Cromartie's wife claims he was cut due to protesting the anthem

[Douzer]

The NFL receives a giant check from the US military every year (tax payer money) to create a red, white and blue ceremony before every game. The NFL wants to keep that cash flowing and has most likely incentivized owners to 'encourage' participation.

If so, it's an assault on 1st amendment free speech. you know, what I say Is protected, but what you say is not.

Frankly, any institution or entity involved in such anti-free speech activity should be set straight by the courts.

[Coltsman1788]

Cromare's play left much to be desired.  But for Irsay's comments, I would have been inclined to believe that alone was why he was cut. Then Irsay opened his big mouth (again) and revealed where he is coming from in regard to such protests. He has become an embarrassment on so many different levels on & off the field in my opinion.  Needless to say Irsay's comments & views will justifiably open the Colts' decision to release Cro to public scrutiny and debate.  I'm not a fan of the owner putting the franchise that I support at risk of being viewed in a racist light. 

 

Also I seriously doubt that the protests are the reason why NFL ratings have dropped. The more likely culprit is the fact that many fans are using alternative means for viewing the games for free and are ditching the outrageous prices that the cable and satelite industries are charging.  One such platform in particular has blown up over this past year. I won't name it out of respect to forum rules.  This kind of viewship will not appear in the official viewing statistics.  Fans are still watching but have gotten more savy in how they watch.  

[DougDew]

Which wife?

[jimmy g]

26 minutes ago, FanFromtheWasteland said:

This is what I thought as well. I think the term is "at will employment"

Unless there's a contract, like the NFL CBA.  If there was really an issue here, the NFLPA would file a grievance, and probably hold a press conference.  Doesn't appear to be an issue, by their silence.

[jimmy g]

30 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

It's the only normal reaction to want to know the reasoning. Which most cases they would give you a reason, even if it's just a plain "things just weren't working out." But if things came down to it for the employer, they can let you go without providing a reason, unfortunately. I'm not sure if the NFL has a loop hole around that law but that's what the law is here in Indiana.

'Coach wants to see you. Bring your playbook.'

[Gramz]

5 hours ago, shakedownstreet said:

it's never good when player's wives speak up on their behalf 

. True.

[OLD FAN MAN]

1 hour ago, pgt_rob said:

Actually...

In the state of Indiana an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Of course they can't fire you over your race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Other than that, you can let go for the littlest thing or let go without reason.

I agree, Indiana is a right to fire state

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

3 hours ago, Gavin said:

Cromarties play took a big dive after his shoulder injury but he was fine prior to that. I would also hope Cromartie wasn't cut over standing up for what's right

 

With that said given Irsays comments I think its a clear case of an Owner putting personal interest and gain ahead of a better cause.

Cromartie played bad in one game out of four, I believe. If people think he was cut for his play then I've got a bridge to sell them. 

 

He either was too injured or was cut for the protest 

[Coltfreak]

59 minutes ago, corgi said:

Don't make excuses, he was cut because he was terrible. I understand trying to make up an excuse to make yourself look good, but his play on tape speaks louder than a silent protest. Totally respect his right to protest, but I do not believe that influenced the decision to show him the door.

He had one bad game.    He was better than anyone else not named Vontae 

 

 

[corgi]

23 minutes ago, Coltfreak said:

He had one bad game.    He was better than anyone else not named Vontae 

 

 

He was awful for that game. Plus they had very little dedicated to him. A lot easier to cut him loose than Butler or PR.

[Smoke317]

I've supported Irsay through his trials and tribulations. If it's true that he's issued a team wide ultimatum that players are not allowed to take a knee, then I am very disappointed in him.  Who's been a bigger distraction to this franchise than him?  Like someone mentioned earlier, for him to place business over what's right is a shame.   And even if he did issue the ultimatum, keep your mouth shut because now you've opened the door for others to believe that you did fire Cromartie for his protest...  Plus after bringing back Chuck & Grigs, now this foot in mouth situation, it's time for him to hand the franchise to his daughters. He's becoming an embarrassment and I'm tired of defending him. 

