Common Sense
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,897
- Reaction score
- 2,048
Once Romo's money clears June 1st, do you make a play for Kaepernick, assuming his contract demands aren't more than, say, Kyle Orton?
Ground rules for this discussion:
1. We know Kaepernick isn't a great quarterback, but he's a decent quarterback. He took a team to the Super Bowl. Honestly, he could potentially be the best backup QB in the league, especially for this team, once it tailors its offense to Dak's strengths. Can you name 5 guys who would be better backing up Dak?
2. His political views don't really matter when it comes to stat sheets and salary cap space. I personally don't think he's wrong, but that's not the point of this discussion. I understand why he's offensive to people. That's okay. Let's not argue that from a personal standpoint. It doesn't matter what we think of it.
3. That having been said, we know good and well that PR has always been a consideration for roster decisions as long as Jerry Jones has been owner and GM, if not before then. I get how Kaepernick's image fits better somewhere like Seattle than it does in Dallas. I could see Jerry nixing Kaepernick solely for that reason. I think he would be wrong, since he had no problem bringing in Greg Hardy, who was hands down a worse human being and teammate by every objective measure. Same for Joe Mixon in Cincinnati. At the end of the day, it's a sport and people care about wins and losses. Muhammed Ali is also a great case in point.
So, here's my hot take:
Kapernick would be less of a distraction in Dallas than Orton was during his feud with Romo. I know a lot of fans get really caught up in the whole political thing, but most NFL players are probably pretty sympathetic to Kaepernick's points about police brutality against minorities, which has never NOT been a problem -- I mean, really, when wasn't it? The fugitive slave act? Jim Crow? ANY point in American history? Get real, folks. This problem has always existed and didn't magically disappear 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. That's not politics. It's common sense. The only thing we can really disagree with here is the optics of it, and if we can sign players to contracts with weight clauses, who's to say we can't sign Kap to a reasonable contract with some kind of "protest" clause, albeit one that financially rewards him for it?
Ground rules for this discussion:
1. We know Kaepernick isn't a great quarterback, but he's a decent quarterback. He took a team to the Super Bowl. Honestly, he could potentially be the best backup QB in the league, especially for this team, once it tailors its offense to Dak's strengths. Can you name 5 guys who would be better backing up Dak?
2. His political views don't really matter when it comes to stat sheets and salary cap space. I personally don't think he's wrong, but that's not the point of this discussion. I understand why he's offensive to people. That's okay. Let's not argue that from a personal standpoint. It doesn't matter what we think of it.
3. That having been said, we know good and well that PR has always been a consideration for roster decisions as long as Jerry Jones has been owner and GM, if not before then. I get how Kaepernick's image fits better somewhere like Seattle than it does in Dallas. I could see Jerry nixing Kaepernick solely for that reason. I think he would be wrong, since he had no problem bringing in Greg Hardy, who was hands down a worse human being and teammate by every objective measure. Same for Joe Mixon in Cincinnati. At the end of the day, it's a sport and people care about wins and losses. Muhammed Ali is also a great case in point.
So, here's my hot take:
Kapernick would be less of a distraction in Dallas than Orton was during his feud with Romo. I know a lot of fans get really caught up in the whole political thing, but most NFL players are probably pretty sympathetic to Kaepernick's points about police brutality against minorities, which has never NOT been a problem -- I mean, really, when wasn't it? The fugitive slave act? Jim Crow? ANY point in American history? Get real, folks. This problem has always existed and didn't magically disappear 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. That's not politics. It's common sense. The only thing we can really disagree with here is the optics of it, and if we can sign players to contracts with weight clauses, who's to say we can't sign Kap to a reasonable contract with some kind of "protest" clause, albeit one that financially rewards him for it?
Last edited:
