Texans brass really seem to be downplaying the Nick Martin injury. Not sure I’m playing DW4 with our 3rd string OC next preseason game.
So, IIRC Gaine was fired right after rookie OTA's had started. My new conspiracy theory is that BOB told Gaine to get him a couple of starting tackles and when the saw the absolute projects that Gaine brought in he flipped. It won't catch on, because it doesn't cast BOB as the absolute villain that he often actually seems to really be, but I'm surprised nobody's noticed a corelation with the start of OTA's and the decision to cut Gaine loos, especially after the snap decision to fire Foreman after a couple of bad practices.
It wasn't a SNAP decision. They were talking with the Browns about Duke Johnson before training camp. Texans wanted to see want Foreman did the first 2 weeks of camp. Foreman showed them NOTHING, and so BoB did the trade.
Part of it the reason it won't catch on is because of the other report that came out about the disagreement being about Clowney. It is possible that Gaine wanted to sign Clowney to a long term deal (or maybe trade him) and O'Brien wanted nothing of it. Furthermore, you don't fire a GM because of rookies in training camp. A lot of rookies struggle in OTAs, camp and mini-camp, some of the great ones weren't as impressive. I would believe it if Gaine was fired this morning; or right after a game 1 loss. Plus Howard was a star at the senior bowl and O'Brien is notorious for falling in love with players at the senior bowl. It is likely that O'Brien wanted Howard.
Snap or not, it was a dumb decision. First, you make the trade and then waive the player if that is the case. Waiving Foreman first just makes them desperate. If they were talking with the Browns already, they gave them more leverage by releasing D'onta.
It doesn't matter. The Browns had a price for Duke. They had control. They were not going to cut him. Price wouldn't have changed no matter what. This has been said by many people.
Well you know "many people" can't be wrong. Even if they are. Like I said in the trade thread, Rick Smith would have traded D'onta Foreman instead of just cutting him. There are so many things wrong with how they mishandled this, going back to not dealing with it in the draft.
Bingo! Just get the trade done 1st! A couple of days is not going to make that much of a difference for D'onta He still has plenty of time to find work. Especially for a recent 3rd rounder who has a great college pedigree (2000 yd season). Maybe they had their price set in stone or maybe a few days go by and we get a 1 round trade upgrade (5th to a 4th). We'll never know now!
Huh, forgot about it why the fk did we cut an asset before even trying to trade it. And dont sell that bs that no one wanted him
Um.....Foreman had very little trade value. How do u know they didn't try to trade him? He had shown NOTHING since he was drafted. Coming off an Achilles injury.
If Foreman showed NOTHING since he was drafted why in the name of Bobby Feeno did they not draft a RB and why did they let Alfred Blue go leaving them with no backup? They thought "nothing" was going to be their backup RB?
Little trade value = according to us, but then why did he get picked up right after by the Colts? Im just saying we should have kept him and traded for that other rb while "we had leverage". Getting rid of our back-up rb, shows that we needed one hence the potential 3rd round pick trade. All-in-all it's all a bunch of what ifs, im just disappointed that BOB gave up on Foreman after drafting him in the first place, just wasting Watson's time.
Just because they take a flyer on him off waivers, doesn't mean he had value in a trade. For the colts to get him, at least 24 teams passed on him in waivers.
