PDA

View Full Version : "Texans players say they had illegal contract drills at 2008 mini-camp"


Pages : 1 [2]

Texans_Chick
02-09-2009, 09:55 AM
Okay looking at the report, including doing a stop page to read the letters involved makes me think the following:

1. Stevenson's lawyer screwed up his original grievance at a minimum with procedural errors. The letter from the NFL says both procedural and factual errors.

2. There are two issues: 1. Whether drills were impermissible; 2. Whether the Texans failed to pay for needed treatment.

3. It is not uncommon for teams and players to have disagreements with teams about when injuries occurred. That is not a federal case. NFL players, especially linemen, tend to be nicked up. All teams want players to report injuries right away.

4. Just because a team denies paying for a surgery and then pays for it, and then says that paying for it isn't admission of liability, is no big deal. They made it a big deal in the ESPN report, but that is just legal verbiage.

Stevenson is fussing now because his original grievance was denied because it appears as though his lawyer screwed up. That's what procedural problems are--you didn't file something the right way.

Wolf
02-09-2009, 10:42 AM
in 2006 and not sure what happened with the grievances

ORCHARD PARK\ — A few renegade NFL teams may have committed “NCAA” violations this spring.

The transgressions have nothing to do with college athletics. We’ve bastardized the NCAA acronym to mean “No contact allowed anytime.”

That’s what language in the league’s collective bargaining agreement effectively says regarding offseason practices. But some teams have chosen to break — or at least bend — those rules.

Last month, the Detroit Lions lost two days of Organized Team Activities (voluntary offseason workouts and meetings) after a lineman filed a grievance with the players association alleging that the team held contact drills at an April minicamp.

But that didn’t stop other teams from pushing the envelope. Mike Florio, editor of the Web site profootballtalk.com, speculated in his Web log on May 28 that hitting was occurring at OTAs. He cited anonymous tips and a comment Miami linebacker Zach Thomas made that suggested the team was holding him out of contact drills.

Two days later, Florio reported that the Kansas City Chiefs were allegedly holding contact drills, based on video posted to the team’s Web site. Online video of Washington Redskins linemen engaging in one-on-one contact drills cost the team OTA days last season.

The Chiefs removed their video less than two hours after Florio’s report.

Since, PFT.com readers have contributed photo evidence indicating that Chicago, Green Bay, Philadelphia, Indianapolis and Seattle may have also violated Article XXXV, Section 5 of the CBA.


http://www.niagara-gazette.com/sports/gnnsports_story_169001217.html

this post has no hidden agenda toward the Texans situation, I was curious what has happened in the past.

Wolf
02-09-2009, 10:49 AM
Clubs may conduct voluntary, but not mandatory, off-season workout programs for no more than 14 weeks, with no more than four workouts per week. Clubs may only hold 14 days of organized team activity during this 14-week period, and no contact work is permitted.

Teams must provide their players with a schedule of all off-season activity before it begins, including a starting date which will be uniform around the NFL and a designation of which days are the 14 days for “organized team activity”. The intensity and tempo of drills shall be at a level conducive to learning, with player safety as the highest priority, and not at a level where one player is in a physical contest with another player.

During the 14 days of “organized team activity” the following rules apply:

* Maximum six hours per day, with a maximum of two hours on the field.
* No pads except protective knee or elbow pads. Helmets are permitted.
* No live contact, no live contact drills between offensive and defensive linemen.
* 7 on 7, 9 on 7, and 11 on 11 drills are permitted but no live contact.


For all off-season workouts other than the 14 days of “organized team activity” these rules apply:

* Maximum of four (4) hours per day, with a maximum of 90 minutes on the field.
* Club may only specify up to two (2) hours that the players can be at the club facilities; the player may select the other two (2) hours in which he wishes to conduct weight training, etc.
* No “organized team activity.”

Pre-Training Camp Period:


http://www.nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=368

Polo
02-09-2009, 10:52 AM
This just makes me wonder: (A) Bob doesn't know what in the heck is going on behind the scenes and he just gets some daily report or he walks around and shakes hands and is back in his office within 20 minutes, or (B) He knows darn well what's going on.


I think Bob has witnessed plenty of practices. He may not be super involved, but I doubt that he viewed the infractions in the same light as you do or anyone else that has a problem with the drills.

We are not going to lose any draft picks and the only reason this is a story is because ESPN said so. On every single level of football players are running one on one drills without pads on.

Think about this: Why would the Texans do anything like this with Malice toward "players who probably wouldn't make it anyway" when Mario, AJ, Demeco, Winston--pretty much everyone--is running the same drills ?

It's because it's not really something you think twice about. It's like getting pulled over for doing 60 in a 55...

As a player if you truly feel uncomfortable with the drill and think it may be violating your rights then you shouldn't participate...Take it to the leauge before you get hurt...Not afterward...

GP
02-09-2009, 10:53 AM
in 2006 and not sure what happened with the grievances



http://www.niagara-gazette.com/sports/gnnsports_story_169001217.html

this post has no hidden agenda toward the Texans situation, I was curious what has happened in the past.

Well, it sticks out (to me) that the Chiefs removed the damning evidence within two hours of an official report of the misconduct. If something is wrong, it gets hidden. Fastly.

And, it sticks out that multiple teams are holding these drills (as speculated by others in this thread). Subsequently, days of OTAs were taken away. The Texans can probably expect the same.

TexansChick contributed some great analysis, as did Wolf. Thanks to both of you for the search & find.

GP
02-09-2009, 10:56 AM
I think Bob has witnessed plenty of practices. He may not be super involved, but I doubt that he viewed the infractions in the same light as you do or anyone else that has a problem with the drills.

