The National Anthem

• Automatik

  

  like_that;1877579 wrote:What does an organization have to gain from blocking Kaep from joining another team?

  I'm assuming they discussed the shitstorm that resulted from his first kneel and said "fuck this guy, he's out." Total speculation on my part, but not entirely unbelievable.
• like_that

  

  gut;1877583 wrote:Well, if you believe he'll make your team better, you'll sign him. He's a stop-gap QB, at best, and that's just not worth the circus he brings (not to mention his other issues with teammates and in the locker room).
  
  Plus, why would they care if he kneels? Up until Trump shot his mouth off, the NFL didn't seem to care or to not support the players doing that.

  Which is why I am asking what a team gains from preventing him from signing with another team. He is a shitty QB that would bring that team an unnecessary distraction from a backup QB. If I am a rival franchise, I would be all for him signing with my rival.
• OSH

  

  ernest_t_bass;1877318 wrote:Some players from a local college team (read in paper) took a knee last week during anthem. What are everyone's thoughts on that? It's not a business, and this is a D3 school, so they're not on "athletic" scholarship.

  If it's the same incident that I know took place, the team has a 24-person leadership group that helped decide what the team would do. The group decided the team would stand. Player decided to kneel by himself. His decision, he will live with the punishment.
  
  On another note, "semantics" come in play tonight: NFL manual says "should stand" while NBA says players "are to stand." Words are important. Wonder what we'll see...
• queencitybuckeye

  OSH;1877658 wrote:If it's the same incident that I know took place, the team has a 24-person leadership group that helped decide what the team would do. The group decided the team would stand. Player decided to kneel by himself. His decision, he will live with the punishment.
  
  On another note, "semantics" come in play tonight: NFL manual says "should stand" while NBA says players "are to stand." Words are important. Wonder what we'll see...

  Why the need for the team decision on something that has nothing to do with the sport itself?
• OSH

  

  queencitybuckeye;1877659 wrote:Why the need for the team decision on something that has nothing to do with the sport itself?

  True. Why have any team rules? Those have nothing to do with the team. That would work out great.
• queencitybuckeye

  OSH;1877660 wrote:True. Why have any team rules? Those have nothing to do with the team. That would work out great.

  Silly comeback.
• friendfromlowry

  I always wondered if Kaep's asking price is what deterred teams.
• gut

  friendfromlowry;1877665 wrote:I always wondered if Kaep's asking price is what deterred teams.

  Hadn't thought of that. But safe to say, at this point, he might be happy with a 1-yr vet min deal (still make like $1M)?
  
  I think the bigger issue was he supposedly was kind of a locker room cancer...didn't get along with coaches or teammates in SF, and then asked for a trade - TO or Randy Moss might get away with that but Kaep isn't close to being in their league.
• OSH

  

  queencitybuckeye;1877664 wrote:Silly comeback.

  Silly statement deserves equally silly comeback. Do better.
• superman

  friendfromlowry;1877665 wrote:I always wondered if Kaep's asking price is what deterred teams.

  He seems to be actively sabotaging his own career. He wore the Castro shirt after talking to Miami, his gf called the Ravens owner a slave owner and called Ray Lewis a house ******, etc. He is like Pete Rose. Pete doesn't really want into the HOF. It is more profitable for him to be a martyr. Kaep knows if he gets signed and actually has to play, he will be exposed and the jig is up
• gut

  superman;1877680 wrote:Kaep knows if he gets signed and actually has to play, he will be exposed and the jig is up

  Ummmm, he may be getting plenty of exposure but I don't think he's making much money off this "jig".
• queencitybuckeye

  OSH;1877677 wrote:Silly statement deserves equally silly comeback. Do better.

  Not a silly statement at all. Just rah-rah team bullshit.
• OSH

  

  queencitybuckeye;1877686 wrote:Not a silly statement at all. Just rah-rah team bullshit.

  Yeah, okay.
• HitsRus

  

  O-Trap;1877580 wrote:I dunno. Pretty sure Blaine Gabbert appreciated the distraction from his piss poor play.
  
  
  
  Reminds me of Bull Durham.
  
  [video=youtube;XhGq7qmm6dw][/video]

  Reps for that!
  
