Looks like Kaepernick going to Atlanta for tryout...Not just for Atlanta (1 Viewer)

IntenseSaint

Powhatan Power
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
7,411
Reaction score
6,805
Location
South
Offline
Sticky Post


NFL clubs were informed Tuesday that a private workout will be held for free-agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick on Saturday in Atlanta, according to a copy of a memo obtained by ESPN.

The session will include on-field work and an interview. All teams are invited to attend, and video of both the workout and the interview will be made available to them.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,960
Reaction score
1,750
Offline
Chuck, you're right. It's probably not an issue or even relevant and those that do take issues with it willingly choose to but I think it's also possible, given Kaepernick's brazen, bold, maybe not-so well thought out forms of social justice moves, expressions, words, he deliberately wears or says provocative things whenever the camera is on him because he knows precisely it will piss off or drum up support from his detractors or supporters.

I can't prove it but why wear a forking Che Guevera T-shirt to a press conference in 2016? I mean, we both know Che Guevera is all the rage amomg some SJW with his comments about fighting injustice but do they know historically what he did, how many innocent Cubans he killed, sent to prison, held a important position in a regime that set up a one-party authoritarian state that sent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Cubans on life rafts, leaky boats, mass armandas of boatloads, to Miami, South Florida, Bronx, over the past 60 years? Are they aware of these annoying, historical facts but chose to conveniently ignore or downplay it? Do they use old, tired cliches or apologist arguments about Che and Fidel challenging US imperialism in Latin America or their history of involvement in Latin American countries as some sort of absolving mechanism for regimes like Castro's Cuba or more recently deceased Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
50,066
Reaction score
70,979
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Your right Chuck... It was just a T-shirt that he grabbed on his way out the door... Not trying to make a statement...

But wait... if he had went to the workout the NFL had set up with no media... His shirt and statement would not have gotten out...
So the whole thing was really about the t-shirt?

Making it about the t-shirt only justifies the t-shirt. Ignoring the t-shirt makes the t-shirt go away. It's funny how that works.
 

The Moose

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
1,615
Offline
And the choice of a Kunta Kinte shirt? The story of an African captured as a slave and brought to America..

Come on man it was bad.

Yes a guy playing a game that earned north of 40 million playing a game wearing a shirt implying slavery is plumb stupid.

But think for one second he is not wearing it for you. He is from a totally different generation. They are wacked. They drink to excess and Uber home rather than learn how to drink. They have food dropped of for staggering amount of money rather than go out in the world.

Trust me most people over 35 scratch their heads all the time about what they do.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,591
Offline
The whole thing certainly didn't help him at all, even harmed him in the end. I think he's pretty much done now and I'm not sure if it was him or his team, agent/lawyer whatever. But this could have gone much better for everyone and it was pretty much a shirt show.
Like I said...I don't think there was any real intention by the NFL to have him on a team. However, they can use his actions to validate their position

If his true intention was to get on a team, then his actions assisted the NFL in sabotaging him (if my opinion on the NFL's intentions is correct).
However, if he does see himself as a martyr mistreated by the NFL and a victim in all this, his actions make more sense in that his intention was to get his cause in the news again. It remains to see if he was effective in that
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
26,262
Reaction score
13,748
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
Like I said...I don't think there was any real intention by the NFL to have him on a team. However, they can use his actions to validate their position

If his true intention was to get on a team, then his actions assisted the NFL in sabotaging him (if my opinion on the NFL's intentions is correct).
However, if he does see himself as a martyr mistreated by the NFL and a victim in all this, his actions make more sense in that his intention was to get his cause in the news again. It remains to see if he was effective in that
Well, for whatever it's worth, if Kaep made a good faith effort to agree to the NFL's parameters and did the workout, then if some team agrees to sign him (granted, that was far from likely) to be their backup, he could afford himself the protections from the NFLPA. I would think the NFLPA has the ability to ensure Kaep is protected under the current CBA. I just think the whole fiasco was either short-sighted, or he had no genuine interest in playing for the NFL again and was just looking for an angle to get another settlement payout from the NFL.

I don't think the NFL was serious either. It was a shirt show from both parties, obviously for different reasons.
 

First Time Poster

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
736
Reaction score
3,125
Offline
I think Nick Wright sums up my feelings about it as best as I could.


I probably have more in depth stuff to say about it but my energy level for it is waning. Maybe later tonight.
 

First Time Poster

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
736
Reaction score
3,125
Offline
Well, for whatever it's worth, if Kaep made a good faith effort to agree to the NFL's parameters and did the workout, then if some team agrees to sign him (granted, that was far from likely) to be their backup, he could afford himself the protections from the NFLPA. I would think the NFLPA has the ability to ensure Kaep is protected under the current CBA. I just think the whole fiasco was either short-sighted, or he had no genuine interest in playing for the NFL again and was just looking for an angle to get another settlement payout from the NFL.

I don't think the NFL was serious either. It was a shirt show from both parties, obviously for different reasons.
I will respond to this quickly (FTP + Kap post = quickly, YEAH RIGHT! LOL!) because Dave, you are my message board brother, and this post just baffles me.

I don't get the both sides-ism of this. The NFL has repeatedly, almost consistently, shown themselves to be bad actors in a multitude of situations. It just really confuses me that anyone would expect anyone else to take the NFL at their word.

Kap asks for transparency; to have his workout open to the media. So the league won't be in sole control of possessing and disseminating his workout video. They refuse. First, I wonder what public perception would be if you flipped that. If the NFL said, let's make it public and Kap refused. There would be a bevy of persons accusing Kap of having something to hide. And, yet, some persons are acting like its unreasonable that Kap wanted to ensure transparency and didn't trust the league. Really? Raise your hand if you have seen the Spygate tapes? Or the Spygate notes? You haven't? Why? Oh, that's right, Roger Goodell destroyed the video and the notes AFTER determining the Patriots were guilty. What was his reason? He said it was the right thing to do, BB admitted to the taping and he didn't want the tapes to get in the hands of competitors. Riiiight. That is the league that we want Kap to trust to have sole possession of his workout video. That commissioner, that NFL.

Well, okay FTP, but he wants to play in the league so he needs to take them at their word. This waiver, it's just a waiver. It isn't standard but he should trust the league and take them at their word that it will only be used for injury liability purposes, not ANY future litigation. They haven't lied about anything. Wait, what's that? RG and the NFL stated they had several thousand pages of evidence in Bountygate that they never produced. Well, surely they would never lie about something more nefarious and insidious, would they? Wait, what? The purposely hid the affects of CTE and repeated concussions from former players. While agreeing to settle for $765 million (remember, a settlement is not an admission of guilt!) with retired players they were still withholding information about CTE from the former players. But, I, mean, the NFL, totally trustworthy. They would never lie about anything to protect their own interests. Even during or after settlements.

Tom freaking Brady didn't trust the NFL enough to hand over printed copies of text messages, pre-approved by his lawyers, but Colin Kaepernick is expected to comply and believe everything the NFL says...for a workout. I was critical of Tom (if I remember correctly) for refusing and destroying his cellphone (as was the appellant judge) but I remember a multitude of Saints fans applauding TB for not complying. Hooray! The NFL is corrupt. So is Goodell. Don't trust them Tom. Hooray! But, Colin Kaepernick...how dare he distrust the NFL. Booo! He doesn't want a job, he doesn't want to play. If he doesn't trust the league, why does he want to play? Booo! Use the search function and find any thread titling Spygate, Bountygate or NOLA No Call and you will see a glutton of Saints fans calling the NFL corrupt, untrustworthy, seedy, shady and all kinds of negative connotations but Colin Kaepernick, nah, he should bend the knee, trust the league, take them at their word, do whatever they want, to get a job, well a workout, he should trust them. If he doesn't trust them, why show up? Maybe, just maybe, because he wants to play?

One side continuously acts in bad faith. Continuously. We don't trust them. But balk when CK doesn't and acts accordingly, to protect himself. Why?
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
26,262
Reaction score
13,748
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
I will respond to this quickly (FTP + Kap post = quickly, YEAH RIGHT! LOL!) because Dave, you are my message board brother, and this post just baffles me.

I don't get the both sides-ism of this. The NFL has repeatedly, almost consistently, shown themselves to be bad actors in a multitude of situations. It just really confuses me that anyone would expect anyone else to take the NFL at their word.

Kap asks for transparency; to have his workout open to the media. So the league won't be in sole control of possessing and disseminating his workout video. They refuse. First, I wonder what public perception would be if you flipped that. If the NFL said, let's make it public and Kap refused. There would be a bevy of persons accusing Kap of having something to hide. And, yet, some persons are acting like its unreasonable that Kap wanted to ensure transparency and didn't trust the league. Really? Raise your hand if you have seen the Spygate tapes? Or the Spygate notes? You haven't? Why? Oh, that's right, Roger Goodell destroyed the video and the notes AFTER determining the Patriots were guilty. What was his reason? He said it was the right thing to do, BB admitted to the taping and he didn't want the tapes to get in the hands of competitors. Riiiight. That is the league that we want Kap to trust to have sole possession of his workout video. That commissioner, that NFL.

Well, okay FTP, but he wants to play in the league so he needs to take them at their word. This waiver, it's just a waiver. It isn't standard but he should trust the league and take them at their word that it will only be used for injury liability purposes, not ANY future litigation. They haven't lied about anything. Wait, what's that? RG and the NFL stated they had several thousand pages of evidence in Bountygate that they never produced. Well, surely they would never lie about something more nefarious and insidious, would they? Wait, what? The purposely hid the affects of CTE and repeated concussions from former players. While agreeing to settle for $765 million (remember, a settlement is not an admission of guilt!) with retired players they were still withholding information about CTE from the former players. But, I, mean, the NFL, totally trustworthy. They would never lie about anything to protect their own interests. Even during or after settlements.

Tom freaking Brady didn't trust the NFL enough to hand over printed copies of text messages, pre-approved by his lawyers, but Colin Kaepernick is expected to comply and believe everything the NFL says...for a workout. I was critical of Tom (if I remember correctly) for refusing and destroying his cellphone (as was the appellant judge) but I remember a multitude of Saints fans applauding TB for not complying. Hooray! The NFL is corrupt. So is Goodell. Don't trust them Tom. Hooray! But, Colin Kaepernick...how dare he distrust the NFL. Booo! He doesn't want a job, he doesn't want to play. If he doesn't trust the league, why does he want to play? Booo! Use the search function and find any thread titling Spygate, Bountygate or NOLA No Call and you will see a glutton of Saints fans calling the NFL corrupt, untrustworthy, seedy, shady and all kinds of negative connotations but Colin Kaepernick, nah, he should bend the knee, trust the league, take them at their word, do whatever they want, to get a job, well a workout, he should trust them. If he doesn't trust them, why show up? Maybe, just maybe, because he wants to play?

One side continuously acts in bad faith. Continuously. We don't trust them. But balk when CK doesn't and acts accordingly, to protect himself. Why?
I hear and understand you FTP. For one, it bothered me that the league wanted the workout to be private. That really didn't make a lot of sense to me because their combines are open to the public for the most part. I don't know about other private workouts, but those are ordinarily players trying out for individual teams. Even those, I don't recall being public. Since this was an extraordinary event where the league offered a former player a mid-season workout. I can't recall anything similar to this, so, it seems like there was no real SOP for this sort of thing. I suspect the league had their own agenda and reasons for doing the workout and it's been speculated by some in the media that they were doing this to ward off another collusion suit. I don't know what their agenda was, but I certainly don't think it was for altruistic reasons.

I agree entirely on the lack of trust of the NFL. That said, I've read a chunk of the waiver along with Florio's take on it, and except for some vague references to parameters for employment and use of the workout for other purposes, I don't really see a whole lot that is problematic as far as waivers go. Waivers are often intentionally broad to protect the organization from liability. But even broad waivers do have limits and judges will still gauge intent and whether liability still applies. It looks and reads like a typical waiver for the most part. That doesn't mean I trust the league to do right by CK. They have their own agenda and I certainly don't think they have CK's best interests at heart. As for Brady's actions, terrible. But he's acting in his own best interests. I think Brady will do whatever it takes to win. If he thinks he can get away with cheating to win, he'll do it. He doesn't have much integrity from what I've read over the years. His distrust of the NFL was understandable, but it doesn't make his deflating footballs and destroying evidence right.

I've stated a few times in the past that I've got no issues with CK's kneeling and protesting and social justice activism. Players should not be muzzled as long as it's outside the lines. I know protesting during pre-game is a gray area and that can be debated. I don't have a problem with it, but I think the league does want and has the right to set guidelines for behavior during pregame, post game and intermissions. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. That's a tough line to walk. I think the league is gonna get flack no matter what they do because they're in the middle of a fight where the 2 sides will probably never see eye to eye. I understand why many would rather leave politics and social justice at the door of sporting events. The problem is that these athletes have a platform that's unmatched and everyone wants a piece of that platform.

I just want to watch football. But understandably, the players have things that they do care about, and they should be able to use the platform available to them to express those things. They can't cease to be human just because they're football players. It's why I never agreed with the "shut up and play" types.

While I think the NFL is up to no good, I don't think Kaep helped himself in this case. I don't care about the shirt thing. That's just a political statement he's free to make at a workout he decided to do on his own without the NFL's endorsement. The NFL claims they gave him permission to have Nike come in and make a production of it if they want to. But, I'm sure they wanted control over the workout, and I really don't think Kaep was gonna ever agree to that. He's always marched to the beat of his own drum. Which isn't an issue with me. But I do think it's reasonable for the NFL to have control over the workout. It is their invitation and their show.

I think where Kaep went wrong was agreeing to it, then unilaterally, and last minute changing the venue and workout when it was clear the NFL and he were not going to agree on the language of the waiver. I think there's more to all of that. Kaep has his own agenda, and it's worlds apart from the NFL. I think the smart thing would have been to either agree to the NFL's offer, or simply turn it down. Instead of that, he made a spectacle of the whole thing and I think he's burned any potential bridges to playing in the league again soon.

I don't think what Kaep did was remotely comparable to the bs the NFL does frequently, but I don't trust him or his legal team either. I thought the workout wasn't a legitimate one and was just a media grab for him. Sure the NFL initiated it, but he took it and made it his own thing. It's fine, but it's ultimately a show, but really, what did the workout accomplish? I'm not sure it did much of anything. Maybe it did and I missed it. Maybe there are other considerations. I'm definitely open to hearing them.

What say you?

Thanks for asking for my take.
 

Joe OKC

"Better Days"
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
20,076
Reaction score
6,426
Age
55
Location
OKC, OK
Offline
Answernig DaveXA

I hear and understand you FTP. For one, it bothered me that the league wanted the workout to be private.

Maybe the NFL wanted the workout to be about football and not other issues.. and also to keep protestors, cop haters, trump haters, space alien haters, etc out and this not turn into a political side show.

I know protesting during pre-game is a gray area and that can be debated. I don't have a problem with it, but I think the league does want and has the right to set guidelines for behavior during pregame, post game and intermissions.

That's the bulk of it right there. You say that you don't have a problem with Kap protesting Pre-game. That means during the halftime interview coaches and players can discuss abortion if they chose as players go to the locker room. In the after game press conference players and coaches can discuss illegal immigration and US tax codes if they chose. Because it's their platform. And you'd be OK with that?

I don't care about the shirt thing. That's just a political statement

It's just a political statement huh? No big deal? How would you feel if he wore a shirt that said Trump 2020? Would you still feel that same way?

and a little further on it...

That's just a political statement he's free to make at a workout he decided to do on his own without the NFL's endorsement.

Ahhh... That's why the NFL tried to have control.. To keep Kapernick and others and people and things unforseen from being able to do as they wished... It would have been a control NFL workout... But... Too many people are gonna say.. "OH, but Kap had to do it because of some form they wanted him to sign"
Since this was a first ever and unheard of workout, I am sure that there was some sort of waiver if he got hurt or sprained an ankle."

Kaep has his own agenda, and it's worlds apart from the NFL. I think the smart thing would have been to either agree to the NFL's offer, or simply turn it down. Instead of that, he made a spectacle of the whole thing and I think he's burned any potential bridges to playing in the league again soon.

On that we can agree...

It is clearly understood that Kap has a right to protest.. Kaepernick on his OWN TIME can walk down main street while stomping on the Flag all that he wants... ANd that is what service members fought and died for. Him to have that right... But... When fans of teams buy tickets for a football game... They have a right not to partake or witness a political protest. There in lies the difference.

Now I am coming to @superchuck500 to help me here because for some reason my statements always get misunderstood...

as for making Kaepernick stand for the National Anthem Ceremony. This is NOT about making him stand for the National Anthem.

Since all pregame aspects are controlled and owned by the NFL.
If Kaepernick wants to sit for the national Anthem. He can do so. that is his business. That's one thing. <<<-- His Business.
But if Kaepernick sits for the National Anthem in Protest, that is another. <<<--- Others people's business...

Am I correct on that @superchuck500?

K
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
50,066
Reaction score
70,979
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Answernig DaveXA

I hear and understand you FTP. For one, it bothered me that the league wanted the workout to be private.

Maybe the NFL wanted the workout to be about football and not other issues.. and also to keep protestors, cop haters, trump haters, space alien haters, etc out and this not turn into a political side show.

I know protesting during pre-game is a gray area and that can be debated. I don't have a problem with it, but I think the league does want and has the right to set guidelines for behavior during pregame, post game and intermissions.

That's the bulk of it right there. You say that you don't have a problem with Kap protesting Pre-game. That means during the halftime interview coaches and players can discuss abortion if they chose as players go to the locker room. In the after game press conference players and coaches can discuss illegal immigration and US tax codes if they chose. Because it's their platform. And you'd be OK with that?

I don't care about the shirt thing. That's just a political statement

It's just a political statement huh? No big deal? How would you feel if he wore a shirt that said Trump 2020? Would you still feel that same way?

and a little further on it...

That's just a political statement he's free to make at a workout he decided to do on his own without the NFL's endorsement.

Ahhh... That's why the NFL tried to have control.. To keep Kapernick and others and people and things unforseen from being able to do as they wished... It would have been a control NFL workout... But... Too many people are gonna say.. "OH, but Kap had to do it because of some form they wanted him to sign"
Since this was a first ever and unheard of workout, I am sure that there was some sort of waiver if he got hurt or sprained an ankle."

Kaep has his own agenda, and it's worlds apart from the NFL. I think the smart thing would have been to either agree to the NFL's offer, or simply turn it down. Instead of that, he made a spectacle of the whole thing and I think he's burned any potential bridges to playing in the league again soon.

On that we can agree...

It is clearly understood that Kap has a right to protest.. Kaepernick on his OWN TIME can walk down main street while stomping on the Flag all that he wants... ANd that is what service members fought and died for. Him to have that right... But... When fans of teams buy tickets for a football game... They have a right not to partake or witness a political protest. There in lies the difference.

Now I am coming to @superchuck500 to help me here because for some reason my statements always get misunderstood...

as for making Kaepernick stand for the National Anthem Ceremony. This is NOT about making him stand for the National Anthem.

Since all pregame aspects are controlled and owned by the NFL.
If Kaepernick wants to sit for the national Anthem. He can do so. that is his business. That's one thing. <<<-- His Business.
But if Kaepernick sits for the National Anthem in Protest, that is another. <<<--- Others people's business...

Am I correct on that @superchuck500?

K
I don’t think it’s that simple - but I don’t think the purpose is what is regulated. If the employer doesn’t require employees to stand, an employee can choose not to stand for whatever purpose he wants.

And if the employer wishes to institute a new policy that requires standing but the impacted employees are part of a collective bargaining unit, the union should be involved.

Beyond that, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business.
 

Joe OKC

"Better Days"
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
20,076
Reaction score
6,426
Age
55
Location
OKC, OK
Offline
I don’t think it’s that simple - but I don’t think the purpose is what is regulated. If the employer doesn’t require employees to stand, an employee can choose not to stand for whatever purpose he wants.

