Kapaernick

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, his deteriorating skills is really what hurt him. He's a running QB not well suited for the west coast offense or traditional offense. He's not a pocket passer. He's more suited for the spread - which is in decline in the NFL. Secondly, he has developed a reputation of not being a team player, not willing to work extra hard, not willing to study up on plays, not wanting to lead the players as a team. The QB is by far the most important player on the team. Everyone looks up to him to set the guidance and cadence of the team. There are backups in the NFL who have less talent than Kap. But there are other traits that make a good QB besides talent: leadership, sacrifice, willing to support the starter, willingness to backup management and coaching staff, willingness to be quiet, willingness to make a scene, and etc. Teams don't want backup QBs to be loud and dramatic.

I support Kap's political position. I'm with BLM. But there's only one thing that NFL teams care about: and that's winning.

Clearly not the case in Cleveland. They traded for an expensive QB for a 2nd round pick and then waived him.

Do you mean Johnny Manziel? I agree that Manziel is another good example. Lots of talent. More talent than Kap. But a complete drama queen. Always in trouble. Not a great example for his team. Teams want players who love football. Football is a religion in college and the NFL.

 

[untermensche]

Do you mean Johnny Manziel? I agree that Manziel is another good example. Lots of talent. More talent than Kap. But a complete drama queen. Always in trouble. Not a great example for his team. Teams want players who love football. Football is a religion in college and the NFL.

Owners want players who can play football.

If Manziel could play QB in the NFL he would be playing.

 

[dismal]

BZZZT, not "collusion". Next.

It is collusion if the timing of the discrimination is simultaneous and ubiquitous.

It is collusion if nobody has a legal cause to do it.

Unfortunately your religious beliefs are irrelevant in a hearing that requires evidence.

Also, you are incorrect. The 49ers kept him for a year after he started protesting. Then he walked out on them. Which may present a bit of a challenge.

Also, you once again demonstrate you don't understand what "collusion" means. It means "acting together". There is nothing that prohibits any and all owners from independently deciding they don't want this guy. For any reason.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Do you mean Johnny Manziel? I agree that Manziel is another good example. Lots of talent. More talent than Kap. But a complete drama queen. Always in trouble. Not a great example for his team. Teams want players who love football. Football is a religion in college and the NFL.

Owners want players who can play football.

If Manziel could play QB in the NFL he would be playing.

The disconnect here is that since you've never played football you assume that all that it takes is talent. It takes far more than that. There are tons of players who have the talent, but not the correct upstairs: Manziel, Ryan Leaf, Tim Tebow, Maurice Clarett, and etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Clearly not the case in Cleveland. They traded for an expensive QB for a 2nd round pick and then waived him.

Do you mean Johnny Manziel?

No, Brock Osweiller. They took his high salary for a second round pick, and then waved him.

I agree that Manziel is another good example. Lots of talent. More talent than Kap. But a complete drama queen. Always in trouble. Not a great example for his team. Teams want players who love football. Football is a religion in college and the NFL.

Manziel didn't have much talent at all. And certainly didn't have the head for the professional game. Manziel didn't perform well in the playoffs, was too short, addicted to not having to try hard, and had an enormous sense of entitlement.

Brady Quinn didn't work out, but I never felt bad about him. Manziel was an absolute piece of trash.

 

[dismal]

Do you mean Johnny Manziel?

No, Brock Osweiller. They took his high salary for a second round pick, and then waved him.

They GOT a 2nd round pick to take his salary cap hit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you mean Johnny Manziel? I agree that Manziel is another good example. Lots of talent. More talent than Kap. But a complete drama queen. Always in trouble. Not a great example for his team. Teams want players who love football. Football is a religion in college and the NFL.

Owners want players who can play football.

If Manziel could play QB in the NFL he would be playing.

Wait a second... did you just make an argument as to why Kaerpernick isn't playing? IE, If Kaepernick could play QB in the NFL he would be playing, and because he isn't the NFL doesn't think he can play well enough?

