NFL 2016 Head Coaching and Offseason Stuff

[bob]

Trevor Siemian, a former seventh-round pick, will start at quarterback for the defending Super Bowl champions when the season opens.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This argument makes no sense to me. I can see why people would be upset with his form of protest, but the idea that he shouldn't be doing it because he's a multi-millionaire is ridiculous. Should only unsuccessful people protest injustice?

To me the money is relevant ONLY in this manner. He refuses to stand for the anthem of his Country. Thereby stating this country is inadequate to his standards. His financial means would allow him to, you know, move out of this country and find a better one if it is so bad.


I mean play this out on a smaller scale in a mental exercise.

Kid from the ghetto busts ass and does well. Chooses to remain living in the ghetto because it is home. Goes on a rant and protests because there is crime in his neighborhood and his house gets broken in
Stupid, right?
We'd all say, "Duh you live in the ghetto. Move!"

Same here for me. Yep the country sucks. You figured it out. Go to a better one.

If he resided in a lower tax bracket I would feel some...not sure the right word...sympathy to his plight because he couldnt afford to move. But kap can literally choose to live in any country in the world. Get to packing, bud.


Now my post does not suggest that there aren't equality issues in the country. I think there are. It also doens't suggest that we, collective, shouldn't be doing more about them. We should. But to deounce this country as a whole and intentionally disrespect Her, on the whole, because of that issue. Get the hell out of here. Move a GDAF on the way.

Let's call this what it is. Kap is stinking up the joint and he is begging for attention to remain relevant.

[ISiddiqui]

That's silly though. That's implying that one can't initiate change from within the system. That someone can't decry the system while wanting their home to be better. Why did Martin Luther King, Jr. continue to live in Atlanta while complaining about racism? Why do Catholics continue to stay in the Church while complaining about the Church's response to child abuse?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

To me the money is relevant ONLY in this manner. He refuses to stand for the anthem of his Country. Thereby stating this country is inadequate to his standards. His financial means would allow him to, you know, move out of this country and find a better one if it is so bad.


I mean play this out on a smaller scale in a mental exercise.

Kid from the ghetto busts ass and does well. Chooses to remain living in the ghetto because it is home. Goes on a rant and protests because there is crime in his neighborhood and his house gets broken in
Stupid, right?
We'd all say, "Duh you live in the ghetto. Move!"

Same here for me. Yep the country sucks. You figured it out. Go to a better one.

If he resided in a lower tax bracket I would feel some...not sure the right word...sympathy to his plight because he couldnt afford to move. But kap can literally choose to live in any country in the world. Get to packing, bud.

That's always the very worst argument in response to a protest. Just because someone doesn't like something going on in the country doesn't mean they don't want to be here. Maybe they want to make it better. Moving doesn't accomplish that.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's always the very worst argument in response to a protest. Just because someone doesn't like something going on in the country doesn't mean they don't want to be here. Maybe they want to make it better. Moving doesn't accomplish that.

My problem is sitting through the national anthem doesn't accomplish anything positive. The only thing it does is divide people further.

With the money and fame he has there are countless ways he can make a difference, and he may be doing those things (I don't know), but sitting through the national anthem is more of a "look at me" thing than a "look at this situation" thing.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Atocep

My problem is sitting through the national anthem doesn't accomplish anything positive. The only thing it does is divide people further.

With the money and fame he has there are countless ways he can make a difference, and he may be doing those things (I don't know), but sitting through the national anthem is more of a "look at me" thing than a "look at this situation" thing.

Right and as most people have said here, it's understandable to have a problem with his form of protest. Most of us are taking issue with the argument that he shouldn't protest because he's a millionaire or he should move if he doesn't like it. The latter is especially one of my least favorite arguments, because it's just a variation of the "if you're gay and want to get married, then move to Massachusetts" stupid argument that people kept bringing up during the gay marriage debate.

[JPhillips]

For a guy committed to voting for Trump, why don't you find a better country? Why would you want to live in a country that never wins and is run by stupid leaders?

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Atocep

My problem is sitting through the national anthem doesn't accomplish anything positive. The only thing it does is divide people further.

With the money and fame he has there are countless ways he can make a difference, and he may be doing those things (I don't know), but sitting through the national anthem is more of a "look at me" thing than a "look at this situation" thing.

This is where I'm at with this. He wanted to shine the spotlight and get attention on the issue to start the conversation. So start it. Outside of his comment that cosmetologists are better trained than cops (which sounds moronic to me) what else is he adding to the conversation? Don't just say there's a problem and then not follow up with some kind of action.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

My problem is sitting through the national anthem doesn't accomplish anything positive. The only thing it does is divide people further.

With the money and fame he has there are countless ways he can make a difference, and he may be doing those things (I don't know), but sitting through the national anthem is more of a "look at me" thing than a "look at this situation" thing.

I dunno - it's got us (and presumably many, many football fans) talking about it right?

I think this vet nails it (spoiler tagged due to length):

Spoiler

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

I've been away from the internet all day.

I came home from a family picnic on the Blackwater River to find my inbox, as usual, overflowing like a ripe Port-O-Pottie.

One of the first messages I read was about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, quoted above, who last Friday night at the beginning of a preseason game suddenly decided to become the most hated man in America du jour by deliberately not standing for the National Anthem.

Yes, that's right, a football player didn't stand for the National Anthem.

As you know, this means Kaepernick is scum, a horrible human being, a likely member of ISIS, a Muslim terrorist, a black thug, a communist, a socialist (and not the cool share your weed Bernie Sanders kind of socialist but the Red Brigade kind of Socialist who sleeps under a poster of Chairman Mao), a radical, a Black Panther, and he probably has Fidel Castro's phone number in his contact favorites.

