The most popular guy in any city is the second string QB. Even in Boston. The minute the starter tosses a pick, sports talk fires up the QB controversy. Having a backup who was a starter and a pretty successful one at that, will make this inevitable. If that guy has shown terrible judgment in the past and still thinks of himself as a starting QB, the risk is magnified. Why take it? Unless you think he can still play at a high level, it's not a good plan. I didn't watch Kap at all last year, so I have no idea what his talent level is now. His numbers were not terrible, but they weren't great either. Obviously no team is willing to take this risk. It does seem a bot odd, but there is no way there is some league-wide conspiracy to get rid of him. The NFL is very much a copy-cat league and front office guys think alike.
Liberals just cant understand why Colin Kaepernick isnt getting signed.
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Jason Whitlock had another pretty good segment on this, cant embed the video, but here is the link.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...haun-king-reason-colin-kaepernick-doesnt-job/
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...haun-king-reason-colin-kaepernick-doesnt-job/
NFL should feel no pressure to hire Kaepernick
By Doug Robinson
Published: June 6, 2017 5:40 p.m.Updated: June 6, 2017 5:43 p.m.
If you believe the media, the National Football League has a duty — an obligation, really — to provide employment for (former) quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
It’s been three months since he opted out of his contract (49ers’ version: they were going to cut him anyway).
Then he sat down — or took a knee, whatever — and waited for the phone to ring. And waited. And waited. And waited.
He’s still waiting. The Seattle Seahawks gave him a sniff recently, but decided to pass. Coach Pete Carroll says it’s because Kaepernick is a starter and the Seahawks already have a starter.
You mean former starters can’t be backups? What do they think he’s been doing most of the last two years? Maybe Carroll is just heading off a potential quarterback controversy.
The New York Jets, desperate for a quarterback, preferred to sign 37-year-old Josh McCown rather than Kaepernick.
The Cleveland Browns have had 26 starting quarterbacks since the rebirth of the franchise in Cleveland in 1999. They passed on Kaepernick. They prefer Brock Osweiler.
The Cardinals passed on Kaepernick, too, instead signing Blaine Gabbert. Kaepernick replaced Gabbert as the 49ers starter last season and threw 16 touchdown passes and just four interceptions.
Joe Namath, it seems, will be offered a backup job before Kaepernick.
Anyway, the media has adopted Kaepernick as its latest pet cause. They’re always looking for causes as long as it is the right (actually left) kind.
The media can’t write enough stories about Kaepernick’s employment problem. They think he’s been blackballed because last season he refused to stand for the national anthem. He said he was protesting against “systematic oppression” of minorities and calling for “freedom for all people,” although he wound up looking ridiculous when he showed up at a press conference wearing a Fidel Castro T-shirt and then proceeded to defend him.
Kaepernick became the hot story of the football season and triggered copycats from the high school ranks to the pros and a controversy that even included comment from the president of the United States.
At the time, many defended Kaepernick by saying he had a right to free speech, although this was nonsense because speech is protected from governments, not employers, which is why some NFL owners ordered their players to stand-down. The NFL, which fines players if they wear their socks the wrong way, also invoked Kaepernick’s free speech rights and left him alone.
And so Kaepernick continued his protest throughout the season and became a polarizing figure. Right before he became a free agent in March he said he would stand for the anthem from now on. But where? In his family room?
It would be difficult to argue that Kaepernick can’t find a job because of his anthem protest. How else do you explain the lack of interest in a quarterback who has taken a team to the Super Bowl and, despite some very poor performances, is still a fairly solid quarterback and certainly better than many who have been signed by various teams. And teams have overlooked a lot worse to sign players or keep them around (Michael Vick, Johnny Manziel, Ray Lewis, Greg Hardy, Ray McDonald, Adam Jones).
But if teams were, in fact, refusing to sign Kaepernick because of his political stand, so what?
The media has got it wrong. If players are going to claim they have the right to express their views on NFL sidelines, then NFL teams have the right to express their own views by not employing them. They have the right to disagree.
It would be refreshing if an NFL team simply came out with it and said: We don’t want him because we disagree with the stance he took last season and/or he’s a distraction.
Employees can do as they wish, but there are potential consequences. This is the way of the world. How many times have we seen members of the media fired — see ESPN — for expressing views that their bosses didn’t like, especially when it’s from the "wrong" side of the aisle? And now the media wants to tell the NFL it is somehow obligated to employ a certain quarterback who offended many of its customers with words and actions?
Kaepernick had to know the risks; now he has to live with it.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ould-feel-no-pressure-to-hire-Kaepernick.html
By Doug Robinson
Published: June 6, 2017 5:40 p.m.Updated: June 6, 2017 5:43 p.m.
If you believe the media, the National Football League has a duty — an obligation, really — to provide employment for (former) quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
It’s been three months since he opted out of his contract (49ers’ version: they were going to cut him anyway).
Then he sat down — or took a knee, whatever — and waited for the phone to ring. And waited. And waited. And waited.
He’s still waiting. The Seattle Seahawks gave him a sniff recently, but decided to pass. Coach Pete Carroll says it’s because Kaepernick is a starter and the Seahawks already have a starter.
You mean former starters can’t be backups? What do they think he’s been doing most of the last two years? Maybe Carroll is just heading off a potential quarterback controversy.
The New York Jets, desperate for a quarterback, preferred to sign 37-year-old Josh McCown rather than Kaepernick.
The Cleveland Browns have had 26 starting quarterbacks since the rebirth of the franchise in Cleveland in 1999. They passed on Kaepernick. They prefer Brock Osweiler.
The Cardinals passed on Kaepernick, too, instead signing Blaine Gabbert. Kaepernick replaced Gabbert as the 49ers starter last season and threw 16 touchdown passes and just four interceptions.
Joe Namath, it seems, will be offered a backup job before Kaepernick.
Anyway, the media has adopted Kaepernick as its latest pet cause. They’re always looking for causes as long as it is the right (actually left) kind.
The media can’t write enough stories about Kaepernick’s employment problem. They think he’s been blackballed because last season he refused to stand for the national anthem. He said he was protesting against “systematic oppression” of minorities and calling for “freedom for all people,” although he wound up looking ridiculous when he showed up at a press conference wearing a Fidel Castro T-shirt and then proceeded to defend him.
Kaepernick became the hot story of the football season and triggered copycats from the high school ranks to the pros and a controversy that even included comment from the president of the United States.
At the time, many defended Kaepernick by saying he had a right to free speech, although this was nonsense because speech is protected from governments, not employers, which is why some NFL owners ordered their players to stand-down. The NFL, which fines players if they wear their socks the wrong way, also invoked Kaepernick’s free speech rights and left him alone.
And so Kaepernick continued his protest throughout the season and became a polarizing figure. Right before he became a free agent in March he said he would stand for the anthem from now on. But where? In his family room?
It would be difficult to argue that Kaepernick can’t find a job because of his anthem protest. How else do you explain the lack of interest in a quarterback who has taken a team to the Super Bowl and, despite some very poor performances, is still a fairly solid quarterback and certainly better than many who have been signed by various teams. And teams have overlooked a lot worse to sign players or keep them around (Michael Vick, Johnny Manziel, Ray Lewis, Greg Hardy, Ray McDonald, Adam Jones).
But if teams were, in fact, refusing to sign Kaepernick because of his political stand, so what?
The media has got it wrong. If players are going to claim they have the right to express their views on NFL sidelines, then NFL teams have the right to express their own views by not employing them. They have the right to disagree.
It would be refreshing if an NFL team simply came out with it and said: We don’t want him because we disagree with the stance he took last season and/or he’s a distraction.
Employees can do as they wish, but there are potential consequences. This is the way of the world. How many times have we seen members of the media fired — see ESPN — for expressing views that their bosses didn’t like, especially when it’s from the "wrong" side of the aisle? And now the media wants to tell the NFL it is somehow obligated to employ a certain quarterback who offended many of its customers with words and actions?
Kaepernick had to know the risks; now he has to live with it.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ould-feel-no-pressure-to-hire-Kaepernick.html
He likely wouldn't cause a problem with fellow players,he never has.Coaches either afaik
Regardless of whether he causes a problem with his fellow players or coaches, the media ends up creating a distraction for the other players and coaches, and they end up getting fed a bunch of questions most of them dont want to have to talk about, so it ends up causing issues.
Looks like the NFL is treating Kap like a "stain".... much like apparently the whole world is treating Kathy Griffin.
While one is entitled to free speech, doesn't mean words/deeds are free from consequences.
While one is entitled to free speech, doesn't mean words/deeds are free from consequences.
Only you're not entitled to free speech in the workplace. The NFL regularly fines or disciplines players for not wearing their socks correctly or other incredibly minor uniform violations. They fine players for innocuous touchdown celebrations. Jerry Jones made it clear that none of his players were to join this protest. None did.
The Rooneys, who own both the Steelers and the Commissioner, are liberal democrats who contribute heavily to dem causes. So big surprise, the Commissioner had nothing to say about Kap's antics, even though the league has a partnership with the military and regularly attempts to wrap itself in the flag.
Does anyone really think Tom Brady could have staged a protest in favor building the wall or maybe against same sex marriage and the league would have tacitly approved?
"Free speech" in the sense that, regardless of what you say, you won't be incarcerated or hauled behind the dumpster and get a bullet behind your ear. That doesn't mean those impacted by what you say will just "take it" without consequence.
The NFL has a public image... much of which is about "profit to the business". The NFL/teams pay the players. If the boss doesn't like your actions/attitude because you tarnished his image and profit potential, he can dispose of you... just as any business.
The NFL sells an "entertainment package" in high-profile public view. Players should know better than to tarnish or challenge that.
I'm not condoning NFL policies per se... just saying that as an employer it has the right to impose "conditions" to employment. If players challenge that premise, they do so at personal risk.
If Kap wanted to make such a statement, he should have quit the NFL beforehand. (Of course, nobody would see or pay attention to him in any other venue.)
Last edited:
Of if you are Bill Belichek and are willing to take controversy to sign a good player at a deep value price.