And if the employer wishes to institute a new policy that requires standing but the impacted employees are part of a collective bargaining unit, the union should be involved.

Beyond that, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business.
Hummm... there's something missing.... because there is no formal requirement by the employer to stand for the anthem... just a simple request.. if i am correct in that.

But what i think is getting lost is purpose and intent. As an example.
A player can sit for the athem because he does not like the commissioner. That is his personal opinion.
But if a players sits for the anthem in protest of the commissioner that reaches beyond his personal opinion and into the affairs of the employer regardless of if they have a policy in place or not..

I am leaving the players union out of this for the time being.
 

First Time Poster

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
736
Reaction score
3,125
Offline
I hear and understand you FTP. For one, it bothered me that the league wanted the workout to be private. That really didn't make a lot of sense to me because their combines are open to the public for the most part. I don't know about other private workouts, but those are ordinarily players trying out for individual teams. Even those, I don't recall being public. Since this was an extraordinary event where the league offered a former player a mid-season workout. I can't recall anything similar to this, so, it seems like there was no real SOP for this sort of thing. I suspect the league had their own agenda and reasons for doing the workout and it's been speculated by some in the media that they were doing this to ward off another collusion suit. I don't know what their agenda was, but I certainly don't think it was for altruistic reasons.

I agree entirely on the lack of trust of the NFL. That said, I've read a chunk of the waiver along with Florio's take on it, and except for some vague references to parameters for employment and use of the workout for other purposes, I don't really see a whole lot that is problematic as far as waivers go. Waivers are often intentionally broad to protect the organization from liability. But even broad waivers do have limits and judges will still gauge intent and whether liability still applies. It looks and reads like a typical waiver for the most part. That doesn't mean I trust the league to do right by CK. They have their own agenda and I certainly don't think they have CK's best interests at heart. As for Brady's actions, terrible. But he's acting in his own best interests. I think Brady will do whatever it takes to win. If he thinks he can get away with cheating to win, he'll do it. He doesn't have much integrity from what I've read over the years. His distrust of the NFL was understandable, but it doesn't make his deflating footballs and destroying evidence right.

I've stated a few times in the past that I've got no issues with CK's kneeling and protesting and social justice activism. Players should not be muzzled as long as it's outside the lines. I know protesting during pre-game is a gray area and that can be debated. I don't have a problem with it, but I think the league does want and has the right to set guidelines for behavior during pregame, post game and intermissions. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. That's a tough line to walk. I think the league is gonna get flack no matter what they do because they're in the middle of a fight where the 2 sides will probably never see eye to eye. I understand why many would rather leave politics and social justice at the door of sporting events. The problem is that these athletes have a platform that's unmatched and everyone wants a piece of that platform.

I just want to watch football. But understandably, the players have things that they do care about, and they should be able to use the platform available to them to express those things. They can't cease to be human just because they're football players. It's why I never agreed with the "shut up and play" types.

While I think the NFL is up to no good, I don't think Kaep helped himself in this case. I don't care about the shirt thing. That's just a political statement he's free to make at a workout he decided to do on his own without the NFL's endorsement. The NFL claims they gave him permission to have Nike come in and make a production of it if they want to. But, I'm sure they wanted control over the workout, and I really don't think Kaep was gonna ever agree to that. He's always marched to the beat of his own drum. Which isn't an issue with me. But I do think it's reasonable for the NFL to have control over the workout. It is their invitation and their show.

I think where Kaep went wrong was agreeing to it, then unilaterally, and last minute changing the venue and workout when it was clear the NFL and he were not going to agree on the language of the waiver. I think there's more to all of that. Kaep has his own agenda, and it's worlds apart from the NFL. I think the smart thing would have been to either agree to the NFL's offer, or simply turn it down. Instead of that, he made a spectacle of the whole thing and I think he's burned any potential bridges to playing in the league again soon.

I don't think what Kaep did was remotely comparable to the bs the NFL does frequently, but I don't trust him or his legal team either. I thought the workout wasn't a legitimate one and was just a media grab for him. Sure the NFL initiated it, but he took it and made it his own thing. It's fine, but it's ultimately a show, but really, what did the workout accomplish? I'm not sure it did much of anything. Maybe it did and I missed it. Maybe there are other considerations. I'm definitely open to hearing them.

