season.  He avoids another year of wear and tear behind a shit line and they cruise to the number one pick while Tyrod gets himself murdered.

[Tywin et al.]

When did young Mitchell get cut?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31087811/buffalo-bills-mitch-trubisky-agree-1-year-deal

[DMC]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

Why do they care if Watson plays this year? 

So you think their plan is to cajole Watson into holding out an entire year, tank that entire year, and then somehow - after holding out an entire year - Watson will return to the team in 2022 and everything will be hunky dory?  That's..incredibly convoluted.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When did young Mitchell get cut?

Trubisky didn't get cut, he was a free agent.  The Bears declined his fifth year option (a year ago).

[Tywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, it doesn't make sense if you're trying to get Watson to play this year.  Because then, you just payed $12 million for a backup.  I'm not sure how that's not clear.

While I'm not going full conspiracy theory here, theoretically it makes sense for the organization to knee cap him this way if they think they can get away with. They kill is trade value, and it seems like they don't want to trade him at all, and if he has to sit out, better pick and less damage on his body, and then in that case they need him more than they need him. It would be gross, but not out of the realm of logic or possibility. 

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trubisky didn't get cut, he was a free agent.  The Bears declined his fifth year option (a year ago).

Go figure, I thought I read they were bringing him back for another year. Honestly at this point I'd rather have him than Dalton, not that anyone should be excited about either.

Thanks again Bears for not drafting Mahomes. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It would be gross, but not out of the realm of logic or possibility. 

It is illogical to think Watson would hold out a year and then just agree to return to the team.  Especially if that team tried to smear him with sexual assault charges.  Doesn't mean it's not possible, but it's definitely not logical or rational.

[briantw]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

So you think their plan is to cajole Watson into holding out an entire year, tank that entire year, and then somehow - after holding out an entire year - Watson will return to the team in 2022 and everything will be hunky dory?  That's..incredibly convoluted.

I want to be clear that I don't think this is all a big conspiracy with the Texans being behind it.  I believe that's a possibility and my posts are meant to be hypothetical in nature.  You asked why they might do this, so I came up with possible reasons.  You also can't account for the factor that the Texans ownership and management are probably insane evangelicals who don't act rationally.

As I said earlier in the thread, it was easy to hand wave the first accusation, as it didn't really accuse him of anything.  The more women that come forward, though, the easier it is to believe that side of it, so now I'm in wait and see mode while it's investigated.  

[Jace, Extat]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Go figure, I thought I read they were bringing him back for another year. Honestly at this point I'd rather have him than Dalton, not that anyone should be excited about either.

Thanks again Bears for not drafting Mahomes. 

No. I watched every Bears game. Trubisky is one of the worst QB busts I've ever seen. Sure, he's not Jamarcus Russel. But he isn't as good at garbage time as Blake Bortles either, so I stand by the assessment.

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

It is illogical to think Watson would hold out a year and then just agree to return to the team.  Especially if that team tried to smear him with sexual assault charges.  Doesn't mean it's not possible, but it's definitely not logical or rational.

Only if he could prove it.  If so, it would be the kind of thing to force someone to sell a team. But if not, it is the kind of thing that would destroy one's value to the point where you'd basically be making them crawl back.

Obviously a bit outlandish, but with this dumbass team? Who knows?

[Tywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

No. I watched every Bears game. Trubisky is one of the worst QB busts I've ever seen. Sure, he's not Jamarcus Russel. But he isn't as good at garbage time as Blake Bortles either, so I stand by the assessment.

Dalton looked helpless in Dallas. Couldn't protect himself. Missed wide open guys despite no pressure. Could barely drive the ball down the field. And worst of all, his teammates seemed indifferent to him. At least with the lover of kissing titties you can tell yourself that he's young and can still move well.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, briantw said:

I want to be clear that I don't think this is all a big conspiracy with the Texans being behind it.

Fair enough.  I'm just saying any plan that involves getting him to hold out an entire year and then expecting him to just come back the following year is completely irrational - regardless of the sexual assault charges.  When has that ever worked?

Further, the argument that lowering his trade value is somehow an effort to get him to stay is entirely ass backwards.  It's not like Watson is the one who suffers from his lowered trade value - they are.  Not to mention, Watson has a no-trade clause.  All the way back on Tuesday Mike Lombardi claimed Watson only wanted to go to the Broncos or the Niners and - because of the no-trade clause - it is Watson and the Broncos/Niners that have all the leverage:

Quote

"Well, the problem, Rich, is he controls where he wants to go. The rumor is he doesn't want to play in New York. The rumor is he doesn't want to play in Miami. He wants to play in Denver [or] San Francisco. So now, you're [Texans general manager] Nick Caserio, and now your trade options are limited, especially when you know he controls where he says he wants to go. So, say he says I only want to go to San Francisco. I'll only go to San Francisco. Well, now, San Francisco has all the leverage in the trade. So, all the trade scenarios you go through, if he doesn't want to go to the Jets, he says, 'I'm not going.' So, it's fool's gold to get that pick. I can't make that deal happen."

 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dalton looked helpless in Dallas. Couldn't protect himself. Missed wide open guys despite no pressure. Could barely drive the ball down the field. And worst of all, his teammates seemed indifferent to him. At least with the lover of kissing titties you can tell yourself that he's young and can still move well.

You can't go back to that relationship. Dalton will blow, but they don't want no more Trubisky. They could only run like one pass play with any level of success. Then the Saints took it away.

[Tywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Further, the argument that lowering his trade value is somehow an effort to get him to stay is entirely ass backwards.  It's not like Watson is the one who suffers from his lowered trade value - they are.  

I don't actually disagree with the arguments you've made, but it's fun on a boring Thursday to speculate that there's more to it. In this scenario, if you say Watson was previously worth four first round picks, now you could argue he's barely worth one if just some of the allegations have a bit of truth to them, and worse if they are legitimately serious. Depending where they land the Texans could find the situation advantageous while also exhibiting the spite they manifestly feel. 

[Tywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

You can't go back to that relationship. Dalton will blow, but they don't want no more Trubisky. They could only run like one pass play with any level of success. Then the Saints took it away.

Seems like ending an engagement because you know "they're not the one" only to date someone who is even worse.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In this scenario, if you say Watson was previously worth four first round picks, now you could argue he's barely worth one if just some of the allegations have a bit of truth to them, and worse if they are legitimately serious. Depending where they land the Texans could find the situation advantageous while also exhibiting the spite they manifestly feel. 

Why in the world is them possibly getting one pick instead of four picks for Watson advantageous to the Texans?  This makes no sense.