Domanick Davis - ongoing knee problems

[Wizards]

I was speaking NFL, not fantasy, but regardless, sounds good to me. Maybe this year you do (if DD finally makes it through a season ), but not for the long haul.

 

1475142[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

In a Keeper and Dynasty League I take Bush (if just established league) before DD, but Bush is a 2nd rounder IMO (after getting a true #1)....

 

This is sticking my neck out...but IMO, JMHO, Bush is not an every down back and will not make it through the NFL grind for a year as an every down back...luckily the Saints can afford the luxury to give him spot duty and 8-10 carries a game with Deuce there....otherwise Bush would be on IR before mid season if he carried the rock 15-20 times per game.......Texans IMO passed on him and it was a very good move....

[CaptainHook]

You should just keep sticking with.... "oops, I was wrong"

 

You spouted off to anyone that would listen that there was no way the Texans would pass on Bush.  You told people who had a different opinion who wrong they were, over and over again.

1474937[/snapback]

Then why didn't you accept my sigline bet about DD and Bush?

 

Who knew the Texans were going to base their pick on who would be easier to sign?

Edited May 19, 2006 by CaptainHook

[CaptainHook]

Something tells me if the Texans already had Will Smith and Charles Grant as their starting DEs, they would have taken Bush.

1475150[/snapback]

 

IF the Texans had taken Bush, would the Saints have passed on Mario Williams becase they had Will Smith and Charles Grant?

 

Teams have the first picks for a reason. They suck. You don't draft based on need at that point. You don't base your pick on who will be easier to sign. You draft the best player REGARDLESS of position. San Diego did it when they drafted Eli Manning. The Texans didn't do that. And I don't care how much smoke they blow about "having them rated equally."

[goose228]

www.chron.com

 

 

With these reports of Domanick's ongoing knee problems, do you think the Texans might have screwed up when they passed on Bush?

 

1473619[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I think even with Domanick Davis at 110% the Texans screwed up when they passed on Bush...

[Big Score 1]

The TEXANS had Bush and Williams rated equally, talent-wise. I've read that a lot of other teams did, as well (and that several teams had Williams ahead of Bush). So, with two players rated EQUALLY, they had a real decision to make. They chose the player at a position of greater need.

1476547[/snapback]

 

 

I never read of any teams having Mario rated ahead of Bush. Doesn't mean it's not true....just that I never came across it.

[Menudo]

  Then why didn't you accept my sigline bet about DD and Bush? 

 

Who knew the Texans were going to base their pick on who would be easier to sign?

 

1476671[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm certainly not going to make a bet on something like this. I save sigline bets for Steeler games.....

 

I felt that not taking Bush was the right thing to do, and I hoped the Texans would do, what, in my opinion was the right thing to do. You were the one that was ranting that there was no way NOT taking Bush would even be a thought.

 

If you are really trying to say that the Texans had Bush ranked above Williams and didn't pick him because of signability, you are REALLY reaching. They had them ranked close, and they went with their biggest need.

[Menudo]

IF the Texans had taken Bush, would the Saints have passed on Mario Williams becase they had Will Smith and Charles Grant?

 

Teams have the first picks for a reason.  They suck.  You don't draft based on need at that point.  You don't base your pick on who will be easier to sign.  You draft the best player REGARDLESS of position.  San Diego did it when they drafted Eli Manning.  The Texans didn't do that.  And I don't care how much smoke they blow about "having them rated equally."

 

1476688[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I get it, so "having them rated equally" is a lie........ but, your ideas that they picked Williams because of signability, despite having NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, is cold, hart fact................

[Azazello1313]

Huh? Seriously, Az -- I remember a time when your counterarguments were much more sensical.

1476547[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

"sensical"? made-up words really make you look smart!

 

look, the point was...the texans and saints both had a choice between taking bush, who plays a position that wasn't a major need for either team, and a defensive player at a position of tremendous need. to argue about which team had which player rated how much higher than whichever other player is essentially beside the point. the point was, the texans went for need and signability, the saints went for best player available regardless of need, and that it will be interesting to see how those strategies play out.

[Ziachild007]

  Then why didn't you accept my sigline bet about DD and Bush? 

 

Who knew the Texans were going to base their pick on who would be easier to sign?

 

1476671[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Whats the bet?

[Swiss Cheezhead]

to argue about which team had which player rated how much higher than whichever other player is essentially beside the point. 

 

1477079[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

How is that "beside the point"? Whose point, yours? Actually, it was exactly MY point, which is why I was arguing it.

 

And, btw, sorry to offend you with my colloquial "sensical." Maybe I just should have just said your counterarguments have become extremely NONsensical. Does that make more sense to you?

[Big Score 1]

How is that "beside the point"? Whose point, yours? Actually, it was exactly MY point, which is why I was arguing it.

1477113[/snapback]

 

 

Then you've been arguing that point with yourself, because nobody else is.

