NE.Jon

Kaepernick still no job

Recommended Posts

On 10/23/2017 at 1:40 PM, ggs5008 said:

He couldn't possibly be worse than Hundley could he?

Without knowing playbook, terminology, or having any chemistry with the WRs. Probably yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pallidrone said:

I don't understand why the Browns don't take a stab at him. They are such a train wreck right now that anything is an improvement.

Would probably make more sense to bring back RG3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pallidrone said:

I don't understand why the Browns don't take a stab at him. They are such a train wreck right now that anything is an improvement.

How does bringing in a QB who went 1-10 and 2-6 on the only bad teams he ever played for help them?

Will liberals blaming his Browns teammates for Kaep's continual losses help the franchise?

Would his upside of a 2-6 record on this team do anything other than lose the top pick in the draft?

Do you build the team around a 1-read-then-run QB who is already 30 years old? A guy who can't really handle a 200+ yard forward pass offense?

Do you want to be picketed when you cut him for being an awful QB as a Brown?

Do you want to lose droves of season ticket holders who are offended at one of the top 20 most offensive players in NFL history? (read about his words, posts, and fashion choices, not the fake liberal praise)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, skippyx said:

How does bringing in a QB who went 1-10 and 2-6 on the only bad teams he ever played for help them?

Will liberals blaming his Browns teammates for Kaep's continual losses help the franchise?

Would his upside of a 2-6 record on this team do anything other than lose the top pick in the draft?

Do you build the team around a 1-read-then-run QB who is already 30 years old? A guy who can't really handle a 200+ yard forward pass offense?

Do you want to be picketed when you cut him for being an awful QB as a Brown?

Do you want to lose droves of season ticket holders who are offended at one of the top 20 most offensive players in NFL history? (read about his words, posts, and fashion choices, not the fake liberal praise)

 

I get that you have liberal tourettes but not everything is politically charged.

Why should they sign him?

1) They can throw him into the fire instead of their young QBs. Kizer needed to sit on the bench for a year instead of going out there and throwing picks left and right.

2) They are a business first and foremost. They will make headlines and there will be focus on their team instead of them getting mocked because of Wentz. Kaep will shine the lights on them. Will they lose some season ticket holders? Probably, just like the Eagles did when they signed Vick, but do you know what will lose them more season ticket holders? Losing and being completely uninteresting.

3) You don't build a team around Kaep - he is only a half year stop gap solution for them. He would be a sacrificial lamb unless he takes off on that team.

From a business pov it would make sense. They are 0-7, they are going nowhere this year, their QBs are not progressing out there. Why not do something to generate interest while letting their QBs ride the pine and learn?

They are not going to lose season ticket holders in droves, nobody who invest that kind of money just gives it up because of a single player that would only be there for the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pallidrone said:

I get that you have liberal tourettes but not everything is politically charged.

Why should they sign him?

1) They can throw him into the fire instead of their young QBs. Kizer needed to sit on the bench for a year instead of going out there and throwing picks left and right.

2) They are a business first and foremost. They will make headlines and there will be focus on their team instead of them getting mocked because of Wentz. Kaep will shine the lights on them. Will they lose some season ticket holders? Probably, just like the Eagles did when they signed Vick, but do you know what will lose them more season ticket holders? Losing and being completely uninteresting.

3) You don't build a team around Kaep - he is only a half year stop gap solution for them. He would be a sacrificial lamb unless he takes off on that team.

From a business pov it would make sense. They are 0-7, they are going nowhere this year, their QBs are not progressing out there. Why not do something to generate interest while letting their QBs ride the pine and learn?

They are not going to lose season ticket holders in droves, nobody who invest that kind of money just gives it up because of a single player that would only be there for the short term.

That is not necessarily the attention you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, drewg22 said:

That is not necessarily the attention you want.

Possibly but it is the Browns. At this point any attention is probably good attention.

Share this post


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

Why should they sign him?

2) They are a business first and foremost. They will make headlines and there will be focus on their team instead of them getting mocked because of Wentz. Kaep will shine the lights on them. Will they lose some season ticket holders? Probably, just like the Eagles did when they signed Vick, but do you know what will lose them more season ticket holders? Losing and being completely uninteresting.

From a business pov it would make sense. They are 0-7, they are going nowhere this year, their QBs are not progressing out there. Why not do something to generate interest while letting their QBs ride the pine and learn?

They are not going to lose season ticket holders in droves, nobody who invest that kind of money just gives it up because of a single player that would only be there for the short term.

