NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

[sperry]

5 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Because the best left tackle in the NFL has nothing to say because he plays on the most pathetic excuse for a football franchise this side of 2000. 

If you want to disagree, that's fine (I do because I would love for my team to have Kaep as a backup if it wasn't for salary cap constraints).  But don't say some BS like one of the best players in football "doesn't know how to win." This isn't family guy.

 

He's won 47 games in a 10 year career. He hasn't come remotely close to making the playoffs, aside from his rookie season. He's an elite left tackle and a hall of famer, but if there's an authority on winning culture (not that I believe such a thing exists) it certainly wouldn't be him.

[JonSnow4President]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2700218-nfl1000-is-colin-kaepernick-still-starting-quarterback-material-in-the-nfl

Interesting read and relevant to the discussion.  When it comes to the discussion about his pure talent, I think there's an interesting split going on.  People that think he's capable see his legitimate good plays where he flashes the ability to be a quality NFL starter and see that as proof he can be an NFL starter.  At the same time, I think people that think he's incapable see his legitimately awful plays where he shows mistakes that would make him incapable of being an NFL starter.  So depending on what tape you weight more heavily, I think you can easily make the argument both ways.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Looks like the Raiders are off to the desert...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/27/news/nfl-raiders-las-vegas-move/

 

/I feel for Raiders fans. 

[sperry]

40 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Looks like the Raiders are off to the desert...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/27/news/nfl-raiders-las-vegas-move/

 

/I feel for Raiders fans. 

 

Sucks for Raiders fans, but great for the NFL to get a team in Vegas. Much better than the completely non-strategic move of the Chargers to LA.

[briantw]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

He's won 47 games in a 10 year career. He hasn't come remotely close to making the playoffs, aside from his rookie season. He's an elite left tackle and a hall of famer, but if there's an authority on winning culture (not that I believe such a thing exists) it certainly wouldn't be him.

It's pretty obvious that Thomas hasn't been the problem in Cleveland over the course of his career.  He's been arguably the best player at his position over that time, but there's only so much one left tackle can do when the rest of the team sucks.

[dbunting]

I must be misreading the comments or I misread the article I saw on the "distraction" factor. In the article I read Thomas was quoted as saying teams consider Kaep a distraction, but near the bottom of the article there is a series of tweets from Thomas and one of them says that "distractions" as just as real as comradery or something to that effect...like I said I must has misread it because I thought he was putting the kibosh on what a distraction really was.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Looks like the Raiders are off to the desert...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/27/news/nfl-raiders-las-vegas-move/

 

/I feel for Raiders fans. 

Good for the city of Oakland though for standing firm. Public financing of sports stadiums is such a disaster for the places that do it.

22 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Sucks for Raiders fans, but great for the NFL to get a team in Vegas. Much better than the completely non-strategic move of the Chargers to LA.

I dunno. Vegas is a pretty small market and I don't think many tourists are interested in going to football games; especially tourists to Vegas.

[sperry]

Metro is 2 million people, which would definitely be a smaller NFL market, but not unreasonable.  I also think you're underestimating the Tourist factor. I think they would go for sure.  Vegas is a sports town, people swarm the city for big sporting events like March Madness, the Super Bowl, and the boxing stuff.  I think there are tons of tourists who would go to an NFL game.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

I dunno. Vegas is a pretty small market and I don't think many tourists are interested in going to football games; especially tourists to Vegas.

I am likewise pretty skeptical about Vegas being a good NFL city.  It seems like they are going to be relying on Radiers fans across the country coming the Vegas to see the team.  Which will probably work while the Raiders are good.  But in years when the Raiders are bad, it could be a big problem.  Maybe there will be enough fans from the other team to sell out the stadium some of the time, but then your homefield advantage is shot.  Plus if you're relying on fans from Kansas City or Cleveland or Cincy or Jacksonville or Miami or Buffalo, there are going to be a lot of empty seats.

[Joe Pesci]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

He's won 47 games in a 10 year career. He hasn't come remotely close to making the playoffs, aside from his rookie season. He's an elite left tackle and a hall of famer, but if there's an authority on winning culture (not that I believe such a thing exists) it certainly wouldn't be him.

If you look at it from the other side, I'd say that being in Cleveland for that long guarantees that he has a pretty good idea of what doesn't work in the NFL. Unless you don't consider all of the coaching/front office turnover during his tenure there and lack of winning to be distractions.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, JonSnow4President said:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2700218-nfl1000-is-colin-kaepernick-still-starting-quarterback-material-in-the-nfl

Interesting read and relevant to the discussion.  When it comes to the discussion about his pure talent, I think there's an interesting split going on.  People that think he's capable see his legitimate good plays where he flashes the ability to be a quality NFL starter and see that as proof he can be an NFL starter.  At the same time, I think people that think he's incapable see his legitimately awful plays where he shows mistakes that would make him incapable of being an NFL starter.  So depending on what tape you weight more heavily, I think you can easily make the argument both ways.  

