|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 29, 2017 7:34:12 GMT -5
Sincere question. Are they punishing him for his views because they disagree, or are they protecting their brand by not wanting to take on a controversial player that will bring unwanted attention? Doesn't have to be an either or answer, or that one is better than the other, but I think there's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 29, 2017 7:52:19 GMT -5
I don't think one can rightly say, because the answer may not be the same for everyone.
But imo, no one is punishing him at all. It's just a simple calculation: is Kaepernick worth signing? Do his skills on the football field warrant it, given the fact that he's made himself a lightning rod for controversy (he's had some help there, to be sure)? Seems to me most every GM is saying "no." Tough break for Kaepernick, as I think he might very well have more talent than many other QBs, especially those riding benches. But he's an adult. He's almost 30 years old, for pete's sake. He chose his own course, as is his right. But it's also the right of teams to ignore him. Because he has no right to play in the NFL. He just doesn't. This isn't an unfair situation, at all. It's choices people are making, all of which are perfectly allowable.
People want to turn off their TVs because Kaepernick isn't playing on Sunday? They're free to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 29, 2017 10:03:11 GMT -5
Between those on the right burning season tickets because players aren't goosestepping with sufficient patriotic nationalism and those on the left cancelling their TV coverage because Kaepernick is out of work (not to mention ESPN's woes), there is a very important lesson. Mix entertainment with politics and it's possible to piss everybody off.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 29, 2017 10:08:58 GMT -5
An interesting thought experiment. Compare and contrast the protests on the job committed by Colin Kaepernick and Kim Davis. I see Davis' actions the more egregious of the two, but I'm amazed at how many conservatives disagree.
One's relative support for the two cases could be instructive in ferreting out one's biases, if one were so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 29, 2017 10:57:13 GMT -5
An interesting thought experiment. Compare and contrast the protests on the job committed by Colin Kaepernick and Kim Davis. I see Davis' actions the more egregious of the two, but I'm amazed at how many conservatives disagree. One's relative support for the two cases could be instructive in ferreting out one's biases, if one were so inclined. Uh, this is news? Conservatives are biased in favor of conservative causes, liberals are biased in favor of liberal causes? I think Rob's claim that Kaepernik isn't being signed because he's a lightning rod for controversy has kind of been eclipsed by recent events, since it seems like half the NFL is now a lightning rod for controversy. But I think originally, yes, he was definitely being punished. It wasn't just "Oh, he's so controversial, we don't want the bad PR." See: apparently non-controversial NFL players who torture dogs and beat their girlfriends.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 29, 2017 11:55:12 GMT -5
Sincere question. Are they punishing him for his views because they disagree, or are they protecting their brand by not wanting to take on a controversial player that will bring unwanted attention? Doesn't have to be an either or answer, or that one is better than the other, but I think there's a difference. I don't think one can rightly say, because the answer may not be the same for everyone. But imo, no one is punishing him at all. It's just a simple calculation: is Kaepernick worth signing? Do his skills on the football field warrant it, given the fact that he's made himself a lightning rod for controversy (he's had some help there, to be sure)? Seems to me most every GM is saying "no." Tough break for Kaepernick, as I think he might very well have more talent than many other QBs, especially those riding benches. But he's an adult. He's almost 30 years old, for pete's sake. He chose his own course, as is his right. But it's also the right of teams to ignore him. Because he has no right to play in the NFL. He just doesn't. This isn't an unfair situation, at all. It's choices people are making, all of which are perfectly allowable. This is a calculation, all right. But there's nothing simple about it. Is Colin Kaepernick worth signing? Do his skills on the field warrant it? Yes, and yes, again. He belongs and NFL players, NFL coaches, and NFL general managers have said he does. The NFL owners say he doesn't. Among them are seven owners who are losing with terrible quarterbacks, but they gave Donald Trump money. The same Donald Trump whose race-baiting histrionics has whipped this issue off the backburner and onto a high boil. When a young man is denied a fair opportunity to compete for a job his past performance indicates he can excel at, that is unfair. You keep saying Kaepernick is 30 years old. So and what? Tom Brady, Patriots, 40. Drew Brees, Saints, 38. Carson Palmer, Cardinals, 37. Eli Manning, Giants, 36. Philip Rivers, Chargers, 35. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers, 35. Aaron Rodgers, Packers, 33. Alex Smith, Chiefs, 32. Kaepernick turns 30 on November 3. Only the conveniently myopic and the deliberately obtuse can say with a straight face Kap's continued unemployment is due to his play instead of his politics. It is unfair. It is punishment. It is being blackballed. There's no formal memo with Roger Goodell's signature on it saying, "Don't sign that guy. He's a bad one." There doesn't have to be that kind of specificity to accomplish the desired goal.Yet here you are insisting this is all just an innocent coincidence and nobody's consciously acting out of purposeful malice to deny Kaepernick a job. Utter and complete rubbish. The NFL is making an example of Kaepernick and the White owners and showing the Black players they aren't afraid of them as Race-Baiter-In-Chief taunted them. The Jerry Jones and Woody Johnsons of the league aren't afraid. They're terrified of what might happen if their athletes should get an urge to become activists.. Stay in your lane. Don't get mouthy and sassy. Most of all, don't get uppity like Colin did or you'll get what he got. Know your place, boy.I'm not trying to convince you of the reality, but that's not going to change the reality the NFL banned Colin Kaepernick for not staying in his lane and giving a damn about cops getting away with murder. An unforgivable sin. "It doesn't really matter if it's collusion or culture," says sociologist Harry Edwards, "but you cannot have people [in the NFL] associated with double murders, dog fighting, rape, drug use, vehicular manslaughter and violence against women, from owners all the way down to rookie players ... [and] a man who takes a knee and says we can be better [as a society], cannot even be given a chance to compete for a roster spot."If only Kap had killed some dogs, smoked some kush, walked around strapped, yo, or beat up some baby mamas. Why, he'd be as right as rain!
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 29, 2017 12:31:58 GMT -5
An interesting thought experiment. Compare and contrast the protests on the job committed by Colin Kaepernick and Kim Davis. I see Davis' actions the more egregious of the two, but I'm amazed at how many conservatives disagree. One's relative support for the two cases could be instructive in ferreting out one's biases, if one were so inclined. Kim Davis was refusing to do an integral part of her job based on her own view. Forget about if her view is justified or bigoted. She wasn't being asked to approve and endorse same sex marriages, just do they meet the legal requirements. If a Catholic did the same, refusing a marriage license for someone who was divorced, they'd be fired.
Kaepernick still played football and did his best. (I assume. I don't watch much football, usually only big games and if my daughter is there and only the Giants.)
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 29, 2017 12:35:35 GMT -5
Sincere question. Are they punishing him for his views because they disagree, or are they protecting their brand by not wanting to take on a controversial player that will bring unwanted attention? Doesn't have to be an either or answer, or that one is better than the other, but I think there's a difference. I don't think one can rightly say, because the answer may not be the same for everyone. But imo, no one is punishing him at all. It's just a simple calculation: is Kaepernick worth signing? Do his skills on the football field warrant it, given the fact that he's made himself a lightning rod for controversy (he's had some help there, to be sure)? Seems to me most every GM is saying "no." Tough break for Kaepernick, as I think he might very well have more talent than many other QBs, especially those riding benches. But he's an adult. He's almost 30 years old, for pete's sake. He chose his own course, as is his right. But it's also the right of teams to ignore him. Because he has no right to play in the NFL. He just doesn't. This isn't an unfair situation, at all. It's choices people are making, all of which are perfectly allowable. This is a calculation, all right. But there's nothing simple about it. Is Colin Kaepernick worth signing? Do his skills on the field warrant it? Yes, and yes, again. He belongs and NFL players, NFL coaches, and NFL general managers have said he does. The NFL owners say he doesn't. Among them are seven owners who are losing with terrible quarterbacks, but they gave Donald Trump money. The same Donald Trump whose race-baiting histrionics has whipped this issue off the backburner and onto a high boil. When a young man is denied a fair opportunity to compete for a job his past performance indicates he can excel at, that is unfair. You keep saying Kaepernick is 30 years old. So and what? Tom Brady, Patriots, 40. Drew Brees, Saints, 38. Carson Palmer, Cardinals, 37. Eli Manning, Giants, 36. Philip Rivers, Chargers, 35. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers, 35. Aaron Rodgers, Packers, 33. Alex Smith, Chiefs, 32. Kaepernick turns 30 on November 3. Only the conveniently myopic and the deliberately obtuse can say with a straight face Kap's continued unemployment is due to his play instead of his politics. It is unfair. It is punishment. It is being blackballed. There's no formal memo with Roger Goodell's signature on it saying, "Don't sign that guy. He's a bad one." There doesn't have to be that kind of specificity to accomplish the desired goal.Yet here you are insisting this is all just an innocent coincidence and nobody's consciously acting out of purposeful malice to deny Kaepernick a job. Utter and complete rubbish. The NFL is making an example of Kaepernick and the White owners and showing the Black players they aren't afraid of them as Race-Baiter-In-Chief taunted them. The Jerry Jones and Woody Johnsons of the league aren't afraid. They're terrified of what might happen if their athletes should get an urge to become activists.. Stay in your lane. Don't get mouthy and sassy. Most of all, don't get uppity like Colin did or you'll get what he got. Know your place, boy.I'm not trying to convince you of the reality, but that's not going to change the reality the NFL banned Colin Kaepernick for not staying in his lane and giving a damn about cops getting away with murder. An unforgivable sin. "It doesn't really matter if it's collusion or culture," says sociologist Harry Edwards, "but you cannot have people [in the NFL] associated with double murders, dog fighting, rape, drug use, vehicular manslaughter and violence against women, from owners all the way down to rookie players ... [and] a man who takes a knee and says we can be better [as a society], cannot even be given a chance to compete for a roster spot."If only Kap had killed some dogs, smoked some kush, walked around strapped, yo, or beat up some baby mamas. Why, he'd be as right as rain! There's no doubt some heavy hypocrisy on the part of the NFL.
Having said that, if a football player needs a team to play, and he's say a difficult personality, that factors in to whether a team hires him or not. NFL teams are in a bind. Hire him, a large part of your audience hates you. Don't, you're racist.
That says more about the state of American discourse than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 29, 2017 13:45:44 GMT -5
I think Rob's claim that Kaepernik isn't being signed because he's a lightning rod for controversy has kind of been eclipsed by recent events, since it seems like half the NFL is now a lightning rod for controversy. But I think originally, yes, he was definitely being punished. It wasn't just "Oh, he's so controversial, we don't want the bad PR." See: apparently non-controversial NFL players who torture dogs and beat their girlfriends. You've referenced Vick and I think that is a good comparison to some degree, but maybe not in the way you are supposing. When Vick plead guilty to the dogfighting stuff, the NFL suspended him indefinitely and his sponsors all deserted him. The Falcons forced Vick to pay back millions (almost $20 millon in fact) from his signing bonus, then ultimately released him outright, as opposed to trading him, because no other teams wanted the rights to him. It's true that the Eagles ultimately rolled the dice and signed Vick to a one-year deal when he got out of jail (after Goodell reinstated him), but I recall them catching a lot of heat for that (so did Goodell). So let's not pretend that Vick was "non-controversial," that his illegal activities were simply ignored and that NFL owners and managers were willing to sign him without a second thought. Of course, what Vick did was illegal; not so for Kaepernick. But then Kaepernick hasn't been suspended or the like, either. Still, Kaepernick is also not the player Vick was (and never will be). So that's necessarily a part of the calculation, as well. Hey, I don't have a vested interest here. I have no problem with Kaepernick playing. But I'm not the one who has to deal with any consequences that may arise from that; I'm not the one tasked with signing players for an NFL team.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 29, 2017 15:27:29 GMT -5
it could really be that many teams have no issue with him, would take him otherwise, but don't want their ticket sales to plummet. It's a business decision. Think of that what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 29, 2017 15:27:46 GMT -5
Or, I should say, that plays into it at the least.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 29, 2017 15:37:57 GMT -5
Exactly. There are multiple concerns, I think. And again, it's certainly plausible that a need for "punishment" is one of those concerns in some cases.
But apart from ticket sales, there's also whether or not a given team has any use for Kaepernick's services. Some certainly don't. For those that might, things like fan response and ticket sales are possible concerns, along with what the GMs and coaches think about Kaepernick, what his talent level is, how he would fit in to what they want to do, and so on.
So again, imo a calculation is being made here and it's not working out for Kaepernick right now. That could of course change at any moment.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 29, 2017 15:55:59 GMT -5
You've referenced Vick and I think that is a good comparison to some degree, but maybe not in the way you are supposing. When Vick plead guilty to the dogfighting stuff, the NFL suspended him indefinitely and his sponsors all deserted him. The Falcons forced Vick to pay back millions (almost $20 millon in fact) from his signing bonus, then ultimately released him outright, as opposed to trading him, because no other teams wanted the rights to him. It's true that the Eagles ultimately rolled the dice and signed Vick to a one-year deal when he got out of jail (after Goodell reinstated him), but I recall them catching a lot of heat for that (so did Goodell). So let's not pretend that Vick was "non-controversial," that his illegal activities were simply ignored and that NFL owners and managers were willing to sign him without a second thought. Of course, what Vick did was illegal; not so for Kaepernick. But then Kaepernick hasn't been suspended or the like, either. Still, Kaepernick is also not the player Vick was (and never will be). So that's necessarily a part of the calculation, as well. Hey, I don't have a vested interest here. I have no problem with Kaepernick playing. But I'm not the one who has to deal with any consequences that may arise from that; I'm not the one tasked with signing players for an NFL team. I was being a little flippant, as the guys who beat their girlfriends were also "controversial" (or else we'd never have heard about it). But the point is that they still played. Even Vick. I don't even follow football, so I don't know how good a player Kaepernick is or isn't. But unless he really sucks (which from what I've read, he doesn't), the fact that a guy whose "crime" was a few minutes of perfectly legal if ostentatious protest (before all the other cool kids were doing it) is being treated in a manner comparable to that of a convicted felon doesn't convince me this isn't retaliation. If the NFL routinely booted players who give them a bad image, I'd say "Fair enough, Kaepernick staged an unpopular protest, and paid for it." But it looks very much like you can do much, much worse than he did and still play. I'm gonna bet that the next time an NFL player is in the news for abusing someone, Trump won't Tweet that they should fire the son of a bitch.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 29, 2017 17:01:36 GMT -5
Sure, Vick eventually played. But as I just noted, Kaepernick's situation re playing in the NFL could change at any moment. So far, Kaepernick has missed playing in a small part of just one season. And note that he played a full season after the initial protest.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 29, 2017 18:37:24 GMT -5
Between those on the right burning season tickets because players aren't goosestepping with sufficient patriotic nationalism and those on the left cancelling their TV coverage because Kaepernick is out of work (not to mention ESPN's woes), there is a very important lesson. Mix entertainment with politics and it's possible to piss everybody off. Yep. But also, it seems to me that there are many among the US public who think a political NFL is a new thing here, that the NFL was some kind of escape from politics and then some no-good athletes ruined it all. The truth is that the NFL has been political for years now. The National Anthem is itself political, especially for African Americans, given its celebration of slavery. And we didn't always have honor guards or elaborate flag folding ceremonies. We didn't always have Northrop Grumman unveiling their new fighter jets during the Super Bowl, or Blue Angel flyovers. All this stuff is pushing a specific view of patriotism, or rather, a view of what patriotism should look like. Many people clearly are fine with that specific view of patriotism. But I think another lesson here should be that, if we must have flag waving ceremonies at our sporting events, of all places, then one is opening a floodgate and we will eventually have other stripes of politics being trotted out as well. And those who want one stripe of politics allowed in the NFL and want to disallow other viewpoints are cloaking themselves in the banner of being apolitical, complaining that it's "the other side" who is bringing politics in.
|
|