Texans performance after owner’s comments

[ManitowocDave 1]

Im concerned about the possible lack of effort by the Texans players in todays game. Keep reading how Nuke skipped practice and others considered it over McNairs comments.

 

My point is, those of us with Texans players in our lineups, do we go with other options or do we keep players like Watson and Nuke (hoping they turn their anger against McNair into great performances)?

 

What kind of fantasy productivity do you think we see today.

[jimaveli 119]

Play em. Seattle is a bigger problem than one shaky sentence out of their owners craw. But I think they might be okay even if they have to back into it via garbage time. Watson seems to be pretty solid at that even when he has bad real life games. Maybe hes watched best of Blake Bortles files or something.

[kilroy69 1,159]

I'm kinda worried about this too. Not just a lack of effort but I could see them openly tanking to teach him a lesson. Let's not act like that has not went through their heads.

[polecatt 471]

If they are the kind of players to let one sentence throw off their game, then they are soft to begin with and they probably wouldn't be where they are today.

We'll see how it goes.

[jimaveli 119]

Teams probably tank on each other and dead beat coaches more than we want to believe, but today may just be a case of getting beat down in Seattle by a team that can be amazing at home. I wouldnt start Watson over a solid qb option but Id pretty much roll with everyone else as I normally would.

[brotherbock 349]

If they are the type of human beings that let emotions affect them, they should probably be rounded up and sprayed with Agent Orange until they shrivel up and die.

[huskyhater75 242]

NICE one brotherbock, I like that. As far as Watson, I'm playing Carr over him today-so of course Watson will probably go off. Seattle's DB's are real good and Watson can run only so far, but on the other hand Seattle used to have a tough time against that Kaeperdick guy before he went bozo.

[Beyond Chaos 75]

Since Watson is my opponent's QB in 1/2 my leagues, I'm hoping they let this distraction gets the best of them this week.

[jgcrawfish 232]

It's a ridiculous concept anyway. McNair mis-used an old phrase "The inmates are running the asylum". All he meant was that the people shouldn't be in charge actually appear to be. For big tough guys they sure wear their feelings on their sleeves like poosays.

[brotherbock 349]

It's a ridiculous concept anyway. McNair mis-used an old phrase "The inmates are running the asylum". All he meant was that the people shouldn't be in charge actually appear to be. For big tough guys they sure wear their feelings on their sleeves like poosays.

 

Unlike the people who are getting upset that the players got upset? Or all the big tough fans getting upset about their anthem not being stood for?

 

I actually think it might be telling that he misused the phrase, turning it into one about convicts rather than possibly innocent asylum patients. And I'm not sure why people think that guys being physically big means they shouldn't care what people think of them.

[tanatastic 2,062]

Fuller has 11 catches on the year for 7 tds and is a freaking damn near high end WR1.

[brotherbock 349]

Fuller has 11 catches on the year for 7 tds and is a freaking damn near high end WR1.

 

He's maybe hurting my Hopkins a little bit...spread the love, Watson!

[kilroy69 1,159]

fuller as my wr3 is going to win my game this week.

[tanatastic 2,062]

 

He's maybe hurting my Hopkins a little bit...spread the love, Watson!

Nah no way, Hop is having a great season.

[brotherbock 349]

Nah no way, Hop is having a great season.

 

He is. And it's hard to talk about counterfactuals--what if and such. But maybe with a guy slightly less good than Fuller, those TDs go to Hopkins. Maybe I'm just getting greedy, Nuk has 99 yds at halftime

 

Edit: 6/118 Needs to take a 'personal day' every Friday, lol.

 

Edit 2: Okay, Nuk is now currently outscoring my opp's Elliott. I take it back, Will Fuller. You are a gift to Nuk!

[Reality 3,043]

Legion of Boom......

 

Not so much.

[edjr 6,300]

Legion of Boom Roasted!

[seafoam1 2,525]

It's a ridiculous concept anyway. McNair mis-used an old phrase "The inmates are running the asylum". All he meant was that the people shouldn't be in charge actually appear to be. For big tough guys they sure wear their feelings on their sleeves like poosays.

Thats not misusing the phrase. Thats what it means. Employees should follow the rules and the managers/owners should make the rules.

How does anyone not understand it? How can anyone possibly be offended by that? If it truly offended them, then they are not even 6th grade smart. Of course the way that some parents raise their kids I suppose anything is possible.

[kilroy69 1,159]

 

He is. And it's hard to talk about counterfactuals--what if and such. But maybe with a guy slightly less good than Fuller, those TDs go to Hopkins. Maybe I'm just getting greedy, Nuk has 99 yds at halftime

 

Edit: 6/118 Needs to take a 'personal day' every Friday, lol.