 

Hook, Az & myself have all been saying the Texans drafted for need & the Saints drafted BPA.

 

Which drafting scenario proves to have been the right one, remains to be seen.

[Azazello1313]

How is that "beside the point"? Whose point, yours? Actually, it was exactly MY point, which is why I was arguing it.

1477113[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

uhh, it was actually CH's point, which BS and i agreed with, then you decided to disagree with. and apparently, as you're admitting here, your method of dismantling someone else's point is to argue some totally unrelated point.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

I get it, so "having them rated equally" is a lie........ but, your ideas that they picked Williams because of signability, despite having NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, is cold, hart fact................ 

 

1476735[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY.

 

Casserly has explained, in NUMEROUS interviews, that they on the Wednesday before the draft, he talked to Dan Ferens, the team's contract negotiator, and Ferens told him that he was approaching the final stages of negotiations with both players. Casserly has even been forthright about the exact amount of guaranteed money requested by both players' agents and, as of that Wednesday, BOTH Williams and Bush were asking for more than the team was offering and the difference was almost exactly the same.

 

At that point, Casserly called in Kubiak and told him it was time to make the decision between the two players. They had a discussion, during which Kubiak brought up the Colts and said something along the lines of "we can't just outscore them; we have to stop Manning." Kubiak said he'd go with Williams, Casserly agreed, then they got on a conference call with Bob McNair and he gave his blessing.

 

Then, Ferens resumed negotiations with Williams only and both sides met in the middle to get the contract done.

 

Hook and Az -- you guys can believe what you want to believe, but your "conspiracy theory" just doesn't hold much weight. First, if it was a signability decision, then you can't blame Casserly or Kubiak in the first place; it would have been the owner's call. Secondly, of all the owners who might care about signability Bob McNair is NOT one of them. He's never given an indication that money is an obstacle to making his team better. Thirdly, aren't you guys in the same group who believe Reggie Bush is a "golden goose" of marketing? If that's the case, why would an extra few million in his initial contract matter to a team owner? Theoretically, Bush would bring in MUCH more revenue to the Texans than that, over the length of his rookie contract alone.

 

I have actual evidence that supports my belief that the Texans had Bush and Williams rated equally. You guys don't have any evidence to the contrary.

 

It's also a clear fact that the Saints had Bush ALONE as the #1 player on their board. So, go ahead and laud them for their excellent decision-making skills on draft day! Way to go Saints! You took the best player in the country, according to your scouts, and you got him at #2.

 

[Swiss Cheezhead]

Then you've been arguing that point with yourself, because nobody else is.

 

Hook, Az & myself have all been saying the Texans drafted for need & the Saints drafted BPA.

 

Which drafting scenario proves to have been the right one, remains to be seen.

 

1477154[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

uhh, it was actually CH's point, which BS and i agreed with, then you decided to disagree with. and apparently, as you're admitting here, your method of dismantling someone else's point is to argue some totally unrelated point.

 

1477177[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, you guys are really out in left field here. Let's break this down...

 

Hook's point was to give the Saints credit for taking Bush.

 

I didn't see a point in praising a team for selecting the #1 player on their board at the #2 slot, so I said as much.

 

You and BS1 started saying that the Saints' decision was the same as the Texans' decision.

 

I saw important differences between the Texans' decision and the Saints' decision, so I said as much.

 

Hook said he didn't agree with my assessment because he still thinks the Texans are "blowing smoke" about having both players rated equally.

 

I thought that belief was silly, so I said as much.

 

Where are we now?

[Azazello1313]

I get it, so "having them rated equally" is a lie........ but, your ideas that they picked Williams because of signability, despite having NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE, is cold, hart fact................ 

 

1476735[/snapback]

 

 

 

umm, there's actually a TON of concrete evidence. like the fact that they started contract negotiations with bush, and bush alone, a few weeks before the draft...then when that went nowhere, opening dual negotiations with bush and mario. mario takes the offer, he's the pick. couple that with the fact that it was public knowledge that the texans owner wanted, if not flat-out required, that the guy be signed before they make the pick.

[Big Score 1]

You and BS1 started saying that the Saints' decision was the same as the Texans' decision.

1477208[/snapback]

 

 

It was the same decision.

 

Do they draft the best player for the team need? Or do they draft the BPA?

 

Houston went need, Saints BPA.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

umm, there's actually a TON of concrete evidence.  like the fact that they started contract negotiations with bush, and bush alone, a few weeks before the draft...then when that went nowhere, opening dual negotiations with bush and mario.  mario takes the offer, he's the pick.  couple that with the fact that it was public knowledge that the texans owner wanted, if not flat-out required, that the guy be signed before they make the pick.

 

1477212[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't think any of that disputes that the "football people" in the organization had both players rated equally. Not only that, but there's been evidence since the draft that more than a few teams had Williams #1 over Bush. Why is it such a difficult notion to believe?