Yeah. Okay.

I answered the message and went on to the next one.

The next message was about Kaepernick. As was the next one. And the next one. And...

They all begin pretty much the same way: Jim, AS A VETERAN, what do you think about this? Well?

Let me answer all the messages at once
__________

AS A VETERAN, what do I think about Colin Kaepernick's decision to sit during the National Anthem?

As a veteran?

Very well, as a veteran then, this is what I believe:

The very first thing I learned in the military is this: Respect is a two-way street. If you want respect, true respect, sincere respect, then you have to GIVE IT.

If you want respect, you have to do the things necessary to earn it each and every single day. There are no short cuts and no exceptions.

Respect cannot be compelled.

Respect cannot be bought.

Respect cannot be inherited.

Respect cannot be demanded at the muzzle of a gun or by beating it into somebody or by shaming them into it. Can not. You might get what you think is respect, but it's not. It's only the appearance of respect. It's fear, it's groveling, it's not respect. Far, far too many people both in and out of the military, people who should emphatically know better, do not understand this simple fact: there is an enormous difference between fear and respect.

Respect has to be earned.

Respect. Has. To. Be. Earned.

Respect has to be earned every day, by every word, by every action.

It takes a lifetime of words and deeds to earn respect.

It takes only one careless word, one thoughtless action, to lose it.

You have to be worthy of respect. You have to live up to, or at least do your best to live up to, those high ideals -- the ones America supposedly embodies, that shining city on the hill, that exceptional nation we talk about, yes, that one. To earn respect you have to be fair. You have to have courage. You must embrace reason. You have to know when to hold the line and when to compromise. You have to take responsibility and hold yourself accountable. You have to keep your word. You have to give respect, true respect, to get it back.

There are no short cuts. None.

Now, any veteran worth the label should know that. If they don't, then likely they weren't much of a soldier to begin with and you can tell them I said so.

IF Kaepernick doesn't feel his country respects him enough for him to respect it in return, well, then you can't MAKE him respect it.

You can not make him respect it.

If you try to force a man to respect you, you'll only make him respect you less.

With threats, by violence, by shame, you can maybe compel Kaepernick to stand up and put his hand over his heart and force him to be quiet. You might.

But that's not respect.

It's only the illusion of respect.

You might force this man into the illusion of respect. You might. Would you be satisfied then? Would that make you happy? Would that make you respect your nation, the one which forced a man into the illusion of respect, a nation of little clockwork patriots all pretending satisfaction and respect? Is that what you want? If THAT's what matters to you, the illusion of respect, then you're not talking about freedom or liberty. You're not talking about the United States of America. Instead you're talking about every dictatorship from the Nazis to North Korea where people are lined up and MADE to salute with the muzzle of a gun pressed to the back of their necks.

That, that illusion of respect, is not why I wore a uniform.

That's not why I held up my right hand and swore the oath and put my life on the line for my country.

That, that illusion of respect, is not why I am a veteran.

Not so a man should be forced to show respect he doesn't feel.

That's called slavery and I have no respect for that at all.

If Americans want this man to respect America, then first they must respect him.

If America wants the world's respect, it must be worthy of respect.

America must be worthy of respect. Torture, rendition, indefinite detention, unarmed black men shot down in the street every day, poverty, inequality, voter suppression, racism, bigotry in every form, obstructionism, blind patriotism, NONE of those things are worthy of respect from anybody -- least of all an American.

But doesn't it also mean that if Kaepernick wants respect, he must give it first? Give it to America? Be worthy of respect himself? Stand up, shut up, and put his hand over his heart before Old Glory?

No. It doesn't.

Respect doesn't work that way.

Power flows from positive to negative. Electricity flows from greater potential to lesser.

The United States isn't a person, it's a vast construct, a framework of law and order and civilization designed to protect the weak from the ruthless and after more than two centuries of revision and refinement it exists to provide in equal measure for all of us the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The United States is POWER.

All the power rests with America. Just as it does in the military chain of command. And like that chain of command, like the electrical circuit described above, respect must flow from greater to lesser FIRST before it can return.

To you the National Anthem means one thing, to Kaepernick it means something else. We are all shaped and defined by our experiences and we see the world through our own eyes. That's freedom. That's liberty. The right to believe differently. The right to protest as you will. The right to demand better. The right to believe your country can BE better, that it can live up to its sacred ideals, and the right to loudly note that it has NOT. The right to use your voice, your actions, to bring attention to the things you believe in. The right to want more for others, freedom, liberty, justice, equality, and RESPECT.

A true veteran might not agree with Colin Kaepernick, but a true veteran would fight to the death to protect his right to say what he believes.

You don't like what Kaepernick has to say? Then prove him wrong, BE the nation he can respect.

It's really just that simple.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

He IS still black though, right? I assume he generally goes through life as a black man, interacting with a majority of folks who don't know he was raised by white people?

I'm not sure the logic of having to be disadvantaged to lobby on behalf of someone works. I think there are plenty of peoples in the US who lobby for their brethren overseas, for example.

People know he was raised by white folks, that's why some of my black friends on FB are shitting on him. He's free to do whatever he thinks is justice but there are number of black folks shitting on him because he didn't go through "that struggle" growing up. Credibility is important to some.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I dunno - it's got us (and presumably many, many football fans) talking about it right?

