Mario movement rumors (MERGED) Signs with Buffalo $100 million

[dalemurphy]

Oh I get it. So a team that scores alot of points does not have to play defense? No I still don't get it. We were averaging 27 PPG when Schaub went down and still did not give up a ton of yards. The reason teams give up a ton of yards is because they can't stop the other team from getting it (sounds like bad defense to me).

This all goes back to the point I made about Aaron Rodgers covering their weakness. In the Packers case it was poor offensive line and a weak defense.

Really?

First, the Texans are not a quick-strike team like Green Bay is. When the Texans offense is playing well, it is running the ball, controlling the clock, and converting long drives for TDs. The Packers don't run the ball. They pass a lot. They also score quickly. This reality creates more posessions in a game, giving the other team 12 chances with the ball instead of 9 or 10. Also, when a team is trailing by significant points, they are much more apt to throw the ball. Throwing the ball does a couple things: it slows the game down ( an incompletion stops the clock while a two yard run soaks 40 seconds off the clock), and it creates higher yards per play. Good running teams average far less than 5 yards per carry while an average passing team averages somewhere close to 7 yards per pass attempt.

So, looking at those numbers, a team that runs the ball, on average 45 % of the time per game, may have yardage stats like the following:

120 yards rushing and 220 yards passing = 340 total yards. Assume those totals result from 25 rushes and 30 pass attempts.

Now, when that team plays the Packers and the Packers score points quickly, the team is very unlikely to rush the ball 25 times and will throw more often. Each run play that is replaced with an incomplete pass adds time to the game. So, instead of 55 plays, perhaps the team gets 65 offensive plays. Furthermore, since the team had to abandon the run, perhaps they only ran 20 times and threw the other 45... If you kept the same metric in yards per attempt, here's the yardage totals:

90 yards rushing and 325 yards passing = 415 total yards.

Also, because the team is out of its comfort zone, it is more likely to commit turnovers and an increased number of sacks. Not surprisingly, the Packers were among the league leaders in sacks and turnovers.

This works in reverse as well. Horrible offensive teams tend to rate higher in total yards allowed on defense, because their opponents tend to play more conservatively, running the ball more and protecting it. Think Jacksonville Jaguars.


Still, as I said before, the Packers defense took a significant step back this year. My point is only that the YPG stat is a silly way to rank a defense.

 

[GP]

Why do most posters think its all or nothing with mario? Maybe some of you need to call sirius radio and talk to pat kirwan or gil brandt. Just in case you can't or won't,let me give you something to chew on in regards to the cap ad capspace.

Capspace is basically double what you have in terms of cap charge for a player. His salary is what counts against the cap when the contract is written. If the player is terminated before the bonus is fufilled,then that's when teams have problems.



A lot of teams have been paying more up front and less on the back. The texans could give foster his 24m guarantee in the 1st 3 yrs(8m per) and if he falls off as rbs do,they can be off the hook with a 0 cap charge.

I'd take the money we'd pay Mario and invest it into another position of need, most notably WR...but would also consider other positions that are always important to the Kubiak style of football here: OL, for instance, which is k-e-y to the success of the run game and keeping our QB upright. Also cannot overlook the need for a better guy in the secondary, whether that's a better Safety to pair with D. Manning or a better CB2 than Jackson/Allen.

It just seems we're relatively talented in the front 7 of this 34 defense right now, and can stack it even more in the draft and by growing guys like Braman off the UDFA tree. Why not take the money for Mario and toss into the bread basket of a WR, or an OL or a Secondary player to upgrade or strengthen those positions?

Why is THAT so impractical???

 

[thunderkyss]

The Texans didn't approach Mario during that time.

In casr u didn't know or don't care, u can't re-negotiate when a player is in the last yr of his deal. Continue with ur crooked posts.

Huh? Who said? That is simply not true. OR, if it is, please show or point me to that CBA rule.

It does not matter. The first quote,

The Texans didn't approach Mario during that time.

Is unsubstantiated. We have no idea if they approached Mario Williams or not. In any event, we have no idea why Mario's contract was not dealt with before the 2011 off-season.

Mario signed that rookie deal, with no signing bonus. It is very likely Mario & his agent would not budge on it for that reason.

 

[dalemurphy]

It does not matter. The first quote,

​

Is unsubstantiated. We have no idea if they approached Mario Williams or not. In any event, we have no idea why Mario's contract was not dealt with before the 2011 off-season.

Mario signed that rookie deal, with no signing bonus. It is very likely Mario & his agent would not budge on it for that reason.

The fact that nothing went public does give us an idea. You are right that it isn't ironclad proof, though.

If the Texans were determined enough to keep Mario for the long term, they could've offered him a deal he would've agreed to. Any deal would've lowered the 2011 cap hit. So, it is easy to conclude that the Texans were unwilling to commit financially in the long term at Mario's asking price. Why would they do it now? What changed to indicate he is more valuable and reliable than they thought he was? Another season on IR?

 

[thunderkyss]

True we did play well without Mario. But were we playing bad defense with Mario Williams? He didn't miss the whole season.

To me, you either add something to improve, or you get worse, there is no "staying the same"

They played well without Mario, we come back next season with the same guys, chances are the league is going to pass us by.

Signing Mario is like signing the best pass rusher in FA. You're adding a good player to an already above average defense.

Break the bank to sign Mario, I'm not saying that. If we can't get him for a good cap number, I'm not interested. But until it is unequivocally proven that it is out of the question, I think it's silly to speak otherwise.

I don't care what the total value of the contract is. I don't care what his avg yearly salary is. All I care about is his cap hit for 2012 & the future.

If Rick Smith can sign him to a $3B contract & cap number not to exceed $10M for 2012...... make it so. After 2012, with the cap expected to go up considerably, $13M, $14M is probably acceptable.

I normally don't care to go out & make a big splash in FA, because you never know how that FA is going to work on your team. Look at Plax in NYJ, look at Haynesworth in New England, look at Asomugha in Philly.

Peyton in Houston? How's he going to get along with Andre? How's he going to work with Chris Myers? How's he going to work with Kubiak? We don't know.

But we know how Mario is going to work with Wade, & Connor & JJ, & Cush, etc.....

We've seen it. & everyone on that line looked better with Mario there. It took everyone of them some time to adjust (even though our turnover numbers went down without Mario) when the big fella left. You can argue.... you'd be wrong. As good as they were without Mario, they were better with him.

