I wish it were to tell sometimes who the great ones will be. Some, we can kinda guess, like Tim Duncan or LeBron James. Some, it really comes out of left field, like Tony Parker or Draymond Green. All you can do is hope that your guy is one of the ones that shocks them all- in a good way. Tom Brady did, others haven't. I hope Watson turns out to have a great career as a Texan.
Of course Texans have every right to stand firm here. The man is obligated to be professional and honor his contract. For Brown to do all this i believe he believes the texans are screwing him while overpaying other players that are less critical or plain not as important as him. I wish he would show up like most but i don't have this ill will hate towards him because he's not then come up with all kind of bs excuses as to why Brian Cushing is not sooooo wrong for what he did.
It's likely actually not. The contract is most likely written that they get paid if they participate (or are injured etc). If they voluntarily sit out, they don't get paid and can't go play anywhere else. It makes logical sense that a holdout would be a contract violation, but it's actually probably not if we were to look at the actual wording. It would just be choosing not to play. The fact that it's intentional - the system is designed to allow this - is all that's really relevant. The NBA and MLB are pay-for-potential leagues, which leads to lots of under and overpaying of players, but also the ability for teams to get "good deals" (the Astros, for example, having Alex Bregman at minimum wage). The NFL is different - it's a pay-for-performance league, where you don't have a lot of overpaid or underpaid guys, because the system is designed to allow to both teams and players to correct that situation. It's not a one-way street - the NFL and NFLPA negotiated the system by design and with the intent of allowing players to hold out to get larger contracts. If the NFL had a problem with it, they'd fight the NFLPA in their CBA negotiations on this topic - they don't, because both sides see advantages to the system in place.
Semantics, really, but why do you think this is true? If I had to guess, the language of the contract would literally say they have to play, not what you're assuming.
We know that holdouts are a feature of the NFL collective bargaining agreement, and not a bug. Given that, I would think that the NFLPA would go ahead and ensure the contracts are worded to best protect their players. If they were truly in violation of contract, the players could be at risk of teams taking them to court or arbitration or whatever. That said, I'm not really sure. It could just say you're in violation, and this particular violation has this penalty. But my larger point is that this is all by design - players and teams created this system to give players the ability to hold out to get more money. It's not an accident or something teams don't expect or whatever else. The NFL likely got other concessions as a result in the larger negotiating process (for example, non-guaranteed contracts). We know this because it's easy to prevent this and other leagues do so (in exchange,they have to pay guaranteed contracts). It's hard for me to be morally outraged by players using something that was negotiated by the NFLPA by design specifically for this purpose.
You are free to play games with terms but it does not serve to advance discussion. Teams do not engage in contracts in hopes that players voluntarily sit out yet the league does not want the first day of a holdout to permanently invalidate a contract either. How that is structured legally is not interesting to the discussion, a player who holds out is not upholding his end of the agreement regardless of whether it's technically a "contract violation" or not. It's not a fact, it's only your claim. It's a specious, and ultimately unhelpful, claim as well. The fact that labor agreements are "intentional" does not mean that behavior that occurs under the labor agreement is intentional. Got it. Bold face means you're an expert. pay for potential? pay for performance? Where does this worthless commentary come from and can it please stop? The NFL operates under a hard cap. Teams and players both desire to renegotiate contracts so that's why it's allowed. No one insists otherwise. If contracts were guaranteed, players would have no reason to support renegotiation. Furthermore, teams can't prevent a player from "holding out" since retiring under contract is essentially "holding out". Every league "negotiates" "by design" so you are saying nothing. As I said before, penalties for murder are codified as well, "by design" as you say. That doesn't mean government intends murder to be part of our daily lives. Do players desire penalties for holdouts to be less severe? Absolutely, as some players (Duane Brown) intend to press that to their advantage. Do serial killers favor murder penalties that are less severe? Sure, absolutely. So what? Was world war 2 "intentional" and "by design" because it occurred in the context of peace agreements made exiting the first world war? According to you, yes, it's a fact! The way you prevent hold outs is not to disallow contract renegotiation, something both sides want, it's to empower teams to take punitive actions against a player that would prevent that player from playing in the league WHILE eliminating the penalties to the team (roster spot, cap hit). Players would oppose this while teams would favor it. It would be a big benefit to the fans which should be all that matters. Holdouts only serve the interests of individuals at the expense of teammates, fans, teams, and the league.