Are we talking about inequality in the US or are we talking about him sitting during the national anthem. That's where I have no problem if he were to take the opportunity to continue to redirect the conversation.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by wustin

People know he was raised by white folks, that's why some of my black friends on FB are shitting on him. He's free to do whatever he thinks is justice but there are number of black folks shitting on him because he didn't go through "that struggle" growing up. Credibility is important to some.

What the fuck? Why does he have to go through that struggle to fight against an injustice? Wouldn't it make more sense to criticize him if he didn't give a shit about injustice because he's a millionaire and never had to grow up in that environment?

No one is required to face a specific injustice to have a problem with that injustice and fight against it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I dunno - it's got us (and presumably many, many football fans) talking about it right?

I think this vet nails it (spoiler tagged due to length):

Spoiler

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

I've been away from the internet all day.

I came home from a family picnic on the Blackwater River to find my inbox, as usual, overflowing like a ripe Port-O-Pottie.

One of the first messages I read was about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, quoted above, who last Friday night at the beginning of a preseason game suddenly decided to become the most hated man in America du jour by deliberately not standing for the National Anthem.

Yes, that's right, a football player didn't stand for the National Anthem.

As you know, this means Kaepernick is scum, a horrible human being, a likely member of ISIS, a Muslim terrorist, a black thug, a communist, a socialist (and not the cool share your weed Bernie Sanders kind of socialist but the Red Brigade kind of Socialist who sleeps under a poster of Chairman Mao), a radical, a Black Panther, and he probably has Fidel Castro's phone number in his contact favorites.

Yeah. Okay.

I answered the message and went on to the next one.

The next message was about Kaepernick. As was the next one. And the next one. And...

They all begin pretty much the same way: Jim, AS A VETERAN, what do you think about this? Well?

Let me answer all the messages at once
__________

AS A VETERAN, what do I think about Colin Kaepernick's decision to sit during the National Anthem?

As a veteran?

Very well, as a veteran then, this is what I believe:

The very first thing I learned in the military is this: Respect is a two-way street. If you want respect, true respect, sincere respect, then you have to GIVE IT.

If you want respect, you have to do the things necessary to earn it each and every single day. There are no short cuts and no exceptions.

Respect cannot be compelled.

Respect cannot be bought.

Respect cannot be inherited.

Respect cannot be demanded at the muzzle of a gun or by beating it into somebody or by shaming them into it. Can not. You might get what you think is respect, but it's not. It's only the appearance of respect. It's fear, it's groveling, it's not respect. Far, far too many people both in and out of the military, people who should emphatically know better, do not understand this simple fact: there is an enormous difference between fear and respect.

Respect has to be earned.

Respect. Has. To. Be. Earned.

Respect has to be earned every day, by every word, by every action.

It takes a lifetime of words and deeds to earn respect.

It takes only one careless word, one thoughtless action, to lose it.

You have to be worthy of respect. You have to live up to, or at least do your best to live up to, those high ideals -- the ones America supposedly embodies, that shining city on the hill, that exceptional nation we talk about, yes, that one. To earn respect you have to be fair. You have to have courage. You must embrace reason. You have to know when to hold the line and when to compromise. You have to take responsibility and hold yourself accountable. You have to keep your word. You have to give respect, true respect, to get it back.

There are no short cuts. None.

Now, any veteran worth the label should know that. If they don't, then likely they weren't much of a soldier to begin with and you can tell them I said so.

IF Kaepernick doesn't feel his country respects him enough for him to respect it in return, well, then you can't MAKE him respect it.

You can not make him respect it.

If you try to force a man to respect you, you'll only make him respect you less.

With threats, by violence, by shame, you can maybe compel Kaepernick to stand up and put his hand over his heart and force him to be quiet. You might.

But that's not respect.

It's only the illusion of respect.

You might force this man into the illusion of respect. You might. Would you be satisfied then? Would that make you happy? Would that make you respect your nation, the one which forced a man into the illusion of respect, a nation of little clockwork patriots all pretending satisfaction and respect? Is that what you want? If THAT's what matters to you, the illusion of respect, then you're not talking about freedom or liberty. You're not talking about the United States of America. Instead you're talking about every dictatorship from the Nazis to North Korea where people are lined up and MADE to salute with the muzzle of a gun pressed to the back of their necks.

That, that illusion of respect, is not why I wore a uniform.

That's not why I held up my right hand and swore the oath and put my life on the line for my country.

That, that illusion of respect, is not why I am a veteran.

Not so a man should be forced to show respect he doesn't feel.

That's called slavery and I have no respect for that at all.

If Americans want this man to respect America, then first they must respect him.

If America wants the world's respect, it must be worthy of respect.

America must be worthy of respect. Torture, rendition, indefinite detention, unarmed black men shot down in the street every day, poverty, inequality, voter suppression, racism, bigotry in every form, obstructionism, blind patriotism, NONE of those things are worthy of respect from anybody -- least of all an American.

But doesn't it also mean that if Kaepernick wants respect, he must give it first? Give it to America? Be worthy of respect himself? Stand up, shut up, and put his hand over his heart before Old Glory?

No. It doesn't.

Respect doesn't work that way.

Power flows from positive to negative. Electricity flows from greater potential to lesser.

The United States isn't a person, it's a vast construct, a framework of law and order and civilization designed to protect the weak from the ruthless and after more than two centuries of revision and refinement it exists to provide in equal measure for all of us the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The United States is POWER.

All the power rests with America. Just as it does in the military chain of command. And like that chain of command, like the electrical circuit described above, respect must flow from greater to lesser FIRST before it can return.

To you the National Anthem means one thing, to Kaepernick it means something else. We are all shaped and defined by our experiences and we see the world through our own eyes. That's freedom. That's liberty. The right to believe differently. The right to protest as you will. The right to demand better. The right to believe your country can BE better, that it can live up to its sacred ideals, and the right to loudly note that it has NOT. The right to use your voice, your actions, to bring attention to the things you believe in. The right to want more for others, freedom, liberty, justice, equality, and RESPECT.

A true veteran might not agree with Colin Kaepernick, but a true veteran would fight to the death to protect his right to say what he believes.

You don't like what Kaepernick has to say? Then prove him wrong, BE the nation he can respect.

It's really just that simple.

Almost all of the talk I've seen about the incident has been about Kaepernick himself and whether or not he should have done it. I've seen very little discussion about the issues that surround the reason he gave for sitting in the first place.

From an outsider's perspective, it seems like he chose to take the easy approach to this. It takes no time, effort, or money spent for him to sit during the national anthem. As I said above, he may be doing those things (I wouldn't know), but even if he is he would have made a much stronger statement by using his sitting during the national anthem to bring attention to the things he and others are doing to improve communities while challenging others to do the same.

What he did comes off as random, not entirely thought out, and selfish.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Are we talking about inequality in the US or are we talking about him sitting during the national anthem. That's where I have no problem if he were to take the opportunity to continue to redirect the conversation.

How can you separate one from the other? Or do you think that people aren't going "Why is he sitting during the national anthem"? I mean that's the question that was asked that resulted in him answering about black people being oppressed in the US.

And I think it's that exact response that have people all pissed off. Most of the stuff I see on Facebook and Twitter are mocking him for being oppressed while being a millionaire. Heck, we are talking about right here in this thread. On this page.

[cartman]

Sounds like the Chargers and Bosa finally have agreed on a deal.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I mean play this out on a smaller scale in a mental exercise.

Kid from the ghetto busts ass and does well. Chooses to remain living in the ghetto because it is home. Goes on a rant and protests because there is crime in his neighborhood and his house gets broken in
Stupid, right?
We'd all say, "Duh you live in the ghetto. Move!"

I mean play this out on a smaller scale in a mental exercise.

Kid from Queens busts ass and does well. Chooses to remain living in the America because it is home. Goes on a rant and protests because there is crime in his neighborhood and his country gets broken in
Stupid, right?
We'd all say, "Duh you live in America. Move!"

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's silly though. That's implying that one can't initiate change from within the system. That someone can't decry the system while wanting their home to be better. Why did Martin Luther King, Jr. continue to live in Atlanta while complaining about racism? Why do Catholics continue to stay in the Church while complaining about the Church's response to child abuse?

Dr. King, as far as I know, never denigrated America. He spoke out against her policies, and justly so, but he never opposed her very existence. To em when you refuse to acknowledge the National Anthem you are protesting the existence of the sovereignty of the country.

The Catholic argument is a bit of a non-sequitor. If anything it proves my point. They didn't denounce the entire Church they opposed the actions of some. Kap in contrast defied the respect of the entire country.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's always the very worst argument in response to a protest. Just because someone doesn't like something going on in the country doesn't mean they don't want to be here. Maybe they want to make it better. Moving doesn't accomplish that.

No, I am not saying since he opposed fair treatment he should leave. I AM saying if he doesnt respect the country and thinks the country as a whole needs protesting he should find somewhere better.

In short I am saying he has a valid concern, but expressed it in the worst way possible and missed the point.

(Tieing it in to current events) it would be akin to Bosa tearing the shield off his jersey and specifically saying its because he opposes the treatment by the Chargers and wishes the Browns would have drafted him.

[jeff061]

I am significantly more annoyed at the attention Kaepernick is getting than what he actually did. He's just a fool with no concept of what he is protesting, how he should go about it or the difference between disrespecting your country(that's making you wildly successful) and striving to improve it.

I'm just going to dismiss him as the fool he is. Wish everyone would. Let him sit, mock him, move on.

That's always the very worst argument in response to a protest. Just because someone doesn't like something going on in the country doesn't mean they don't want to be here. Maybe they want to make it better. Moving doesn't accomplish that.

And yes, of course protesting doesn't mean you don't want to be here. However refusing to acknowledge your national anthem kind of does. Again, kid's a fool and doesn't have the mental capacity to understand this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dr. King, as far as I know, never denigrated America. He spoke out against her policies, and justly so, but he never opposed her very existence. To em when you refuse to acknowledge the National Anthem you are protesting the existence of the sovereignty of the country.

You are shifting goalposts a bit, aren't you? You said, "Thereby stating this country is inadequate to his standards. His financial means would allow him to, you know, move out of this country and find a better one if it is so bad."

Wasn't the country as it was inadequate to the standards of Dr. King?

To say that refusing the stand during the National Anthem is protesting the existence of the sovereignty of the country is quite a ridiculous statement as well. He's not standing because he feels the country oppresses black people and he doesn't particularly have pride in a flag that represents said country. How does that deny the existence of sovereignty of the country? It may instead do the opposite.

The Catholic argument is a bit of a non-sequitor. If anything it proves my point. They didn't denounce the entire Church they opposed the actions of some. Kap in contrast defied the respect of the entire country.

You have evidently not heard from lifelong Catholics who were going through the scandal when it started coming out.

I AM saying if he doesnt respect the country and thinks the country as a whole needs protesting he should find somewhere better.

