Colin Kaepernick sits during national anthem

[n_huffhines]

It isn't any different than any other roster decision. Deshaun Watson has even more baggage than Kap, but the league's evaluation of his talent is much different than Kap's, so he's on a roster.

Rightly or wrongly, Kap is deemed to have significant baggage. Hence, he needs to bring something significant to the table in order to outweigh the baggage and make a roster. I think the beef you have with the whole Kap thing is that you don't think his baggage is significant as many NFL owners/FO people think it is, but the logic that drives the decision on whether or not to roster him is the same as any other player's.

It is different. Watson is accused of mistreating women and he would be the zillionth NFL player to have this sort of controversy and continue to play, and many of them have not been elite.

I promise you that far more people hate Kapernick than Watson. Watson's misdeeds barely even get a mention on VN and here we are on page 71 of just one of the threads that discuss Kapernick.

 

[05_never_again]

It is different. Watson is accused of mistreating women and he would be the zillionth NFL player to have this sort of controversy and continue to play, and many of them have not been elite.

I promise you that far more people hate Kapernick than Watson. Watson's misdeeds barely even get a mention on VN and here we are on page 71 of just one of the threads that discuss Kapernick.

That's because Kap touched on a political/culture war controversy. Far more people hate Kap than Watson because more people know about Kap than Watson. The Kap story received extensive coverage outside of sports media; Watson, not so much. It is worth nothing that Kap also has a large amount of defenders as well, something Watson doesn't have for obvious reasons.

It isn't different than any other roster decision because the principle remains the same. If your baggage outweighs what you bring to the table, regardless of what precisely the baggage is, it'll keep you off a roster. If Kap was a good to great player, he'd be on a roster. If Watson was a marginal player, he'd be out of the league. Simple.

Again, I think your beef with this situation isn't that Kap is subject to some kind of different logic regarding roster decisions; you just don't think the anthem kneeling should be as big or a bigger deal than something like Deshaun Watson allegedly mistreating women. And that's a totally reasonable opinion, something probably nobody else in this thread would say.

 

[BreatheUT]

The ship has sailed, but he was definitely good enough to play and he was definitely blackballed. Even if he's not a good starting QB, he was better than at least 2/3 of the guys on the bench. This is not debatable. He took his team to a SB. He was still fairly young. His stats in his final season were pretty solid, his team just really, really sucked. I mean, he was clearly better than the Blaine Gabbert on that same roster in the same situation, and BG is still in the NFL, just cashing checks as a truly terrible backup.

You see Mason Rudolph on an NFL roster as a 2nd stringer and really think that Kapernick wasn't good enough to be in the league? If you think that then you don't watch enough NFL.

What some of y'all don't get is you can't make someone hire you. It's just as dumb as saying who should own an NFL team. The one who bought it should own it. Not some make believe "he owns one but I don't" it's not fair doctrine. When one is up for sale, which is rare, people will have opportunities to bid on it.

 

[n_huffhines]

That's because Kap touched on a political/culture war controversy. Far more people hate Kap than Watson because more people know about Kap than Watson. The Kap story received extensive coverage outside of sports media; Watson, not so much. It is worth nothing that Kap also has a large amount of defenders as well, something Watson doesn't have for obvious reasons.

It isn't different than any other roster decision because the principle remains the same. If your baggage outweighs what you bring to the table, regardless of what precisely the baggage is, it'll keep you off a roster. If Kap was a good to great player, he'd be on a roster. If Watson was a marginal player, he'd be out of the league. Simple.

Again, I think your beef with this situation isn't that Kap is subject to some kind of different logic regarding roster decisions; you just don't think the anthem kneeling should be as big or a bigger deal than something like Deshaun Watson allegedly mistreating women. And that's a totally reasonable opinion, something probably nobody else in this thread would say.

Exactly. You're helping to support my point by explaining how this is different.

Bottom line is the NFL gets a tiny fraction of the negative publicity and hate from Watson vs. Kapernick. It's definitely different.

 

[Wireless1]

The ship has sailed, but he was definitely good enough to play and he was definitely blackballed. Even if he's not a good starting QB, he was better than at least 2/3 of the guys on the bench. This is not debatable. He took his team to a SB. He was still fairly young. His stats in his final season were pretty solid, his team just really, really sucked. I mean, he was clearly better than the Blaine Gabbert on that same roster in the same situation, and BG is still in the NFL, just cashing checks as a truly terrible backup.

You see Mason Rudolph on an NFL roster as a 2nd stringer and really think that Kapernick wasn't good enough to be in the league? If you think that then you don't watch enough NFL.

In Colin's mind he was a starter or wasn't going there, did he have the physical skills, absolutely, did he have aa winning team mind set and attitude, not even close. He went to the SB because the 49er's had a defense, not because he was picking apart defenses, and leading game winning drives. He is so representative of outstanding athletes who've been hyped and coddled all their lives and they believe their own pub, and throw a tantrum and quit when things don't go their way. When he lost the starting job to an inferior athlete at SF, rather than buckle down, get coached, and come back a winner, he chose to make it all about him being discriminated against. He's a quitter plain and simple.

 

[VolStrom]

.

 

[05_never_again]

Exactly. You're helping to support my point by explaining how this is different.

Bottom line is the NFL gets a tiny fraction of the negative publicity and hate from Watson vs. Kapernick. It's definitely different.

It. Isn't. Different. The principle is the same. I was trying to explain why people perceive Kap's baggage to be in excess of his talent, but whatever the specific baggage happens to be doesn't matter. If baggage > talent, then you don't have a roster spot. Watson, at least from a legal perspective, has different (and more) baggage than Kap, yet is a highly-sought after player. Why? Because in his equation, baggage < talent. Until the lawsuit situation went away last week, his baggage > talent, and that is why he wasn't playing. This is real simple. If Kap could do something (not sure what it would be at this point given how far down the road he is, but theoretically) so that his baggage < talent, then he'd be in the league.

Again, for the third time, your real beef with the Kap situation is that you think people are making too big a deal out of Kap's baggage, and that his baggage doesn't actually exceed his talent. The decision regarding his roster status isn't operating subject to some different standard or type of logic. It's a totally reasonable difference of opinion you have with the people who run the league, but it operates on exactly the same simple principle as any other player.

 

[n_huffhines]

In Colin's mind he was a starter or wasn't going there, did he have the physical skills, absolutely, did he have aa winning team mind set and attitude, not even close. He went to the SB because the 49er's had a defense, not because he was picking apart defenses, and leading game winning drives. He is so representative of outstanding athletes who've been hyped and coddled all their lives and they believe their own pub, and throw a tantrum and quit when things don't go their way. When he lost the starting job to an inferior athlete at SF, rather than buckle down, get coached, and come back a winner, he chose to make it all about him being discriminated against. He's a quitter plain and simple.

What are you basing this on?

The best part of the 49ers SB run was the defense, but make no mistake about it, the offense was good* and Kapernick's RPO ability unlocked it. They probably weren't going to make a SB run with Alex Smith, who was a good QB but couldn't get as much out of that team. Kapernick's 49ers averaged 34 ppg in that playoff and he had 1,050 yards and 7 TD's in 3 games.

*the perfect offense to accompany a strong defense. They ran the ball well, and it was largely based on the RPO.

 

[n_huffhines]

It. Isn't. Different. The principle is the same. I was trying to explain why people perceive Kap's baggage to be in excess of his talent, but whatever the specific baggage happens to be doesn't matter. If baggage > talent, then you don't have a roster spot. Watson, at least from a legal perspective, has different (and more) baggage than Kap, yet is a highly-sought after player. Why? Because in his equation, baggage < talent. Until the lawsuit situation went away last week, his baggage > talent, and that is why he wasn't playing. This is real simple. If Kap could do something (not sure what it would be at this point given how far down the road he is, but theoretically) so that his baggage < talent, then he'd be in the league.

Again, for the third time, your real beef with the Kap situation is that you think people are making too big a deal out of Kap's baggage, and that his baggage doesn't actually exceed his talent. The decision regarding his roster status isn't operating subject to some different standard or type of logic. It's a totally reasonable difference of opinion you have with the people who run the league, but it operates on exactly the same simple principle as any other player.

Apparently, you think the NFL is acting out of principle. I do not.

I think the NFL is predictably acting out of self-interest and distancing itself from a controversy that was too distasteful to them and/or bad for business.

Antonio Brown isn't even that good anymore and he has had all kinds of problems, including rape allegations, child abuse, etc...infinitely worse than protesting police brutality. But it's not about right and wrong. It's not about the principle of the matter. It's about how the public responds vs. what the player brings in terms of $ and wins.

 

[05_never_again]

Apparently, you think the NFL is acting out of principle. I do not.

I think the NFL is predictably acting out of self-interest and distancing itself from a controversy that was too distasteful to them and/or bad for business.

Antonio Brown isn't even that good anymore and he has had all kinds of problems, including rape allegations, child abuse, etc...infinitely worse than protesting police brutality. But it's not about right and wrong. It's not about the principle of the matter. It's about how the public responds vs. what the player brings in terms of $ and wins.

I completely agree with everything you just said. A principle can be amoral; it's simply a rule used to govern what to do in a situation. The "if baggage < talent = roster spot" principle is certainly an amoral one driven entirely by self-interest. It essentially says great players can get away with a lot, but marginal players can get away with very little or perhaps nothing at all. There's nothing virtuous about it.

Now, debates can be had about a player's particular situation and whether or not their baggage > talent. You mentioned AB. Personally, I think for the last few years AB's baggage > talent yet he repeatedly found himself on teams. I am also surprised at how quickly Watson was courted by teams once the possibility of criminal suits went away. Aside from the obvious moral concerns (you're right, the NFL doesn't really care about those) he still could be theoretically suspended by the league for a significant period of time. However, that doesn't seem to have damped the market for him.

The people making those decisions have assessed them differently than I would have, but there's almost no doubt they were assessing them against that principle.

 

[n_huffhines]

I completely agree with everything you just said. A principle can be amoral; it's simply a rule used to govern what to do in a situation. The "if baggage < talent = roster spot" principle is certainly an amoral one driven entirely by self-interest. It essentially says great players can get away with a lot, but marginal players can get away with very little or perhaps nothing at all. There's nothing virtuous about it.

Now, debates can be had about a player's particular situation and whether or not their baggage > talent. You mentioned AB. Personally, I think for the last few years AB's baggage > talent yet he repeatedly found himself on teams. I am also surprised at how quickly Watson was courted by teams once the possibility of criminal suits went away. Aside from the obvious moral concerns (you're right, the NFL doesn't really care about those) he still could be theoretically suspended by the league for a significant period of time. However, that doesn't seem to have damped the market for him.

The people making those decisions have assessed them differently than I would have, but there's almost no doubt they were assessing them against that principle.

OK, all of this is fine, but I was having a hard time understanding your original point. I re-read it and it's clear that you didn't understand where I'm coming from.

"I think the beef you have with the whole Kap thing is that you don't think his baggage is significant as many NFL owners/FO people think it is "

I don't disagree that the baggage isn't worth it. All I've said is he's definitely good enough to make the NFL and that he's been excluded because he is too controversial, which is something the NFL would never admit, but we all know it's true.

So when you say "it's no different than Watson", I didn't really get what you meant. Now I do, and you're not wrong, but it doesn't really relate to the point I'm making. The point is just that the NFL shut him out because of his views.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Anyone who would actually pay Kaepernik to play football would instantly become a fool. Besides the public relations disaster, Kaepernik has not played football in about 1,905 days.

 

[n_huffhines]

Anyone who would actually pay Kaepernik to play football would instantly become a fool. Besides the public relations disaster, Kaepernik has not played football in about 1,905 days.

You got a digital clock over your bed counting the days?

 

[Franklin Pierce]

You got a digital clock over your bed counting the days?

On my laptop.

 

[05_never_again]

OK, all of this is fine, but I was having a hard time understanding your original point. I re-read it and it's clear that you didn't understand where I'm coming from.

"I think the beef you have with the whole Kap thing is that you don't think his baggage is significant as many NFL owners/FO people think it is "

I don't disagree that the baggage isn't worth it. All I've said is he's definitely good enough to make the NFL and that he's been excluded because he is too controversial, which is something the NFL would never admit, but we all know it's true.

So when you say "it's no different than Watson", I didn't really get what you meant. Now I do, and you're not wrong, but it doesn't really relate to the point I'm making. The point is just that the NFL shut him out because of his views.

I think that is the point of disagreement, and it is a relatively minor one. I agree with you that purely on talent, he's good enough at least to have a backup QB spot in the league. But that is assessing just the talent side of the equation; any NFL team is going to assess the talent he brings to the table against the problems he brings to the table. He was assessed against that principle, not his politics in and of itself.

The league didn't shut him out because of his views per se. They shut him out because he created a situation where his baggage > talent. There are guys in the league with even bigger baggage than Kap, but are in the league. That's because there is more on their "talent" side of the equation (relative to their baggage) to the point where their talent exceeds their baggage.

If Kap was a great player, he could hold the identical views he holds and he'd still be in the league. Hence why I say I don't think it is entirely accurate to say he was shut out because of his views. Rightly or wrongly, weighing in on battles in the culture wars is more controversial than alleged sexual misconduct, and he isn't talented enough to overcome it.

 

[Wireless1]

I think that is the point of disagreement, and it is a relatively minor one. I agree with you that purely on talent, he's good enough at least to have a backup QB spot in the league. But that is assessing just the talent side of the equation; any NFL team is going to assess the talent he brings to the table against the problems he brings to the table. He was assessed against that principle, not his politics in and of itself.

The league didn't shut him out because of his views per se. They shut him out because he created a situation where his baggage > talent. There are guys in the league with even bigger baggage than Kap, but are in the league. That's because there is more on their "talent" side of the equation (relative to their baggage) to the point where their talent exceeds their baggage.

If Kap was a great player, he could hold the identical views he holds and he'd still be in the league. Hence why I say I don't think it is entirely accurate to say he was shut out because of his views. Rightly or wrongly, weighing in on battles in the culture wars is more controversial than alleged sexual misconduct, and he isn't talented enough to overcome it.

See LeBron James

 

[05_never_again]

See LeBron James

LeBron is in a little different spot, because unlike in the NFL his politics are more warmly received by NBA fans. In an NBA context, I don't really think LeBron's politics are "baggage" at all.

But to your point, yes, LeBron would be able to overcome insane amounts of baggage and remain in the league because of his talent.

 

[apevol]

LeBron is in a little different spot, because unlike in the NFL his politics are more warmly received by NBA fans. In an NBA context, I don't really think LeBron's politics are "baggage" at all.

But to your point, yes, LeBron would be able to overcome insane amounts of baggage and remain in the league because of his talent.

your username has me cracking up

 

[05_never_again]

your username has me cracking up

I've thought about changing it due to its inapplicability, but too far gone now.

 

[apevol]

I've thought about changing it due to its inapplicability, but too far gone now.

Let it remain as a testament to "if we only knew"

 

[05_never_again]

Let it remain as a testament to "if we only knew"

I guess I can still couch it by saying we've never had a season that missed expectations so badly since 2005. I still haven't been as disappointed by a season as much as 2005. But obviously we've had seasons that were even worse since then

 

[apevol]

I guess I can still couch it by saying we've never had a season that missed expectations so badly since 2005. I still haven't been as disappointed by a season as much as 2005. But obviously we've had seasons that were even worse since then

Fulmer's propoganda machine was blowing sparks out both sides that year.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think that is the point of disagreement, and it is a relatively minor one. I agree with you that purely on talent, he's good enough at least to have a backup QB spot in the league. But that is assessing just the talent side of the equation; any NFL team is going to assess the talent he brings to the table against the problems he brings to the table. He was assessed against that principle, not his politics in and of itself.

The league didn't shut him out because of his views per se. They shut him out because he created a situation where his baggage > talent. There are guys in the league with even bigger baggage than Kap, but are in the league. That's because there is more on their "talent" side of the equation (relative to their baggage) to the point where their talent exceeds their baggage.

If Kap was a great player, he could hold the identical views he holds and he'd still be in the league. Hence why I say I don't think it is entirely accurate to say he was shut out because of his views. Rightly or wrongly, weighing in on battles in the culture wars is more controversial than alleged sexual misconduct, and he isn't talented enough to overcome it.

Are you kidding me right now?

So if I said "The NFL shut Watson out last year because he's a sexual predator" you would respond:

The league didn't shut him out because he's a sexual predator per se. They shut him out because he created a situation where his baggage > talent.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That's exactly what I'm saying. He was probably good enough to make every roster, but he didn't make any roster because he was too controversial.

Self inflicted.

He's an idiot.

 

[05_never_again]

Are you kidding me right now?

So if I said "The NFL shut Watson out last year because he's a sexual predator" you would respond:

The league didn't shut him out because he's a sexual predator per se. They shut him out because he created a situation where his baggage > talent.

Yes. The are plenty of instances where guys have done very similar things yet some are shut out, others given another opportunity.