  I agree with all that say he's not worth the poison that he brings. No team, no coach wants to deal with the sideshow that Kap has become/ brought on himself. There's no collusion here....just common sense. Cost/benefit ratio here is below zero.
• MontyBrunswick

  

  smh not my president!!!!!!! letting it all unravel!!!!!!!
• ernest_t_bass

  

  MontyBrunswick;1877718 wrote:smh not my president!!!!!!! letting it all unravel!!!!!!!

  
• superman

  gut;1877682 wrote:Ummmm, he may be getting plenty of exposure but I don't think he's making much money off this "jig".

  I bet he is.
  
  Soros has some deep pockets.
• BoatShoes

  Kaep can't be worse than the Browns QB's but I'd rather they tank than pick him up and add to the weekly horror show.
• thavoice

  For a team to pick up a player and get so much flack and a media circus he better be able to back it up with wins and more wins, teams will tolerate distractions and poor behavior if he can bring wins.
  
  Thinf is....wasn't he benched before taking on this fantastic career decision?
• gut

  Kaep would be a stop-gap, at best. A back-up in most places. Teams don't tolerate the baggage, in any sport, if the guy isn't a major contributor.
  
  As for CLE (and other teams with a similar QB situation) - you don't bring in Kaep just because your young QB is struggling. Kaep is not the future, he's a stop-gap. Bringing him in would be about the worst thing you could do with a young QB. You've made an investment in that guy, and you're going to give him probably 3 years to prove himself.
  
  Sure, on the surface it looks like collusion (even if that makes little sense) and you could argue he should be 2nd/3rd string on just about every team, and possibly starting for even a few teams. But the QB position is different. Teams are looking for stability, a long-term solution.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1877675 wrote:Hadn't thought of that. But safe to say, at this point, he might be happy with a 1-yr vet min deal (still make like $1M)?
  
  I think the bigger issue was he supposedly was kind of a locker room cancer...didn't get along with coaches or teammates in SF, and then asked for a trade - TO or Randy Moss might get away with that but Kaep isn't close to being in their league.

  And it ultimately even caught up with TO. He was out of the league before his talent had waned enough to justify it. He'd just developed too much of a reputation as an off-the-field problem child.
  
  And Kaepernick isn't even CLOSE to the same level as TO, who could make a case as being the best combination of size and talent at the position (purely on talent, I think you've still gotta give it to Rice). He's going to have a MUCH shorter leash.
  

  gut;1877899 wrote:Kaep would be a stop-gap, at best. A back-up in most places. Teams don't tolerate the baggage, in any sport, if the guy isn't a major contributor.
  
  As for CLE (and other teams with a similar QB situation) - you don't bring in Kaep just because your young QB is struggling. Kaep is not the future, he's a stop-gap. Bringing him in would be about the worst thing you could do with a young QB. You've made an investment in that guy, and you're going to give him probably 3 years to prove himself.
  
  Sure, on the surface it looks like collusion (even if that makes little sense) and you could argue he should be 2nd/3rd string on just about every team, and possibly starting for even a few teams. But the QB position is different. Teams are looking for stability, a long-term solution.

  In a general sense, I think this is true. However, I do think there examples of exceptions that make this a less-than-universal truth for NFL teams.
  
  Exhibit A: Ryan Fitzpatrick's career.
  
  Make no mistake, I love Fitzpatrick's grit, but the man has basically made a career out of being a stop-gap, and yet teams continue to pick him up.
  
  Having said that, I think Fitzpatrick > Kaepernick.
• queencitybuckeye

  Green Bay rental?
• O-Trap

  

  queencitybuckeye;1877902 wrote:Green Bay rental?

  Meh, maybe. I mean, at the moment, that's the ONLY team I could see taking a flier on him. And I still don't think the odds are good.
• like_that

  

  queencitybuckeye;1877902 wrote:Green Bay rental?

  Watch McCarthys reaction when a reporter asks him about kaep. That will answer your question.
• gut

  O-Trap;1877900 wrote: Having said that, I think Fitzpatrick > Kaepernick.

  Without the baggage, which is really the difference.
  
  Also I'd add that, as opposed to TO (who was just a clown), Kaep is actually someone in this day and age that could divide your locker room. Play ball - no one wants to worry about who's politics are what or being offended/tolerating someone who doesn't share your view.