NorthHawk wrote:"Says Ian Rapoport of NFL Network: “The Seahawks did postpone a tentatively scheduled workout with Colin Kaepernick, as Adam Schefter reported. It was not because he said he declined to stop kneeling, tho. The team asked for his plan moving forward on how to handle everything and there was not a firm plan. . . . Seahawks brass, John Schneider and Pete Carroll, want Colin Kaepernick to consider how he wants to proceed on everything (not just anthem) and get together at a later date when his plans are formed. Clearly, Seattle has accepted players speaking out for what they believe"
The only thing I can think of that the Seahawks are concerned about besides kneeling would be Kaepermick's collusion lawsuit
c_hawkbob wrote:And that's not enough?
Seems to me the collusion lawsuit is a much bigger deal than the kneeling. If I'm John or Paul I want to know if he's dropping the lawsuit first, then we can talk about the fact that last year, before the suit, he said that he was done kneeling, that he felt his point had been made and the discussion had been started, which was supposed to have been the point of his protest in the first place.
I don't think it's damage control, i think it's an honest reaction to new information and they want to know his intentions.
c_hawkbob wrote:I didn't we insist he drop the lawsuit, I said we want to know his agenda before we spend the time and effort of putting him through a workout and physical. Why waste our time?
c_hawkbob wrote:And I think we're just being prudent. "A couple of hours" (and it'd be at least 3 or 4 times that) is not nothing, there's a lot of things on a team's plate this time of year.
Clem7 wrote:I think the "going forward" involved will be his attitude whether he is all in on football focus first.
That being said, I wish we had not even gone down this road at all.
In any event, Hawks have signed Stephen Morris:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/se ... hp&ffid=gz
RiverDog wrote:
I couldn't highlight my question as to why we scheduled the workout in the first place any better than the statement below from the article above:
That news will stoke the controversy regarding the Seahawks’ dealings with Colin Kaepernick, whom they canceled a workout with when he wouldn’t commit to standing for the anthem. Kaepernick, the first NFL player to kneel for the national anthem, has been out of the NFL for more than a year. Kaepernick is alleging that NFL owners have illegally colluded to keep him out of the league.
The Hawks opened up a can of worms when they didn't have to.
mykc14 wrote:Am I missing something? The Hawks already met with and worked him out last year knowing that he might very well still kneel for the anthem. If it wasn't an issue last year why would it all of the sudden be this year. The only thing that has changed since last year is his lawsuit.
Could PC, JS, or even PA all of the sudden take a stance that they are no longer going to sign 'kneelers' very doubtful IMO, but possible. It seems far more likely that they balked at the idea that he may not drop his collusion lawsuit if signed.
It does not seem too far fetched for them to schedule a workout with him a week ago saying something like "hey we would like to have you in for a workout next week, but we need to know how you plan on going forward with your collusion lawsuit." With Kaepernick replying, "I don't know for sure about that give me a few days to think about it." Hawks: "Ok, let us know next week." Next Thrusday rolls around- Hawks: "Hey Kaep we need to know what you are thinking, we have a few options available and we need to make a decision about our backup Qb, a guy we like is getting interest from another team." Kaep, "Sorry, I still don't know for sure how I'm going to handle that." Hawks: "Ok, thanks. I think we are going to go in another direction right now, but let us know when you figure it out."
And although I'm not a labor law expert, it seems very unethical for a prospective employer to demand that a potential employee cease something that is clearly his right to do before even considering him for employment.
I'm at a loss to explain this.
burrrton wrote:So am I- why in the name of all that's Holy would we consider signing this divisive a figure for a position as inconsequential as backup QB?
His action against a past employer is none of the prospective employer's business.
So am I- why in the name of all that's Holy would we consider signing this divisive a figure for a position as inconsequential as backup QB?
RiverDog wrote:Why did we schedule the workout in the first place if the lawsuit might be an issue? Why not ask him first what his plans are before we invite him for a workout?
And how much time are we wasting in a workout? A couple hours? How long does a physical take for a physician that's already on payroll? My guess is that it wouldn't take 30 minutes to give him a complete physical as he doesn't have any chronic conditions that might need Xrays or MRI's unless something were to become apparent in his workout.
And as I said, now that we're making a fuss about his politics, if that's what the hang up is, he might be able to use our refusal to even consider him due to his political views as evidence in his collusion lawsuit. We work him out and we can always say that our reasons for not bringing him in are all football related.
This all seems really strange to me.
RiverDog wrote:A) Last year prior to our working him out, Kaepernick had promised not to kneel during the anthem if another team wanted to sign him, that he had made his point and was moving on. Now just recently, he's made statements indicating that he will kneel during the anthem.
B)I'm not sure how many of last year's Hawks were kneelers, but we did get rid of two of them, Michael Bennett and Jeremy Lane, so maybe they have made a decision that they don't want anymore political statements and/or distractions. So the answer to your question is yes, it is possible that PC, JS, and/or PA changed their minds.
c) And although I'm not a labor law expert, it seems very unethical for a prospective employer to demand that a potential employee cease something that is clearly his right to do before even considering him for employment.
