(09-21-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What are you disagreeing with? You literally agreed with my point, which is that Colin K. is a perfect example of how everyone has a different opinion of where the line between appropriate and inappropriate protests lands.
This example shows how you have a group of people who don't believe how/what he was protesting was appropriate, so Colin doesn't have a job (i.e. belong in the NFL). Yet you have another group of people who are vocally critical of the decision not to employ him.
Perhaps had he protested just on social media, or off the football field, an NFL owner would have found his presence palatable (after all, many owners employ people with serious criminal convictions that would get most average employees fired). But since he didn't do something overtly offensive (like burning the flag) it's in a gray area where there is disagreement on how the situation is being handled.

I have basically the same comment as Tanq's (we agree a lot). You're missing the point because you are focusing on only one side of the argument--the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of Kaep's actions.

That has to be offset against Kaep's value to the team. It's not that his acts are necessarily so repulsive as that those acts must be measured against his value to the team. Tom Brady could get away with the same actions, because his value is that he can win you a Super Bowl. When Kaep was a Super Bowl quarterback, he might have gotten away with his. But defenses figured out how to stop his unique skill set, and he probably can't get you to a Super Bowl today. He's not unique in this regard. Tim Tebow won an NFL playoff game, and is now playing minor league baseball (not that Tebow--or Brady--would be likely to engage in the same kind of protest as did Kaep).

So it's not just the appropriateness of his actions. It's the appropriateness of those actions measured against the value that he can bring, And unfortunately for Kaep, once defenses figured out his bag of tricks, that value is very low. And there are others with equal or higher value who don't bring the same baggage, or even those with slightly less value but no baggage could be preferred as a rational decision.