Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Colin Kaepernick Thread and related anthem kneeling issues/news


Recommended Posts

That does not refute what I said.  The individual clubs that do want players to stand may not be able to stop it once they are under the CBA.  But CK is not under the CBA yet...he is not an employee of an NFL team.  Of course he could just lie and say he would stand, sign a contract and then give the ownership the finger and kneel.  But that is a different issue.  I see it as ownership trying to deal with the issue before he would have possible CBA protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

says the guy who is on an internet politics forum while the game is on saying he doesnt want to be bothered by political stuff during the game take that to the bank bromigos 

John Chavez‏ @jchavezfbnm 4h4 hours ago Replying to @realDonaldTrump "Thinking NFL players are 'protesting the flag' is like thinking Rosa Parks was protesting public transportation."

I'm quoting you here, but I am not really directing this at you, since I believe you have no ability to take yourself out of your shoes. But for a second, try to imagine being a black person who has g

29 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Outside of the CBO, the NFL has official guidelines. They say players must be on the sidelines during the anthem which is played before every game and that players SHOULD stand for the anthem. The league does not say they MUST. The NFL could have changed this, but they did not change it. They continued to say standing is encouraged but not required. The league has repeatedly said players have the right to protest. This means the league has to protect that right which means making sure hiring/firing decsions are not based on whether someone has or will protest. 

 

 

Having the right to protest is having protection from the government to be allowed to protest.  That does not mean that a company is forced to allow an employee on the clock, in their uniform, and in the workplace to do so.  In fact, the company can forbid those acts under those circumstances and provided that the action does not violate a labor agreement that it can be a condition of employment.  Unless the league expressly forbids its members (the teams) to take or not take action, the teams are free to set their employment requirements as they see fit.  Damn, this just isn’t that difficult to comprehend.

 

.

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The league needs to lock something down whatever it is......because the next on field protest may be about guns, abortion, cloning, gay marriage,.....pick your topic. I mean they ban every other individual act, like decals supporting Pat Tillman, etc. Is this tolerance for Kap kneeling different from the NFL because it involves race and they just don't want to go there?

Bottom line....no consumer of the NFL product is tuning in to see individual activists advocate for their own personal causes at kickoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

Having the right to protest is having protection from the government to be allowed to protest.  That does not mean that a company is forced to allow an employee on the clock, in their uniform, and in the workplace to do so.  In fact, the company can forbid those acts under those circumstances and provided that the action does not violate a labor agreement that it can be a condition of employment.  Unless the league expressly forbids its members (the teams) to take or not take action, the teams are free to set their employment requirements as they see fit.  Damn, this just isn’t that difficult to comprehend.

 

.

The NFL protected the right to protest

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

 

*sigh*

 

Do you understand that not allowing players to protest on the job at the work place is completely divorced from supporting the players’ right to protest?  The right is attached to protection from the government to protest in public venues.  A team can both not allow player protests at games and support their right to protest in this country simultaneously and not be in conflict.

 

And your source is a tweet from the NFLPA no less.  Really?

 

.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

*sigh*

 

Do you understand that not allowing players to protest on the job at the work place is completely divorced from supporting the players’ right to protest?  The right is attached to protection from the government to protest in public venues.  A team can both not allow player protests at games and support their right to protest in this country simultaneously and not be in conflict.

 

And your source is a tweet from the NFLPA no less.  Really?

 

.

The tweet was in regards to the changed stance Dolphins and Texans ownership have made regarding players kneeling. The protest they are referring to is kneeling. Here is the story on the Dolphins owner allowing players to kneel. Did Goodell or any of the owners come out and say the NFLPA was wrong or lying about the statement?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/06/stephen-ross-says-his-comments-were-misconstrued/

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

The tweet was in regards to the changed stance Dolphins and Texans ownership have made regarding players kneeling. The protest they are referring to is kneeling. Here is the story on the Dolphins owner allowing players to kneel. Did Goodell or any of the owners come out and say the NFLPA was wrong or lying about the statement?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/06/stephen-ross-says-his-comments-were-misconstrued/

 

So if I post that you said something, unless you specifically deny that you said it that means it’s true?  Is that how it works?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daveR said:

If the rules of a workplace demand that you become a distributor of child porn, would you comply?  Why not?  If you were Jewish & the corporation demanded that all employees become Hindu?  If you were a pacifist and they required that you enlist?  What if they required that you leave your family?

In this case, they are demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  

No. No they're not

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

So if I post that you said something, unless you specifically deny that you said it that means it’s true?  Is that how it works?

Its the NFLPA and the Commissioner of the League. I am pretty sure they would issue a statement if they thought the other was lying about an agreement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BigJim® said:

I agree, but would add I don't even think personnel discretion should be tied to criminal conduct. This is a football league. If a guy wants to protest 2nd amendment, abortion, whatever as an aspect of being an NFL player on an NFL sideline, he can't expect teams to embroil themselves in divisive controversy. The sad thing is, my sense is about 90% of the population agrees with Kaepernick that we have work to do on equality, profiling, police abuses. It's a righteous cause, that unfortunately he's chosen to call attention to in a manner which inflames half his supporters. Personally, I put Kaepernick in my ignore pile when I found out he didn't even use his right to vote during the last election. Why should I give a rats behind about a guy who creates a political firestorm while opting out of the most basic right of individual political expression?

I agree when I found out he didn't vote I basically dismissed all his claims. One of my biggest political pet peeves is people who complain about politics but don't even vote and this goes for my own dad too who doesn't vote. I think there's problems but his message like its been said has been buried do to his other BS off the field. Plus it's hard to feel bad for a guy when you hear how he wasn't the greatest teammate, how teammates expressed interest in leaving do to special treatment the guy got and how he didn't seem to take his job seriously. Your QB is suppose to be a leader not a Locker room divider and he defiantly divided. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ksquared said:

That does not refute what I said.  The individual clubs that do want players to stand may not be able to stop it once they are under the CBA.  But CK is not under the CBA yet...he is not an employee of an NFL team.  Of course he could just lie and say he would stand, sign a contract and then give the ownership the finger and kneel.  But that is a different issue.  I see it as ownership trying to deal with the issue before he would have possible CBA protection.

I am not so sure of that. He is still a dues paying member of the NFLPA (which is how they were able to give him a monthly award in Sept 2017 for his charitable work even thought he was not signed to a team). As a member in good standing of the players union I imagine he qualifies as being under the CBA, but I am not completely certain of that.

Edited to add - I just saw that free agent QB Mark Sanchez has been suspended for the first four games of the 2018 NFL season. So even though he is not an employee of a team it appears that league rules and the CBA does cover FAs.

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

The one thing that you are missing out is the NFLPA have a CBO with the league. The players are not at-will employees. The CBO does not ban kneeling in protest, there is not past precedent against it, etc. I am sure it will be negotiated when this contract is up, as of now, the players do have the right to kneel. 

They do have the right to kneel.   Also the employers have the right to sign or not sign any given player. They both have rights.

If Kappy feels his kneeling is more important than having a job I respect that.  If a NFL team feels Kappy is more trouble than he is worth as a backup QB I respect that as well.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

They do have the right to kneel.   Also the employers have the right to sign or not sign any given player. They both have rights.

If Kappy feels his kneeling is more important than having a job I respect that.  If a NFL team feels Kappy is more trouble than he is worth as a backup QB I respect that as well.

It's not that simple. The NFL gives up many of their rights when they sign the CBO. Nowhere in the CBO does it say the players must kneel. The NFL has actual rules about pre game activities. In it, it says they must be on the sidelines for the anthem and they should stand. They could have changed it, but they didn't change it. The NFL confirmed they want the players to stand but that the players do not have to stand. Put these 2 ideas together and the NFL players right to kneel in protest is protected. This means they should not be making hiring/firing decisions based on whether someone is/has/might kneel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

 This means they should not be making hiring/firing decisions based on whether someone is/has/might kneel. 

They're not. They're making decisions on what they believe the financial impact of hiring the player may be versus the expected return. And deciding it isn't worth it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DallasDMac said:

They're not. They're making decisions on what they believe the financial impact of hiring the player may be versus the expected return. And deciding it isn't worth it.

Can they prove that it goes? Ratings were down but I believe the drop was in line with thr decreased ratings of tv in general. The salary cap went up again last which means the NFL revenue went up. I’m not sure there’s evidence to show it’s a financial decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Can they prove that it goes? Ratings were down but I believe the drop was in line with thr decreased ratings of tv in general. The salary cap went up again last which means the NFL revenue went up. I’m not sure there’s evidence to show it’s a financial decision.

That's why I said what they BELIEVE to be the financial impact. An owner doesn't require proof. If he thinks a player will hurt his bottom line, he's not going to bring him in unless he believes the gain on the field is enough to offset that. He isn't burdened with a requirement for proof. He's not on trial. His belief, his gut feeling, is all he needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DallasDMac said:

That's why I said what they BELIEVE to be the financial impact. An owner doesn't require proof. If he thinks a player will hurt his bottom line, he's not going to bring him in unless he believes the gain on the field is enough to offset that. He isn't burdened with a requirement for proof. He's not on trial. His belief, his gut feeling, is all he needs.

That is what I had thought as well but Mike Florio (who is an NFL expert and labor lawyer) disagrees with that premise. I’m sure there are lawyers that might disagree with Florio but there is a case here.

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/nfl-teams-hiring-firing-decisions-151735155.html

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle is an interesting location for Kaepernick to be employed with.

It has an extremely large military footprint with Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard bases all around. What that means is there is also a very large military retirement population in the area that make up a large managerial and regular work force in normal companies. The Joint Base Lewis-McChord is the second largest employer of the state. Boeing is the largest employer and they employ a lot of ex-military.

If they served the flag and feel strongly about the potential disrespect CK shows or work/live with those that do, they may be less likely to invest in the Seahawks as an entertainment venue of choice.

Will all military and ex-military care? Maybe not, but it definitely has to be a consideration for ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

It's not that simple. The NFL gives up many of their rights when they sign the CBO. Nowhere in the CBO does it say the players must kneel. The NFL has actual rules about pre game activities. In it, it says they must be on the sidelines for the anthem and they should stand. They could have changed it, but they didn't change it. The NFL confirmed they want the players to stand but that the players do not have to stand. Put these 2 ideas together and the NFL players right to kneel in protest is protected. This means they should not be making hiring/firing decisions based on whether someone is/has/might kneel. 

 

You just continue to not get it no matter how many times it is explained.  I’m not sure why.  It’s sure not worth any more effort to try to get you to understand.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

You just continue to not get it no matter how many times it is explained.  I’m not sure why.  It’s sure not worth any more effort to try to get you to understand.  

I’m just putting more of my trust in a labor lawyer and NFL expert than you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

It's not that simple. The NFL gives up many of their rights when they sign the CBO. Nowhere in the CBO does it say the players must kneel. The NFL has actual rules about pre game activities. In it, it says they must be on the sidelines for the anthem and they should stand. They could have changed it, but they didn't change it. The NFL confirmed they want the players to stand but that the players do not have to stand. Put these 2 ideas together and the NFL players right to kneel in protest is protected. This means they should not be making hiring/firing decisions based on whether someone is/has/might kneel. 

Nobody ever thought about or discussed kneeling or any kind of protesting during the CBO meetings.  If owners feel a player is bad for business they won`t sign him.  Kappy has proven that.  They do not want to upset fans and law enforcement.  I understand both parties. 

I Kappy does not want to stand knowing it costs him a paycheck that is fine.  If an NFL team wants to go with a backup that is not as qualified and might cost them that is fine.  Both have to live with their actions.  I do not begrudge either side.

Edited by Da Guru
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveR said:

Flipping the script...

So, let's say your employer required you to take a knee in protest during the anthem.  Would you do it?

 

You’re just not very good at this.  That yet again is a wholly different scenario that has nothing to do with the topic and I’m guessing that you probably don’t understand why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

That is what I had thought as well but Mike Florio (who is an NFL expert and labor lawyer) disagrees with that premise. I’m sure there are lawyers that might disagree with Florio but there is a case here.

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/sports/nfl-teams-hiring-firing-decisions-151735155.html

Good luck proving he was released due to the stance alone. And good luck proving a team didn't sign him based on that alone. Does Florio expect a court to rule that one particular team DIDN'T sign him because of his stance alone and force that team to sign him or what? Seems like a fairly untenable position.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DallasDMac said:

Good luck proving he was released due to the stance alone. And good luck proving a team didn't sign him based on that alone. Does Florio expect a court to rule that one particular team DIDN'T sign him because of his stance alone and force that team to sign him or what? Seems like a fairly untenable position.

Well Colin released himself so there is no case on that end. He is saying is not being even given workouts because of the kneeling. Goodell is being disposed soon. So is Pete Carroll. It's going to be a difficult case to prove for his lawyers, but obviously the courts feel there is a reasonable case to be made or they would not have heard it.

I think the key piece will be with the Seahawks. 

Quote

Kaepernick was slated to workout with the team on Monday before the team asked whether he would continue his kneeling protest. Kaepernick told the Seahawks he wanted to meet with the team without any preconditions and the club called off the workout a short time later. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/13/roger-goodells-turn-deposed-colin-kaepernick-collusion-case/514958002/

 

The testimony and evidence provided related to the Seahawks will be important to how the case shakes out. I expect the NFL to win because these things are very difficult to prove. I am not sure I or the jurors will be convinced of Colin's case, but I see enough questionable incidents to warrant listening to the evidence both sides present. 

ETA:  The courts won't order a team to sign Kapernick, but they could award damages to Kapernick. The NFL may also have to handle player protest and players who have protested differently in the future. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

Nobody ever thought about or discussed kneeling or any kind of protesting during the CBO meetings.  Correct which means it defaults to the NFL rulebook which does not require players to stand.

If owners feel a player is bad for business they won`t sign him.  Kappy has proven that.  They do not want to upset fans and law enforcement.  I understand both parties. 

I Kappy does not want to stand knowing it costs him a paycheck that is fine.  If an NFL team wants to go with a backup that is not as qualified and might cost them that is fine.  Both have to live with their actions.  I do not begrudge either side.

I mostly agree with you from a philosophical POV, but I think it is clear the courts think differently. They see that Colin has a case worth hearing. He may not be able to prove it but the court feels there is enough to hear it out, dispose Goodell, Seahawks GM, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I wish someone would sign this dude for a tryout, let him come to OTAs, give him a few reps, cut him, and never hear from him again

I wish someone would sign him and throw him to the wolves. One of these bad teams especially. Then everyone can see how much he sucks. But then the dam CK nut huggers would claim the team wasn't supportive or come up with other excuses that don't make sense. Either way you can't make these clowns who routinely use or protesting their rights happy unless they get fully what they want. They basically want a team to cater to the guy and even then they probably won't be happy. I also hate these media outlets covering this who have zero business reporting on football other then So and so won the SB or hey look what the Eagles did for Dorenbos who had to retire and invited him to the game or some other good story. These clowns gave everyone a bad taste for the NFL over the whole Martin/Incognito story too. I'm sorry but I agree Richie went a bit too far but the players who agreed with that also you cut out the part where many said Martin running to mommy and daddy both lawyers and airing team dirty laundry to the public was wrong and they wouldn't want a teammate like that. It's no different then what DeAngelo Russel did taping a private convo in the locker room and airing it. These SJW media networks need to go back to reporting the news and stop trying to take down football because their reporting seems to have more of an agenda against the league then trying to help CK. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ridicule said:

Is this where we talk about CK's actual football skills or has this just become the same crap thread that's in the Politics subforum? 

I've talked about his actual football skills and they are nothing to brag about. I think his horrible actual QB skills were hidden well in a gimmick college offense with a great Defense and RB and roster around him. As for the QB's other job of being a leader on and off the field those weren't endearing qualities either of the guy. Add that to this other nonsense of his why would anyone sign him? Especially when he has a GF who will cry if he's not the starter before week 8? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

I mostly agree with you from a philosophical POV, but I think it is clear the courts think differently. They see that Colin has a case worth hearing. He may not be able to prove it but the court feels there is enough to hear it out, dispose Goodell, Seahawks GM, etc. 

The problem is that every NFL owner wants all the others to fail.  So I doubt owners would call each other and say don`t sign this guy.  If an owner thought that Kappy was the difference they would sign him regardless.   It is basic risk/reward.  Is the risk of alienating the fan base and law enforcement worth the reward?  So far it is no.  That may change though.

Goodell could be a different matter but I doubt that he would even broach teams about not signing a certain player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DallasDMac said:

Good luck proving he was released due to the stance alone. And good luck proving a team didn't sign him based on that alone. Does Florio expect a court to rule that one particular team DIDN'T sign him because of his stance alone and force that team to sign him or what? Seems like a fairly untenable position.

The only evidence of collusion for me will be if some team actually does sign him, despite the obvious headache and marginal talent. Only way that happens is if owners meet in a smoke filled room to draw straws to get rid of the litigation.

Edited by BigJim®
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinawildman said:

Black lives matter. Colin Kaepernick does not. Why are we still talking about this guy...

Because he's better than 90% of the backup QBs, and at least 25% of the starting QBs in the NFL, and he doesn't have a job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Because he's better than 90% of the backup QBs, and at least 25% of the starting QBs in the NFL, and he doesn't have a job.

Not true. His last year was a bunch of padded stats as defenses played prevent the whole 2nd half being up by like 20. He also had one of the worst net yards lost in the NFL for a QB, sacked top 5 despite not starting part of the season and teams disrespected his arm so much at times they had their DB's play the run and dare Kaepernick to throw it. Plus the dude from what I've heard aint a great locker room teammate. Always about him, gets offended easily, didn't seem to take his job seriously etc. When you have one of your most respected veterans in the locker room in Vernon Davis coming out after being traded that he felt disrespected by the babying of Kaepernick and had to leave that #### well I think there's a cause for great concern if you want to bring a cancer like that in the locker room. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CalBear said:

Because he's better than 90% of the backup QBs, and at least 25% of the starting QBs in the NFL, and he doesn't have a job.

That's debatable but even if true many teams don't want to shell out big money to backup QB and want a veteran at or near minimum.  Or they want a guy that will be a good lockerroom guy and support the starter or mentor a younger guy.  They don't want a backup QB creating daily distractions to push his political agenda.  There are other places CK can do that if he chooses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DJackson10 said:

Not true. His last year was a bunch of padded stats as defenses played prevent the whole 2nd half being up by like 20. He also had one of the worst net yards lost in the NFL for a QB, sacked top 5 despite not starting part of the season and teams disrespected his arm so much at times they had their DB's play the run and dare Kaepernick to throw it. Plus the dude from what I've heard aint a great locker room teammate. Always about him, gets offended easily, didn't seem to take his job seriously etc. When you have one of your most respected veterans in the locker room in Vernon Davis coming out after being traded that he felt disrespected by the babying of Kaepernick and had to leave that #### well I think there's a cause for great concern if you want to bring a cancer like that in the locker room. 

His 49ers teammates didn't think so:

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article123845064.html

Teammates give Colin Kaepernick 49ers’ most prestigious award

SANTA CLARA 

When Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest became public in August, there were all sorts of predictions and admonitions about how the stance would tear apart the 49ers’ locker room.

They were wrong. The 49ers players on Friday voted Kaepernick the winner of the annual Len Eshmont Award, the team’s most prestigious honor and one that’s been won by team leaders Anquan Boldin, Frank Gore, NaVorro Bowman and Justin Smith the previous four years.

The award was established in 1957 and goes to the 49er who best exemplifies the “inspirational and courageous play of Eshmont”, an original member of the inaugural 1946 squad.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

That's debatable but even if true many teams don't want to shell out big money to backup QB and want a veteran at or near minimum.  Or they want a guy that will be a good lockerroom guy and support the starter or mentor a younger guy.  They don't want a backup QB creating daily distractions to push his political agenda.  There are other places CK can do that if he chooses.

The question was, why are we still talking about him? The answer is, if a team like the Packers put in Kaepernick instead of Brett Hundley (who Kaepernick is clearly better than), he'd immediately be fantasy relevant. And the Packers might have made the playoffs, too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

Because he's better than 90% of the backup QBs, and at least 25% of the starting QBs in the NFL, and he doesn't have a job.

You think teams who could upgrade a backup, or obtain a bottom 1/4 starter would choose to do it with a guy who brings a dark cloud of controversy, enrages half of the ticket buyers, and loses 1/4 of sponsors? Not worth it, at all. It's a no brainer. CK would have to be a top 5 QB to overcome his warts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CalBear said:

The question was, why are we still talking about him? The answer is, if a team like the Packers put in Kaepernick instead of Brett Hundley (who Kaepernick is clearly better than), he'd immediately be fantasy relevant. And the Packers might have made the playoffs, too. 

Yes, I'm sure rostering an anthem protester as a backup would go over terrific in Green Bay. I'd love it if this actually happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DJackson10 said:

Not true. His last year was a bunch of padded stats as defenses played prevent the whole 2nd half being up by like 20. He also had one of the worst net yards lost in the NFL for a QB, sacked top 5 despite not starting part of the season and teams disrespected his arm so much at times they had their DB's play the run and dare Kaepernick to throw it. Plus the dude from what I've heard aint a great locker room teammate. Always about him, gets offended easily, didn't seem to take his job seriously etc. When you have one of your most respected veterans in the locker room in Vernon Davis coming out after being traded that he felt disrespected by the babying of Kaepernick and had to leave that #### well I think there's a cause for great concern if you want to bring a cancer like that in the locker room. 

You're going to talk about Vernon Davis? Seriously? That guy's been a crybaby his whole career.

Kaepernick's career passer rating is 88.9, and that doesn't even include the fact that he's a better runner than all but a couple real QBs in the NFL. He is, in fact, 16th among active NFL qbs in passer rating. He's pretty clearly better than Blake Bortles, Josh McCown, and probably better than a number of others I could name. And there is absolutely, positively no question that he's better than Brett Hundley. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigJim® said:

Yes, I'm sure rostering an anthem protester as a backup would go over terrific in Green Bay. I'd love it if this actually happens.

I'm sure making the playoffs would go over better than not making the playoffs, which is what happened.

I'm not saying anyone is going to hire him, I'm answering the question of why we're still talking about it. Because from a football perspective, someone should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, squistion said:

His 49ers teammates didn't think so:

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article123845064.html

Teammates give Colin Kaepernick 49ers’ most prestigious award

SANTA CLARA 

When Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest became public in August, there were all sorts of predictions and admonitions about how the stance would tear apart the 49ers’ locker room.

They were wrong. The 49ers players on Friday voted Kaepernick the winner of the annual Len Eshmont Award, the team’s most prestigious honor and one that’s been won by team leaders Anquan Boldin, Frank Gore, NaVorro Bowman and Justin Smith the previous four years.

The award was established in 1957 and goes to the 49er who best exemplifies the “inspirational and courageous play of Eshmont”, an original member of the inaugural 1946 squad.

 

A lot of guys cave into peer pressure. They voted for him because they didn't want the media storm from the CK Jock huggers that if he didn't get the award they'd make a huge deal out of it. This happened with the Eagles with Vick when he won a similar Team award. It makes a good story and good exposure for the team. I doubt they wanted anymore media #### storms. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CalBear said:

I'm sure making the playoffs would go over better than not making the playoffs, which is what happened.

I'm not saying anyone is going to hire him, I'm answering the question of why we're still talking about it. Because from a football perspective, someone should.