 

[Rey]

I do not agree with not signing Mario to bring in Meachem or some other second tier WR...

That doesn't make any sense.

You keep the beast and draft a WR or two, Bring back Sanu and Mahael and let it be an open competition from 2-5/6.

 

[cbs1507]

Really?

First, the Texans are not a quick-strike team like Green Bay is. When the Texans offense is playing well, it is running the ball, controlling the clock, and converting long drives for TDs. The Packers don't run the ball. They pass a lot. They also score quickly. This reality creates more posessions in a game, giving the other team 12 chances with the ball instead of 9 or 10. Also, when a team is trailing by significant points, they are much more apt to throw the ball. Throwing the ball does a couple things: it slows the game down ( an incompletion stops the clock while a two yard run soaks 40 seconds off the clock), and it creates higher yards per play. Good running teams average far less than 5 yards per carry while an average passing team averages somewhere close to 7 yards per pass attempt.

So, looking at those numbers, a team that runs the ball, on average 45 % of the time per game, may have yardage stats like the following:

120 yards rushing and 220 yards passing = 340 total yards. Assume those totals result from 25 rushes and 30 pass attempts.

Now, when that team plays the Packers and the Packers score points quickly, the team is very unlikely to rush the ball 25 times and will throw more often. Each run play that is replaced with an incomplete pass adds time to the game. So, instead of 55 plays, perhaps the team gets 65 offensive plays. Furthermore, since the team had to abandon the run, perhaps they only ran 20 times and threw the other 45... If you kept the same metric in yards per attempt, here's the yardage totals:

90 yards rushing and 325 yards passing = 415 total yards.

Also, because the team is out of its comfort zone, it is more likely to commit turnovers and an increased number of sacks. Not surprisingly, the Packers were among the league leaders in sacks and turnovers.

This works in reverse as well. Horrible offensive teams tend to rate higher in total yards allowed on defense, because their opponents tend to play more conservatively, running the ball more and protecting it. Think Jacksonville Jaguars.


Still, as I said before, the Packers defense took a significant step back this year. My point is only that the YPG stat is a silly way to rank a defense.

First of all a team with a "quick strike" offense does not mean they "quick strike" all game long. It means the have the ability to quick strike at any time. The Packers are a West Coast offense. That does not mean they are chucking up big plays all day. It's all about timing. If the big play is there then they are going to take advantage of it.

There is a flaw in your argument. You first introduced the Packers as an "explosive team" then you drew the inference that an explosive team scores quickly all game. In this league it's all about ball control, regardless of the type of offense. They may be quick strike to get out to a lead early, but all teams try to do this (some just can't). But at the end of the day the West Coast offense of the Packers uses the pass game as ball control not to score quickly all game.

So "explosive teams" does not mean they "quick strike" all game. It means they have the capability to "quick strike" Which is the case for the Texans. Matt Schaub was 3rd in passer rating for explosive plays (20 yards or more) when he went down. Sounds explosive to me...

 

[cbs1507]

The fact that nothing went public does give us an idea. You are right that it isn't ironclad proof, though.

If the Texans were determined enough to keep Mario for the long term, they could've offered him a deal he would've agreed to. Any deal would've lowered the 2011 cap hit. So, it is easy to conclude that the Texans were unwilling to commit financially in the long term at Mario's asking price. Why would they do it now? What changed to indicate he is more valuable and reliable than they thought he was? Another season on IR?

Nothing went public about negotiating with Mario so we weren't interested in keeping him? Dude you draw some weak conclusions from limited information. Let's bring some FACTS to the table. FACT Mario Williams was this highest paid player on our roster last year. FACT we signed Joseph and Manning because of glaring need in the secondary. FACT we had a lockout and could not contact anybody. If we use your logic then we should not keep Arian Foster either since he did not get an extension in the offseason.

There are so many implications on why neither were sign and both incidents are closely related. First use the FACTS I presented in the previous paragraph. Then consider that we had to restructure 3 contract just to get under contract. To extend Foster we would have had to give him a pay raise for 2011, which we could not do because we had to get UNDER the cap after an uncapped 2010 season. To extend Mario he would have had to agree to take less money and prorated a bonus ove rthe extended years. We did not give him a signing bonus and he made a good portion of his contract's earning in 2011. I doubt he was going to agree to extend knowing he could get a better deal in free agency.

Now that you have the FACTS you can make a logical conclusion instead of speaking outright lies because you have your own opinion about Mario.

 

[dalemurphy]

First of all a team with a "quick strike" offense does not mean they "quick strike" all game long. It means the have the ability to quick strike at any time. The Packers are a West Coast offense. That does not mean they are chucking up big plays all day. It's all about timing. If the big play is there then they are going to take advantage of it.

There is a flaw in your argument. You first introduced the Packers as an "explosive team" then you drew the inference that an explosive team scores quickly all game. In this league it's all about ball control, regardless of the type of offense. They may be quick strike to get out to a lead early, but all teams try to do this (some just can't). But at the end of the day the West Coast offense of the Packers uses the pass game as ball control not to score quickly all game.

So "explosive teams" does not mean they "quick strike" all game. It means they have the capability to "quick strike" Which is the case for the Texans. Matt Schaub was 3rd in passer rating for explosive plays (20 yards or more) when he went down. Sounds explosive to me...

You are simply wrong:

The Packers time of posession is average: 30:25, yet they are an elite offense according to points and yards.

The Texans rate well below Green Bay in both yards and points, but the time of posession is vastly superior: over 32 minutes.

The Packers defense ranked 19th in points allowed, 1st in turnovers, but 31st in total yards. Teams had more passing attempts against the Packers than anyone else in the league: 637 pass atempts. Teams also averaged more plays per game against Green Bay than most of the league.

Only four teams were run on less than the Packers, despite the Packers giving up a higher per rush average. This is because of a couple things: First, many rushing plays are likely draw plays when the other team is well behind. Second, teams abandon the run when they are trying to catch up. The Packers led many games by double-digit points by halftime (or earlier).

 

[cbs1507]

You are simply wrong:

The Packers time of posession is average: 30:25, yet they are an elite offense according to points and yards.

The Texans rate well below Green Bay in both yards and points, but the time of posession is vastly superior: over 32 minutes.

The Packers defense ranked 19th in points allowed, 1st in turnovers, but 31st in total yards. Teams had more passing attempts against the Packers than anyone else in the league: 637 pass atempts. Teams also averaged more plays per game against Green Bay than most of the league.

Only four teams were run on less than the Packers, despite the Packers giving up a higher per rush average. This is because of a couple things: First, many rushing plays are likely draw plays when the other team is well behind. Second, teams abandon the run when they are trying to catch up. The Packers led many games by double-digit points by halftime (or earlier).

First of all I said when Matt Schaub was in the game.

Secondly your original argument was that their defense was bad because their offense was good. That's just a lie. And you're proving this by admitting that their defense was on the field for more plays than most teams. I'll go even further to inform you that their defense was on the field for more play than their offense.

At the end of the day none of the stats you provided suggest that the Packers played the game to get more possessions, which is what your initial argument stated. You even proved that they got less possessions than most teams and their defense. So this all goes back to what I said about how Aaron Rodgers was able to cover their weaknesses.

 

[2012Champs]

First of all I said when Matt Schaub was in the game.

Secondly your original argument was that their defense was bad because their offense was good. That's just a lie. And you're proving this by admitting that their defense was on the field for more plays than most teams. I'll go even further to inform you that their defense was on the field for more play than their offense.

At the end of the day none of the stats you provided suggest that the Packers played the game to get more possessions, which is what your initial argument stated. You even proved that they got less possessions than most teams and their defense. So this all goes back to what I said about how Aaron Rodgers was able to cover their weaknesses.

Im pretty sure I follow his point. I dont think our offense of years past would have been posting the numbers it was Schaub anyways on the passing side if our D wasnt so bad. Being behind all the time leads to your offense having to try and make big plays and scoring empty points. On the flip if your offense is always killing it your defense is going to have other teams doing exactly what we have done in years past. Maybe Ive oversimplified his point though

 

[dalemurphy]

First of all I said when Matt Schaub was in the game.

Secondly your original argument was that their defense was bad because their offense was good. That's just a lie. And you're proving this by admitting that their defense was on the field for more plays than most teams. I'll go even further to inform you that their defense was on the field for more play than their offense.

At the end of the day none of the stats you provided suggest that the Packers played the game to get more possessions, which is what your initial argument stated. You even proved that they got less possessions than most teams and their defense. So this all goes back to what I said about how Aaron Rodgers was able to cover their weaknesses.

No lies. No inconsistencies. When a game has more scores, more passes and fewer runs, their are more plays in that game. When teams must score 30+ points to win, they will throw the ball more often and run the ball less. The net effect of this is more yards and more plays per game, because the incompletions do not allow the clock to run and the completions are (on average) 5 yards more per completion than a rush is.

I never said Green Bay's defense was bad because their offense is good. That you would quote me saying that shows an inability to comprehend or it is an effort to distract from the argument I made.

I said that good offenses (particularly, explosive and pass-oriented ones) will tend to score lower in the category of yards allowed due to a number of factors. Quoting the Packers as the 31st or 32nd defense in the league is referencing only that single statistics. Based on points, they would be 19th in the league. Based on turnovers, they would be one of the top defenses in the NFL.

Here's an example:

Indy ranked 24th in Yards allowed this year.
GB ranked 32nd in Yards allowed. Do you think Indy had the better defense?:

No. Here's why:

Teams averaged 7.8 yards per pass against Indy. Teams averaged the identical number against Green Bay. However, teams ran the ball 50 times more than they threw it against Indy. Conversely, teams threw the ball on Green Bay 250 times more than they ran it. Considering the difference in yards per pass to yards per rush, that one factor alone accounts for close to a 1000 yards difference in total yards.

Meanwhile, turnovers aren't accounted for and Green Bay was among the leaders.

While the Green Bay defense struggled this year, it was clearly better than Indy. However, the circumstances resulting from GB's great offense and Indy's horrible offense skews YPG stats.

 

[steelbtexan]

To me, you either add something to improve, or you get worse, there is no "staying the same"

They played well without Mario, we come back next season with the same guys, chances are the league is going to pass us by.

Signing Mario is like signing the best pass rusher in FA. You're adding a good player to an already above average defense.

Break the bank to sign Mario, I'm not saying that. If we can't get him for a good cap number, I'm not interested. But until it is unequivocally proven that it is out of the question, I think it's silly to speak otherwise.

I don't care what the total value of the contract is. I don't care what his avg yearly salary is. All I care about is his cap hit for 2012 & the future.

If Rick Smith can sign him to a $3B contract & cap number not to exceed $10M for 2012...... make it so. After 2012, with the cap expected to go up considerably, $13M, $14M is probably acceptable.

I normally don't care to go out & make a big splash in FA, because you never know how that FA is going to work on your team. Look at Plax in NYJ, look at Haynesworth in New England, look at Asomugha in Philly.

Peyton in Houston? How's he going to get along with Andre? How's he going to work with Chris Myers? How's he going to work with Kubiak? We don't know.

But we know how Mario is going to work with Wade, & Connor & JJ, & Cush, etc.....

We've seen it. & everyone on that line looked better with Mario there. It took everyone of them some time to adjust (even though our turnover numbers went down without Mario) when the big fella left. You can argue.... you'd be wrong. As good as they were without Mario, they were better with him.

Agreed with the if your not getting better your getting worse sentiment.

Disagree with you about the Texans being players in FA. For the 1st time ever the Texans went out and signed top tier FA's. Not suprisingly they had a great yr and made the playoffs.

If MW was agreeable to 5yrs 50 mill, 10 mill signing bonus spread out over the life of the contract I would be for re-signing MW. (Probably not going to happen) Otherwise I would let him walk.

If MW was on the Steelers and was a FA do you think the Texans would be willing to sign MW in FA? If the answer is no then the Texans shouldn't even think of bringing MW back unless it's a cap friendly deal.

Otherwise the MW fans are blinded by the 1st pick thingy and MW's untapped potential after 6 yrs. I dont blame MW fans for feeling this way. His coaches have been tryingto tap into that potential since MW's college days.

 

[cbs1507]

No lies. No inconsistencies. When a game has more scores, more passes and fewer runs, their are more plays in that game. When teams must score 30+ points to win, they will throw the ball more often and run the ball less. The net effect of this is more yards and more plays per game, because the incompletions do not allow the clock to run and the completions are (on average) 5 yards more per completion than a rush is.

I never said Green Bay's defense was bad because their offense is good. That you would quote me saying that shows an inability to comprehend or it is an effort to distract from the argument I made.

