Digest for alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 10 topics

Monday, March 27, 2017

"a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com>: Mar 27 07:04PM -0700

Colin Kaepernick reportedly wants $9M to $10M per year and a chance to start
The former 49ers quarterback's expectations are unlikely to match the market
reality
by Will Brinson @WillBrinson 10h ago . 3 min read
 
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colin-kaepernick-reportedly-wants-9-10-million-per-year-and-a-chance-to-start/
The vitriol surrounding the Colin Kaepernick employment discussion is
heated, with pro-Kaepernick people screaming about him being blackballed by
the NFL and anti-Kaepernick people questioning his football ability.
 
There are some people with moderate takes being shouted down by all the
noise on the lunatic fringe -- and one of the better moderate takes we've
seen so far comes from Dan Graziano of ESPN, who points out there might
simply be a confluence of events causing Kaepernick not to get a job.
 
Kaepernick remains a question mark when it comes to his on-field skill set.
He can do a lot of things well, but there's no guarantee he can work well
with every team.
 
There are also a lot of teams that simply do not need a starting or backup
quarterback. Especially one who has pretty high salary demands. According to
Graziano, Kaepernick wants to earn between $9 million and $10 million this
season, with an opportunity to start.
 
Further, we know from multiple sources that Kaepernick isn't just
looking for any job. Two people to whom I spoke last week say he's looking
for a place that offers him a chance to compete for a starting job and a
salary befitting a high-end backup quarterback or a low-end starter. Think
something like $9 million to $10 million.
 
If you are a major supporter of Kaepernick getting a job, you probably need
to look at those demands and realize how difficult it is for him to get what
he wants.
 
Everyone freaked out when the Raiders signed EJ Manuel as a backup (
Kaepernick would have made a lot of sense with Oakland ), but he took a
one-year deal worth $800,000 with zero guaranteed money. That's a long way
from what Kaepernick reportedly wants.
 
If Kaepernick is set on finding a starting job, he is going to be out of
luck. The Texans, Jets, Browns and 49ers are teams that need starting
quarterbacks. You can force the Broncos in there, but they have Paxton
Lynch, who they drafted in the first round last year. We can probably rule
out the 49ers.
 
We can also rule out the Jets. As we've been pointing out for a while now ,
Jets owner Woody Johnson is a big-time conservative who is friendly with the
country's current administration, led by a president who publicly denounced
Kaepernick's decision to kneel during the national anthem as recently as
last week .
 
The Texans and Broncos are revving up for the Tony Romo sweepstakes; if
Denver misses out, Lynch or Trevor Siemian will be the guy. Houston could be
a landing spot, but Kaepernick's fit in Bill O'Brien's system is
questionable at best.
 
So there's Cleveland. The Browns are not morally obligated to take a shot on
Kaepernick as their starting quarterback, especially a year after testing
out the Robert Griffin III experiment. Cleveland has two first-round picks
and is still apparently interested in chasing after Jimmy Garoppolo in a
deal with the Patriots. The Browns can afford to be patient if they have
interest in Kaepernick.
 
Kaepernick is doing some really positive things off the field. He's not
being blackballed by the NFL, but his actions as a social activist might
ultimately limit his ability to find employment. That doesn't make him any
different from any other person in any other field of employment.
 
There just isn't some broad answer for why Kaepernick doesn't have a job
right now. It's a nuanced, difficult issue with a bunch of layers and a lack
of a blanket solution. When people on the fringe start screaming about it,
things only become more complex.
Ron <ronwinters@sjtb.ca>: Mar 28 07:11AM +0200

In article <obcgbt0o3m@news3.newsguy.com>
> being blackballed by the NFL, but his actions as a social activist might
> ultimately limit his ability to find employment. That doesn't make him any
> different from any other person in any other field of employment.
 
It takes a thousand atta-boys to make up for one aw shit. He's
up to what? 6? 8?
 
Certainly does make him different. Any other person in any
other field of employment doesn't have a hundred TV cameras and
microphones pointed at him the entire time they are at work. He
knew it and compromised his employer/employment by using them to
promote radical idealism.
 
You do what he did in the private sector and you'll get a free
escort out of the building. Your final check will arrive three
days later.
 
> right now. It's a nuanced, difficult issue with a bunch of layers and a lack
> of a blanket solution. When people on the fringe start screaming about it,
> things only become more complex.
 
No they don't. They become crystal clear. His head got messed
up by that radical black "consultant" from Berkeley.
"Democrats Drive Off More Revenue & Jobs" <democrat-incompetents@glaad.org>: Mar 28 06:45AM +0200

The Raiders will spend two more seasons in Oakland before
heading to Las Vegas in 2019.
 
