Are there 63 better quarterbacks in the NFL?

[Ring 6]

No, he is not likely to be as good as in 2016. But that isn't the question.

The question is whether is Kaep is good enough to be a #2 QB for some team (and fits well enough), a player who would play of the #1 is injured. We patriots have our #2 QB in Hoyer, so this isn't an issue for us.

Some teams carry a #3 developmental QB (always inactive), but that fact is somewhat irrelevant.

Folks say that Kaep won't take a backup role. IMHO, that's nonsense. In any case, we don't know whether that is true.

He wasn’t good enough to be a legitimate #2 QB in 2016.

 

[Ring 6]

Kaepernick was the ring-leader of the whole kneeling thing, which caused damage to the shield. He doesn’t deserve to play in the NFL anymore, and the owners have the right to exclude him. If he’s remorseful about the whole thing and promises not to kneel anymore, it’s a different story.

It’s funny that we have 2 threads going on where patriot fans are criticizing the greatest teammate ever for missing an OTA and at the same time ignoring the fact that kaepernick became an attention whore at the expense of his team.

 

[mgteich]

Kaepernick was the ring-leader of the whole kneeling thing, which caused damage to the shield. He doesn’t deserve to play in the NFL anymore, and the owners have the right to exclude him. If he’s remorseful about the whole thing and promises not to kneel anymore, it’s a different story.

hmm

If the owners would say what you said in public, or on email, they would lose their case. The NFL does NOT have a right to ban a player because he chooses to kneel at the playing of the national anthem. I think back and consider that the owners would probably have done nothing if Tebow kneeled at the playing of the anthem. [nothing, I think]

BOTTOM LINE
Kaep's not playing has nothing to do with him violating team or NFL policy by kneeling. One can argue that NO TEAM should hire him because his value is less than what he would sign for. I respect that position, but find that situation to be unlikely.

What this IS about is political expression, free speech. The owners have chosen to punish Kaep for his political protest because the NFL believes that such a ban favors the league economically. If you believe that top owners haven't discussed this issue and come to conclusions that they all are following, there is stock in the Brooklyn Bridge or the Everglades that is available for sale. And, just BTW, this is the very definition of "collusion". However, I doubt whether anything can be proven.

Some owners wouldn't hire him anyway because he is outspoken and black.

 

[mgteich]

Let's put this another way, Let us say a GM were given football information/stats on variety of players who might be available for backup pay to fill their #2 QB spot (or compete for it), Would any team sign Kaep? I think that the answer is "yes"

 

[The Brandon Five]

No, he is not likely to be as good as in 2016. But that isn't the question.

The question is whether is Kaep is good enough to be a #2 QB for some team (and fits well enough), a player who would play of the #1 is injured. We patriots have our #2 QB in Hoyer, so this isn't an issue for us.

Some teams carry a #3 developmental QB (always inactive), but that fact is somewhat irrelevant.

Folks say that Kaep won't take a backup role. IMHO, that's nonsense. In any case, we don't know whether that is true.

Well we know that he opted out of a deal as the starter in San Fran, so I am not sure why people think that he has been sitting around waiting for someone to use him as camp fodder.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

hmm

If the owners would say what you said in public, or on email, they would lose their case. The NFL does NOT have a right to ban a player because he chooses to kneel at the playing of the national anthem. I think back and consider that the owners would probably have done nothing if Tebow kneeled at the playing of the anthem. [nothing, I think]

BOTTOM LINE

What this IS about is political expression, free speech. The owners have chosen to punish Kaep for his political protest because the NFL believes that such a ban favors the league economically. If you believe that top owners haven't discussed this issue and come to conclusions that they all are following, there is stock in the Brooklyn Bridge or the Everglades that is available for sale. And, just BTW, this is the very definition of "collusion". However, I doubt whether anything can be proven.

Some owners wouldn't hire him anyway because he is outspoken and black.

You have zero free speech rights in the workplace. If I start protesting political issues while I am on the job, I get fired.

 

[captain stone]

Kaep's not playing has nothing to do with him violating team or NFL policy by kneeling. One can argue that NO TEAM should hire him because his value is less than what he would sign for. I respect that position, but find that situation to be unlikely.

What this IS about is political expression, free speech. The owners have chosen to punish Kaep for his political protest because the NFL believes that such a ban favors the league economically. If you believe that top owners haven't discussed this issue and come to conclusions that they all are following, there is stock in the Brooklyn Bridge or the Everglades that is available for sale. And, just BTW, this is the very definition of "collusion". However, I doubt whether anything can be proven.

Some owners wouldn't hire him anyway because he is outspoken and black.

NO PLAYER should have EVER been allowed to kneel and not be punished. It is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the Game Operations Manual.
Let those ungrateful jihadi/marxist/blm maggots spit on our country on their own time.

 

[Ring 6]

hmm

If the owners would say what you said in public, or on email, they would lose their case. The NFL does NOT have a right to ban a player because he chooses to kneel at the playing of the national anthem. I think back and consider that the owners would probably have done nothing if Tebow kneeled at the playing of the anthem. [nothing, I think]

BOTTOM LINE
Kaep's not playing has nothing to do with him violating team or NFL policy by kneeling. One can argue that NO TEAM should hire him because his value is less than what he would sign for. I respect that position, but find that situation to be unlikely.

