Texans: Playing to win or not?

[yendi]

James Alder at About.com raises the issue that's hard to ignore, when looking at how the Texans have narrowly lost their last two games, about whether they're tanking on purpose to score Reggie Bush.

Peter King claims that when he asked the Texans GM, such a question "insults him and the players."

Well, sure it does. But here's the thing -- there are two types of people who give indignant responses to questions like that. One is the truly innocent and offended. The other is the one pretending to be offended to cover it up.

Of course, nothing will ever be proven (sports cheating has come a long way since the 1919 White Sox, and since we're talking about internal pressures, as opposed to gamblers or others influencing events, there's less of a trail). But sometimes it's really hard to distinguish between a team that really blows, and a team that mostly blows, and fakes the rest.

Comments

[jerel.livejournal.com]

I was watching a similar report on ESPN last night (it was on at Firehouse). I mean, that field goal they tried to kick Sunday--can a professional kicker really flub it that bad?

It's an intriguing hypothesis. And it would be hard to prove one way or the other.

[yendi]

The irony, of course, is that if they really do suck that much, they'll still be tainted.

[digriz.livejournal.com]

Of course, the problem with the Texans is that it is impossible to tell if they're losing on purpose or simply because the entire organization is just that inept. Over the past few years, they've given lots of evidence for the latter conclusion.

Dom Capers isn't going to want to tank the season, because he has to know that it's most likely his last, anyway, and going out with a 1-15 record isn't a good way to start a job search. (Take into account that he's not exactly Belichek to begin with when it comes to game decisions, and anything dumb he does becomes that much less suspect.)

The biggest obstacle, though, is the players. I'd imagine that it would be quite difficult to get players to tank games, just for a high draft pick that will chew up much of the money that would otherwise be allocated to their salaries. And, especially if they believe that they won't be with the team the next year, they need to impress other teams. Screwing up field goals isn't going to do that.

Unfortunately, losing is infectious. Even when you have the chance to win, if you feel like something is going to go wrong to make you lose, it probably will. I think that's where the team is at now.

[yendi]

*nod* As commented above, they'll be tainted as potential cheaters no matter what. But as commented below, they do truly blow, even if they have thrown a game or two.

I do agree that players aren't likely to cheat, because of job security. But if a player (like, say, a kicker) is offered a guaranteed contract in return for flubbing a kick, who knows? And that's not even counting on the possibility of coaches simply deliberately making bad calls.

That said, we'll never know for sure, and the Texans are cursed by the fact that proving a negative is nigh-impossible.

[texmorgan.livejournal.com]

Let me put it to you this way. If the Texans had a decent O Line, you might see David Carr on the O Highlight reel instead of getting the crap kicked out of him on the D Highlight reel.

[yendi]

Oh, don't get me wrong -- they're clearly a team that blows. The question is, are they a team that blows as much as their record indicates?

[texmorgan.livejournal.com]

They remind me a lot of the team in The Natural. I keep hearing that line "Losing is a disease." Yes they suck that much. Did you notice they traded away some of their best defensive people? If they really want to become a better team this is what they need to do:

1)Buy a fucking O Line
2)Realize that David Carr is a mediocre QB at best
3)Buy a decent secondary to replace the Pro Bowlers that left
4)Get a new kicker
5)Get a new coach

Until they get at least two or three of those accomplished they won't be a decent team. They have good players at RB and WR as well as TE but without 1) and 2) being taken care of there is only so much they can do.