The Raiders are relocating to Las Vegas to move into a brand new
stadium that will open in 2020. Until then, the Raiders will
play two more seasons in Oakland before moving into a temporary
home in Las Vegas for the 2019 season.
 
Struggles to secure a new stadium in Oakland made the move look
increasingly likely and eventually a seemingly foregone
conclusion. Reports Monday morning suggested the Raiders had
enough votes to confirm a move, and it was made official at the
NFL's annual owners meeting in Phoenix, Ariz. with a 31-1 vote.
The Miami Dolphins' Stephen Ross was the only owner to oppose
the relocation.
 
"My father always said, 'the greatness of the Raiders is in its
future,' and the opportunity to build a world-class stadium in
the entertainment capital of the world is a significant step
toward achieving that greatness," Raiders owner Mark Davis said
in a statement released Monday.
 
It will be the third relocation for a franchise that was a
charter member of the American Football League in 1960 and
originally called Oakland home. It moved to Los Angeles in 1982
and back to Oakland in 1995, but will now leave California for
the first time.
 
It's also the third NFL relocation in less than two years with
the Rams moving to Los Angeles in January 2016, and the Chargers
joining them in L.A. in January 2017. The Raiders also filed for
relocation to L.A., but were given third priority for the move.
 
Why leave Oakland?
Like the Rams and Chargers, the Raiders' move to a new city is a
consequence of an inability to secure a new stadium in the
original city. The only stadiums currently in use that are older
than the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum are Lambeau Field in
Green Bay, Soldier Field in Chicago and the Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum, which is serving as the temporary home of the Rams.
 
The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum also serves as the home of
the MLB's Oakland Athletics. Multi-purpose stadiums that host
baseball and football games was once common practice. In 1971,
17 of the NFL's 26 franchises shared a stadium with an MLB team,
but with the Raiders' relocation to Las Vegas, the number is
zero for the first time.
 
The dual-use quickly became defunct as the business of expensive
stadiums put a premium on sites that are tailor-made for the
tenant. The Raiders' desire of a new stadium was largely
predicated on the fact that it did not want to share a stadium
with the A's anymore.
 
A last-ditch effort by the City of Oakland to keep the Raiders
proposed a new stadium be built neighboring the Oakland-Alameda
County Coliseum — which would serve as the continued home for
the A's — and even that was an objectionable idea to the NFL.
 
"The long-term nature of the commitment to the A's remains a
significant complication, and the resolution of that issue
remains unknown," NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a
letter to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, per ESPN. "Other
significant uncertainties, which we have previously identified,
remain unaddressed."
 
Schaaf said via a statement released Monday that she was
disappointed in the team's decision to move to Las Vegas and
that her "heart aches for Raider Nation."
 
"I am proud that we stood firm in refusing to use public money
to subsidize stadium construction and that we did not capitulate
to their unreasonable and unnecessary demand that we choose
between our football and baseball franchises," the statement
read.
 
But even baseball team aside, the Raiders' stadium in Oakland
was one of the oldest in the NFL and the team has long aimed
higher. It was the original home of the franchise, but when then-
owner Al Davis unsuccessfully fought for a renovation that would
have added luxury boxes, he turned his attention to Los Angeles.
 
Davis moved the team after he won an antitrust lawsuit against
the NFL, but returned to Oakland 13 years later after a $25.5
million renovation added luxury boxes.
 
Still, the stadium is now over five decades old and the pursuit
of a new, better home didn't yield many results in Oakland. It
did, however, find momentum and progress in Las Vegas, where a
plan came together over the last year.
 
The Raiders will remain in Oakland for the next two seasons, but
Davis hesitated to refer to that timeframe as "lame duck"
seasons.
 
"First off, I wouldn't use the term 'lame duck,'" Davis said
during a press conference right after the move was confirmed.
"We're still the Oakland Raiders."
 
Davis said the team is looking into the possibility of remaining
in Oakland for the 2019 season as well. Still, Davis understands
that fans in Oakland are going to be disappointed by the move,
and he said the team will issue refunds to disgruntled fans who
purchased season tickets.
 
Why Las Vegas?
Immediately after the Raiders' attempt to move to L.A. came up
short, the team turned its attention to alternatives. The City
of Oakland and the team still struggled to find an agreeable
solution and, while there were rumors of San Antonio emerging as
a possibility, nothing came of the rumblings.
 
