Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

D.Watson are we still interested ?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Trainwreck said:

Dude you have no clue about football. 
 

Get Out Of Here Go Away GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers

I'm pretty sure you could write everything you know about football on a Post-It note and still have room for a grocery list.

  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Think Watson will be so happy if this blows over and the League lets him play that there won't be a trade because he'll agree to stay in Houston for at least one more year. Houston really won't let him go unless he "holds out" or refuses to play (which would not help his stock either).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, glenwo2 said:

What the fk kind of comparison is that?

Put Herbert or Burrow on the Jets (and put Sam on either of their teams) and you'd end up saying :

"Was the game too fast for Darnold or Burrow (or Darnold or Herbert) last year? Nope."

So spare me your smartass remarks.   

 

I mean, Joe Burrow did go to the Cincinnati Bengals.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, top dawg said:

FWIW, apparently Peter King thinks we're still frontrunners (along with Philly).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/more/top-stories/2-teams-reportedly-frontrunners-deshaun-watson/amp

 

For the same reason as before, because he thinks David Tepper will make it happen (also why he thought we'd draft Fields).

Since we've now learned that Tepper isn't involved in football decisions, I'm not buying it.

Honestly at this point, I'm not sure we were ever as "all in" on Watson as people thought. The behind the scenes stuff regarding the Darnold deal makes it sound like that whole thing was vastly overblown.

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

For the same reason as before, because he thinks David Tepper will make it happen (also why he thought we'd draft Fields).

Since we've now learned that Tepper isn't involved in football decisions, I'm not buying it.

Honestly at this point, I'm not sure we were ever as "all in" on Watson as people thought. The behind the scenes stuff regarding the Darnold deal makes it sound like that whole thing was vastly overblown.

I wouldn't put my money on a statement like that.  

He didn't trump his brand new GM on a pick.  That doesn't exactly mean Tepper isn't going to be involved or ever overrule the folks here. 

*not talking Watson here.  Just Tepper going forward. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

I wouldn't put my money on a statement like that.  

He didn't trump his brand new GM on a pick.  That doesn't exactly mean Tepper isn't going to be involved or ever overrule the folks here. 

*not talking Watson here.  Just Tepper going forward. 

I would, because Matt Rhule said so.

Heck, so did Tepper himself when he hired Fitterer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Roethlisberger seems to meet the description you have laid out....

....you down with him?

Not now, but solely because he's old and declining. In his prime, absolutely. He was championship caliber QB. You'd have to be a moron to say you wouldn't want Prime Big Ben as your QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I would, because Matt Rhule said so.

Heck, so did Tepper himself when he hired Fitterer.

It's the NFL.  It's front offices saying what they say.   And it's the honeymoon phase on top of that. 

 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll leave this here too. Some Huddlers want to think this is a black and white issue and that Watson is guilty as sin. That's called rushing to judgment. I've tried to communicate to y'all that this case is problematic from both sides, likely because people on both sides don't want everything to come out because there are plenty of skeletons in closets here.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do not try and get back into the Watson sweepstakes. If any of the accusations are true, I would not let him lead our team. If they are not true and he is innocent, we have no business giving up multiple draft picks and players for ONE guy.  Players on rookie contract are very valuable. If you have great scouts and a great GM, you can find another Watson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CRA said:

It's the NFL.  It's front offices saying what they say.   And it's the honeymoon phase on top of that. 

Tepper wanted Fields.

We didn't take him.

Those aren't just words. That's reality.

You can continue to cling to a hope that what you want to happen will happen, but I just don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make no mistake, Watson is likely guilty of some very tawdry behavior, but in the eyes of the criminal law, he may just be guilty of being a dumbass. That being the possible case, then you have to determine if he's worth the trouble (which someone will), then it becomes a question as to whether he's learned his lesson, and the issues of acknowledgement of misjudgment, a degree of wrongdoing, repentance and redemption may begin to arise.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...