it seems to be he may need more tact. i don't complain about that with morey and i won't about smith. my biggest problem with smith is his drafting.
well that may be the case. He was certainly upfront and honest with Green...and i don't think that was a bad thing by any means.
i can't find anything about smith i particularly like, honestly. except that his kid plays in my kids' little league, and he's always been gracious out at the field. but if you ask me what rick smith does well, i'm not sure i could make a list.
you listed potential reasons, yes. but honestly, i've had enough of excuses for this organization's shortcomings. every other franchise operates under the same rules.
rick smith works well with kubiak and he gets the players kubiak wants. if he was a more indepedant gm, i would be more critical. if he is fired for a gm with more responsibility and they keep kubiak, i would be fine with that. but he and kubiak are a team, and therefore all i can judge smith on is getting the deals signed with the players selected. he did over pay for antonio smith, that's more on him.
i don't disagree. i wish both were gone, honestly. but ultimately, standing alone as a gm, there ain't much rick smith can point to.
valid/reasonable reasons can be perceived as excuses. But you are right, people are sick of it and will just lump them all together as incompetence because they are disgruntled. Very understanable..although not always right.
Smith has been solid though so it's hard to get too upset with that deal. But, he is an example of what happens when you go after a top FA (i.e. you have to pay a premium).
texans have overcome alot...defense just seems to be the final frontier. There certain is valid criticism last year.
ok...and there are some teams that have screwed up more...i don't see the point of that statement other than just trying to get a last word in and/or further expressing how angry you are as a fan. We all understand, and can relate, but all this goes back to the perception of Rick and the list of examples you gave. Not in comparing what other teams have done in terms of success
and i say "a lot" in that the texans have built a great offense from shambles (outside of AJ), and have established a decent defensive front. Again, the major issue has been DB and defensive scheming (and some Offensive scheming from time to time as well)
they overcame the C&C Idiot Factory (thanks to Hillboy or Ric or whoever that was back in the day). That in itself qualifies as "a lot". :grin: I'll point out that at first blush it seems everything the Texans have had to overcome has been self-inflicted.
the issue becomes wins and playoff appearances. building in parts here or there is of little consequence if it doesn't amount to wins or playoff appearances, ultimately. teams have rebuilt and succeeded in the timeframe kubiak and smith have been employed here. the texans have not.
The Houston market size is irrelevant if the player/team aren’t receiving *national* exposure. Now, The Cat – be honest: Are the Redskins or Texans more likely to grab NBC/ESPN’s attention if accomplishments are roughly the same? We know the answer to this. We know the networks don’t look too terribly far from their own home base on the east coast. We *know* this. We have decades of overwhelming proof. Fair enough; but I guarantee you they’ve been exposed to the Redskins far more than they have the Texans. Because - just to clarify and correct myself – the “storied franchise” is what piques the network’s fancy. It’s a team with a long history of success and deep fandom. They *love* the Redskins. Ergo – these kids are seeing, hearing and reading a lot more about the Redskins than they are the Texans. They understand NBC is *the* marquee game of the week, absolutely. Only elite teams play on NBC. I promise you, they know that. It’s like arguing Sunday 12pm was the same as Monday 8pm 30 years ago. Yes, of course. So why aren’t the Lions, Cardinals, Rams, et al, able to throw money at top free agents and lure them to their mediocre teams? Washington is a premiere NFL destination. If good, you’re guaranteed tons of media coverage and exposure, more so than if Detroit or Arizona are good. You’re telling me Fitzgerald and/or Johnson wouldn’t bolt for DC in a heartbeat? (slaps forehead) The Cat, real quick – how many other 4-12 teams in ’09 got *three* primetime games last year? None. You’re trying to turn this around as if three is somehow a *low* number. Do you know how many prime time games the Colts got last year? Five. And one against the Redskins. So three for a team that had won 4, 8, 9 and 5 games in its previous 4 seasons is remarkable and speaks to how high a profile the Redskins have despite constant mediocrity. I’m not shifting - *it’s my entire point*; The Redskins offer something