- - - Updated - - -

NFL owners, players meeting Tuesday to discuss protests

A white woman died in the Virginia protest... yet, white people didn't seem to really care.

 

[untermensche]

It is collusion if the timing of the discrimination is simultaneous and ubiquitous.

It is collusion if nobody has a legal cause to do it.

Unfortunately your religious beliefs are irrelevant in a hearing that requires evidence.

Also, you are incorrect. The 49ers kept him for a year after he started protesting. Then he walked out on them. Which may present a bit of a challenge.

Also, you once again demonstrate you don't understand what "collusion" means. It means "acting together". There is nothing that prohibits any and all owners from independently deciding they don't want this guy. For any reason.

Nothing you are saying has any relevance.

He does not have to prove collusion. He merely has to show it is the most reasonable conclusion.

This is arbitration. If an arbitrator believes something is the most reasonable conclusion who do you think they will side with?

 

[untermensche]

Owners want players who can play football.

If Manziel could play QB in the NFL he would be playing.

Wait a second... did you just make an argument as to why Kaerpernick isn't playing? IE, If Kaepernick could play QB in the NFL he would be playing, and because he isn't the NFL doesn't think he can play well enough?

The issue is whether players with an inferior resume were hired for no rational reason.

The issue is like the issue of why the black man in the company was passed over and over for white people with inferior resumes.

 

[dismal]

Unfortunately your religious beliefs are irrelevant in a hearing that requires evidence.

Also, you are incorrect. The 49ers kept him for a year after he started protesting. Then he walked out on them. Which may present a bit of a challenge.

Also, you once again demonstrate you don't understand what "collusion" means. It means "acting together". There is nothing that prohibits any and all owners from independently deciding they don't want this guy. For any reason.

Nothing you are saying has any relevance.

He does not have to prove collusion. He merely has to show it is the most reasonable conclusion.

This is arbitration. If an arbitrator believes something is the most reasonable conclusion who do you think they will side with?

Yes, I keep mentioning the document that Kaepernick must prove the owner's breached as if it has some sort of relevance.

My bad.

I'll start going with emotional outbursts motivated by religious fervor now.

 

[Derec]

The issue is like the issue of why the black man in the company was passed over and over for white people with inferior resumes.

Far more likely these days to be the opposite, due to so-called "affirmative action".

And as far as Kaep, it is pretty clear why he is being passed over - his, in-uniform, on-the-clock behavior that distracts from "football".

 

[dismal]

Wait a second... did you just make an argument as to why Kaerpernick isn't playing? IE, If Kaepernick could play QB in the NFL he would be playing, and because he isn't the NFL doesn't think he can play well enough?

The issue is whether players with an inferior resume were hired for no rational reason.

The issue is like the issue of why the black man in the company was passed over and over for white people with inferior resumes.

THIS FORM OF ARGUMENT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT DEEMED EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IN THE AGREEMENT.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The distraction is the reaction of morons to a man silently kneeling.

You cannot blame a man, or punish them, when a bunch of morons get upset because they don't like people kneeling.

The owners do not get to side with the morons.

Actually, they do, as long as they do it independently.

You have absolutely no comprehension of what Kaepernick is claiming. I'm done wasting my time with you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The National Anthem, cheerleaders, commercials, and half time distract from football and if Kaepernick is a non-conformist during such events it is a distraction from the conformance of said event, not from football itself.

 

[untermensche]

The issue is whether players with an inferior resume were hired for no rational reason.

The issue is like the issue of why the black man in the company was passed over and over for white people with inferior resumes.

THIS FORM OF ARGUMENT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT DEEMED EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IN THE AGREEMENT.

We will see.

There are lawyers who disagree.

If a group makes the same irrational decision all at once that is evidence of collusion.

If nobody in the company promotes the black man that is evidence of collusion.

And who knows? Kaerpernick may have witnesses to actual collusion.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The National Anthem, cheerleaders, commercials, and half time distract from football and if Kaepernick is a non-conformist during such events it is a distraction from the conformance of said event, not from football itself.

