Ok, this is getting out hand...

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, Myles said:

He is a good football player, but not anything more.   If he is not demanding too much money, he'll get signed.  He should understand that actions have consequences.  

 

Reid gave an interview BEFORE Free Agency.     Said he knew his actions would have consequences.    Said he knew he wasn't going to get a big contract.  

 

But there's a difference between not getting a big contract,  and getting NO CONTRACT AT ALL.      There's a gap, a disconnect there.      I hope someone corrects this soon enough....    the guy is a solid player.    He should clearly be on someone's team.

 

[Myles]

It's tough to say.

How many teams would he be an improvement to their current starter?  How much of an improvement? At what cost?

How many teams drafted a player they want to give playing time instead of signing an existing player?

That takes out at least half the teams in the league. 

Now take away the teams who believe their fans will not like it?

Remove the teams with owners who are veterans who took great exception to him kneeling during the Veterans Day celebration.

Take out Cincy (who was willing) and San Fran. 

I don't think that leaves us with many teams left.  

Certainly not enough to claim collusion.

[ReMeDy]

Soon as I saw Eric Reid's name attached to this, I knew his career was over. He's officially done.

[Finball]

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

If he was valued to be a good player he would have been resigned by the 49ers.

Lots of players were kneeling and they have jobs. Why? Because their talent is needed enough for teams to sign them.

He will get another chance to prove his worth if not he will be unemployed once again.

 

Reid has been more vocal than almost anyone, though.

 

49ers offered him an extension (I think 1 yr deal at around 8M) but he declined. 49ers are also relatively well set at safety.

[crazycolt1]

23 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

Reid has been more vocal than almost anyone, though.

 

49ers offered him an extension (I think 1 yr deal at around 8M) but he declined. 49ers are also relatively well set at safety.

I get where you are coming from but if he was all that good he wouldn't have been replaced. 

 He pays an agent X percentage of his pay and he thinks he should be doing the negotiations?  Believe me the agent will get what he is worth no matter what he thinks.  

[Finball]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

I get where you are coming from but if he was all that good he wouldn't have been replaced. 

 He pays an agent X percentage of his pay and he thinks he should be doing the negotiations?  Believe me the agent will get what he is worth no matter what he thinks.  

 

Yes but that's where the issue may lie. Reid thinks he should get something like what Jefferson got last year (10M per year long-term). But he is offered around or just above what other safeties have gotten this offseason (5-6M). Reid thinks he's being low-balled because of the anthem issue. GMs don't see safeties in general as that valuable/they seem them as more easily replacable and that's why safeties, including Reid, aren't getting big bucks. I'm just speculating here but that may be the case. Reid and/or his agent may overrate his own ability and/or value of the safeties in general. As Reid arguably isn't that caliber of a player that a guy like Jefferson is. Jefferson's price was also driven up by weak safety market.

 

Reid does have concussion history too which may explain why 9ers are/were unwilling to commit long-term. They might not see S as that valuable position or Reid as that valuable player for their scheme which they changed last year. We cut Hankins and he's still unsigned and he's legitimately good player and was one of our better defensive players last year.

[King Colt]

Lesson to Kaepernick and all his followers: it's never a matter of one's intent rather, how it is perceived.

[21isSuperman]

On 5/2/2018 at 8:54 PM, csmopar said:

And he has to face those consequences. IF he's not signed due to the anthem, it's his own fault, his own choice.

 

On 5/3/2018 at 10:00 AM, aaron11 said:

teams have a right as individual organizations to not sign someone if they dont like the kneeling

 

On 5/3/2018 at 12:05 PM, chad72 said:

Exactly!!! It is called employer's choice.

Genuine question here, as I'm far from an expert on the legal system.  You're all saying that if a team doesn't want to hire him because of his political actions, that's the prerogative of the employer.  However, wouldn't that qualify as discrimination based on political beliefs?  Maybe this wouldn't be a collusion case, but then wouldn't it qualify as an employer discrimination case?

 

On 5/3/2018 at 12:38 AM, crazycolt1 said:

In 5 years he has 258 tackles, 1 sack and 10 interceptions.

Last season he had 53 tackles, 0 sacks and 2 interceptions.

The 53 tackles does not even put him in the top 100 players in the league.

1-Matthias Farley had 95 tackles for the Colts was #41 in the league

2-Jon Bostic had 97 tackles for the Colts. was rated 36 in the league.

I listed these two linebackers for the Colts as an example to show he was not a good player.

Stats don't always tell the entire story.  I didn't watch any 49ers games last year, so I can't provide my own analysis for it.  But here's what I've read.  Pro Football Focus ranked him as above average.  They also ranked him as the #42 available free agent.  Rotoworld says he's coming off arguably his best season as a pro.  Reid has never been in legal trouble, and is just 26 years old, so he has several more productive years ahead of him.  You mean to tell me not a single team in the NFL has a place on their roster for a player like that?

[aaron11]

2 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

 

Genuine question here, as I'm far from an expert on the legal system.  You're all saying that if a team doesn't want to hire him because of his political actions, that's the prerogative of the employer.  However, wouldn't that qualify as discrimination based on political beliefs?  Maybe this wouldn't be a collusion case, but then wouldn't it qualify as an employer discrimination case?

 

Stats don't always tell the entire story.  I didn't watch any 49ers games last year, so I can't provide my own analysis for it.  But here's what I've read.  Pro Football Focus ranked him as above average.  They also ranked him as the #42 available free agent.  Rotoworld says he's coming off arguably his best season as a pro.  Reid has never been in legal trouble, and is just 26 years old, so he has several more productive years ahead of him.  You mean to tell me not a single team in the NFL has a place on their roster for a player like that?

 

i dont see how it can be called discrimination.  they have always asked everyone in the stadium to please rise for the anthem.  

 

i did read that the owners of the jaguars was open to signing kapernick but the coaches didnt like the idea.  i have not followed reid as closely 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

 

i dont see how it can be called discrimination.  they have always asked everyone in the stadium to please rise for the anthem.  

 

i did read that the owners of the jaguars was open to signing kapernick but the coaches didnt like the idea.  i have not followed reid as closely 

 

 

I also don't see it as discrimination.

When a player signs a contract to play for the team he his on company time when he is on the sidelines.

I know at my former job I would be fired if I didn't represent the company the way I was expected to. Why should NFL players expect better treatment than the average Joe?

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

 

Genuine question here, as I'm far from an expert on the legal system.  You're all saying that if a team doesn't want to hire him because of his political actions, that's the prerogative of the employer.  However, wouldn't that qualify as discrimination based on political beliefs?  Maybe this wouldn't be a collusion case, but then wouldn't it qualify as an employer discrimination case?

 

Stats don't always tell the entire story.  I didn't watch any 49ers games last year, so I can't provide my own analysis for it.  But here's what I've read.  Pro Football Focus ranked him as above average.  They also ranked him as the #42 available free agent.  Rotoworld says he's coming off arguably his best season as a pro.  Reid has never been in legal trouble, and is just 26 years old, so he has several more productive years ahead of him.  You mean to tell me not a single team in the NFL has a place on their roster for a player like that?

In short, no, not signing him due to his kneeling would not fall under any protected category. At least in the private sector, which the NFL is. Government jobs would be a little bit different yet those also have rules about public participation in political activities so it's likely he'd be fired from any government job as well. 

 

That said, they are legally allowed to asked about public, political activities as long as they don't ask directly about which party he identifies with or any voting related questions. The rest is fair game under the EEOC

[Myles]

5 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

 

Genuine question here, as I'm far from an expert on the legal system.  You're all saying that if a team doesn't want to hire him because of his political actions, that's the prerogative of the employer.  However, wouldn't that qualify as discrimination based on political beliefs?  Maybe this wouldn't be a collusion case, but then wouldn't it qualify as an employer discrimination case?

 

Stats don't always tell the entire story.  I didn't watch any 49ers games last year, so I can't provide my own analysis for it.  But here's what I've read.  Pro Football Focus ranked him as above average.  They also ranked him as the #42 available free agent.  Rotoworld says he's coming off arguably his best season as a pro.  Reid has never been in legal trouble, and is just 26 years old, so he has several more productive years ahead of him.  You mean to tell me not a single team in the NFL has a place on their roster for a player like that?

Besides the just over average tAlent, he also brings distractions and fans dislike. 

[chad72]

19 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 

Genuine question here, as I'm far from an expert on the legal system.  You're all saying that if a team doesn't want to hire him because of his political actions, that's the prerogative of the employer.  However, wouldn't that qualify as discrimination based on political beliefs?  Maybe this wouldn't be a collusion case, but then wouldn't it qualify as an employer discrimination case?

 

 

It is not cut and dry, what you say. If the employer felt that the pros of hiring the person outweighs the cons, they would hire that person. The cons here are not just exclusive to political actions, they also are not enamored with the quality of play that person brings to the position that the employer wants to get him for. So unless you can isolate the reason to be exclusively political actions, the employer's choice prevails, IMO.

 

I look at it like a boy dating a girl or a girl dating a boy. That boy or girl that is seeking the favor of the opposite sex may very well be more qualified than anyone else the opposite sex is currently dating but if they come with baggage that does not make the pros of dating them worthwhile, they should not be surprised they didn't get the favor. But then, this analogy is apples and oranges, I understand that, rules of legal hiring thankfully do not apply to personal choice. However, that is the closest I could make a point with. The case where my analogy applies is when someone says "Colin or Eric are better than those back up QB or back up safety of that <insert team here>". 

 

Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid made their statement already, they could have continued to further their message and platform off the football field with their actions and activism off the football field. However, their pride and adamant resistance to keep it on the football field is distracting from the true message (at this point, it almost feels like grandstanding due to their pride), IMO. It thus is increasing the scrutiny they bring that far outweighs any positives they bring with any quality of play for their position. Plus, there are several others that share their political beliefs that are well employed by the league, which is another score against Colin and Eric. However, those other players treat their work as a professional workplace and keep their activism primarily off the field while sharing the same beliefs, and some even do more work than Colin and Eric for the cause.

 

Again, that is the best explanation I can come up with.  

[Four2itus]

Frankly, I am just tired of the hypocrisy. If you are a player and don't want to stand...do your thing. If you are an owner and don't want to sign a player....do your thing. If you are a fan and want to condemn or support a player for not standing...do your thing. 

 

But....if are a network who ignores others who are not standing, and point your cameras at click bait...

or if you are a player who uses your pulpit for a cause while displaying equally disrespectful actions.....

or you are a fan who at times has not always paid homage to the Anthem yourself....

 

....please stop adding to the confrontation. We don't need anymore division in our existence. 

[King Colt]

When you don't believe you should have to work for a living and you're too stupid to succeed at being a thief you simply call a greasy lawyer and sue something or somebody. It's been going on for years and unfortunately it works!.

[Reality Check]

Let's look at this from the business owner's perspective....

 

If you were to put your time, money, blood, sweat, tears, etc.. into buying, owning, and/or running ANY business, how would you feel if someone else stepped in and tried to tell you who you should hire? ... or even worse, they told you needed to hire people based on THEIR political agenda?

 

While I understand the relationship between ownership & NFLPA is a complicated one, the basic tenet of my point is still in play.