I don't relish weighing in on this topic but have to disagree with this logic. A major reason, if not THE major reason why ANY team will not sign CK is because they are a business and it would not be good for business. The backlash from fans would be immediate and substantial. It would definitely impact attendance during the current season and the sale of tickets for next year. The larger impact would come from the TV boycotts. Many fans of the team who signed him would turn off the TV which is both easy and at no expense. It is arguable, and likely that there would be some ripple effect across the league from fans of other teams as well. That would affect advertisers and advertising revenue. Sponsors would surely voice displeasure, albeit non-publicly. The inevitable media circus, combined with the protests and backlash from fans and sponsors would have a negative BUSINESS effect on the team who signed him with some impact to the league as well. The benefits, in the form of additional victories for that team, would not be enough to offset or counterbalance the negative impacts. In the Browns case, this would be most pronounced since the long suffering fans of that team have more reason than any other franchise to protest the product via boycott or non-attendance.

It is BECAUSE NFL teams are BUSINESSES that not one of the them will take the chance on CK. He is a proven mediocre QB that is not substantially better or potentially better than the backup QB's currently on teams, such that the short term, incrementally superior performance would be worth the negative BUSINESS impacts. THAT IS WHY NO TEAM WILL SIGN CK - IT'S BUSINESS. Each team is refraining from acting individually in personal Self-Interest.

Peace

IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, afootballfan202 said:

I don't relish weighing in on this topic but have to disagree with this logic. A major reason, if not THE major reason why ANY team will not sign CK is because they are a business and it would not be good for business. The backlash from fans would be immediate and substantial. It would definitely impact attendance during the current season and the sale of tickets for next year. The larger impact would come from the TV boycotts. Many fans of the team who signed him would turn off the TV which is both easy and at no expense. It is arguable, and likely that there would be some ripple effect across the league from fans of other teams as well. That would affect advertisers and advertising revenue. Sponsors would surely voice displeasure, albeit non-publicly. The inevitable media circus, combined with the protests and backlash from fans and sponsors would have a negative BUSINESS effect on the team who signed him with some impact to the league as well. The benefits, in the form of additional victories for that team, would not be enough to offset or counterbalance the negative impacts. In the Browns case, this would be most pronounced since the long suffering fans of that team have more reason than any other franchise to protest the product via boycott or non-attendance.

It is BECAUSE NFL teams are BUSINESSES that not one of the them will take the chance on CK. He is a proven mediocre QB that is not substantially better or potentially better than the backup QB's currently on teams, such that the short term, incrementally superior performance would be worth the negative BUSINESS impacts. THAT IS WHY NO TEAM WILL SIGN CK - IT'S BUSINESS. Each team is refraining from acting individually in personal Self-Interest.

Peace

IMHO

Then why in the world did the Eagles sign Vick?

What he did was more egregious then Kaep, especially in a country where there are a lot more people that love their dogs then they do the flag. The Eagles were able to sustain their business - they lost some season ticket holders but not enough to stop people from going. They had a ton of protests but that did not stop people from attending games. They are still around and still doing business.

The worst part is that I really, really don't give a crap about Kaep and I do think he is a mediocre QB. I just think that it makes sense for the Browns to go this route - let them become the heel of the NFL - let people come out and boo the heck out of Kaep. I think in a lost 0-7 season, where they are not going to get better, where their second year and rookie QBs are getting killed out there, why not take a chance and do something a little bit interesting for once.

Signing Kaep for half a year is not going to make people stop going to games. Being boring and continuing to lose games is what is going to lose them customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pallidrone said:

Then why in the world did the Eagles sign Vick?

Because he was a massively better player than Kaepernick. He was a major talent who had gone first overall when he came out. He still had a lot of potential.

Kap was a second round pick with some upside who had a couple decent years but flamed out into mediocrity. 

From a pure football perspective, there's no comparison between the two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, afootballfan202 said:

A major reason, if not THE major reason why ANY team will not sign CK is because they are a business and it would not be good for business. The backlash from fans would be immediate and substantial. It would definitely impact attendance during the current season and the sale of tickets for next year. The larger impact would come from the TV boycotts. Many fans of the team who signed him would turn off the TV which is both easy and at no expense. It is arguable, and likely that there would be some ripple effect across the league from fans of other teams as well. That would affect advertisers and advertising revenue. Sponsors would surely voice displeasure, albeit non-publicly. The inevitable media circus, combined with the protests and backlash from fans and sponsors would have a negative BUSINESS effect on the team who signed him with some impact to the league as well. The benefits, in the form of additional victories for that team, would not be enough to offset or counterbalance the negative impacts. In the Browns case, this would be most pronounced since the long suffering fans of that team have more reason than any other franchise to protest the product via boycott or non-attendance.