We are not going to lose any draft picks and the only reason this is a story is because ESPN said so. On every single level of football players are running one on one drills without pads on.

Think about this: Why would the Texans do anything like this with Malice toward "players who probably wouldn't make it anyway" when Mario, AJ, Demeco, Winston--pretty much everyone--is running the same drills ?

It's because it's not really something you think twice about. It's like getting pulled over for doing 60 in a 55...

As a player if you truly feel uncomfortable with the drill and think it may be violating your rights then you shouldn't participate...Take it to the leauge before you get hurt...Not afterward...

But the players were told to go "half-speed," which we've tackled that issue thus far in this thread: Going half-speed gives the players a false confidence that they aren;t going to get into heavy action...yet someone, at some point, beats his man and then it's "on" after that.

The crux of this whole mess is that LIVE BLOCKING was not to have been on the schedule. Can a player refuse? Yes. At a steep price, as we all are aware of. Stevenson was screwed one way or the other, IMO.

The Pencil Neck
02-09-2009, 11:10 AM
It would be naive to think that a team, our team specifically, is above the shenanigans that you'd think you'd find on a "bad" team.


I think a lot of the problem is based on this belief. I think, at one point, you had this belief and now you feel betrayed. You're angry and you're hurt because you seemed to think that the Texans were somehow going to be angels.

Personally, I find this whole topic a non-issue. There is nothing about this that makes me angry at the Texans.

Polo
02-09-2009, 11:15 AM
But the players were told to go "half-speed," which we've tackled that issue thus far in this thread: Going half-speed gives the players a false confidence that they aren;t going to get into heavy action...yet someone, at some point, beats his man and then it's "on" after that.

I don't get that argument.

In drills like that players are constantly told "stay on your feet".."half-speed"...

When you're on the practice field and the coach is saying things like that, gthe guys who are out there trying to be "scout team heroes" are easily recognized and called out...

Besides, 7 on 7 and Team drills are allowed. Seems to me that a player would be more likely to get hurt with other players on the field.

The crux of this whole mess is that LIVE BLOCKING was not to have been on the schedule. Can a player refuse? Yes. At a steep price, as we all are aware of. Stevenson was screwed one way or the other, IMO.

Well then that player shouldn't have "live blocked"....The crux of the situation is that Stevenson got hurt doing something every player does throughout their football career; something he's most likely done many times before--and he got hurt.

There was not a lose, lose situation for Stevenson. The "lose, lose" scenario only presents itself after he got hurt. If someone else gets hurt and he ends up making the team is that a "lose,lose" situation ? No...And he wouldn't have made a fuss about the drills in question. If he really felt like the drills could jeopardize his health then he had two decisions...Walk away from this drill knowing I'll be safe...or participate and risk injury...He chose to participate...IMO, that's his fault...

Texans_Chick
02-09-2009, 11:39 AM
I don't get that argument.

In drills like that players are constantly told "stay on your feet".."half-speed"...

When you're on the practice field and the coach is saying things like that, gthe guys who are out there trying to be "scout team heroes" are easily recognized and called out...

Besides, 7 on 7 and Team drills are allowed. Seems to me that a player would be more likely to get hurt with other players on the field.



Well then that player shouldn't have "live blocked"....The crux of the situation is that Stevenson got hurt doing something every player does throughout their football career; something he's most likely done many times before--and he got hurt.

There was not a lose, lose situation for Stevenson. The "lose, lose" scenario only presents itself after he got hurt. If someone else gets hurt and he ends up making the team is that a "lose,lose" situation ? No...And he wouldn't have made a fuss about the drills in question. If he really felt like the drills could jeopardize his health then he had two decisions...Walk away from this drill knowing I'll be safe...or participate and risk injury...He chose to participate...IMO, that's his fault...

What is interesting is that if you look at a clip of the letter from the NFL back to Stevenson's lawyer, it makes the point that he wasn't released, that he was still a part of the team but that Stevenson's grievance made it sound like he was released.

Has anyone got any definitive information that this is Stevenson's third grievance? I've heard grumblings.

gtexan02
02-09-2009, 01:24 PM
What is interesting is that if you look at a clip of the letter from the NFL back to Stevenson's lawyer, it makes the point that he wasn't released, that he was still a part of the team but that Stevenson's grievance made it sound like he was released.

Has anyone got any definitive information that this is Stevenson's third grievance? I've heard grumblings.

3rd grievance as in this is his 3rd attempt at complaining about this particular situation or 3rd grievance as in 3 separate events?

GP
02-09-2009, 01:34 PM
I think a lot of the problem is based on this belief. I think, at one point, you had this belief and now you feel betrayed. You're angry and you're hurt because you seemed to think that the Texans were somehow going to be angels.

Personally, I find this whole topic a non-issue. There is nothing about this that makes me angry at the Texans.

Oh that's exactly how I felt, initially. You can't help but see a guy have that happen to him, then see the Texans' responses to the situation(s), and not come away feeling a little angry about it.

However...here comes the big BUT. But over the course of the day on Sunday, I did come to grips with the fact that there is no perfect organization. It's a meat grinder, and we get the product (on the field, on Sundays) that we want. And it's costly in many ways.

The beef that I have, today and likely for awhile, is that this team's ownership goes above and beyond the normal call of duty as it relates to presenting itself as this Boy Scout, cookies-n-milk, good old Aunt Judy and Uncle Joe organization. Truth be told: They're out there engaging in anything they can in order to get ahead.

