He would also be on a roster despite opting out of his contract if he were good enough that an NFL owner believed his contribution would be worth the headache his off the field conduct causes. Look at Richard Sherman. That guy mouths off about racism all the time. He may very well be right or he may very well be wrong, but the fact remains his contribution to the team is worth it for Seattle to put up with his mouth. He adds enough value that they'll overlook his controversy. Kaepernick is just not THAT good. He may very well be as good as Dan says, but if his value is outpaced by the controversy, nobody is going to take on that burden. It really ISN'T about keeping this black man down; it's about the risk/reward and the money to be made from it.

End. Of. Story.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

http://www.msn.com/...r-AAqEA8C?li=BBnba9I

here's another opinion that I think is worthwhile

this opinion is that the onus is on Kap to make up his mind whether he is an activist or a football player. From a guy who waited until he retired from football to become an activist.

Sure, he's likely being 'blackballed' - though I'd describe it as self-induced exile. Not as race-tinged as your word but more accurate. Even if he had the talent of a top 5 starting QB he's a PR nightmare for the organization and it's just not worth it. It's a private business, just like Slowtwitch, and if it was good business to hire him it would happen. If I were an NFL owner I wouldn't touch him, I don't need my organization to become a political pawn for a cause du jour. Your opinion that there's a racial element is ridiculous. You must not watch much football - there are black players. Even when players (even black players) break the law, beat their wives, abuse their kids, commit murder, gambling, drugs - many manage to keep their jobs. Why? Because the business value exceeds the PR risk. It takes a hell of a lot to overcome the greed of an NFL owner who will excuse serious atrocities if it makes business sense to do so. Kaep's behavior cannot be overcome from a business perspective regardless of the talent. You probably even think the NFL team is really all about winning...plenty of profit is earned by losing teams. Business is business.

Just because you agree with Kaep's stance/cause/behavior and believe his talent should be sufficient to land him a job in the NFL doesn't mean anything. You're not and NFL owner. If hiring a person to work at Slowtwitch who then uses Slowtwitch to express their political views thus driving away your revenue generating clients is good business for you then you should hire the poor young man who finds himself unemployable. As for my business, I wouldn't tolerate such behavior, nor would my investors and Board of Directors. I highly doubt you would either.

just to clear up a misconception it appears you have, i don't agree with his method or tactics and i largely also don't agree with his cause (depending on the cause). i do like his philanthropy, but i haven't been a fan of his civil disobedience (or whatever it is you'd call it).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

LeSean McCoy's opinion

http://www.dailywire.com/...amanda-prestigiacomo

---

All I Wanted Was A Pepsi, Just One Pepsi

Team Zoot, Team Zoot Mid-Atlantic

The heaviest burden to carry is the chip on your own shoulder.