XPost: alt.sports.football.pro.houston-texans, alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers, alt.business
XPost: alt.activism

Mike Tanier expresses his desire to suck Colin Kaepernick's
cock. Colin Kaepernick is out of work because of sociology
activist Harry Edwards, Berkeley - where else..., author of The
Revolt of the Black Athlete. The 49ers share equal blame for
hiring a racist black idiot from East Saint Louis, Illinois,
Harry Edwards, as a consultant. Add the curse of Obama
supporter, and it's readily apparent why NOBODY wants to be
around this talking trainwreck of an ex-football player.

***

Whenever a starting quarterback gets injured these days, we
cycle through the same battery of emotions:

Shock that an exciting, important player's season ended so
suddenly.

Grief that we won't get to see him play for a long time.

Depression over having to watch his backup for the rest of the
season.

Hope that his team will sign Colin Kaepernick, both so we can
see him play and regain some hope that society hasn't become so
polarized that we can't have nice things anymore.

Anger when it pulls some rando from the quarterback scrap heap
instead of Kaepernick.

Frustration and boredom about rehashing the Kaepernick argument
for the 10,000,000th time on social networks and in (ahem)
columns.

Acceptance that this is the world we live in.

We catapulted through those emotions quickly Thursday after
Deshaun Watson tore his ACL during a routine practice: The odds-
on favorite for Rookie of the Year, gone in a midweek flash?
(SHOCK). Darn it. We were just learning to appreciate both his
game and his potential. (GRIEF). Now Texans-Colts is Tom Savage
vs. Jacoby Brissett, the NFL equivalent of watching paint dry
(DEPRESSION). But maybe the Texans will (HOPE)…no, they signed
Matt McGloin because he "knows the system" from his one season
with Bill O'Brien at Penn State (ANGER).

So here comes the column, and I will keep it as brief and simple
as possible.

The NFL is blackballing Colin Kaepernick. It is systematically
preventing a highly qualified individual from pursuing his
career for political reasons. It is denying fans the best
possible entertainment experience, and teams that need quality
quarterbacks but sign randos are not making the best possible
effort to win a Super Bowl.

And they aren't even pretending to hide it anymore.

Maybe what the NFL is doing is not technically collusion. Maybe
it is. But it is a clear violation of its own goals and its
relationship with its audience.

The Watson injury is not the straw that broke the camel's back.
There have been about a dozen last straws. Watson is the straw
that buried all evidence of the camel's grave.

The fact that Bob McNair and the Texans did not even consider
Kaepernick in the wake of McNair's inmates-running-the-prison
remarks shows how little NFL owners care about the optics of the
Kaepernick situation.

In the wake of his remarks and his pathetic I wasn't talking
about you apology, McNair needs a scrap of public relations to
make him sound like something other than those remarks conveyed.

So maybe he might consider a whispered back-channel overture
toward the league's designated pariah, who might smell a
publicity rat trap and decline, or might show up for a meeting
that ends with a shrugging it wasn't the right fit but give us
kudos for trying.

Nope. Kaepernick didn't even merit token workouts. Meanwhile,
McGloin got snapped up in minutes after the Watson injury, as
multiple sources reported. The O'Brien-Penn State connection was
enough of a "football reason" for a guy who throws like a
coaching assistant (I got to see a lot of him in Eagles camp in
the offseason) to get an immediate job, while a player who came
within a few goal-line plays of winning a Super Bowl doesn't
even merit a phone call.

The timbre of the Kaepernick conversation has changed in recent
weeks, even as the NFL itself has made soothing sounds to
players about protests during the anthem and the social justice
causes they represent.

Packers head coach Mike McCarthy was noticeably snippy when
Kaepernick's name came up after the Aaron Rodgers injury a few
weeks ago. He then tossed the supposedly well-prepared Brett
Hundley on the field to have a glorified panic attack against
the Saints. Now the Texans can't bother to pay lip service to
the lip service.

We've come a long way from when the Seahawks had actual football
conversations with Kaepernick's people in May and Ravens owner
Steve Bisciotti prayed for guidance after Joe Flacco's preseason
injury, but it's been in the wrong direction. At this rate,
mention of the name "Kaepernick" will result in revoked media
credentials by December.

It's easy to blame a certain political figure for all of this.
NFL owners, players and the league office can close ranks when
the president calls players sons of bitches en masse. It's
different when only one team draws the fire, which is what will
happen if any team signs the one NFL protester the president
actually knows by name. Sign Kaepernick, and the POTUS unleashes
his full fury on your team, ginning up a not-insignificant
contingent of local fans while frightening local legislators and
sponsors.

That's certainly a deterrent. But it doesn't explain the
palpably hostile obstinance with which teams now reject
Kaepernick. There's something else going on.

Coaches and general managers have swaddled themselves in the
security blanket of citing "football reasons" for not signing
Kaepernick for so long that they have lost touch with reality.

From free agency through the start of training camp, there was

some baseline merit to the "football reasons." Kaepernick
doesn't fit all systems and payrolls. Sure, he was better than
anyone on the Broncos, Jets or Browns rosters from the moment
those rosters were set, but each team could cite logic for going
in a different quarterbacking direction that was more convincing
than "our owner made a lot of campaign contributions to…"

Now that quarterbacks around the league have gotten hurt or
proved woefully ineffective, the football arguments are silly.

