|
CharlestheHammer posted:Some teams is the operative word. I feel like we're conflating "collusion" with him not getting signed because of his political beliefs. He obviously, obviously, obviously would be signed if he didn't kneel, but it's not a sure thing that a couple of owners actively conspired to keep him unemployed.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Zerilan posted:A player at his age and skill level who is willing and physically able to play not even being given a workout by a single team is utterly unprecedented. Bolded keeps being conveniently forgotten by fans. The fact is, and as everyone around him has publicly attested to, he keeps in shape, regularly works out, and isn't asking to start on a team or even asking for a contract with multiple years. Like with Bonds, there's plenty of opportunity for a team-friendly deal. It's obvious why that's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
fsif posted:I feel like we're conflating "collusion" with him not getting signed because of his political beliefs. I feel like every team doing it means that someone is doing that. Even though they are mostly rich white dudes they can't all agree on this. You would think one owner would sell out to possibility win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I feel like every team doing it means that someone is doing that. Most teams would benefit by having him as a backup, but there are only a handful of them Kaepernick could transform from a dud to a contender. Seems likely that all the owners are too risk-averse/chickenshit to invite the controversy for a guy sitting on the bench, while the teams that could REALLY use him have at least one coach, GM, or owner that is so repulsed by his protest that they refuse to entertain the notion (e.g., Bob McNair, Tom Coughlin, Steve Bisciotti). Some collusion still seems likely enough that it should be investigated, but it's pretty easy to tell a story where each club individually decided that he wasn't worth the backlash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Unironically wish Al Davis was alive, he'd sign Kap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:A player at his age and skill level who is willing and physically able to play not even being given a workout by a single team is utterly unprecedented. Didn't Seattle bring him in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:The only QB who kneeled hasn't gotten a job since, it's pretty obvious that isn't just because of performance Barry Bonds would have been 43 had he played another season, but could have absolutely gone to an AL team as a DH. His blackballing is probably the worst in modern sports history, except Warren Moon having to play in Canada for a hundred years before going to the NFL. I think Barry could have played 1-3 more years as a DH, easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
fsif posted:I feel like we're conflating "collusion" with him not getting signed because of his political beliefs. It is, in fact, illegal to do this, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly tried to neuter every relevant section of the National Labor Relations Act.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Zoran posted:It is, in fact, illegal to do this, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly tried to neuter every relevant section of the National Labor Relations Act. How so? Edit to clarify: He's not just voting Democrat or something (hell he's not voting at all, lol). He was actively speaking out and making a protest - at his workplace no less. It is understandable that a potential employer would not want to get involved with that, anymore than ESPN wanted to be connected to Hank Williams Jr after his dumb remarks, or all the places that fired people who marched in Charlottesville. Impossibly Perfect Sphere fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:How so? I may be wrong, now that I think about it. There's a patchwork of state laws that might apply here, but the federal ones only explicitly protect political activity in the workplace that involves discussing labor practices or criticizing your employer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
oldskool posted:Didn't Seattle bring him in? They talked about maybe doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:They talked about maybe doing it. Seattle also has close to 0 cap space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Seattle also has close to 0 cap space. Seattle doesn't have cap space now, after trading for Sheldon Richardson in August and Duane Brown in October. This wasn't true in the spring, when they were close to bringing him in. And do not tell me with a straight face that Austin loving Davis is a better fit for this offense than Kap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
fsif posted:Most teams would benefit by having him as a backup, but there are only a handful of them Kaepernick could transform from a dud to a contender. Seems likely that all the owners are too risk-averse/chickenshit to invite the controversy for a guy sitting on the bench, while the teams that could REALLY use him have at least one coach, GM, or owner that is so repulsed by his protest that they refuse to entertain the notion (e.g., Bob McNair, Tom Coughlin, Steve Bisciotti). The way I see it is the NFL is mostly an amoral entity rather than a moral one. It believes in self-preservation at all costs. The key to survival and growth is to appeal to the highest percentage of the population. It doesn't particularly care if its fans are politically moderate, white supremacist, or communist it just wants all of them, although it does differentiate between rich and poor. The calculus the NFL (and most likely every owner of ever team) cares about is simply how many fans will we lose if we sign Kaep vs. how many will we lose if we don't sign him? By that I don't mean people who have opinions or are pissed off but rather people who believe so strongly either way that they will stop watching/buying merch ect. The NFL believes that the damage caused by signing him is more credible so that means they know that a higher percentage of their fanbase are detractors of Kaep AND/OR they spend significantly more money as a whole than Kaep's supporters. tl;dr there is collusion against Kaep, because it just makes logical sense, and I have no idea how it can be actually be proven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Wasn’t there a poll that had a decent amount of people that stopped watching the NFL say their reason was the protests? If so I can totally see NFL owners seeing that as a big fat risk to their bottom dollar. Now how you’d use that as a reason for collusion is what gets me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Wasn’t there a poll that had a decent amount of people that stopped watching the NFL say their reason was the protests? If so I can totally see NFL owners seeing that as a big fat risk to their bottom dollar. Now how you’d use that as a reason for collusion is what gets me. The poll didn't fit with actual NFL viewership figures in anyway whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Half the country voted for Trump. Is it unbelievable that a large portion of them are football fans that don't like Kaepernick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
I'd bet money that a lot of those people claiming to have stopped because of the protests still watch. It's like people that claim to be boycotting a video game, but you still see them playing it when you log into Steam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
its all nice on rice posted:I'd bet money that a lot of those people claiming to have stopped because of the protests still watch. It's like people that claim to be boycotting a video game, but you still see them playing it when you log into Steam. I have a friend that claims he is boycotting the NFL. Until today he was deployed to Jordan so it wasn't like he could have watched much anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Posting this again here because it's relevant to the current discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I0cUTXwr-k
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:Also all of these owners are dinosaurs and I would not be surprised if one of them has texts talking about how he is disrespecting America and he will never work in the NFL again. I know there was a picture of Jimmy Haslem using a flip phone in 2014 or so. They use old tech so there's no texts that can become evidence at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Most people that say they're boycotting poo poo never actually do but the companies still get scared shitless
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
its all nice on rice posted:I'd bet money that a lot of those people claiming to have stopped because of the protests still watch. It's like people that claim to be boycotting a video game, but you still see them playing it when you log into Steam. I only watch the Browns so I might as well be boycotting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:I only watch the Browns so I might as well be boycotting. That makes you the biggest mark of all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 07:18
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Half the country voted for Trump. Is it unbelievable that a large portion of them are football fans that don't like Kaepernick? Except half the country didnt vote for Trump
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
What does all of this have to do with the thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
Yaws posted:What does all of this have to do with the thread? A whole bunch of the garbaged teams (Browns, Giants, Bears, Packers at least) in the NFL have an immediate upgrade if they were willing to sign Kaep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Except half the country didnt vote for Trump He got slightly less than half of the third of the country that votes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 12:41
|
|
Flikken posted:He got slightly less than half of the third of the country that votes. Yeah, so under 15% of the country voted for Trump
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Kaepernick almost sounds like a freaking RUSSIAN name to me i'm surprised the TRUMP BOZOS dont love the guy
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:A whole bunch of the garbaged teams (Browns, Giants, Bears, Packers at least) in the NFL have an immediate upgrade if they were willing to sign Kaep. Browns and Bears shouldn’t because they just drafted guys they want to develop. Houston should have signed him as soon as Watson got hurt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Jags would probably be pretty scary with Kaep
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Yaws posted:What does all of this have to do with the thread? Because it's fitting that in a thread that should be about the Browns, no one talks about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:28
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:Browns and Bears shouldn’t because they just drafted guys they want to develop. Houston should have signed him as soon as Watson got hurt. Browns have drafted QBs to develop the last 5 or so drafts and yeah...That got them nowhere, they should have at least taken a shot with Kaep
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Amusingly they were rumored to want him last year but went with RG3 who “moved the earth” Hue stood on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Browns have drafted QBs to develop the last 5 or so drafts and yeah...That got them nowhere, they should have at least taken a shot with Kaep *and will draft a QB to develop at least in the next 1 drafts Prediction: it won't get them far at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:Amusingly they were rumored to want him last year but went with RG3 who “moved the earth” Hue stood on. The Browns made a better offer than the 49er's made....twice and the Pats never took it. We've been linked to every possible young might be promising QB prospect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Wasn't it reported that BB wouldn't trade Jimmy G to the Browns due to grudge reasons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:Wasn't it reported that BB wouldn't trade Jimmy G to the Browns due to grudge reasons? Never read that. If he had a grudge it should've died with Modell that's who fired him. Then again Browns fans of the period mostly reviled him as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Benne posted:Seattle doesn't have cap space now, after trading for Sheldon Richardson in August and Duane Brown in October. This wasn't true in the spring, when they were close to bringing him in. True. The problem is that Seattle actually has a good QB. They also did not need another good qb. Kaep wasn't going to be cheap, so they would have paid to have him sit on the bench and thats it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 02:49
|
|