the Texans and Jaguars don’t have. Again, The Cat - *that’s my point*. The Texans and Jags are considered interchangeable among the networks. They’re not NBC-fodder. The Redskins, even when *terrible*, are. Wha? The Cat, if it was *only* about money, Bosh and James would have stayed where they were. But the NBA and NFL are different beasts. The NBA is a super-star driven league – they’ll follow James wherever he goes – case in point: Cleveland. The NFL, from a network standpoint, is driven by the teams. It’s why Dallas and Chicago and yes, Washington, rack up prime time games every year, regardless of their status. Look… I know you’ve been in locker rooms and respect your opinion but… I mean, why did Carlos Beltran bolt for a lesser contract from the Mets? Yes, money rules the day, and yes – Houston will trump Washington every day of the week - if they grossly overpay a player. BUT… on a more equal playing field – even given Houston has a better team – I’m telling you: the Redskins are a tip-top NFL organization and the Texans are an afterthought. We’ll see with Asomugha, assuming the Texans really do pursue him; my guess is that he’ll end up with a good team that generates national exposure. That is important to these guys. And while we’ll never know, my guess is that he’d go to Washington 10 times before he’d go to Houston if the money was roughly the same.
It's an irrelevant question, given that most folks think the Texans are much closer to contending than Washington. The whole conversation I'm having with you includes that context. Eh, I think what piques the network's fancy are splashes, which the Redskins aren't afraid to make. For example, Donovan McNabb's first start with a new team as the opener on SNF. I'll agree to disagree with you on this, I guess. I think you know that few people follow the NFL like I do, and in my eyes, MNF is on equal footing with SNF in terms of marquee. Pretty much everyone I've talked to looks at it the same way, too. Because those teams and owners don't have the money! http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/mo...iness-sports-football-valuations-10_land.html Revenues for the Lions, Cardinals and Rams are 27, 23 and 29, respectively. Revenues for the Texans are No. 5 in the NFL. Those teams, who aren't in the class of the Texans (money-wise), aren't luring in top free agents on a regular basis because they lack the money. If they did, yes, I think they could lure in top free agents with regularity. If Johnson were a free agent and offered the same money by the Texans and Redskins, I think he stays in Houston, no questions asked. No, it speaks to the fact that they made the highest-profile change (Donovan McNabb) at the game's highest-profile position. If you're willing to spend the money and make a splash, exposure comes with it. This year, without a high-profile addition, the Redskins are in primetime once - just one more than the Texans and two less than the Jaguars. The Texans also offer something the Redskins don't have, which is hope at being competitive. That's why TV appearances are roughly even, in spite of said prestige. In the context of our discussion, which is free agent decision-making, you should consider the whole perspective. Yes, Washington's really racked up the primetime games this year, with their ONE. As far as James, if it were *only* about money and exposure/prestige (your criteria), he would have signed with Chicago. The Bulls and Heat made identical offers. The Bulls have significantly more prestige, a much more marketable city, and a much more loyal fanbase. But he saw Miami as a unique opportunity to win based on Wade/Bosh - a better one than in Chicago - and that was his decision. First and foremost, it is about the money. But when the money is comparable, the next criteria for most of these guys is the chance to win immediately, because winning is the best way to get that exposure. Team prestige, and results from 15-20 years ago, are virtually irrelevant. Beltran's contract with the Mets was $119 million, which was far superior to the $105 million offered by the Astros. Yes, I understand the no state income tax argument - but in a world dominated by agents who are paid by commission, the bottom line, pre-tax figure (i.e., what he gets to tell the baseball world he "got") is going to win the day. I'll agree to disagree again, I guess, because I don't think there's a single player in the NFL today who looks at the Redskins as even a top 10 organization that they'd prefer to play for, all things being equal. (Assuming they don't have family ties or other external factors.) If the Texans pursue Asomugha, my guess is that he'll end up here if the Texans offer him the most money. If they don't, he'll go wherever they do, assuming said team is at least somewhat competitive.
To clarify, Ric, I think we're on the same path in terms of exposure having some impact. If money is close, there are other factors that go into it. (Though I think the money has to be really, really close for exposure to play a role, which you seem to disagree with.) Where we most prominently disagree is in where said exposure comes from. You seem to think it has to do with prestige, team history, etc. I think those factors can play a very minimal impact, but by and large, I think modern-day exposure is related to wins and losses. If you're a good team, like the Colts, you'll be all over ESPN in spite of being from a very small market and a city with limited NFL history. If you're a bad team, like the Redskins, you'll have one primetime game a season (2011), despite all your history. The exceptions for Washington? When they made moves like McNabb in 2010 and Haynesworth in 2009, giving fans hope. Again, we're back to winning. By and large, whether Houston signs Asomugha will come down to whether McNair/Smith make the top bid. If they do but it's close, the tiebreaker could be which team Asomugha sees being better with him on it. Nowhere even in the consideration will be what team he watched on Monday Night Football when he was four years old.
Uhm... The Cat - have you checked the standings lately? The Redskins and Texans finished with the same # of wins last year. A vast majority of fans and local pundits were outraged when the Texans didn't fire their coach and/or GM. Their defense was one of the worst ever fielded by an NFL team and their offense too often sputtered and stalled last year. The team is entering its 10th year still in search of a playoff appearance and/or second winning season. And they're a distant second in their own state, in terms of relevance, and might as well play their games in Barcelona as far as most of the football world is concerned. That's the Texans' perception beyond die-hard Texan fans. And, frankly, a lot of *Texan* fans have that perception. ESPN's schedule this year features Miami (7 wins last year) as its opener, then Denver (4) (what a scintillating opening night of crappiness), St. Louis (7), yep - Washington (6), Dallas (6), Detroit (6), Miami again, Minnesota (6), St. Louis again, Seattle (7) and SF (6). That is a ****astic group of teams (and doesn't even include the Texans!). Eleven teams that posted losing records last year. And three more games featuring 8-8 Jacksonville and Oakland. NBC? Four games featuring losers from last year and 3 of them are the Cowboys, who would get multiple prime time games if they went 0-16. If you and your friends don't think there's any discernible difference in the distribution of games between NBC and ESPN then, well, WADR, you and friends don't follow football close enough. That's an apples-to-bowling balls comparison. We're discussing free agents who don't have ties to a team - that greatly changes the dynamic. So why are the Texans blanked from prime time but the Redskins aren't? They had the same record last year. You claim the Texans are this known up-and-coming entity...... and yet, its Washington on MNF, not the Texans. (And, FYI - the Texans did land an NFLN game - but that's decidedly third-tier.) Again, both teams were 6-10 last year. The Texans are overhauling their defense in a major way, a defense that was historically bad, being overseen by a guy that lost a very talented team in Dallas. I'm telling you, to an outsider, that's a very easy conclusion to draw. And it looks like the league/networks agree. The hopefully competitive Texans fell from 3 to 1 prime time game this year - on NFL Network. They apparently don't share your optimism. I agree that money and winning trump most everything else; of course. I'm only suggesting that, those things being on somewhat equal footing, national exposure is then absolutely a factor. And that's something the Redskins can offer and the Texans cannot (assuming both are 6-10ish, which they currently both are. If they're both 10-6ish, the Redskins would get more prime time/national exposure, being they're an east coast team with a long, storied history as one of the NFL's premiere franchises). Albert Haynesworth disagrees. No, it's a terrible team. But... if they fix it and turn it around, even if the Texans enjoy similar success, the Redskins are going to get infinitely more run from the national media. Players know this. And so do you. That's *a* factor. You can't convince me otherwise. None of the guys want to play in NFL Siberia. And that's exactly what Houston is right now. If they're not good, no one gives a flip about 'em. That's not true of the Redskins.
