Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Kaepernick Files A Grievance Against The NFL


Recommended Posts

Kaepernick started something that grew much larger than he intended resulting in him being left out in the cold for what appears to be until he is too old to play and now he is suing. Maybe he does not quite understand what is being done to him. What will come of the suit? More important what will become of Kaepernick?  He should get used to knocking on doors that don't open.

 

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/CBS News/AP) — Colin Kaepernick filed a collusion grievance against NFL team owners Sunday, alleging collusion to keep him from being signed by a team.

Many have claimed that the NFL owners have blackballed the former 49ers quarterback because of his social justice protest last season of kneeling during the national anthem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I don't think Kaepernick thought his actions would have the personal repercussions it did.

With that said why would an owner want the negative attention (especially from the media) by signing a back up QB?

When he came into the league he was in a system that made him very successful. Once the defenses figured out how to defend him he wasn't good enough to excel in a different system and style of play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

When he came into the league he was in a system that made him very successful. Once the defenses figured out how to defend him he wasn't good enough to excel in a different system and style of play.

A very good coach (IMO) stretched his skillset and got much more out of him than expected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just came up on ESPNs First Take show and it could be a monster issue. First was the owners are not dumb enough to document any collusion so it will be impossible to prove if it were true. Here could be the wrench in the owners case. Donald Trump had phone conversations with how many owners? We know Jerry Jones. Now, presidential phone calls that are not national security are recorded. Perhaps Kaepernick's attorney thought of this and decided to move forward with this issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin Kaepernick is not in the NFL because he's the face of the protests and a lot of owners are afraid of losing fans from signing him.

 

He's probably not what you want out of a franchise QB, but he's good enough to be at the very least a journeyman.

 

His stats last year where

 

196/331 59.2% for 2241 yards (6.8 yds/attempt) - 16 TD's (4.8%) - 4 Ints (1.2%) - 90.7 Passer rating.

 

There are a lot of worse QB's out there who got contracts and started.  You are just blinding yourself if you think he's out of the NFL because of skill.

 

That said his grievance will almost certainly fail.  Kaepernick has to prove that 2 or more teams got together and agreed not to sign him.  That's pretty unlikely.  

 

What most likely happened is each NFL team looked at it, determined it wasn't worth the risk of losing a large portion of the fan base to sign him and decided as individual teams not to sign him.  Each NFL team has the right to not sign him because they are worried about how it will affect their fan base or even because they disagree with his protest.  The only thing they can't do is form an agreement with other NFL teams to not sign him.  

 

But there is no reason for them to form such an agreement.  They each have the right to not sign him due to his protest.  That said no one should fool themselves into thinking that absent that protest that Kaepernick would still not be in the NFL.  His stats show he's significantly better then a few starters and most backups.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, King Colt said:

This just came up on ESPNs First Take show and it could be a monster issue. First was the owners are not dumb enough to document any collusion so it will be impossible to prove if it were true. Here could be the wrench in the owners case. Donald Trump had phone conversations with how many owners? We know Jerry Jones. Now, presidential phone calls that are not national security are recorded. Perhaps Kaepernick's attorney thought of this and decided to move forward with this issue. 

 

That wouldn't prove collusion.  You have to prove that one team spoke with another team and they set up an agreement to not sign him.  

 

All 32 teams could talk to Trump and tell him they wouldn't dare signing Kaep.  But unless they said in that conversation that they talked to another team or there is some sort of documentation or recording of them talking with another team it's meaningless.  The only way conversations with Trump might be evidence is if an owner mentioned that he talked to another owner about not signing or if Trump tried to get a team on board with such an agreement noting to them that other teams have signed on.  

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/colin-kaepernick’s-collusion-claim-does-he-have-a-case/ar-AAtx0hG?li=BBnba9I

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a super loaded issue, especially after this update.  I also saw a report that he's intending to dissolve the CBA because the CBA has a clause whereby collusion from the owners would result in the CBA's invalidation.  I don't know what that would entail, like perhaps a lockout midseason or something where the season is cancelled or postponed (@Superman you might be able to fill in the details here).  I'm also unsure how many owners have to be involved for this clause to come into effect, whether it simply requires 2 owners colluding, or if there must be a 2/3rds things going on like when they vote for new rules.

 

That could also have the support of the players who seem to be generally unhappy with how much power Goodell has and might want to renegotiate the CBA sooner rather than it's actual expiry date (which I think is 2020).  It would be interesting to see how the players contribute, whether intentionally or unintentionally (eg. I believe it was Brandon Weeden who recently came out and said players in the league believe Kaep is good enough to be playing in the NFL).

 

While I am on Kaep's side of this, I think it's too easy for the owners to simply say it's a football decision.  Once Harbaugh left San Fran, his play took a nosedive.  Look at the film and you generally see a guy who is very raw, has trouble reading defenses, and has accuracy issues.  Sure, the protests and the attention that come with them is a factor, but I think the owners could (easily) argue that this is a football decision.

 

Either way, this could get even deeper and messier than it already was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I don't know what that would entail, like perhaps a lockout midseason or something where the season is cancelled or postponed

I would think it would be awful hard to prove and have all this happen in time to disrupt this season.... could be wrong, but seems like it would get tied up in court much like Brady's suspension.

 

Not to intentionally argue your point, but I am not on his side of this.  He isn't good enough and he is using this as an excuse.  If he was good enough he would be on a team.  We have been over it already.  

 

Perhaps he got word that some owners are colluding, but I doubt it.  I can't believe any of them are stupid enough to let that out.

 

Just another ridiculous chapter in this book.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to make a case when you have stunk up the joint as QB lately. 

 

I guess Tim Tebow has a case against collusion too, huh, stating that his unabashed expression of his beliefs led to the owners not wanting media attention for a guy that had become expendable and back up QB material???

 

If your ceiling is back up QB right now, you can't expect too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BR-549 said:

I would think it would be awful hard to prove and have all this happen in time to disrupt this season.... could be wrong, but seems like it would get tied up in court much like Brady's suspension.

 

Not to intentionally argue your point, but I am not on his side of this.  He isn't good enough and he is using this as an excuse.  If he was good enough he would be on a team.  We have been over it already.  

 

Perhaps he got word that some owners are colluding, but I doubt it.  I can't believe any of them are stupid enough to let that out.

 

Just another ridiculous chapter in this book.

 

 

I agree with what you said about being good enough.  I even pointed out that his play went off a cliff after Harbaugh left the 49ers.  I think it's too hard to prove it's collusion versus a football decision for this to go anywhere for Kaep.  In his career, he's a below 60% passer and averages less than 200 yards a game.  72 TDs in 69 games and an overall 28-30 (including 3-16 in his last 2 years in the NFL) are hard to argue against.  Every owner in the league can simply point to the numbers and say that's why they didn't sign Kaepernick

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

This is a super loaded issue, especially after this update.  I also saw a report that he's intending to dissolve the CBA because the CBA has a clause whereby collusion from the owners would result in the CBA's invalidation.  I don't know what that would entail, like perhaps a lockout midseason or something where the season is cancelled or postponed (@Superman you might be able to fill in the details here).  I'm also unsure how many owners have to be involved for this clause to come into effect, whether it simply requires 2 owners colluding, or if there must be a 2/3rds things going on like when they vote for new rules.

 

That could also have the support of the players who seem to be generally unhappy with how much power Goodell has and might want to renegotiate the CBA sooner rather than it's actual expiry date (which I think is 2020).  It would be interesting to see how the players contribute, whether intentionally or unintentionally (eg. I believe it was Brandon Weeden who recently came out and said players in the league believe Kaep is good enough to be playing in the NFL).

 

While I am on Kaep's side of this, I think it's too easy for the owners to simply say it's a football decision.  Once Harbaugh left San Fran, his play took a nosedive.  Look at the film and you generally see a guy who is very raw, has trouble reading defenses, and has accuracy issues.  Sure, the protests and the attention that come with them is a factor, but I think the owners could (easily) argue that this is a football decision.

 

Either way, this could get even deeper and messier than it already was.

 

They don't have to say it's a football decision.  All they have to say is that they did not make an agreement with another team to not sign him.

 

Other then that they are free to say that they didn't sign him because they feared losing fans.  

 

There is no rule that they can't take his protests into account when signing.  Just that they can't make an agreement with another team to not sign him.  

 

6 minutes ago, BR-549 said:

I would think it would be awful hard to prove and have all this happen in time to disrupt this season.... could be wrong, but seems like it would get tied up in court much like Brady's suspension.

 

Not to intentionally argue your point, but I am not on his side of this.  He isn't good enough and he is using this as an excuse.  If he was good enough he would be on a team.  We have been over it already.  

 

Perhaps he got word that some owners are colluding, but I doubt it.  I can't believe any of them are stupid enough to let that out.

 

Just another ridiculous chapter in this book.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I still call nonsense on this.  You look at his stats from his last year and you try to tell me that he isn't better then Scott Tolzien or any one of several backups and journeymen that are on NFL rosters right now.  Passer rating a shade over 90, 16 TD's only 4 Int's.  That's bull crap.  No one's saying he's a franchise guy. . . But he's certainly better then most backups.

 

But again there is no rule that they can't take his protests into account.  It's clear that he's a lightning rod and signing him might cost an NFL team some fans.  And backup even a high quality one isn't worth that.  

 

I'm ok with him not getting signed, not because I have a problem with his protest but because that is for a lot of people not just football players the cost of protesting or standing up for something.  That's just reality. Free speech can cost you employment opportunity.  

 

But we shouldn't lie to ourselves and pretend he's not playing just cause he's not good enough to be in the NFL.  He's better then most backups and probably a couple of starters.  His stats prove it.  But he's certainly not good enough to risk losing fans over.  

 

He's going to lose this because there was no collusion.  The teams can all say we didn't sign him because of the protests and as long as they didn't have an agreement between them on that then there is nothing there.

 

4 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I agree with what you said about being good enough.  I even pointed out that his play went off a cliff after Harbaugh left the 49ers.  I think it's too hard to prove it's collusion versus a football decision for this to go anywhere for Kaep.  In his career, he's a below 60% passer and averages less than 200 yards a game.  72 TDs in 69 games and an overall 28-30 (including 3-16 in his last 2 years in the NFL) are hard to argue against.  Every owner in the league can simply point to the numbers and say that's why they didn't sign Kaepernick

 

Compare his stats with Scott Tolzien and several other backups.  He's better then most.  

 

11 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Hard to make a case when you have stunk up the joint as QB lately. 

 

I guess Tim Tebow has a case against collusion too, huh, stating that his unabashed expression of his beliefs led to the owners not wanting media attention for a guy that had become expendable and back up QB material???

 

If your ceiling is back up QB right now, you can't expect too much.

 

This is exactly it.  Too many problems, not enough talent to justify trying to handle those problems.  

 

But you take away his protest. . . Yeah he'd be on a team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shadow_Creek said:

well the packers just lost Rogers. maybe they might go for kap...problem solved Everybody wins....:billiejean:

 

They cannot run their offense the same way, the Packers. So they go with a more running QB like Brett Hundley and sign Kaep for a back up, makes a bit sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

But you take away his protest. . . Yeah he'd be on a team. 

 

That is why it surprised me why he opted out leaving money on the table. Whoever was his agent did him no favors there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

Compare his stats with Scott Tolzien and several other backups.  He's better then most. 

You can counter it too many ways.

 

The Colts liked Tolzien more because he was in the same system for a year, so they were more comfortable with him.

The Browns like their guys more because they want to develop the young guys they have.

The Jets like Hackenberg more because he's been on the team since 2016 and they maybe see some potential in him.

 

Point is, it's too easy to counter the stats argument with several other football-related arguments.  I think it's far too difficult to prove any collusion took place

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

They don't have to say it's a football decision.  All they have to say is that they did not make an agreement with another team to not sign him.

 

Other then that they are free to say that they didn't sign him because they feared losing fans.  

 

There is no rule that they can't take his protests into account when signing.  Just that they can't make an agreement with another team to not sign him.  

 

 

I'm sorry I still call nonsense on this.  You look at his stats from his last year and you try to tell me that he isn't better then Scott Tolzien or any one of several backups and journeymen that are on NFL rosters right now.  Passer rating a shade over 90, 16 TD's only 4 Int's.  That's bull crap.  No one's saying he's a franchise guy. . . But he's certainly better then most backups.

 

But again there is no rule that they can't take his protests into account.  It's clear that he's a lightning rod and signing him might cost an NFL team some fans.  And backup even a high quality one isn't worth that.  

 

I'm ok with him not getting signed, not because I have a problem with his protest but because that is for a lot of people not just football players the cost of protesting or standing up for something.  That's just reality. Free speech can cost you employment opportunity.  

 

But we shouldn't lie to ourselves and pretend he's not playing just cause he's not good enough to be in the NFL.  He's better then most backups and probably a couple of starters.  His stats prove it.  But he's certainly not good enough to risk losing fans over.  

 

He's going to lose this because there was no collusion.  The teams can all say we didn't sign him because of the protests and as long as they didn't have an agreement between them on that then there is nothing there.

 

 

Compare his stats with Scott Tolzien and several other backups.  He's better then most.  

 

 

This is exactly it.  Too many problems, not enough talent to justify trying to handle those problems.  

 

But you take away his protest. . . Yeah he'd be on a team. 

I disagree with the premise that he is better than most back-ups and some starters.  He is not a good QB and he lasted as long as most below average back-ups lasts... 5 years.  The real truth is, if it weren't for Harbaugh, Kap would have been out of the a few years ago.  The NFL is not really a place for QBs that can't read a defense, can't go through progressions, has accuracy issues and is mistake prone.  I don't have time to go through all the QB, but I would be willing to bet there are no QBs in the league that have more than 5 years of starting experience and less than a 60% career completion percentage.  Derek Anderson maybe because his early years were really bad and he played for the Browns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I disagree with the premise that he is better than most back-ups and some starters.  He is not a good QB and he lasted as long as most below average back-ups lasts... 5 years.  The real truth is, if it weren't for Harbaugh, Kap would have been out of the a few years ago.  The NFL is not really a place for QBs that can't read a defense, can't go through progressions, has accuracy issues and is mistake prone.  I don't have time to go through all the QB, but I would be willing to bet there are no QBs in the league that have more than 5 years of starting experience and less than a 60% career completion percentage.  Derek Anderson maybe because his early years were really bad and he played for the Browns.

You must be careful trying to grade any playe without taking his surroundings 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

You must be careful trying to grade any playe without taking his surroundings 

I'm not grading a player.  Surroundings do not matter when you see him consistently miss on 8-12 yard out routes.  Surroundings don't matter when you regularly see a QB throw the ball in double coverage and the replay shows there was a guy with single coverage.  Surroundings don't matter when you can watch the QBs head and he just about always focuses on one half the field.  60% completion percentage is the threshhold for NFL QBs. Fall beneath that for a season and you are in a QB battle next training camp.  Fall below it for multiple seasons and you find yourself on the street hoping a radio show or TV show will hire you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

I also saw a report that he's intending to dissolve the CBA because the CBA has a clause whereby collusion from the owners would result in the CBA's invalidation.  I don't know what that would entail, like perhaps a lockout midseason or something where the season is cancelled or postponed (@Superman you might be able to fill in the details here).  I'm also unsure how many owners have to be involved for this clause to come into effect, whether it simply requires 2 owners colluding, or if there must be a 2/3rds things going on like when they vote for new rules.

 

It would require at least 14 teams colluding against a player, and then the union could decertify the CBA. There are a lot of reasons this won't happen, not the least of which is the fact that it's basically impossible to prove that almost half the teams in the league specifically decided not to sign a player for the same reason.

 

Lots more in this article: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/16/colin-kaepernick-nfl-grievance-collusion-cba-lawsuit

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

That is why it surprised me why he opted out leaving money on the table. Whoever was his agent did him no favors there.

 

They would have cut him if he didn't opt out, and they made that pretty clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm not grading a player.  Surroundings do not matter when you see him consistently miss on 8-12 yard out routes.  Surroundings don't matter when you regularly see a QB throw the ball in double coverage and the replay shows there was a guy with single coverage.  Surroundings don't matter when you can watch the QBs head and he just about always focuses on one half the field.  60% completion percentage is the threshhold for NFL QBs. Fall beneath that for a season and you are in a QB battle next training camp.  Fall below it for multiple seasons and you find yourself on the street hoping a radio show or TV show will hire you.

Often the surroundings do affect those things 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BlueCollarColts said:

Why do the teams have to argue they didn't sign him for football reasons? They can literally say they don't want to sign him since he's the face of the protests....

 

There isn't a rule against it.

I believe the concern is that teams could then face consequences for discriminating against his political views.

 

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It would require at least 14 teams colluding against a player, and then the union could decertify the CBA. There are a lot of reasons this won't happen, not the least of which is the fact that it's basically impossible to prove that almost half the teams in the league specifically decided not to sign a player for the same reason.

 

Lots more in this article: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/16/colin-kaepernick-nfl-grievance-collusion-cba-lawsuit

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...