No he did have great numbers.
In the 2012-2013 seasons.
Oh wait, this is 2017 now? Oh never mind.
He had better numbers than some other QBs who got jobs as backups.
Is Colin Kaepernick better than Tom Brady? No.
Is Colin Kaepernick better than C.J. Beathard or Christian Hackenberg or Cody Kessler or Matt Moore or Davis Webb? Of course he is. Anybody who claims otherwise is making up their facts.
But those guys all have jobs as quarterbacks in the NFL and Kaepernick doesn’t.
Does anyone care anymore about american football, seems like something dyeing on the vine. This just an example, r do we need to still need to resort to the roman colosseum model to keep america (the united states of), together.
Let’s see - Christian Hackenberg gets about $1M/year. Cody Kessler about 850K/year. Kaepernic had a $18M/year contract with SF.
I am pretty sure teams would sign up Kaepernic for $1M/year. Do you think he’d agree?
According to Slate, the NFL is going to consider a change to its ‘Operations Manual’ to require players to stand for the anthem. If this goes through, and players go along with it, I’m just done. Bending over backwards to support the worst elements in our society is not the way the league should be going, even if Jerry Jones is one of them.
Cowboys, now is a good chance to show you have some backbone.
[url=]AP story about that, too, Do Not Taunt.
“Ask”? :dubious:
A request that cannot be freely denied is not a request; it’s a demand. Trump didn’t “request” that players stand, he demanded it. And I doubt that the NFL, if they revise or re-write their policy, will “ask” that players do something, either.
As I said in the other thread the Seahawks really liked him but he cost too much. Austin Davis is their backup, and he’s okay as a backup but Colin is overall better, has experience taking a team to the SB, and his running style is a good fit. But Austin took the veteran minimum which should be what Kessler is getting above.
Most teams don’t want to waste cap space on a player that you’re expecting (and hoping!) to never see the field outside of garbage time.
Kaepernick’s biggest problem is he’s too good to be a backup but not good enough to be a starter so he doesn’t really fit anywhere.
Four of the top ten most watched shows on TV last week were NFL games. Sunday Night Football was watched more than any TV show not featuring the character Sheldon Cooper.
I will not be happy if the NFL passes that new rule, but I will still watch.
This is an interesting point.
Of course, even standing for the anthem the players can still make gestures.
Heck, I even remember some standup comedian in the late 80s or early 90s that used to joke about baseball players spitting or adjusting their jock during the national anthem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course he would. Why wouldn’t he? It’s a million dollars a year more than he’s getting paid right now and it’s a chance to do a job he’s interested in doing.
I assume if the rule passes, they’ll just switch to the fist in the air like the '68 Olympics (which some NFL players are already doing).
I wouldn’t be so sure. He might have too much pride to take so little.
Speaking of Kaepernick, I **love **this Eminem clip he just passed along on Twitter:
Re: new proposals by the league
The NFL owners assume that 45-65 year-old white males are their audience and that they’d be advised not to upset them. They’re basing their decisions because apparently the advertisers are worried about declining ratings, though in reality ratings have plateaued since about 2015 and it has nothing to do with controversy in sports. Moreover, in the opening weeks of NFL it’s competing with MLB playoffs, the start of the NHL and NBA seasons, and even college football for attention, even if they’re not on the same days.
Just as their decision to collectively blackball Kaepernick backfired, this, too, will probably backfire. This is probably the most important time for black athletes in professional sports (and for black people in general) since the 1960s. This era - the Trump era - represents the greatest and most visible threat to their standing in society since the end of the civil rights era, and they know it. Some individual athletes might be bought off more easily than others, but my guess is that there are too many voices to try and shut down. Trying to shut them up is only going to make it more obvious that the threat to their standing in society is real - perhaps even more real than they initially imagined. The protests will continue one way or the other, and the more that owners, advertisers, and entitled fans try to shut them out, the stronger and more visible the resistance will become.
