Kaepernick

[bikerack]

Like it or not, Rick Smith was on the phone with the agent for Kaepernick around 5:15 this evening. He was asking about whether the comments from McNair would prevent him from coming in for a tryout or potentially sign. BOB thinks they can use pretty much the same offense that Watson was running if Kaepernick is in playing shape. Going to get interesting. Stay tuned...

[barrett]

I'm not a fan of him as a player but it'd be a great move in a lost season. It instantly erases any ill will from McNair's comment. That's bigger than anything else we could accomplish in this lost season.

[chuck]

Apparently the owner gave his OK to a workout. Kaep is the best fit for the offense assuming he can still play. Maybe he can't, who knows. If he can, though, signing him would be a win win win for all sides. Plus, the local idiots would lose their minds and that would be a nice bonus for me, give me some small reason to keep watching.

[HPF Bob]

Off the field, it would be "Michael Sam, part 5". The media would be on an orgy of political questions (they'll forget he called for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment roughly a year ago). His girlfriend will come along spouting all her Hate Whitey crap.

If you sign him and don't play him, it will be because or racism. If you do play him, the second you bench him it will be because of racism. If you don't re-sign him and start him next year, it will be because of racism.

Regardless the validity of any of his comments or how nice he may be once you understand him, the hangers-on will concoct a racist conspiracy behind every move and won't STFU.

On the field, it makes perfect sense. Off it, it make about as much sense as a Maxine Waters press conference.

[barrett]

Off the field, it would be "Michael Sam, part 5". The media would be on an orgy of political questions (they'll forget he called for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment roughly a year ago). His girlfriend will come along spouting all her Hate Whitey crap.

If you sign him and don't play him, it will be because or racism. If you do play him, the second you bench him it will be because of racism. If you don't re-sign him and start him next year, it will be because of racism.

Regardless the validity of any of his comments or how nice he may be once you understand him, the hangers-on will concoct a racist conspiracy behind every move and won't STFU.

On the field, it makes perfect sense. Off it, it make about as much sense as a Maxine Waters press conference.

Chuck was saying about locals freaking out...

Bob, the conspiracy theories you've created don't even make sense. If you sign a guy because your star BLACK QB is injured, you will have no issues when you let him go next year. San Francisco didn't even catch flak for moving on from him to Brian Hoyer. The NFL as a whole gets attacked for him not playing but the only teams I've seen called out are teams like the Dolphins who decided plan C Matt Moore was a better option.

As for media questions, yes, if you sign him you run the risk of the media distractions taking away from what was already a lost 3-4 season and is now destined for 5-11 territory.

[bikerack]

Kaep still in play but less likely....especially with TJ Yates coming in. Except the QB group to be a revolving door for a while.

[Joshua]

Barrett,

Didn't Kaep's girlfriend publicly equate Baltimore's owner and Ray Lewis as a slave owner and a house slave while they were considering signing him? What was the logic behind that? Expecting all of the players in this to behave perfectly rational and logical is a conspiracy theory in its own right. Right or wrong, Kaep would be a circus and all sorts of outlandish things will be said no matter how it plays out.

[nunusguy]

Barrett,

Didn't Kaep's girlfriend publicly equate Baltimore's owner and Ray Lewis as a slave owner and a house slave while they were considering signing him? What was the logic behind that? Expecting all of the players in this to behave perfectly rational and logical is a conspiracy theory in its own right. Right or wrong, Kaep would be a circus and all sorts of outlandish things will be said no matter how it plays out.

So we could expect her to call the owner here and Rick Smith the same as the guys in Baltimore so no big deal. On the subject of kneeling I'm sympathetic and recognize that as their right but it surely is and will continue to be counterproductive for the players, all of the players.
But I agree with Barrett, why not the season is already a lost cause now with Watsons injury and signing Kaep would atleast be a way to redemption for the owner re his stupid remark.

[chuck]

I'll just add quickly that the 'journalist' who reported that McNeck had OK'd a workout was 'joking,' so we can all forget about Kaep and go back to posting on Infowars. See you guys over there.

[barrett]

Barrett,

Didn't Kaep's girlfriend publicly equate Baltimore's owner and Ray Lewis as a slave owner and a house slave while they were considering signing him? What was the logic behind that? Expecting all of the players in this to behave perfectly rational and logical is a conspiracy theory in its own right. Right or wrong, Kaep would be a circus and all sorts of outlandish things will be said no matter how it plays out.
Why would I care about Kaep's GF? I am perfectly capable of ignoring him if I choose, and I wouldn't even know how to hear his GF's rambling thoughts.

[Joshua]

So we could expect her to call the owner here and Rick Smith the same as the guys in Baltimore so no big deal. On the subject of kneeling I'm sympathetic and recognize that as their right but it surely is and will continue to be counterproductive for the players, all of the players.
But I agree with Barrett, why not the season is already a lost cause now with Watsons injury and signing Kaep would atleast be a way to redemption for the owner re his stupid remark.

Easy for you to say. Do you own a company? If you do, would you hire someone who will very publicly call you a racist at the first opportunity? Seriously, who in their right mind volunteers for that? And for what, to go 7-9 instead of 5-11? The season is lost with or without Kaep.

As for rehabilitating McNair, let's do our own little science fair project right here. Do you think Chuck will quit calling McNair a neck and admit he was wrong if McNair signs Kaep? I'm sure Chuck will provide the answer but I'm not optimistic.

[Joshua]

Why would I care about Kaep's GF? I am perfectly capable of ignoring him if I choose, and I wouldn't even know how to hear his GF's rambling thoughts.

I was referring to your suggestion that everyone in this ongoing drama will behave logically and rationally. I used her past comments as evidence that this is highly unlikely.

[chuck]

My biggest problem with the owner is not that he gives tons of money to people and causes that embrace, cultivate and disseminate bigotry. He does, of course, but so do lots of other billionaires.

My biggest problem with him - and it's one that I identified many years ago and I have seen nothing to make me change my view, quite the opposite, in fact - is that he is not principally concerned with winning. I understand that his outlook may be born of a series of rational business decisions, but as a fan, I don't really care what his motivations are if he is not doing anything he reasonably can to win. Which he is not. If the team were to work out Kaepernick, that would signal to me that the team wants to win more than they want to punish a fellow whose peaceful protest they deliberately misrepresent. But they don't, and they won't.

And unless you think it's just looney old chuck ranting again, do a quick search on the word Kaepernick and you'll find countless articles written by a diverse group of people that largely do that for a living that believe that there is no football reason for the Texans not to look seriously at Kaepernick.

We all know what the reason is. But yes, if they did work him out or god forbid sign him, I would have no option but to re-evaluate my view regarding the owner's priorities. But they won't.

[Joshua]

My biggest problem with the owner is not that he gives tons of money to people and causes that embrace, cultivate and disseminate bigotry. He does, of course, but so do lots of other billionaires.

My biggest problem with him - and it's one that I identified many years ago and I have seen nothing to make me change my view, quite the opposite, in fact - is that he is not principally concerned with winning. I understand that his outlook may be born of a series of rational business decisions, but as a fan, I don't really care what his motivations are if he is not doing anything he reasonably can to win. Which he is not. If the team were to work out Kaepernick, that would signal to me that the team wants to win more than they want to punish a fellow whose peaceful protest they deliberately misrepresent. But they don't, and they won't.

And unless you think it's just looney old chuck ranting again, do a quick search on the word Kaepernick and you'll find countless articles written by a diverse group of people that largely do that for a living that believe that there is no football reason for the Texans not to look seriously at Kaepernick.

We all know what the reason is. But yes, if they did work him out or god forbid sign him, I would have no option but to re-evaluate my view regarding the owner's priorities. But they won't.

1) Which causes? I'm honestly curious.

2) if you're main complaint is lack of winning, why do you constantly call him a neck and insinuate or sometimes flat out call him a racist. Shouldn't you just call him a loser? Why do you constantly talk in racially inflammatory terms if simply losing is your true gripe?

3) he runs a business. It would be malpractice to not consider how Kaep would impact the business. And while Kaep might be a marginal improvement over who we currently have, it's not like we become a winner with him (Didn't he lose every game he started last year?). The question McNair has to answer is whether it's worth potentially alienating a nontrivial portion of his fan base/customers (and any personal risk he runs in being branded a racist when things inevitably sour) to bring in a guy that might win an extra game or 2. Put differently, in order to gain your approval, McNair must bear any cost whatsoever (both personal and professional) for an extra game or so?

[nunusguy]

Easy for you to say. Do you own a company? If you do, would you hire someone who will very publicly call you a racist at the first opportunity? Seriously, who in their right mind volunteers for that? And for what, to go 7-9 instead of 5-11? The season is lost with or without Kaep.

As for rehabilitating McNair, let's do our own little science fair project right here. Do you think Chuck will quit calling McNair a neck and admit he was wrong if McNair signs Kaep? I'm sure Chuck will provide the answer but I'm not optimistic.
McNair's Houston Texans is not the typical Mom&POP small business op but rather a very high-profile American sports franchise where PR is an important element to success and while the Texans' owner may be a steller numbers guy he is
stunningly uninformed an incompetent in PR for an NFL owner. He's the one who put himself in the situation he's now in and if he's interested in attracting, oh say, a potential franchise left Tackle in FA to protect his franchise QB he might want to take advantage of an opportunity to rid himself of the trrrible racist reputation he has with the rank & file of the NFLs players. And BTW I will always be grateful to Bob McNair for bringing the NFL back to Houston.
As far as to what the Chuckster would or wouldn't do I have no idea because he's person of great mystery to me, a man of many talents who travels in strange and intriguing ways.

[barrett]

I was referring to your suggestion that everyone in this ongoing drama will behave logically and rationally. I used her past comments as evidence that this is highly unlikely.

I never meant to suggest anything like that. I simply said in this context you could get rid of Kaep no problem. As I pointed out, SF got rid of him without trouble even without a better option or a black replacement. We could kick him to the curb in 10 games and never look back.

[barrett]

1) Which causes? I'm honestly curious.

2) if you're main complaint is lack of winning, why do you constantly call him a neck and insinuate or sometimes flat out call him a racist. Shouldn't you just call him a loser? Why do you constantly talk in racially inflammatory terms if simply losing is your true gripe?

3) he runs a business. It would be malpractice to not consider how Kaep would impact the business. And while Kaep might be a marginal improvement over who we currently have, it's not like we become a winner with him (Didn't he lose every game he started last year?). The question McNair has to answer is whether it's worth potentially alienating a nontrivial portion of his fan base/customers (and any personal risk he runs in being branded a racist when things inevitably sour) to bring in a guy that might win an extra game or 2. Put differently, in order to gain your approval, McNair must bear any cost whatsoever (both personal and professional) for an extra game or so?

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group. McNair's a 'Neck' because he's southern and white, while Rick Smith is an Uncle Tom because he's black and doesn't hold the opinions that Chuck thinks black people should hold.

And your #3 is blown way out of proportion. The fans who will walk over Kaep will walk whether he plays for Houston or not. They will walk whether people stand for the anthem or not. They are hypocrites and liars. They complained about the anthem and then they booed just as loudly when the kneeling was before the anthem and then they stood for the anthem.

[Joshua]

I never meant to suggest anything like that. I simply said in this context you could get rid of Kaep no problem. As I pointed out, SF got rid of him without trouble even without a better option or a black replacement. We could kick him to the curb in 10 games and never look back.

You may be right but I don't think that's a given. Kaep has become a cause de jour.

[Joshua]

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group. McNair's a 'Neck' because he's southern and white, while Rick Smith is an Uncle Tom because he's black and doesn't hold the opinions that Chuck thinks black people should hold.

And your #3 is blown way out of proportion. The fans who will walk over Kaep will walk whether he plays for Houston or not. They will walk whether people stand for the anthem or not. They are hypocrites and liars. They complained about the anthem and then they booed just as loudly when the kneeling was before the anthem and then they stood for the anthem.

What is truly ironic is McNair's greatest failing as it relates to winning is his affection and loyalty to Smith. So, he's branded a racist for sticking with an African American.

And I may be overreacting, but the owners seem extremely concerned by the impact on their business and I presume they have better data than me.

[Joshua]

McNair's Houston Texans is not the typical Mom&POP small business op but rather a very high-profile American sports franchise where PR is an important element to success and while the Texans' owner may be a steller numbers guy he is
stunningly uninformed an incompetent in PR for an NFL owner. He's the one who put himself in the situation he's now in and if he's interested in attracting, oh say, a potential franchise left Tackle in FA to protect his franchise QB he might want to take advantage of an opportunity to rid himself of the trrrible racist reputation he has with the rank & file of the NFLs players. And BTW I will always be grateful to Bob McNair for bringing the NFL back to Houston.
As far as to what the Chuckster would or wouldn't do I have no idea because he's person of great mystery to me, a man of many talents who travels in strange and intriguing ways.

You raise an interesting question as to how McNair can help his image with the players. Don't know the answer to that. Maybe signing Kaep would help. Maybe not. I still can't quite wrap my head around the idea that an extremely common expression that I think most have heard/said multiple times in their life (and generally just means that the bosses, not the employees, should run the show) was taken as a literal comparison to inmates.

[chuck]

I still can't quite wrap my head around the idea that an extremely common expression that I think most have heard/said multiple times in their life (and generally just means that the bosses, not the employees, should run the show) was taken as a literal comparison to inmates.

I've never known you to be anything other than a thoughtful poster but this am radio take is mind boggling in its idiocy.

[chuck]

To answer #2 it's because Chuck is consumed with prejudice. He likes to evaluate groups based on caricatures of the group.

Misanthropy rather than prejudice. And you have the second bit backwards. I carefully evaluate and then, largely to amuse myself, create flamboyant caricatures. I could be more measured in my commentary I suppose but at the end of the day I'm arguing about sports with rednecks over the internet. This is not exactly a scholarly journal.

[Joshua]

I've never known you to be anything other than a thoughtful poster but this am radio take is mind boggling in its idiocy.

Surely you've heard the phrase "inmates running the asylum" in your life. What message did you think they were trying to convey? Did you think the person saying this was actually suggesting people are clinically insane?

I think it is abundantly evident that the point McNair was trying to make was that the success of their business, for good or bad, will be determined by the owners, not backup QBs.

[nunusguy]

Surely you've heard the phrase "inmates running the asylum" in your life. What message did you think they were trying to convey? Did you think the person saying this was actually suggesting people are clinically insane?

I think it is abundantly evident that the point McNair was trying to make was that the success of their business, for good or bad, will be determined by the owners, not backup QBs.

But of course McNair did not mean the expression in a literal sense. It's just that right or wrong many of the players, especially some of the black players, are so hypersensitive about it all these days.

[Joshua]

But of course McNair did not mean the expression in a literal sense. It's just that right or wrong many of the players, especially some of the black players, are so hypersensitive about it all these days.

You're correct. But that doesn't mean I have to go along with it and reward it. I don't want to live in a world where the rules are made by those who claim/pretend to be the most offended. It's a terrible incentive structure and, dare I say, would only result in the inmates running the asylum. Literally.

[chuck]

Christ, you necks are fking hopeless.

[Big Texas]

I will throw in my two cents for whatever its worth.

Racism has been prevalent for a very long time. However, over the last 10-20 years those most racist had began to retreat to mere behind closed doors conversation. This confused many people (mostly white people). The perception was that racism was dying off. When in reality it was just no longer acceptable to be said out in public.

Whether you believe it or not. Trump opened some doors that should have remained closed. He began to make generalizations about groups of people in very unprofessional ways. I do not say this to start a political debate. (I am not interested in that at all). I am only pointing out that he made stereotypes the new norm.

The more he tweets the more people become comfortable with saying "whatever they feel" without regard for common decency.

Then people began making statements like "stop being so sensitive" "stop being so butt hurt" which only heightened tensions. There can be no compromise when professionalism, common decency, and respect are no longer priorities.

Just because you CAN say something does not mean you SHOULD.

McNair is 80 years old. Which means he was raised during a time where racism was the norm. So it is not above the scope of reality that he could still have some racist views. And then again he could not be racist. Whatever the case, no one knows for sure. So stop taking up for him when you don't know. Maybe you should just say "I hope he did not mean it that way".

Just my two cents. Intelligent debate is welcomed. However, emotional reactions will be met with silence.

[Joshua]

I will throw in my two cents for whatever its worth.

Racism has been prevalent for a very long time. However, over the last 10-20 years those most racist had began to retreat to mere behind closed doors conversation. This confused many people (mostly white people). The perception was that racism was dying off. When in reality it was just no longer acceptable to be said out in public.

Whether you believe it or not. Trump opened some doors that should have remained closed. He began to make generalizations about groups of people in very unprofessional ways. I do not say this to start a political debate. (I am not interested in that at all). I am only pointing out that he made stereotypes the new norm.

The more he tweets the more people become comfortable with saying "whatever they feel" without regard for common decency.

Then people began making statements like "stop being so sensitive" "stop being so butt hurt" which only heightened tensions. There can be no compromise when professionalism, common decency, and respect are no longer priorities.

Just because you CAN say something does not mean you SHOULD.

McNair is 80 years old. Which means he was raised during a time where racism was the norm. So it is not above the scope of reality that he could still have some racist views. And then again he could not be racist. Whatever the case, no one knows for sure. So stop taking up for him when you don't know. Maybe you should just say "I hope he did not mean it that way".

Just my two cents. Intelligent debate is welcomed. However, emotional reactions will be met with silence.

If no one knows, how about stop calling him a racist? I find it odd that you think the side that gives him the benefit of the doubt and doesn't assume the worst and brand him a racist is the one to be chastised.

[Big Texas]

If no one knows, how about stop calling him a racist? I find it odd that you think the side that gives him the benefit of the doubt and doesn't assume the worst and brand him a racist is the one to be chastised.

What chastisement are you referring to?

I am only suggesting that people not be so quick to jump on a side period. Either for or against. The only thing that is known for certain is what he said. The fact that he apologized for it is also an acknowledgement of SOME form of wrong doing. Even if it is only the fact that he spoke unprofessionally in what was supposed to be a professional meeting.

I am not chastising anyone. I am not in a position to do that. I am only offering my opinion.

[barrett]

If he said inmates running the asylum the comment never makes the article.

Instead he altered a common saying to make it about prisons and inmates. That isn't some conspiracy to think the worst of McNair, that is him screwing up and earning any scorn.

[barrett]

What is truly ironic is McNair's greatest failing as it relates to winning is his affection and loyalty to Smith. So, he's branded a racist for sticking with an African American.

And I may be overreacting, but the owners seem extremely concerned by the impact on their business and I presume they have better data than me.

The first half is you being extremely disingenuous. You know him being loyal to Smith has nothing to do with him being called a racist. When people purposely twist words and put out false arguments like this it accomplishes nothing.

Regarding the 2nd part, the protests have clearly had a negative affect on business, I am not saying otherwise. I am saying that the impact has already happened. Look at this story for the Saints. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/03/new-orleans-saints-respond-military-veteran-refuses-award . The Saints protested during the anthem one time and stopped. Since then they have stood for the anthem every time. But because it happened once they lost this fan and he has picked a public fight with them. The damage of the anthem has happened and those fans aren't being won back by anything short of drastic measures like cutting guys who protest. So signing Kaepernick will inflame the minority of fans who have already walked, it will be ignored by the fans who ignore everything already, and it will win over the 50% of players who are angry at Texans ownership right now.

[Keith]

This is not exactly a scholarly journal.

Et tu, Brute?

[Arky]

Well, sounds like the Texans have elected to go with McGloin and Yates so it seems Kaepernick is not a possibility unless there is another injury. There's another thread for Bob McNair.

-----------------------------------------------

Not to derail but something I find similar is the Breast Cancer Awareness deal. The NFL readily adopted this - every year we get a week or month of pink clothing on the football field. After several years of this, I think most of us are aware of breast cancer and most of us know where to go if we desire to donate to the pink ribbon (and it is a worthy cause). I'm just not quite sure why the NFL continues to do this..... Is the advertising a tax write-off for the NFL? Maybe if they continue with this, they could just drop the "Awareness" part - call it Breast Cancer Research (or something) - cause I don't know about you, but I'm plenty aware of the condition.....

[HPF Bob]

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.

Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?

He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.

Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.

It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".

The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.

Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.

[barrett]

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.

Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?

He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.

Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.

It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".

The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.

Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.

I agree 100% Bob. I don't think George W. Bush was a perfect president but he gave an amazing quote last year at the Dallas Police Officers' Memorial. He said that...

Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

This is worst in arguments where people think painting the other side worse makes their side stronger. So we end up with wild accusations as the norm.

The only thing I'll add to your other comments is that McNair's players/employees were not really protesting during the Anthem. They held arms once but nobody was kneeling. Texans ratings weren't down and Texans seats were being filled. Deshaun Watson was a guarantee of fan interest for another decade. Everything was great in Houston and the owner's bottom line wasn't threatened. We weren't the 49ers with 2 years of ongoing protests. We weren't the Jaguars standing for God save the queen and kneeling for the anthem. McNair had always wanted choir boys on his team and those choir boys had mostly behaved like choir boys. JJ Watt was still helping the franchise bathe in the glow of $40 million raised for hurricane relief. And into that positive situation McNair decided that after years of being opinionless with his NFL peers, he wanted to choose now to assert himself with an all-time boneheaded comment.

So are guys who stood in respect for the anthem feel betrayed by an owner they previously had no complaints about. Our only malcontent with no business sense (Duane Brown) gets to grind his axe. We make a smart football trade that still must alienate some players on the team. And for every militant player in the league who thinks their must be racist owners, we announce that ours is the one they know about.

[Big Texas]

I agree 100% with the quote you mentioned.

I was always of the belief that one could respectfully "agree to disagree". It is not written anywhere that everyone must agree on everything.

Believe what you want about the protests. That's your right and your opinion. However, this day and age mature debate has become childish mudslinging. Rather than me prove my point I'm going to try and destroy the image of the person.

If the media wasn't so hell bent on sensationalism these outlandish and childish comments wouldn't even get off the ground. But every dumb comment is aired and re-aired over and over again.

Just a thought...would this argument be happening if the media just showed the person singing the anthem instead of searching for drama?

With all that said...misery loves company. When people are upset about something they want everyone else to be upset about it too. Which is our current situation.

[chuck]

The drumbeat for the team to look to Kaepernick is becoming ever more insistent, ever louder, from knowledgeable sources local and national. I have seen no one argue that Kaepernick to the Texans does not make football sense.

So as the calls to respond to football logic become louder, I suppose we'll see if ownership responds to its baser, ugly instincts (and to the reactionary instincts it wrongly supposes are held by the majority of its fan base) or if it responds to its imperative to field the best possible team.

I already know what it will do, and so do you. They would rather lose than put out idiot, racist fans.

I of course recognized a variant of that a decade ago or more.

In this case it's especially entertaining because Uncle Rick gave away all their draft picks cleaning up his own mess so there is literally no reason to tank.

And I can't wait for this collusion case to come to trial. In some respects it'll be more fun than all the Trumpspunkers in their orange jumpsuits.

[bikerack]

From my friend...

BOB wants Kaep. Up to management to make It happen. Have talked with his agent repeatedly. Big hurdles still to clear. Coach is so frustrated right now and has no faith in Savage. Neither does the locker room. Signing Kaep would probably bring them back together.

[chuck]

From my friend...

BOB wants Kaep. Up to management to make It happen. Have talked with his agent repeatedly. Big hurdles still to clear. Coach is so frustrated right now and has no faith in Savage. Neither does the locker room. Signing Kaep would probably bring them back together.

Thanks as always for the information. What are the hurdles? Who is placing them?

[barrett]

Thanks as always for the information. What are the hurdles? Who is placing them?

I bet they're trying to muzzle him with the contract. Or at the least limit him to kneeling outside of the anthem.

[bikerack]

Thanks as always for the information. What are the hurdles? Who is placing them?

This is me talking (not my friend)....I am sure the fact that McNair's phone/email records were deposed by Kaep's lawsuit might have something to do with it. Does McNair need to be removed from the request before he is brought in for a workout? Would be a pretty weird situation to be in a legal situation regarding no one signing him with the guy that signed him.

[bikerack]

This IS from my friend....

After they cut up the tape yesterday, the staff saw just how bad Savage performed. Rumblings that he may not start this week. Wide open receivers missed constantly because he was locking on to Hopkins on almost every play. Direct quote from a coach "The game shouldn't have even been close if he sees them."

[chuck]

I was wondering if signing Kaep would help McNair in the collusion case. I mean, how the hell can he collude to keep a guy out of the league that he's just signed? If signing Kaep effectively gets McNair a get out of jail free card AND it makes football sense, well, McNair would really, really have to want to sit with the cool kids at lunch not to move on it.

[HPF Bob]

At this point, Kaep is likely rustier than a '55 Chevy at the bottom of a lake. If rushed into action, he'll just embarrass himself.

[chuck]

... he'll just embarrass himself.

Great point. Better stick with Savage, then.

[bikerack]

well - the Texans signed Josh Johnson. I don't have the back story yet from my friend but either Kaep said no way I am playing for Houston or McNair said no way we are signing Kaep.

[chuck]

At this point, Kaep is likely rustier than a '55 Chevy at the bottom of a lake.

Great point. So let's sign a guy who hasn't attempted a pass since 2011.

[Warren]

I was wondering if signing Kaep would help McNair in the collusion case. I mean, how the hell can he collude to keep a guy out of the league that he's just signed? If signing Kaep effectively gets McNair a get out of jail free card AND it makes football sense, well, McNair would really, really have to want to sit with the cool kids at lunch not to move on it.It couldn't hurt. The owners would say exactly that. Kaepernick's lawyers would say signing him now doesn't mean that there wasn't collusion up to this point, and that the Texans only signed him to try to help their case (which McNair would rebut with the game film of Savage against the Colts). The Texans trying to condition his signing on letting McNair out would not be good, as Kaepernick's attorneys would claim that was just a guy who had been caught red handed trying to cut a deal.

[Warren]

I bet they're trying to muzzle him with the contract. Or at the least limit him to kneeling outside of the anthem.
I don’t think that was the case. They could cut him for any reason so there’s no need to try to put something like that in his contract. If they wanted to be able to get his signing bonus back (if he would get a signing bonus at all), the CBA doesn’t allow forfeiture of his signing bonus for something like that. They could try to un-guarantee his remaining salary (assuming it is otherwise guaranteed) but if that’s what they want to do they should just not guarantee it at all. And while it doesn't prove collusion Kapernick's attorneys would have a field day with it.

[barrett]

I don’t think that was the case. They could cut him for any reason so there’s no need to try to put something like that in his contract. If they wanted to be able to get his signing bonus back (if he would get a signing bonus at all), the CBA doesn’t allow forfeiture of his signing bonus for something like that. They could try to un-guarantee his remaining salary (assuming it is otherwise guaranteed) but if that’s what they want to do they should just not guarantee it at all. And while it doesn't prove collusion Kapernick's attorneys would have a field day with it.

I meant more just both sides making expectations clear before signing. Like the front office saying we'll sign you if you agree to not kneel during the anthem.

He isn't getting any real money from anyone so I didn't mean anything about that. His only hope is to play for the minimum and hope to play well enough to get paid next year.

[nunusguy]

well - the Texans signed Josh Johnson. I don't have the back story yet from my friend but either Kaep said no way I am playing for Houston or McNair said no way we are signing Kaep.

I heard somewhwer that McNair thought he was signing Kaep because McNair said this Johnson guy looks like Kaep.
Will this addition to the team make the Chuckster happy, he's been kinda cranky lately, noticed that ? He gets that way around Christmas it seems.

[HPF Bob]

Great point. So let's sign a guy who hasn't attempted a pass since 2011.

Johnson was a late cut of the Giants *this year* so he's been active more recently than Kaep and apparently has the proper pigmentation to be seen backing up Watson.

Other than that, I have no clue how Smith pulled this guy's name out of the dumpster.

At this point, I wouldn't mind if the Texans signed Barack Obama to QB the club. Yes, he throws like a girl and would rather be playing golf, but it would be cool to watch BO run for his life behind our wretched o-line.

[chuck]

At this point, I wouldn't mind if the Texans signed Barack Obama to QB the club. Yes, he throws like a girl and would rather be playing golf, but it would be cool to watch BO run for his life behind our wretched o-line.

The good news is he's shown himself to be quite cool under pressure. The bad news is he's left handed, so no-go, Buford, sorry about that.

[WMH]

With Kaep suing the league, I would doubt he will play again. Which one of those old grouchy billionaires would want to sign a backup distraction that is suing his bread and butter?

The illusion of Kaep is much more enticing than the actual player. The media keeps beating the drum as it is click bait. Kaep likely doesn't want to play, as he would likely fail, and all the hype is flushed down the toilet, as is his "movement."

I would much rather see them overpay to bring Tyrod in as a backup next season.

[barrett]

With Kaep suing the league, I would doubt he will play again. Which one of those old grouchy billionaires would want to sign a backup distraction that is suing his bread and butter?

The illusion of Kaep is much more enticing than the actual player. The media keeps beating the drum as it is click bait. Kaep likely doesn't want to play, as he would likely fail, and all the hype is flushed down the toilet, as is his "movement."

I would much rather see them overpay to bring Tyrod in as a backup next season.

Jerry Jones is suing the league. The league is dying a slow death by a thousand cuts (or blows to the head if you prefer). Kaep is small time on the list of concerns for the NFL. They removed him from the league and it did nothing to stem the tide of protests or the response to those protests.

As for whether Kaep on this team makes sense, nothing you said addresses that. Obviously I'd rather have Tyrod Taylor as a backup in 9 months. I didn't see a single person anywhere suggest employing Kaep in 2018. Kaep to the Texans is simply a question of whether you'd rather see Savage, Weeden, Yates, or Kaepernick lead Hopkins into vicious hits while running around in a disintegrating pocket.

[Nconroe]

Minor detail, Brandon Weeden is backup QB for Tennessee now.

If we are now in the get ready for draft and 2018 mode, i'd cut savage, ? On Yates?, rather try out a few available mobil QBs, maybe one will be a good fit to backup QB.

Not sure at all why Savage still here, or still starting, but i guess letting him start or stay helps us get higher draft picks in rounds we draft in.