It's not a 'split' according to that article. It quotes GM's saying that 20% think the issue is his play, 20% are worried about blowback/Trump etc. because of the anthem thing and 60% just plain 'hate' him for the anthem thing and want to 'punish' him. Meaning 80% of the teams are primarily deciding this on the anthem thing. 

As far as the talent thing, it's again not an evenly distributed argument, in that no one has ever said he (or any QB ever) is incapable of making bad reads or not showing perfect accuracy. Joe Montana did both every game. Brady does both every game. Showing a QB doing that doesn't refute any argument that has ever been made. 

But plenty of people have proffered the opposite, that he can't/doesn't throw people open,  that he can't make complex reads and doesn't have touch. This is like having a 98 mph fastball or deep breaking curve...you can or you can't, you have it or you don't and many people have said Kapeernich doesn't. This argument presented said he does, and more that he progressed in those areas in spite of being surrounded by terrible support, ie that he can throw guys open and quickly diagnose complex coverages and take better options even when safety valves are open and pressure is coming, or that he can redefine pockets while setting.

The argument that is and should be made is how often he does those things, and those are still very legit. But if you look at what he actually did with what he was working, if you look at what he can do that many other starting qb's can't do, and if you then (as this article says) remove the ceiling on what he can do that people have suggested exists, you have as the article suggest, a lot to work with, a lot more than many qb's teams are willing to work with have to offer. Then you're left with 80% of the league basing their decision not to work with it on his political stance, and that's where the right or wrong of this ought to be discussed. The whole performance/ability thing has been used by many to avoid doing that openly, either because they recognize it's a problematic position, are tired of the discussion and want it to go away or aren't being honest with themselves or others about how much they've looked at his play itself rather than finding an easy out to compliment their political/ethical choice.

 

[James Arryn]

IMO Joe Thomas has as much credibility as any other player on this. I don't think being around failure means you can't formulate legit views on success. And you can argue that you learn more from failure than from success. (Edit: Otoh, Kaepernick's actual teammates who have more direct insight into how/if this was a distraction voted him 'best teammate', so...)

Whether he is basing this view on football alone is a separate issue...as mentioned, the vast majority of NFL teams seem unable to do that with this issue and football is a VERY groupthink sport, and weirdly intermixed with militaristic authoritarianism. 

Additionally polls showed a pretty huge player colour split on Kapernick's stand, so who knows. I will say that his comments on 'distraction' seem confusing and contradictory, but he might just have a view not easily articulated in tweet-sized bites.

[briantw]

17 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

IMO Joe Thomas has as much credibility as any other player on this. I don't think being around failure means you can't formulate legit views on success. And you can argue that you learn more from failure than from success. (Edit: Otoh, Kaepernick's actual teammates who have more direct insight into how/if this was a distraction voted him 'best teammate', so...)

Whether he is basing this view on football alone is a separate issue...as mentioned, the vast majority of NFL teams seem unable to do that with this issue and football is a VERY groupthink sport, and weirdly intermixed with militaristic authoritarianism. 

Additionally polls showed a pretty huge player colour split on Kapernick's stand, so who knows. I will say that his comments on 'distraction' seem confusing and contradictory, but he might just have a view not easily articulated in tweet-sized bites.

It didn't really seem like Thomas took a side as to whether or not what Kaepernick did was right or wrong.  He simply said that teams don't view Kaep as a starter, and that teams accept no distractions from back-up QBs.  Which makes sense.  Nothing derails a team quicker than a QB controversy.  

He also mentioned that the idea of distractions is highly overrated by non-players.

It didn't seem like an indictment of Kaepernick, at any rate.  Just him musing on why teams have been hesitant to sign him.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, briantw said:

It didn't really seem like Thomas took a side as to whether or not what Kaepernick did was right or wrong.  He simply said that teams don't view Kaep as a starter, and that teams accept no distractions from back-up QBs.  Which makes sense.  Nothing derails a team quicker than a QB controversy.  

He also mentioned that the idea of distractions is highly overrated by non-players.

The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make, though, is that the 2 arguments (not viewed as starter and anthem) aren't divorced just because someone says they are. 

Or, to put it another way, this time last year Kaepernick was:

*coming off a much worse season, by far the worst of his career.

* injured, in fact at this point his arm was in a sling and he was coming off 3 surgeries.

*under contract paying him about twice what he's reportedly looking for this year.

...and several teams (including yours) were openly expressing serious interest. In the year since, all his metrics have gone up significantly and the only factor changing in the other direction is the anthem thing, to which teams have reacted very very negatively. And zero open interest.

Because of how he's viewed as a player? That's certainly the argument to take if you don't really want to have an argument, is my point.

[JonSnow4President]

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

It's not a 'split' according to that article [snip for length]

 

I'm talking more about public perception of him.  Even disregarding the anthem protest and assuming that every single "he's trash" person is doing so from an anthem standpoint and not from something based in facts, you're still left with a wide variety of opinions on him.  Richard Sherman thinks he is a top 13 NFL QB, or close to it ("would be the starter on 20 NFL teams"). The article I cited thinks he's a potential starter or/a great backup.  I think he's a quality backup for the right kind of team (and if he ever regained his circa 2014 form, he could be a quality starter).

And I think the argument is and always has been how often and repeatable the good vs bad is.  I could take Jerrod Johnson (out of the league) and he'll flash the potential on a few plays.  But the body of work doesn't live up to the peak. The magic of Brady/Rodgers/Manning isn't the 5% of awesome plays in my mind.  It's the huge percentage of good plays compared to mediocre/bad.  Kaep flashes the awesome, but when I've watched this past season, he's not good as often as I'd want from a starter. Same problem (although to a lesser degree) that I have with RG3.

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

I'm talking more about public perception of him.  Even disregarding the anthem protest and assuming that every single "he's trash" person is doing so from an anthem standpoint and not from something based in facts, you're still left with a wide variety of opinions on him.  Richard Sherman thinks he is a top 13 NFL QB, or close to it ("would be the starter on 20 NFL teams"). The article I cited thinks he's a potential starter or/a great backup.  I think he's a quality backup for the right kind of team (and if he ever regained his circa 2014 form, he could be a quality starter).

And I think the argument is and always has been how often and repeatable the good vs bad is.  I could take Jerrod Johnson (out of the league) and he'll flash the potential on a few plays.  But the body of work doesn't live up to the peak. The magic of Brady/Rodgers/Manning isn't the 5% of awesome plays in my mind.  It's the huge percentage of good plays compared to mediocre/bad.  Kaep flashes the awesome, but when I've watched this past season, he's not good as often as I'd want from a starter. Same problem (although to a lesser degree) that I have with RG3.

I'd say he was better last year than in 2014. 2015 seems to be where people now see his norm in spite of it being injury plagued and a statistically anomaly. Even where he is considered weak, for example accuracy, his career and recent numbers are better than many starters in the league and better than guys getting hefty contracts.

But, for example, comparing 2016 to 2014, the former was better in almost every way. Much better TD/int ratio, better rating, better QBR, better AY/A, better R+, better yrds/a rushing, better td%, better int%, and only offset by a slight drop in completion % (59.2 to 60.5) which is more than accounted for by a league leading drop %. 

Again, I think his terrible 2015 amidst all the turmoil kind of shaped perceptions too much and the Anthem thing kind of hardened them. I do agree with you about repeatability, though...but I'd say the 'flashes' are a bit more often than I think you see and refute the argument that many (not you) make about what he can and can't do. Either way, the end product is 4+ years being under recognized contrasted with one injury plagued 9 game season much much lower than the rest of his career.

[sperry]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I am likewise pretty skeptical about Vegas being a good NFL city.  It seems like they are going to be relying on Radiers fans across the country coming the Vegas to see the team.  Which will probably work while the Raiders are good.  But in years when the Raiders are bad, it could be a big problem.  Maybe there will be enough fans from the other team to sell out the stadium some of the time, but then your homefield advantage is shot.  Plus if you're relying on fans from Kansas City or Cleveland or Cincy or Jacksonville or Miami or Buffalo, there are going to be a lot of empty seats.

 

I disagree. Again, there are 2 million people in the metro, and it's the only pro franchise in town. In fact, I think the locals will embrace it big time  because it gives them something that's not the gambling/nightclubs/hookers to be known for. That's more than enough to support an NFL team. Then, you have tons of tourists that can pick up any slack in gate sales as well as 

[Westerosi Coast Gangster]

Kaep wont succeed unless hes with a coach that is amazing with QB's, ala Harbaugh. he needs to roll out and be moving, not stuck in the pocket. I could actually see him doing well with.baby Shannahan, who had  some success with RG3.

[Altherion]

6 hours ago, James Arryn said:

The argument that is and should be made is how often he does those things, and those are still very legit. But if you look at what he actually did with what he was working, if you look at what he can do that many other starting qb's can't do, and if you then (as this article says) remove the ceiling on what he can do that people have suggested exists, you have as the article suggest, a lot to work with, a lot more than many qb's teams are willing to work with have to offer. Then you're left with 80% of the league basing their decision not to work with it on his political stance, and that's where the right or wrong of this ought to be discussed. The whole performance/ability thing has been used by many to avoid doing that openly, either because they recognize it's a problematic position, are tired of the discussion and want it to go away or aren't being honest with themselves or others about how much they've looked at his play itself rather than finding an easy out to compliment their political/ethical choice.

NFL teams are businesses and, as a general rule, businesses don't like distractions that divide their consumer base and turn a part of it against them. In this case, you have a mediocre player who is probably better than many at his position, but very unlikely to be worth the attendant media circus. The same thing has been true of other players regardless of the controversy's nature. For example, Tim Tebow was another mediocre quarterback who could win in the right circumstances, but simply wasn't worth the media attention to his religious views. The only people who get away with off-the-field controversies are those are undoubtedly elite at what they do (e.g. Tom Brady and his MAGA hat or Ray Lewis and his... legal issues).

[Joe Pesci]

This could also be a big reason why Kaep hasn't been signed

He wants $9-10 million and a chance to start. His options are pretty limited when put into that context.