The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Ryan Fitzpatrick 2016: 12 TDs, 17 INTs, $3MIL in 2017

Colin Kaepernick 2016: 16 TDs, 4 INTs, Unemployed in 2017.

Let's stop pretending.

The above tweet was from Omar Kelly but could have come form any number of black writers or athletes. Yes I know a few whites too but in general the black community is up in arms over him being slighted. While it seems painfully obvious to most of us I'm not sure why they can't seem to understand.

Like in this tweet ..

Omar Kelly
There is no baggage. That's factually inaccurate. But carry on with your unbiased, uneducated opinion.Omar Kelly added,
andy ruiz @TheAndyRuiz4

Replying to @exavierpope @OmarKelly
Teams won't sign him and his baggage unless he would be somewhat of a superstar.

Really? No baggage? As if denying it would make people want to sign him.

Kaepernick has two things going against him that none of the others do. The first is that in order to bring him on you would need to change your offense to fit his style of play. That could be time consuming and expensive  ... not to mention many offensive coordinators probably have never had to run an offense as such.

The second and most talked about reason is the distraction he brings. It doesn't matter what the distraction is. He's a back-up QB which is a couple of steps above punter on the team. No one is going to put up with that amount of distraction for a position that may never even play.  If he was going to be your starter and you had hope then he'd already been signed ... distraction and all.

What say you guys? Am I missing the bigger picture here?

Here is my take, the national anthem or his race has little to nothing to do with it.

He had a $14.5 million back up job he resigned from.  Meaning in order for him to be happy he is either expecting the starting role and/or more than $14.5.  And while he is good enough to warrant a $4 million back up gig.  If he wasn't happy with the deal SF gave him there is almost zero chance he will be happy elsewhere. 

Biggest reason not to bother with Kap, is his unrealistic expectation that he is worth even close to the contact he walked away from. 

The whole "changing your offense" stuff is nonsense.  "Changing the offense" wasn't a barrier to signing Michael Vick, Tim Tebow, or RG3.  Furthermore, you always have to change the offense when you put in a different QB.  Do you think the Colts ran the same offense with Matt Hasselbeck as they did with Andrew Luck?  Or the Cardinals with Carson Palmer and Drew Stanton?

The "baggage" is the real reason, and it's because the owners don't like that kind of baggage.

Did you kill a person while drunk driving?
Savagely beat your girlfriend and threaten her life?
Kill multiple dogs with your bare hands?
Whip the 2-year-old you have part-time custody of?

These are things we can work around.  But if you call out institutional racism, while threatening the NFL's cozy relationship with law enforcement and/or the military... you get blackballed.  There are some things NFL owners simply will not stand for.

Definitely better than Tannehill

Been to a Super Bowl.

Been to two conference championship games

Has at least three playoff wins.

While racism exists, I disagree that is an issue.  There were plenty of players who took a knee only one does anyone want to blame employment issues on. If Prescott takes a knee the cowboys aren't benching or cutting him.

And changing the offense is a factor.  While it is true that Jimmy G can't make all the same throws Tom Brady, if NE goes to the back up they are still running basically the same offense, might cut a portion of the playbook out, but you aren't adding any new plays to take adv of his skill set.  With Kap you are either adding new plays or not taking adv of his skill set.

Stop pretending what?  That he's an Anti-American scumbag who disrespected the flag of the country that allows him to earn millions of dollars while playing in front of thousands of adoring fans??

Or that he purposely made pro-Castro comments before playing a game in a city that is anti-Castro?

Kaepernick is and always will be a piece of shit.   That's why he's still unemployed. 

Nobody wants to bring a media circus into their locker-room. Where you will have national press there every day asking nothing but Kaepernick questions.  He isn't THAT good.

Same reason why nobody signed Tebow again or Ray Rice...etc. Less to do about talent and more to do about nobody wanting a headache.

Actions have consequences. Kaepernick sealed his own fate with his actions. I have zero sympathy for him

He's never had a 3,500 yard passing season or a year where he has thrown more than 21 TD's. He isn't better than Tannehill  and it isn't even close if you compare numbers as Kaepernick is always carried by a defense and running game. He is a marginal QB who got to a Super Bowl by coming into the season late in the year as a back-up and due to a dominating defense and a weak NFC conference that year where he was only asked not to screw it up. He is asked to do little on offense and when asked to win with his arm he always comes up short.

#WatchTheGames

If people are saying that Kaep is unemployed because of what he chose to protest and how he chose to do so... then aren't you agreeing with Omar Kelly?

Kelly was saying "Let's stop pretending" that Kaep is unemployed for football reasons; there are plenty of clearly worse QBs that have a job.  When Greg Hardy can get a job but Kaepernick can't, it tells you exactly which lines NFL owners consider uncrossable.

I believe he is unemployed because he resigned, from the 49ers.  Actually he isn't unemployed, if you quit your job because you don't like the job, you are voluntarily outside the workforce. 

I do watch the games thank you very much.

He is 4-2 in the playoffs

His rating in 2012 was over 100.  If not for two controversial no flags on the 49ers last drive, he would have led what would have been the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history at the time.

In 2013, he again went 2-1 in the playoffs.  Once again, he was victimized by some horrid officiating, this time in the NFC title game against Seattle

His career postseason passer rating is 87.3

Also what is with the hashtags?  Is this like the quarterbacks on facebook?

Also, since when did watching the games matter when it comes to analyzing quarterbacks?

Only people who root for quarterbacks with no rings do that.

Kaepernick > Tannehill

2012 was 5 years ago, what has he done lately? He got beat out by Blaine Gabbert in training camp last year that's' what!  He has been awful. Stop blaming bad calls for the reason Kapernick sucks! Oh, and FYI Kaepernick doesn't have a ring either... SMH

Well if you don't watch games its tough to take someone's opinion seriously if you are just reading off stats from a website and trying to form an opinion on them. #JustSayin

He is a bad quarterback who got beat out by Blaine Gabbert last year and is now out of work.

He's the 2nd coming though...keep defending him LMAO!!!

What has he done lately....

Read the title of the thread.  Any quarterback with those passing numbers is good in my book

Most people rate quarterbacks by reading stats off a website, so don't discount my posts because I do it too.

I am saying he is better than Tannehill.  That's all.

I once posted an analysis of quarterback based on actually watching the games, and it was immediately discounted.

5 years no playoff wins

5 years 4 playoff wins.

He was beaten out by Blaine Gabbert in training camp. Then he got the job and lost it back to Blaine Gabbert. Putting up stats in non-competitive games in garbage time (which most of SF's games were last year they were so bad) isn't impressive. As I said you don't watch the games and are just taking stats out of context off a website. Can't take your position seriously.

Kaepernick had a game last year where he was 1 for 5 passing for 4 yards (that's 4 yards total) IT WAS AGAINST THE BEARS!!!!!! One of the three worst teams in the league!!!!!! But keep fooling yourself that Kaepernick is a great player and keep pumping him up based of stuff you never saw

Show me an article not from this site, where a person has analyzed the quarterback position by actually watching the games.

I once read an article declaring Tom Brady was the greatest of all time

Some of the stats the author gave to support his claim

- His Super Bowl titles
- His career wins
- His division titles
- His playoff wins
- His conference titles

These are almost EXACTLY the kind of stats I am using to compare Tannehill to Fiedler and to Kaepernick. 

When you are comparing greatest QBs of all time, it is implied that said QB will have Pro Bowl appearances, MVP awards, and impressive stats.  The reason why the author of that article cited those particular items is because he was comparing Brady to other QBs in the running for greatest QB of all time... for which neither Tannehill nor Kaepernick qualify.

When you are comparing two QBs who are NOT the greatest QB of all-time, you don't use number of Super Bowl MVPs or number of consecutive division titles to measure them, because that is unnecessary.  You can use the plain old stats that one uses to compare non-greatest-ever QBs; stats like yards, TDs, INTs, and passer rating.

The intentionally obtuse troll logic you are unconvincingly trying to claim you now believe says that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are better QBs than Dan Marino and Jim Kelly.  No one believes this.

A quarterback is a quarterback is a quarterback

You can't change the way you compare them.

If Brady is the greatest of all time because he has five super bowls, more than any other quarterback, then yes, Trent Dilfer is better then Marino.

Either you rank all quarterbacks by watching the games, or you rank no quarterbacks by watching the games.

If you do what Baba Booey says, and ACTUALLY WATCH THE GAMES, you can make a convincing case that Brady is NOT the greatest of all time.  His last two Super Bowls had FAR More to do with his defense coming big and the opponents self destructing then with Brady.

You yourself, Spider, have done this to the Patriots, before, and ACTUALLY WATCHED the games and how they play out.  I can link you to the thread if you desire.

I have done this myself, given that I actually live in New England, but of course, if I posted my conclusions based on watching the games, they would be most likely not taken seriously.

I have even done this with Tony Dungy, when I pointed out that his only Super Bowl victory came as a result of FIVE horrid calls in the AFC championship...which I concluded from ACTUALLY WATCHING THE GAME. 

You said you didn't agree with that, though you didn't actually offer anything in terms of disputing it.

I would facepalm here, but that would copying

"Everyone says that defense wins championships.  Therefore, from now on, I will only evaluate teams based on how the defense performs.  I will pay no attention to the QB, the offensive line, special teams, or any other aspect of the game besides the defense.  This is all I am capable of understanding at one time."

"Many people say that Tom Brady cannot be the greatest QB of all time because he was caught cheating.  Therefore, I have determined that every QB who has not been caught cheating is tied for greatest QB of all time, and every QB who has been caught cheating is tied for worst QB of all time.  This is how my binary decision-making process works."

There's this great story about a boy who cried wolf...or in your case, the boy who cried "The officials screwed us"


That isn't "copying"...it's transference.

Not sure how the boy who cried wolf applies here.

The first few times the boy cried wolf, there really was no wolf, so when there was a wolf, nobody came.

Are you saying that when I make claims about there being bad calls, they are not bad calls?

Yes.

That doesn't make sense either.

You tell me to watch the games and draw my conclusions, yet when I do exactly that, you discredit them. 

Which calls specifically, are you referring to that I claim were bad calls, which you say are not bad calls?

Calls can be judgemental, or they can be flat wrong.

Kap's jersey was the 17th best seller of May.  By far the best selling jersey of someone who is unemployed.

Breaking down the numbers of the Kaepernick jersey sales:

31% of jersey sales went to diehard 49ers fans who want a reminder of how close we came without actually winning.
25% of jersey sales went to people who hate football almost as much as they hate white people.
17%  of jersey sales came from Star Trek junkies who mistook "Kaepernick" for "Captain Kirk"
12% of jersey sales came from Bay Area bakers who mistook "Kaepernick " for "Pumpernickel"
9% of jersey sales went to local police departments to hang on targets on the firing range
6% of jersey sales came from Colin's family

I'm having a shit day at work, and his made me laugh out loud.  Thank you sir. :D

I wonder how many jersey are selling in May (not that it matters in who is selling). It really is a slow time of year right now for the NFL.

I bought a jersey last week of May.  Will be given as a gift on Sunday.  I would not be surprised if this Sunday is the 2nd most day for jerseys given as gifts after Dec 25.

You're welcome. As a little postscript, I followed up that post by doing a little shopping online to see how much it would cost to get a custom #7 Pumpernickel jersey.

So how much bread would it cost? I heard custom jerseys cost quite a bit of dough.

I got so lucky one year. It was a year they had a style change and I got an official customized Reebok jersey on clearance (and they shipped me the new style to boot but it is old now as well) for $175. I personally will only buy customized now. The money difference is easily made up in the fact that I have worn it every Sunday for years and haven't had to replace ones with players who are traded, retired, or leave.

I am happy to wear jerseys of retired players.  In fact, my Zach/Ricky alternates are my two favorite jerseys, precisely because they are no longer available.  You might be able to find a JT/Zach/Ricky throwback jersey, but it's much harder to find an alternate throwback.

I don't like the alternate jerseys so they aren't even in consideration for me. (I assume you mean that disgusting orange)

Nope.  I have a navy blue 54 and a home+away aqua/white 34.

I liked the navy and at that time wished we had worked it in as an official one.

Kaep really has no interest in playing in the NFL at this point. No way you could post the tweet image that Kaep did on Friday and think you're going to get hired.

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/875832378501074944/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F2716363-colin-kaepernick-compares-police-to-slave-patrol-after-philando-castile-verdict (https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/875832378501074944/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F2716363-colin-kaepernick-compares-police-to-slave-patrol-after-philando-castile-verdict)

Wow...just wow.

I agree. Apparently he is looking to make a living complaining about the injustices of the US against blacks. I guess he looks at how Al and Jesse are getting old and see his opportunity to slide right in and collect what they have been getting.

The man has his convictions. I'm a bit confused myself about the verdict on this one.

I'll give the man this much credit, he must feel there is something more important than playing in the NFL and I for one applaud him as that is a message many don't understand.

^^^ Whatever injustices he's fighting for, comparing the police to runaway slave catchers can't be the best way to fight for it.

He has a point.  Law enforcement was used to capture runaway slaves.  And today, LEOs can murder unarmed black men with impunity. 

and the fact they kill more white doesn't fit the narrative so you ignore it? The truth is more often than not the police shoot people who don't comply and pose a threat. Other than propaganda ....  if all liberals and all Muslims aren't guilty of the crimes of a few then why are all cops considered guilty? 

When adjusted for population size blacks are killed 2.5 times more often by whites than blacks.  But I am not concerned with all shooting by cops -- sometimes it is justified.  Of the few whites killed it is typically someone with a gun drawn and the cops are acting in self defense.  Problem is the frequency in blacks are MURDERED by cops.

You also have to adjust for the percentage of each race who commit violent crimes. The percentage of blacks is higher than whites. My wife loses less weight than me on the same diet but her percentage is much higher.  You can't just pick and choose statistics to fit the narrative ... or did I already say that?

Either way ... what you said is propaganda and nothing but divisive and bullying. No one who is actually paying attention believes police can shoot anyone and get away with it unless they have just cause. My white ass keeps my hands on the wheel until told to do otherwise and I'd suggest everyone else do the same regardless of how many times you are stopped. Get a lawyer after the fact if you want but not obeying a police officer is just stupid.

I have a couple of custom jersey's,I love them,(except I lost weight and they're way too big now).I also loved the Navy Jersey's, I think I've got a couple of those,and a couple orange ones....(I liked the orange)

I started to post this a couple of times,but didn't want to get too deep explaining it...
I always kinda felt(2 thoughts here),Kap's lack of commitment (for lack of what else to call it) towards football,would be a massive negative to most coaches.(added to wanting lot's of starting type money,IE he was all but traded but refused to take a pay cut). Coaches tend to want their QB's to be eating breathing,football,the team.Kap always struck me as one who wasn't that way.Like wearing the Dolphins hat,while being the starting Qb for the 49ers gaffe.

It almost sounds like you are saying that police kill more unarmed black people because black people are more likely to be violent criminals.  Is that what you mean?

The problem is that when it comes to unarmed black people, "just cause" is almost literally anything.  Philando Castile was not killed with just cause.

CF, do you think "Blue Lives Matter" is also divisive bullying?  Or is that reserved only for causes you disagree with?

I'm not willing to say that, but I might be persuaded to believe that high crime areas tend to have a larger population of minorities. There are some studies that show that police tend to use more force in high crime areas then in lower crime areas and that goes for cops of all color.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/diversity_won_t_solve_police_misconduct_black_cops_don_t_reduce_violence.html

I completely agree that cops who are minorities also use excessive force on minorities.

The problem is not with the race of the officers, the problem is with police culture.  The biggest problem is the "thin blue line" effect which results in terrible cops being shielded; the proverbial "bad apples" are protected and remain to infect the other apples.

You also don't think Trayvon Martin was killed with "just cause" but the DA and then a jury found it so. But becuase he was black it meant Zimmerman acted illegally in your mind.

Blue Lives Matter would be divisive if it weren't a response to the national attack on police. Personally I hate any titles that separate socially. It seems very counterproductive to me to have your own network, schools, scholarships and even a separatist name like African-American and then complain because people think differently of you.   I think All Lives Matter would be the most appropriate but as I have learned that is offensive to the Black Lives Matter crowd. That makes no freaking sense to me either.  You really have to stretch pretty damn far to see that as an attack on black people.

Zimmerman wasn't an example of police brutality; he was an example of how black victims don't matter.  The verdict in his case "proves" no more than the verdict in the OJ or Casey Anthony cases.

If Blue Lives Matter isn't "divisive" because it's a response to an attack on police, then why is the same standard not applied to Black Lives Matter as a response to the attacks on unarmed black people?  To say otherwise implies that you believe the attacks on police are real and genuine while the attacks on black people are phony and/or deserved, which is just another way of saying that the political issues you agree with are not divisive, but the ones you disagree with are.

As for why "All Lives Matter" is offensive, I think I've already explained this, but I guess it doesn't hurt to say it again:

The slogan "Black Lives Matter" means that black lives are not valued by law enforcement and they can kill unarmed black people with little to no consequences.  BLM seeks changes in law enforcement policies to correct this problem.  To say "All Lives Matter" in response should logically mean that all lives are not valued by law enforcement; i.e. agreement that law enforcement policies need to be changed.  However, in practice the people who say "All Lives Matter" do NOT agree that law enforcement needs to be changed, and are really just telling black people to stop complaining.

Funny how you are so certain when the evidence is only starting to come out today. Jump to conclusions much?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4623102/Dashcam-video-shows-moment-cop-shoots-dead-Philando.html#v-889192986232534903

CF, I have to imagine that you have not followed that case at all.  Nothing in that article is new information.

Castile was licensed to carry a firearm (which he was) and informed the officer as such.  He was asked for his driver's license and proof of insurance.  He handed over the proof of insurance.  Where do you keep your driver's license?

This is part of the problem.  The Second Amendment does not extend to black people; simply notifying an officer that you are carrying a licensed firearm means shoot first, ask questions later.  The officer drew his gun the moment Castile notified him he was armed!  How many videos are there of white people walking around with military-style rifles in plain view without receiving such treatment?

The absence of the NRA in this case is sadly not surprising.

edit: I think the point that you are getting at is that Castile, having a licensed weapon on him, does not qualify as unarmed?  That's a fair statement, but carrying a licensed firearm is not a crime.  I would be perfectly happy to concede that this is not an instance of an unarmed black person being killed, but instead an instance of a black person being killed for the act of carrying a licensed weapon - an act that the people who normally defend gun rights with great vigor are mysteriously silent on.

I haven't been paying attention to the Castile incident until recently.  I usually will defend the LEO, but not in this case.  That appears to be straight up murder, but without actually seeing what is going on in the car, you can't tell.

If I were on that jury though, I'd probably be giving him a guilty verdict.

I don't know if his girlfiend was in shock or whatever, but she seemed awfully calm after her man was just shot 7 times.  Probably didn't want to get shot too, that cop seemed off his rocker a bit.

First off Spider there is new information because you had never seen the video or heard the conversation before and yet you made your guilty conclusion based on media interpretation of minimal facts. Therefore you made your decision knowing that you probably hadn't seen all of the information.

And that is exactly why you can't convict him. He was telling him NOT to reach for it and NOT to pull it out before the shots so to assume he wasn't doing anything is just an assumption.  The facts seem to support the officer felt he WAS doing something.

"Before Castile finishes that sentence, Yanez has his hand on his own gun and is pulling it out of the holster. Yanez says, 'OK. Don't reach for it then.'
There is shouting, and Yanez screams 'Don't pull it out!' before he fires seven shots into the car."

The cop could be guilty as hell but thank goodness you can't convict based on feelings.  At least in Florida ... they teach you in class that you don't have to tell a police officer you have a gun and definitely do not try to show it to him. His circumstance is seemingly strange but I can only assume he knew that since he had a permit.

Innocent until proven guilty.  I get that, the facts aren't 100% conclusive even with video.

This is a terrible situation and one where it would be hard to sit on a jury. One thing is, I agree the cop seemed a bit quick but he did know of a gun. Another thing is, if someone is drawing a gun the last thing they would ever do is warn the cop that they had one. You also have to consider that Castile had originally been asked to supply his ID. I feel bad for everyone.

The "new information" is dashcam video confirmation that it happened almost exactly as Castile's girlfriend described it on video as Castile lay there dying.

Those aren't supporting facts!  It's the same old "It looked like he was reaching for a weapon!" nonsense that is standard issue any time there is a questionable officer shooting.  That video does not show the inside of the car.

So now you are trying to blame Castile for informing the officer that he was armed; the victim-blaming has no bounds.

I find it impossible to believe that you are unaware of the kind of response that black people - who you just said are "more likely to commit violent crime" - receive from police officers that discover an undisclosed firearm on them.  Suffice it to say that it is not pleasant.  In fact, I would expect a result very similar to the one that occurred to Castile anyway, with the accompanying dismissive comments of, "Well, he should have told the cop that he was armed!"

If I were to ever have a police officer spot a concealed weapon on me, for any reason, there is a 100% chance I would immediately be looking down the barrel of their weapon.  100%.  The idea that I have some sort of legal privilege not to tell them I'm carrying a weapon is laughable.  It's rolling dice with your life, which is why Castile told the officer he was carrying... and got treated EXACTLY as if he didn't tell the cop ahead of time.

If you think that black people carrying concealed weapons can just interact with the cops without risking their life if the weapon is discovered, I just don't know what to tell you.  The very idea is absurd.

I'm not blaming him. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that he felt the need to tell him and then show him the gun.

If you have a gun on you and your hands are on the steering wheel you will not be shot because they do not know. If they search you then you will be against the car and you will not be shot when they find it. If it is in the glove box and they find it then you will have already been detained away from your vehicle ... again no threat to use it.  If you grab it to show them you will most likely be shot because they can't afford to assume you are a good guy. 

The officer told him twice not to grab it before the shots. That is evidence. Assuming he wasn't grabbing it is just an assumption.  While it MAY be true it is still an assumption. Again ... trials are based on evidence.

This is a horrible case for everyone involved but saying they wouldn't tell him if they were going to shoot him is not true. Criminals use any deceptive method to get the upper-hand on officers. Police see tons of videos and work out numerous scenarios all the time. There have been a bunch of reporters who "die" in training because they are too cautious.

Well admitting you are going to pull a gun on someone seconds before doing it is either so brilliant it seems dumb or is just dumb.

Castile was instructed to produce his driver's license.
After receiving this instruction, he notified the officer that he had a firearm.
The officer said, "OK, don't pull it out."
Castile said, "I'm not pulling it out" as he reached towards his pants.
None of these facts are in dispute.

The question here is which of the following you believe:

a) Castile was attempting to produce his driver's license as instructed
b) Castile was preparing to attack the officer (the only course of action that justifies lethal force) immediately after notifying the officer that he was armed

To claim that B is the case requires the abandonment of all logic and common sense.  If Castile is an unhinged cop killer that was getting ready to fire on the officer (with no apparent motive, mind you!) while his family was in the car, why would he notify him first?  If he was not preparing to attack, why did the cop fire 7 shots into a car with a woman and child in it?

This is the root of why BLM exists: black lives are so insignificant that if a cop sees a man with a broken taillight reaching somewhere near his waist, that alone is sufficient cause to fire multiple rounds into a car with innocent passengers.  Castile's life doesn't matter, his girlfriend's life doesn't matter, the child's life doesn't matter.  He is a vicious, dangerous thug who must be executed without hesitation.

One more thing:
And when you lift your shirt to pull out your driver's license from your pocket and the cop sees part of a firearm in your waistband, the exact same scenario in the video above plays out.  It is so obvious as to be the expected outcome in that situation.

Wow, we're not even talking football or Kaepernick anymore

We're talking about the issue that is keeping Kaep out of football.  It is on topic.