Bullshit. The country has a whole DOES need protesting for its racist legacy and it's failure to adequately deal with said racist legacy. It's not "some of the country", it's the entire fucking edifice - it part of the bones and skin of the country and society we now live in. It permeates all of who were are and what we do.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Almost all of the talk I've seen about the incident has been about Kaepernick himself and whether or not he should have done it. I've seen very little discussion about the issues that surround the reason he gave for sitting in the first place.

From an outsider's perspective, it seems like he chose to take the easy approach to this. It takes no time, effort, or money spent for him to sit during the national anthem. As I said above, he may be doing those things (I wouldn't know), but even if he is he would have made a much stronger statement by using his sitting during the national anthem to bring attention to the things he and others are doing to improve communities while challenging others to do the same.

What he did comes off as random, not entirely thought out, and selfish.

If he doesn't follow-up by talking about what he's doing about this (beyond just this gesture which - by itself - is rather empty), then I agree. He's got an opportunity here. He has a lot of attention right now, and a chance to make this about something much bigger than just whether it's OK to opt out of standing for the anthem.

[molson]

If his heart is in the right place, than great. I think it's almost always more productive to be positive than hostile, no matter the issue, but he's a young guy, maybe this is part of his own evolution and he'll do good actual work when he's out of football. Sometimes that evolution can be bumpy depending on your experiences.

The timing of this is interesting though. I wonder if he knows he's going to be cut soon and wants to be able to spin this as the reason.

[Arles]

Kaepernick has every right to make the protest he did. As Molson said, if he truly believes in the cause - kudos to him for standing (or sitting in this case) for it.

People have every right to give Kaepernick a ton of crap for doing it. Protesting was never meant to be easy, but if it's a cause you are adamant about bringing attention to - then some criticism shouldn't be a big deal.

But, there are repercussions for your actions - any the 49ers may very well cut him (in some part) for making this protest. That's also their right. In the end, I haven't seen any "unfair" about this situation to this point. Kaep made a stance that he had the right to make- but it was widely criticized for both his reasoning and his motives.

[Chief Rum]

This reminds me of Jose Canseco. The message is fine. But not from this fucking turd.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Bullshit. The country has a whole DOES need protesting for its racist legacy and it's failure to adequately deal with said racist legacy. It's not "some of the country", it's the entire fucking edifice - it part of the bones and skin of the country and society we now live in. It permeates all of who were are and what we do.

I was preparing to respond by line item until this final point. I realize that in reading it you and I will never agree. So I will respect your right to an opinion and maintain mine, unchanged.

FWIW I share a bit of similarity with Mr Kap.
I am a white male, biologically parented by 2 white parents. I was abandoned as an infant and raised in a series of foster homes. The folks I call Mom and Dad whom I spent the majority of my childhood with are both black. (They will actively protest the calling of them African Americans, their choice so I honor that and refer to them as they prefer)

I am not sure what that means about my validity to speak on the subject, just thought it was an interesting correlation.

[ISiddiqui]

This, interestingly, is something I believe may be relevant (though it applies to baseball, not football):

Jackie Robinson: “I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag” – HardballTalk

As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made.

Those words were by Jackie Robinson, and yes, 1972 or 1947 were different than 2016. And Robinson didn't refuse to stand during the national anthem, only wish he did. But its worth thinking about, considering what we know of Jackie Robinson, if even for a little bit.

[stevew]

Isn't the third verse of the national anthem about shooting runaway slaves that attempt to escape to British garrisons during the 1812 war?

[Arles]

But wouldn't you say 2016 is a much different landscape on race than 1947 or even 1972? If I ran the electricians union in 2016, I could say "Hey, you know back in 1947, electricians routinely died in Pennsylvania coal mines - so we need much better benefits now!". But, that would be a little disingenuous given the current environment for electricians in 2016.

I think we do need to look at some race issues (esp in regards to the police in lower income areas), but it's not 1970s Mississippi out there today. The fact that Jackie Robinson wanted to not stand for the anthem in 1947 or 1972 has no bearing on how the treatment of athletes of color today. It's apples and oranges.

[MrBug708]

I'm pretty sure when Colin Kaepernick is out of football, no one will care if he stands or sits during the anthem. All I know about Jackie is he'd rather quit baseball than play for the Giants and that is good enough for me

[molson]

I took that part of the Robinson comments, in context, as expressing what he was feeling was he was invited into white baseball. He didn't have an innocent naive excitement just to be there, there was a real internal conflict - he was now a part of this exclusionary league and he had to play along with all of the customs in those leagues. Which had to be incredibly surreal. I think we all know what the reaction would have been if he refused to stand for the anthems and was outspoken about that when he played, but I wonder how that would have impacted further progress in societal attitudes. He might have done more good the way he did it - but he must have been very conflicted about that as well.

As far as I know, Jackie Robinson, Bill Russell, Jim Brown, and Muhammad Ali all stood for the anthem. I'm sure they, and many others, had complicated relationships with the concept of America and their role in it, but they all furthered what they believed in in varying other ways - from refusing to fight and kill for the U.S.A, by leading by example and having success, by being outspoken on social issues, etc. All of which feels more substantive than what's really the equivalent of spitting on a national monument or refusing to shake someone's hand. (Edit: but I'd also bet that all of those guys did shit in their younger days that was both more hostile and less productive that Kaepernick's deal - everything is under a microscope now).

I guess the closest famous equivalent in sports is the Olympics Black Power protest. Maybe I completely misread their intent, I'm not really the audience, but I always found that gesture very powerful because they didn't turn their back on the anthem, they didn't sit down, they stood up in such a manner as to stay, "we're here too and don't you fucking forget it." That to me is very American. And it was even fairly positive, in the sense of expressing concern and awareness about black poverty, expressing black pride, as opposed to just generically insulting a broad idea or broad group, which is really just a message of hate. Of course I have the advantage of not being alive when it happened and not having to process it as an already-established adult with feelings and biases, etc.

Edit: When you have Richard Sherman, who had to deal with the whole thing where he was widely called a "thug" for non-criminal behavior, saying that Kaepernick chose the wrong forum, then I think he probably chose the wrong forum. Doesn't make him a terrible person, unless this is all calculated to try to keep himself on the team longer, or to create a spin/excuse for his release.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by bob

Trevor Siemian, a former seventh-round pick, will start at quarterback for the defending Super Bowl champions when the season opens.

Probably an upgrade over 2015 peyton though.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by stevew

Probably an upgrade over 2015 peyton though.

Yup. The bigger issue looks like our O-line is worse than last year and being able to generate a run first ground game will be very difficult. I am starting to think 6-10 is more likely than 10-6:-(

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Arles

Kaepernick has every right to make the protest he did. As Molson said, if he truly believes in the cause - kudos to him for standing (or sitting in this case) for it.

People have every right to give Kaepernick a ton of crap for doing it. Protesting was never meant to be easy, but if it's a cause you are adamant about bringing attention to - then some criticism shouldn't be a big deal.

But, there are repercussions for your actions - any the 49ers may very well cut him (in some part) for making this protest. That's also their right. In the end, I haven't seen any "unfair" about this situation to this point. Kaep made a stance that he had the right to make- but it was widely criticized for both his reasoning and his motives.

Pretty much my stance. Kaep can think what he wants. I can think he's badly misinformed. As the veteran above said, I'm not going to MAKE him give the flag respect. He isn't going to MAKE me respect his stance.

I remember going through this with Chris Jackson many moons ago. Now Abdul-Rauf. His not standing for the anthem pretty much ended his career in Denver. Looking back on it 20+ years later, I don't think it has helped or hurt America in any way. I'm pretty sure if I live to 65-70, I'll look back at this the same way.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Yup. The bigger issue looks like our O-line is worse than last year and being able to generate a run first ground game will be very difficult. I am starting to think 6-10 is more likely than 10-6:-(

It's frightening. I hope Lynch is the answer at QB long term, but we really butchered this offseason with the QB position. I still have no idea why we though Sanchez was the right veteran to bring in. I will never, ever understand it. I predicted he would get cut the first weekend after the trade and was widely laughed at in my circle of friends. (which is not uncommon) This time I get to laugh back.

The problem is what is going to happen this year. The defense is going to be uber strong again, but we are not getting out of all those close games with wins. It simply isn't happening again. We needed a better offense and unless Trevor is better than I think he is, we won't be.

We'll find out in a couple of weeks how good this team will be. We know Carolina is coming in for blood.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

But wouldn't you say 2016 is a much different landscape on race than 1947 or even 1972? If I ran the electricians union in 2016, I could say "Hey, you know back in 1947, electricians routinely died in Pennsylvania coal mines - so we need much better benefits now!". But, that would be a little disingenuous given the current environment for electricians in 2016.

I think we do need to look at some race issues (esp in regards to the police in lower income areas), but it's not 1970s Mississippi out there today. The fact that Jackie Robinson wanted to not stand for the anthem in 1947 or 1972 has no bearing on how the treatment of athletes of color today. It's apples and oranges.

But that's somewhat the entire issue right here. The notion that it isn't 1972 Mississippi seemingly meaning that racism doesn't exist anymore. I'm sure people in 1972 thought WTF are these black people so angry at, they got Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed and forced bussing. What is wrong with those coddled people?

People like Kaepernick or other athletes that affirm Black Lives Matter are saying hey racism still exists, things are still fucked up, and I don't feel like I should feel pride in a society that still allows these things to happen. And not only is there nothing wrong with that, but he has quite a valid point in saying so.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess the closest famous equivalent in sports is the Olympics Black Power protest. Maybe I completely misread their intent, I'm not really the audience, but I always found that gesture very powerful because they didn't turn their back on the anthem, they didn't sit down, they stood up in such a manner as to stay, "we're here too and don't you fucking forget it." That to me is very American. And it was even fairly positive, in the sense of expressing concern and awareness about black poverty, expressing black pride, as opposed to just generically insulting a broad idea or broad group, which is really just a message of hate. Of course I have the advantage of not being alive when it happened and not having to process it as an already-established adult with feelings and biases, etc.

Remember those Black Power athletes were completely raked over the coals for that protest. They were seen to be disrespecting the country by making a political statement during the anthem (which still would be considered disrespectful by some folks - I don't know if Kaep did that he would have been spared the controversy). They both got death threats for doing so as well.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's frightening. I hope Lynch is the answer at QB long term, but we really butchered this offseason with the QB position. I still have no idea why we though Sanchez was the right veteran to bring in. I will never, ever understand it. I predicted he would get cut the first weekend after the trade and was widely laughed at in my circle of friends. (which is not uncommon) This time I get to laugh back.

The problem is what is going to happen this year. The defense is going to be uber strong again, but we are not getting out of all those close games with wins. It simply isn't happening again. We needed a better offense and unless Trevor is better than I think he is, we won't be.

We'll find out in a couple of weeks how good this team will be. We know Carolina is coming in for blood.