What say you?

Thanks for asking for my take.
So, I had a large wall of text of a response to reply (turns out I still do!) but then I read this piece by Howard Bryant and I have to say this is the most balanced, well researched and reported take I have seen about what happened between Kap and the NFL that week. My humble opinion is that no one should formulate an opinion until they have read this article. It is well sourced from viewpoints on all "sides."


Having read the article, I believe this really boils down to two narratives, two opposing viewpoints.

One: The NFL took extraordinary steps to setup this private, personal workout for Colin to give him an opportunity to workout for teams, preventing a media coverage onslaught for individual teams, giving them cover, to show his inclusion (or exclusion) from the league is only football related. They wanted the workout to be about football and only football and the mere fact they are taking these steps shows their good faith. It is their league so they have the right to set the terms. Colin insisted on minor details being met and the NFL made allowances where it could and felt necessary. The workout was the point and Colin and his team kept trying to control the event at the NFL's expense. They tried but Colin didn't want to just play football and the workout failed.

Two: The NFL put together this hastily organized workout, without previous notice to any relevant parties, and, from the beginning, Colin and his team questioned the league's good faith efforts by requiring agreement to a workout without some details being worked out. Immediately, Colin and his team became cautious of the NFL's intentions when the league either rebuffed or broke some verbal agreements or requests regarding the workout. Due to Colin's desire to play in the NFL again, his team continued negotiating with the NFL throughout the week even when it became more and more apparent that this was more about shaping and controlling public opinion than providing Colin a genuine opportunity. The waiver with added language and the refusal of transparency were the final straw. They tried but the NFL wants Colin to play football on its terms with no rights and the workout failed.

Ultimately, this really comes down to 'who do you trust?' Or, 'who do you trust more?' But, really, if we are being honest, the real question is 'who do you distrust the most?' I, like you, do believe that both sides had opportunities and missed opportunities to make this "work". In the simplest sense, "work" meaning the NFL approved workout happening. I think both sides let their distrust of the other make demands and avoid concessions that would have lifted the cloud of suspicion and fostered an environment that could, could, have saved the workout.

But, if I am being honest, and if I had to answer the real question, "who do I distrust more?", the easy answer is the NFL. Roger Goodell and the NFL have shown themselves to be untrustworthy parties in multiple situations, outside of Colin Kaepernick. As football fans, as Saints fans, we have been witnesses to their untrustworthy actions. They have continuously, consistently shown themselves to be bad faith actors in many situations of consequence. To be succinct, I just don't believe them. I don't believe this was designed or setup to give Colin an opportunity. It felt setup to give Colin an opportunity, with strings attached. It felt orchestrated as a win/win for the NFL. He signs the clever waiver, he works out, he gives up his right sue, they get to say he got his shot and if no one signs him he can't litigate the issue any further. Or, he refuses from jump or backs out at the last minute and they use their media conglomerate to paint Colin and his team as a bunch of malcontents who are more interested in Kap being an activist than a football player. And, while, I don't agree with all of Kap's and his teams choices, I completely understand their unwillingness to fully trust the NFL and take them at their word and act accordingly. The NFL is the party that acted wrongly, in my opinion. So, the onus is on them to make this right. That responsibility shouldn't fall on Colin, solely, or even majorly. He shouldn't have to be the party to make concessions, give up rights, to play football, when they stopped him from playing football for reasons outside of football.

I know some persons will strongly disagree with that because they don't see Kap as being "wronged." If we are being honest, that sentiment is largely shaped by their opinions of Colin and, moreso, their opinions of what he did. But, you know, I ask myself, if you substitute Colin Kaepernick for Jonathan Vilma, I wonder if persons would feel differently. I can't answer that for them. I didn't think he would get a job based on this workout. That seems to be correct. I don't believe he will ever play in the NFL again. I guess its up to everyone to decide how they feel about that. I know how I feel.

My two cents.

@DaveXA @superchuck500 what the hell @Joe OKC
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom