PDA

View Full Version : Pay Demeco Ryans


rollinstone18
08-31-2009, 11:50 PM
that's all.

dickieb
08-31-2009, 11:58 PM
I agree, he's the man!

DocBar
08-31-2009, 11:59 PM
absotively, posilutely. PAY DA MAN. And Owens, too.

Fox
09-01-2009, 12:07 AM
Pay him.

mexican_texan
09-01-2009, 12:13 AM
I'm willing to chip in a couple bucks.

V3rm0nt3r
09-01-2009, 12:16 AM
the guy's the **** man. we lose him this defense drops 5 to 10 spots in the rankings automatically.

jppaul
09-01-2009, 12:27 AM
He had an amazing game, he was all over. Check out his stats, 16 tackles (12 solo) and a sack.

Texecutioner
09-01-2009, 12:28 AM
Pay his ass!!!!!!!!

brakos82
09-01-2009, 12:38 AM
Change the nameplate to "RYAN$$$".

DiehardChris
09-01-2009, 12:40 AM
Yes, for the love of God, pay the man. (And I think they will. Not worried at all, I just wish they would do it quick to make 59 happy.)

Jackie Chiles
09-01-2009, 12:42 AM
Use some of those Travis Johnson bucks.

Ryan
09-01-2009, 12:47 AM
my battle red demeco jersey i wore tonight made him play like that:fans:

hot pickle
09-01-2009, 01:58 AM
pay OD as well... man its a preseason game and hes not happy with his contract and he still goes up in the middle of the field and puts his body on the line... awesome to see... to bad d-rob doesnt care as much as some guys do... pay ryans and OD nowwwww

Vinny
09-01-2009, 01:58 AM
The fact that they haven't given Ryans any long term security is idiotic. They have wasted an incredible amount of money on chumps since they have been in the league and are going to play hardball with Ryans to the point where he is openly disapointed and discussing it in the Chronicle. Sometimes I don't know what this team is thinking.

hot pickle
09-01-2009, 04:03 AM
is it rick smith?? or is it mcnair that decides wheather these guys get deals?

PHAROAH
09-01-2009, 04:23 AM
Demeco is a beast.

Runner
09-01-2009, 06:46 AM
Well, feelings have sure changed since the off season when posters wanted to trade or cut Demeco because he was greedy, whiney, easy to replace, and not very good since his rookie year. All of that was based on some perceived "disloyalty" for complaining about his contract. He was also be lumped in with Daniels and Robinson I guess.

I tried to make the point a few weeks ago that Rick Smith's job is to to sign and keep good players as well as protect the salary cap. Protecting the cap by not figuring out a way to lock up good players to long term deals is not doing a "great" job. It is just getting by and pushing problems into the future.

Goatcheese
09-01-2009, 07:13 AM
Barring a miraculous breakthrough in negotiations on the CBA, they're in no danger of losing Ryans any time soon. Why shell out the big bucks before you have to? Ryans will get his money when it makes sense for the team to give it to him. For now atleast, the best thing for the organization is to keep players at the best price possible. For Ryans that is his rookie contract, possibly the top RFA tender next year, and the Franchise tag beyond that.

Silver Oak
09-01-2009, 08:11 AM
if this is a poll, I vote "yes".

Runner
09-01-2009, 08:15 AM
Barring a miraculous breakthrough in negotiations on the CBA, they're in no danger of losing Ryans any time soon. Why shell out the big bucks before you have to? Ryans will get his money when it makes sense for the team to give it to him. For now atleast, the best thing for the organization is to keep players at the best price possible. For Ryans that is his rookie contract, possibly the top RFA tender next year, and the Franchise tag beyond that.

A long term plan of high tenders and franchising players to keep them is not in the best interest of the club. The franchise tag is expensive and limited in number. There is really no good substitute for succesfully negotiating contracts for players the team wants to keep, especially one that claims it is building through the draft.

El Tejano
09-01-2009, 08:29 AM
I logged on here to post the same thing. Same title and all. Rick Smith needs to call Demeco and say "Your wish is my command." Really he was the only freaking bright spot. Even ESPN said it seemed as if there were two Demecos.

wolf123
09-01-2009, 08:41 AM
He really was all over the field!! Everytime I looked up it was number 59 laying the wood on someone. I was really excited to see them blitz him on both run downs and passing situations.

Kaiser Toro
09-01-2009, 09:10 AM
Great pre-season game for Ryans. I am looking forward to some great regular season games from him and would like to think we pay guys on, at least, their regular season body of work.

blitz90
09-01-2009, 09:19 AM
I agree. Dude was all over the field. Now if we can just get the rest of the D to play with his intesity and urgency on EVERY PLAY.

Runner
09-01-2009, 09:42 AM
Great pre-season game for Ryans. I am looking forward to some great regular season games from him and would like to think we pay guys on, at least, their regular season body of work.

Sometimes I like to project what I see into the future to try to stay ahead of the curve.

Of course sometimes I'm on the wrong curve, but I think in this case there is some evidence Demeco is a good player.

TimeKiller
09-01-2009, 09:45 AM
:money:

SheTexan
09-01-2009, 09:45 AM
Give him TJ's money as well as Dunte's!! I don't care, just get the man signed, sealed, and delivered! I, for one, will be really PI**ED off if they let Meco go! You have everything any team would ever desire in a player, and our FO wants to play "hold out" games with him! I think they have lost their minds!!

Kaiser Toro
09-01-2009, 09:48 AM
Sometimes I like to project what I see into the future to try to stay ahead of the curve.

Of course sometimes I'm on the wrong curve, but I think in this case there is some evidence Demeco is a good player.

Projections should be part of any model, but I am not ready to say all is good as he looked winded in the early 3rd quarter. Once he can show us four quarters of domination I will loosen up to "pay the man."

Goatcheese
09-01-2009, 10:18 AM
A long term plan of high tenders and franchising players to keep them is not in the best interest of the club. The franchise tag is expensive and limited in number. There is really no good substitute for succesfully negotiating contracts for players the team wants to keep, especially one that claims it is building through the draft.

The max tender for a RFA is cheap compared to a top 10 MLB contract, and the Franchise tag is much cheaper than the opinions in this thread that they need to just throw open the check book, put Ryans' name on the bank account, and give him the keys to the safe.

When it makes good business sense to back a dump truck up to his house loaded with gold ingots then he will get his big pay day. For now they have better/cheaper options available, so they're using them. We most likely have him for this season and next before even having to tag him, so what is everyone's rush?

When you have years to do something you don't have to rush it and make a mistake. So don't.

Runner
09-01-2009, 10:33 AM
The max tender for a RFA is cheap compared to a top 10 MLB contract, and the Franchise tag is much cheaper than the opinions in this thread that they need to just throw open the check book, put Ryans' name on the bank account, and give him the keys to the safe.

When it makes good business sense to back a dump truck up to his house loaded with gold ingots then he will get his big pay day. For now they have better/cheaper options available, so they're using them. We most likely have him for this season and next before even having to tag him, so what is everyone's rush?

When you have years to do something you don't have to rush it and make a mistake. So don't.



If you are talking to people who want to give everything to everyone, fine. Let's dispense with that strawman now.

============

However, I still maintain that it is in a team's best interest to sign it's best players to longer term contracts that are fair to the team and the player. I also think it is the responsibility of the GM, the agents, and the players to reach these agreements.

==========

If you want to disagree with my immediately previous statement, please give me your reasons without implying I am a proponent of giving every average player a max contract. Then we can discuss it. If you want to build up an argument against things I didn't say, I'll assume you are quoting me but not responding to my post.

Goatcheese
09-01-2009, 10:39 AM
However, I still maintain that it is in a team's best interest to sign it's best players to longer term contracts that are fair to the team and the player. I also think it is the responsibility of the GM, the agents, and the players to reach these agreements.


I agree with this, just not that we have to hurry up and do it right now, like most people are suggesting. We have plenty of time to work out a deal that works for Ryans and the salary cap, so there's no reason to rush it.

HOU-TEX
09-01-2009, 11:00 AM
He's still kinda of a liability in coverage at times, but good Lord! The dude's a beast! I don't think there's any way in heck we don't pay the man. It would be a horrible decision not to

Spike
09-01-2009, 11:02 AM
I'd get him signed up ASAP and continue to build the defense around him.

I am trying to stay positive, but if we don't take a step forward this season, he may decide to make a move to an organization that has had a winning record in its history.

Runner
09-01-2009, 11:13 AM
However, I still maintain that it is in a team's best interest to sign it's best players to longer term contracts that are fair to the team and the player. I also think it is the responsibility of the GM, the agents, and the players to reach these agreements.


I agree with this, just not that we have to hurry up and do it right now, like most people are suggesting. We have plenty of time to work out a deal that works for Ryans and the salary cap, so there's no reason to rush it.

I understand that in isolation there is plenty of time to work Demeco's contract. I think the NFL is too fast-paced to wait as long as possible on everyone though. The team is already having trouble with Robinson and Daniels. It is probably a safe assumption that other players with expiring contracts or deserving an extension will be added to the mix after this year. I think it is a good idea to take care of players that are a good risk. IMO Demeco is one of them. He'll probably be good for years to come and a cornerstone of the Texans defense. Is signing him to a long term deal risk free? No, but if a team avoids all risk in this league, it'll be moving to slowly to keep up. Risk/reward have to be seriously evaluated.

==========

Here is a dream/nightmare scenario for the Texans:

Dream: Schaub stays healthy in this powerful offense and throws for 4000+ yards and 25 touchdowns, or whatever elite numbers are. QB problem solved!

Nightmare: Schaub points to his new elite status and is unhappy with the $9M bonus and remainder of his contract when compared to other QBs of the same or less performance. QB holdout.

I think the Texans would be better off having some players wrapped up before that or some other similar situation(s) occur.

==========

All that being said, I think the Texans will extend Ryans and maybe even Daniels before the season ends. I give them credit for being at least that proactive.

Double Barrel
09-01-2009, 12:09 PM
A long term plan of high tenders and franchising players to keep them is not in the best interest of the club. The franchise tag is expensive and limited in number. There is really no good substitute for succesfully negotiating contracts for players the team wants to keep, especially one that claims it is building through the draft.

yep, I agree. If a team wants to "build through the draft", then they need to keep the good players that they draft. It seems like common sense, but what do we know, we're just fans.

It seems to me, as a FO, they should set an example with a player like Ryans. He's a defensive leader, a standout player, great worth ethic, so they should be sending a message to the rest of the team that this is a guy that we want on our team and we plan on keeping him long term. Make players want to be Texans, instead of giving off a perception that our best players are unhappy.

Successful teams often head these situations off at the pass instead of waiting for them to become festering wounds that divide public opinion.

drewmar74
09-01-2009, 12:33 PM
yep, I agree. If a team wants to "build through the draft", then they need to keep the good players that they draft. It seems like common sense, but what do we know, we're just fans.

No. It makes perfect sense. I just wish that we had more good players that fit into this category. For every Demeco there seems to be three or four guys that just didn't seem to pan out. I'm not saying that's atypical, I'm just saying that I wish we had more draft picks that panned out like Demeco.

It seems to me, as a FO, they should set an example with a player like Ryans. He's a defensive leader, a standout player, great worth ethic, so they should be sending a message to the rest of the team that this is a guy that we want on our team and we plan on keeping him long term. Make players want to be Texans, instead of giving off a perception that our best players are unhappy.

Bolded what I thought was the key thought there. Players want to play for teams like the Eagles, Pats, and Steelers. Why? Because they know that if they sign there, they're going to be in the postseason and have got a great chance at a Super Bowl berth. This gives the FO for teams like that to be turds. They don't have to play nice because players want to go there.

We're not there yet. I'm not saying that we need to bend over backwards (or forwards, for that matter) for players to get them to sign, but we need to be taking care of guys like Demeco , setting that kind of precedent, so we can start luring more talent in.

Successful teams often head these situations off at the pass instead of waiting for them to become festering wounds that divide public opinion.

Dude, the Texans FO wouldn't do that.....

Vinny
09-02-2009, 09:10 AM
I'm gonna take a moment to laugh at all the posters that said that Ryans should be traded or that he wasn't all that good during the offseason.

Runner
09-02-2009, 09:18 AM
I'm gonna take a moment to laugh at all the posters that said that Ryans should be traded or that he wasn't all that good during the offseason.

I took a similar moment in the game day thread.

CloakNNNdagger
09-02-2009, 09:29 AM
We know that the secondary now is less than stellar. We still don't really know how good "recovering" Dunta will end up being this year, especially for the money expended, and especially since he will have missed all preseason experience with the team,........and maybe, then some. Will his eventual return really have us see any more than continued less stellar performance from him and the rest of the secondary, is the question.

JDizzle
09-02-2009, 10:14 AM
I'm gonna take a moment to laugh at all the posters that said that Ryans should be traded or that he wasn't all that good during the offseason.

I must have missed all this ... do you have a link to the thread?

Vinny
09-02-2009, 10:15 AM
I must have missed all this ... do you have a link to the thread?
I saw a ton of posts all summer long. I'm sure there are comments in a bunch of threads.

infantrycak
09-02-2009, 10:23 AM
I saw a ton of posts all summer long. I'm sure there are comments in a bunch of threads.

I particularly remember the "his instincts are bad and he just gets by on his athleticism" and "he bites on every fake" comments.

Tailgate
09-02-2009, 10:38 AM
I'm gonna take a moment to laugh at all the posters that said that Ryans should be traded or that he wasn't all that good during the offseason.

Mind if I join you?

Here is a link to one of the unappreciative for Demeco threads. Not everyone in the thread mind u. But I do remember being taken back a bit at some of the negativity towards hiim.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63238

Runner
09-02-2009, 10:52 AM
I must have missed all this ... do you have a link to the thread?
I saw a ton of posts all summer long. I'm sure there are comments in a bunch of threads.

Yes, there were scatterings in several threads. Some of the reasons were:
1) His play has been declining
2) The Texans draft so well he's easy to replace
3) He's not worth the cost of a good middle linebacker
4) So what if he's good? He's never led the Texans to the play-offs
5) So what if he's good? The defense sucks

When lumped in with the evil triumvirate of Robinson, Daniels, and Ryans:
1) They are a bunch of whiney babies
2) They are offensive because they don't gladly take what Rick Smith offers
3) They will be locker room cancers
4) They make more than school teachers
5) Rick Smith is perfect, so if he hasn't signed him signing him would be wrong.

There were a lot of vitriolic posts. I may have some of these reasons jumbled up in this half serious/half-jesting post.

utahmark
09-02-2009, 11:23 AM
the guy's the **** man. we lose him this defense drops 5 to 10 spots in the rankings automatically.

that would put us a like........ 38th in the league.

Vinny
09-02-2009, 11:25 AM
Mind if I join you?

Here is a link to one of the unappreciative for Demeco threads. Not everyone in the thread mind u. But I do remember being taken back a bit at some of the negativity towards hiim.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63238

I like Demeco. He's a fine player.

Having said that, he's not a top tier player. He's in the second tier of MLBs in the league and certainly not irreplacable. Lets keep in mind that he's the 2nd best player on an average defense. If he resigns that is great but the world doesn't end if we have to draft a MLB next year.

Mike

I like demco hes been a fine player but IMO is best days are behind him

And hes not like the best MLB in the game besides cant cushing also play MLB If Diles comes back 100% and continues to improve I don't see us drafting a MLB at all. His replacement is already in house.

I wouldn't be opposed to dealing Ryans for a high pick or an equivalent player in that scenario.
:spit: yeah, great takes guys. Oh yeah and btw, guys like Ryans don't come around that often. If they did, our roster would be full of them.

Runner
09-02-2009, 11:30 AM
the guy's the **** man. we lose him this defense drops 5 to 10 spots in the rankings automatically.

that would put us a like........ 38th in the league.

Wow! That is bad in a 32 team league.

Let's just say, "even farther behind".

Texan_Bill
09-02-2009, 11:34 AM
I must have missed all this ... do you have a link to the thread?

No doubt. I don't seem to remember that much negativity towards Ryans.

JDizzle
09-02-2009, 11:48 AM
Yes, there were scatterings in several threads. Some of the reasons were:
1) His play has been declining
2) The Texans draft so well he's easy to replace
3) He's not worth the cost of a good middle linebacker
4) So what if he's good? He's never led the Texans to the play-offs
5) So what if he's good? The defense sucks

When lumped in with the evil triumvirate of Robinson, Daniels, and Ryans:
1) They are a bunch of whiney babies
2) They are offensive because they don't gladly take what Rick Smith offers
3) They will be locker room cancers
4) They make more than school teachers
5) Rick Smith is perfect, so if he hasn't signed him signing him would be wrong.

There were a lot of vitriolic posts. I may have some of these reasons jumbled up in this half serious/half-jesting post.

That pretty much sums up that thread in a nutshell.

JDizzle
09-02-2009, 12:04 PM
No doubt. I don't seem to remember that much negativity towards Ryans.

That particular thread doesn't have much rage in it if you use Dunta hate threads as a barometer for rage. But even so it's amazing how the moment a player stops drinking the FO koolaid his talent level takes a nose-dive and is relegated to the land of "serviceable players easily replaced".

Runner
09-02-2009, 12:12 PM
But even so it's amazing how the moment a player stops drinking the FO koolaid his talent level takes a nose-dive and is relegated to the land of "serviceable players easily replaced".

Try pointing that out at the time.


That particular thread doesn't have much rage in it if you use Dunta hate threads as a barometer for rage.

I'm sure there is anger towards Ryans in other threads. I agree that it isn't to the Dunta level though.

JDizzle
09-02-2009, 03:04 PM
Try pointing that out at the time.


I didn't go into that thread at the time, I really had no idea there would be that much negativity over Demeco Ryans because I thought he was always thought of highly around here. I guess not. But, I did bring it up in the first Dunta hate thread I went in and despite me "keepin' it real" the thread crap-baked anyways. I've got those bookmarked however, hopefully I get to serve up some crow in a couple of months.

Runner
09-02-2009, 03:47 PM
Try pointing that out at the time.


I didn't go into that thread at the time, I really had no idea there would be that much negativity over Demeco Ryans because I thought he was always thought of highly around here. I guess not.

No, you are right. He was highly thought of. So was Owen Daniels. Heck, Dunta was praised for coming back from his injury early in addition to all of the other accolades he used to receive here.

Players that are thought highly of can complain about their contract = complain about the front office = complain about the organization = disloyalty. Then their perceived performance takes a nosedive here.

Or at least that's how it seems to me.

When that happens posters then start slamming the player, and disregard what they've thought in the past, and now see the "truth" about the player.

The next step is that Demeco has a monster game, and since his contract isn't at issue there is another new "truth" and his play on the field is recognized again. What do we see now? "I don't remember Demeco being bad-mouthed." A lot of the people with the most caustic posts will have the worst memories.

I'm amazed at the fickleness of fans. I guess they have to have something akin to the "shooters amnesia" that great NBA scorers have. Never remember the last miss.

Second Honeymoon
09-02-2009, 04:19 PM
I am always a proponent of protecting a team's interests, but DeMeco deserves to get paid. I haven't seen a lot but what I have seen of DeMeco this preseason has shown me that he is no longer hampered by injury and is back to being the guided missile that we saw for his first two seasons as a Texan.

Pay the man, McNair...and stop colluding and being a cheater/cheapskate while you are at it. Just pay the market rate and stop trying to be chincy.

The Pencil Neck
09-02-2009, 04:23 PM
No, you are right. He was highly thought of. So was Owen Daniels. Heck, Dunta was praised for coming back from his injury early in addition to all of the other accolades he used to receive here.

Players that are thought highly of can complain about their contract = complain about the front office = complain about the organization = disloyalty. Then their perceived performance takes a nosedive here.

Or at least that's how it seems to me.

When that happens posters then start slamming the player, and disregard what they've thought in the past, and now see the "truth" about the player.

The next step is that Demeco has a monster game, and since his contract isn't at issue there is another new "truth" and his play on the field is recognized again. What do we see now? "I don't remember Demeco being bad mouthed".

I'm amazed at the fickleness of fans. I guess they have to have something akin to the "shooters amnesia" that great NBA scorers have. Never remember the last miss.

I don't think it's nearly as bad as you're making out.

I think there were/are/have been a few posters that have said things about Demeco not looking as good as his first year and about him seeming to play slower, etc., etc. But I think that's just been a few posters (including LZ, iirc) and not really something that's spread through the board like wildfire becoming the consensus opinion. And I don't think it necessarily has a relation to contract issues. (It might, but I don't think it does.)

Even TexanMike said that Demeco was a fine player and then added the "but.." to his comment.

Personally, I've said several times that I wished we had taken Patrick Willis instead of Amobi and then moved Demeco outside. But that's not a knock on Demeco. Instead, that's a compliment. I think Demeco could be a pro bowler starting at any LB position. I think a linebacking corp of Demeco, Willis, and Cushing would be scary good.

But I don't think I've ever knocked Demeco and I think most people on the board have. I think you're just taking a few voices and then assuming that it's public opinion for some reason.

OTOH, with Dunta, there have always been posters who've not been sold on his coverage ability since WAY before he was injured. And to tie their willingness to get rid of him to his contract negotiations is a little misleading, I think. Lots of people don't consider Dunta one of the top 5 CBs in the league and paying him like that seems a bit excessive, even if it appears our front office was/is prepared to do that.

Now, the Owen Daniel's stuff... I know a couple of people have said that he's a product of the system and I think I've may have even theorized that drafting Casey and having Dreessen play well could make him tradable, but I think the overal consensus on the board is that we love us some OD and don't want to see him go. Doesn't mean he won't, just means we don't want him to go.

Runner
09-02-2009, 04:34 PM
Yes Pencil Neck, I know it's not a board consensus. I'm not a black or white, all or nothing kind if guy. however, it wasn't rare either. There are many posters that denigrated Ryans, more that did Daniels, even more Robinson.

It does seem worse because many (note I didn't say all) are so illogical about it and get so angry when their statements are questioned.

Runner
09-02-2009, 05:30 PM
I am always a proponent of protecting a team's interests, but DeMeco deserves to get paid.

A PORTION of this board seems to think that the two halves of the above statement are mutually exclusive. I think having a good LB locked up at a fair price IS in the best interest of the team.

========

It is a failure to overpay a bunch of players.

It is also a failure to not reach agreements with players the team wants to keep. Especially when they need those players to be competitive and improve.

The GM, players, and agents all share the responsibility for failed negotiations.

==========

Contracts get extended all of the time. I'd like to see the Texans extend a couple this year, in the best interest of the team.

keyser
09-02-2009, 05:43 PM
Yes Pencil Neck, I know it's not a board consensus. I'm not a black or white, all or nothing kind if guy. however, it wasn't rare either. There are many posters that denigrated Ryans, more that did Daniels, even more Robinson.

It does seem worse because many (note I didn't say all) are so illogical about it and get so angry when their statements are questioned.

I don't think I contributed to any of those threads, but I was pretty negative about them (not so much Daniels) for the holdouts. And, criticisms of their level of play were, at least in my mind, more about their level of play relative to their extraordinary demands, rather than their base level of play. To reiterate,

Demeco Ryans had a signed contract and still decided to sit out of the OTAs or whatever. Really, this is something that almost no one ever does. For him to be "special" enough to do this, one would not expect someone to have come off a sub-par (for him) year. His last year was less impressive than prior years, and so people worried that he might already be on a downslope.
Owen Daniels - I was not really upset with him (I do think he deserved more than that RFA tender), but by refusing to sign his RFA tender, he was also saying he felt his play was at a very high level, such that he should receive more than what he was given (even though no other teams were willing to pay the cost to sign him).
Dunta Robinson - man, this keeps going on. For someone to be turning down an offer like what has been rumored, getting upset at being paid almost $10 million for one year, and then refusing to sign to be in camp, even though there's no other option but to sign, that person better be a clear top-5 player. I don't think he's ever been a top-5 CB, and especially not to be making such demands after coming back from a serious injury. I think DR is clearly a benefit to the team, but his level of play does not match up to the demands he is making.

In all these cases, these players are making really strong statements about their ability, and that they deserved special consideration. And, I think in all cases, this leads people to argue that they are not as special as they are acting. It would be like going in to demand a raise from your boss - you better be ready for the boss to list reasons why you don't deserve a raise. I don't think people were saying Demeco was bad, just that his play was not so great that he should ignore his contract (and I know that what he missed was just "optional" - it was the rhetoric more than that). I think everyone agrees that Daniels is a great player, and I don't think anyone objected to him waiting to sign the tender as long as there was the option of signing with anyone else. But after that, people criticize him for not being "so special" as he seemed to claim by continuing to hold out. With Dunta, it's the same thing to a much, much higher degree (in fact, I'm upset that we have to pay him that much even just this year, although I guess we need to; I'd have rather spent it on signing bonuses for Ryans and Daniels, though).

In all of these cases, the only effect of them missing/holding out was to hurt the team (and Ryans and Daniels changed their minds quickly, so it wasn't anything too big). Their holdouts do nothing to affect what they could end up making - Demeco was already under contract, and Owen and Dunta were forced by league rules to play under the options given, or not at all. So it's frustrating for them to go beyond normal negotiating, and I think some negative backlash is going to be expected. Again, it's not a matter of saying they are bad players overall, but that they might not be as good as the demands they are making would imply.

Malloy
09-02-2009, 06:05 PM
that would put us a like........ 38th in the league.

hhh :)

steelbtexan
09-02-2009, 06:25 PM
Pay the man uncle BoB, but not so much that you cant sign MW when his extention comes due.

The Pencil Neck
09-02-2009, 06:42 PM
Yes Pencil Neck, I know it's not a board consensus. I'm not a black or white, all or nothing kind if guy. however, it wasn't rare either. There are many posters that denigrated Ryans, more that did Daniels, even more Robinson.

It does seem worse because many (note I didn't say all) are so illogical about it and get so angry when their statements are questioned.

I disagree with the "many" part of your statement. I don't think the mildly bad sentiment toward Demeco came from even "many". I think I'd categorize it as "a few." So it seems to me like you're taking a sentiment a few people voiced and then ascribing that to a large majority of the posters/fan base.

And I don't think the opinions voiced were all that anti-Demeco, either. IIRC (and I admit I may not), the basic feeling was that Demeco was asking for top-end money even though he hadn't performed as a top-end Mike for the past couple of years. And some people questioned if he ever would return to form.

And, I think those people who were questioning him have a pretty god answer after Monday's game. And if you have a question about something and it gets answered, the changing of one's mind doesn't seem that fickle.

Runner
09-02-2009, 07:16 PM
[
I disagree with the "many" part of your statement. I don't think the mildly bad sentiment toward Demeco came from even "many". I think I'd categorize it as "a few." So it seems to me like you're taking a sentiment a few people voiced and then ascribing that to a large majority of the posters/fan base.



You disagree with my "many" because you think it is just a "few". Can you tell me the line between few and many so we can reach a common ground for discussion?

I disagree with your characterization of my "many" as "large majority". I don't think many implies even a majority, much less a large majority.

If you want to talk about words, we can. I like that - I'm a bit of a logophile.

================

Other than the word issue:

I think people made some derogatory comments about Demeco that weren't warranted and will vacillate on the subject without ever being wrong (in their minds).

I believe you think that at most some mild, yet justified criticism of Demeco's games were voiced. All those questions were answered, and it was a simple changing of the mind based on evidence. Please clarify if I haven't captured your thoughs correctly. I don't like it when people put words in my mouth, I certainly don't want to do it with you.

We disagree here, and you haven't convinced me to change my mind. I don't think you give my statement much weight either.

==============

That leaves fickle fan base. Shall we move on to Daniels and Robinson?

awtysst
09-02-2009, 07:38 PM
You disagree with my "many" because you think it is just a "few". Can you tell me the line between few and many so we can reach a common ground for discussion?

I disagree with your characterization of my "many" as "large majority". I don't think many implies even a majority, much less a large majority.

If you want to talk about words, we can. I like that - I'm a bit of a logophile.

================

Other than the word issue:

I think people made some derogatory comments about Demeco that weren't warranted and will vacillate on the subject without ever being wrong (in their minds).