The owners made the right move when they pushed back against Trump’s comments. They didn’t necessarily have to push back against Trump or his presidency, but they needed to stand with their players’ cause and their rights to protest, not because it’s popular with advertisers or some of their audience, but because it’s morally the right thing to do, and that was a lesson that the generations born in the 1960s and after were supposed to understand. They should continue to support basic civil rights - owners cannot tout their players’ involvement in their communities on one hand and then discourage players from speaking out against racism and inequality in their communities on the other. The smart play would be to try to stay neutral with regard to individual political candidates and to try to stay neutral on the issues, and then have an open dialogue with players about the best way to compromise on some of these issues. But just shoving a rule down their throats is probably not the right approach, and we’ll probably see that in time.
Going back to the economics of the sport, white men having a midlife crisis might be their target demographic now but it’s changing. More women are following football - hell I know women with fantasy football leagues. People of color watch football. The NFL is presumably trying to market to Latinos and has games in Mexico City every summer. It would probably not be a smart move to side with Trumpism for short term game, and by trying to mute the protests that’s what they’re doing, whether it’s intended or not. The NFL is saying, Trumpian fans are more valuable to us than the rest, and that’s a message that could haunt them for decades. America will, I hope, eventually outgrow Trump. But they will also have long memories.
You’ll need to ask him why he wouldn’t, because he wouldn’t.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/nfl/seattle-seahawks/seahawks-insider-blog/article154162614.html
Baltimore had concerns about controversy, rather than money.
Ray Lewis infamously claimed that a racist tweet from Colin’s girlfriend was the decider, it was too much for the team. The team itself never officially confirmed or denied that from what I see.
Clearly the controversy surrounding him has hurt his chances, but he’d be signed to a team if he was willing to take the minimum.
That’s interesting. I am less convinced now that he has been blackballed.
I’m also unconvinced by the assertion that the protests are not hurting the league’s television audience. I think they probably are taking a hit. Particularly for games that do not feature people’s hometown team. That doesn’t mean I think the league should adopt this rule just to kowtow to a bunch of right wing whiners. But with billions of dollars on the line, it certainly heightens the pressure all around.
And I wouldn’t count on player solidarity lasting forever. There are a lot of black players who have never had any problem standing for the pledge, and if they see the salary cap fail to grow the way it has in recent years, they may get pissed off at the people who are kneeling, or at least quietly support a rule change.
You have an interesting interpretation of those reports. None of those reports say that teams offered Kaepernick a contract. And you see that as evidence that teams are offering Kaepernick contracts and he’s turning them down. I, on the other hand, see them as evidence that teams aren’t offering Kaepernick contracts.
What I would do to see Dak and Zeke kneel. The players that are currently kneeling or otherwise aren’t going to stop. They knew there was a chance of not having a job when Kaepernick was still sitting at home at the start of the season. These aren’t all rookies and nobodies that are kneeling, some of these are Pro Bowl caliber players. The NFL may change the rules, but they’re going to have to enforce those. Given how the entire thing started with a government mandate that the players stand, I can’t imagine the ACLU doesn’t already have a brief outlined and ready to file the first time a player is punished under the new Operations Manual.
You might be right that the protests are having an effect on ratings, but I see two major problems with responding to it by rule change (not including the fact that it’s a moral error): any effects the protests are having are tough to disentangle from other problems the NFL has (CTE scandal, perceived lower quality of product on field, lots of other entertainment options) and probably fairly marginal and two, the horse is somewhat out of the barn already on this. If you actively change the rule to forbid these protests, you’re not only going to piss off the players who have a social conscience, but also fans on the other side. The NFL may think its fanbase is oafish, middle-aged white men, but my social circle has a lot of liberals and NFL fans. They’re already feeling guilty enjoying the sport because of CTE - you really want to push them over the edge?
I hope the “you” wasn’t directed at me, because I oppose the rule change. I was actually way ahead of my time, it seems, as I was the only student at my large high school who refused to stand for the Pledge at assemblies nearly 30 years ago–even though the nearest teacher got infuriated with me. (My reasoning was different: I would have stood had they removed the “Under God” part Ike added.)
You mean in the sentence starting with, “You might be right that the protests are having an effect on ratings?” Because, yes, I meant you, SlackerInc, but I don’t think I was suggesting that you supported the rule change. If you meant the sentence starting, “If you actively change the rule to forbid these protests,” then, no, I meant ‘you’ as a generic ‘you’, not you specifically. Apologies for the non-clarity.