I am NOT saying that the way Richard Justice does his thang is acceptable. I do not say that his style is excusable, but it is understandable. We've long been wondering why he had this axe to grind with Rick Smith and the powers-that-be. He was angry about a situation where Riley was having a good time in the weight room, bringing levity to the room after a loss...and the report is that Kubiak ripped him a new one and couldn't understand how anybody could be happy after a loss. Well, considering the recent information about Rick Smith calling out the integrity of Stevenson and yelling at him (for calling them on the carpet, once and for all), there is a disconnect between the public persona that Bob McNair is trying to build in the media and the private handling of these types of issues.

I like sports. Especially football, most of all. I love this team because I was an Oilers fan when the team was moved to Hillbilly-ville. I guess I am a little bit guilty of being naive about the Texans, as if they were as squeaky clean as Smiling Bob portrays them to be. They're out there hustling, finding angles, trimming the fat, just like the other teams are.

Not gonna' interfere with my fandom. Still here, and not threatening to leave or anything. Just trying to sort through all the stuff that's been out there the past few weeks. I'll watch Steel Magnolias tonight and everything will be fine. :heart:

gtexan02
02-09-2009, 01:38 PM
Truth be told: They're out there engaging in anything they can in order to get ahead.


Its funny that you can conclude all of this after the Texans have been allegedly blamed for one violation of a minor rule in the CBA. Nothing has even been proven yet.

Dont you think you're being a little dramatic?

Texans_Chick
02-09-2009, 01:56 PM
3rd grievance as in this is his 3rd attempt at complaining about this particular situation or 3rd grievance as in 3 separate events?

Third team he has grieved.

gtexan02
02-09-2009, 01:57 PM
Third team he has grieved.

Highly interesting. So he has been in the league for 3 years and has filed grievances against every team he has been with?

GP
02-09-2009, 02:02 PM
Its funny that you can conclude all of this after the Texans have been allegedly blamed for one violation of a minor rule in the CBA. Nothing has even been proven yet.

Dont you think you're being a little dramatic?

Well, my personality type is one in which I adhere by rules. Wherever the line is drawn, I am far from it. Does it mean I never break a rule? No. It means I hold the rules in high regard almost 100% of the time.

I would bet that there are some of you who feel less passionate about rule-abiding. Doesn't mean you're a cheat or less of a person, just means you view it differently. The rule (or the line in the sand, so to speak) is tempting, it's to be challenged, it's to be beaten. My 8-year-old daughter is like that: Wherever the line is, her toe is dangling over it and a smile on her face. My 4-year-old daughter is like me: She sees the line, and stays back about two feet.

As far as being proven: He has footage of his own of the drill being ran, and he has computer archived footage of the date of the drill being ran, as well as on-screen footage of the drill being ran at the time he states it was ran.

Isn't that proof? No live blocking, per Article 36, section 4 of the CBA, during minicamps.

It's black-and-white, no?

HOU-TEX
02-09-2009, 02:02 PM
Third team he has grieved.

Highly interesting. So he has been in the league for 3 years and has filed grievances against every team he has been with?

To me, it sounds like Dan Stevenson should just hang up his NFL cleats and persue a different profession. He's coming off sounding like a whining biatch to me. If this is all true, of course. :shades:

GP
02-09-2009, 02:02 PM
Third team he has grieved.

For the same thing?

Even if not, three time with three teams IS a bit interesting. :devilpig:

The Pencil Neck
02-09-2009, 02:04 PM
The beef that I have, today and likely for awhile, is that this team's ownership goes above and beyond the normal call of duty as it relates to presenting itself as this Boy Scout, cookies-n-milk, good old Aunt Judy and Uncle Joe organization. Truth be told: They're out there engaging in anything they can in order to get ahead.


They're both. Really. You can be a boy scout and still work to try to get ahead. You can be a good person and drive 40 in a 35 mph zone. You can try not to have bad character guys on the team and still push the limits of the CBA.

Getting ticked off with the Texans front office over this, including Smith yelling at Stevenson IF that even happened, is like calling a husband a liar if he tells his wife that her butt doesn't look fat in that dress when it does.

Your reaction seems amazingly out of proportion with the infraction.


I am NOT saying that the way Richard Justice does his thang is acceptable. I do not say that his style is excusable, but it is understandable. We've long been wondering why he had this axe to grind with Rick Smith and the powers-that-be. He was angry about a situation where Riley was having a good time in the weight room, bringing levity to the room after a loss...and the report is that Kubiak ripped him a new one and couldn't understand how anybody could be happy after a loss. Well, considering the recent information about Rick Smith calling out the integrity of Stevenson and yelling at him (for calling them on the carpet, once and for all), there is a disconnect between the public persona that Bob McNair is trying to build in the media and the private handling of these types of issues.

My father died of lung cancer after smoking at least a pack a day for over 50 years. He blamed his cancer on an accident in 1961 where he had a bunch of brake fluid or something go up his nose. As far as he was concerned, his smoking had nothing to do with the cancer. I personally feel that this thing with Riley not getting re-hired because he was smiling after a loss is the same thing. He wasn't re-hired because he wasn't doing a good job not because of some incident after a loss (although I'm sure that didn't help.)

Also, even if Rick Smith yelled at Stevenson (which you only have Stevenson's word about), that doesn't tarnish the image of the Texans for me at all. No matter what company or even family or relationship you're talking about, everything is never all sweetness and light. I'm sure that Rick Smith has gotten in several people's faces. I HOPE Kubiak and the rest of the coaches have gotten into some people's faces and yelled at them. I hope they've called them out. That's their job.

I love my wife. We've been married over 20 years. We've gotten into each other's faces numerous times. Sometimes it's helped us and sometimes it's hurt but it doesn't mean we don't have a good relationship. Rick Smith getting into Stevenson's face doesn't mean that the Texans aren't a class organization.

gtexan02
02-09-2009, 02:08 PM
As far as being proven: He has footage of his own of the drill being ran, and he has computer archived footage of the date of the drill being ran, as well as on-screen footage of the drill being ran at the time he states it was ran.