It is BECAUSE NFL teams are BUSINESSES that not one of the them will take the chance on CK. He is a proven mediocre QB that is not substantially better or potentially better than the backup QB's currently on teams, such that the short term, incrementally superior performance would be worth the negative BUSINESS impacts. THAT IS WHY NO TEAM WILL SIGN CK - IT'S BUSINESS. Each team is refraining from acting individually in personal Self-Interest.

Thanks for your input . . . I agree with you.

I work in the retail automotive service industry and so, I have contact with a broad spectrum of different people.

My unscientific poll shows that younger males i.e. those up to 35 or so don't seem to care too much one way or the other re: the protest movement.

Older males, especially those 50 or older, are repulsed and angered by it . . . as am I.

The older clientele are ready to throw the NFL away with no remorse whatsoever.

Hiring CK would definitely drive more people away IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pallidrone said:

Then why in the world did the Eagles sign Vick?

What he did was more egregious then Kaep, especially in a country where there are a lot more people that love their dogs then they do the flag. The Eagles were able to sustain their business - they lost some season ticket holders but not enough to stop people from going. They had a ton of protests but that did not stop people from attending games. They are still around and still doing business.

The worst part is that I really, really don't give a crap about Kaep and I do think he is a mediocre QB. I just think that it makes sense for the Browns to go this route - let them become the heel of the NFL - let people come out and boo the heck out of Kaep. I think in a lost 0-7 season, where they are not going to get better, where their second year and rookie QBs are getting killed out there, why not take a chance and do something a little bit interesting for once.

Signing Kaep for half a year is not going to make people stop going to games. Being boring and continuing to lose games is what is going to lose them customers.

Vick had paid a price to the NFL and to Society. He had his contract terminated, had all his endorsements cancelled and went to jail. When he was released, he openly admitted to his mistake, acted to amend his ways and tried to make restitution. The Eagles took a BUSINESS risk and gave him a second chance. That was because his potential value as a player was substantial and outweighed the negative fan reactions which still exist to this day. He openly tried to make amends for his actions and admitted his guilt.

To the contrary, CK chose the symbol of America to disrespect. It stands for America. He has every right to state his opinion. That is what America is about. But he chose to dishonor the republic which defends his very right to disagree. His message is that he cannot respect a nation (or the symbol of that nation) that provides the very freedom that he is exercising. By doing so he is effectively calling for the destruction of that nation. The flag stands for many good principles. People do not always live up to those principles but one of the greatest strengths of this republic has been its ability to adapt and change, often with difficulty and often slowly. Many people have died for that privilege. CK chose his vehicle unwisely. The majority of Americans disagree with his choice, many vehemently. He distorted his message by disrespecting the flag. The silent majority will speak.

I disagree with your conclusion that CK will not push significant numbers of fans away from games of the team that signs him, should he return. Both in person attendance and televised. The NFL is a BUSINESS, run by businessmen. Decisions are made on that basis. To be clear, my point is that the choice to sign or not sign CK is a BUSINESS decision. I have no wish to debate the merits of his arguments. FWIW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Eagles signed Vick the franchise was in a healthy position and had a strong pull factor with the fanbase. The Browns have a strong push factor as they have been in the pits for a long time and fans are getting tired of their incompetence.

From this perspective the Eagles were in a position to take on some controversy and take a hit on some fan dissatisfaction, but for the Browns that could be extremely detrimental as they have very little going for them.

For this reason, the two instances are not that similar and there are a lot more variables to take into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 1:15 PM, Pallidrone said:

Then why in the world did the Eagles sign Vick?

What he did was more egregious then Kaep, especially in a country where there are a lot more people that love their dogs then they do the flag. The Eagles were able to sustain their business - they lost some season ticket holders but not enough to stop people from going. They had a ton of protests but that did not stop people from attending games. They are still around and still doing business.

The worst part is that I really, really don't give a crap about Kaep and I do think he is a mediocre QB. I just think that it makes sense for the Browns to go this route - let them become the heel of the NFL - let people come out and boo the heck out of Kaep. I think in a lost 0-7 season, where they are not going to get better, where their second year and rookie QBs are getting killed out there, why not take a chance and do something a little bit interesting for once.

