Could The Texans Really Franchise Dunta Robinson Again?
by Tim on Feb 17, 2010 3:37 PM CST
in News
106 comments
It's been touched upon here and there, but I think this topic deserves its own post. The deadline to franchise players is February 25th (next Thursday), so it's natural to see a bunch of "best free agents available" material on various outlets. No surprise, therefore, that Adam Schefter disclosed his top five potential free agents. I was stunned, however, to see who checked in at No. 3 on Schefter's list and what was written about him:
3. Dunta Robinson, CB, Houston Texans
Houston franchised Robinson last season, but it will cost the Texans $12 million to do the same this season. It's a lot of money, but then again, Robinson is only 27 years old and plays a coveted defensive position. Houston has until Feb. 25 to decide whether to franchise him, but Robinson might get his wish to test the market.
I won't quibble with the ranking of Dunta Robinson as possibly the third-best free agent out there. The key word there is "potential," as franchise tags and/or new deals can change the analysis in an instant. Plus, there's something to be said about the pool being slim pickings when Chester Taylor, at age 31, is considered by many to be the top offensive option available on the free agent market.
My question is whether anyone really believes the Texans would franchise Dunta again. Putting aside any lingering resentment the Texans and/or Dunta may have stemming from the dance they've danced over the past year (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and of course, who could forget this?), why would the Texans pay Dunta Robinson approximately $12,000,000.00 to play CB for them? Jacques Reeves, Glover Quin, Brice McCain & Co. may not be Nnamdi Asomugha, but aren't they considerably better options than Dunta Robinson, in terms of value and/or ability? Why would Smithiak pay Dunta Robinson that kind of money? Especially after seeing how he played in 2009?
Am I missing something?
0 recs |
106 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yes, Bryan will be here to explain it to you shortly.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Feb 17, 2010 3:42 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
I personally am looking forward to another essay.
www.manningface.com
by nolander on Feb 17, 2010 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Do not franchise him...
unless you trade him for some sort of draft pick (which lets him work out a new deal).
I don’t want him making $12 million on this roster. That’s ridiculous for someone who’s never made a Pro Bowl.
4 years/$20 million. That’s about as “generous” as I’d be.
Re: 4 yrs/$20 million
I couldn’t even go that high. Some other team will certainly surpass that, but I can’t fathom how if you watched Dunta play in ‘09. I get that CB’s a premium position and all, but c’mon…
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
And By "You"
I mean “anyone,” not TexansDC.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
$5 million for a starting CB
Considering he made $10 last season…as I said, that was generous.
$12 million for Dunta = Get the bleach out BRB….unless it’s a franchised Dunta getting traded to some abysmal team for a 3rd or 4th round (and some bad team could be convinced a starting CB for a 3rd or 4th is a deal).
$12 Million/4 years/$4 Million Guaranteed.
That’s the only way i’ll be okay with paying Dunta $12 million.
by Jordann on Feb 17, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Re: $5 mil For A Starting CB
The money makes sense. What doesn’t, to me, is Dunta starting at CB. I wouldn’t start him over Quin or Reeves (assuming Frank Bush realizes that zone is a terrible idea for his corners).
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
That's funny that you mention a 3rd rounder for a starting CB
because the Texans are probably looking at drafting a CB in the 2nd or 3rd round to replace him. But what team would possibly want to trade for Dunta…
by theaxeeffect4311 on Feb 17, 2010 4:25 PM CST up reply actions
Lions, Browns, Rams, Bucs….
All of these teams need an improvement at almost every position.
Plus, Dunta suffers with another bad team.
FTW!!!
I like it. Sign me up for a Rams pick
by HoustonTransplant on Feb 17, 2010 6:32 PM CST up reply actions
Do not reward Dunta with the franchise tag!
Why would the team hamstring themselves with a $12 million contract for a malcontent? Let’s look at history. He called the team’s GM out. He didn’t sign the franchise tender until just before the 1st game, so he missed OTAs and Preseason with the new DC. He came in out of shape. Then he had the freakin’ gall to ask to be paid on his shoes for the entire world to see. Do not reward him with $12 million. This is not pride talking. This is common sense and business. Do not do it!
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
I got a bad feeling about this. I won’t like it but I just have a gut feeling that says we will use the f-tag on him again.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming. Fresno St. 28 - Wyoming 35 (2 OT)!!! Hands down best game I have ever been to.
This Place Could Very Well Implode If That Happens
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
I'd rather see that honor bestowed upon DeMeco
and take their chances on Dunta….
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
Don't we have an extra franchise tag because it's an uncapped year?
I can’t remember the rules, but I thought that’s how it works.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 18, 2010 12:38 AM CST up reply actions
1 Franchise Tag and 2 Transition Tags
The Franchise Tag pays the average of the top 5 salaries at the player’s position or a 120% raise over last year – whichover is more. The tag can be exclusive (player cannot talk to any team) or non-exclusive (player can be signed by another team at the cost of 2 1st rounders).
The Transition Tag pays the average of the top 10 salaries at the player’s position of a 120% raise over last year. A player given this tag can discuss contracts with any other team. The original team has the rights of first refusal (they can match the contract and will get the player’s services). If the team declines then the player is given up with no compensation.
For the record
If any tags were used: I’d transition tag Dunta and Chester Pitts for the sake of the first refusal rights.
Every other significant player is a RFA so we can tender offers through that.
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 18, 2010 2:55 AM CST up reply actions
Trade him to Dallas for T choice
Then when they come here, we can F him the F ing F up
by AllenOU on Feb 17, 2010 7:05 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Not my money
and its not a capped year.
What the hell do I care?
As long as Smithiak has the same FA/Draft strategy whether Dunta is on the team or not. Sign him to a one year deal or tag him (as long as OD’s services are also retained) and let him compete for a job with two new stud CBs.
He’d be a great backup CB1.
Mount Cody in round 1
...in theory.
You think he’d be “great” if he went from CB1 to CB4 (Comin straight outta Gusto!) as far as attitude and actions are concerned? Hell, he cried like a bitch because we wanted to give him $12 for a season, when he was coming off a horrific injury.
Hadn’t seen it in a while, so Fuck Dunta!
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Feb 18, 2010 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
well
as CB4 how much damage could he do?
Answer: a hell of a lot less than last year, where he was out there on every damn snap.
Its not my money, and it doesn’t affect the team, if he is the highest paid backup in the league, and he spends the majority of the time on the bench, and if the first three guys go down due to serious injury, then, yes, I’ll take my chances on the attitude of one pissed off Dunta Robinson playing CB.
Mount Cody in round 1
and by "affect the team"
I meant cap-wise.
Mount Cody in round 1
I think it'd actually make sense
No I don’t think Robinson is worth $12 mil a year, but you have to look at the big picture. Without Robinson, and even with him really, we’re pretty shaky at the CB position. If we couldn’t land a suitable replacement in free agency then we’re forced to do it in the draft and hope that whoever we pick will be ready to contribute right away.
By franchising Robinson we would basically have a 1 year reprieve, whoever we draft this year would have a full year to learn the system and adjust to the NFL without having to carry the world on his shoulders. And while he’s not worth the 12 million, next year looks like it’s going to be uncapped so it doesn’t affect the team’s spending so much apart from what McNair wants to shell out, and next year he’ll be totally off the books.
We could probably work out a long term deal paying him substantially less per year, but seriously would you rather pay the guy 12 million for one season in an uncapped year where his salary has no impact on a salary cap, or sign the guy to a long term contract with probably 3 years guarunteed? As long as McNair doesn’t mind spending the money, it would make more sense to franchise Robinson than anything else.
The only problem with this is that...
McNair’s gone on record with saying that they really won’t overspend/break the “cap’s limits.” He effectively is setting a budget for the team. (comments made during Kubiak’s resigning press conference).
So if Dunta’s on record for $12 million…it may impact the team’s budget.
Obviously
If McNair isn’t willing to spend the money, they shouldnt’ take money away from the rest of the team to give to Robinson. I’m just saying that “if” McNair doesn’t mind forking over the cash and “if” they’re as unsure as everyone else about Robinson’s future in Houston, it’d make sense to franchise him. You’d basically be getting a 1 year rental, albeit an expensive one, giving the team an extra year to develop his replacement if needed with no long term impact on the team.
I vote we try to sign someone that's good at playing CB.
As opposed to a whiny bitch that we know is NOT good at it.
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Feb 18, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That's the rub
Robinson isn’t worth as much as he thinks he is, but neither is he as bad as he’s made out to be here.
The problem I see signing him to a longterm contract, there’ll probably be at least 1 team out there willing to pay him what he wants rather than what he deserves which would force us to overpay for him on a long term deal, most of which probably falling under salary capped years.
By franchising him you’d drastically overpay him for the one season that doesn’t matter if you do go over the “cap”, but after that you’d have no further obligations towards him. Like it or not we’re better off with Robinson at CB than without him for now. If you feel like he’s going to improve with a full year and training camp away from his injury then go ahead and overpay slightly for a long term deal. If you feel like alot fans here do, that he’s a “bad” cb, franchise him for the one year since we have no better options at the moment, then cut ties after next season.
I disagree whoheartedly about the “whiny bitch” comments though. Robinson has been one of the hardest working players we’ve had since he was drafted. He’s never spoken out against the coaching staff or players on the team. He ran his mouth off a bit during a contract negotiation gone bad.., specifically he was upset at being told he wouldn’t be franchised and then he was anyway. I’ve never met anyone who wouldn’t be upset if their employer outright lied to them about their contract/employment status, so I give the guy a little leeway to be human and vent about it.
Whatever dude.
Your thoughts on this are well documented.
As to him working hard… how hard was he working this past offseason when the team was in mini and training camps? Yeah, he’s a baller. /sarcasm
As to the “if their employer outright lied to them about their contract/employment status” how the fuck do you know what he was and was not told?
