I did mean the latter; but no worries! 
Maybe it’ll help to quote from the article rather than just link to it.
*Carroll refused to comment on contract specifics the team discussed with Kaepernick, a starter the last five years for San Francisco.
He didn’t have to comment. The inference was clear: Seattle was offering minimum, backup money for a 29-year-old veteran of the game’s biggest stage that thinks he’s worthy of more starter-like money – if not a starting job in the league.
There is, of course, more to it with Kaepernick.
Seattle is the only team known to be even remotely interested in signing him. So his desire to accept or reject whatever the Seahawks offered him in the lower range of QB salaries – say, less than $3 million per year – was always going to be the determinant as to whether he signed here. When he didn’t, the Seahawks kept shopping for backups that would fit their price. They still are shopping.*
They later signed Austin Davis for the veteran minimum as the backup QB. This doesn’t take much “interpretation”.
Bad link. It doesn’t lead anywhere. There’s no URL.
Cite?
Yes they did but not for the reasons you state.
The owners were not taking a stand on police brutality, they were taking a stand on government censorship and incursion into first amendment rights.
You are conflating anti-Trump and pro-BLM.
Pete Carroll “refused to comment”. Gregg Bell, the guy who wrote the article, then “inferred” that there had been a contract offer. Unless Bell is claiming he was in the room, he’s just guessing. You and I are as entitled to make guesses as Bell is.
Here’s an article from somebody who’s also relying on anonymous sources and his anonymous source is telling him there was no offer.
Even Colin Kaepernick must realize now that he failed completely in what he was trying to accomplish.
If his goal was to raise awareness of police brutality, he failed. His issue has been lost. And he should have realized that was bound to happen. Disrespecting the flag and the anthem can’t and won’t win the sympathy of any white fans. All it can do is tick them off.
What MIGHT have worked better? Well, just to give one example… I teach at an affluent mostly white school. The kids are mostly great, but sheltered from a lot of life’s realities. So,last Spring, during my Government class, I had our African-American principal talk for a bit about his personal experiences with the police. Understand that our principal is a very preppie, yuppie kind of man- there is NO way anyone could look at him and fear that he’s a thug. And he got to talk to the kids about times he has been pulled over on the way to work for “driving While Black.”
I got to tell the kids about my son’s best friend, a black kid who just got “The Talk” from his Mom (not the Birds and the Bees talk, the one about how to act when a cop pulls you over).
Decent white kids don’t hear or know about such stories, and it makes a difference when they hear them. If Colin Kaepernick had rallied some other popular black players and told them, “We need to start sharing our stories,” they might have accomplished something.If DeShaun Watson could tell Dan Patrick about times he’s been stopped and hassled needlessly by security guards at the mall… if Russell Wilson could tell Bob Costas about times cops have pulled him over for NO reason (and then begged for an autograph after seeing who he was), he might open some eyes and ears.
Bu disrespecting the flag DOESN’T make anyone listen. It just makes them mad. And why would that be surprising?
You’ve unfortunately bought the reactive spin that kneelers are disrespecting the flag, rather than showing it more thoughtful respect than those who are merely going through the motions if at all. You might do better to ask your newly-woke students why they think kneelers are kneeling, and go on to tie that into the police (and other) daily racism they now know about.
Carroll said that the issue was that Colin should be a starter and the Hawks don’t need a starter. I don’t see how that could mean anything but money. Any team would be happy to have a starter-quality player as a backup taking backup money because if your starter misses time you can play another starter. The only reason you wouldn’t do that is if that backup doesn’t want backup money.
So either he was too expensive or Carroll was lying. I’ll trust Carroll over an anonymous source. I’ll note that your article directly mentioned Carroll’s comments to show how their source contradicts them.
If you insist that you don’t believe an offer was ever made until someone comes out and says it… Okay. Believe what you want. There’s a lot left unsaid in press conferences because there are political reasons to not be so direct, and if you never want to infer anything you’re going to have to ignore a lot of information coming out of them. Bottom line is that it clearly came down to money. Seattle would be the last team to care about Colin’s controversy (which seems to be why they were the only team who would have taken him at the right price); they already have very outspoken players who stir controversy and they don’t care much since it doesn’t affect the game itself.
Or if he pouts so much about not starting or not getting a starter’s contract that it just isn’t worth the hit to team morale and management patience.
Maybe the Seahawks tried to convince him to do it and couldn’t convince him he just isn’t good enough to beat out Wilson, maybe that included an offer or not, it doesn’t matter. If he wants to be given a starter’s job with a contender, it isn’t going to happen.
That’s possible but I don’t think he’s deluded enough to try out for Seattle with the idea that he’s taking Russell’s job. Maybe I’m wrong but I’d give him that much credit.
Serious question: regardless of politics, does ANYBODY believe there are 32 better quarterbacks in the NFL than Kaepernick?
EVen if there WERE in week 1 (debatable), there sure aren’t NOW.
But there’s the question of whether his style of play fits the schemes in place in any of the teams with QBs worse than him.
That explains why this or that team shunned him. But all 32?
I don’t especially like the guy or approve of his actions, but it’s still hard to imagine that NOBODY could use him. Not even teams as desperate as, say, the Browns.
Then tell us what team he would be a good fit on. Make your case.
As I said, taking a stand on the players’ right to protest, whatever it is they might be protesting.
In any case, the owners and the NFL have repeatedly mishandled the situation, and it looks like they’re about to do more of the same.
I’m curious what you mean by this. While I agree that the owners seem poised to completely mishandle the situation, and Jerry Jones’s recent statements have been loathsome, I don’t see much else the NFL and owners have done so far to mishandle the situation, other than the implied lockout of Kaepernick. Are there other events I’ve missed?
Yes, most of the 32 are ruled out to begin with because they already have a QB they think is better than Kaepernick looked last year. And then you get into the issues of the schemes that fit him. I think Seattle is one of the few that runs such.
I think Carolina might be a good one, because they have a running QB already. Now, it’s not the same because Cam Newton runs through people like a running back and Colin Kaepernick runs away/around like a wide receiver, but I bet a lot of the “QB keep” schemes the Panthers have will work with Colin.
But I can’t see a team in North Carolina having fans who’d be happy to see him on the team. NC is a lovely place and I visit once a year on average (I have family there) but it’s the South, and a part of the South that’s unlikely to be very sympathetic to his views. So I wouldn’t be shocked if they passed on him for political reasons.
I grew up in NC, and it’s a very divided state that’s had a huge influx of educated progressives from the Northeast, New York in particular (a longtime friend of mine who moved there last year is one RL example). But I’d say you’re right about the Panthers for a simpler reason: their owner has already seemed to be the most hostile to protesting players of any of the 32 owners. So although he reluctantly issued his lukewarm support after some of his star players pressured him, the chance that he would entertain the idea of signing the player who “started all the trouble” is approximately zero.
I don’t get ESPN where I live, but I assume their reporters still interview players. Do the reporters ask “Why do you kneel?” and the players answer that they’d rather talk about football?
Or is it the other way around?