Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Deshaun Watson trade now as unlikely as ever...


SizzleBuzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Name him the starter.  

 

Too bad...shouldn't have signed a legally binding contract obligating him to play for Houston.  

Think it is just that easy?  

We'll see how accurate you are.  

T. Taylor is set to start game one. 

Either way, it's no skin off my butt.  I wanted him before his issues but there is no way in hell I would give up 3-1st and multiple 2nds for a player that has all these legal issues. 

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Think it is just that easy?  

Sure do.

 

7 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

We'll see how accurate you are.  

I'm in no way predicting the team will take this path but do wish they would. 

 

There's only one thing that's for certain in this deal -- every one of the "he'll be traded by" prognostications (expert and armchair alike) has been flat out wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Sure do.

 

I'm in no way predicting the team will take this path but do wish they would. 

 

There's only one thing that's for certain in this deal -- every one of the "he'll be traded by" prognostications (expert and armchair alike) has been flat out wrong.

If the issues never came up, he most definitely would have been traded!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Sure do.

 

I'm in no way predicting the team will take this path but do wish they would. 

 

There's only one thing that's for certain in this deal -- every one of the "he'll be traded by" prognostications (expert and armchair alike) has been flat out wrong.

You don’t even think he is starting? Why are you asking everyone who the starter is? It just bothers you that even a player in legal trouble with little leverage has some pull on say on how he plays vs what the owners want.

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Because the Texans have no plans to play him.

He's on the 53-man roster and available.  In the NFL "plans" change daily if not hourly!

 

12 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If they announced him to start week one he'd probably be on the commissioner's exempt list 15 minutes later.

If true the Texans should immediately name him the starter so they can then fill that 53rd roster spot with another player who is eligible and available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

He's on the 53-man roster and available.  In the NFL "plans" change daily if not hourly!

 

If true the Texans should immediately name him the starter so they can then fill that 53rd roster spot with another player who is eligible and available.

He’s not playing this year, give it up dude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Starting QBs who want no part of the organization while also upsetting a large portion of the fanbase. What could possibly go wrong?! Glad this guy isn’t running any organizations…

Texans fans are squarely behind Mr. Whip It Out because their only concern is winning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...