I found it kind of funny actually because it's true. 

 

its mind bottling

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Well, isn't there a cluster of silliness coming from certain posters?

I see what you did there.

---

I see what you did there.

Hence the reason for me seeing humor in the original post. 

 

Take credit for simply being a clever wordsmith there.

 

its mind bottling

 

EXACTLY!

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I know I I know but it's hard to let the ignorance just flow through... It's aggrevating.

 

He's not ignorant though; he's simply stating things that go against the grain to gin up conversation. Why bother in getting into a conversation where you already know the outcome and you won't learn anything? I've got better things to do with my time.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

He's not ignorant though; he's simply stating things that go against the grain to gin up conversation. Why bother in getting into a conversation where you already know the outcome and you won't learn anything? I've got better things to do with my time.

 

I think there is still a shade of ignorance in there.  I agree that in most instances, he's just executing a specific routine that will garner the most attention. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

He's not ignorant though; he's simply stating things that go against the grain to gin up conversation. Why bother in getting into a conversation where you already know the outcome and you won't learn anything? I've got better things to do with my time.

Id agree but there is some ignorance there or at the very least delusion.

---

He's not ignorant though; he's simply stating things that go against the grain to gin up conversation. Why bother in getting into a conversation where you already know the outcome and you won't learn anything? I've got better things to do with my time.

 

you keep saying stop answering him but you are fueling the fire right now in your own way. TMD is just part of the board. for better or for worse just let it play. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

He's not ignorant though; he's simply stating things that go against the grain to gin up conversation. Why bother in getting into a conversation where you already know the outcome and you won't learn anything? I've got better things to do with my time.

 

No, I truly believe the (McNair) Texans did once they hit about 2-6 last year. I gave reasoning (McNair orderring specific personnel to play)/ examples (Keenum) to support why I thought this. You guys may think the tanking notion is ridiculous or whatever, but I can assure you it was not said to drum up responses. I believe it happened. ...And I'm not alone with the assertion, so I also don't even think its as off base as some of you think. 

---

No, I truly believe the (McNair) Texans did once they hit about 2-6 last year. I gave reasoning (McNair orderring specific personnel to play)/ examples (Keenum) to support why I thought this. You guys may think the tanking notion is ridiculous or whatever, but I can assure you it was not said to drum up responses. I believe it happened. ...And I'm not alone with the assertion, so I also don't even think its as off base as some of you think. 

 

Attempting to give it "reasoning" doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

---

Attempting to give it "reasoning" doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

 

You're allowed to think its ridiculous. Thats your opinion. 

 

I saw a garbage QB continue to play for a team that had a better option to try and win games on their bench. Yeah, I get the notion of playing Keenum to see if they had anything there, but by 3-4 games in with him, it was beyond clear that he wasn't just "growing pains" bad, but "can't cut it" AWFUL. There was no reason to continue playing him, unless..... the motive was getting that first overall pick at that point. 

---

you keep saying stop answering him but you are fueling the fire right now in your own way. TMD is just part of the board. for better or for worse just let it play. 

 

I know, and I feel dirty whenever I add to the discussion. But it is as you say, he is part of the board; it's simply a part that I don't want to visit.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

No, I truly believe the (McNair) Texans did once they hit about 2-6 last year. I gave reasoning (McNair orderring specific personnel to play)/ examples (Keenum) to support why I thought this. You guys may think the tanking notion is ridiculous or whatever, but I can assure you it was not said to drum up responses. I believe it happened. ...And I'm not alone with the assertion, so I also don't even think its as off base as some of you think. 

 

Your reasoning is your opinion.  Once again, your opinion is not actually fact.  Eventually you'll recognize the difference. 

 

Feel free to post a single link supporting the premise that McNair ordered specific personnel to play with the intention of losing out.  Kubiak isn't the kind of guy who is going to simply tank knowing it'll be his job.  And I don't think he'd be the kind of coach who would allow an owner to tell him who he should be playing.  Only someone who is comfortable with quitting would agree to that, which is why you keep trying to spin this thing the way you do. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Your reasoning is your opinion.  Once again, your opinion is not actually fact.  Eventually you'll recognize the difference. 

 

Feel free to post a single link supporting the premise that McNair ordered specific personnel to play with the intention of losing out.  Kubiak isn't the kind of guy who is going to simply tank knowing it'll be his job.  And I don't think he'd be the kind of coach who would allow an owner to tell him who he should be playing.  Only someone who is comfortable with quitting would agree to that, which is why you keep trying to spin this thing the way you do. 

 

....and I'm not claiming it is "fact", I realize it is my assertion/ my opinion of what happened. That doesn't mean I'm not going to argue strongly to try and defend what I believe did happen. 

 

I love how you can't make a point without throwing in some sort of insult/ dig. 

 

And to be honest it doesn't make sense. I usually argue my point until/ when proven that its wrong. If I was so called used to quitting things, I'd roll over and cave after the first response by someone that didn't agree with my points. 

---

You're allowed to think its ridiculous. Thats your opinion. 

 

I saw a garbage QB continue to play for a team that had a better option to try and win games on their bench. Yeah, I get the notion of playing Keenum to see if they had anything there, but by 3-4 games in with him, it was beyond clear that he wasn't just bad, but AWFUL. There was no reason to continue playing him, unless..... the motive was getting that first overall pick at that point. 

 

They had lost confidence in Schaub.  Keenum was the option they wanted to explore.  They did so, and subsequently went back to Schaub.  How many games did they win with him?  You claim he was the better option, so how many games did he win for Houston last year after he returned from purgatory?  And why exactly was he benched if he was the best option? 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

....and I'm not claiming it is "fact", I realize it is my assertion/ my opinion of what happened. That doesn't mean I'm not going to argue strongly to try and defend what I believe did happen. 

 

I love how you can't make a point without throwing in some sort of insult/ dig. 

 

Insult/dig?  Your history on this board is pretty clear.  You spout your opinion, consider it fact, and defend it as such obsessively.  This tanking nonsense is a perfect example.  You've crafted this grand conspiracy theory in your head where the owner and coach were complicit in basically costing the coach his job so they could lose out to get Teddy Bridgewater.  That entire premise has been debunked completely, but you still prop it up.  If it's insulting to you to point out your nonsense, so be it.  Play the victim.  It's what you do best. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

They had lost confidence in Schaub.  Keenum was the option they wanted to explore.  They did so, and subsequently went back to Schaub.  How many games did they win with him?  You claim he was the better option, so how many games did he win for Houston last year after he returned from purgatory?  And why exactly was he benched if he was the best option? 

 

They stuck with Keenum far too long given what he was giving. Hell, they stuck with Keenum last year longer than we stuck with Gabbert last year, and that was a new regime that wanted to see what Gabbert had. IMO, McNair knew exactly what he was doing - trying to ensure that first pick. Schaub had a rough patch of pick 6's, but overall was still the better option. Clearly. That proved itself in the 2nd half of the Texans Jags game. From that point forward, Schaub should have been playing if winning was truly what they were trying to do at that point. 

---

Keenum to Gabbert is not apples to apples

---

Keenum to Gabbert is not apples to apples

 

Right, a guy like Gabbert gets more time to prove he's garbage because more he's got more investment in him. Keenum is a nothing. They had squat invested in him. He should get 2 maybe 3 games of bad play (before going back to Schaub). IMO, they stuck with him the length they did, because they had no motive to try and win games at that point because it was counterproductive to the big picture (1st overall) 

---

Can this thread be locked too? Or just moved out of the draft forum?

---

Right, a guy like Gabbert gets more time to prove he's garbage because more he's got more investment in him. Keenum is a nothing. They had squat invested in him. He should get 2 maybe 3 games to show what he has, or doesn't.  

 

No, he was getting his first shot.  Gabbert had three chances already.

 

---