D) That's possible, but Kaepernick seems to be pretty desperate for a job. His biological clock is ticking and this might be his last chance to get back into the league. It would seem to me that he'd be bending over backwards to get a chance to compete.
mykc14 wrote:A) As far as Kaepernick promising not to kneel last off-season I don't know if he actually said that. I remembered reading about how he wasn't going to kneel anymore but can't find anywhere where it actually says he did. So maybe he didn't?
B) I know we have gotten rid of Lane and Bennett, although Lane's release was pretty clearly due to production. I know of 9 other Hawks who knelt for the anthem last year: Avril, Clark, Marcus Smith, Jefferson, Reed, S. Richardson, Jackson, Brown, and Whilhoite. Although some are gone there are still some who remain. As many of those are still on the team it would continue to suggest that they haven't changed their minds.
C) I very much doubt they were demanding he do anything, at least not publicly. It wouldn't be wrong to ask if a perspective employee has a regarding a matter that could very much influence the team. For instance, if a player had legal trouble a team could certainly discuss that with them and decide not to bring them in for a workout based on how they were moving forward with that. Lets say I had a lawsuit ongoing with a former employer a prospective employer could certainly decide not to interview me if I couldn't adequately explain my plan going forward with that lawsuit.
D) He is getting older, but I'm not so sure he is bending over backwards to get a job. He probably stands to make more money if he wins his lawsuit. Also, It's not like he has been doing much of anything to repair his image among NFL GM's (see point A). I do think he wants to play in the NFL again, but maybe not as much as he wants to continue to be a social justice warrior or win his lawsuit.
RiverDog wrote:Cbob, I hate to say that I told you so, but....
Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll and GM John Schneider are also expected to sit for deposition this month, when they will likely be asked why they canceled a workout with Kaepernick this week before signing Stephen Morris to back up Russell Wilson.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/colin-kaepernick’s-lawyers-to-depose-roger-goodell-pete-carroll-in-collusion-case-report-says/ar-AAvQSyE?ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz
RiverDog wrote:Cbob, I hate to say that I told you so, but....
Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll and GM John Schneider are also expected to sit for deposition this month, when they will likely be asked why they canceled a workout with Kaepernick this week before signing Stephen Morris to back up Russell Wilson.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/colin-kaepernick’s-lawyers-to-depose-roger-goodell-pete-carroll-in-collusion-case-report-says/ar-AAvQSyE?ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz
mykc14 wrote:Link doesn’t seem to be working for me but this isn’t I told you anything. They were going to be sitting for a deposition anyway, regardless of this most recent situation. Whoever wrote the article thinks they will be asked questions about this, it certainly doesn’t mean they will be asked questions or that there answers will have nothing to do with his kneeling. More conjecture from a writer...
RiverDog wrote:
Perhaps PC and JS were already scheduled, but the "I told you so" pertained to the discussion Cbob and I had earlier in the thread where I said that the Seahawks postponing the workout could be used as evidence in Kaepernick's collusion lawsuit, and the article suggests the exact same thing.
burrrton wrote:Eh, not so sure. I don't think, for instance, the Hanford whistleblowers are likely to be hired back on.
mykc14 wrote:Yeah I saw that, I didn’t see that Bob disagreed that it would/could be used.
RiverDog wrote:
I'll let Cbob speak for himself, but I don't think he disagreed, he just didn't acknowledge it. It's not often I get an "I told you so", let alone one with him, so I had to take full advantage of it.
RiverDog wrote:Perhaps not with any of the Hanford area businesses. But other employers within the same industry?
mykc14 wrote:Yeah I saw that, I didn’t see that Bob disagreed that it would/could be used.
RiverDog wrote:I'll let Cbob speak for himself, but I don't think he disagreed, he just didn't acknowledge it. It's not often I get an "I told you so", let alone one with him, so I had to take full advantage of it.
burrrton wrote:That EEOC information on retaliation applies to current employers, I think. *Prospective* employers can't discriminate based on your race, sex, etc, but it's not retaliation if they decline to hire me if my name was all over the news making my previous employer look bad.
c_hawkbob wrote:I'll give you this I told you so Riv, at least in that you did in fact say it ... but I don't really think it changes anything I said. Or that anything will come of it for that matter. At not unless they can prove that John cancelled the visit after having discussed it among other GM's and deciding they would not do so unless he promised not to kneel, or did so on orders from Paul after a similar meeting with other owners.
As a team we can hire or not hire whoever we want on any criteria we want other than race, religion or sexual preference.
I thought of that, too, except that the regs don't say "employee", it says "a person", which IMO could be an applicant, a vendor, a customer, or anyone else associated with the business.
RiverDog wrote:
I think there's a few more criteria in your last sentence, like creed and national origin.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests