Jump to content
HTTRG3Dynasty

Star Players To Sit Out?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, youngosu said:

If this were MLB, the NHL, or the NBA I'd see it as more likely to happen but NFL players never take stands against the owners like this. Its obvious that the owners are colluding here (no way in hell Kaep isn't one of the 64 best QBs in the world and Reid's ability speaks for itself) but the courts will have to settle that and I am guessing the NFL will get away with it. 

He doesn't have to be a top 64 QB. NFL teams don't sign players with baggage to sit on the bench because it becomes too much of a distraction (see: Tebow, New York). He has to be a top 32 QB to make someones roster. Then you have to consider that whether it's right or wrong, signing Kap is going to piss off a lot of fans and you'd likely lose money as an organization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I think most everyone(not all but most) would agree with this but like i said above, I think the publicity he gets from whoever signs him will bring alot of attention that alot of teams dont want from their BACKUP. Thats the thing, this isn't a guy with major talent that is 1 contract away from being a starting QB in a league that is constantly grasping at straws to find one. The backup is someone that no one should really be that involved in. Its like the Tebow situation in a lot of ways. He received so much press for something not football related and alot of teams didnt want all that for someone that simply wasn't worth the trouble. If Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Carr or someone else around Kaep's age took this stand and was still a FA then there is a serious problem but the talent that he has NOW doesnt match the publicity and everything that surrounds him. It likely isn't going to help a locker room and if your backup QB is causing problems, he won't be there for long 

Exactly. If this was Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers they would obviously had a case. But this guy was benched then started doing this. They can easily sweep this under a rug. Even a judge who sympethizes with Kaep would have a very hard time ruling in his favor considering you have 32 billionaire owners ready to just ride this thing out for the next 10 or 20 years with ease. Kaep has already lost this war.

This isn't the battle of Issus, it's the Alamo. And he will lose and probably walk away penniless. The best thing he can do is create some really bad publicity and hope they are willing to settle out of court for a few million to just get over with. But his playing days are done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

He doesn't have to be a top 64 QB. NFL teams don't sign players with baggage to sit on the bench because it becomes too much of a distraction (see: Tebow, New York). He has to be a top 32 QB to make someones roster. Then you have to consider that whether it's right or wrong, signing Kap is going to piss off a lot of fans and you'd likely lose money as an organization. 

I don't buy the Tebow comparison, it was debatable as to rather Tebow was one of the top 64 QBs or not plus with Tebow you would need to be ready to run an entirely different offense if he came into the game. And Tebow was clearly a back up at best, Kaep was still a borderline starter.  

I agree with the 2nd part (other than the lost money part, plenty of people claimed to stop watching, few actually did), but I stand by my belief that it is collusion amongst the owners. There are plenty of teams in liberal cities that could have used him without any major fan issues. 

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

He doesn't have to be a top 64 QB. NFL teams don't sign players with baggage to sit on the bench because it becomes too much of a distraction (see: Tebow, New York). He has to be a top 32 QB to make someones roster. Then you have to consider that whether it's right or wrong, signing Kap is going to piss off a lot of fans and you'd likely lose money as an organization. 

Yea if teams aren't willing to even put up with Tebow and his distractions which noone could argue was detreminal to a team in any way. No way they wanna deal with Kaep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, youngosu said:

I don't buy the Tebow comparison, it was debatable as to rather Tebow was one of the top 64 QBs or not plus with Tebow you would need to be ready to run an entirely different offense if he came into the game. That isn't the case with Kaep.

If that were the case. Kaep would still be a starter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Calvert28 said:

If that were the case. Kaep would still be a starter.

 

If Kaep hadn't kneeled leading to collusion amongst the owners Kaep would be starting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And even if you want me to buy the Tebow comparison, it doesn't actually explain why no one has given Kaep a shot. 3 different NFL teams gave Tebow opportunities after the Broncos moved on despite the distraction it brought. 

 

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


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

If Kaep hadn't kneeled leading to collusion amongst the owners Kaep would be starting. 

You may be right. He might have gotten another opportunity. But he also started something that not only made the league look bad but the owners as well. That's on Kaep.

Yea the owners are pretty much a bunch of A-holes. But they want to do everything on their own terms. They have the resources to do so and this is where they are masters of the universe. Kaep upset the order of things and brought something to their doorstep they did not want to deal with. He dug his own grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I don't buy the Tebow comparison, it was debatable as to rather Tebow was one of the top 64 QBs or not plus with Tebow you would need to be ready to run an entirely different offense if he came into the game. And Tebow was clearly a back up at best, Kaep was still a borderline starter.  

I agree with the 2nd part (other than the lost money part, plenty of people claimed to stop watching, few actually did), but I stand by my belief that it is collusion amongst the owners. There are plenty of teams in liberal cities that could have used him without any major fan issues. 

I'm not comparing them as players, obviously Kap > Tebow, just in the fact that the media would cause him to be a distraction, regardless of what he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, youngosu said:

If Kaep hadn't kneeled leading to collusion amongst the owners Kaep would be starting. 

Starting for who? He was benched for Blaine Gabbert for christ sakes. If that doesn't signal the end of your career then I don't know what does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

You may be right. He might have gotten another opportunity. But he also started something that not only made the league look bad but the owners as well. That's on Kaep.

Yea the owners are pretty much a bunch of A-holes. But they want to do everything on their own terms. They have the resources to do so and this is where they are masters of the universe. Kaep upset the order of things and brought something to their doorstep they did not want to deal with. He dug his own grave.

Except the owners and players are partners. So they don't get to do everything on their own terms. They are not masters of the universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

Starting for who? He was benched for Blaine Gabbert for christ sakes. If that doesn't signal the end of your career then I don't know what does?

Tom Savage got 7 starts last year

CJ Beathard got 5 starts last year

Brett Hundley got 9 starts last year

Brock Oswieler got 4 starts last year

Jacoby Brissett got 15 starts last year

Trevor Siemian got 10 starts last year

And Blaine Gabbart is still getting starts (5 last year) so it appears the NFL disagrees with your assessment of Gabbart otherwise he wouldn't still be getting starts.

If Kaep hadn't kneeled he'd have started multiple games last year. Claiming otherwise is simply lying to yourself. 

 

As for who he'd probably have been starting for, the Browns, Broncos, or Colts. Maybe the Packers after Rodgers injury or Bills after they decided Taylor wasn't their guy. 

Edited by youngosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Except the owners and players are partners. So they don't get to do everything on their own terms. They are not masters of the universe. 

Lmao no they are not. One person who puts in a billion has more say over an organization then guys who don't put anything in. They get paid for a service but they are an employee. They have rights sure. But you are coming way out of left field with that statement. And as far as Kaep goes, he sucked at what he put in.

Edited by Calvert28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Tom Savage got 7 starts last year

CJ Beathard got 5 starts last year

Brett Hundley got 9 starts last year

Brock Oswieler got 4 starts last year

Jacoby Brissett got 15 starts last year

Trevor Siemian got 10 starts last year

And Blaine Gabbart is still getting starts (5 last year) so it appears the NFL disagrees with your assessment of Gabbart otherwise he wouldn't still be getting starts.

If Kaep hadn't kneeled he'd have started multiple games last year. Claiming otherwise is simply lying to yourself. 

 

As for who he'd probably have been starting for, the Browns, Broncos, or Colts. Maybe the Packers after Rodgers injury or Bills after they decided Taylor wasn't their guy. 

He’s not better than Keenum, Taylor or Brissett so you’re grasping right now. I don’t understand why people just can’t let go? The guy is terrible and along with that he brings baggage. Not only that but he can’t play outside of the read-option. He struggles dropping back and reading defenses. Why on earth would you sign a guy with baggage who you then have to alter your entire scheme for? 

Would he be in a roster minus the kneeling, most likely. He’s still not any good and wouldn’t be starting unless pressed into it. This is no different than RG3, Brock Osweiler or any other QB that had a good stretch of play that they couldn’t recapture. It’s over. Move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Except the owners and players are partners. So they don't get to do everything on their own terms. They are not masters of the universe. 

Ask your boss if you guys are partners. Let me know how that goes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×