Jump to content

Colin Kaepernick


DingoLadd

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

What's not to get?  I agree he is good enough to play in the NFL.  I disagree that any team should be obligated to sign him just because of that.  

That you're responding to me about points I already made.

And no one was suggesting your last sentence being a reality. Saying he should be on a roster isn't the same as saying teams are obligated to sign him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

That you're responding to me about points I already made.

And no one was suggesting your last sentence being a reality. Saying he should be on a roster isn't the same as saying teams are obligated to sign him. 

I'm just saying--- wait, WHAT?  If you think he "should be on a roster" then you ARE saying a team should be obligated to sign him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

I'm just saying--- wait, WHAT?  If you think he "should be on a roster" then you ARE saying a team should be obligated to sign him.  

That’s not the same at all. 

“Dez Bryant is good enough to be on an NFL roster. The Patriots, being thin at WR, should sign him.”

”The Patriots are obligated to sign Dez Bryant.”

Those two statements mean the same thing, to you? No one’s obligated to sign any free agent. That has nothing to do with whether or not that player is good enough to be on a roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the claims I've heard about him, about how he SHOULD be on an NFL team, are really just veiled accusations that the NFL is in fact "blackballing" him when the reality is that there is a lot more to consider in any player signing than just "can he play?"  There's really just no point in bringing up how he should be on a roster unless you are trying to say that some team should be forced to sign him, because obviously none of them actually WANT to sign him,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

Most of the claims I've heard about him, about how he SHOULD be on an NFL team, are really just veiled accusations that the NFL is in fact "blackballing" him when the reality is that there is a lot more to consider in any player signing than just "can he play?"  There's really just no point in bringing up how he should be on a roster unless you are trying to say that some team should be forced to sign him, because obviously none of them actually WANT to sign him,

So, yes or no?

36 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

“Dez Bryant is good enough to be on an NFL roster. The Patriots, being thin at WR, should sign him.”

”The Patriots are obligated to sign Dez Bryant.”

Those two statements mean the same thing, to you? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

No.

But the Dez Bryant and Colin Kaepernick situations have nothing in common with each other.  You really don't see the difference?

It doesn’t matter. This thread is pretty clearly “without the non-football stuff”. Discussing Kaepernick as a player, it’s right there in the OP. 

Kaepernick is a good enough player to warrant a roster spot. That’s all that really needs to be established in a thread that is only discussing him as a football player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

It doesn’t matter. This thread is pretty clearly “without the non-football stuff”. Discussing Kaepernick as a player, it’s right there in the OP. 

Kaepernick is a good enough player to warrant a roster spot. That’s all that really needs to be established in a thread that is only discussing him as a football player

Threads are not confined only to the scope of the OP.  But if the only responses you want to see in this thread are "He's good enough to make a roster" or "He's not good enough to make a roster" then so be it.  I already said he played well enough in his last season in SF to warrant a roster spot somewhere.  But that is still largely irrelevant because there ARE other factors to consider when discussing whether he SHOULD be on a roster, even if you want to simply ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

Threads are not confined only to the scope of the OP. 

Shrug. 

You call it being “confined to the scope of the OP”, I call it staying on topic and talking about football. 

3 minutes ago, megatechpc said:

But if the only responses you want to see in this thread are "He's good enough to make a roster" or "He's not good enough to make a roster" then so be it.  I already said he played well enough in his last season in SF to warrant a roster spot somewhere.  But that is still largely irrelevant because there ARE other factors to consider when discussing whether he SHOULD be on a roster, even if you want to simply ignore them.

I don’t care if you want to derail a thread, but your statement was wrong. Saying he should be on a roster within the discussion of his football acumen only does not in any way imply that teams should be forced or obligated to sign him. There are other players currently unemployed that are also good enough and should be playing on a team.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Shrug. 

You call it being “confined to the scope of the OP”, I call it staying on topic and talking about football. 

I don’t care if you want to derail a thread, but your statement was wrong. Saying he should be on a roster within the discussion of his football acumen only does not in any way imply that teams should be forced or obligated to sign him. There are other players currently unemployed that are also good enough and should be playing on a team.

 

So you think he's good enough to be on a roster but that no teams should be compelled to sign him?

Good.  We agree.  Moving on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...