I believe you think that at most some mild, yet justified criticism of Demeco's games were voiced. All those questions were answered, and it was a simple changing of the mind based on evidence. Please clarify if I haven't captured your thoughs correctly. I don't like it when people put words in my mouth, I certainly dont want to do it with you.

We disagree here, and you haven't convinced me to change my mind. I don't think you give my statement much weight either.

==============

That leaves fickle fan base. Shall we move on to Daniels and Robinson?



Runner,
I want you to know this is not directed towards you but to the larger group. One thing I have seen a lot on this board are the characterizations of "many", "large majority", "minority", and other descriptors.

One thing I pride myself on is looking at things from another perspective. I hope my perspective on this issue will be illuminating and not dull.

One of the hardest things to do is to decipher what many vs few is. That's because a vocal minority can seem like a much bigger group than they are because they are loud. In contrast a silent majority can seem much smaller because you do not see them.

One way to figure out which side is more prevelant is to do a quick survey. So, here is an example.

There is a comment from a poster that Demeco Ryans is not a good football player and not worthy of receiving a particular salary.
There are 20 people agree with this poster. Is that a majority? Well to know you need to figure out what is the total population of Texan Talk users.

I did a quick bit of research and discovered there were approximately 475 users that have been active within 1 week. So within that universe of 475 people, if 20 people are talking about Demeco, that would be roughly 4.2% of the users. Not a majority. But when there are 20 people saying it, it might sound like a lot. What if there were 50 people saying this? That would be roughly 10.5%. Again, it seems like a lot, but its not a majority. In order for there to be a majority of opinion, we would need to see at the very least 238 separate users within our universe of 275.

As you can see, vocal minorities can appear much larger than silent majorities. Whenever we want to determine sentiment, its important to go back to our good friend, Mr. Math.

Runner
09-02-2009, 07:55 PM
Runner,
I want you to know this is not directed towards you but to the larger group. One thing I have seen a lot on this board are the characterizations of "many", "large majority", "minority", and other descriptors.

One thing I pride myself on is looking at things from another perspective. I hope my perspective on this issue will be illuminating and not dull.

One of the hardest things to do is to decipher what many vs few is. That's because a vocal minority can seem like a much bigger group than they are because they are loud. In contrast a silent majority can seem much smaller because you do not see them.

One way to figure out which side is more prevelant is to do a quick survey. So, here is an example.

There is a comment from a poster that Demeco Ryans is not a good football player and not worthy of receiving a particular salary.
There are 20 people agree with this poster. Is that a majority? Well to know you need to figure out what is the total population of Texan Talk users.

I did a quick bit of research and discovered there were approximately 475 users that have been active within 1 week. So within that universe of 475 people, if 20 people are talking about Demeco, that would be roughly 4.2% of the users. Not a majority. But when there are 20 people saying it, it might sound like a lot. What if there were 50 people saying this? That would be roughly 10.5%. Again, it seems like a lot, but its not a majority. In order for there to be a majority of opinion, we would need to see at the very least 238 separate users within our universe of 275.

As you can see, vocal minorities can appear much larger than silent majorities. Whenever we want to determine sentiment, its important to go back to our good friend, Mr. Math.

So what's the solution? Can we say portion? Should we say an insignificant but loud minority?

Someone just used a "few" with me. How many is that 7? Maybe it's a variable number equaling the amount of posters I can list +1. If a few is about seven, can I use many to mean 20? Should I say twentyish?

We'll have to get rid of words like good, great, bad, big, etc. What do they mean to mathematical precision?

I know that the vocal, angry, minority can seem like many (oops!). That isn't news to me. I also know there isn't one boardthink opinion. I've stated that enough to people.

==================

I understand your point, but we need to be able to have discussions. We can word chop statements to death and make every (oops! - most) (oops!- some?) post wrong. That's fun for a while, but it doesn't leave much room for discussion.

If we agree to a common lexicon and stick to it, this might work. The first two words I suggest for the lexicon are "lose" and "loose".

GP
09-02-2009, 09:47 PM
I disagree with the "many" part of your statement. I don't think the mildly bad sentiment toward Demeco came from even "many". I think I'd categorize it as "a few." So it seems to me like you're taking a sentiment a few people voiced and then ascribing that to a large majority of the posters/fan base.

And I don't think the opinions voiced were all that anti-Demeco, either. IIRC (and I admit I may not), the basic feeling was that Demeco was asking for top-end money even though he hadn't performed as a top-end Mike for the past couple of years. And some people questioned if he ever would return to form.

And, I think those people who were questioning him have a pretty god answer after Monday's game. And if you have a question about something and it gets answered, the changing of one's mind doesn't seem that fickle.

THAT was the DeMeco Ryans from his rookie year that I saw Saturday night.

Until THAT DeMeco Ryans showed up, I will say that I was not on the bandwagon for ponying up the money for him. He makes his noise about wanting bigger money when he shows up, then I listen as a fan. But when he makes that noise during the off-season, after the past two seasons, I'm not really tuning the guy in.

Owen made some clutch catches and shows speed at the TE position, especially on the screen pass that I think was a smart playcall--plays to his strengths perfectly. He made noise in the off-season, too, but he and DeMeco shut their trap and went to camp like good soldiers do.

Which leads us to Dunta Robinson. I have to wait until (maybe...) the regular season to see what he can show before I make that same statement that I made about DeMeco.

As a fan, not a GM, that's been my stance:

1. Out of the three, DeMeco is probably worth it the most

2. Owen is second because we drafted two TEs and one of those looks very promising (James Casey).

3. Dunta is a distant third because he continued to rattle on, and also sit out all of camp and the preseason. He's not going to be as ready as he would have been had he been involved like Owen and 'Meco were.

As fans (not professional GM's or owners) this is just how it plays out for some of us.

Shades of gray, IMO.

Fox
09-02-2009, 10:09 PM
I have no qualms with giving Demeco a long-term deal, particularly after seeing him thus far this year. He's a cornerstone of our defense. When he's completely healthy he's a bonafide playmaker and Pro-Bowler, and even when he's burdened with nagging injuries like last season he's still dependable and a solid performer.

Re-signing Daniels I have mixed feelings about. He's a great TE and seems like a great team mate, he deserves a nice long-term contract. The question is whether the Texans need to be the team that gives it to him. We have a solid backup in Dreesen and two young TE's who have potential to be impact players for us. Depending on how the TE's, particularly Casey IMO, develop this year the drop-off in performance between Daniels and his backups may not be large enough to justify the type of money he deserves. I'd feel very odd letting a Pro Bowl player walk, but have to question whether the cap space would be more wisely spent elsewhere. It'll be interesting to see how that situation evolves and what Rick Smith chooses to do.

JDizzle
09-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Re-signing Daniels I have mixed feelings about. He's a great TE and seems like a great team mate, he deserves a nice long-term contract. The question is whether the Texans need to be the team that gives it to him. We have a solid backup in Dreesen and two young TE's who have potential to be impact players for us. Depending on how the TE's, particularly Casey IMO, develop this year the drop-off in performance between Daniels and his backups may not be large enough to justify the type of money he deserves. I'd feel very odd letting a Pro Bowl player walk, but have to question whether the cap space would be more wisely spent elsewhere. It'll be interesting to see how that situation evolves and what Rick Smith chooses to do.

Daniels is money, let's not fool ourselves into the serviceable players easily replaced business again because he wants more money. He's a headache for defenses especially on 3rd downs because of his ability to get open and catch balls over the middle.

Fox
09-03-2009, 11:52 AM
Daniels is money, let's not fool ourselves into the serviceable players easily replaced business again because he wants more money. He's a headache for defenses especially on 3rd downs because of his ability to get open and catch balls over the middle.

As stated in my post you quoted, I agree. I think he's a great player for us, I'm just prognosticating that if the talent behind him develops like I think it may and he demands the type of contract he deserves (which he will) there may be a tough decision to be made.

barrett
09-03-2009, 11:55 AM
man, it sucks having a good football team.

Vinny
09-03-2009, 12:30 PM
man, it sucks having a good football team.

Are "good" football teams that never bust .500 ball? :pop:

Double Barrel
09-03-2009, 12:35 PM
Daniels is money, let's not fool ourselves into the serviceable players easily replaced business again because he wants more money. He's a headache for defenses especially on 3rd downs because of his ability to get open and catch balls over the middle.


I agree completely. I find it strange that some think Pro Bowlers are so easily replaceable.

Porky
09-03-2009, 12:39 PM
Demeco had a whale of a game Monday but I don't think it's fair to say see I told you so when it's a fact that the guy was very average last year. Injury or not, he was average. The year before he was above avg but not special. So, ya a lot of us were saying you know what the guy has declined since his rookie year. Those are just the facts. And before Uncle Bob gives him a blank check let's see him do it a few games. He is still avg at best in coverage but the rest of his game looks to be very good and he is our best playmaker outside of Mario easily. In other words, he is in the top part of the second tier just like TexanMike said. I have no problem with that assessment. Now if he plays 16 games like he did Monday then he is all-pro. Let's wait and see before the coronation.

And if what I heard is correct then they made him a fair offer. I heard they offered something that would put him in the top 5 pay wise in the league. Seems fair to me.

Runner
09-03-2009, 01:10 PM
I agree completely. I find it strange that some think Pro Bowlers are so easily replaceable.

Very strange. If it's so easy to replace above average to very good players, you'd think they'd be able to replace the below average to average players they have with very good players.

The Texans would be well served to have more good to very good players on the team. It seems inefficient to waste resources replacing players who, how should I put this, the team couldn't keep because they were good.

infantrycak
09-03-2009, 01:22 PM
he is in the top part of the second tier just like TexanMike said.

How many tiers are there in this world you and Mike live in? 2 v. 10 makes a big difference on your 2nd tier characterization.

Runner
09-03-2009, 01:35 PM
I'd also like to know why it is often stated as one of two options: replace the player or write a "blank check".

I'd like the Texans to figure out how to work with difficult agents and players and hammer out agreements equitable to both sides. Other teams seem to do it. I understand some agents and players are too stubborn to reach agreement with. However, within a few short weeks the Texans failed to reach agreements with the three players they were negotiating with, after supposedly offering each of them very lucrative, fair deals. There are problems there, and I don't believe it is always 100% the fault of the players and the agents.

barrett
09-03-2009, 01:36 PM
Are "good" football teams that never bust .500 ball? :pop:

as I pick up the little bitty shards of baloon that are now all over the room... touche'.

Man, it sucks having a talented football team.

Fox
09-03-2009, 01:38 PM
I agree completely. I find it strange that some think Pro Bowlers are so easily replaceable.

Very strange. If it's so easy to replace above average to very good players, you'd think they'd be able to replace the below average to average players they have with very good players.

The Texans would be well served to have more good to very good players on the team. It seems inefficient to waste resources replacing players who, how should I put this, the team couldn't keep because they were good.

Yea, it's really weird guys, just don't mistake it for a rare. A quick glance at last year's Pro Bowl roster reveals over 20 of them (starters and reserves) who didn't make the Pro Bowl playing for their original team, ie. for various reasons they had to be let go or traded. Several others have moved to different teams since then. Injuries, trades, locker room personalities, salary cap implications etc. lead to 'above average to very good players' moving on not all that uncommonly. Hopefully we can hold onto Daniels and everyone can be paid top 5 for their position and be happy, I'm just not all that convinced that it's gonna work out for everyone.

Runner
09-03-2009, 01:41 PM
...I'm just not all that convinced that it's gonna work out for everyone.

I'd settle for "anyone" at this point just to see some progress.

Fox
09-03-2009, 01:49 PM
I'd settle for "anyone" at this point just to see some progress.

Just guessing but I don't think you're going to have to settle. If we don't see any of our big contract year players (Demeco, OD, Dunta etc) have long term contracts with the Texans by next year then I'll join you in your crusade to make sure nobody is too happy with Rick Smith.

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 02:18 PM
Look at the bright side. At least we aren't going through what Niner fans are going through. Good grief! Crabtree's a moron

JDizzle
09-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Just guessing but I don't think you're going to have to settle. If we don't see any of our big contract year players (Demeco, OD, Dunta etc) have long term contracts with the Texans by next year then I'll join you in your crusade to make sure nobody is too happy with Rick Smith.

I'm not too happy with RS at the moment, I won't lie. You have 3 of your best players who need to be locked up and are openly unhappy that they are not. I know for sure that both Ryans and Robinson have said they want to be here, I'm not sure about Daniels but I'll assume he likes it here too. So that's 3 players who are unhappy with the front office. 1 bitchy player with a history of whining is one thing but 3 players who've conducted themselves professionally for their whole careers is another.

Andre Davis, Antonio Smith both get paid more than both Ryans and Daniels. Who's contributed more to the team? I don't blame them for wanting new deals. If a #3 WR / returner gets paid double what your pro bowl linebacker does then something isn't right with that.

Fox
09-03-2009, 02:43 PM
I don't blame you for being unhappy, I can totally see your point. I'm not all that surprised that the free agents we signed are making more than the players we drafted and haven't given long term deals yet. Players typically make their money after their rookie contracts.

Contract disputes are common place in the NFL. Hopefully Rick finds a way to give everyone the top 5 for their position contract they're likely asking for, I'm just playing wait and see.

dalemurphy
09-03-2009, 02:48 PM
I'm not too happy with RS at the moment, I won't lie. You have 3 of your best players who need to be locked up and are openly unhappy that they are not. I know for sure that both Ryans and Robinson have said they want to be here, I'm not sure about Daniels but I'll assume he likes it here too. So that's 3 players who are unhappy with the front office. 1 bitchy player with a history of whining is one thing but 3 players who've conducted themselves professionally for their whole careers is another.

Andre Davis, Antonio Smith both get paid more than both Ryans and Daniels. Who's contributed more to the team? I don't blame them for wanting new deals. If a #3 WR / returner gets paid double what your pro bowl linebacker does then something isn't right with that.


I'm sure the Texans would gladly sign those two to the equivalent of what Andre Davis and Antonio Smith is getting. The fact that OD and Ryans are underpayed right now shouldn't be motivation for the Texans to overpay for them. Instead, it should motivate OD and Ryans to take a reasonable long term deal instead of risking career threatening injuries, etc.. before they cash in on their rookie contract performance.

Specnatz
09-03-2009, 02:51 PM
Look at the bright side. At least we aren't going through what Niner fans are going through. Good grief! Crabtree's a moron

Exactly!

Signed,

Dunta Robinson :cow:

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 03:00 PM
Exactly!

Signed,

Dunta Robinson :cow:

I was never worried about the Dunta situation, still not. I know he's going to show up eventually. Crabtree's a rookie that has never played before and has likely ruined his first year in the League or at least half of it. That's if he even signs.

Vinny
09-03-2009, 03:50 PM
I was never worried about the Dunta situation, still not. I know he's going to show up eventually. Tuesday. I believe that is the last day you can go before you lose a game check.

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 03:53 PM
Tuesday. I believe that is the last day you can go before you lose a game check.

Yeah, I hope he shows up over the weekend. He'd be an absolute dufus not to show by the deadline.

Vinny
09-03-2009, 03:53 PM
Yeah, I hope he shows up over the weekend. He'd be an absolute dufus not to show by the deadline.He will be here because this is about money. If he doesn't show on Tuesday then it really isn't about the money and I'm 100% positive his holdout is over nothing but $$$$$$$$$

Mr. White
09-03-2009, 04:10 PM
He will be here because this is about money. If he doesn't show on Tuesday then it really isn't about the money and I'm 100% positive his holdout is over nothing but $$$$$$$$$

Man I hope that's the truth.

I really hope that all the outrage over the "Rick Smith said he wouldn't franchise me" thing is posturing.

Specnatz
09-03-2009, 04:44 PM
Yeah, I hope he shows up over the weekend. He'd be an absolute dufus not to show by the deadline.

OK he shows up when checks count but how productive can he be since he has not gone through any activity with the team.

HOU-TEX
09-03-2009, 04:56 PM
OK he shows up when checks count but how productive can he be since he has not gone through any activity with the team.

While your point is true, look at what we've got now. A weeks worth of practice would likely make him a better option than what we're running out there now. A nickel at least until he's up with the scheme. Would we want a 4th or 6th round rookie starting on opening day? Or Dunta Robinson with a weeks worth of work? I choose Dunta

Granted, he's been working out as much as everybody says he is

JDizzle
09-03-2009, 06:27 PM
I'm sure the Texans would gladly sign those two to the equivalent of what Andre Davis and Antonio Smith is getting. The fact that OD and Ryans are underpayed right now shouldn't be motivation for the Texans to overpay for them. Instead, it should motivate OD and Ryans to take a reasonable long term deal instead of risking career threatening injuries, etc.. before they cash in on their rookie contract performance.

This dog won't hunt, comrade. They're gonna get paid either by us or someone else. I'd rather not have to compete with other teams so it would be a good idea to go ahead and get a deal done. If the deal favors the player (IE, "overpaid") so what? Great players who don't get hurt are pretty valuable nowdays so it's not like we'd be throwing money away.