I said that good offenses (particularly, explosive and pass-oriented ones) will tend to score lower in the category of yards allowed due to a number of factors. Quoting the Packers as the 31st or 32nd defense in the league is referencing only that single statistics. Based on points, they would be 19th in the league. Based on turnovers, they would be one of the top defenses in the NFL.

Here's an example:

Indy ranked 24th in Yards allowed this year.
GB ranked 32nd in Yards allowed. Do you think Indy had the better defense?:

No. Here's why:

Teams averaged 7.8 yards per pass against Indy. Teams averaged the identical number against Green Bay. However, teams ran the ball 50 times more than they threw it against Indy. Conversely, teams threw the ball on Green Bay 250 times more than they ran it. Considering the difference in yards per pass to yards per rush, that one factor alone accounts for close to a 1000 yards difference in total yards.

Meanwhile, turnovers aren't accounted for and Green Bay was among the leaders.

While the Green Bay defense struggled this year, it was clearly better than Indy. However, the circumstances resulting from GB's great offense and Indy's horrible offense skews YPG stats.

:mariopalm: Please stop while you're behind.

The Packers defense wasn't as bad as that stat indicates. Their explosive offense is a reason for their defense allowing so many yards. It also happens that the Packers were among the leaders in turnovers.

All you're doing is flip flopping to try to act like this was your argument all along. They gave up alot of yards because they had a WEAK DEFENSE. Aaron Rodgers covered up their weak defense by scoring alot of points to take pressure off them. Point blank.

 

[dalemurphy]

:mariopalm: Please stop while you're behind.
All you're doing is flip flopping to try to act like this was your argument all along. Aaron Rodgers covered up their weak defense by scoring alot of points to take pressure off them. Point blank.

Show me the quote!

 

[dalemurphy]

Nothing went public about negotiating with Mario so we weren't interested in keeping him? Dude you draw some weak conclusions from limited information. Let's bring some FACTS to the table. FACT Mario Williams was this highest paid player on our roster last year. FACT we signed Joseph and Manning because of glaring need in the secondary. FACT we had a lockout and could not contact anybody. If we use your logic then we should not keep Arian Foster either since he did not get an extension in the offseason.

There are so many implications on why neither were sign and both incidents are closely related. First use the FACTS I presented in the previous paragraph. Then consider that we had to restructure 3 contract just to get under contract. To extend Foster we would have had to give him a pay raise for 2011, which we could not do because we had to get UNDER the cap after an uncapped 2010 season. To extend Mario he would have had to agree to take less money and prorated a bonus ove rthe extended years. We did not give him a signing bonus and he made a good portion of his contract's earning in 2011. I doubt he was going to agree to extend knowing he could get a better deal in free agency.

Now that you have the FACTS you can make a logical conclusion instead of speaking outright lies because you have your own opinion about Mario.

You have no idea what you are talking about! We could've extended Mario a long term contract, offering to tear up his last deal and created a new deal at 6 years and $100 million, with a $36 million signing bonus... As a result, instead of getting $18 million last year, he would have received twice that ($36 million signing bonus) + his new 2011 salary... As a result, instead of counting $18 million against the cap, he would've counted $9 or $10 million against the cap for 2011. In the end, Mario would've been richer, the Texans would've locked up a "star" player for 5 more years and the Texans could've saved $8 or $9 million on the 2011 cap. They didn't do that... Why? I'm not sure, but it is logical to conclude they were unconvinced to lock up those dollars on him.

Regarding your Foster argument: it makes no sense. How would signing Foster last season to a new deal have saved cap room? He was making almost nothing as a 3rd year UDFA. Your point has absolutely no merit. Please stop flailing in the air and take some time to understand what I'm saying. You need not agree with it but please stop misrepresenting it.

 

[cbs1507]

Show me the quote!

Apparently you don't even remember what you wrote...

The Packers defense wasn't as bad as that stat indicates. Their explosive offense is a reason for their defense allowing so many yards. It also happens that the Packers were among the leaders in turnovers.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1897098&postcount=1237

The "explosive offense" was not the reason their defense gave up so many yards. The weak defense was the reason they gave so many yards.

Your Indy example is horrible. Both teams had bad defenses. But GB had Aaron Rodger and Indy had Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky. Sometimes teams just take the path of least resistence. Last time I checked Indy has 2 capable pass rushers that are weak against the run. Therefore teams run on Indy to beat them. GB is better against the run than Indy but for some reason they cannot stop teams from airing it out. Because they do not get pressure and sacks like they did last year (hmm..they lost Cullen Jenkins in the offseason which was my original argument).

 

[dalemurphy]

Apparently you don't even remember what you wrote...


http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1897098&postcount=1237

The "explosive offense" was not the reason their defense gave up so many yards. The weak defense was the reason they gave so many yards.

Your Indy example is horrible. Both teams had bad defenses. But GB had Aaron Rodger and Indy had Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky. Sometimes teams just take the path of least resistence. Last time I checked Indy has 2 capable pass rushers that are weak against the run. Therefore teams run on Indy to beat them. GB is better against the run than Indy but for some reason they cannot stop teams from airing it out. Because they do not get pressure and sacks like they did last year (hmm..they lost Cullen Jenkins in the offseason which was my original argument).

Again, I didn't say GB defense was bad, I said it ranked poorly in Yards allowed. Can't you comprehend that I'm saying yards allowed is not a good metric for ranking defenses?

Green Bay was actually poor vs. the run but teams didn't run on them because they felt pressure to throw the ball, resulting from the Green Bay offense.

Cullen Jenkins absence certainly hurt GB. I agreed with that originally. However, you made a fallible argument when you compared Jenkins loss with the potential Mario loss...

If Mario had played most of the season then I'd be much more worried about losing him. However, the Texans defense was the best in the NFL over their final 14 games (WITHOUT MARIO). GB had Jenkins in 2010. The Texans played great without Mario in 2011. Why would losing Mario's presence on IR make the defense worse?

 

[cbs1507]

Again, I didn't say GB defense was bad, I said it ranked poorly in Yards allowed. Can't you comprehend that I'm saying yards allowed is not a good metric for ranking defenses? Dude I freaking know that total yards is not the whole story. I know there other factors. But the underlying factor for a team giving up yards is because they cannot stop the other team from getting them not because they have an "explosive offense". Point blank.