[corgi]

32 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Cromartie played bad in one game out of four, I believe. If people think he was cut for his play then I've got a bridge to sell them. 

 

He either was too injured or was cut for the protest 

I don't want your bridge, but I'm willing to bet a bridge that it had little if anything to do with his protest. 

[RockThatBlue]

8 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

That would be funny if Pagano took a knee.

You mean he isn't kneeling through entire games already?

[RockThatBlue]

2 hours ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

Cromartie played bad in one game out of four, I believe. If people think he was cut for his play then I've got a bridge to sell them. 

 

He either was too injured or was cut for the protest 

Maybe, maybe not. Cromartie was pretty much only a rental either way. I don't think the Colts signed him thinking he would be there all year regardless. More of a stop gap until Vontae and other CBs  got back IMO.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

46 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Maybe, maybe not. Cromartie was pretty much only a rental either way. I don't think the Colts signed him thinking he would be there all year regardless. More of a stop gap until Vontae and other CBs  got back IMO.

Besides Vontae, who are the other cb's? Butler is a slot corner, Cro plays outside.

[Clem-Dog]

45 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Maybe, maybe not. Cromartie was pretty much only a rental either way. I don't think the Colts signed him thinking he would be there all year regardless. More of a stop gap until Vontae and other CBs  got back IMO.

 

Logical reasoning.  I felt we signed him for this exact purpose.

 

Ironically due to his wife's interference he will be blackballed.  

[Mr Coffee]

The bottom line is that if Cromartie didn't suck, he would still be on the team, whether Irsay agrees with the protests or not.  If he was even a decent CB, he'd still be on the team.

[Mr Coffee]

6 hours ago, CanuckColtsFan said:

In most work environments your boss can't fire you for whatever reason. You need cause or you have to pay out a portion of wages. 

 

If Irsay is cutting players for personal reasons or non football reasons I just hope they aren't better players. 

This is incorrect in Indiana.  Indiana is an "at will" state, and an employer can fire you at any time for any reason.  They don't even have to give you a reason.  Unless it violates any of the civil rights acts, an employer can let you go at any time.

[Gavin]

4 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

So you don't think Cro put HIS personal interests above what the TEAM decided?  No one else did or has ever took that approach.   he was warned not to do it and did.

 

i don't see him taking a pay cut for all the underpaid people in the world whether black white or purple 

 

Boss tells you no.   Then expect the consequences if you don't do what he said 

I don't agree with the approach as I said because I don't think it has been affective HOWEVER I'll be damned if If I am going to back down from a cause I believe in because my boss told me no. I'd tell him to get his priorities straight and to shove his NO up his butt.

 

Besides that I'm pretty sure its illegal for Jim to cut Cromartie over what Cromartie did but its hard to prove one way or the other he was cut for that reason given his play in his last game or 2 but given Irsays comments it could seem to many that don't just have their Colts shades on that Irsay is the bad guy in this regardless if I or you agree. All he had to say was he did not think the way athletes were going about the protest was affective BUT HE DID talk about the business and personal gain

[CanuckColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, Mr Coffee said:

This is incorrect in Indiana.  Indiana is an "at will" state, and an employer can fire you at any time for any reason.  They don't even have to give you a reason.  Unless it violates any of the civil rights acts, an employer can let you go at any time.

Weird.

[SkyBane]

1 hour ago, Mr Coffee said:

This is incorrect in Indiana.  Indiana is an "at will" state, and an employer can fire you at any time for any reason.  They don't even have to give you a reason.  Unless it violates any of the civil rights acts, an employer can let you go at any time.

This falls apart when you remember that the NFL is a union shop, and as an owner, Irsay agreed to the conditions of employment set by the NFLPA.

 

...Which is why this story has no real ground to stand on. If Cromartie were truly fired for his protests, the union would be on a crusade right now, as is their obligation.

[Defjamz26]

13 hours ago, Gavin said:

Cromarties play took a big dive after his shoulder injury but he was fine prior to that. I would also hope Cromartie wasn't cut over standing up for what's right

 

With that said given Irsays comments I think its a clear case of an Owner putting personal interest and gain ahead of a better cause.

Agreed. He should be encouraging his players to express their beliefs. He's out here here buying hundred thousand dollar guitars and having Rock remixes of the national anthem. Plus considering his past, he's the last to really cast judgement on something with positive intentions. If not he should just be silent. It doesn't affect the team at all.

[colts8718]

15 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

All the Colts fans would be cheering Pagano for taking a knee, and he would be like, "Why is everyone celebrating?"

Please take a knee for the team Pagano Please,Please,Please

[JColts72]

What u expect her to say? she's going to make it  a racial issue.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Yet strangely he is still a Free Agent????????  It must be "rigged"?

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Agreed. He should be encouraging his players to express their beliefs. He's out here here buying hundred thousand dollar guitars and having Rock remixes of the national anthem. Plus considering his past, he's the last to really cast judgement on something with positive intentions. If not he should just be silent. It doesn't affect the team at all.

What does Jimmy buying guitars with his personal money have to do with this?

How do you know he has past any judgment?

Do you always believe what someone says with rumor?

[crazycolt1]

17 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

All the Colts fans would be cheering Pagano for taking a knee, and he would be like, "Why is everyone celebrating?"

No, not all Colts fans. Just saying.

[jskinnz]

13 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

So you don't think Cro put HIS personal interests above what the TEAM decided?  No one else did or has ever took that approach.   he was warned not to do it and did.

 

i don't see him taking a pay cut for all the underpaid people in the world whether black white or purple 

 

Boss tells you no.   Then expect the consequences if you don't do what he said 

 

I think something smell's fishy with the Cromartie story.  I think his play was 99.99% of the reason he was let go.  That other .01% was likely the Colts wanting to get the rest of the team's attention when they cut Cromartie and Moore - telling them that your job is not safe.

 

I think Cromartie's wife made up that story about the Colts telling him not to kneel.  I think the risk of alienating the rest of the team is too high to make such a statement.  If there was such a conversation, it probably was more like "we think the anthem should be respected and appreciate you standing for it, but if you are compelled otherwise, that is your right and we will support it."  I sincerely doubt he was expressly forbidden from kneeling.  

 

Just my two cents.

[crazycolt1]

15 hours ago, Solon said:

I can understand it if he was playing well, but dude was straight garbage. Come on now. Don't undermine the effort by Colin and co. by crying wolf. Cromartie got cut because he was hot (you know what).

A agree. If he was doing what he was paid to do at least average he would still be on the roster.

 

[crazycolt1]

13 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

I commented on another poster as well. But in the state of Indiana you can be let go from your job with or without reason. So technically, you can. Of course you can't say you're firing someone due to race, sexual orientation, religion, or disability as that is against the law.

This is true. Indiana does not have a right to work law like some other states have.

[indyman411]

I find it amusing that people want to use the freedoms provided by our country to stand against our country.  I have ZERO problem with him being fired even if it's only for his kneeling, let alone his * poor play.  As a son of a military family, I have no tolerance for anti-American stunts for causes.  If you want to make improvements to our country, how about not insulting our flag.  Do it before or after the game, but not during the national anthem.  My opinion may not be popular (and I couldn't care less), but at least I have the guts to say so.

[crazycolt1]

13 hours ago, Douzer said:

The NFL receives a giant check from the US military every year (tax payer money) to create a red, white and blue ceremony before every game. The NFL wants to keep that cash flowing and has most likely incentivized owners to 'encourage' participation.

If so, it's an assault on 1st amendment free speech. you know, what I say Is protected, but what you say is not.

Frankly, any institution or entity involved in such anti-free speech activity should be set straight by the courts.

I think you are making this issue a lot more deeper than reality.

There have been a few owners who have come out and said they don't have a problem a support what the player are doing.

An owner is not infringing on anyone's free speech rights by letting it be known he expects his players to represent his team as he sees fit while they are on the clock.

The player signed a contract to get paid while on company time. Not to bring negative attention to his employer.

What a player does on his own free time is his business but not on the time he is being paid.

[Coltfreak]

11 hours ago, corgi said:

He was awful for that game. Plus they had very little dedicated to him. A lot easier to cut him loose than Butler or PR.

Agree.  But the other games he was pretty good

 

if he wasn't such a * going against what the boss said.   He'd still be starting and I'd feel a lot better about the secondary.  I do think Melvin might be ok though

[GoBlue12]

Whatever. He was called for howmeantie penalty calls. Go figure.

[Coffeedrinker]

Good.  More teams should do that.

[Coffeedrinker]

13 hours ago, Douzer said:

The NFL receives a giant check from the US military every year (tax payer money) to create a red, white and blue ceremony before every game. The NFL wants to keep that cash flowing and has most likely incentivized owners to 'encourage' participation.

If so, it's an assault on 1st amendment free speech. you know, what I say Is protected, but what you say is not.

Frankly, any institution or entity involved in such anti-free speech activity should be set straight by the courts.

Douzer, you are smarter than that.  The 1st Amendment is protection against the government taking actions against you for your words (although that has been out the window for years with political correctness but that is a different topic), it does not guarantee no repercussions for your words from employers, friends, enemies, neighbors, etc.

[Derakynn]

8 hours ago, Gavin said:

I don't agree with the approach as I said because I don't think it has been affective HOWEVER I'll be damned if If I am going to back down from a cause I believe in because my boss told me no. I'd tell him to get his priorities straight and to shove his NO up his butt.

 

Besides that I'm pretty sure its illegal for Jim to cut Cromartie over what Cromartie did but its hard to prove one way or the other he was cut for that reason given his play in his last game or 2 but given Irsays comments it could seem to many that don't just have their Colts shades on that Irsay is the bad guy in this regardless if I or you agree. All he had to say was he did not think the way athletes were going about the protest was affective BUT HE DID talk about the business and personal gain

And people wonder why politicians aren't honest. He said the truth. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is. I really don't see how you can crticize people for telling the truth. A survey was done asking people who weren't watching as many games this year. A common theme? The protests. It hurts business. And it isn't illegal. Free speech is a protection from the government. It doesn't mean you have the right to trash others without consequences. 

[pgt_rob]

42 minutes ago, indyman411 said:

I find it amusing that people want to use the freedoms provided by our country to stand against our country.  I have ZERO problem with him being fired even if it's only for his kneeling, let alone his * poor play.  As a son of a military family, I have no tolerance for anti-American stunts for causes.  If you want to make improvements to our country, how about not insulting our flag.  Do it before or after the game, but not during the national anthem.  My opinion may not be popular (and I couldn't care less), but at least I have the guts to say so.

 

Yeah I found it funny when Megan Rapinoe was protesting the anthem and they played the anthem while she was still in the locker room. It * her off. LOL

[Gramz]

 

Cromartie's wife claims he was cut due to protesting the anthem.......

 

My response:   Okay.  

 

She's certainly entitled to her opinion.       

 

We're On to Nashville now. 

 

[jimmy g]

24 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Douzer, you are smarter than that.  The 1st Amendment is protection against the government taking actions against you for your words (although that has been out the window for years with political correctness but that is a different topic), it does not guarantee no repercussions for your words from employers, friends, enemies, neighbors, etc.

Irsay reportedly told players to protest, but not at work. Same as the rest of us would have to do. That's reasonable.

 

At work  I must respect my owner's wishes, or leave. He's the one paying the bills. There's plenty of personal time for my views.