- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/16/17 at 6:41 am to msutiger
quote:
Kaepernick has filed a grievance
The balls on this clown
Posted on 10/16/17 at 7:06 am to TbirdSpur2010
I will never get why SF isn't brought up more in this whole debate. They were his team and were cool with the protest. Once he opted out, they washed their hands of him and never get any heat for not resigning him. The GM and Coach just said he wasn't a good fit, then signed an awful journeyman QB. If they didn't want him, I don't see why anyone else would. Why does SF get a pass? If there is collusion, they would have be involved. Why haven't they been brought up before?
Posted on 10/16/17 at 9:20 am to msutiger
Why doesn't he just ride off to another country into the sunset. Take the millions of dollars he got paid for playing a game, and playing it poorly for the most part and move somewhere.
Posted on 10/16/17 at 9:25 am to brmark70816
Kap was lambasted by the beats going back all the way to 2014 for not asserting himself as a leader. All you need to know about his cancerous attitude. New GM new coach and his skillset doesn't translate to the new (or any) offense. Pretty simple dumping. Hoyer's offense at least moved the ball from time to time, without the cancerous baggage.
This post was edited on 10/16/17 at 9:26 am
Posted on 10/16/17 at 10:00 am to RemouladeSawce
Hoyer just lost the job to a 3rd round rookie, Beathard. SF obviously had a major need at QB. But everybody gives them a pass for not resigning or renegotiating his contract. I just want to know why they aren't the ones getting the brunt of the heat and trying to explain why they moved on. They should be the focal point of this whole issue..
Posted on 10/16/17 at 10:09 am to brmark70816
quote:
I just want to know why they aren't the ones getting the brunt of the heat and trying to explain why they moved on. They should be the focal point of this whole issue..
Because they saved a bunch of money against the salary cap by cutting him; that is a totally legitimate excuse for cutting a player.
NFL teams have almost complete discretion when it comes to releasing a player.
Posted on 10/16/17 at 10:17 am to bbrownso
They didn't cut him, he opted out. Then they gave Hoyer a 2Y/12M contract (incentive based) instead of resigning Kapernick. Supposedly he is much better than Hoyer. So why didn't they resign him? I'm not saying they should have. They should be the ones under fire though for letting him go. They didn't need cap space. They said it was a "fit" issue..
Posted on 10/16/17 at 10:22 am to brmark70816
quote:
They said it was a "fit" issue..
As I said, that's a perfectly legitimate excuse for not resigning him.
Hell Shanahan could have said he hates working with the more mobile QBs since his time spent with RGIII and that's also perfectly fine.
Also, since he opted out, maybe he didn't want to go back there? Is that enough to get the 49ers off the hook or did they have to try to get him back?
Posted on 10/16/17 at 10:23 am to brmark70816
quote:Supposedly?
Supposedly he is much better than Hoyer.
Posted on 10/16/17 at 10:43 am to bbrownso
He can't claim collusion by the entire league, then say he didn't want to go back to SF. If they would have offered him a new contract, then he doesn't have a case. That's why I think they are so important to this issue and where the real issue exists. If he was a cancer, injury prone, too expensive, just not good enough, etc.. they set the market and everybody else followed suit. Maybe they were the ones that truly did the black balling. Thats why its amazing to me that they haven't got any flack during this whole thing..
Posted on 10/16/17 at 11:10 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
and playing it poorly for the most part
Lol
Posted on 10/16/17 at 11:32 am to WaltTeevens
I'm pretty sure a huge issue early on with teams signing him was he was looking for something like $10-12 mil Plus. I thought I read where a couple of teams were interested in him at $4-6 mil? Which makes perfect sense IMO.
Kap would be playing for $1 mil right now, he'd be on a team. Its going to be laughable when multiple teams come out with contracts for millions that he turned down because he thinks he's worth more.
Kap would be playing for $1 mil right now, he'd be on a team. Its going to be laughable when multiple teams come out with contracts for millions that he turned down because he thinks he's worth more.
Posted on 10/16/17 at 11:53 am to brmark70816
quote:
Maybe they were the ones that truly did the black balling. Thats why its amazing to me that they haven't got any flack during this whole thing..
You’re talking out of your arse
What leverage would SF have to ‘blackball’ the league into not signing this POS?
Posted on 10/16/17 at 12:32 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:
You’re talking out of your arse
What leverage would SF have to ‘blackball’ the league into not signing this POS?
Exactly.
And why posters like this don't read up on why him signing in Baltimore fell through is beyond me.
There was a team that wanted him. Then....
Posted on 10/16/17 at 12:49 pm to Mr. Hangover
If he was being colluded against, it would start with SF. They were the first team that had the opportunity to sign him and obviously had the most history with him. They would have also been the first point of contact for teams to guage his personality and potential going forward. But yet, no one ever brings them up. Why are they left off the hook?
Posted on 10/16/17 at 12:53 pm to msutiger
Pretty sure that the major sports leagues have learned the lessons that it took MLB all of the 1980s to find out.
No direct evidence = no collusion.
So that by 2008, MLB collusion allegations had devolved to: the MLB Players' Association indicated that it would file a collusion grievance against the owners claiming that they conspired illegally to keep Barry Bonds from receiving a 2008 contract. The grievance was abandoned because there were no grounds to force a team to sign a player against their will, and no proof of any organized effort to shut out Bonds.
No direct evidence = no collusion.
So that by 2008, MLB collusion allegations had devolved to: the MLB Players' Association indicated that it would file a collusion grievance against the owners claiming that they conspired illegally to keep Barry Bonds from receiving a 2008 contract. The grievance was abandoned because there were no grounds to force a team to sign a player against their will, and no proof of any organized effort to shut out Bonds.
Posted on 10/16/17 at 3:50 pm to msutiger
What's so funny is the usual social justice champions like ESPN and Shannon Sharpe are out in full force lying their asses off about it already. I've head the ESPN pieces of shite talk about they can't wait until the proof comes out like it's a fact there is any. They're basically CNN at this point, constantly using terms like facts and proof when there is none of both so far. The NFL needs to do what they did when play makers was making the league look bad and threaten to cut their access because these people are at the forefront of the NFLs ratings decline.
This post was edited on 10/16/17 at 3:53 pm
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News