Green Bay was actually poor vs. the run but teams didn't run on them because they felt pressure to throw the ball, resulting from the Green Bay offense. I know they weren't that good at run defense. Did you not get my statement about the "path of least resistance". For instance, there is a fork in the road. One path his guarded by armored cars and soldiers. The other one has a security guard . Which path do you choose? That's case with Indy and GB (and other teams). But your argument was that their defense was not really that bad.

Cullen Jenkins absence certainly hurt GB. I agreed with that originally. However, you made a fallible argument when you compared Jenkins loss with the potential Mario loss... Really I did not know we were arguing about that. I thought we said our 2 cents and left it at that. Nice try.

If Mario had played most of the season then I'd be much more worried about losing him. However, the Texans defense was the best in the NFL over their final 14 games (WITHOUT MARIO). GB had Jenkins in 2010. The Texans played great without Mario in 2011. Why would losing Mario's presence on IR make the defense worse? I honestly don't care if you are worried about Mario or not. I think we could probably do okay without him. But whoever we bring in will never match the ability and the value that Mario brought us on Sundays. Point blank.

My response in bold...

 

[leebigeztx]

To keep from going in circles, what would be an acceptable number for williams per yr? Given his age,position,production,and injury history. My number is 12m per yr and 36m in guaranteed money.The "G Jack" as pat kirwan likes to say is the most important in regards to doing a deal. Also, do the texans want to pay in cash[roster bonus] or credit [signing bonus]?

 

[dalemurphy]

To keep from going in circles, what would be an acceptable number for williams per yr? Given his age,position,production,and injury history. My number is 12m per yr and 36m in guaranteed money.The "G Jack" as pat kirwan likes to say is the most important in regards to doing a deal. Also, do the texans want to pay in cash[roster bonus] or credit [signing bonus]?

5 years and $55 million would be the maximum I would be okay with. Whatever the method and dollar amount of the guaranteed money, I would want to be able to get out from under the contract in three years without too much cap pain... preparing for the possibility that he is physically breaking down and/or consistently not playing at a high level. So, something like this:

$25 million signing bonus:
salary:
2012- $3 mil
2013- $4 mil
2014- $5.5 mil
2015- $7.5 mil
2016- $10 mil

 

[mussop]

But whoever we bring in will never match the ability and the value that Mario brought us on Sundays. Point blank.

I believe Barwin has already done that. All we need if Mario leaves is depth.

 

[2012Champs]

But whoever we bring in will never match the ability and the value that Mario brought us on Sundays. Point blank.

I believe Barwin has already done that. All we need if Mario leaves is depth.

Im not sure your two statements compute.


we will never


barwin has already done that

 

[badboy]

I think he gets his numbers from sportrac unless there is a team specific cap site like NYJetscap.com.

No I have used that and Rotoworld but McClain just seems to have "inside" sources.

 

[badboy]

Why do most posters think its all or nothing with mario? Maybe some of you need to call sirius radio and talk to pat kirwan or gil brandt. Just in case you can't or won't,let me give you something to chew on in regards to the cap ad capspace.

Capspace is basically double what you have in terms of cap charge for a player. His salary is what counts against the cap when the contract is written. If the player is terminated before the bonus is fufilled,then that's when teams have problems.



A lot of teams have been paying more up front and less on the back. The texans could give foster his 24m guarantee in the 1st 3 yrs(8m per) and if he falls off as rbs do,they can be off the hook with a 0 cap charge.

Please research because that is definitely not correct info. Cap is each year's base salary plus any "upfront" bonus prorated over contract.

 

[Scooter]

But whoever we bring in will never match the ability and the value that Mario brought us on Sundays. Point blank.

I believe Barwin has already done that. All we need if Mario leaves is depth.

i havent read much lately, but i'm guessing that's a major sticking point. "barwin and reed played excellent this season so who needs mario - we can replace him with a backup from somewhere." in a wade pass rush heavy defense, nobody had 10 sacks. barwin was the top guy with 9.5 ... 4 of which coming against the epically bad jags (zero in the first meeting). will he improve next season as our focal point and the guy teams take away (teams WILL adjust)? will reed and watt not only repeat their rookie performances, but improve to match those adjustments? will we be able to find help in the draft or free agency with the offense needing support, or will we have to force something?

barwin is a stellar piece to this team, but he hasnt come close to the impact mario provides. the freedom he got with mario on the field he also received because teams shifted to antonio and a more heavily blitzing cushing. rare if ever was barwin double teamed, and reed ran freely for most of his sacks ... teams let our OLB's go to focus on the DE's with mario out. with mario in, the video is here on page one as well as atleast a couple earlier game reviews pointing out the focus mario receives. 5 sacks in 5 games among our toughest stretch as the player teams spent more time trying to take away (or paid for per the colts) ... barwin and reed combined dont do that.

if we lose mario, we will see what our sophomores plus barwin are capable of ... and i dont think it will be favorable. to make that work we'll need to blitz and become way too predictable. i'll approach this from wade's point of view and my own if designing this scheme, which i have done in a goofy sim ... it is a 1v1 defense. rush 5 against 5, trust your ILB's to work in tandem, and stick to receivers with your back turned in the secondary. all predicated on winning the front not by scheme, but by simple talent ... that's mario and cushing and watt and antonio ... brute force talent to make such simplicity work. no way wade gives that up.

not a sober post.

 

[badboy]

But whoever we bring in will never match the ability and the value that Mario brought us on Sundays. Point blank.

I believe Barwin has already done that. All we need if Mario leaves is depth.

exactly

 

[Bulls on Parade]

i havent read much lately, but i'm guessing that's a major sticking point. barwin and reed played excellent this season so who needs mario. in a wade pass rush heavy defense, nobody had 10 sacks. barwin was the top guy with 9.5 ... 4 of which coming against the epically bad jags (zero in the first meeting).

I believe Mario Williams can rack up 15-20 sacks easy in Wade Phillips' defense. He was starting to get on a nice roll right before his season-ending injury. What did he have, like five sacks in five games -- that alone would be a 16-sack average if he had played a full season. I know he had three sacks in his last two games played this past season and he's been known to get them in bunches (2-3 any given game).

The guy is a monster and needs a chance to flourish alongside Wade Phillips. There's a reason Hall of Famer Bruce Smith was licking his chops and giving Mario Williams a lot of high praise last off-season, and talking about his great potential finally coming out with a coach like Wade Phillips. Even a legend like Bruce Smith was comparing himself to Mario Williams.