Bacon tastes good... Pork chops taste good.
by beefy on Feb 18, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
How do I know what he was told?
It’s been pretty well publicized that he was assured that he would not be franchised by the GM, and then when a deal wasn’t completed he was franchised anyway. Rick Smith has discussed it publicly and has admitted to implying to Robinson that he wouldn’t be franchised but that when they were unable to come to an agreement he had to do what was best for the team, which was to keep Robinson at least for the time being…. So in short, I know because I occassionally read stories as well as look at the pretty pictures.
As for his character… look for any story or article dated before his contract dispute with the Texans and try to find one the least bit negative towards Robinson. My point is most of people’s anger towards him is over a contract dispute that largely wasn’t even his fault. Sure he could have rolled over and taken whatever the Texans offered, but no pro athlete does that… It’s a business to them too, they wouldn’t be doing themselves justice if they didn’t try to get all that they could from the sport they’re making millions for.
6 months later, speculation does not equal fact
It’s been pretty well publicized that he was assured that he would not be franchised by the GM, and then when a deal wasn’t completed he was franchised anyway.
It was speculated, but none of the “statements” were ever confirmed. This is the same as the retarded contract offer that Dunta supposedly turned down last year. Those numbers/years were never confirmed.
My best guess is that Rick Smith made a statement along the lines of “We don’t want to put the F-tag on you, Dunta.”…..which he took to mean “We will NEVER….”
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
by Shake on Feb 18, 2010 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6273258.html
“Smith said. “We had a conversation very early in the negotiation process where I indicated I didn’t want to use the franchise tag on Dunta. I was clear about that because of the negative feelings around the tag.”
So in other words, Robinson made it clear he felt very strongly against being franchised, and to defuse the situation, Smith indicated “he didn’t want to” franchise Robinson… whatever wording he used it was enough that Robinson, who was very against the idea of being franchised, never again thought it was a real possibility until after it happened. So I kinda doubt he really said “we don’t want to franchise you, but I will if I have to”, otherwise he would have seen it coming.
I Didn't want to.
Not
“Im not going to.”
by Jordann on Feb 18, 2010 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That was him
Defending himself in a press conference centered around Robinson’s outrage over the tag and statements that he was told he wouldn’t be franchised.
Of course his wording is going to be carefully constructed to make himself look the least in the wrong as possible. But if you just use a little common sense, whatever wording was used it was strong enough for Robinson and his agent to drop it from that point “early in the proccess” on because it was a non issue. Would you be that convinced by someone saying “i really don’t want to do ‘x’ but you know i will in a heartbeat”?
Of course not. However it was worded, it was implied that it wouldn’t happen and Robinson was no doubt assured not to worry about it. And you can be sure it was never mentioned to Robinson that they were willing to franchise him if a deal didn’t go through before the deadline, otherwise he and his agent both wouldn’t have been caught blindsided.
I've always said
That Robinson reacted poorly to it and acted childishly on several occasions over it.., but I don’t know how anyone can tell me with a straight face that he had no reason to be upset, that the Texans didn’t do anything “wrong”.
There was plenty of wrong on both sides, Robinson included, but to bring up this one situation and declare Robinson having poor character because of it, when everything else in his history in the NFL points otherwise, his teamates respect him and on numerous occassions made statements to the media that they felt Robinson deserved a long time contract and was treated poorly by the team… well it just seems out of touch to me.
Riddle me this...
He didn’t want the tag, so if he didn’t get the tag, he wanted to test the market, right?
He wants to make the best business decision for himself, since its a business, afterall. Sounds reasonable to me.
Then if the other side makes a move that’s in their best interests, business-wise, how can he be upset about that?
If he just wanted to be a Texan, and it was all about loyalty, not business, I would somewhat understand the resentment. It was clearly all business on DRob’s side, however.
Mount Cody in round 1
I never said the Texans were wrong to franchise him
But they were wrong to lead him to believe that wouldn’t happen, or let him believe that wouldn’t happen, however you want to look at it.
Actually though he didn’t want to test the market, what he wanted then and what he still says he wants now, was to sign a long term deal with the Texans and play the rest of his career here. Other players have commented that they want that as well…, I believe I even read an article where Kubiak stated he’d like to have signed Robinson to a new contract…
Really apart from the fan base, I don’t think there’s many people involved with the Texans who wouldn’t prefer to have Robinson continue to play for the Texans.
Yet we’re supposed to believe that he’s got an attittude problem and is a headcase. I just don’t buy it, I have a feeling he’s pretty much the same guy who we all loved his entire career up untill his recent contract negotiations, people are just going overboard off the wagon for some reason.
I’m pretty sure wearing shoes that say " Pay Me Rick" to your first game of the season signals an attitude problem. And if you actually believe that Dunta didnt want to test the market and wanted to sign with the Texans last season I question your sanity. Now that he realizes he sucks and fucked himself out of a decent deal last year, he’ll be shutting the fuck up if they tag him again this year.
Be judgmental about the actions of the past, be hopeful about the actions of the future. -The Homers Creed
by DaGoaT on Feb 19, 2010 6:57 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
meh
Getting bent and alledgedly putting someone in a headlock and punching them in a face signals a problem as well, but we’re all pretty sure Matt Schaub is a pretty good character guy.
One event doesn’t define us as people nor does it define our “attitude”. All that really points to is the bitterness that was the result of the negotiation turning bad. There’s nothing else to point to him having issues with his “attitude”, if he did then chances are he wouldnt be respected as much as he is by other players on the team.
Did teh Schaub really do that?
And why did you put the word “attitude” in quotes?
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 19, 2010 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
Because it's a term defined by others' perceptions
Therefore one person’s “attitude problems” is relative only to those discussing it at that time.
Teh Schaub was acquitted in court of those charges because all parties were heavilly intoxicated and the judge couldn’t put weight to any of their testimonies, so it’s not really known the details. What’s known is Schaub got plastered, some idiot started calling him Schwab, and there was an altercation of some sorts between the two which ended in Schaub being ushered out a bar’s side door and the bar’s owner punching the alledged victim in the face.
Didn't know that about Schaub.
When did this happen?
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 20, 2010 4:37 AM CST up reply actions
Early in his rookie season
So you’re talking about a 22-23 year old going back to his old University and drinking it up with his football buddies, some dude decides to impress his own buddies by pissing Schaub off, and the rest is history.
My problem is that there is no proof Schuab did anything. For all we know it was the bar owner who inflicted all the damage. You keep stating it like its a fact that Schuab beat the guy up.
www.manningface.com
I never said it was a fact Schaub beat anyone up
But it is a fact that he was at the root of a situation that ended with one man having a busted up face and another arrested and losing his business. It was poor decision making on his part that landed him in the middle of that situation, however far he took it himself.
It’s not in question whether the owner punched the guy, he did, right after the guy pulled out his phone and stated he was calling the police on Schaub. The owner tried to take the phone away and clocked him in the head.
It was a situation that could have undoubtedly been handled differently on all sides to avoid anyone getting hurt or the police called, so yes i’m saying that whatever Schaub did or didn’t do, he was partly responsible for the ‘fight’ escalating as it did. But that doesn’t make him a bad guy, it just makes him human.
Everyone makes their share of mistakes, most of us don’t repeat them. Schaub hasn’t repeated his, and neither has Robinson. After his conflict came to a head with Smith and he recieved a slap on the wrist for it, he has toned it down and hasn’t made a spectacle of himself in the slightest.
Yes big bad schuab was such a jerk for going out with his friends and getting followed around by some dbag who was taunting him. I didn’t say you said it was a fact, but you are treating it as if it is a fact that Schuab was in the wrong somehow despite no evidence. I guess facts just don’t matter to you.
www.manningface.com
by nolander on Feb 20, 2010 9:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
OK i'll try to spell it out better for you.
If say Pacman Jones was involved in an incedent identicle to Schaubs, everyone would see it as further proof of Pacman’s douche bagery, even though there’s no “proof” that he did anything other than get intoxicated and get into a shouting match with another drunk dude where authorities were called and charges were pressed.
No matter what else happened, he made the choice to drink a few too many, he made the choice to get into an altercation with this guy rather than walk away, and he alledgedly made the choice to put the guy in a headlock and punch him in the face. The other guy had his witnesses too, what the judge had was a room full of people, all who were intoxicated that night, telling two different stories depending on who their friends were. That doesn’t mean it was obvious Schaub did nothing wrong, because certainly he was wrong in not trying to prevent the events unfolding as they did, it just means there wasn’t enough reliable evidence for conviction.
The point is in Schaub’s case it’s not a big deal, because this was just one event in an otherwise spic and span clean life. The same could be said of Robinson, find anything not related to this past dispute with the Texans that indicates Dunta has attitude problems. A person’s character is defined by the whole of their actions in life, not just one or two held under a microscope.
he made the choice to drink a few too many, he made the choice to get into an altercation with this guy rather than walk away
.
Again, there is no evidence that he drank too many, and there is no evidence he got in an altercation. There are two sides the the story a)he slapped the guy and tried to put him in a headlock b) he MIGHT have shoved the guy, and then was escorted away by his friends.
because certainly he was wrong in not trying to prevent the events unfolding as they did,
Both sides admit the guy followed him taunting him. Thats NOT Schuabs fault. Is he supposed to strap on a jetpack and fly the fuck away?
www.manningface.com
Why does there need to be proof
When Schaub admitted to being intoxicated?
Do you seriously belive a 23 year old drunken kid out with his friends is walking around with his hands in his pockets saying nothing while some dude follows him blindly insulting him? Come on, that’s ridiculous. Usually when there are two sides telling two very different stories the truth is usually somewhere inbetween, and i’d imagine that rings true in this case as well.
And I think
When several guys are ushering Schaub away from the guy, who then immediately grabs his phone and says he’s calling the police to press charges against Schaub, and the owner of the establishment tries to protect schaub by physically taking the phone away from him.., that’s pretty much proof that there was an altercation of some sorts, whether it was physical or not can be argued, but it did lead to violence after Schaub was escorted off the property. If you’re involved in starting a fight and someone gets hurt from it, you’re partly responsible, especially if you had the ability to stop it from escalating and didn’t.
I feel skinny
Oh so skinny
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 21, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
ya reading the article on that incident and its pretty obvious Schaub didnt do anything and had several witnesses to say he didnt touch the guy. Its more likely the owner of the bar beat that dude up.
Be judgmental about the actions of the past, be hopeful about the actions of the future. -The Homers Creed
You really believe that?
I’ve got some nice beachfront property in Kansas to sell you then…
I’m not saying he did what the guy accused him of, but i’ve been young, stupid, and intoxicated before, and have known other young, stupid, and intoxicated people… if you add someone mocking the drunk dude, especially if he’s drinking himself… well it’s not going to end in a handshake…
If Schaub didn’t put the guy in a headlock and punch him, it certainly wasn’t his fault. You can thank his buddies herding him away from the scene for that.
More likely though I think Schaub did probably push the guy or take a swing at him, whether he landed anything or not, then his friends who were there immediately jumped in and tried to squash it.
And i’m not even blaming him for it, if I was still young, drunk, and stupid and some dude was poking me with a stick i’d have probably put him in a headlock and punched him too if no one was there to stop me. In legal terms it’s something called assumption of risk, poke a bear with a stick, or call a drunken Matt Schaub a schwab, and it’s not likely to end well.
Regardless you could say he excercised poor judgement for his part in the episode, but I just see it as a young drunk dude getting swept up in the moment, it happens to the best of us… Just as I can understand Robinson getting heated over his ordeal with the Texans last summer.
Love the insult about my common sense.
There’s still no documented evidence of Smith saying that he won’t use the F-tag on Dunta. None.
There's a difference between
imploring readers to use common sense and saying that you don’t have any.
There’s no documented evidence of me saying you have no common sense, yet we’re both pretty sure it happened… see where i’m going?
If im not a reader,
then I don’t know what I am.
And I never mentioned anything about you telling me that I don’t have any common sense. I just pointed out the insult.
But I didn't insult you or anyone else intentionally
It became an insult only because you were insulted by it.
Much the same with whatever conversation Rick Smith and Dunta Robinson had, Smith didn’t need to “intend” to tell Robinson that he didn’t have to worry about being franchised, but it would be hard not to notice that he took it that way. So even if it wasn’t his original intent, he allowed the misperception to continue because it made the talks smoother sailing for himself.
Even in that situation he was wrong. Everyone says things that’re percieved differently than they were intended, but it’s your responsibility to address it when it happens. If you purposefully allow the misunderstanding to persist, you might as well have lied from the get go, as you’re getting the same results.
I prefer to call it "country wisdom"
others call it, “street smarts”
some might call it, “misguided youthfulness”
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
Time-lapse Quoting of this Debate (emphasis mine)
Bryan:
I’ve never met anyone who wouldn’t be upset if their employer outright lied to them about their contract/employment status, so I give the guy a little leeway to be human and vent about it.
Beefy:
As to the "if their employer outright lied to them about their contract/employment status" how the fuck do you know what he was and was not told?
Bryan:
It’s been pretty well publicized that he was assured that he would not be franchised by the GM, and then when a deal wasn’t completed he was franchised anyway.
Myself:
It was speculated, but none of the "statements" were ever confirmed. This is the same as the retarded contract offer that Dunta supposedly turned down last year. Those numbers/years were never confirmed.
Bryan:
"Smith said. "We had a conversation very early in the negotiation process where I indicated I didn’t want to use the franchise tag on Dunta. I was clear about that because of the negative feelings around the tag."
**So in summary, Beefy challenged that you have no proof Dunta was promised no use of the F-tag. And then a few comments later, your own comment involves proof that you were wrong.
You can see how we all get a little confused when you debate in this self-depreciating manner, right?
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
No I don't
Rick Smith admitted to telling Robinson he didn’t want to franchise him, no one but the people involved know the exact wording that went on, but Robinson was clearly under the impression that being franchised wasn’t an option and Smith admitted to having the discussion…
Even “if” Robinson misunderstoon Smith’s meaning, there’s no way over the course of the netiation that Smith wouldn’t notice that Robinson is no longer concerned about what was once a top priority of his to deal with in the talks… Even in that situation where Smith initially did nothing decietfull, he did over time simply by not making his intentions known when it was obvious Robinson had a different understanding of their conversation.
Beyond that though, Smith seemed almost apologetic in his address, admitting that he understands why Robinson was as upset as he was… and to this day hasn’t accused Robinson of over-reacting. Robinson accused Smith of lying to him, and while he may not have “technically” admitted to it in precise wording, he never denied it either. I don’t know about you, but when i’m accused of something I didn’t do, I want the entire world to know about it…
In fact Smith was more than eager to clear the misunderstanding that he didn’t contact Robinson personally to inform him of the franchise tag.., yet in the same conference he didn’t challenge the allegations that he lied to Robinson about franchising him, he tried to sidestep it with carefull wording but he never denied it… Sometimes what someone doesn’t say tells just as much as what they do.
As for my self-depreciating manner
I’m of the Nietzsche school of thought that humanity is a contradiction in and of itself, therefore it’s only natural that one’s opinions or beliefs be mired in those same contradictions.
Not to mention i’m far from a good or even average writer so sometimes I mean to say one thing but with my poor hilbilly grammar I lead others to think I meant something else… Still through all my flaws I have just as much right to speak my mind as anyone else, it’s your choice to listen or not.
That’s alot of words just to say i’m not perfect, I never claimed to be perfect, I will make my share of mistakes just as anyone else. You can either cling to those hangups and beat your head against the wall, or try to forgive my literary flaws and follow along best you can. You might actually understand a little more of where i’m coming from that way. Because eventually I do tend to get around to the point I was trying to make to begin with, but without a little patience there’d be no real constructive debate in this world.
You referred to Nietsche in a post
While simultaneously calling yourself out for ‘hilbilly grammar.’
It’s like looking into a mirror with a mirror behind you.
My head continues to spin.
Also, Shake, didn’t you mean ‘self-deprecating?’
/grammar nazi
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 19, 2010 2:19 AM CST up reply actions
I don't understand
NIetsche frequently demeaned his own writing abilities as well, and considered himself apart from society as a whole and definitely not part of mainstream society… I think if he were around today and you accused him of using “hillbilly” grammar, he’d be quite ammused with the idea.
Besides that though, how I describe myself or my writing has next to nothing to do with a long dead philospher i’ve found a liking to. My having “hillbilly grammar” really has no impact on Nietsche’s works nor how I percieve them.
An interesting tidbit on Nietzsche though if any are interested, later in his life he suffered a stroke after witnessing a man beat a carriage horse with a whip. He ran out into the street and put himself between the horse and man and had a stroke, and after he recovered was diagnosed with dimensia.
He’s also a writer whose works were often abused and associated with Nazi Propaganda, but he spoke out harshly against the growing anti-semetic views in Germany in his time that later came to power in the Nazi Party. People have used his contradictary nature to twist his writings around to give the perception of meaning totally opposite his original intent.
Yes, he would be amused at the idea
of someone calling him out for his hillbilly grammar. Just like I was amused (and honestly, there was nothing malicious in my comment – I truly was amused) by someone who makes reference to a semi-obscure philosopher’s thinking on contradiction and then refers to their own writing as ‘hillbilly grammar,’ all in the same post. It’s as though you were proving Nietzsche’s own comments because it’s very hard to think that someone who can quote Nietzsche would also describe their grammar as ‘hillbilly.’
It’s like a perpetual motion machine of meaning or something. It’s all very… metatextual.
Next up I expect you to state an opinion as true fact and then quote Derrida or something.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 19, 2010 1:51 PM CST up reply actions
Not really
It’s like someone who’s a football fan saying they also like the ballet. While maybe he’s in the minority, one has nothing to do with the other so it really means nothing.
“Hillbilly” is a term that has many meanings, it originated as a term describing Scotts who opposed King William.. most lived in the hills of scottland in secluded villages and townships. Nietzsche also defied popular rule in his time, and also lived a secluded life in his rural home. I don’t think the term is so off a match as you believe.
I disagree though that he’s a “semi-obscure philosopher”, anyone who’s taken even an introductory course in philosophy would have encountered his works. He’s a cornerstone of modern philosophy and even in his time was a professor of philosophy at a major university and very well respected and known throughout the majority of Europe. He was a pretty big fish in his day and even now his books sell well for what they are.
On an NFL discussion board
I would suggest that any philosopher qualifies as semi-obscure.
And even if that’s your perception of hillbilly (which I concede could well be accurate), I would suggest the common perception of hillbilly in these parts is more accurately described by the two-word term “Titans fan.”
I would strongly suggest that in that context, it is almost definitionally a contradiction to cite Nietzsche and make common cause with hillbillies, regardless of their origins.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 20, 2010 4:42 AM CST up reply actions
You're right though
It does defy common perception, but it isn’t a true contradiction as there’s no rule defining who’s interested in philisophical works and who isn’t.
NIetzsche would contradict himself in his writings by saying “a” is true, but then again so is “b”, and I know the two contradict one another, but they’re both true so what’re you going to do… Alot of philosphers over the year have put out quotes such as “only a wise man understands that he knows nothing”, but Nietzsche is one of only a few ever who put it into practice in his writings.
He never claimed to have the answers to everything and would unashamedly leave huge contradictions in nearly every one of his major works. Some people would see this as a flaw, but in reality it was his way of thumbing his nose up at the hypocrisy of philosophy at the time. He would enter a debate about the incricacies of morality with the bold claim that there’s no such thing as morality, that humanity is “Beyond Good and Evil”.
No grammar nazi
I’d like to continue believing that he also lowered his value on the books.
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
Which is accurate
I have very low retail value.
by Bryan72076 on Feb 19, 2010 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
<3 quote boxes
Rick Smith admitted to telling Robinson he didn’t want to franchise him
Still not the same as telling Dunta that he wouldn’t franchise him.
It’s not Smith’s fault that Dunta took it as franchising him wasn’t an option. That’s why people shouldn’t try to read between the lines too much. They end up screwing themselves over.
The problem here is that everything is pure speculation. Everything that we know is not the same as what went on with the conversation between Smith and Cunta.
You can admit to something
Just as much from what you don’t say as much as what you do.
When he had an opportunity to deny the claim that he didn’t contact Robinson personally to inform him of the franchise tag, he bent himself over backwards to get the point across that he did in fact try in numerous ways to get in touch with him and eventually shared text msgs with him…
He had the same opportunity to deny leading Robinson to believe he wouldn’t be franchised, but he didn’t. He used careful wording to admit to telling Robinson he didn’t “want” to franchise him, but he never denied the claim in that forum or any other as far as I know.
In my view, he certainly did admit to wrong doing in those statements, it couldn’t have been more clear if he was holding a sign that read “I did it” while he was making his speach.
I know what you're trying to say, but only because I am reading b/n the lines
Here are a series of conflicting direct quotes from you in this thread:
How do I know what he was told?
So in short, I know because I occassionally read stories as well as look at the pretty pictures.
…no one but the people involved know the exact wording that went on
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
I contradicted myself? Who would have thought that was possible?
It makes sense if you try to read more outside the lines and try to understand what i’m saying rather than gathering a collection of words and adding them up.
I do “know” what Robinson was told because I do “read the stories”, but also because i’m not one to believe every or only written words so tend to look at the whole picture myself when reading anything.
It’s common sense that Smith is going to be more carefull with his wording when speaking to potentially thousands of people than he would with a sit down conversation with one. It’s also highly unlikely that the wording he used in his speach was the exact wording he used during the conversation with Robinson, people just aren’t that accurate when recounting past conversations.
It’s more important the impression Robinson, and his agent or whoever else was there, had of the conversation than the exact wording Smith used in a prepared statement regarding the inflamed situation since it was their perception of that talk that fueled most of the negativity. While it’s easy for misunderstanding to take place in coversation, it’s not likely that those misunderstandings go unnoticed for so long unless they’re intentionally allowed to by one party or the other.
The fact that Smith was highly defensive over the implications that he didn’t contact Robinson about the decision to franchise him, and the non-commital attitude towards the other, also strengthens the notion that there’s much more there than he wants known.
I know this will probably mean another 7 paragraph reply, but
If I understand the gist of your argument, you feel whatever DRob did was justified because you believe Rick Smith communicated to DRob that he would not use the tag, right?
I was lied to by my employer about a contractual provision. I don’t wear a derogatory tie to work. I act like a professional and do my job.
The players’ argument for making all that money is because their career is so short, they have to earn a lifetime’s worth of money in a few years. Then DRob takes a game off (da Jets) and since his pouting caused him to be out of shape, he didn’t earn his huge salary for the first half of the season, at least.
You can’t have it both ways, like DRob tried to do this year.
I don’t care if Smith lied to his face.
Mount Cody in round 1
by texanphil on Feb 20, 2010 10:04 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
No I don't
I never said it was justifiable, just understandable. If he had a pattern of that sort of behavior then i’d understand the backlash more, but one isolated event doesn’t give a person “character issues”.
And I don’t understand all the paragraph hatin’. Some people are longer winded than others, it’s your choice to either listen to them or not. Once you’ve made that decision, you have no right to complain either way.
And I don’t understand all the paragraph hatin’.
obviously.
www.manningface.com
by nolander on Feb 20, 2010 9:49 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
wrong
I made the choice to read it, but for the same reason you have the right to write seven paragraphs, I have the right to bitch about it. And you have the right to read my bitchin’, and we go round n round.
Staying on the paragraphs for a second, it just gives MDC more fisk material if you ever piss him off. I’m sure you’re ok with going there, I’ll try to stay away.
Back on topic: Justifiable v. understandable. I’m not too bright, but at the most there is only a slight difference in the two terms. So without splitting hairs to spin your argument, can you explain the difference?
Mount Cody in round 1
They actually mean two different things
So it’s not splitting hairs at all. I’ve said before and i’ll say it again, I think Dunta behaved like a spoiled child last summer, so no I don’t consider his actions justifiable.
I understand why he reacted the way he did and feel it’s more an issue of natural human response rather than any “character issues”. If I put 10 of the closest people I know in the same situation, I see 8 of them doing pretty much the same, the only exceptions being my mother who’d avoid any confrontation like the plague, and one greedy SoB I know who’d take the money and run…
So it’s understandable in the sense that his reaction to the situation wasn’t really all that unusual considering the circumstances. That doesn’t make it “just”, it’s just not surprising to me that someone would react badly when they feel betrayed by their employer.
I didn't mean you literally had no legal rights to complain
I’m not going to call 911 on you, partly in fear of getting put in a headlock and punched in the face, but you’re safe in that regard.
What I meant was, when you see a post longer than you want to read, saying “oh god here we go again!” when you first see it is an initial response.
However you have the option to then not read said post because it’s too long or whatever, in that case there’s no real reason to complain as you weren’t put out. And if you chose to read it anyway, it’s kind of silly to complain about having to read a long post when you did so freely by your own choosing.
It’s not that you’re not allowed to complain, just that there’s no real point in it other than to provoke yet another long post to complain about in the future. Obviously you’re not going to cure me of writing long posts, so what’s the point?
Unless you’re doing so more out of mockery than voicing your annoyance… In that case i’d point out that mockery is just another form of censorship, and I don’t subscribe to that.
Skinny is good for BRB
No matter what you think of me or my posts, they do generate alot of responses, which really is good for a blog. The more activity the more better…
Now if I were going on and on and no one was bothering to read or respond, then yea that’d be a bit goofy.
The reason i’m longer winded in my responses than others is that for me this is a release. Whenever a talking point comes about i’m batting around 10-15 thoughts in my head, but in “real life” conversation once you let out one the other person responds to it, and the rest get left by the wayside never again to see the light of day, and I find that slightly frustrating.
Online MSG boards and blogs for me, is way to sit down and brainstorm more instead of carrying on a conversation one line at a time.
It’s not likely to change anytime soon, if you don’t like it then stop responding to my posts. If no one is responding to me, i’ll go away. I don’t stay where i’m not wanted.
timing sucks
we have to decide on him before FA or the draft.
I’m guessing he’s a Texan in 2010, one way or the other, like it or not.
Mount Cody in round 1
Maybe they should get him a third shoe to go with his “Pay Me Rick” pair that now says, “Please? I’m beggin”.
Be judgmental about the actions of the past, be hopeful about the actions of the future. -The Homers Creed
by DaGoaT on Feb 18, 2010 6:55 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
or, "Please don't throw at me..."
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
Dunta will get his money
Because teams always overpay. Someone out there is going to make him an even richer man. I just don’t think it’ll be the Texans. In an uncapped year, Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones et al are going to go off, and because so few quality players are out there, people like Dunta will reap the benefits.
As an analogy, people who graduate college in a downturn make roughly 10-20% less than those who graduate in boom times over the course of their working life. Dunta and Chester Taylor are getting free at the right moment.
If its somebody we play in 2010
Schaub will be happy. His one bad pass that game will be dropped by DRob.
Mount Cody in round 1
I love going back to read posts from last year
I even Rec’d a few fully deserving comments…..it’s like having a time machine of goo
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
I'm kinda on the fence here
Last year Dunta was led to believe that he wouldn’t be franchised. Guaranteed he wouldn’t be franchised? Absolutely not. Why would Rick Smith give away his only leverage in a sensitive contract negotiation? Dunta reacted very badly to the f-tag. He could not have been more immature in the offseason which led to a very disappointing on field presence last year; easliy his worst season.
After the Patriots game, Dunta almost immediately said “He wouldn’t mind being franchised this year”. An absolutely cheeky statement considering his substandard season. Does that mean that he now realizes he is not a franchise player, and instead of being insulted by the F-tag, he would feel esteemed by it? Maybe so.
Dunta is presently by anyone’s rating one of our top 4 CB’s which means if we don’t find a suitable replacement for THIS season (not 2 years down the road) then we have just gotten worse in the secondary. Smith would be unwise to let that happen. His mission is to improve the quality of the roster, period. In no way do I want Smith to offer Dunta $12 million, but I do want Smith to act professionally and not allow the acrimony from last year to affect his judgement in the upcoming weeks/months.
Several reasonable numbers have been suggested here, like Jordann’s $4 mil guaranteeed and $12mil for 4 years. Here’s hoping that Smith can keep the big picture in mind and find a solution where the Texans franchise comes out ahead. That is all that anyone can reasonably expect.
It took the Astros 44 years to get to the Series, the Oilers-Texans are due to get to the big dance...Go Texans!!!!!
by oiler-texan diehard on Feb 18, 2010 9:04 PM CST reply actions
Dude.
The idea is that we don’t want Dunta to be tagged. Don’t give us any incentive to want things to be different.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 19, 2010 2:20 AM CST up reply actions
Re: Poop
And then I’ll stomp out the flame, old-man-in-Billy-Madison style.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
Just watch out for the giant penguin
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
Dang!
I’m getting tired of reading everyone’s opinion on Dunta…..
I just want to close my eyes…. and someone wake me when it’s over and I’ll just learn to live with the results…..which hopefully will be that he’s signed and the Texans don’t have to waste a draft pick on a CB…Oops! I stated an opinion on Dunta…..
I suppose if all of the stars, moons and planets align it could be possible, but what are the chances of that?
I don't think there's enough bleach in Houston for everyone to swallow if that happens
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Battle Red Blog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