Deshaun the Great? Against the Bengals he was making single reads and even then didn't have a great game. Basically he has been put in a terrible spot by a bad coach and a mediocre franchise. He isn't going to last running, making single reads and checking down... and that is what he is doing and arguably has to do. Let's hope he doesn't learn bad habits and end up calling Game Day with Tim Tebow.
While all of that is true, the team still won and that's all that matters for now. If the Watson fanboys want to have a bit of fun, let them. If he doesn't improve, they won't have many more moments like this during this season.
...and this is the important part. You spend a great deal of time justifying an action as "intended", "by design", etc. so that you can deny moral outrage when a player uses a holdout as leverage against a team despite having voluntarily committed to his current agreement. If Brown didn't want these terms he shouldn't have accepted them (yet he did so that he could cash in on the good part over the past 4 years). The Texans desire for Brown to be on the team and they have committed a roster spot and a sizable chunk of their cap to holding his place. Now they face the choice of either a worse team or the encouragement of other negative behaviors as well as the fallacy of sunk costs because of Brown's actions. There is absolutely no question why there should be moral outrage and your misrepresentations of the intentions of the league and the process do nothing to change that. Sure, labor agreements don't outright ban holdouts but that doesn't mean the league intends for them to occur.
Yes we won and that is the most important thing, especially without a #1 or #2 this year. However HOW we won offensively isn't sustainable. Do you think that will work next week? I don't. I suppose we just take it one week at a time and try to figure it out.
Majority of NFL passes are thrown in single read when guys are playing in man coverage. Peyton Manning made a career of pre determining his throws based off the defense. I guess I will never understand the logic some people base their predictions on.
No, not in the least, when you celebrate the fact that your QB managed to throw for over 100 yards in a game, you have a SERIOUS problem no matter who his receivers are. That said, this season is going to be pretty bleak so there's no reason to not let those who want to celebrate such small accomplishments enjoy themselves. We'll have the rest of the season to talk about how terrible everything is. Given the state of the team, it wouldn't be shocking to me if the Texans didn't win another game this season. Banged up defense, no O line, no QB, inconsistent receivers....I mean, it would be difficult for it to be much worse than it is right now.
Pretty much the same team minus Brock Osweiler. I do agree nothing good will come if DB doesn't get his ass back in town but your W/L theory suggest Deshaun will be worse than Brock.
I think the offense in general will be worse, and yeah, I think a completely unprepared Watson could be worse than Osweiler. The O line was performing better last season even if they are largely the same players and the team has even less when it comes to the WR and TE due to injuries. Also when it comes to Watson as a passer, I'm not sold that he could get to 15 passing TD's on the season or 2650 yards in his first 13 starts like Osweiler did last season. That said, if he throws 459 pass attempts in his first 13 games, I could easily see 14 interceptions. He's currently on pace for 305 pass attempts, 1475 yards and 6 passing TD's in his first 13 games, so he'd really have to step it up to shoulder the load that Osweiler was last season. We'll see though, anything could happen.
I think Deshaun can get there. It was scary to hear Hop and Deshuan both reference there lack of time throwing the ball to each other in the recent post game. I think Deshaun as a passer will get better as the year goes. He hasn't had a chance to mesh with Braxton or Strong yet so hopefully it isnt an offense centered on Deandre catching the ball on third down again. One would think this week that the Texans will once again be run dominant considering what the Chiefs just did to the Patriots in week 1.