Brooks Reed is an excellent young player but he's no Mario Williams. Opposing offenses don't crap their pants and have to game plan for him all week long. People assume the Texans defense is better without Mario Williams because of how they played without him. I'm telling you they would have been historically good, on par with the 2000 Ravens and 1985 Bears with him on the field. And that's why I'm so damn excied about 2012. This defense is going to be something special. Something you only see every 12 to 15 years.

Super Mario will be a Texan when they hoist that Lombardi Trophy at the Superdome next year. That much I can tell you. People need to start embracing the man and stop talking all of this gibberish about him leaving. It's a bunch of hogwash to me.

 

[Scooter]

if mario plays 16 games at OLB in a wade phillips defense, he'll have atleast 17 sacks. dont bother quoting, i'll claim 20 by preseason. given an extended time to get healthy along with a real camp, i think he's the bruce smith / demarcus ware hybrid that wade could only imagine (something i whiffed on entirely before this season started). mario's injuries have been more muscle related as far as i can remember (shoulder, foot, pectoral, groin). this season being used to rehab as well as having a full supervised training camp unlike last year, this should be his best offseason. with wade returning to a #2 pass defense, starting OLB of the houston texans is arguably the most highly coveted defensive position in football. mario would be insane to miss that chance.

if he wants fat albert money, he's too dumb to keep. if he wants something in the neighborhood of harrison, i think we can work it even with our other obligations. 6 year, 60mil - 20mil guaranteed and 10mil signing bonus.

 

[Trail.Blazr]

To debate the ability of Mario, it's easy to understand some skepticism, simply because he's been behind the 8-ball most of his career. Starts out in a lackluster 3-4, then switches to a lackluster 4-3, then back to a 3-4, but as a LB, in a year that finally shows some promise by proving to be non-lack luster, only to have to sit out 3/4ths of it due to injury.

He has yet to reach his potential and I for one don't attribute that to his lack of ability or motor.

If we get him back for a healthy 2012 campaign, I see an Alex Smith-like result in terms of realizing his full potential in terms of impact to the game.

To debate his worth in respect to a new contract... well, I have seen nothing from the Front Office to indicate he won't get paid Handsomely. Bob loves the guy. He is a humble superstar that has yet to bloom. With the backlash the franchise took when drafting him #1, no way McNair parts ways with who is arguably still the face of the franchise.

As an afterthought, I really saw/felt this 2011 Defense gel and become a "team" that gets it and gets after it, which is infectious, to the same degree as the inverse affect of loafing being cancerous. Mario will feed off this positive direction the "team" has elevated to and I hope will result in him being as much an impact/disruption on any given play as JJ Watt(who by the way has quickly become one of my FAVORITE players.)

 

[Rey]

To debate the ability of Mario, it's easy to understand some skepticism, simply because he's been behind the 8-ball most of his career. Starts out in a lackluster 3-4, then switches to a lackluster 4-3, then back to a 3-4, but as a LB, in a year that finally shows some promise by proving to be non-lack luster, only to have to sit out 3/4ths of it due to injury.

He has yet to reach his potential and I for one don't attribute that to his lack of ability or motor.

If we get him back for a healthy 2012 campaign, I see an Alex Smith-like result in terms of realizing his full potential in terms of impact to the game.

To debate his worth in respect to a new contract... well, I have seen nothing from the Front Office to indicate he won't get paid Handsomely. Bob loves the guy. He is a humble superstar that has yet to bloom. With the backlash the franchise took when drafting him #1, no way McNair parts ways with who is arguably still the face of the franchise.

As an afterthought, I really saw/felt this 2011 Defense gel and become a "team" that gets it and gets after it, which is infectious, to the same degree as the inverse affect of loafing being cancerous. Mario will feed off this positive direction the "team" has elevated to and I hope will result in him being as much an impact/disruption on any given play as JJ Watt(who by the way has quickly become one of my FAVORITE players.)

Mario was never in a 3-4 as a base defense in the NFL prior to this year.

 

[badboy]

I believe Mario Williams can rack up 15-20 sacks easy in Wade Phillips' defense. He was starting to get on a nice roll right before his season-ending injury. What did he have, like five sacks in five games -- that alone would be a 16-sack average if he had played a full season. I know he had three sacks in his last two games played this past season and he's been known to get them in bunches (2-3 any given game).

The guy is a monster and needs a chance to flourish alongside Wade Phillips. There's a reason Hall of Famer Bruce Smith was licking his chops and giving Mario Williams a lot of high praise last off-season, and talking about his great potential finally coming out with a coach like Wade Phillips. Even a legend like Bruce Smith was comparing himself to Mario Williams.

Brooks Reed is an excellent young player but he's no Mario Williams. Opposing offenses don't crap their pants and have to game plan for him all week long. People assume the Texans defense is better without Mario Williams because of how they played without him. I'm telling you they would have been historically good, on par with the 2000 Ravens and 1985 Bears with him on the field. And that's why I'm so damn excied about 2012. This defense is going to be something special. Something you only see every 12 to 15 years.

Super Mario will be a Texan when they hoist that Lombardi Trophy at the Superdome next year. That much I can tell you. People need to start embracing the man and stop talking all of this gibberish about him leaving. It's a bunch of hogwash to me.

Here is why I have issue with you and others who post as you do. Reed should not be compared to Mario. He did not replace Williams, Barwin did. His stats should be used @ 9.5. I like Mario but think of what Barwin would do in a full year as starter with the Defense set like it was to showcase Mario 16 games. If Mario being off roster allows us to go after a starting WR like Dwayne Bowe or an OG from Saints or a CB2 + gives us cap space +maybe some high draft picks in a deep 2012 draft, I'd consider it. I am not one of those saying Mario is a avg player but I'm not saying he is elite either.

No you cannot tell us Mario will be a Texan because neither Mario or McNair know so how could you? It is an opinion (which is the same as mine btw) but just an opinion.

 

[badboy]

To debate the ability of Mario, it's easy to understand some skepticism, simply because he's been behind the 8-ball most of his career. Starts out in a lackluster 3-4, then switches to a lackluster 4-3, then back to a 3-4, but as a LB, in a year that finally shows some promise by proving to be non-lack luster, only to have to sit out 3/4ths of it due to injury.

He has yet to reach his potential and I for one don't attribute that to his lack of ability or motor.

If we get him back for a healthy 2012 campaign, I see an Alex Smith-like result in terms of realizing his full potential in terms of impact to the game.

To debate his worth in respect to a new contract... well, I have seen nothing from the Front Office to indicate he won't get paid Handsomely. Bob loves the guy. He is a humble superstar that has yet to bloom. With the backlash the franchise took when drafting him #1, no way McNair parts ways with who is arguably still the face of the franchise.

As an afterthought, I really saw/felt this 2011 Defense gel and become a "team" that gets it and gets after it, which is infectious, to the same degree as the inverse affect of loafing being cancerous. Mario will feed off this positive direction the "team" has elevated to and I hope will result in him being as much an impact/disruption on any given play as JJ Watt(who by the way has quickly become one of my FAVORITE players.)

You allude to a possible problem that I and others have; do we throw $50 - 60 million with maybe 20m guaranteed at the player you describe?

 

[Trail.Blazr]

Mario was never in a 3-4 as a base defense in the NFL prior to this year.

Thanks Rey, my memory is fuzzier than I care to admit. I thought we were still a 3-4 when drafting him. But you are correct...

In fact, by drafting Mario, Houston abandoned the Caper's 3-4 and Mario's tutelage came in the 4-3 by way of RICHARD SMITH & Co.

 

[Trail.Blazr]

You allude to a possible problem that I and others have; do we throw $50 - 60 million with maybe 20m guaranteed at the player you describe?

If my description fits this: A player with great potential who, by little fault of his own, has yet to reach that potential that others bestow upon him....

Then yes, it seems inevitable, based on past history. McNair will pay the man.

I, personally don't agree with that philosophy entirely. While I don't mind the fact that his first contract was predicated by his draft placement, after contract 1, I'd be less inclined to pony up if I felt he didn't live up to the paycheck, for whatever reason.. Then to be facing the similar circumstances now, I'm even less inclined.

Bob is in a predicament... If I don't pay Mario well enough to keep him in Houston and he goes else where and finally has that season we all know he should... who's got egg on their face?

I predict same 'ol, same 'ol... but what the hell do I know... I though Mario was a 3-4 rookie DE :-)

 

[Scooter]

drunk edit

 

[badboy]

If my description fits this: A player with great potential who, by little fault of his own, has yet to reach that potential that others bestow upon him....

Then yes, it seems inevitable, based on past history. McNair will pay the man.

I, personally don't agree with that philosophy entirely. While I don't mind the fact that his first contract was predicated by his draft placement, after contract 1, I'd be less inclined to pony up if I felt he didn't live up to the paycheck, for whatever reason.. Then to be facing the similar circumstances now, I'm even less inclined.

Bob is in a predicament... If I don't pay Mario well enough to keep him in Houston and he goes else where and finally has that season we all know he should... who's got egg on their face?

I predict same 'ol, same 'ol... but what the hell do I know... I though Mario was a 3-4 rookie DE :-)

Good post but I am hoping Bob will say he paid Mario $50m+ and can part ways knowing Barwin is doing very good; maybe not Mario 2011 projected to 16 games but good enough. Then Bob says go get me Dwayne Bowe WR & Nicks OG Saints. $17m cap should allow us a decent offer to both for first contract year.

 

[leebigeztx]

5 years and $55 million would be the maximum I would be okay with. Whatever the method and dollar amount of the guaranteed money, I would want to be able to get out from under the contract in three years without too much cap pain... preparing for the possibility that he is physically breaking down and/or consistently not playing at a high level. So, something like this:

$25 million signing bonus:
salary:
2012- $3 mil
2013- $4 mil
2014- $5.5 mil
2015- $7.5 mil
2016- $10 mil

Here is what the problem is that I see. 5yr 55m and 25m isn't even close. The starting point to me is charles johnson in terms of g money. He got 32 off 1 good yr. Mario and his versitilty,production,and age is going to be 36m or more. That's not hard to do and still have money to get other important guys done.

2012-5m sal 5.5m bn
13-6m sal 6.5m bn
14-6m sal 7m bn
The texans can fully guarantee these 1st 3 yrs of the deal. That would be 36m guaranteed money.The next 3 yrs look like this:
2015-10m sal 2m roster bonus
2016-10m sal 3m roster bonus
2017-10m sal 4m roster bonus
This gives mario 6yrs 73m. The best thing about the deal is after 3 yrs, if mario is injured or not performing up to par, they can cut him and owe $0. If he plays well and they need money,they can convert his salary into bonus money to create space. As I said before, its not that hard.The only reason why franchise tag isn't a option is because of his entry point from the draft. The rule are top 5 of guys at your position or 120% of his current,whichever is higher. Had mario been a lower 1st rd pick,say like tambi hali or elvis,his franchise tag would be 11m or so as a olb. Since his salary is higher than the current tag for his position,he would get 120% of his currentnt salary. That's why pepeers was so high. He was the #2 pick and his salary was 13m or so.They franchised him and he was sitting at 1m per game basically.

 

[badboy]

Here is what the problem is that I see. 5yr 55m and 25m isn't even close. The starting point to me is charles johnson in terms of g money. He got 32 off 1 good yr. Mario and his versitilty,production,and age is going to be 36m or more. That's not hard to do and still have money to get other important guys done.

2012-5m sal 5.5m bn
13-6m sal 6.5m bn
14-6m sal 7m bn
The texans can fully guarantee these 1st 3 yrs of the deal. That would be 36m guaranteed money.The next 3 yrs look like this:
2015-10m sal 2m roster bonus
2016-10m sal 3m roster bonus
2017-10m sal 4m roster bonus
This gives mario 6yrs 73m. The best thing about the deal is after 3 yrs, if mario is injured or not performing up to par, they can cut him and owe $0. If he plays well and they need money,they can convert his salary into bonus money to create space. As I said before, its not that hard.The only reason why franchise tag isn't a option is because of his entry point from the draft. The rule are top 5 of guys at your position or 120% of his current,whichever is higher. Had mario been a lower 1st rd pick,say like tambi hali or elvis,his franchise tag would be 11m or so as a olb. Since his salary is higher than the current tag for his position,he would get 120% of his currentnt salary. That's why pepeers was so high. He was the #2 pick and his salary was 13m or so.They franchised him and he was sitting at 1m per game basically.

I prob would accept those figure as the cap hit for 1st year is $10.5m and if he got 17m 2011 we have the difference for other guys. I have posted on one of these threads that I think $72m total is highest we should go for 6 year deal.

