I'm with you on pretty much everything you wrote. I don't think there's any way the owners are stupid enough to get caught in colluding in a proven illegal form. The previous posts gave me the idea that everybody was on the "He sucks, that's why he doesn't have a job. He's not worth the trouble," bandwagon. I think it's more than that. I believe he was the subject of conversation, and there was an agreement that everybody's life would be easier without him. That seems pretty reasonable. Where you have to take a leap is to believe that there was a threat from the group to any individual who wanted to step out line and sign him. While that's possible, any hard evidence is not going to exist.I think this comes down to what your definition of collusion is. I don’t consider a meeting to discuss concerns about anthem kneeling and an informal consensus that company men are more desirable hires applies, to be honest. I know they’re the bosses. They have agency. They also are effectively part of a leadership team that sets cultural guidelines. Like any organization. The scenario you described is fine up until threats were made. I don’t understand how you think a business should run, otherwise.Do you think the owners didn't sit down and discuss the anthem protests and what they could/should do? Do you think Kaep's name came up in those discussions as the origination of the anthem protests? Do you think owners of 9 digit properties like being forced to take a stand that could slice up their fan base?MWB, do you have a specific sequence that you think happened? Was there an email thread with 30 owners on it, where they all replied with a “co-sign”? A conference call? Do you think that Snyder and Jones got together and said, “I won’t if you won’t”?
I’m just not sure what realistic premise you’re positing. Or are you looking at the term “collusion” more loosely than us, where it’s just a couple owners having a couple casual conversations? Jerry Jones sending a one way message to the others saying, “guys...let’s not do this. Could be bad”?
I think there could certainly be a lot of hostility toward him, and I'm sure it was voiced openly in meetings. Whether somebody specifically said, "F this kid, he doesn't realize what a privilege it is to play in this league. If any of you sign this mfer I'm going kick your ass. He's the root of all our problems," would only be conjecture. If they put it in writing they're dumber than a doorknob.
They’re effectively partners in a business. They are allowed to agree. To disagree. To formally institute policy. To casually encourage policy. The only way Kaep has any case is if a specific team who wanted him was strong armed into not hiring him. And you’re getting into conspiratorial territory there. I’m not saying Jerry Jones definitely didn’t start making threats to other owners. He might have. But its not something that we can speculate. Or did I miss some piece of evidence?
NFL
NFL
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
NFL
Ok then.
I think the thing that’s bugging me now is painting Kaep as a sympathetic figure. He made more money than he deserved. Then once his utility expired, he willfully pissed off his bosses. What fate do people think he deserves? I’d get fired if I did something comparable. I would say, “ah right. This is work. I can’t really be an activist at work and demand immunity from consequence”.
He took a risk. It failed. But he’s also a tycoon so who cares.
I think the thing that’s bugging me now is painting Kaep as a sympathetic figure. He made more money than he deserved. Then once his utility expired, he willfully pissed off his bosses. What fate do people think he deserves? I’d get fired if I did something comparable. I would say, “ah right. This is work. I can’t really be an activist at work and demand immunity from consequence”.
He took a risk. It failed. But he’s also a tycoon so who cares.
NFL
I don't view him as a sympathetic figure; I agree with what you said. I just also think there was some loose agreement to basically blackball him though. And I also think people who say he wasn't signed solely due to lack of talent are incorrect.
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
NFL
What are you basing that loose agreement on? A hunch? I guess the burden of proof is on both of us, but there’s nothing there, publically.I don't view him as a sympathetic figure; I agree with what you said. I just also think there was some loose agreement to basically blackball him though. And I also think people who say he wasn't signed solely due to lack of talent are incorrect.
His accompanying circus turned away customers and created an unwanted distraction. Those are matters beyond lack of talent, but so? Proving twitter yokels wrong is one thing, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the teams taking a pass for those reasons.
NFL
I think it's just as likely (maybe a little more likely) that each of the owners came to the conclusion on their own that Kaep, at his current talent level, wasn't worth the additional baggage. Whether he 'deserved' the baggage is a completely separate argument...but no one can deny that it existed. That would negate collusion.I don't view him as a sympathetic figure; I agree with what you said. I just also think there was some loose agreement to basically blackball him though. And I also think people who say he wasn't signed solely due to lack of talent are incorrect.
I don't think it was a loose agreement... I think it was more of a 'hey, anyone thinking of signing this guy?' that was met with 32 rich guys laughing hysterically. I don't think it ever reached a need to collude.
NFL
I think you're misunderstanding. It's not purely lack of talent. It's that he has backup QB talent but diva WR level baggage. People have said all along that an owner would suck it up for a Tom Brady, but CK is just not good enough.I don't view him as a sympathetic figure; I agree with what you said. I just also think there was some loose agreement to basically blackball him though. And I also think people who say he wasn't signed solely due to lack of talent are incorrect.
The Browns cut a linebacker for insider trading. There just isn't a lot of room for bullshit when you're not a national level star in the NFL.
NFL
I'm not misunderstanding, I just wasn't clear enough, or didn't specify the right people. I'm not saying anyone ITT is saying he wasn't signed solely because of talent; I was speaking in more general terms. That there are people who said he just sucks and that's the only reason he wasn't signed. I'm well aware that there is another, more logical group of people who say it was a combination of talent/distraction. I get that.
My loose agreement is just a hunch, yes. I obviously have no insider knowledge. Like I said previously, I think the whole thing about protests came up in meetings, and Kaep came up. I think it's certainly possible that some owners talked to each other and said that it would probably be a good idea if he wasn't in the league, and that would be the best way to just keep this out of the spotlight as much as it could be. I also think it's possible that both things are true... the owners, to some extent, agreed that he shouldn't be in the league, and that many or even all wouldn't have signed him anyway.
My loose agreement is just a hunch, yes. I obviously have no insider knowledge. Like I said previously, I think the whole thing about protests came up in meetings, and Kaep came up. I think it's certainly possible that some owners talked to each other and said that it would probably be a good idea if he wasn't in the league, and that would be the best way to just keep this out of the spotlight as much as it could be. I also think it's possible that both things are true... the owners, to some extent, agreed that he shouldn't be in the league, and that many or even all wouldn't have signed him anyway.
NFL
And signed a guy who was kicking a chick in his hallway, while having basically a 1,000 yd rusher in the backfield already.The Browns cut a linebacker for insider trading. There just isn't a lot of room for bullshit when you're not a national level star in the NFL.
So they brought in a poor excuse for a human to back-up a skill position, but 32 teams wouldn't bring in Kaep? I suppose it could all come down to money, Hunt knew he needed a second chance after doing something despicable so he'd take a pay cut. Kaep didn't do anything "wrong" so he still expects to get paid at least Chase Daniel money to back-up somebody.
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
NFL
What we’re saying is that’s neither collusion nor unethical. But maybe that was clear.I'm not misunderstanding, I just wasn't clear enough, or didn't specify the right people. I'm not saying anyone ITT is saying he wasn't signed solely because of talent; I was speaking in more general terms. That there are people who said he just sucks and that's the only reason he wasn't signed. I'm well aware that there is another, more logical group of people who say it was a combination of talent/distraction. I get that.
My loose agreement is just a hunch, yes. I obviously have no insider knowledge. Like I said previously, I think the whole thing about protests came up in meetings, and Kaep came up. I think it's certainly possible that some owners talked to each other and said that it would probably be a good idea if he wasn't in the league, and that would be the best way to just keep this out of the spotlight as much as it could be. I also think it's possible that both things are true... the owners, to some extent, agreed that he shouldn't be in the league, and that many or even all wouldn't have signed him anyway.
NFL
Speaking to the Redskins in particular again: At issue is a guy kneeling for the national anthem, and we're questioning the decision tree of a franchise owner whose team is based in the nation's capital ten miles up the road from where Air Force One lives, and who seems to favor one party over the his donation history (altho he does have a history - like most business people - of donating to both parties) came to the conclusion Kaep was too much of a hassle.
-
- Posts: 50596
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
- Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.
NFL
This is really the crux of the matter for me, and there's no need to over-complicate things.His accompanying circus turned away customers and created an unwanted distraction. Those are matters beyond lack of talent, but so?
NFL
It feels great that Bell news is NFL and non-Steeler related now
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/leve ... m-the-nfl/
via http://cbssportsapp.com
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/leve ... m-the-nfl/
via http://cbssportsapp.com
-
- Posts: 27661
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
NFL
lol, today I saw on twitter something about Kraft being in an "unholy alliance" with Meek Mill on criminal justice reform. My thought was that I bet Kraft is breaking the law.
NFL
A misdemeanor. Good use of gov funds, imo.
NFL
Yeah, I laughed at the 'body cam' bit.
-
- Posts: 7629
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:32 pm
- Location: The biggest post, in the biggest thread, in the biggest forum in town. Wooooo!
-
- Posts: 11094
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
- Location: Location: Location
NFL
I wonder if any politicians who are friends with Bob Kraft are involved in this :thonking:
NFL
There are something like 200 Johns being rounded up in this, which is attendant to a larger racketeering, money laundering, and human trafficking ring. There was one report that suggested something like 2,500 people have been arrested in the last 24 hours in this sting, across multiple states, but that is a number that sort of seems like a typo, so I share it with a big fat caveat that this is early days in the story.A misdemeanor. Good use of gov funds, imo.
NFL
Right, I was speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek. Kraft isn't a human trafficker (maybe?) but that's what will get the clicks. Meanwhile we'll never hear if they actually caught anyone actually trafficking.There are something like 200 Johns being rounded up in this, which is attendant to a larger racketeering, money laundering, and human trafficking ring. There was one report that suggested something like 2,500 people have been arrested in the last 24 hours in this sting, across multiple states, but that is a number that sort of seems like a typo, so I share it with a big fat caveat that this is early days in the story.A misdemeanor. Good use of gov funds, imo.
Just doing my usual media-cynic shtick.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 335 guests