Eric Reid thread

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
how is it not how it works ?

any player that is unsigned right now can jump on the collusion case

I can't work out if you're just trying to anger people or if you literally have no comprehension of this matter.

Besides I think the thing that people are missing here is the fact the NFLPA have filed a separate grievance that seems very much like being true and provable.

Their grievance states that Reid was asked pre-employment questions by an owner which are outside of NFL rules and therefore the CBA.

Reid obviously gives this evidence, but Marv Lewis has been quoted saying that Reid would probably have been signed if he had different answers to his owners questions. If those questions are found to breach the CBA then that case is a slam dunk.

if your angered because i don't follow the collusion theory.. then i don't know what to tell ya

but Questions is not collusion, it's an interview

You should check out the pre draft questions that the rookies have to answer

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

if your angered because i don't follow the collusion theory.. then i don't know what to tell ya

but Questions is not collusion, it's an interview

You should check out the pre draft questions that the rookies have to answer

So the NFLPA have filed a grievance for what reason?

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
if your angered because i don't follow the collusion theory.. then i don't know what to tell ya

but Questions is not collusion, it's an interview

You should check out the pre draft questions that the rookies have to answer

So the NFLPA have filed a grievance for what reason?

for support of their Association. they don't lose anything while showing support for their players.

being asked questions is not enough.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I'm Kap's case I think it's possible he may have been playing by now . But don't forget that back when Kelly came in Kap turned down a chance to play for the Broncos because it involved a salary reduction. His star had fallen around the league long before his protest. If he thought he was worth more than teams were willing to pay, he may or may not have caught on to a team. If he was willing to take a reduced role at some point to get a job he may have done well, he may not have. I doubt we get a chance to find out at this point.

In Reid's case I absolutely believe he would have been on a team by the start of the year if he had not joined the collusion case.

So Kap should have taken a $5-10 million pay cut and Reid should agree to circumstances no other player has had to?

That's pretty funny . His play at the time was the issue. His protests hadn't even started. Are you saying a player that isn't perceived to be worth their previous salary should be given that salary automatically at the next team? You asked if he would still be playing. If he had taken the Denver job, and actually did well, salary wouldn't have been an issue going forward. How many teams back then even thought he was very good at that point? There was no protest to blame his lack of offers on. So he stayed at a place where he wasn't seen as the future. His protests started after that.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I'm Kap's case I think it's possible he may have been playing by now . But don't forget that back when Kelly came in Kap turned down a chance to play for the Broncos because it involved a salary reduction. His star had fallen around the league long before his protest. If he thought he was worth more than teams were willing to pay, he may or may not have caught on to a team. If he was willing to take a reduced role at some point to get a job he may have done well, he may not have. I doubt we get a chance to find out at this point.

In Reid's case I absolutely believe he would have been on a team by the start of the year if he had not joined the collusion case.

So Kap should have taken a $5-10 million pay cut and Reid should agree to circumstances no other player has had to?

That's pretty funny . His play at the time was the issue. His protests hadn't even started. Are you saying a player that isn't perceived to be worth their previous salary should be given that salary automatically at the next team? You asked if he would still be playing. If he had taken the Denver job, and actually did well, salary wouldn't have been an issue going forward. How many teams back then even thought he was very good at that point? There was no protest to blame his lack of offers on. So he stayed at a place where he wasn't seen as the future. His protests started after that.

There's something seriously wrong with your memory, Denver tried to trade for him to give them a starting quality QB, they couldn't make it happen with their wage structure so asked him to take a pay cut.

Kap backed himself to get his job back and play well enough for us that he would get back on track, obviously that didn't work.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I'm Kap's case I think it's possible he may have been playing by now . But don't forget that back when Kelly came in Kap turned down a chance to play for the Broncos because it involved a salary reduction. His star had fallen around the league long before his protest. If he thought he was worth more than teams were willing to pay, he may or may not have caught on to a team. If he was willing to take a reduced role at some point to get a job he may have done well, he may not have. I doubt we get a chance to find out at this point.

In Reid's case I absolutely believe he would have been on a team by the start of the year if he had not joined the collusion case.

So Kap should have taken a $5-10 million pay cut and Reid should agree to circumstances no other player has had to?

That's pretty funny . His play at the time was the issue. His protests hadn't even started. Are you saying a player that isn't perceived to be worth their previous salary should be given that salary automatically at the next team? You asked if he would still be playing. If he had taken the Denver job, and actually did well, salary wouldn't have been an issue going forward. How many teams back then even thought he was very good at that point? There was no protest to blame his lack of offers on. So he stayed at a place where he wasn't seen as the future. His protests started after that.

There's something seriously wrong with your memory, Denver tried to trade for him to give them a starting quality QB, they couldn't make it happen with their wage structure so asked him to take a pay cut.

Kap backed himself to get his job back and play well enough for us that he would get back on track, obviously that didn't work.

There is more wrong with our memory than mine. He stayed here for the money. If he was willing to bet on himself he would have chosen Denver. Better team, better coaching, better all around situation. And yes he would have had to take pay cut due to their immediate situation, but if he had been successful that wouldn't have been a long term issue. He chose to take the safe pay day. Not criticizing, but that's what he did. But more to the point, he was allowed to shop himself around the league... And that was his only offer. No other offers were ever reported. So,you can try blame his lack of playing on on his protest only, but it is a fact he didn't draw a lot of interest prior to that. Now add in the protest to that and I am sure it influenced people. But don't act like he was a hot commodity prior to the protest.

Originally posted by mojave45:

There is more wrong with our memory than mine. He stayed here for the money. If he was willing to bet on himself he would have chosen Denver. Better team, better coaching, better all around situation. And yes he would have had to take pay cut due to their immediate situation, but if he had been successful that wouldn't have been a long term issue. He chose to take the safe pay day. Not criticizing, but that's what he did. But more to the point, he was allowed to shop himself around the league... And that was his only offer. No other offers were ever reported. So,you can try blame his lack of playing on on his protest only, but it is a fact he didn't draw a lot of interest prior to that. Now add in the protest to that and I am sure it influenced people. But don't act like he was a hot commodity prior to the protest.

I've been back and forth with you enough on the Kap thread, this is about Reid, Kap is relevant in their collusion case, but this isn't about Kap's talent, or lack thereof.

Both Kap & Reid have a case of being mistreated, they are pretty much the only players in history out of the league for other reasons than talent, criminality, age or injury.

The only other person I can think of is Chris Borland, and you can kind of say that was due to injury, or at least the worry of.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

We back to football talk yet or?

For Reid and Kap that's unlikely to ever be the case hence the discussion we're having with them.

I hope Kap & Reid win the collusion case against the NFL, and I hope they each get $500 million in settlement money.

It would be so cool to see two guys defeat a Goliath.

But we all know that will never happen because the system is rigged from the start.

if they win..then every player that sucks can sue for collusion.

LOL, that's not how any of this works.
Any player can file a grievance claim for collusion and any player who can prove two or more teams or one or more teams and the NFL office agreed not signing the player, the player will win their grievance claim.

Yep... Of course anybody can sue anybody.
It's a sad world we live in.
We see that People can make claims against people, lie, which gets them thrown in jail, and are unjustly fighting to keep there freedom, yet people still say he's guilty.

Part I am not grasping is, Kap did have an offer from Denver, and didn't accept. Seattle wanted to work him out and they would probably sign him.
Reid's had an offer from the 49ers and it looks like the bengals would have signed him.

Shouldn't these teams/companies be allowed to have there employees do what they ask to on company time?
I guess they should not in some people's eyes.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
I've been back and forth with you enough on the Kap thread, this is about Reid, Kap is relevant in their collusion case, but this isn't about Kap's talent, or lack thereof.

Both Kap & Reid have a case of being mistreated, they are pretty much the only players in history out of the league for other reasons than talent, criminality, age or injury.

The only other person I can think of is Chris Borland, and you can kind of say that was due to injury, or at least the worry of.

Yes, it is.

It is hard to keep them separate given they came from the same team, were reportedly friends and joined in together in protest.

No one will ever know for certain but I would bet Reid would have a job if he were not so closely connected to Kaepernick.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by mojave45:

There is more wrong with our memory than mine. He stayed here for the money. If he was willing to bet on himself he would have chosen Denver. Better team, better coaching, better all around situation. And yes he would have had to take pay cut due to their immediate situation, but if he had been successful that wouldn't have been a long term issue. He chose to take the safe pay day. Not criticizing, but that's what he did. But more to the point, he was allowed to shop himself around the league... And that was his only offer. No other offers were ever reported. So,you can try blame his lack of playing on on his protest only, but it is a fact he didn't draw a lot of interest prior to that. Now add in the protest to that and I am sure it influenced people. But don't act like he was a hot commodity prior to the protest.

I've been back and forth with you enough on the Kap thread, this is about Reid, Kap is relevant in their collusion case, but this isn't about Kap's talent, or lack thereof.

Both Kap & Reid have a case of being mistreated, they are pretty much the only players in history out of the league for other reasons than talent, criminality, age or injury.

The only other person I can think of is Chris Borland, and you can kind of say that was due to injury, or at least the worry of.

You made it about Kap and Reid.

I disagree. On both. Bad choices on Kaps part, poor play for several years, injuries, and then the protests.

But back to Reid, I really truly believe he would be playing this year if he hadn't joined the collusion case. He just did that to himself. It was a slow market for safeties, not just him. He has skills that could have been used by several teams I think. He just didn't want to give it time. Now if there is a smoking gun type of evidence and it wins the collusion case for him it would cause me to reassess Reid's situation.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

We back to football talk yet or?

For Reid and Kap that's unlikely to ever be the case hence the discussion we're having with them.

I hope Kap & Reid win the collusion case against the NFL, and I hope they each get $500 million in settlement money.

It would be so cool to see two guys defeat a Goliath.

But we all know that will never happen because the system is rigged from the start.

if they win..then every player that sucks can sue for collusion.

LOL, that's not how any of this works.
Any player can file a grievance claim for collusion and any player who can prove two or more teams or one or more teams and the NFL office agreed not signing the player, the player will win their grievance claim.

Yep... Of course anybody can sue anybody.
It's a sad world we live in.
We see that People can make claims against people, lie, which gets them thrown in jail, and are unjustly fighting to keep there freedom, yet people still say he's guilty.

Part I am not grasping is, Kap did have an offer from Denver, and didn't accept. Seattle wanted to work him out and they would probably sign him.
Reid's had an offer from the 49ers and it looks like the bengals would have signed him.

Shouldn't these teams/companies be allowed to have there employees do what they ask to on company time?
I guess they should not in some people's eyes.

As long as it does not violate laws/Rights and it is in accordance with the CBA. But two teams (or one team and the NBA) agreeing they will not sign him would violate the CBA.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

We back to football talk yet or?

For Reid and Kap that's unlikely to ever be the case hence the discussion we're having with them.

I hope Kap & Reid win the collusion case against the NFL, and I hope they each get $500 million in settlement money.

It would be so cool to see two guys defeat a Goliath.

But we all know that will never happen because the system is rigged from the start.

if they win..then every player that sucks can sue for collusion.

LOL, that's not how any of this works.
Any player can file a grievance claim for collusion and any player who can prove two or more teams or one or more teams and the NFL office agreed not signing the player, the player will win their grievance claim.

Yep... Of course anybody can sue anybody.
It's a sad world we live in.
We see that People can make claims against people, lie, which gets them thrown in jail, and are unjustly fighting to keep there freedom, yet people still say he's guilty.

Part I am not grasping is, Kap did have an offer from Denver, and didn't accept. Seattle wanted to work him out and they would probably sign him.
Reid's had an offer from the 49ers and it looks like the bengals would have signed him.

Shouldn't these teams/companies be allowed to have there employees do what they ask to on company time?
I guess they should not in some people's eyes.

As long as it does not violate laws/Rights and it is in accordance with the CBA. But two teams (or one team and the NBA) agreeing they will not sign him would violate the CBA.

So if the bengals tell the Texans they are not signing REID if he continues to kneel, and the Texans say we are not going to either, if he continues to kneel, then it's collusion?
Couldn't 10 teams call each other and ask there opinions and still decide not to sign him?
I mean I'm sure general input is given from all teams..

Let me ask you this, so if a rookie with a "tainted" background doesn't get drafted until the 6th round when he should have went higher, should he get to sue?
If multiple teams "talked" to each other and said they are passing on this kid because of his past, isn't that collusion?
I mean where do you draw the line?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it Sounds like your as confident kap and REID have a "good case" as you were that there was no other explanation other then Foster beating the s**t out of his girlfriend.
Again, maybe I'm wrong.

Originally posted by dj43:

Yes, it is.

It is hard to keep them separate given they came from the same team, were reportedly friends and joined in together in protest.

No one will ever know for certain but I would bet Reid would have a job if he were not so closely connected to Kaepernick.

I really think that is the case, I think his separation from the coalition and continued protests also come into it though.

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

We back to football talk yet or?

For Reid and Kap that's unlikely to ever be the case hence the discussion we're having with them.

I hope Kap & Reid win the collusion case against the NFL, and I hope they each get $500 million in settlement money.

It would be so cool to see two guys defeat a Goliath.

But we all know that will never happen because the system is rigged from the start.

if they win..then every player that sucks can sue for collusion.

LOL, that's not how any of this works.
Any player can file a grievance claim for collusion and any player who can prove two or more teams or one or more teams and the NFL office agreed not signing the player, the player will win their grievance claim.

Yep... Of course anybody can sue anybody.
It's a sad world we live in.
We see that People can make claims against people, lie, which gets them thrown in jail, and are unjustly fighting to keep there freedom, yet people still say he's guilty.

Part I am not grasping is, Kap did have an offer from Denver, and didn't accept. Seattle wanted to work him out and they would probably sign him.
Reid's had an offer from the 49ers and it looks like the bengals would have signed him.

Shouldn't these teams/companies be allowed to have there employees do what they ask to on company time?
I guess they should not in some people's eyes.

As long as it does not violate laws/Rights and it is in accordance with the CBA. But two teams (or one team and the NBA) agreeing they will not sign him would violate the CBA.

So if the bengals tell the Texans they are not signing REID if he continues to kneel, and the Texans say we are not going to either, if he continues to kneel, then it's collusion?
Couldn't 10 teams call each other and ask there opinions and still decide not to sign him?
I mean I'm sure general input is given from all teams..

Let me ask you this, so if a rookie with a "tainted" background doesn't get drafted until the 6th round when he should have went higher, should he get to sue?
If multiple teams "talked" to each other and said they are passing on this kid because of his past, isn't that collusion?
I mean where do you draw the line?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it Sounds like your as confident kap and REID have a "good case" as you were that there was no other explanation other then Foster beating the s**t out of his girlfriend.
Again, maybe I'm wrong.

Anyone should "get to sue". That what the courts are for.
If two teams got together and agreed not to draft a player prior to the 6th round, that would be collusion. Why should teams be allowed to conspire to lower a player's value?

Yes, you are completely wrong. I have no idea what gave you the idea that I am confident about Reid having a good case. I am just explaining the facts of how collusion works.



Explaining Eric Reid's Collusion Grievance Against The NFL
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2018/05/03/explaining-eric-reids-collusion-grievance-against-the-nfl/#6efbf0cd7199

Originally posted by mojave45:

But back to Reid, I really truly believe he would be playing this year if he hadn't joined the collusion case. He just did that to himself. It was a slow market for safeties, not just him. He has skills that could have been used by several teams I think. He just didn't want to give it time. Now if there is a smoking gun type of evidence and it wins the collusion case for him it would cause me to reassess Reid's situation.

I dont see how this makes sense at all given the fact that he didnt join the collusion case until free agency was months into the process, and he was already spurned by the Bengals.

So unless your opinion is that if Reid didnt join the collusion case, he would have been signed in the last 7 days, then your opinion makes zero sense based on the timeline of events.