We're talking about him because he's suing the NFL, and visiting teams with a "yeah, I plan to continue to be a disruption" sales pitch. And BTW- if backup QB is what you think kept the Packers out of the playoffs.... well...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DJackson10 said:

A lot of guys cave into peer pressure. They voted for him because they didn't want the media storm from the CK Jock huggers that if he didn't get the award they'd make a huge deal out of it. This happened with the Eagles with Vick when he won a similar Team award. It makes a good story and good exposure for the team. I doubt they wanted anymore media #### storms. 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CalBear said:

I'm sure making the playoffs would go over better than not making the playoffs, which is what happened.

I'm not saying anyone is going to hire him, I'm answering the question of why we're still talking about it. Because from a football perspective, someone should.

No no they shouldn't. Why should a team sign a guy if they don't run an offense that suits him? Granted when a back up goes in there there's slight changes. For example the Eagles kept mostly the Same offense for Foles as they had with Wentz. Only difference was any of the RPO's that Wentz could take it himself Nick couldn't. The Eagles when Vick was here had to change their entire offense when Vick came in for Foles or Kolb because Vick couldn't understand the West Coast Offense. Our C Jason Kelce was making protection calls and reading defenses that Vick should be responsible for. Why take a guy just because you need a back up that isn't really a great player without a gimmick college offense who needs a good defense and run game behind him, plus wants starter money and is a locker room distraction and doesn't seem committed to playing at all? Why waste Cap space and Roster space on that? Then you need to take into account the media #### storm. Also now with the Coalition there now seems to be two separate ones. Those who think Malcolm Jenkins didn't invite CK to these meetings with the league and those who say Jenkins did but CK never responded and feel there was collusion by CK's Lawyer and GF. CK feels Jenkins took spotlight from him. Well CK your ### wasn't doing much trying to help the coalition. Jenkins and others were more willing to have a chat with the league and not be ignorant about it. They had a goal short and long term. This is why a lot of people feel CK's Protest wasn't genuine. 

There's also reports that CK didn't go to Den because he refused to take a payout. Mary-Kate Cabot of Cleveland dot com reported CK turned down a trade to the Browns because he didn't want to be on a team who might be in position to draft a future franchise QB (AKA QB COMPETITION). CK has had chances in the league. HE ALSO OPTED OUT OF HIS OWN CONTRACT, and his GF called another Black player an Uncle Tom and Baltimore's Owner a SLave master. Both on a franchise willing to sign CK. If I'm the league this is ammunition I use to show a judge CK has had ample oppurtninuties to play in the NFL for teams but has either because of unwillingness to play for franchise do to Money or team role plus certain things said by his spouse he has destroyed those chances. The Seahawks have every right to ask CK what his goal was this year with his kneeling. They are incredible supportive of the protest but a team wants to know his short and long term goals. Cant just say I want change. How are you going about that, are you voting for people who support your cause in offices (Most likely not since he's said he doesn't vote), how are you raising money to help the cause, who else is involved, will any of this distract from you being able to do your job on the field, etc? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

We're talking about him because he's suing the NFL, and visiting teams with a "yeah, I plan to continue to be a disruption" sales pitch. And BTW- if backup QB is what you think kept the Packers out of the playoffs.... well...

Obviously he doesn't know GB well. Poor defense especially secondary, Offensive line and their HC. Plus based on everything I've seen online and social media Packer fans were one of the fanbases not very accepting of the whole protests. 

Edited by DJackson10
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

We're talking about him because he's suing the NFL, and visiting teams with a "yeah, I plan to continue to be a disruption" sales pitch. And BTW- if backup QB is what you think kept the Packers out of the playoffs.... well...

Hundley was terrible. He went 3-6 and threw 12 picks and only 9 TDs in 9 games. (Kaepernick has never thrown more than 10 picks in a season).

If the Pack went 4-5 during that stretch they'd probably have made the playoffs. Could Kaepernick have given them one more win over Hundley? Like in the game against New Orleans where Hundley threw for a total of 87 yards and they lost by 9? Or against Minnesota where they lost 16-0 and Hundley threw for 130 yards and two picks?

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...