In your opinion. Which has no value in his arbitration hearing.

Here are the opinions that matter:

Arbitrator: "Why didn't your team sign Kaepernick?"

Owner #1: "Kneeling during the anthem is disrespctful."

Owner #2: "A poll of our fans showed that many of them would stop attending/watching our games, and would stop buying jerseys, etc."

Owner #3: "We think he sucks as a QB.

Owner #4: "He doesn't fit our offensive scheme."

Owner #5: " We already have a good starter and backup QB."

Owner #6: "We don't have enough salary cap space."

etc.

Case closed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We don't actually know the argument that Kapaernick will try to make. I tried to give some hypotheticals to try to keep abstract before but people interpreted that as concrete examples of what Kapaernick will say which they weren't. The point was that the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence, that Kapaernick CAN use the fact he has not been hired in combination with other facts (X), and lastly that his lawyer can subpoena records as part of the suit to establish X, whatever it is. We don't actually know what X is--we know what kind of category it ought to be in but not specifically what it is--and just because we don't have evidence of X's existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Someone could have tipped Kapaernick off about something nefarious and while I don't think that this happened, it's too early in the process to claim X is nothing.

The best way we can begin to analyze this is to take a look not only at the contract but also the specific text of the suit...and that's only a beginning. If the text of the suit does not mention anything other than Kapaernick's qualifications, then I'd feel even more strongly that he's off base. Beyond that there is an opportunity for uncovering evidence which may fold or go to collection and analysis of such data gotten by subpoena. We have to see what the next step and its result are.

 

[untermensche]

We have evidence of many fans and veterans who strongly support Mr. Kaepernick and feel you are being disrespectful to him.

They are going to "stop attending/watching your games, and will stop buying jerseys, etc."

How did you reach the decision as to which fans to follow?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The National Anthem, cheerleaders, commercials, and half time distract from football and if Kaepernick is a non-conformist during such events it is a distraction from the conformance of said event, not from football itself.

In your opinion. Which has no value in his arbitration hearing.

Here are the opinions that matter:

Arbitrator: "Why didn't your team sign Kaepernick?"

Owner #1: "Kneeling during the anthem is disrespctful."

Owner #2: "A poll of our fans showed that many of them would stop attending/watching our games, and would stop buying jerseys, etc."

Owner #3: "We think he sucks as a QB.

Owner #4: "He doesn't fit our offensive scheme."

Owner #5: " We already have a good starter and backup QB."

Owner #6: "We don't have enough salary cap space."

etc.

Case closed.

How is what you wrote relevant to the following?

And as far as Kaep, it is pretty clear why he is being passed over - his, in-uniform, on-the-clock behavior that distracts from "football".

His in-uniform on-the-clock behavior doesn't have to conform politically to ultra-nationalism--his contract doesn't say that.

 

[dismal]

THIS FORM OF ARGUMENT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT DEEMED EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IN THE AGREEMENT.

We will see.

There are lawyers who disagree.

If a group makes the same irrational decision all at once that is evidence of collusion.

If nobody in the company promotes the black man that is evidence of collusion.

And who knows? Kaerpernick may have witnesses to actual collusion.

No, it's pretty clearly stated:

Section 6. Burden of Proof: The failure by a Club or Clubs to negotiate, to submit
Offer Sheets, or to sign contracts with Restricted Free Agents or Transition Players, or
to negotiate, make offers, or sign contracts for the playing services of such players or
Unrestricted Free Agents, shall not, by itself or in combination only with evidence about
the playing skills of the player(s) not receiving any such offer or contract, satisfy the
burden of proof set forth in Section 1 above. However, any of the types of evidence
described in the preceding sentence may support a finding of a violation of Section 1 of
this Article, but only in combination with other evidence which, by itself or in combination
with such evidence, indicates that the challenged conduct was in violation of Section
1 of this Article.

You need other evidence besides 1) they didn't sign me and 2) they signed worse people to meet the burden of proof.

But you're right, maybe he does have other evidence. We just aren't aware of any.