Isn't that proof? No live blocking, per Article 36, section 4 of the CBA, during minicamps.

It's black-and-white, no?

Its hard for me to comment because the only video I have seen was on ESPNs OTL article online. It was a pretty short clip. There were probably time and date stamps, but those are relatively meaningless.

To me, the signed affidavits by Weary and others is more meaningful, but since there is still an investigation pending, I'm going to have to wait and see.

Maybe there is some loophole to the "no contact" provision that I don't understand. On paper, it does seem like at the very least, the Texans were guilty of not preventing a situation.
Maybe they didn't organize contact activities, but failed to halt contact activities when they escalated, and that would still be an infraction. We'll have to see I guess

GP
02-09-2009, 02:08 PM
Its funny that you can conclude all of this after the Texans have been allegedly blamed for one violation of a minor rule in the CBA. Nothing has even been proven yet.

Dont you think you're being a little dramatic?

Notice I refrain from attacking why you feel he way you feel on this issue. Calling me overly dramatic would be like me calling you an insensitive rule-breaker. I doubt you go around flipping the bird at every position of authority in your life.

We can have differing views. Nobody has to "win" against one another.

I have stated that I was angered, then had time for introspection, and now it's a deal of understanding that (A) a wrong thing happened, and yet (B) that doesn't mean I take it overboard and cry for damnation of this team. If we broke the rule, and there's penalties other teams served for similar behavior, then we can expect to be served same punishment.

If this guy is going around to each team and filing grievances left and right, which I think we'd need verification of that, then I do feel less sorry for him.

gtexan02
02-09-2009, 02:11 PM
Notice I refrain from attacking why you feel he way you feel on this issue. Calling me overly dramatic would be like me calling you an insensitive rule-breaker. I doubt you go around flipping the bird at every position of authority in your life.

We can have differing views. Nobody has to "win" against one another.

I have stated that I was angered, then had time for introspection, and now it's a deal of understanding that (A) a wrong thing happened, and yet (B) that doesn't mean I take it overboard and cry for damnation of this team. If we broke the rule, and there's penalties other teams served for similar behavior, then we can expect to be served same punishment.

If this guy is going around to each team and filing grievances left and right, which I think we'd need verification of that, then I do feel less sorry for him.

I think pencil neck said it better. By "dramatic" I meant that your reaction did not seem in line with the rule being violated.

Your reaction seems amazingly out of proportion with the infraction.

It wasn't intended as a personal shot

The Pencil Neck
02-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Well, my personality type is one in which I adhere by rules. Wherever the line is drawn, I am far from it. Does it mean I never break a rule? No. It means I hold the rules in high regard almost 100% of the time.

I would bet that there are some of you who feel less passionate about rule-abiding. Doesn't mean you're a cheat or less of a person, just means you view it differently. The rule (or the line in the sand, so to speak) is tempting, it's to be challenged, it's to be beaten. My 8-year-old daughter is like that: Wherever the line is, her toe is dangling over it and a smile on her face. My 4-year-old daughter is like me: She sees the line, and stays back about two feet.

As far as being proven: He has footage of his own of the drill being ran, and he has computer archived footage of the date of the drill being ran, as well as on-screen footage of the drill being ran at the time he states it was ran.

Isn't that proof? No live blocking, per Article 36, section 4 of the CBA, during minicamps.

It's black-and-white, no?


And this is something that's interesting. I'm also a rules-abiding guy.

I participate in a sport rife with steroid use but I don't use steroids because it's against the law and the rules. I don't do illegal drugs. But I will speed from time to time but I'm not someone to test the limitations and boundaries of the rules.

I think there are rules and there are rules. And in this case, I don't think this is a RULE. It doesn't seem to be something that the NFL is very worried about. Lots of teams do it, the rule itself has no teeth and very little meaning. Sure, it's there and it's written down but it's like the law that all businesses in Houston have to provide a hitching post for horses. Virtually all businesses in Houston are breaking that law but the law has no teeth, it's not "real". That's the feeling I'm getting from this particular rule.

Big Lou
02-09-2009, 02:16 PM
Rule are rules, but the little bit I saw looked like no big deal. Seriously it's not like they were told to chop block each other. They weren't even firing off at one another, they were moving toward each other and then locking up with one another.

I know this was in 2008, but I'm just happy to have a damn job........

Polo
02-09-2009, 02:17 PM
It's black-and-white, no?

It's black and white, but it's not that crucial...

It's like getting pulled over for doing 69mph in a 65mph zone....Technically you were speeding, but that doesn't mean you're all of a sudden a bad driver.

The Texans essentially were going 5mph over the speed limit. A ticketable offense that nearly everyone commits, but it'd take a cop in a bad move to write a ticket for.

GP
02-09-2009, 02:19 PM
They're both. Really. You can be a boy scout and still work to try to get ahead. You can be a good person and drive 40 in a 35 mph zone. You can try not to have bad character guys on the team and still push the limits of the CBA.

Getting ticked off with the Texans front office over this, including Smith yelling at Stevenson IF that even happened, is like calling a husband a liar if he tells his wife that her butt doesn't look fat in that dress when it does. LOL. Good one.

Your reaction seems amazingly out of proportion with the infraction. No, the infraction is not THAT big to me, it's the denial by the Texans that it happened when it did (the doctoring of the trainer's report), refusal to pay for Black's surgery then doing it and saying "Oh, by the way...we're doing this because we're The Good Guys, not because it's pay-off or anything..." It's a continuation of lying and lack of upright behavior, IMO.



My father died of lung cancer after smoking at least a pack a day for over 50 years. He blamed his cancer on an accident in 1961 where he had a bunch of brake fluid or something go up his nose. As far as he was concerned, his smoking had nothing to do with the cancer. I personally feel that this thing with Riley not getting re-hired because he was smiling after a loss is the same thing. He wasn't re-hired because he wasn't doing a good job not because of some incident after a loss (although I'm sure that didn't help.) Sorry I didn't clarify why I used that part: I used it because it's supplemental to the issue of Rick Smith allegedly yelling at Stevenson and calling out his integrity. Personal, revealing information like this is not normally revealed--the Texans have a clamp on leaking, that's for sure--so we're getting snippets of information about negative behavior by Smithiak, which, as you said, does not nullify all the other stuff in "the marriage."

Also, even if Rick Smith yelled at Stevenson (which you only have Stevenson's word about), that doesn't tarnish the image of the Texans for me at all. No matter what company or even family or relationship you're talking about, everything is never all sweetness and light. I'm sure that Rick Smith has gotten in several people's faces. I HOPE Kubiak and the rest of the coaches have gotten into some people's faces and yelled at them. I hope they've called them out. That's their job.

I love my wife. We've been married over 20 years. We've gotten into each other's faces numerous times. Sometimes it's helped us and sometimes it's hurt but it doesn't mean we don't have a good relationship. Rick Smith getting into Stevenson's face doesn't mean that the Texans aren't a class organization. And that's something I came to grips with, on my own, over the course of Sunday. Agreed.

My replies are in bold.

Good post, by the way.

GP
02-09-2009, 02:27 PM
It's black and white, but it's not that crucial...

It's like getting pulled over for doing 69mph in a 65mph zone....Technically you were speeding, but that doesn't mean you're all of a sudden a bad driver.

The Texans essentially were going 5mph over the speed limit. A ticketable offense that nearly everyone commits, but it'd take a cop in a bad move to write a ticket for.

Here's the kicker: If you had hit a child going over the speed limit, no matter what the speed limit is, then (see if you agree with me, here) the ruling can be that HAD you honored the posted speed limit, you might have avoided hitting the child. The laws on speeding are in place not to be just a hard number that they think is good. They are speed limits because that's a SAFE limit within whatever area you are traveling: A school zone, an interstate highway, etc. Going 20 in a school zone gives you a better chance of braking and avoiding hitting a child in the street, going 25 places you at a higher risk of not being to stop in time.

I ran my pickup into a light pole on a college campus, almost totaled it. Had to have a cop come and do a report on it for insurance purposes. He gave me a ticket for "careless driving." I said "WHAT?!?!" He said "You took your eyes off of what was in front of you, thats why you hit the pole." I said "BUt I was looking for a parking space while still moving forward." He said "But you took your eyes off what's in front of you."

He was right. I did. Case closed. No matter the way you feel about the rule, it's to be honored...or else. In this case, it's been deemed that live blocking without pads is a no-no. Probably due to lack of protection, plus you don't have your anti-dislocation device on that straps to the pads.

LOL. You guys are probably getting dizzy over me and my posts. I don't mean to drag it out. I do find the conversation enlightening, though. It's good to see everyone's train of thought on things. No judgment, from me, on what's being said, by the way. Hopefully it's reciprocated back to me!

Runner
02-09-2009, 03:32 PM
This was an interesting off-season thread. I think I'll go back to hibernating until something else piques my interest.

The Pencil Neck
02-09-2009, 03:48 PM
Here's the kicker: If you had hit a child going over the speed limit, no matter what the speed limit is, then (see if you agree with me, here) the ruling can be that HAD you honored the posted speed limit, you might have avoided hitting the child.


This gets back to a rule vs. a RULE. For me, I've got no problem with going a little over the speed limit. I've got no problem with 7-8 mph faster than what's written and in some cases (on some freeways), if traffic is flowing fast, I'm fine with going even faster than 7-8 mph over the speed limit.

BUT... in residential areas or in school zones, the rule stops being just a rule and starts being a RULE. Why? Because there is a possibility children could be present. If you're driving down a freeway, you don't expect a child to run out in front of you. If' you're driving down a major street, you don't expect a child to run out in front of you. And you shouldn't because they shouldn't be out there. But if you're in a residential area during the day/evening or driving through a school zone, there may be children running out in front of you. In that case, you follow the speed limit and keep your attention on the road.


LOL. You guys are probably getting dizzy over me and my posts. I don't mean to drag it out. I do find the conversation enlightening, though. It's good to see everyone's train of thought on things. No judgment, from me, on what's being said, by the way. Hopefully it's reciprocated back to me!

Ah, it's cool, man.

InterestedJeff
02-09-2009, 03:48 PM
I think its funny how Stevenson is crying about getting yelled at. Give me a freakin break! this is football! Go watch a junior high football game sometime and you'll hear coaches say things much more harsh than what Stevenson was boohooing about.

Kaiser Toro
02-09-2009, 04:12 PM
This was an interesting off-season thread. I think I'll go back to hibernating until something else piques my interest.

I just read it, and found the thread more interesting than "the story" itself.

Innovation and success are often strewn with exploring the gray area or stretching the rules. Without risk, there is little reward, the Texans know it (like many NFL teams), and journeyman/borderline NFL players better know it because it is often their only chance to position themselves for more snaps in training camp.

If I were the Texans I would stay mum on this issue in the public areana and let the process unfold in private. Moreover, I would ratchet up some press releases on the good things going on with the players and staff.

spurstexanstros
02-09-2009, 05:19 PM
Here's the kicker: If you had hit a child going over the speed limit, no matter what the speed limit is, then (see if you agree with me, here) the ruling can be that HAD you honored the posted speed limit, you might have avoided hitting the child. The laws on speeding are in place not to be just a hard number that they think is good. They are speed limits because that's a SAFE limit within whatever area you are traveling: A school zone, an interstate highway, etc. Going 20 in a school zone gives you a better chance of braking and avoiding hitting a child in the street, going 25 places you at a higher risk of not being to stop in time.

I ran my pickup into a light pole on a college campus, almost totaled it. Had to have a cop come and do a report on it for insurance purposes. He gave me a ticket for "careless driving." I said "WHAT?!?!" He said "You took your eyes off of what was in front of you, thats why you hit the pole." I said "BUt I was looking for a parking space while still moving forward." He said "But you took your eyes off what's in front of you."

He was right. I did. Case closed. No matter the way you feel about the rule, it's to be honored...or else. In this case, it's been deemed that live blocking without pads is a no-no. Probably due to lack of protection, plus you don't have your anti-dislocation device on that straps to the pads.

LOL. You guys are probably getting dizzy over me and my posts. I don't mean to drag it out. I do find the conversation enlightening, though. It's good to see everyone's train of thought on things. No judgment, from me, on what's being said, by the way. Hopefully it's reciprocated back to me!

There is a point in there somewhere... hitting a kid with car comparable to contact drills???????? I guess I am missing it.


whatever the Texans did last offseason they should drop because 0-4 start was not good...I know hurricane and schedule had something to do with that but needless contact could set the team back if someone important gets injured.

dalemurphy
02-09-2009, 05:35 PM
There is a point in there somewhere... hitting a kid with car comparable to contact drills???????? I guess I am missing it.


whatever the Texans did last offseason they should drop because 0-4 start was not good...I know hurricane and schedule had something to do with that but needless contact could set the team back if someone important gets injured.

Well, if preparation had anything to do with the poor start, it was a result of a lack of contact and being too easy during camp... They had few two-a-days and were often not in full pads.

infantrycak
02-09-2009, 06:00 PM
Anyone else see the irony of several years of fan complaints about a soft team and now complaining because the team was in fact being hard?

Runner
02-09-2009, 07:44 PM
Anyone else see the irony of several years of fan complaints about a soft team and now complaining because the team was in fact being hard?

I've never thought the Texans practiced easy; in fact under Capers they worked especially hard with more than the usual amount of full pad drills. Kubiak's major change was to work just about as hard but in less pads, which is less of a burden on the players for sure.

I think the Texans make training camp very hard as it is. If I was king of the Texans for a day and could change one thing, I'd move training camp to the north. At the risk of starting a new debate, I think having camp in Houston is detrimental to the players' preparation. I think this is an instance where marketing trumps "just win".

Runner
02-09-2009, 07:47 PM
I just read it, and found the thread more interesting than "the story" itself.

Innovation and success are often strewn with exploring the gray area or stretching the rules. Without risk, there is little reward, the Texans know it (like many NFL teams), and journeyman/borderline NFL players better know it because it is often their only chance to position themselves for more snaps in training camp.



I wondererd why you hadn't posted in here...

As far as innovation goes, I don't think hitting as much as possible is particulary new and innovative. I think it is coaches coaching as they were coached. Spending more of the early practice time learning the complex sysems in modern football might be time better spent by a coach that cares to try new ideas.

Tailgate
02-10-2009, 08:27 AM
Solomons take:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6255187.html

I’m still trying to find an NFL player who doesn’t laugh when I bring up the ESPN Outside the Lines report on Sunday about illegal one-on-one blocking drills that the Texans are going to be punished for running at an offseason a minicamp.

Everyone I have talked to found it funny that we were even discussing the subject. I’m up to listening to chuckles from players who have played for 11 coaches and seven NFL teams.

“Come on bro, please,” one Pro Bowl defensive lineman said from Hawaii. “That’s the business. It’s football.”

El Tejano
02-10-2009, 10:19 AM
I saw there were people who commented to say that it was cheating because breaking a rule is the definition of cheating. The other half to that is breaking the rules to gain advantage.

I just want to bring this up. In what way did this help The Texans win? If anything it increased our chances of losing. Losing depth hurts more. If a player for anyone of those positions would've went down and we didn't have depth to cover for it, our season would've been alot worse. To me, that is the worse part about it. To say the Texans cheated though is kind of wrong. They did break a rule and should be penalized for it. Breaking that rule didn't help them win.

Tailgate
02-10-2009, 11:23 AM
I saw there were people who commented to say that it was cheating because breaking a rule is the definition of cheating. The other half to that is breaking the rules to gain advantage.

I just want to bring this up. In what way did this help The Texans win? If anything it increased our chances of losing. Losing depth hurts more. If a player for anyone of those positions would've went down and we didn't have depth to cover for it, our season would've been alot worse. To me, that is the worse part about it. To say the Texans cheated though is kind of wrong. They did break a rule and should be penalized for it. Breaking that rule didn't help them win.

A question I have is did we do these drills before Alex Gibbs? Is this how he works? We all know the results he brings to the table... not to mention this was one of the first times our O-line was basically almost together the entire season. I guess its debatable.

gtexan02
02-10-2009, 12:33 PM
A question I have is did we do these drills before Alex Gibbs? Is this how he works? We all know the results he brings to the table... not to mention this was one of the first times our O-line was basically almost together the entire season. I guess its debatable.

I think the short answer is yes. Every article I have seen indicates that all NFL teams participate in drills like these

hobie
02-10-2009, 12:44 PM
We still talking about this??

Yankee_In_TX
02-10-2009, 12:46 PM
A question I have is did we do these drills before Alex Gibbs? Is this how he works? We all know the results he brings to the table... not to mention this was one of the first times our O-line was basically almost together the entire season. I guess its debatable.

I'm guessing it is like "optional" work outs in college athletics. When I swam for OSU, we started training 2 weeks before we were allowed to. And let me say -it was NOT optional.

If rules aren't going to be enforced, get rid of them. Renegotiate it in the CBA. OR enforce it and make every single team follow the rules.

But putting them in to appease the NFLPA and hardly any teams follow them, what's the point?

Yankee_In_TX
02-10-2009, 12:47 PM
We still talking about this??

Slow sports period and the Rockets are stinking. Combine starts next week.

hobie
02-10-2009, 12:50 PM
Slow sports period and the Rockets are stinking. Combine starts next week.

I guess you have a valid point, I sit corrected !!

Tailgate
02-10-2009, 01:49 PM
I think the short answer is yes. Every article I have seen indicates that all NFL teams participate in drills like these

Was reading John McClains chat over at the Chron... and he said the players told him Kubiak did not run these drills the first 2 years he was here. Hmm..

http://blogs.chron.com/nfl/2009/02/chat_about_the_combine_the_dra.html


1:03
[Comment From David]
John, if you were Bob McNair; would you discipline Gary and/or Rick because of OTA-Gate?
1:04
John McClain: Discipline how? No. I'd talk to them and tell them to be more careful and to avoid illegal drills. The players told me they hadn't done that in Kubiak's first two offseasons. No player has mentioned Alex Gibbs. Knowing the type of coach he is, I imagine he wanted to do it to get a look at his players to see what they could and couldn't do.

Yankee_In_TX
02-16-2009, 10:29 AM
BTW, new news to me -Stevenson has filed 3 grievances with 3 teams. REALLY makes me stick to my original gut feeling rather than feeling sorry for him.

The Pencil Neck
02-16-2009, 11:38 AM
BTW, new news to me -Stevenson has filed 3 grievances with 3 teams. REALLY makes me stick to my original gut feeling rather than feeling sorry for him.

Yeah, this had been reported a while back. I think TC was the first to mention it.

GP had been upset at Smith getting in Stevenson's face and yelling at him (as reported by Stevenson) but sometimes guys need that. Stevenson may have really deserved that chewing out.

GP
02-17-2009, 11:28 AM
Yeah, this had been reported a while back. I think TC was the first to mention it.

GP had been upset at Smith getting in Stevenson's face and yelling at him (as reported by Stevenson) but sometimes guys need that. Stevenson may have really deserved that chewing out.

If he is going around filing grievances against multiple teams, then that definitely changes things for me as it pertains to "feeling sorry for him." There might be a stink of calculated gold-digging there.

The news about him filing three different grievances against three different teams came late in the game on this story. Has this been nailed down and as cold-hard fact yet?

However...it does not negate the fact that those drills are prohibited, and no team should be doing them. Two separate issues: (1) Stevenson's situation, and (2) the larger issue of the team breaking a part of the CBA, even after being confronted by NFLPA player representatives Kris Brown and Mark Breuner.

rarazz00
03-05-2009, 09:48 AM
I just don't see why Al Davis would want JJ on his team if he'll give Al a heart attack everytime the opposing teams punt the ball...and to trade that for Bush...He'll laugh at that offer

GP
03-06-2009, 01:29 PM
I just don't see why Al Davis would want JJ on his team if he'll give Al a heart attack everytime the opposing teams punt the ball...and to trade that for Bush...He'll laugh at that offer

Uh...I think you posted in the wrong thread?

Thanks for ruining my 2-week reign :foottap: as the last poster on this thread. But now I'm taking it back.

This is MY house.

LOL.

Old School
03-06-2009, 01:57 PM
Uh...I think you posted in the wrong thread?

Thanks for ruining my 2-week reign :foottap: as the last poster on this thread. But now I'm taking it back.

This is MY house.

LOL.
Way to go man ,you tell 'em!!

oops, sorry!:backsout:

GP
03-06-2009, 03:03 PM
Way to go man ,you tell 'em!!

oops, sorry!:backsout:

Dang it, Old School!!!

Get off my lawn. :aggressive:

El Tejano
03-06-2009, 03:15 PM
I just want you to know that I think it's cool you are the last poster GP! Uh.....awe man!

dickieb
03-06-2009, 10:46 PM
So are we going to find out soon if we lose a draft pick over this?

The Pencil Neck
03-06-2009, 11:28 PM
So are we going to find out soon if we lose a draft pick over this?

Probably not until next year some time.

Malloy
03-07-2009, 04:38 AM
Dang it, Old School!!!

Get off my lawn. :aggressive:

Vive la revolution!

GP
03-07-2009, 06:28 PM
I'm serious about staying off my thread.

There's a men's bathroom at a truck stop just outside of Brenham, TX that I can meet any of you at to settle this. I'll be the one with a leather whip. I'll be shirtless, wearing a black leather vest and sunshades. :eek:

(Aww...crap. That doesn't sound good, does it?)

Just stay off this thread, that's what I'm trying to say.

Ignore what I said about the truck stop. Also, I am definitely not there between 12:30 and 2:30 on Saturday mornings..

Old School
03-07-2009, 07:12 PM
I'm serious about staying off my thread.

There's a men's bathroom at a truck stop just outside of Brenham, TX that I can meet any of you at to settle this. I'll be the one with a leather whip. I'll be shirtless, wearing a black leather vest and sunshades. :eek:

(Aww...crap. That doesn't sound good, does it?)

Just stay off this thread, that's what I'm trying to say.

Ignore what I said about the truck stop. Also, I am definitely not there between 12:30 and 2:30 on Saturday mornings..
Are we really reaching for stuff to talk about or what! :scarygirl:

rarazz00
03-08-2009, 01:07 PM
Uh...I think you posted in the wrong thread?

Thanks for ruining my 2-week reign :foottap: as the last poster on this thread. But now I'm taking it back.

This is MY house.

LOL.
So sowwy:user:

GP
03-08-2009, 11:34 PM
I'd like the mods to remove all the off-topic posts that were added to this thread, which means my post was the last on-topic post of the thread. And...lock it up!

I will own this thread. Viva' La GP!!! :thisbig:

mexican_texan
03-08-2009, 11:42 PM
Great job by the PR staff at Reliant, this has pretty much been swept under the rug.

If the CBA wasn't about to expire, I'm sure we would've been penalized by now.

GP
03-09-2009, 12:16 AM
Great job by the PR staff at Reliant, this has pretty much been swept under the rug.

If the CBA wasn't about to expire, I'm sure we would've been penalized by now.

So you want to play hardball...

OK.

I agree. I am glad that it appears we get to keep both of our 4th rounders for this draft.

Ha!

:chickendance:

(Come on, runner or KT...I have given you both a lot of positive rep. Lock it up already!)

TexanSam
03-09-2009, 12:20 AM
(Come on, runner or KT...I have given you both a lot of positive rep. Lock it up already!)

Is this like the football version of the "last person to post wins" thread? Because if so, you are going down!

GP
03-09-2009, 12:24 AM
Is this like the football version of the "last person to post wins" thread? Because if so, you are going down!

OFF-TOPIC post! Off-topic post!

Man, did a bunch of mods get pink slipped from texanstalk.com?

I demand satisfaction! Lock it up. I won this thread fair and square, and I won't have it hi-jacked.

(cue Michael Scott...)

mexican_texan
03-09-2009, 12:39 AM
Legally, what course can Dan Stevenson take to sue the team? It's not guaranteed, and even a long shot, that he would've made the roster here or anywhere else. Fred Weary not backing them might be a big hit.

The Pencil Neck
03-09-2009, 12:41 AM
Great job by the PR staff at Reliant, this has pretty much been swept under the rug.

If the CBA wasn't about to expire, I'm sure we would've been penalized by now.

I don't think so. I really don't think it's nearly as big a deal as some people were trying to make it. The loss of a draft choice was the absolute worst thing that could have happened to us and the odds were very much against that happening. The league isn't looking at this like it's any big thing and it's low on their list of things to look at again. If they decide to do anything, it will probably just be a slap on the wrist kind of fine.

The Pencil Neck
03-09-2009, 12:45 AM
Legally, what course can Dan Stevenson take to sue the team? It's not guaranteed, and even a long shot, that he would've made the roster here or anywhere else. Fred Weary not backing them might be a big hit.

Legally, they pretty much paid him, right? They put him on IR and paid his salary for a year. If they had cut him, that would have been a different story.

Another strike against Stevenson is that he's filed these sorts of complaints against other teams.

El Tejano
03-10-2009, 10:28 AM
Legally, they pretty much paid him, right? They put him on IR and paid his salary for a year. If they had cut him, that would have been a different story.

Another strike against Stevenson is that he's filed these sorts of complaints against other teams.

If they don't take away either one of our two 4ths, do you think we will draft Jordan Scott RB Colgate with one of them?

The Pencil Neck
03-10-2009, 01:22 PM
If they don't take away either one of our two 4ths, do you think we will draft Jordan Scott RB Colgate with one of them?

Who else could they possibly pick? Even if we DO lose one of our picks.

El Tejano
03-10-2009, 01:29 PM
Who else could they possibly pick? Even if we DO lose one of our picks.

Given where Jordan Scott came from, you can bet you won't hear any complaining about illegal contact drill. You actually might hear the illegal contact drills complaining about Jordan Scott.

The Pencil Neck
03-10-2009, 02:38 PM
Given where Jordan Scott came from, you can bet you won't hear any complaining about illegal contact drill. You actually might hear the illegal contact drills complaining about Jordan Scott.

Dude.

Colgate.

Just sayin.

El Tejano
03-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Dude.

Colgate.

Just sayin.

You got beef with the Cgate? ha ha!

The Pencil Neck
03-10-2009, 03:00 PM
You got beef with the Cgate? ha ha!

I'm just saying, he's from Colgate. He's not going to mind illegal drills at all. He's going to embrace illegal drills. Illegal drills are going to complain about him.

That's all I'm saying.

El Tejano
03-10-2009, 10:46 PM
Ha Ha!!! Honestly though dude, check him out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT-HN-qbXu4

Colgate does play teams like Liberty where Rashad Jennings comes from. He plays alot bigger than I thought.

GP
03-16-2009, 10:02 PM
this is MY thread.

Malloy
03-17-2009, 03:30 AM
this is MY thread.

totally out of context!

El Tejano
03-17-2009, 02:09 PM
Yeah, stay with the Jordan Scott topic.

GP
03-17-2009, 02:15 PM
I had ended this thread with an on-topic post.

And then someone had to come along and post (incorrectly) in this thread. I mean, seriously...it was a post that was supposed to be in another thread.

It's like one of you hired a Thread Hit Man to take me out.

This thread should have ended with my post. Ya' bunch of hijackers...

:hacker:

ArlingtonTexan
03-17-2009, 02:40 PM
I had ended this thread with an on-topic post.

And then someone had to come along and post (incorrectly) in this thread. I mean, seriously...it was a post that was supposed to be in another thread.

It's like one of you hired a Thread Hit Man to take me out.

This thread should have ended with my post. Ya' bunch of hijackers...

:hacker:


You are correct on ending the thread. We will have to start over when the punishment is announced.