Eric Reid possibility?

[Mark80]

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

That's bending the truth a little. Plenty of states are "right to work" states and it is very easy to fire someone as long as you have even a small reason.

 

That has to do with Labor Unions and requirements to join them.  Not at all the same topic as "just cause" states vs "employment at will" states.  Trust me, I have 6 years of education on this.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Mark80

[NoHuddleKelly12]

1 hour ago, RyanC883 said:

 

not a Constitutional Right to kneel during an NFL game.   You have a Constitutional Right to kneel in public on your own time, and you also have a Constitutional Right to burn a flag.  But try doing that at work.  

 

that said, I'd bring him in if he can help.  He's not the attention-talent-less clown that Kap is.  

Valid points. Regardless of anyone's personal views on kneeling, no NFL player is allowed to do whatever they want on their employer's dime, if against the rules to do so, just like any other employee. The only reason the owners haven't cracked down on it more is a PR worry--but by letting the issue fester without a real resolution, it's made it even worse IMO. Flyover America not happy, Kaep and his fans also not happy, great result! In the meantime we have to have arguments over whether or not Reid's off the field views should affect our GM's decision on whether or not to sign him. Football used to be an escape from political back and forth--wonder if it ever will be again?  

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, cage said:

 

Was that a serious post?

Damn right it’s serious!! Nobody Neals during the Star-Spangled Banner!! Lee Greenwood would be rolling over in his grave if he new this was going on. RIP Lee Greenwood

 

[NewEra]

Starting him a safety and putting Hyde at the nickel makes a LOT of sense at this point.  Everyone is just targeting that spot in the zone (and Edmunds) on 3rd down

[jr1]

Kenny Stills and Albert Wilson still kneel and it's not a big deal

[PolishPrince]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Reid makes this team better. Would you sign him?

 

That case is moving along isnt it. Survived NFL trying to dismiss didnt it

? It was allowed to be heard, big whoop dee do lol

[RememberTheRockpile]

4 hours ago, MJS said:

 

That's bending the truth a little. Plenty of states are "right to work" states and it is very easy to fire someone as long as you have even a small reason.

With the exception of Montana you don't even have to have a reason. The rest of the states you are an "at-will employee".

Edited September 21, 2018 by RememberTheRockpile

[Mark Vader]

6 hours ago, JoeF said:

Nike is the Devil's brand Slammer, the devil's brand

Well they are responsible for the color rush uniforms.

[RobbRiddick]

Kneel before Zod!

[1ManRaid]

7 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

See as I said. 

 

Felons

rapists

abusers

drugs

running around naked

gun violations 

murderers

 

All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome

Last I checked, game day in the stadium is their workplace, and employers are entitled to have rules about workplace conduct including political statements and the like.

[Bruce_Stools]

6 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Stadiums Publically Funded. 

 

Employer has no policy against. So want to try again. Collusion to blackball is not a policy 

The employer certainly does have a policy against kneeling.

 

NFL games are governed by multiple codes of conduct. One is the NFL rulebook; another is the NFL game operations manual. The rulebook is concerned with in-game actions by players and coaches (like scoring, penalties, challenges and so on), whereas the game-operations manual dictates how NFL games should be run in the bigger-picture organizational sense.

 

The NFL rulebook makes no mention of the national anthem. But the game operations manual does.

Here’s what the game operations manual says regarding the national anthem, according to an NFL spokesperson:

"The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses."

i may may have borrowed that part from a sports illustrated article.

 

 

[PlayoffsPlease]

7 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

I would have signed him. Makes team better. 

 

But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. 

 

Felons

rapists

abusers

drugs

running around naked

gun violations 

murderers

 

All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome

Just to be factual, the constitution says nothing about forbidding employers from having work place rules. 

[Buffalo86]

This team has a solid chance of earning the #1 pick.  Signing someone like Reid might cause us to plummet to #2 or 3.  No thanks.

[Kirby Jackson]

14 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Just to be factual, the constitution says nothing about forbidding employers from having work place rules. 

Nope, but just to be clear this isn’t a rule. It’s a recommendation. “The players SHOULD....” That’s why the issue is there. It isn’t a requirement and you can’t punish guys for something that isn’t in the CBA.

[PlayoffsPlease]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Nope, but just to be clear this isn’t a rule. It’s a recommendation. “The players SHOULD....” That’s why the issue is there. It isn’t a requirement and you can’t punish guys for something that isn’t in the CBA.

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR POLITICAL BELIEFS ON YOUR EMPLOYERS TIME.  Hope that clears things up.  You do have a constitutional right to seek employment elsewhere. 

[Cripple Creek]

1 minute ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR POLITICAL BELIEFS ON YOUR EMPLOYERS TIME.  Hope that clears things up.  You do have a constitutional right to seek employment elsewhere. 

You sound like a meanie. 

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

You sound like a meanie. 

Nope, just some one who actually understands the facts that this issue involves.

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR POLITICAL BELIEFS ON YOUR EMPLOYERS TIME.  Hope that clears things up.  You do have a constitutional right to seek employment elsewhere. 

There is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement between the players association and the employers restricting it. Hence, there is no punishment for it. Hope that clears things up.

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

There is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement between the players association and the employers restricting it. Hence, there is no punishment for it. Hope that clears things up.

The collective bargaining agreement is not the constitution.  This may be the root cause of your confused view of things. 

[Cripple Creek]

1 minute ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Nope, just some one who actually understands the facts that this issue involves.

The person you quoted correctly stated that there is no requirement between the players and the owners on "proper" player behavior during the anthem.  Your response had nothing to do with his statement. 

[Batman1876]

57 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

Last I checked, game day in the stadium is their workplace, and employers are entitled to have rules about workplace conduct including political statements and the like.

Those rules are outlined in the CBA standing at the anthem is not a rule. You can’t add new rules to that agreement on a whim. Otherwise you could have ownership adding rules on a whim all the time.  And you know Jerry Jones would add in a “wash the owners car “ rule if he could.

[fansince88]

6 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Yep.  You make an NFL roster you are expected to step up when your name is called.

 

i'm fairly certain he won't retire at halftime.

Didnt he do well in the second half last week?

 

[Kirby Jackson]

Just now, PlayoffsPlease said:

The collective bargaining agreement is not the constitution.  This may be the root cause of your confused view of things. 

No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas.

 

The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled.

 

It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. 

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas.

 

The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled.

 

It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. 

You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. 

[Bruce_Stools]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas.

 

The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled.

 

It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. 

The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem.   That is a guideline every team follows.   

 

What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL.   It is a rule

Edited September 22, 2018 by Bruce_Stools

[Batman1876]

7 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said:

The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem.   That is a guideline every team follows.   

 

What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL.   It is a rule

Should is different than must.

9 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. 

Pretty sure you are the one confused on this one.  Not sure what the source of your confusion is.  

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. 

No confusion at all. The Packers are a part of the public sector.  The constitution can’t restrict them from expressing themselves.

[NoSaint]

9 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. 

 

The cba restricts what players can be punished for. This is a slightly ambiguous instance of whether or not a player can be punished. 

[Kirby Jackson]

12 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said:

The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem.   That is a guideline every team follows.   

 

What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL.   It is a rule

The bolded word is why it can’t and hasn’t been enforced. “Should” isn’t a requirement. That has already been challenged and decided. If they changed it to “must” it would be different but they can’t do that without the player’s approval.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Bruce_Stools]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The bolded word is why it can’t and hasn’t been enforced. “Should” isn’t a requirement. That has already been challenged and decided. If they changed it to “must” it would be different but they can’t do that without the player’s approval.

According to stay within policy a.k.a. “The rules” a player should be standing at attention with a helmet in his hand.

[SouthNYfan]

12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

No confusion here. The constitution allows 1st amendment rights in the public sector and its restricted in the private sector with some exclusions. So an NFL team, while privately owned partners with the public sector in many areas.

 

The league (and all leagues) defer to the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners. They decide the rules and regulations that will govern the business. The result is that the league doesn’t punish players or restrict their ability to exercise those rights. Whether you like it or not that IS how it is being handled.

 

It may change at some point but if it does it won’t because of the constitution. It will be because the players and owners reached an agreement that they are both comfortable with. The owners can’t function without the players and the players can’t function without the league. 

 

Nobody is "punishing" kaep or eric or any other kneeling players.

These players are not suspended, fined, or anything of the sort for violating any rules.

They are however not employed by NFL teams as it seems ALL owners/teams have decided that the possible negative backlash (or just media circus in general) from signing one of these players was not worth risking.

It has nothing to do with rules or being punished, nobody punished them in regards to the rules.

An NFL team is a private employer as a whole.

The public watches them and supports them, but they are not part of the ownership of the teams.

The owners decided to avoid these players for risk of hurting the perception of their business, which, since their entire worth is determined by how many people watch/buy merch/tickets/etc, could be negatively affected by the kneeling.

I work for a private medical company, a very large one.

If I start protesting in my parking lot during work hours, I'm going to lose my job.

If I start posting volatile stuff all over my social media, I may also risk my job, as my employer does not want to be associated with me in the public eye.

That's how a free country works.

You have the freedom of govt oppression, but not freedom of employer backlash.

Constitution protects you from the government, not your employer.

 

10 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

You desire things to be a certain way even though they are not. Your rambling only confirms your confusion. 

 

See what I said above, hope that cleared it up for him, probably not though.

 

7 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said:

The game operations manual clearly says in order to stay within policy, a player should be standing on the sideline with a helmet in their left hand during the anthem.   That is a guideline every team follows.   

 

What i I quoted earlier was directly from a representative of the NFL.   It is a rule

 

Right, so what you posted says they must be on the field, but SHOULD stand for the anthem.

It doesn't say anything about they MUST stand for the anthem.

So as long as they are on the field, they technically didn't violate any rules.

 

 

**disclaimer: I fully support their right to kneel, constitutionally, but also fully support the private employers right to not employ somebody who might negatively affect the public perception of their company, thus hurting profits/business**

9 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:

Should is different than must.

Pretty sure you are the one confused on this one.  Not sure what the source of your confusion is.  

 

Playoffsplease is not confused.

These players aren't being punished within the league, they are being left unemployed as free agents, as no team wants to risk the negative press associated with the situation.

[Bruce_Stools]

5 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

The cba restricts what players can be punished for. This is a slightly ambiguous instance of whether or not a player can be punished. 

I’m actually a little confused honestly.  Even though the nfl rule book and the operations manual, according to an nfl representative, govern the nfl, the cba is actually the only way to determine a rule or what’s punishable or not?   Isn’t that what the books are for in the first place.  Wouldn’t that have been cleared by the players association before anything gets put into said books???

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Bruce_Stools said:

According to stay within policy a.k.a. “The rules” a player should be standing at attention with a helmet in his hand.

They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. 

[Freddie's Dead]

GIT 'R' DUN!!!  This guy is a stud.  Kneeling on a football field should not constitute a lifetime ban when druggies and domestic abusers continue to get chance after chance.

[Clyde Smith]

59 minutes ago, Buffalo86 said:

This team has a solid chance of earning the #1 pick.  Signing someone like Reid might cause us to plummet to #2 or 3.  No thanks.

We have one of the oldest roster in the league. Do you really think they give a cats *** about a 1st pick? 

[Alphadawg7]

8 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

I would have signed him. Makes team better. 

 

But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. 

 

Felons

rapists

abusers

drugs

running around naked

gun violations 

murderers

 

All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome

 

Well said.  Its nuts...dont forget animal massacres and not just abusers, but child abusers too.

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. 

 

The repercussions are arising when their contracts are up.

Teams have not signed a couple of these guys who knelt, as they don't want the media storm that comes with it.

[Bruce_Stools]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. 

If you have any knowledge of the cba, rule book, and the operations manual, can you answer the question I had for the other guy?  

 

I honestly don’t know.    Thanks

[Batman1876]

We don’t know if the owners made an agreement to not hire these players. If they did then they are at fault. That’s what needs to be sorted out. 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Nobody is "punishing" kaep or eric or any other kneeling players.

These players are not suspended, fined, or anything of the sort for violating any rules.

They are however not employed by NFL teams as it seems ALL owners/teams have decided that the possible negative backlash (or just media circus in general) from signing one of these players was not worth risking.

It has nothing to do with rules or being punished, nobody punished them in regards to the rules.

An NFL team is a private employer as a whole.

The public watches them and supports them, but they are not part of the ownership of the teams.

The owners decided to avoid these players for risk of hurting the perception of their business, which, since their entire worth is determined by how many people watch/buy merch/tickets/etc, could be negatively affected by the kneeling.

I work for a private medical company, a very large one.

If I start protesting in my parking lot during work hours, I'm going to lose my job.

If I start posting volatile stuff all over my social media, I may also risk my job, as my employer does not want to be associated with me in the public eye.

That's how a free country works.

You have the freedom of govt oppression, but not freedom of employer backlash.

Constitution protects you from the government, not your employer.

 

 

See what I said above, hope that cleared it up for him, probably not though.

 

 

Right, so what you posted says they must be on the field, but SHOULD stand for the anthem.

It doesn't say anything about they MUST stand for the anthem.

So as long as they are on the field, they technically didn't violate any rules.

 

 

**disclaimer: I fully support their right to kneel, constitutionally, but also fully support the private employers right to not employ somebody who might negatively affect the public perception of their company, thus hurting profits/business**

The only place that we disagree is that not all 32 teams are private. 31 are and that is a part of the reason that it is difficult to enforce. In general, I agree with your sentiment.

 

FWIW, I wouldn’t sign either of these guys because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If Khalil Mack was the guy doing this I would be all for adding him. If I thought that these guys could impact the team I’d be all for it. I don’t think that the media attention and distractions are worth it for these guys.

1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

The repercussions are arising when their contracts are up.

Teams have not signed a couple of these guys who knelt, as they don't want the media storm that comes with it.

100% agree