Because kraper can't get a job its collusion???? I can't get a QB job either, I'm joining this suit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/10/15/colin-kaepernick-makes-plans-to-pursue-collusion-case-against-nfl-owners/?utm_term=.50863c64577a

Idiot can't stay out of the news. No one cares.

Desperate plow by the NFLPA to get the CBS nullified. Kapernick is just the dumb useful pawn.

I think he just blew his chances to go to Green Bay.

What kind of an idiot sues a potential employer for not wanting to hire them?

Colin's little BLM baby mama has totally screwed him in the head.

The kind that doesn't really want to play, he just wants on a team just to make a political statement

dcaggie04 said:

---

Desperate plow by the NFLPA to get the CBS nullified. Kapernick is just the dumb useful pawn.

---

They players association isn't trying to nullify the CBA. Bizarre theory

Likely not collusion. Certainly doesn't appear to be any proof of it.

But there's definitely not 64 QBs better than Kap

After hearing the interview with Ray Lewis, where Ray was helping Kapernick and trying to get him signed with the Ravens. When he had Ozzie Newsome talked into signing him, Kapernick's girlfriend posted that photoshopped pic of Ray Lewis on Twitter pretty much saying he was a sell out and Newsome said hell no I don't want any of that on my team. And when the Ravens think you're to much of a side show, no one is gonna touch you in this league.

I really think Kapernick's girlfriend just wants to use him as some kind of martyr for the cause, and he's too dumb to realize he's being played.

UMichAg said:

---

Likely not collusion. Certainly doesn't appear to be any proof of it.

But there's definitely not 64 QBs better than Kap

---

This is the problem though. "Better" isn't the only factor. "Cost" is also a consideration, and there are 64 QB's that come with a cheaper price tag that take less cap room for a backup than he will. Everyone seems to want to ignore that part though.

Change the hot/crazy with talent/crazy, and CK falls firmly in the "No Go" zone.

mts6175 said:

---

UMichAg said:

---

Likely not collusion. Certainly doesn't appear to be any proof of it.

But there's definitely not 64 QBs better than Kap

---

This is the problem though. "Better" isn't the only factor. "Cost" is also a consideration, and there are 64 QB's that come with a cheaper price tag that take less cap room for a backup than he will. Everyone seems to want to ignore that part though.

---

Correct. You also don't want a backup or 3rd stringer who would be a distraction on your team(which he would in almost any organization) and often times you don't want a backup or 3rd stringer who thinks vocally they should be starting.

The role of a backup/3rd string is to throw hundreds of passes a week in practice, watch a ton of film, help the starter prepare and get ready for the upcoming game. It's not to sit on the sidelines and tell people afterwards you feel you're one of the top 80 QB's in the world.

The whole "not xx better QB's" is such a flawed argument on multiple levels.

as for the collusion filing...pretty funny it happened the day a major starting QB job opened up. I hope he's got some evidence other than "it's clear because I'm not in the league."

BMX Bandit said:

---

dcaggie04 said:

---

Desperate plow by the NFLPA to get the CBS nullified. Kapernick is just the dumb useful pawn.

---

They players association isn't trying to nullify the CBA. Bizarre theory

---

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reported on what Kaepernick is looking to accomplish with the grievance:
"Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Kaepernick wants to trigger termination of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
"Article 69, Section 2 of the CBA allows for the agreement to be terminated prematurely in the event of proof of collusion. Under Article 17, Section 16(c) of the CBA, termination can arise from only one incident of collusion involving only one player if there is clear and convincing evidence of a violation."

Link

So it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

as for the collusion filing...pretty funny it happened the day a major starting QB job opened up. I hope he's got some evidence other than "it's clear because I'm not in the league."

---

Looks like his lawyer is trying to blame it on Trump.

dcaggie04 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

dcaggie04 said:

---

Desperate plow by the NFLPA to get the CBS nullified. Kapernick is just the dumb useful pawn.

---

They players association isn't trying to nullify the CBA. Bizarre theory

---

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reported on what Kaepernick is looking to accomplish with the grievance:
"Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Kaepernick wants to trigger termination of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
"Article 69, Section 2 of the CBA allows for the agreement to be terminated prematurely in the event of proof of collusion. Under Article 17, Section 16(c) of the CBA, termination can arise from only one incident of collusion involving only one player if there is clear and convincing evidence of a violation."

Link

So it's not out of the realm of possibility.

---

Kaepernick doesn't represent the NFLPA.

And of florio is reporting it, I'm even more convinced it ain't happening.

I like how his lawyer is trying to say this is dangerous to all "patriotic Americans" when he's defending a man who disrespected our nation's flag.

I keep hearing that he was offered a contract by some team and turned it down. Wouldn't that automatically make any collusion claim invalid?

MooreTrucker said:

---

I keep hearing that he was offered a contract by some team and turned it down. Wouldn't that automatically make any collusion claim invalid?

---

no.

If he got offers from 30 teams, and the other 2 teams had an agreement that they were not going to sign him, that's collusion.

Oh ok, I thought it had to be the whole group. Thanks for clarifying.

He could also show that the offer(s) he got were all below market value and made as part of the collusion among the entire group so that he would think there was no collusion.


(I have zero belief he will be able to show either of these things, just addressing the question asked)

step 1: quite your job
step 2: make half of your potential employer's customers mad as hell
step 3: sue for not having a job

makes sense...

lespaul said:

---

step 1: quite your job
step 2: make half of your potential employer's customers mad as hell
step 3: sue for not having a job

makes sense...

---

Step 4: do not pass GO
Step 5: collect $0