NorthHawk wrote:Interestingly there is no deal with North Korea and they have nukes.
We have a deal with Iran and they do not.
I'd rather have just NK than both with nukes.
Uppercut wrote:O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict
like I've been saying, the guy is a complete loser. He is friends with gang bangers and hates cops, he loves Fidel Castro and hates America... He's a lost cause. So glad we didn't sign him.Uppercut wrote:O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict
Uppercut wrote:O was sort of changing my impression of him but this stopped me , glad we didn't take him, wish him luck
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/18/colin-kaepernick-police-fugitive-slave-patrols-philando-castile-verdict
monkey wrote: like I've been saying, the guy is a complete loser. He is friends with gang bangers and hates cops, he loves Fidel Castro and hates America... He's a lost cause. So glad we didn't sign him.
NorthHawk wrote:There's an old expression that the most popular player on a team is the backup QB.
So given his past play, if the Offense should stumble, there would be the inevitable calls for Kaepernick to play.
Add in the support of players including team leaders that have already expressed their opinion that he should be starting in the league and voila! - a QB controversy.
I can see why they didn't sign him because of that, but he's a better QB than some of those starting as of today.
NorthHawk wrote:There's an old expression that the most popular player on a team is the backup QB.
So given his past play, if the Offense should stumble, there would be the inevitable calls for Kaepernick to play.
Add in the support of players including team leaders that have already expressed their opinion that he should be starting in the league and voila! - a QB controversy.
I can see why they didn't sign him because of that, but he's a better QB than some of those starting as of today.
NorthHawk wrote:It's clear to me he's being blackballed.
But the point is moot, really because he isn't our problem after signing Davis.
NorthHawk wrote:So a QB, in a QB desperate league who passes for 16 TD's vs 4 Int's on a team with little talent can't even get a workout isn't blackballing?
A QB that has gone to the Super Bowl and 2 NFC Championship games? It's an agenda that's pretty obvious.
Players that have played for him have said he's a very good QB and should be able to get a tryout. I haven't heard any who say he isn't, nor have I heard from any player that he's a distraction.
Rather all we hear from players is he's a guy who they respect and think he should get a shot. But he never gets the chance. Is he perfect? No, nobody is and he's made some dumb mistakes,
but once the games start and he's standing, it will all be over with quickly.
Regarding fan base turnoff? There are lots of people waiting to buy season tickets and even PSLs because the opportunity doesn't come along very often for some or maybe a lot of teams.
If he got the chance and won a game mostly all would be forgiven and if he took them to the playoffs, the narrative would be positive for the team that 'took a chance' on him.
NorthHawk wrote:And yet the Giants have thousands on a waiting list for Season Tickets who would snap them up in a minute if given a chance.
Regarding blackballing from the Urban Dictionary:
To conspire to ruin someones reputation untill they become unemployable and people refuse to associate with them.
It's pretty much an open secret. We can see it by the lack of even having him in for a workout by teams that need help at QB.
jshawaii22 wrote:RD, the problem with calling it "Blackballing" is that it's perfectly LEGAL to check with former employers and use that information about poor job performance, issues with co-workers or management, etc etc and use that to make a determination not to hire.
As long as you don't use Race, Religion, Age, Sex, or any other myriad of non-performance reasons.
In management it's called "discretionary hiring practices" -- in Kap's world, some call it "Blackballing" -- either way you see it, its absolutely the right of the potential employer to make sure that the person fits your model of an employee.
Hawktawk wrote:You are correct RD. I cannot trash a bad former employee. I can say whether I would hire them back.
But pro sports has got to be the easiest profession for an owner or GM to judge the body of work of on field and off field actions of a player with the tape rolling constantly.
On the balance Kap doesn't grade out as worth the baggage, obviously, at least at this point. If he doesn't shut his yapper he will never suit up again except maybe the CFL.
c_hawkbob wrote:When I take calls about former employees I can only answer questions about attendance, job description, advancements in positions and time on the job. I can add positive evaluations if i want but I can't say anything negative for fear of the company getting sued.
The lack of adding anything positive does become a statement in and of itself though.
c_hawkbob wrote:That must be company policy (which I think is a bit ridiculous) then. Here, in Colorado and in Utah I was never restricted from telling someone that "so and so is the best I&C technician I've ever worked with, I'd hire him back in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself" if it were true (and actually I've given exactly that recommendation).
I can see if the guy was a POS not being able to smear him, but if he's a great guy and was an asset to me I can't at all see not being able to say so. Good work should be rewarded.
c_hawkbob wrote:Here's to corporate arse covering lawyers then:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests