NFL arranges workout for QB Colin Kaepernick

[Soko]

4 hours ago, Xenos said:

Can you really blame him for not trusting them after they messed up something as simple of this?

I’ve been hearing this (in both media and from fans), but I find it rather convenient. Kaepernick can trust the NFL to set up this workout, work to get teams to attend, work to get it filmed, but then there’s mistrust? I mean, I’m sure there is mistrust, but why were they able to look past that up until game time? 

More specifically, I heard Kaepernick was worried the NFL would use the film and edit it to make Kaepernick look bad - huh? Most of the NFL teams were present at the workout itself, they’re the ones that need to walk away impressed. Plus, the league agreed to give him all the film they record. Any doctoring or lies could be brought to light by making the original video public. 

So no, I don’t think we can blame Kaepernick for having mistrust but we can blame him (or at least, view him a little more suspiciously) for being able to look past that mistrust until the final moment. I don’t think the NFL really cares about this beyond the PR, so the legitimacy of this whole workout is definitely up for debate, but it was a solid opportunity that Kaepernick committed to and backed out of (sort of, ended up working out still but for less teams). 

This about ties Tebow-mania for the “JFC, I wish this was over with so we could all move on” award.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Yin-Yang

[ramssuperbowl99]

8 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

12 hours ago, Xenos said:

That's certainly the NFL's side of the story.

Is there any other reason that he didn't try out in front of the 25 teams that came?

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/16/kaepernick-moves-workout-says-nfl-demanded-he-sign-liability-waiver/

Quote

“From the outset, Mr. Kaepernick requested a legitimate process and from the outset the NFL league office has not provided one,” the statement said. “Most recently, the NFL has demanded that as a precondition to the workout, Mr. Kaepernick sign an unusual liability waiver that addresses employment-related issues and rejected the standard liability waiver from physical injury proposed by Mr. Kaepernick’s representatives. Additionally, Mr. Kaepernick requested all media be allowed into the workout to observe and film it and for an independent film crew to be there to ensure transparency. The NFL denied this request.”

There is no legitimate reason the league would have to tie a workout to a waiver that removes Kaepernick's ability to sue for any collusion that may have happened between his most recent settlement and today. What they tried to do was convince teams to come, have Kaepernick show up, sign away those rights for free that the NFL was too cheap to buy out in the original settlement, and then never hear from teams again.

Kaepernick, smartly, didn't just no-show, but held a workout in a different place so that it is clear the majority of the 25 teams who originally showed weren't even interested enough in seeing him to make a short drive. Which begs the question: if you are willing to have a scout fly into Atlanta to see a QB because you sincerely think he might be better than your current backup, why are you not willing to make a short drive to confirm? And maybe one team has a scout with a quick flight back that can't be bumped or something, but more than 2/3rds of the teams there? That defies belief.

My guess is that Kaepernick and his lawyers will use this as part of a second lawsuit.

[RuskieTitan]

35 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Kaepernick, smartly, didn't just no-show, but held a workout in a different place so that it is clear the majority of the 25 teams who originally showed weren't even interested enough in seeing him to make a short drive. Which begs the question: if you are willing to have a scout fly into Atlanta to see a QB because you sincerely think he might be better than your current backup, why are you not willing to make a short drive to confirm? And maybe one team has a scout with a quick flight back that can't be bumped or something, but more than 2/3rds of the teams there? That defies belief.

Teams are often willing to send someone to take a look to determine if it's worth kicking the tires and taking a closer look. When a guy who hasn't played for 3 years suddenly decides he wants to go rogue and do things his way, that doesn't put the onus on the scouts / teams to suddenly need to accommodate his wishes. He wants to play for a team, fine, show up at your meeting. 

It's the same thing as the NFL Combine, where all teams show up, and specific school pro days, where teams choose to show up if they have interest. You don't see players who skip the combine and test just at their pro day complain when not all teams show.