Yes these team is starting t reminds of the year we had Tebow and went on th crazy winning streak with that great defense abovee average line with good kicking and running. Well this time we may have a worse QB situation with Tebow since we t least had the good line weaker division and a decent backup QB in Orton. Yes that is how bad it is in Denver this preseason I just typed Orton =equaled decent backup.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

Doesn't make him a terrible person, unless this is all calculated to try to keep himself on the team longer, or to create a spin/excuse for his release.

Maybe I'm a terrible cynical person, but I can't help but think there's absolutely some truth there. He was about to lose a QB job to Blaine Gabbert, get himself cut and probably never be a starter in the NFL again.

I mean I could be way off base here, but if you had told me to name an NFL player who would come out and be an activist for this movement, he'd have probably been pretty near the bottom. I don't hate him for the message, and if it's coming from the heart more power him for taking the stand, but yeah. I'm very skeptical of this one.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Maybe I'm a terrible cynical person, but I can't help but think there's absolutely some truth there. He was about to lose a QB job to Blaine Gabbert, get himself cut and probably never be a starter in the NFL again.

I mean I could be way off base here, but if you had told me to name an NFL player who would come out and be an activist for this movement, he'd have probably been pretty near the bottom. I don't hate him for the message, and if it's coming from the heart more power him for taking the stand, but yeah. I'm very skeptical of this one.

I dunno. From what Ive read about him before, he's always seemed to me like the type of guy who would want to help change society.

If that was his goal, I think he will fail. First, he has not really generated a ton of support for this, even by the people he is doing it for. Second, as all of us know, if an NFL team thinks you can help them win. . . You pretty much have to be filmed and convicted of eating babies at a satanic ritual to not get signed. Beat the hell out of your girlfriend? That is horrible, can you rush the passer?

Kaep would have to do a lot of convincing to make me think an NFL team chose not to sign him because of this.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I dunno. From what Ive read about him before, he's always seemed to me like the type of guy who would want to help change society.

If that was his goal, I think he will fail. First, he has not really generated a ton of support for this, even by the people he is doing it for. Second, as all of us know, if an NFL team thinks you can help them win. . . You pretty much have to be filmed and convicted of eating babies at a satanic ritual to not get signed. Beat the hell out of your girlfriend? That is horrible, can you rush the passer?

Kaep would have to do a lot of convincing to make me think an NFL team chose not to sign him because of this.

He did say he would stand for the anthem once everything is fixed.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Yes these team is starting t reminds of the year we had Tebow and went on th crazy winning streak with that great defense abovee average line with good kicking and running. Well this time we may have a worse QB situation with Tebow since we t least had the good line weaker division and a decent backup QB in Orton. Yes that is how bad it is in Denver this preseason I just typed Orton =equaled decent backup.

I honestly don't think this Broncos team is any worse than last year's. Not that I'm expecting another Super Bowl appearance, they greatly overachieved by winning a lot of close games. That probably evens out this year and brings them back to the 8-10 win range. But the offensive line is not worse, they were probably bottom 5 already last season. And Siemian has looked pretty good this offseason, far better than Tebow ever did.

Things could blow up badly but I just don't see that happening with how good the defense is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Remember those Black Power athletes were completely raked over the coals for that protest.

As they should have been.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Remember those Black Power athletes were completely raked over the coals for that protest. They were seen to be disrespecting the country by making a political statement during the anthem (which still would be considered disrespectful by some folks - I don't know if Kaep did that he would have been spared the controversy). They both got death threats for doing so as well.

Hell, in that era, Hank Aaron got death threats for having the gall to hit too many home runs. So ya, the black power thing was incredibly provocative.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But that's somewhat the entire issue right here. The notion that it isn't 1972 Mississippi seemingly meaning that racism doesn't exist anymore. I'm sure people in 1972 thought WTF are these black people so angry at, they got Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed and forced bussing. What is wrong with those coddled people?

Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean that tactics from when the situation was awful are still warranted here. I just completely reject the notion that today's America can even be loosely compared to the 1940s or even 1970s when it comes to race. We have a black president, we have black CEOs of fortune 500 companies, black athletes are more coddled than 99% of white people and there are checks and balances throughout education and the workplace to ensure African Americans aren't getting the shaft. Now, on the issue of police treatment (esp in poorer areas), I do think there is some room for improvement. But, comparing today to 1972 on race issues is a little ridiculous.

People like Kaepernick or other athletes that affirm Black Lives Matter are saying hey racism still exists, things are still fucked up, and I don't feel like I should feel pride in a society that still allows these things to happen. And not only is there nothing wrong with that, but he has quite a valid point in saying so.

That's their right, but are you saying people can't criticize their method of protest? I think it's extremely fair to say that sitting down for the national anthem is insulting to many Americans and not nearly as effective as other methods of protest aimed at targeting this issue. I'm trying to figure out what your issue is with how people have handled the Kaepernick situation. Most people aren't saying that he doesn't have the right to protest in the manner he did. Instead, it's simply that his method was clumsy and motives seem questionable given his status on the team.

[molson]

I mentioned Jim Brown earlier, who really was one of the more antagonizing black athletes in his day when it came to being outspoken on social issues in a very chaotic time, even he disagreed with the method Kaepernick used (though he supported his right to do it and to express what he was feeling in that way). Because he considers himself an American, who pays his taxes like everyone else, who has always wanted more rights for himself and members of his race in the existing country. When you instead just broadly attack the entire concept of America, you're shitting on a much broader target, including Veterans, prior civil rights leaders, people who have fought for other progress in the U.S., the whole thing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean that tactics from when the situation was awful are still warranted here. I just completely reject the notion that today's America can even be loosely compared to the 1940s or even 1970s when it comes to race. We have a black president, we have black CEOs of fortune 500 companies, black athletes are more coddled than 99% of white people and there are checks and balances throughout education and the workplace to ensure African Americans aren't getting the shaft. Now, on the issue of police treatment (esp in poorer areas), I do think there is some room for improvement. But, comparing today to 1972 on race issues is a little ridiculous.

So... aside from police treatment, racism is dead? Things are better, but when the War on Drugs and mass incarceration seems to be focused on the black community (whites and blacks do the same amount of drugs, but blacks are overwhelmingly the ones jailed for it). When said actions lead to incredibly powerful books like Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow". When police departments show incredibly levels of racism (look at the Justice Department probes into the PDs at Ferguson, Mo. and Baltimore, Md.). The country still has a major, major problem with racism.

FWIW, there only 5 black CEOs on the Fortune 500. Yeah, that's better than before, but that's still kind of pitiful. There are laws that are in place to prevent workplace discrimination, but it still happens quite a bit (the various studies of call backs when sending the same resume with 'black' names vs. 'white' names, etc.). We have a black President, but people still believe him to be a Muslim, from Kenya, etc.

We may be better on race than in 1972, but it isn't nearly as much as people may think. And I think that a lot of it still hasn't gotten better and needs to be called out.

That's their right, but are you saying people can't criticize their method of protest? I think it's extremely fair to say that sitting down for the national anthem is insulting to many Americans and not nearly as effective as other methods of protest aimed at targeting this issue. I'm trying to figure out what your issue is with how people have handled the Kaepernick situation. Most people aren't saying that he doesn't have the right to protest in the manner he did. Instead, it's simply that his method was clumsy and motives seem questionable given his status on the team.

Why is it clumsy? What's a better form of protest? Are we or are we not discussing the status of African-Americans in the country today? Would we have been doing so if Kaep was marching in a Black Lives Matter parade?

People can criticize the method of protest. I can also say they are wrong (morally, not legally) for doing so. Or are you saying that folks can't criticize people who are against the method of protest?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why is it clumsy?

Because there's a lot of collateral damage with it. If I don't like the hiring practice for a certain retailer, putting out an ad or protest against all retailers seems a little clumsy and unfair to those who aren't acting that way. I think the way Lebron handled the Eric Garner case, Wade/Lebron/Melo brought notice to BLM or even Rose with the "I can't breathe" T-Shirt were all very poignant ways to bring attention to the issue. Sitting down for the national anthem is disrespectful to millions of Americans (including black americans).

What's a better form of protest?

I went through 3 above. If Kaepernick had worn a Black Lives Matter headband or even had a BLM T-Shirt after the game in a press conference - I think both would have garnered just as much attention without the disrespecting America collateral damage.

Are we or are we not discussing the status of African-Americans in the country today? Would we have been doing so if Kaep was marching in a Black Lives Matter parade?

We've talked/responded to numerous more effective methods by athletes. I just think this was lazy and clumsy.

People can criticize the method of protest. I can also say they are wrong (morally, not legally) for doing so. Or are you saying that folks can't criticize people who are against the method of protest?

No, I just didn't understand your point. Now I do. I think it's a little silly to say that Kaepernick has the right to protest in a clumsy way, but that's it is unfair for anyone to criticism his method. But, we can agree to disagree I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I went through 3 above. If Kaepernick had worn a Black Lives Matter headband or even had a BLM T-Shirt after the game in a press conference - I think both would have garnered just as much attention without the disrespecting America collateral damage.

How much real conversation happened after the LeBron/Wade/Melo/Rose comments? Not much. If Kaepernick work a BLM shirt in the press conference it would have been the same. A story for a day, some Facebook memes talking about it. Then over.

There were a lot of people who thought the 200m runners in the 1968 Olympics were disrespecting America at time. There were a lot of people who thought Muhammed Ali's outspoken anti-Vietnam statements (due to American racism) were disrespecting America. We don't necessarily think they still are (well, Jon might).

I don't think claiming that America is a racist country is disrespecting the country. It's calling it to be better. Be worthy of people standing up to honor the flag. Respect is earned, not given - I've heard that a time or two. I think the country is be called on the carpet to earn that respect.

I think it's a little silly to say that Kaepernick has the right to protest in a clumsy way, but that's it is unfair for anyone to criticism his method.

I'm not saying it's 'unfair' - just that its dumb, IMO.

[molson]

I read a lot more about police tactics, training, racial issues, ect., after the actual controversial events than I ever did after any of the protests. After the protests it seems there's more talk about the protests than any issues. Maybe in 2016 with all the media sources and ability to express ourselves to a wider audience, traditional protests aren't as important. Maybe it's better to actually do good work in the community to promote change, or to at least financially support those various watchdog, community groups, state legislators who are in the position to actually change laws, etc.

[Arles]

Stop it, Molson. It's more effective to drop a deuce on the American Flag at the 50-yardline before a game. THAT gets people to talk about this issue and that's what matters. Support change in the community? Actually state the message of change you want to the press? YAWN!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I read a lot more about police tactics, training, racial issues, ect., after the actual controversial events than I ever did after any of the protests. After the protests it seems there's more talk about the protests than any issues. Maybe in 2016 with all the media sources and ability to express ourselves to a wider audience, traditional protests aren't as important. Maybe it's better to actually do good work in the community to promote change, or to at least financially support those various watchdog, community groups, state legislators who are in the position to actually change laws, etc.

The older I get the more I think change takes both the radicals and the quiet workmen types. I think the combination of outrage/visibility with slow and steady work gets further than either would alone.