But even before Bradford was ruled out of Sunday's game, I tweeted the following:
I feel further convicted in that opinion in light of the Vikings QB depth chart at the moment. Since Bradford's status is still very murky and Teddy Bridgewater, who was anointed the franchise quarterback before his own gruesome knee injury just over a year ago, won't be ready to play until mid-season at the earliest, there's no reason to not bring in Kaepernick for a workout. If on the basis of that workout the coaches/front office personnel determine that his skill set falls short of what is already on the roster, then fine. Not signing Kap can be written off as a "business decision."
Now let's address the proverbial elephant in the room.
Yes, Kap's decision to kneel during the National Anthem has rankled many patriotic NFL fans. And yes, his portrayal of America as oppressive while defending the regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is outrageous if not stunningly ignorant. But should that preclude him from having a job in the National Football League? Of course not. On the other hand, should teams be compelled to offer employment? Again, no. So that begs the question of why isn't Kaepernick, at minimum, on a roster considering he's more talented than several QBs occupying spots today? Are NFL owners, GMs and coaches genuinely concerned over a fan backlash if Kap were signed by their team? If so, I'm skeptical that signing Kaepernick would have that dramatic an affect. I sincerely believe most NFL fans are able to compartmentalize.
Remember the shock and horror conveyed by some Vikings fans when seeing the whip marks Adrian Peterson left on his 4-year old son 3+ years ago? The initial reaction by some was that Peterson should be incarcerated, never mind ever resuming his NFL career. Yet when Peterson returned for the 2015 season and won the NFL rushing title, the horrific images of an abused child went down the memory hole for some (not all, but some).
How about when the Philadelphia Eagles took a flier on QB Michael Vick just prior to 2009. Vick had been out of the NFL the prior two seasons (even spending some time in jail) due to his role in participating in a dog fighting ring. Naturally, many animal rights protestors (some of whom were likely Eagles fans) demonstrated outside Philly's training camp facility, expressing disgust that a "dog killer" was given special dispensation. A year later, Vick took over the starting job from an injured Kevin Kolb and went on to have the best passing season of his NFL career, taking the club all the way to the postseason. Suddenly the visual of electrocuted canines became secondary to the excitement generated by a possible Super Bowl run.
The point I'm making is if fans are willing to forgive and forget literal crimes committed by guys who help their favorite NFL team win, why is it so unfathomable to consider signing a player whose social and political beliefs may be drastically different from theirs? Again, go ahead and savage Kaepernick's beliefs all you want (I know I certainly have). But if you believe he doesn't deserve an opportunity to play football based upon what you perceive as behavior disrespecting this country, then I question your moral code if you've ever rooted for an NFL team. Inevitably, every franchise in pro football at one time or another has employed a player who's had brushes with the law. Kap's only sin is he exercised the same First Amendment rights all Americans possess.
I guess this is my way of saying that I have zero issue with my favorite NFL squad bringing Kaepernick on board.
---------------------------------------
4 comments:
I may hold a grudge better than you do, but I basically am forced to agree with the notion that the man's job is to play football, not be some sort of role model or paragon of virtue, however defined. But if his actions, on or off the field, interfere with his ability to play well, say by going to jail or offending the paying customers, that has to be considered. In this case, I am concerned that the quarterback is supposed to be the team leader, and sucking up infamy and disagreeing with teammates is not the best way to do that. Were I an offensive tackle, as opposed to an offensive quarterback, I might not do my pass-protection job as well as I could, devaluing Kap's abilities. I think any signing, should it take place, should include a strict no-grandstanding (or grandsitting) clause.
I think Kaepernick does himself no favors with his mouth, but I wouldn't have a problem signing him per se. He hasn't been as effective since defensive coordinators have figured out how to defend the read option play. That might enter into the equation; I'm pretty sure it does. If you force him to be a pocket passer, he's below average. He's still better than Scott Tolzien, but you have to build an offense around what he does well and I would guess most NFL staffs don't have the time or patience to do it.
Great insights, Jerry and Mark. Thanks!
I believe we can all agree that Kap being unemployed is far more complex than the SJW chanting point which says a bunch of rich, white septuagenarian owners are looking to tamp down a strong minded black man.
Maybe the problem is as simple as defining stupidity as "strong minded"? Hey, Kap, you're supposed to be playing football, not offering off-the-wall social commentary.
Post a Comment