 

Edit 2: Okay, Nuk is now currently outscoring my opp's Elliott. I take it back, Will Fuller. You are a gift to Nuk!

 

Here is the thing. Hopkins has A. never had a QB that could freaking sling it like Watson can..and will. Not just can. A lot of Qbs are too scared to let it fly. The kid has no fear. B. he has also never had a legit wr2. someone who is a pick your poison type of player. If you rotate the safety to hopkins watson is perfectly comfortable roasting you with fuller. I love it.

[brotherbock 349]

Thats not misusing the phrase. Thats what it means. Employees should follow the rules and the managers/owners should make the rules.

How does anyone not understand it? How can anyone possibly be offended by that? If it truly offended them, then they are not even 6th grade smart. Of course the way that some parents raise their kids I suppose anything is possible.

 

How could people who have faced systemic oppression, and still face it, be offended by their employer using the same sort of language about them that racists and segregationists have used for generations? Are you really asking how adults can be offended by words? Come on--no one actually believes that it's 'childish' to be offended by what other people say. As soon as someone says "if you're an adult, you wouldn't get offended by namecalling", call that person a dirty c0cksucker and see how they react. Adults, perfectly mature people, get offended by language. It's not a liberal plot, it's not someone being a child.

[seafoam1 2,525]

 

How could people who have faced systemic oppression, and still face it, be offended by their employer using the same sort of language about them that racists and segregationists have used for generations? Are you really asking how adults can be offended by words? Come on--no one actually believes that it's 'childish' to be offended by what other people say. As soon as someone says "if you're an adult, you wouldn't get offended by namecalling", call that person a dirty c0cksucker and see how they react. Adults, perfectly mature people, get offended by language. It's not a liberal plot, it's not someone being a child.

I can see how people can be offended by words. Just not those words.

 

All this crap about sports owners handling crap like this through the press and players doing the same or doing it on camera is childish on both sides. Whenever I have problems at work or with friends or family I just talk to them. The NFL is a brilliant product that is actually being controlled by the press playing on peoples vanity these days. The same freaks that hang outside some singers front door all night waiting for pictures so they can post them on the internet are now at it with NFL.

 

This is why I play FF and not living in their personal issues and only turn the games on at kickoff. To me, they are entertainers while they are at work. Thats all. In the rest of life, I dont know any of them personally so they are just another person out there.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Smart owners are seen and not heard.

[Oriole8159 86]

Smart owners are seen and not heard.

 

the statement was made at a private owner's meeting, where they were there to discuss this exact topic.

 

It's not like Irsay for instance that likes to run his mouth and be visible. I think your comment would be more applicable to someone like him.

 

Owners have to be able to discuss business related topics during business meetings.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Least private private owner's meeting ever?

[Oriole8159 86]

Least private private owner's meeting ever?

well there's reporters, sure. It's an owner's meeting going over football business.

but it's not like he's going off making race based comments off the field over personal issues. I think that's the narrative you were trying for when you made your comment; that's why I brought up a guy like Irsay.

 

this is a business related statement though at a business meeting. You can't use that type of "seen but not heard" comment when its made at a business meeting where the whole point is to address this problem.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

I wasn't bringing up race at all. McNair made a very ill-advised comment and deserves the crapstorm he's dealing with.

 

For those who more has been given, more is expected.

[Oriole8159 86]

I wasn't bringing up race at all. McNair made a very ill-advised comment and deserves the crapstorm he's dealing with.

 

For those who more has been given, more is expected.

I get that the wording was poor and he should apologize for that, but you're 100% wrong on the rest.

 

It's not the NFL's job to fix the problems of America, and the owners are not the cause of these problems. That's what is being missed at this point, and its just become a big pissing match in my opinion.

 

The owners have a business to run plain and simple, first and foremost. They gave these players a little bit of rope to express themselves. but once that starts becoming bad for business (which it is), they absolutely have the right (and obligation) to reel it back in.

 

This whole thing was meant to start the dialogue and bring awareness to a subject that is of importance to a lot of the players, and they've done that.

 

Now move it off line, and get back to business at hand. Protests are not meant to be an ongoing thing, and especially at a venue that holds zero responsibility for the inherent issue, and on the clock of owners that are not the bad guy. The dialogue is started and the opportunity is always out there to make the positive change the players want, and get the publicity they need to keep the progress moving.

 

Bob McNair is not the bad guy, and he's already gone above and beyond to support this "courtesy," so don't say a comment like that at the end. The players are millionaires themselves so more should be expected of them in turn as well.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Agree to disagree.