Instead it was Sin City that quickly jumped into the mix and
pushed itself well ahead of any offer Oakland could muster with
$750 million in public funding and another $200 million for
maintenance over the next 30 years.
 
Oakland was committed to finding a proposal that didn't rely on
public funds and that left a giant gap to fill, that the city
ultimately couldn't. Even when a development group spearheaded
by Raiders-great Ronnie Lott made a push to keep the team in
Oakland, and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson pulled out of the
Las Vegas stadium deal, it still wasn't enough to keep the
Raiders in California.
 
It was Bank of America that ultimately secured the move with a
financing plan that will call for the Raiders to contribute $500
million to the new stadium.
 
Quarterback Derek Carr said via Twitter that he was "overwhelmed
with emotion" by the news.
 
"I feel the pain of our fans in Oakland," Carr said. "I also see
the joy on the faces of our new fans in Las Vegas."
 
Aren't professional sports in Las Vegas a bad idea?
Professional sports leagues have long been wary of placing a
team near the gambling capital of the United States. One
potential concern has been the possibility of corruption, with
players influenced by gambling executives seeking to influence
games.
 
But with the internet creating a surge in off-shore gambling and
instantaneous sharing of information, that concern has waned.
 
The approval of a move for the Raiders to Las Vegas may be a
softening of the anti-gambling stance for the NFL, although
Goodell has said that he doesn't intend to back down entirely.
 
Ian Rapoport ? @RapSheet
Goodell on gambling: "We remain very much opposed to gambling on
sports. .... we want to make sure we're doing what's right for
the game."
11:21 AM - 19 Oct 2016
117 117 Retweets 212 212 likes
 
It's even considered a possibility that the NFL could request
sportsbooks in Nevada to pull Raiders games as betting options.
However, Las Vegas will soon be home to an NHL franchise and any
kind of betting ban seems like a long shot.
 
http://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/27/15060642/las-vegas-raiders-
relocation-move-oakland-nfl-vote
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Mar 27 08:12PM -0700

http://www.knbr.com/2017/03/27/amy-trask-california-couldnt-replicate-nevadas-deal/
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Mar 27 05:09PM -0700

http://www.ninersnation.com/2017/3/27/15080818/browns-owner-colin-kaepernick-free-agent-hue-jackson
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Mar 27 03:52PM -0700

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000795278/article/zierlein-mock-30-49erspanthers-trade-adds-new-twist
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Mar 27 10:47AM -1000

49ers GM to Raider fans: 'Come jump on our train'
49ers dynasty emerged last time Raiders fled
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/27/49ers-dynasty-emerged-last-time-raiders-fled/
 
Fuck you, Lynch!
Fuck you, Raiders!
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Mar 27 03:45PM -0700

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:47:23 PM UTC-7, John Walsh wrote:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/27/49ers-dynasty-emerged-last-time-raiders-fled/
 
> Fuck you, Lynch!
> Fuck you, Raiders!
 
Let the hardcore fans travel to Vegas for games.
 
I'll give them credit for their loyalty.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Mar 27 10:50AM -1000

Blach states case boldly for fifth rotation spot
 
By Henry Schulman Updated 5:16 pm, Sunday, March 26, 2017
 
http://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/Blach-states-case-boldly-for-fifth-rotation-spot-11029169.php
 
If Bochy got the innings out of Blach that he was claiming he hadn't
had so far and Blach has pitched consistently well from late last year
thru spring training, there should be no question about the 5th
starting spot.
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Mar 27 12:37PM -0700

http://ninernoise.com/2017/03/27/49ers-christian-mccaffrey-arget-nfl-draft/
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Mar 26 10:03PM -1000

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:05:57 +0100 (CET), "Good Riddance"
>and you're out, buddy. Pack your shit and hit the road. Don't
>let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, and don't come
>back.
 
He's not the first athlete to do what he did. He hasn't tarnished
anything, except in the eyes of racists. If he can find a team to fit
his style, fine. The people who support the NFL are the same people
who will go to the game no matter who the QB is behind center.
 
You greatly over-estimate on what people will do if Kaepernick plays
for their team. Niner fans came to the games and cheered the team.
They didn't stand around booing Kaepernick for kneeling.
 
Soo where does that leave you, racist?
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Mar 26 09:59PM -1000

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Benard Atkins
 
>http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/shanahan-49ers-new-defensive-scheme-starts-safeties-corners/
 
Seems reasonable if the corners and safeties are good enough to cover
and make it easier for the linebackers and defensive line players
disrupt the offense.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment