Redskins sign Butt Fumble

[BuccaneerBrad]

Mark Sanchez has been brought back from exile. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

And Kap remains unemployed.  No collusion.

[Spider-Dan]

No collusion, no collusion.  You're the collusion.

[BuccaneerBrad]

And Kap remains unemployed.  No collusion.

More like a damning indictment of Kapernick's ability. 

[Tenshot13]

Not worth it to create a whole game plan for a backup QB to hide his weaknesses, and that's not including the media circus he'll bring. Easier to plug and play a traditional QB.

[CF DolFan]

No collusion, no collusion.  You're the collusion.

How is it collusion if owners don't think he is worth the trouble he brings with him? It's a business decision and always has been. As long as players don't cost owners money there is a lot of leeway in how you can act. It's rather ignorant to think you can expect owners to select a player regardless of what it will cost them in the long run.

Kenny Stills kneels every game and has been a stand up guy in every other respect. It is hard not to like the guy. Kap has done so many thing to alienate the fan base he hasn't helped himself in the slightest.  You can't wear socks that bear the image of cartoon pigs wearing police hats and shirts that support dictators and then pretend you are just a guy leading a cause you feel is important. He purposely was and is confrontational which makes him an unpredictable risk.

[Spider-Dan]

How is it collusion if owners don't think he is worth the trouble he brings with him? It's a business decision and always has been.

Making a "business decision" that it is in the best interests of the group not to hire a specific player is the definition of collusion.  It's no different than if the owners were to decide that they don't want to encourage players to reject franchise tags, and so they collectively make the "business decision" not to offer Le'veon Bell a contract.

[Tenshot13]

^So perfectly legal and within the rules of the NFL, got it.

[Dolphster]

If you were a business owner, would you hire someone who had "middle of the road" skills as a worker, but who was famous for being a polarizing figure who would create a media circus at your business and possibly cause a lot of customers to boycott by not buying the product your company manufactures?   If Kap had Patrick Mahomes level QB skills, nobody would be "colluding" to keep him off of rosters. 

[Sunstroke]

If Kap had Patrick Mahomes level QB skills, nobody would be "colluding" to keep him off of rosters. 

If Kap had Ryan Tannehill level QB skills, he'd be on a roster right now. He doesn't... He runs really good, which made him a nice short-term gimmick, and he has a wicked cool 'fro, which makes him an awesome magazine cover...but he isn't "really" a QB.

During his time in SF, he had zero touch on any of his passes and read defenses about as well as Stevie Wonder.  I can't imagine that two years away from the game has improved those areas either.

[CF DolFan]

Making a "business decision" that it is in the best interests of the group not to hire a specific player is the definition of collusion.  It's no different than if the owners were to decide that they don't want to encourage players to reject franchise tags, and so they collectively make the "business decision" not to offer Le'veon Bell a contract.

It's not colluding if it's an individual decision by each owner or front office.  Unless they all agreed not to sign him and that doesn't appear to be the case. If he had more upside than down he'd be on a roster. As it is ... they don't appear to think he is worth the trouble that he brings with him.

[Spider-Dan]

^So perfectly legal and within the rules of the NFL, got it.

It's not legal within the laws of the United States.

NFL owners are business competitors.  Anti-trust law prevents them from coming to an agreement not to compete (e.g. for a player) to their mutual benefit.  That's the reason why there is a lawsuit.

[Dolphster]

It's not legal within the laws of the United States.

NFL owners are business competitors.  Anti-trust law prevents them from coming to an agreement not to compete (e.g. for a player) to their mutual benefit.  That's the reason why there is a lawsuit.

You are correct, but where is any evidence of the owners coming to any agreement together?   All of them individually arriving at the same conclusion (that Kap is not worth the trouble) is not the same thing as collusion. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You are correct, but where is any evidence of the owners coming to any agreement together?   All of them individually arriving at the same conclusion (that Kap is not worth the trouble) is not the same thing as collusion. 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/25/leaked-tapes-nfl-owners-players-october-meeting-kaepernick-collusion-case-donald-trump

If 32 owners independently concluded that signing him would not benefit the team that is not collusion.  But if the 32 owners discussed that if anyone of them were to sign them it would be detrimental to the league as a whole that is collusion.  There is evidence that such a discussion occurred. 

[fyo]

There is evidence that such a discussion occurred. 

Reference, please. The link you provide makes no such claim.

"It is clear from the Times article that owners were worried about Trump’s views and his authority to alter their business model. To the extent those comments led owners to talk about not signing Kaepernick, the NFL could be in trouble."

The tape in question doesn't provide this, but the article speculates that PERHAPS Kaepernick could find such evidence (if indeed it exists) through the discovery process, in the form of emails or other communication between the relevant parties.