 

I suppose by your rationale, the fact that the Texans said they wanted Bush back in January, after the national championship game, also means that they had him clearly ahed of Williams in April.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

It was the same decision.

 

Do they draft the best player for the team need? Or do they draft the BPA?

 

Houston went need, Saints BPA.

 

1477218[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Don't you understand that that belief requires an important assumption -- that the Texans did NOT have both players rated equally.

 

Now maybe it's clear why I was arguing the point?

[Azazello1313]

I suppose by your rationale, the fact that the Texans said they wanted Bush back in January, after the national championship game, also means that they had him clearly ahed of Williams in April.

 

1477219[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

there you go again being "sensical" and arguing against arguments that were never made.

 

to be clear, my rationale is that 2 weeks before the draft, the texans were negotiating with bush and bush alone, and that this would tend to indicate that he was the top player on their board. NOT in january, in APRIL -- 2 weeks before the draft. AFTER those negotiations stalled, THEN the discussions with mario began.

 

so what happened? did they find some new tape on mario that changed their evaluations of the two players? uhh, doubtful. were they dismayed by the rent scandal with bush? could be. or did the rent thing combined with reggie's contract demands make them reevaluate their position and whether he was the best pick for them? i'm pretty sure that is exactly what happened. who knows whether they made the right call or not. that's why i said it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Azazello1313

[Swiss Cheezhead]

there you go again being "sensical" and arguing against arguments that were never made.

 

to be clear, my rationale is that 2 weeks before the draft, the texans were negotiating with bush and bush alone, and that this would tend to indicate that he was the top player on their board.  NOT in january, in APRIL -- 2 weeks before the draft.  AFTER those negotiations stalled, THEN the discussions with mario began. 

 

so what happened?  did they find some new tape on mario that changed their evaluations of the two players?  uhh, doubtful.  were they dismayed by the rent scandal with bush?  could be.  or did the rent thing combined with reggie's contract demands make them reevaluate their position and whether he was the best pick for them?  i'm pretty sure that is exactly what happened.  who knows whether they made the right call or not.  that's why i said it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

1477241[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, the bold sentence is about the only one I might dispute. It's pretty much the key to your argument -- it would have to be true for your belief to hold water. From all I've ever seen and heard from Casserly, he's a very forthright and honest individual. I have no reason to doubt him, so I believe him when he said that, as of Wednesday, the team was confident it could sign either player before Saturday.

 

And, btw, you're right in believing McNair wanted a contract done before the draft (who wouldn't?), and he said as much, but I don't think an owner like McNair would make it the determining factor.

[Big Score 1]

Don't you understand that that belief requires an important assumption -- that the Texans did NOT have both players rated equally.

 

Now maybe it's clear why I was arguing the point?

 

1477233[/snapback]

 

 

 

:sigh:

 

As a TEAM NEED AJ Hawk was clearly rated higher by the Saints, than Bush.

[Menudo]

It was the same decision.

 

Do they draft the best player for the team need? Or do they draft the BPA?

 

Houston went need, Saints BPA.

 

1477218[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Once again, you are confusing your 'BELIEFS' as 'FACTS'. Neither you nor I know that the Texans did or did not take who they considered the Best Player Available..............

[Swiss Cheezhead]

:sigh:

 

As a TEAM NEED AJ Hawk was clearly rated higher by the Saints, than Bush.

 

1477268[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:sigh:

 

Unfortunately, BS1, that's not the only part of this argument. You should pay better attention.

 

If Bush was, in fact, #1 on the Texans' board and Williams was #2, THEN, and only then, was their decision the same as the Saints'. AGAIN, you're making the ASSUMPTION that that was the case. You, Az, and Hook are assuming the Texans are "blowing smoke" about having Bush and Williams rated equally. I'm not making that assumption...because I have no reason to.

 

If, on the other hand, both players WERE rated equally by the Texans, then their decision was CLEARLY different than that of the Saints, who simply took their #1 player.

 

:sigh:

[Big Score 1]

Once again, you are confusing your 'BELIEFS' as 'FACTS'.    Neither you nor I know that the Texans did or did not take who they considered the Best Player Available..............

1477272[/snapback]

 

 

I have most certainly heard that they were at the very least, rated even. And the rated even reports came about after they went with Mario.

Prior to that everything I heard was that they had Bush as their BPA.

 

Are you now going to ask me for a ?

 

If so forget it. I don't feel like searching for old stories.

 

Google it for yourself though, if you like.

[Big Score 1]

:sigh:

 

Unfortunately, BS1, that's not the only part of this argument. You should pay better attention.

 

:sigh:

 

1477281[/snapback]

 

 

 

:sigh: x 2

 

Unfortunately it is the part I'm debating. You should pay better attention.

 

:sigh: x 2