[seafoam1 2,525]

I get that the wording was poor and he should apologize for that, but you're 100% wrong on the rest.

 

It's not the NFL's job to fix the problems of America, and the owners are not the cause of these problems. That's what is being missed at this point, and its just become a big pissing match in my opinion.

 

The owners have a business to run plain and simple, first and foremost. They gave these players a little bit of rope to express themselves. but once that starts becoming bad for business (which it is), they absolutely have the right (and obligation) to reel it back in.

 

This whole thing was meant to start the dialogue and bring awareness to a subject that is of importance to a lot of the players, and they've done that.

 

Now move it off line, and get back to business at hand. Protests are not meant to be an ongoing thing, and especially at a venue that holds zero responsibility for the inherent issue, and on the clock of owners that are not the bad guy. The dialogue is started and the opportunity is always out there to make the positive change the players want, and get the publicity they need to keep the progress moving.

 

Bob McNair is not the bad guy, and he's already gone above and beyond to support this "courtesy," so don't say a comment like that at the end. The players are millionaires themselves so more should be expected of them in turn as well.

Let the players take their politcal views/concerns to their communities. They have a long offseason and should have ghe time to take their concerns at that time or even during the season on their off days. My guess is it's not that important to them to have it cut into their own off camera time.

[Oriole8159 86]

Let the players take their politcal views/concerns to their communities. They have a long offseason and should have ghe time to take their concerns at that time or even during the season on their off days. My guess is it's not that important to them to have it cut into their own off camera time

 

exactly; thank you.

As I wrote above, its a big pissing match at this point.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

Let the players take their politcal views/concerns to their communities. They have a long offseason and should have ghe time to take their concerns at that time or even during the season on their off days. My guess is it's not that important to them to have it cut into their own off camera time.

 

 

I feel sorry for you with what sounds like an incredibly cynical ideology.

[Oriole8159 86]

 

 

I feel sorry for you with what sounds like an incredibly cynical ideology.

that doesn't make any sense.

[seafoam1 2,525]

 

 

I feel sorry for you with what sounds like an incredibly cynical ideology.

Feel however you like. When I sit down to watch Didhard, I don't want to see Bruce Willis bringing in any political statements or actions anywhere near the film. I pay for the movie entertainment and that's it. Same for football games. Pregame, during game, commentary after. It is only entertainment they should be providing. After they are done with that job for that one day a week, go run for office if they want. Go door to door with their message if they want. Go on to talk shows, make documentaries, write songs, whatever.

[brotherbock 349]

Whenever I have problems at work or with friends or family I just talk to them.

 

This situation is nowhere near close to one or two people having a personal beef about someone using an insulting word. It's a matter of social justice. That doesn't get solved in private. "Hey, Dr. King, I know you have problems with these white folks and segregation. But just talk to each of them in private. Don't air it all publicly."

 

Doesn't work that way. Change doesn't happen that way.

[seafoam1 2,525]

 

This situation is nowhere near close to one or two people having a personal beef about someone using an insulting word. It's a matter of social justice. That doesn't get solved in private. "Hey, Dr. King, I know you have problems with these white folks and segregation. But just talk to each of them in private. Don't air it all publicly."

 

Doesn't work that way. Change doesn't happen that way.

Yep. And social justice should be attended to when they are not on the employers dime. And no, face to face is better to understand what it is they are actually doing. I have heard different reasons from different players. These are more about look at me moments than anything. Let them use their own money and go out and promote however they want after work. They can go meet with social leaders or become one themself. I doubt many of those players take active rolrs in their communities in this sense.

[brotherbock 349]

Yep. And social justice should be attended to when they are not on the employers dime. And no, face to face is better to understand what it is they are actually doing. I have heard different reasons from different players. These are more about look at me moments than anything. Let them use their own money and go out and promote however they want after work. They can go meet with social leaders or become one themself. I doubt many of those players take active rolrs in their communities in this sense.

 

Why shouldn't they be able to do this on their owners' time, when there is nothing in their employment contract about it? Just your personal preference that it be that way?

 

Life doesn't stop at the door to work, and there are more important things than employment and work. Work is part of life. And things like morality and justice are important parts of all of life, not just 'life outside of work'. The only obligation I have at any time is to do what I think is right. That holds whether I am at home, or work, or school, or anywhere else.

 

Why do you doubt that these players take active roles? Do you have any evidence to support your doubt? Or are you doubting just because you are on the opposite side of the debate?

[seafoam1 2,525]

 

Why shouldn't they be able to do this on their owners' time, when there is nothing in their employment contract about it? Just your personal preference that it be that way?

 

Life doesn't stop at the door to work, and there are more important things than employment and work. Work is part of life. And things like morality and justice are important parts of all of life, not just 'life outside of work'. The only obligation I have at any time is to do what I think is right. That holds whether I am at home, or work, or school, or anywhere else.

 

Why do you doubt that these players take active roles? Do you have any evidence to support your doubt? Or are you doubting just because you are on the opposite side of the debate?

They represent the NFL and are at work at that time. They should get approval before doing whatever they want. So you think there are no clauses in their contracts about behavior in public and on the job? Companies have defined goals, desired public image, sales approach based on image, corporate identity, mission statement, etc. If the NFL wants to be in business of social reform/football, then so be it. I personally will then play some reruns of Big Bang Theory for a couple hours a week instead of watching social reform football hour.

 

They are in the business to entertain. Entertainment is a brief escape from constantly dealing with issues the rest of the time.

 

Work is a part of life that you deal with work related life. Then you can go back to your personal/social part of life after you fulfill your obligation to your employer and receive compensation for what you were hired to do. Thats why its best to focus on wanting to work somewhere doing what you like in life.

 

And I doubt they take this up in their own time because their social interactions are under a microscope. And normally if one of them take on government you hear about it.

[ROCKFORD 134]

Smart owners are seen and not heard.

[brotherbock 349]

They represent the NFL and are at work at that time. They should get approval before doing whatever they want. So you think there are no clauses in their contracts about bevior in public and on the job? Companies have defined goals, desired public image, sales approach based on image, etc. If the NFL wants to be in business of social reform/football, then so be it. I personally will then play some reruns of Big Bang Theory for a couple hours a week instead of watching socialized reform football hour.

 

They are in the business to entertain. Entertainment is a brief escape from constantly dealing with issues the rest of the time.

 

Work is a part of life that you deal with work related life. Then you can go back to your personal/social part of life after you fulfill your obligation to your employer and receive compensation for what you were hired to do. Thats why its best to focus on wanting to work somewhere doing what you like in life.

 

And I doubt they take this up in their own time because their social interactions are under a microscope. And normally if one of them take on government you hear about it.

 

"They represent the NFL and are at work at that time. They should get approval before doing whatever they want."

 

If that's written into their contract, sure. If not, then they are under no obligation to get prior approval. There are clauses about public behavior. The NFL can and has punished guys for going out and getting into trouble, even in their personal lives. But peaceful protests are not cases of 'going out and getting into trouble'. Peaceful protests are part of what our country has been founded on. It's where the founding fathers started first. The right to them has been codified into law. The evidence that the owners agree with me is that no one is getting fired or disciplined for this. Jerry Jones has threatened to bench someone. And he would have that right, absolutely, given the contracts these players have. Benching is a very different matter.

 

But no. If it's not in their contract, in their rules of employment, then quite frankly that can do what they want to do in this case. It actually is that simple.

 

You of course have the freedom to not watch. If you choose to allow yourself to be made upset by someone else's kneeling, then you can change the channel. That's your right. And your right here doesn't affect the players' rights. Your right doesn't mean they don't have their rights. Could the owners and players change the contract terms? They might, yes. But right now, that's the way it is.

 

Regarding your doubt--frankly *I* doubt that you have even looked at all into the social media feeds and off-field life of the guys who are kneeling. Many NFL players have foundations and charities that they fund and run, and many of those are focused on social justice issues. Their 'being involved' off the field in these issues can take many forms, including all kinds of daily stuff that doesn't attract tons of media attention. Get some local kids talking to the local police department? That's taking on the issue. Is that something you, who I suspect isn't taking your time searching for this sort of evidence, are going to hear about? Not attacking you here with this, I'm just saying I suspect that you have not 1) gone looking for a list of kneeling players, and 2) done extensive searches to find out what they are engaged in off the field.

 

Your doubt about their actions, motives, and character is, I suspect, purely based on dislike of their actions.

[redsrback 30]

 

Why shouldn't they be able to do this on their owners' time, when there is nothing in their employment contract about it? Just your personal preference that it be that way?

 

Life doesn't stop at the door to work, and there are more important things than employment and work. Work is part of life. And things like morality and justice are important parts of all of life, not just 'life outside of work'. The only obligation I have at any time is to do what I think is right. That holds whether I am at home, or work, or school, or anywhere else.

 

Why do you doubt that these players take active roles? Do you have any evidence to support your doubt? Or are you doubting just because you are on the opposite side of the debate?

Cry all you want, and you do enough of it, only 12 other states agree with you.