agree completely; totally. how much good will do they create by making their intentions public? so let me ask you: if say... after the draft, they came out and said that they tried their hardest, really they did, but no one was bitting and/or lowballing - how would you feel? maybe indepedent of sniffing out their plan?
They're doing the smart thing here, in my opinion. They know that Carr can be better. So, they aren't going to give him up for less. They can draft a QB, let him study behind Carr, play Carr with a strong running game that puts Carr in fewer 3rd and longs and makes him look a lot better, then they can move him for more value and bring in the developed QB.
Do they really know he can be better? What if Kubiak has really given up on him? What if the market for him is really this bad? Why does everyone still think Carr is this pro bowler in a bad situation. Maybe he really isn't
Ric, let me ask you an honest question. Le'ts see if I can phrase this right... If you're theory is correct, then the Texans must still really believe in Carr. After all, according to your theory they don't really have, nor have they ever had, any REAL intention of trading him. So if they still believe in him enough to not want to trade him, why would they drag his name through the mud, so to speak, in the media just to "acknowledge fans disappointment" as you say?
So, to summarize, the Texans have never had any intent to move Carr, but they make calculated statements at strategic times to make the casual fan think they're trying to move Carr, all for "damage control". Wow, look who's, to borrow a phrase, "making s*** up" now. I guess if you run a football website, it's OK to "make s*** up." Really, that's irresponsible, Ric. You are not in their heads and have no idea what they are thinking. You're projecting your view of things onto the mentalities of the Texans' upper management. How do you know they share your opinion? Frankly, you're calling them all liars with the whole "never intended to move Carr but let's pretend we are" schtick. And you're calling them liars based on a hypothesis of yours whose grounds are based upon facts that can clearly be interpreted in any number of ways. And, you're "making s*** up". Come on Ric, you're above that. Disclaimer to the above: I do think it's fine for you to post this hypothesis of yours, just pointing out the wonderful irony of it all. I don't agree with this particular hypothesis, but unlike other rants, I'm willing to admit that your hypothesis is certainly in the realm of possibility.
That's debatable because we don't know what (if anything) was offered for Carr. Who is to say it wasn't a 6th round pick in 2015? If you're the Texans, do you do that trade? Just to get rid of Carr? That's a silly example, but you get my point. We don't know what was offered. Who's to say that's not happening as we speak? I'm not saying I agree with how this is all being handled, I'm just saying that I believe that they ARE trying to handle it and that they ARE still open to moving Carr. BTW, did you end up getting any Police tickets?
i'll flip the question and send back your way: if their intention all along was to trade him, why did they drag his name through the mud? frankly, i don't think really consider saying he's been inconsistent and needs to get better is dragging his name through the mud. not only did kubiak say this often throughout the year, but i think at this point, even david carr would agree with this assessment. however, saying those things if your intention is to trade him is very irresponsible, especially if his market value is shaky to begin with. there is NO BENEFIT - to anyone in the NFL - by publically calling him out and then publically confirming interest in him. it makes no logical sense.
I think Carr has value around the league (the whole he never had a chance in Houston argument), it's just that teams aren't willing to give up draft picks (especially high draft picks) if they feel like they can get "something for nothing" so to speak. It's the same reason why when teams announce that a player can seek a trade that no good offers come for that player. They know that they team will eventually cut him outright so they don't risk giving up an asset to get that player when they know they can try and sign him after the team cuts him.
1. i doubt it's anything different than moving back a round or 2 in this upcoming draft. i don't think you let that stop you from making a change at the QB position if you feel a change is necessary; 2. i agree...i said in my original post it might still be happening 3. nope...no Police tickets. i'm cool with it.
uhm... i'm not really sure where to begin. i guess we should start with making sure you're ok; that you didn't pull anything making this kind of a stretch. btw, what's it been? two months? there's a foundation of factual occurences governing my hypothesis, msn: here's what actually happened; the events would seem to counteract one another; why is that? it's light years from, "i want carr gone; i will now make up reasons to get rid of him. oh, i know - i bet players hate playing with him and his presence will drive them and future prospects away." a notion, i might add, that has been repeatedly blown to smithereens. players - offensive players; good ones, in fact - continue to come here and/or sign extensions to stay here.
Facts that (as I've already said), can "clearly be interpreted in any number of ways." And the "why" is fine. I disagree with your take on the why, surely you admit there are other possibilities. Funny, that's light years away from what I said. But, that's something you do, isn't it? Misrepresent what people said. By the way, it's not nearly the "stretch" that you say it is, though I'm sure you'll never admit it. You're accusing the Texans management of lying, based upon facts that can be interpreted many different ways. Your hypothesis isn't beyond the realm of possibility, although I'm sure Smith and McNair would take exception. Additionally, you've superimposed your method of thinking and opinion onto their mindsets--the precise thing you accused me of (and therein lies the delicious irony). The truth is, you have no idea whether inquiries have been placed, incoming or outgoing; nor do you have any idea what Smith and McNair are thinking or have discussed among themselves. In other words, you're "making s*** up."
ok, msn, tell us what you said and what your point was. further, please expound on the trail you followed that led you to say whatever it is you said. the floor is yours... whoa - lying? really? lying? did i ever call them liars? i'm fairly certain i didn't. am i dubious? yes, i am. but do i think they're liars, a word that carries negative connotations and inferences? no, i do not. i believe they're trying to protect a billion dollar investment that depends on public support; using methods as old as old. no different from spinning draft interestes, trying to create a trade market for players, etc. - it's part of the landscape. i don't consider it "lying." here's the difference, msn (again): i've taken a trail of factual occurences and drawn a reasonable, albeit offbeat, conclusion. the moulds situation contained no trail of factual occurrences; no supporting evidence; no foundation for even existing. it was, in short, made up to support an agenda. i don't know, msn - are palentologists who observe a litnany of facts and draw what they feel is a reasonable conclusion about the existence of dinosaurs making **** up? same as, say, carl everett, who believes dinosaurs are a product of man trying to disprove the existence of god? they'd rate on the same scale of make believe? not that my hypothesis deserves a place among the work of scientists, but at least i'm not pulling an idea out of my ass with nothing to support it. if the difference between the two isn't obvious to you, then we essnetially have one of two course we can take from this point forward: continue going round and round, or agree to disagree. but from my perspective, we're not even in the same solar system here. this is a case of you unable to let something go that is bordering on two months old; iow, trying to jam a square peg into a round hole as a means to try and show me up.
No, you did something very similar (told you you'd deny it) and it was fun for me to point out. As you instructed me earlier, don't take it personal. Why is it so offbeat? Because you had to bend over backwards to get there! That conclusion is quite the stretch! They're so concerned about whiners on talk radio and Internet BBS's that they're lying--saying they tried to move DC when in reality they didn't!! Hysterical! Laugh out loud ridiculous!! And guess what: I took a "trail of factual occurrences" and didn't even draw a conclusion--just pointed out a reasonable possibility! And it is possible, though not likely. Let me point out a difference that you always ignore. Your statements are dogmatic, yet you attacked mine as if mine was. You said, "David was never going anywhere, ever, and here's why: (commence with spin/damage control line). I said, "I think we risk losing..." Do you see the conditional nature of that statement? Will you ever acknowledge that that was a casual, "I wonder if" statement and not a statement of fact? Please name the agenda. I wish I had nickel for everything you said I said that I didn't say. I'd buy us both season tickets! You have no more grounds for accusing the Texans of "damage control spin" (since you prefer that to calling it what it is (lying)) than I do of questioning what players want to play with David Carr. You're going to disagree with that statement, and I'm going to respect your opinion (really). Re: 2 months old, I brought it up again because it was so delicious that you were (indeed, whether you agree or not) making s*** up. Especially concerning the venom with which you jumped all over me. Awesome. I mean, really--I was "irresponsible" for wondering if a player would want to stay after his contract is up, and you're not "irresponsible" for telling everyone that the Texans make false public statements. Holy crap, Ric, that's incredibly rich. I'm sorry I dredged it up, but it was too unreal to pass by. Wow. Since the similarity of the two isn't obvious to you, let's do "agree to disagree", because for the most part I enjoy your commentary on the Texans and agree with it as well. Carry on.
They don't know if he can be better but they know they can make him look better. You get a high powered running game that dominates the line of scrimmage and then the only time he throws is little dump offs or stuff off play action that comes wide open because of the defensive focus on the run. You instruct Carr that he has to get rid of the ball within a certain time frame, 2 seconds or whatever, and you keep the passing routes short and quick, using a lot of two tight end sets, etc. etc. They can make him look better by not putting him in positions that require him to make decisions or give him a lot of options to sift through. Then maybe he throws for a couple thousand yards with a very good TD/INT ratio and some team looking for a QB sees a 6 year vet with efficient stats and they are willing to upchuck a second rounder. Smith and Kubes know this team ain't going to the Super Bowl next season. They realize that the fans will be happy with a couple games improvement and a good defense and good running game next season. The other option they have is to let Sage start the season and see where they stand at mid-season, which will probably be out of the playoff chase. Then they can either bring in Carr for the final games or so. They could either use the excuse that Sage has a full blown injury or else he has been dinged up or they could use the excuse that Sage isn't giving them enough and they want to try David. They then bring in David to start the last half of the season and pump his stats up, once again simplifying the offense with quick hitters, short drops, limited reads, and a huge dose of the running game, even when we are behind in games. The ole "lipstick the pig" theory here. And if they can accomplish this and still improve their record a couple games, well then, everybody's a winner. They can then look to trade Carr next off season.