Signing Kaep for half a year is not going to make people stop going to games. Being boring and continuing to lose games is what is going to lose them customers.

Vick did something horrible but he went to prison for it, lost a giant contract, and showed real contrition.

He had not shown that 2004 like record of 11-4 in '05 and '06, but he was still winning about half his games. 15-16 is a different galaxy than 3-16.

 

Kaepernick has still been spouting garbage during this season. He is justifiably hated for his ignorant and disgusting opinions.

Vick was also coming off a season where he threw for 2474 yards and 20 TDs AND ran for over 1000 yards. He was still considered an elite player.

There was a segment who would hate him, a segment who would grudgingly give him a chance, and a segment who would look past this or forgive him.

 

5% of the fan base and another 10% who don't even like football make it 100x worse for Kaepernick by preaching from a fake high ground about his right to play.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 2:15 PM, Pallidrone said:

Then why in the world did the Eagles sign Vick?

What he did was more egregious then Kaep, especially in a country where there are a lot more people that love their dogs then they do the flag. The Eagles were able to sustain their business - they lost some season ticket holders but not enough to stop people from going. They had a ton of protests but that did not stop people from attending games. They are still around and still doing business.

The worst part is that I really, really don't give a crap about Kaep and I do think he is a mediocre QB. I just think that it makes sense for the Browns to go this route - let them become the heel of the NFL - let people come out and boo the heck out of Kaep. I think in a lost 0-7 season, where they are not going to get better, where their second year and rookie QBs are getting killed out there, why not take a chance and do something a little bit interesting for once.

Signing Kaep for half a year is not going to make people stop going to games. Being boring and continuing to lose games is what is going to lose them customers.

Signing vick did nothing for us but ir did help vick turn his life around. Do you see kap turning his life around or starting more drama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 9:24 PM, skippyx said:

Vick did something horrible but he went to prison for it, lost a giant contract, and showed real contrition.

He had not shown that 2004 like record of 11-4 in '05 and '06, but he was still winning about half his games. 15-16 is a different galaxy than 3-16.

 

Kaepernick has still been spouting garbage during this season. He is justifiably hated for his ignorant and disgusting opinions.

Vick was also coming off a season where he threw for 2474 yards and 20 TDs AND ran for over 1000 yards. He was still considered an elite player.

There was a segment who would hate him, a segment who would grudgingly give him a chance, and a segment who would look past this or forgive him.

 

5% of the fan base and another 10% who don't even like football make it 100x worse for Kaepernick by preaching from a fake high ground about his right to play.

 

 

Coaches were enamoured with vick and thought they could be the 1. He was never elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 9:24 PM, skippyx said:

Vick did something horrible but he went to prison for it, lost a giant contract, and showed real contrition.

He had not shown that 2004 like record of 11-4 in '05 and '06, but he was still winning about half his games. 15-16 is a different galaxy than 3-16.

 

Kaepernick has still been spouting garbage during this season. He is justifiably hated for his ignorant and disgusting opinions.

Vick was also coming off a season where he threw for 2474 yards and 20 TDs AND ran for over 1000 yards. He was still considered an elite player.

There was a segment who would hate him, a segment who would grudgingly give him a chance, and a segment who would look past this or forgive him.

 

5% of the fan base and another 10% who don't even like football make it 100x worse for Kaepernick by preaching from a fake high ground about his right to play.

 

 

right to play. F that. in this league if you are good you will be signed. it's money thing.they will accomodate you if  you win. he was not good. period. oh yeah, i admit he had a few good games. a few.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bobbywizdum said:

Coaches were enamoured with vick and thought they could be the 1. He was never elite.

When he was a Falcon, he did have elite speed. When he tucked the ball down and took off, he was moving at a different speed than anyone else on the field.  

Share this post


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

When he was a Falcon, he did have elite speed. When he tucked the ball down and took off, he was moving at a different speed than anyone else on the field.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vee said:

When he was a Falcon, he did have elite speed. When he tucked the ball down and took off, he was moving at a different speed than anyone else on the field.  

Speed ? Sure he was fast. Elite nfl qb? No. On the uprise? Not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vee said:

When he was a Falcon, he did have elite speed. When he tucked the ball down and took off, he was moving at a different speed  than anyone else on the field.  

He did it as an Eagle as well . . . perhaps not as fast but sufficient in the Miracle @ Meadowlands 2,  Dec  2010.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Share this post


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