 

[thunderkyss]

5 years and $55 million would be the maximum I would be okay with. Whatever the method and dollar amount of the guaranteed money, I would want to be able to get out from under the contract in three years without too much cap pain... preparing for the possibility that he is physically breaking down and/or consistently not playing at a high level. So, something like this:

$25 million signing bonus:
salary:
2012- $3 mil
2013- $4 mil
2014- $5.5 mil
2015- $7.5 mil
2016- $10 mil

Cap hit:
2012 - $8M
2013 - $9M
2014 - $10.5M
2015 - $12.5M
2016 - $15M

If we cut him before the 2015 season, that leaves $10M of dead money.

$55M over 5 years is also $11M/yr

You & I aren't very far apart. I think we could work something out.

 

[DocBar]

I can't wait to hear the moaning, groaning amd gnashing of teeth when the Texans make the correct move of letting Mario walk. I just hope he signs in the NFC.

 

[thunderkyss]

Good post but I am hoping Bob will say he paid Mario $50m+ and can part ways knowing Barwin is doing very good; maybe not Mario 2011 projected to 16 games but good enough. Then Bob says go get me Dwayne Bowe WR & Nicks OG Saints. $17m cap should allow us a decent offer to both for first contract year.

What say we sign Mario to a $6M cap number for 2012. Leaving us $11M to work with. Sign Arian, sign Myers, sign Brisiel, sign Nicks, Then the 3 best WRs we can get in the draft.

Sign Mario to 5 years, $58M with a $25M signing bonus
2012 - $1M
+ $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2013 - $5M
+ $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2014 - $7M
+ $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2015 - $7M
+ $3M Roster Bonus + $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2016 - $7M
+ $3M Roster Bonus + $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)

So that's a total value of $78M over 5 years ($15.6M/yr) but he's got to earn it.

 

[thunderkyss]

I can't wait to hear the moaning, groaning amd gnashing of teeth when the Texans make the correct move of letting Mario walk. I just hope he signs in the NFC.

The only way I'd be upset, would be if they didn't offer Mario a contract in the $11-$14 million range. If they offered him that money & he went elsewhere for $15M+, I'm not going to fault the Texans.

Sign Mario to 5 years, $58M with a $25M signing bonus
2012 - $1M
+ $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2013 - $5M
+ $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2014 - $7M
+ $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2015 - $7M
+ $3M Roster Bonus + $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)
2016 - $7M
+ $3M Roster Bonus + $2M (12 sacks) + $2M (play-offs)+ $2M (AFC Championship game)

So that's a total value of $78M over 5 years ($15.6M/yr) but he's got to earn it.

I would sell this to Mario by explaining that he should look at the $25M bonus as part of his salary for the first three years.
2012 he makes $9M, 2013 he makes $13M, 2014 he makes $15M

& we can make that guaranteed money ($37M)

Then in 2015 $10M & in 2016 he makes $10M.... he doesn't make as much money in those years... But he's "protected" in 2015 (it would cost us just as much to cut him as it would to play him in guaranteed money $10M). 2016, we'd save $5M by cutting him. But if he's a beast at 30 (the 2015 year) we'll be looking to extend him through the next 5 years (2020) with another sweetheart deal.

 

[arb729]

I can't wait to hear the moaning, groaning amd gnashing of teeth when the Texans make the correct move of letting Mario walk. I just hope he signs in the NFC.

Some speculation around my parts is that the Patriots would be a good fit, and may even be in the running should that come up.

 

[badboy]

Some speculation around my parts is that the Patriots would be a good fit, and may even be in the running should that come up.

Interesting as I have been pushing a trade to Pats for 2 years.

 

[badboy]

The only way I'd be upset, would be if they didn't offer Mario a contract in the $11-$14 million range. If they offered him that money & he went elsewhere for $15M+, I'm not going to fault the Texans.



I would sell this to Mario by explaining that he should look at the $25M bonus as part of his salary for the first three years.
2012 he makes $9M, 2013 he makes $13M, 2014 he makes $15M

& we can make that guaranteed money ($37M)

Then in 2015 $10M & in 2016 he makes $10M.... he doesn't make as much money in those years... But he's "protected" in 2015 (it would cost us just as much to cut him as it would to play him in guaranteed money $10M). 2016, we'd save $5M by cutting him. But if he's a beast at 30 (the 2015 year) we'll be looking to extend him through the next 5 years (2020) with another sweetheart deal.

As you have read, this is what I have been suggesting seems like forever. Mario did not get an upfront bonus first time around and 20-25 should appeal to him especially if the for 2-3 years salary is guaranteed. We can make it tempting. Same for Foster and any FA we want. Unlike the Rockets, we have a destination players should want

 

[leebigeztx]

Truthfully, guys like meyers and briesel don't have a lot of value to other nfl teams. They got meyers for a 5th and he made like 3m per. The texans can offer him 4.5per and 4 yrs with 9m in bonus and get him signed. Briesel will make less and dressen can walk.

 

[badboy]

Truthfully, guys like meyers and briesel don't have a lot of value to other nfl teams. They got meyers for a 5th and he made like 3m per. The texans can offer him 4.5per and 4 yrs with 9m in bonus and get him signed. Briesel will make less and dressen can walk.

I don't see much bonus going to either but agree with your premise.

Either might not start too many other teams.

 

[Texan_Bill]

From a pure financial aspect, you let him walk. Period.

Doesn't matter if you like him, loathe him, or are indifferent to him..

I happen to like Mario a lot!!! That said, you and I disagree on many things, but we're in "lock-step" here... Let him go! Don't put the Texans in Salary Cap "HELL" by either franchising him or signing him to a ridiculous contract.

"CUT BAIT"!!! He's not going to take a "hometown discount"......

*Disclaimer*
If he would.... re-sign him in a heartbeat!!

The value for him versus market value would be a detriment to the Texans Salary Cap...

 

[badboy]

I happen to like Mario a lot!!! That said, you and I disagree on many things, but we're in "lock-step" here... Let him go! Don't put the Texans in Salary Cap "HELL" by either franchising him or signing him to a ridiculous contract.

"CUT BAIT"!!! He's not going to take a "hometown discount"......

*Disclaimer*
If he would.... re-sign him in a heartbeat!!

The value for him versus market value would be a detriment to the Texans Salary Cap...

That is exactly what CHris Olsen and Smith should and prob are working on now.