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, RuskieTitan said:

Teams are often willing to send someone to take a look to determine if it's worth kicking the tires and taking a closer look. When a guy who hasn't played for 3 years suddenly decides he wants to go rogue and do things his way, that doesn't put the onus on the scouts / teams to suddenly need to accommodate his wishes. He wants to play for a team, fine, show up at your meeting. 

It's the same thing as the NFL Combine, where all teams show up, and specific school pro days, where teams choose to show up if they have interest. You don't see players who skip the combine and test just at their pro day complain when not all teams show.

Again, I'm speculating here, but his lawyers are going to argue why the teams no-showed. More specifically, I'm guessing his lawyers are going to say the team's actions aren't consistent with a sincere attempt to evaluate Kaepernick, but were consistent with bait to get him to sign a waiver so that they could blackball him freely without legal repercussions.

The first part of my post, which you deleted, is the relevant portion here. That waiver was the whole goal of the "workout".

[vikesfan89]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/11/16/kaepernick-moves-workout-says-nfl-demanded-he-sign-liability-waiver/

There is no legitimate reason the league would have to tie a workout to a waiver that removes Kaepernick's ability to sue for any collusion that may have happened between his most recent settlement and today. What they tried to do was convince teams to come, have Kaepernick show up, sign away those rights for free that the NFL was too cheap to buy out in the original settlement, and then never hear from teams again.

Kaepernick, smartly, didn't just no-show, but held a workout in a different place so that it is clear the majority of the 25 teams who originally showed weren't even interested enough in seeing him to make a short drive. Which begs the question: if you are willing to have a scout fly into Atlanta to see a QB because you sincerely think he might be better than your current backup, why are you not willing to make a short drive to confirm? And maybe one team has a scout with a quick flight back that can't be bumped or something, but more than 2/3rds of the teams there? That defies belief.

My guess is that Kaepernick and his lawyers will use this as part of a second lawsuit.

It's a lot of he said she said at this point. The NFL was not obligated to do a workout. If a team wanted to sign him they could still have a personal workout with him. If he really wants to play he shouldn't be setting things up to make it easier to sue again

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, vikesfan89 said:

It's a lot of he said she said at this point. The NFL was not obligated to do a workout. If a team wanted to sign him they could still have a personal workout with him. 

And Kaepernick's lawyers will argue that, after teams won't work him out, that he's being blackballed for his political activism. Which the NFL is not allowed to do. If they wanted to, they can negotiate that in the CBA (good luck) or have settled with Kaepernick previously.

1 minute ago, vikesfan89 said:

 If he really wants to play he shouldn't be setting things up to make it easier to sue again

I think it's fair to say at this point the relationship has deteriorated to the point where you can reasonably criticize everyone involved for having ulterior motives to all of their actions, and that the best course of action was for the NFL to buy out Kaepernick's right to sue for future blackballing in their previous settlement.

But they didn't. Because they're idiots or cheap or both. So we're going to hear about this for another couple years.

[vikesfan89]

Are they allowed to not sign someone that might hurt their brand? The NFL can argue the it's not the activism itself but that they don't want to potentially lose customers for a backup quarterback. I have no idea if that would work or not

[TENINCH]

10 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

As someone who just watched Jared Goff, Mitchell Trubiski and Chase Daniel try to complete NFL passes for 60 minutes you cannot honestly tell me Kaepernick shouldn't be on an NFL roster, let alone starting for at least 5-6 teams in the NFL at this point. That was just brutal to watch.

Those players don't come with the attention Kapernick does. The NFL and that particular NFL team probably don't want that attention. His talent just isn't worth the headache. There's a reason AB is still sitting at home and he's better than any receiver in the NFL.

[ramssuperbowl99]

12 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Are they allowed to not sign someone that might hurt their brand? The NFL can argue the it's not the activism itself but that they don't want to potentially lose customers for a backup quarterback. I have no idea if that would work or not

They're right back to the same situation they settled previously. They could try and argue anything, but if they settled with that argument in their back pocket already, you'd be inclined to think they'd do so again.

[Chrissooner49er]

If Kaep really wanted to play, he wouldn't have worn that T-shirt. In a not-so-subtle way, he just told everyone what he really thinks about the NFL. One problem: no slaves ever made millions of dollars. 

And before you censure me, Kaep took it there first.

[Uncle Buck]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

They're right back to the same situation they settled previously. They could try and argue anything, but if they settled with that argument in their back pocket already, you'd be inclined to think they'd do so again.

I've been comparing this whole situation to a job interview.  The thing is, it sounds like there may be some issues due to the contract Kaepernick previously had when he was playing with the 49ers.  If that is the case, I would just make a settlement with him and then move on.  It's the best thing for all parties.  This way the NFL can publically say that they fulfilled their obligation and then Kaepernick would no longer have any reason to be whining and crying.  Both parties can move on.

[ramssuperbowl99]

7 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

I've been comparing this whole situation to a job interview.  The thing is, it sounds like there may be some issues due to the contract Kaepernick previously had when he was playing with the 49ers.  If that is the case, I would just make a settlement with him and then move on.  It's the best thing for all parties.  This way the NFL can publically say that they fulfilled their obligation and then Kaepernick would no longer have any reason to be whining and crying.  Both parties can move on.

Someone just walking in for a job interview isn't governed by a CBA.

The issue the league has is that the previous settlement didn't have CK sign away his potential future employment prospects. The previous settlement just covered the from the initial anthem protests, up through the previous settlement signature. So if there was any communication from clubs that they still aren't signing him, that's collusion and against the CBA. Not only that, Kaep can now argue that he's not only being blackballed for the anthem protests, but also as retaliation for the NFL having to pay him previously.

 

The short version, is that the NFL owners were cheap or stupid or both. They should have had the settlement include Kaep agreeing he'd never play for the NFL again, and the NFL should have paid him for that. They didn't, so Kaep is going to try and play, get denied, get another grievance started, the NFL is going to freak out because the discovery would be a nightmare, and they'll pay Kaep the money they should have paid him in the first settlement.

And we'll have to hear about it for a few years.

[animaltested]

That wavier thingy is fishy as heck. If true, the NFL seems to have shown their hand on this issue. The "workout" was not offered in good faith, but as a means quash a lingering labor dispute/suit. The NFL Lawyers are not stupid, they had to know Kap and his legal team would not sign a wavier negating his right to potential litigation. So what was the intention?  Maybe to score some PR points? Would this action REALLY sway a judge (using this sponsored workout invite as evidence against collusion)?

Kap and his team were right to decline this invite. And anyone working under a labor agreement should support the decision. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, animaltested said:

That wavier thingy is fishy as heck. If true, the NFL seems to have shown their hand on this issue. The "workout" was not offered in good faith, but as a means quash a lingering labor dispute/suit. The NFL Lawyers are not stupid, they had to know Kap and his legal team would not sign a wavier negating his right to potential litigation. So what was the intention?  Maybe to score some PR points? Would this action REALLY sway a judge (using this sponsored workout invite as evidence against collusion)?

Kap and his team were right to decline this invite. And anyone working under a labor agreement should support the decision. 

I've been consistently pro-Kaep, and don't mind him trying to get his money in exchange for going away, but it's shocking to me that each side agreed to the settlement with no consideration as to what would happen when Kaep left the room having signed.

[RuskieTitan]

19 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The short version, is that the NFL owners were cheap or stupid or both. They should have had the settlement include Kaep agreeing he'd never play for the NFL again, and the NFL should have paid him for that. They didn't, so Kaep is going to try and play, get denied, get another grievance started, the NFL is going to freak out because the discovery would be a nightmare, and they'll pay Kaep the money they should have paid him in the first settlement.

And we'll have to hear about it for a few years.

So it sounds like Kaep has leveraged the situation to ultimately get paid for not playing and portraying himself as some sort of martyr when the reality is he made a very sound business decision that provides both income and a greater amount of publicity than just having an NFL career - given that he was trending downhill with his on field performance.