klos63 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 49ers would have released him if he didn't opt out apparently, some here don't want to acknowledge this. It will hurt their argument against Kaep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Your original point--that Foles put up big numbers in Chip Kelly's system, therefore we can't trust any numbers put up by a QB in Chip Kelly's system--is so devoid of logic on its face that it's barely worth responding to. I'm not arguing that Kaepernick is an elite QB; only that he is better than almost all the backups in the league and a fair number of the starters, especially when you look at the list of starting QBs going into week 7. As evidence to support that argument, I pointed to statistics from his most recent season in the NFL, playing for a team that was almost totally devoid of offensive talent. Furthermore, Kaepernick has been in the league for quite a few years and has played at a fairly high level in the past, so it's not like his 2016 season was a total outlier. As to your last sentence, I think you are acknowledging that the reason Kaepernick is not in the league is because of his outspoken stance regarding perceived racial injustice. Which is precisely the basis for his grievance. That is not true. Owners have every right to not hire him on their team,. The basis of his grievance is not why he isn't on a team, the basis is if team colluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Kaep silently protested something he felt strongly about. He knew the risks and he made a sacrifice. And guess what ... since he did it, this board and the entire nation has been talking about social injustice. That's a win. No, this board and the entire nation have been talking about Colin Kaepernick and the National Anthem. There's been very little discussion about social injustice as a result of Kaepernick's protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 That is not true. Owners have every right to not hire him on their team,. The basis of his grievance is not why he isn't on a team, the basis is if team colluded. Have you read the grievance, or are you just speculating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Have you read the grievance, or are you just speculating? I read it. He's right. http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2017/1015/KaepernickGrievance_r.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Many legal professionals would argue we have an obligation to litigiousness. It's an important part of how the adversarial judicial system makes law. He has private counsel. He'll be responsible for opposing court fees if he loses. I don't see what the big deal is. The "big" deal is that it's a waste of everyone's time. Not to Kaep, of course...either he wins and proves he was oppressed by the league, or - far more likely - he loses and proves he's oppressed by the system. Either way he wins for being a victim. Which is why it's a waste of everyone else's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 49ers would have released him if he didn't opt out So why didn't he lets just let the 49ers release him, I am not asking a baited question I just want to know. And do we know for a fact they 49ers would have released him? Of any city ion the US hose fan base would have embraced Kapernick you would think Saan Fran would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 I read it. He's right. http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2017/1015/KaepernickGrievance_r.pdf coercion and calculated coordination from the Executive Branch of the United States government. Nothing this administration does is calculated or coordinated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Have you read the grievance, or are you just speculating? He's correct, and that is what collusion is. The case is weak by any legal measure unless there is actual evidence. It will be very difficult to prove, and I doubt teams actually colluded. Several teams considered him and ended up at the same decision, but that is hardly collusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 He's correct, and that is what collusion is. The case is weak by any legal measure unless there is actual evidence. It will be very difficult to prove, and I doubt teams actually colluded. Several teams considered him and ended up at the same decision, but that is hardly collusion. Ref. Barry Bonds' case, where the courts decided that 32 teams can independently come to the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 The "big" deal is that it's a waste of everyone's time. Not to Kaep, of course...either he wins and proves he was oppressed by the league, or - far more likely - he loses and proves he's oppressed by the system. Either way he wins for being a victim. Which is why it's a waste of everyone else's time. Nope. It's what legal professionals are paid to do. It's not a 'waste', it's how our judicial system functions. There is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit in the US, or we wouldn't have such an extensive tort structure. Your opinion of Kaepernick's supposed victimhood is irrelevant as to whether or not this case serves a function in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 apparently, some here don't want to acknowledge this. It will hurt their argument against Kaep. Not really. The argument is that the player isn't worth the baggage he comes with. Whether he walked away from his contract or if he would have been released etc is neither here nor there. Teams just don't think he's that good at football to overshadow the negatives . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Nothing this administration does is calculated or coordinated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Have you read the grievance, or are you just speculating? Here is a fact, no speculation, if the owners didnt bring him on board because of his kneeling etc they are 100% within their right and not in violation of the CBA as long as they did not collude. Colin's lawyers can write anything they want to in their grievance, after all Colin needs to impress everyone with how "brave" he is and how he was wronged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 So why didn't he lets just let the 49ers release him, I am not asking a baited question I just want to know. And do we know for a fact they 49ers would have released him? Of any city ion the US hose fan base would have embraced Kapernick you would think Saan Fran would. I don't know what went into his decision to opt out instead of being cut. Here is a link to a John Lynch interview regarding the contract. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/05/31/john-lynch-49ers-would-have-cut-kaepernick-if-he-hadnt-opted-out/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 I read it. He's right. http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2017/1015/KaepernickGrievance_r.pdf Thanks for posting. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded not to sign him in retaliation for his outspoken views on perceived racial injustice. So my original point--that his grievance alleges that he's not in the league because of his expression of his political view--still stands. I will acknowledge that it will be difficult for him to prove collusion, since I'm sure the owners weren't stupid enough to send around a group email about not signing Kaepernick. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Not really. The argument is that the player isn't worth the baggage he comes with. Whether he walked away from his contract or if he would have been released etc is neither here nor there. Teams just don't think he's that good at football to overshadow the negatives . Many are making the argument that it's Kaeps fault for being unemployed because he opted out of this contract, if he didn't he'd still have a job. That's all I'm referring to, nothing else in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Thanks for posting. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded not to sign him in retaliation for his outspoken views on perceived racial injustice. So my original point--that his grievance alleges that he's not in the league because of his expression of his political view--still stands. I will acknowledge that it will be difficult for him to prove collusion, since I'm sure the owners weren't stupid enough to send around a group email about not signing Kaepernick. We'll see. Seriously. Who would be dumb enough to let emails ruin their career?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Here is a fact, no speculation, if the owners didnt bring him on board because of his kneeling etc they are 100% within their right and not in violation of the CBA as long as they did not collude.I'm not sure about that. In some states, including California, it is illegal, with some exceptions, to fire or refuse to hire someone because of their political beliefs or affiliations. But that would be a difficult case to prove, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Seriously. Who would be dumb enough to let emails ruin their career?? this topic is already political. Sooo I am risking it Edited October 16, 2017 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts