What’s the bottom line in the NFL? How does your team decide to keep or get rid of players? Is it winning? Is it only winning, or is it image?
It’s some of both, but you cannot have a controversial player on your team. Controversial means activist; evidently you can have a coach who writes endorsements for a candidate and that’s fine. However some teams have players — quarterbacks — who have proven themselves as failures, and apparently that’s ok too, as long as they are non-controversial. BSP views the scrub quarterback who allegedly knows the offense but can’t actually execute it as the highest form of affirmative action.
When Blaine Gabbert & Matt McGloin can get jobs in the NFL, and they’ve lost nearly every game they started — saying a Colin Kaepernick can’t fit into your system is a joke.
A team brings in Jay Cutler for $10M a season. The same Jay Cutler who may/may not have QUIT on his team in a conference championship game. You tell me its only about winning? LOL. Again, no it’s not. Teams not signing Kaepernick is clearly fan reaction about Kap’s alleged disrespect to the flag … and to veterans like myself.
That’s a real LOL. Get serious. Especially since some of these teams like the Jets were making DoD PAY them to honor vets during games. Yes, the military had to pay teams to give the NFL the privilege and image of supporting war veterans. This isn’t heard from anyone other than the Washington Post, the nation’s best newspaper because they don’t give a f about protecting sacred cows.
Get over yourselves and let Kap play.