What this IS about is political expression, free speech. The owners have chosen to punish Kaep for his political protest because the NFL believes that such a ban favors the league economically. If you believe that top owners haven't discussed this issue and come to conclusions that they all are following, there is stock in the Brooklyn Bridge or the Everglades that is available for sale. And, just BTW, this is the very definition of "collusion". However, I doubt whether anything can be proven.

Some owners wouldn't hire him anyway because he is outspoken and black.

NFL owners absolutely have a right to not hire kaepernick because of his politics.
What they don’t have a right to do is to cubs ours against him. Well they actually do have the right to do that but it’s a violation of their agreement with the NFLPA so there would br consequences. None of which would be giving kaepernick a job.
Individual owners can pretty much make whatever decisions they want that are not illegal and not hiring a public facing employee because of their politics is fully legal.
If they act in concert, it’s still not illegal, but it violates their agreement.

 

[Ring 6]

Let's put this another way, Let us say a GM were given football information/stats on variety of players who might be available for backup pay to fill their #2 QB spot (or compete for it), Would any team sign Kaep? I think that the answer is "yes"

I dont because they would watch the tape and they would interview him and realize football isn’t important to him and creating a distraction on his team to express his politics is a good thing to him.

 

[TheRainMaker]

NO PLAYER should have EVER been allowed to kneel and not be punished. It is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the Game Operations Manual.
Let those ungrateful jihadi marxist bastards spit on our country on their own time.

The fact that this got out of hand was the owners and once again Goddell's fault. The funny thing about this is that Kaep initially didn't any attention from this. But some annoyed SF beat writer noticed him doing this a few times and questioned him about it until Kaep finally caved. Then when the media got wind of it, it blew up.

That is when SF should've intervened and stopped it from the get go. But as usual, their idiot owner does what he does best - nothing. So other players around the league realized they could do it to without any recourse.

And it became a real s*** show when the owners started kneeling but then told the players they can't do that anymore? Huh? What message are you sending to the players now?

What the media still fails to realize is that if we went to our normal jobs and tried to protest by doing something like this, we'd get fired.

 

[primetime]

It really ain't hard to imagine what the sad, ornery old authoritarian with 60,000 posts on this forum and a scantily clad cartoon woman as his avatar looks like.

 

[maust]

What this IS about is political expression, free speech. The owners have chosen to punish Kaep for his political protest because the NFL believes that such a ban favors the league economically. .

What this IS about is economics. Black vs white, red state/blue state, black lives/blue lives and the Ol' Red, White and Blue have nothing whatsoever to do with it, the only color the owners care about is green.

 

[primetime]

What this IS about is economics. Black vs white, red state/blue state, black lives/blue lives and the Ol' Red, White and Blue have nothing whatsoever to do with it, the only color the owners care about is green.

Exactly. This is a league that's highly invested in suppressing evidence of concussions. Anything that could possibly garner negative attention is going to come under fire.

 

[maust]

Exactly. This is a league that's highly invested in suppressing evidence of concussions. Anything that could possibly garner negative attention is going to come under fire.

From a busine$$ standpoint negative attention does have a tendency to show up as a debit after all...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

With all the "it's because of this"/"It's because of that" talk, the basic equation is, what's the cost, what's the benefit, what's the risk (which can deflate the benefit)?

This breaks down both into $$$ and into success on the field.

Owners might see downsides associated with K that they would not see if they were only evaluating his play.

I see people saying he's a Marxist jihadi because he took a knee, and by the way, so did much of the league. I don't want to argue his cause; I'll just say that's hyperbole. He didn't kill anybody, he led a political protest.

Here's the thing, I don't want to argue with fellow pats fans. I don't want pats players to argue with other pats players. I don't want anybody giving anybody the side-eye about why they did and didn't kneel.

Of course, I'm not a player or an owner, so there's that.

To whoever said it's a CLEAR violation of the game operations manual, why did the league have to announce a rule today? I guess it could be like a "point of emphasis." Eh, whatever.

The NFL's rule or rule enforcement policy or whatever it is, is wading into politics too.

Feh, all the way around.

 

[Joker]

Nuke Goodell

 

[Clonamery]

What this IS about is economics. Black vs white, red state/blue state, black lives/blue lives and the Ol' Red, White and Blue have nothing whatsoever to do with it, the only color the owners care about is green.

True. If the NFL hadn't gotten the Armed Forces as sponsors in 2009 they never would have had to have the players come out for the National Anthem when their Operations manual has that the players "should" stand for the National Anthem. They were too busy thinking about how to sell camouflage jerseys and hats. I'm not saying that everyone in the League Office cares more about money than they do the military but it has that appearance.

The League Office has too many Lawyers and Goodell Bodyguards and not enough people that can actually grasp risk management. After so many boondoggles, you'd think they would have learned not to trust themselves. All comes down to the piece of jete Goodell....Blame Nobody, Do Something, Expect Nothing....and that equals NFL Integrity.

 

[primetime]

Here's the thing, I don't want to argue with fellow pats fans.

Well, pardner, y'all came to the wrong neighborhood fer that, then

 

[primetime]

To be clear, collective bargaining agreements have force of law, so it would in fact be illegal.

 

[chasa]

NO PLAYER should have EVER been allowed to kneel and not be punished. It is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the Game Operations Manual.
Let those ungrateful jihadi/marxist/blm maggots spit on our country on their own time.

Am I missing the sarcasm here, or are you really like this?