It was ridiculous to claim that the scrambling Kaepernick was
not a good system fit behind the scrambling Marcus Mariota in
the Titans' option-heavy offense. It's outrageous for the
Broncos to play Quarterback Roulette with try-hards and cost-
sinks while pretending there is no quarterback on the market who
has led a defense-first team to a Super Bowl.

It's absurd for the Texans to lose the brightest young star in
the league and then say Welp, sorry fans, but there's no one out
there who can improvise and make things happen the way Watson
did. Hope you enjoyed the World Series.

But the football people keeping making their "football
decisions," because it's convenient for them to think and act
that way: The owner isn't going to call a closed-door meeting
because the team signed McGloin. And the league's distraction-
phobes still haven't figured out that Kaepernick is only a
distraction because he is unemployed and will only remain a
story once signed if he wins games.

If the ratings fall because the quarterbacks stink, it will be
blamed on the protests, which apparently also now impact the
pizza industry. No one will blame their own bad decisions for
any lost revenues. And no one will suffer any consequences, at
least until Kaepernick's pesky collusion case, which is still
far off on the horizon.

A collusion suit in the far-distant future is a lousy thing to
root for, anyway. We're supposed to be rooting for football
games, teams and players. But the owners have decided to make
that far harder than it has to be.

We won't get to watch Watson anymore this season. Sad, but
injuries happen.

We'll be forced to watch Savage and other mediocrities. That's
part of the game, if (and only if) they are the best
quarterbacks available.

We won't get to watch Kaepernick. It's unjust, unfair and just
bad business. It will lead to afternoons of boring, frustrating
football.

But that's the reality we live in, so we might as well accept it.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2742242?iid=ob_article_footer
_expansion

Comments:

David Hoag posted 21 days agoDavid Hoag
Mike, can we put to rest the idea that Colin Kaepernick "came
within a few goal-line plays of winning a Super Bowl" myth?

It has become a common characterization about Kaepernick...and
also incorrect. Kaepernick came withing one pass of taking the
lead in that Super Bowl.

Here is the play-by-play of the crucial series, starting with
1st and Goal from the Baltimore 7 yard line:
1-7-BAL 7 (2:39) (Shotgun) L.James right guard to BAL 5 for 2
yards (D.Ellerbe; D.Tyson).
Two minute warning.
2-5-BAL 5 (2:00) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short
right to M.Crabtree (C.Graham).
Timeout San Francisco (second) 1:55.
3-5-BAL 5 (1:55) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short right to
M.Crabtree (J.Smith).
4-5-BAL 5 (1:50) (Shotgun) C.Kaepernick pass incomplete short
right to M.Crabtree.

Let's play "what if" for a moment. Assume that everything is the
same except that the 49ers score on 4th down. Trailing 34-29, a
touchdown would give them a 35-34 lead, pending a two point
conversion that they certainly would have attempted. A
successful 2 pointer would give them a 37-34 lead; an
unsuccessful attempt would have left it a 1 point game.

Given that the touchdown would have occurred inside the 1:50
mark of the 4th quarter, Baltimore would have had ample time to
move into position for a potential game tying or winning field
goal by Justin Tucker (who is still playing for the Ravens).
Would it have happened? Well, that is no more or less
speculative than the 49ers taking the lead with less than a
minute fifty left in the 4th quarter. But, if you are going to
speculate on the 49ers scoring a touchdown, you should also
speculate a possible Baltimore field goal.

It is disingenuous to suggest anything else.

David A. Hoag
San Francisco, California

Robert Howard posted 22 days agoRobert Howard
Hi Mike. I read your article about "point of no return". It's
interesting how I agree & disagree at the same time, but you
made the point for the distraction-phobes when you said, "We're
supposed to be rooting for football games, teams, and players."
You also referred to the "relationship with its audience." My
point is this, when I pay to go to a game or choose to watch
from home, I'm inclined to root for a team and players with whom
I have a relationship, and our relationship is defined by the
players and teams playing football, not using it as a platform
for their personal grievances. We won't be having dinner with
each other after the game because my role in the relationship is
defined by my appreciation shown to the teams from the stands.
If a fan chooses to take a knee during the anthem, it's none of
my business. If you went to a Tom Cruise movie and there was a
segment before the movie in which he takes the opportunity to
preach the merits of Scientology, would you agree that he
violated the spirit of the relationship? I would, and I would
leave the theater. He has the right to his beliefs, but I have
the right not to have them forced upon me. Kap violated his
relationship with me, and I have not watched a pro football game
since. Not because I was "distracted", but because I was
offended. I served in the Navy twice and in the Air Force, as
did my father and two brothers. I happen to agree with Kap's
beliefs, but if he wants to fix this, he needs to publicly
apologize to anyone he may have offended. He doesn't need to
explain, just apologize. If he does, watch how many contract
offers he gets.

Dave Petersen posted 22 days agoDave Petersen
I have been watching NFL football for 50 years. If the NFL does
not sort out the politics from the football this is my last
year. F Kaepernick and all the @-holes like you who continue to
write and support him. We watch football for the football-not
the politics. We get enough of that every place else.

http://bleacherreport.com/users/203133-mike-tanier

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)