#This is TDs smoking gun if it proves true

[mindynichole]

Ummm...I might have stumbled onto something big here guys.

WARNING: THIS POST MIGHT CONTAIN CASTING SPOILERS FOR TWD DARYL SPIN-OFF....READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!

So last week, Norman posted this picture of an adorable little girl on his Instagram who is apparently going to be part of the Daryl Spin-off:

And I found myself stewing all week over this picture because I couldn’t help but think that little girl seemed so familiar. We don’t know her name but she’s been seen before in things related to the new show. We also don’t know who her character will be - though there is a certain ship who assumes that just because she appears to be of mixed race, she will actually be Daryl’s child with a certain someone. 

*However, I do not think this will be the case - and no, it’s not just because I’m biased. I’m actually working on a post explaining why at the moment* 

Anyhow, all we currently know for sure is it seems like this little girl will play some sort of role in the spin-off - at least initially. The rumor floating around certain trusted spoiling circles is that she might be palling around with Daryl for at least a little while. 

So since she looked so familiar and I’ve failed at identifying the actress using the normal methods, I’ve passed this post around to some of my crew all week long to see if any of them recognize her. That answer was a firm “No” but everyone did agree that she was definitely a child acting in some capacity on the show. Here are some things my peeps pointed out:

She is in full costume

She is not a Zombie 

She is in special effects makeup

She is wearing a lace front wig (apparently you can see how they blended it into the dirt makeup on her forehead) which makes sense because who would want to attempt to get all that gunk out of a child’s hair everyday? Imagine the knots!

She is absolutely adorable!

And then it finally hit me where I might have seen her before…

So do you all remember last week when I pointed out the Junona Fashion House picture Emily recently shared as an Instagram story?

It happened to be from the Paris Collection and I observed how coincidental EK posting something related to Paris right as filming for the Daryl Spin-off starting up was.

Well let’s just say there might be even more to this “story” than I originally thought. 

Because if you look at some more of these Paris Collection pictures side by side with the one Norman posted - you realize that the model looks an awful lot like the one appearing in the Daryl Spin-off:

Of course, there’s no way to know for sure if it is the same girl until we get a couple more straight on shots from the Spin-off showing her entire face.

However, when I passed this comparison around to the same crew from before, everybody’s consensus was the model was probably the same child pictured on set by Norman - only in a lace front wig.

So while we can’t be sure if it’s her or not, it’s definitely more than enough to raise suspicions. For now, the resemblance is a bit more than simply uncanny.

If they do end up being the same girl, this is huge! Because the question becomes why would Emily have any connection to the child actress appearing in Norman’s spin-off being filmed in Paris unless she was also somehow connected to the little girl and the show?

For the record, I was able to identify the Junona model as a little french girl by the name of Halima or Hali for short. I do not know anything else about her (and would honestly feel creepy if I did - she’s a little girl) other than she’s done lots of other Paris fashion houses, seems to be at least bilingual (French/English), and this was her latest fashion shoot done not too long ago.

I could not find any acting credits but that would not be unusual without a last name and with all the information available about her being limited to this particular fashion shoot. Also, she is young and this could be her first acting gig.

Just to cover my tracks, I could not find any apparent connection between the Canadian-born - but mostly International (mainly Paris and Brussels) - child photographer, Emily Kornya and either EK, TWD, or any other project EK has worked on. She has done work in NYC a few times here and there so unless they crossed paths or circles somehow when EK lived there, it doesn’t appear that EK knows her personally or anything.

Anyway…thoughts?

[twdmusicboxmystery]

Bits & Pieces, Themes & Evidence

Morning Everyone! So, below are just a bunch of bits and pieces that me, my fellow theorists and/or others in the fandom have come up. They don’t really fit into one, cohesive theory, but they’re most about or have come out of 10x18. I keep joking that this is the episode that just keeps on giving. We’re STILL talking about it and figuring things out about it.

Leah as a Hallucination/Daryl’s PTSD:

It’s been suggested that in 10x18, Dog never actually left Daryl. The episode is cut in a way to suggest that Daryl went long periods without seeing Dog (which is symbolic, of course) but maybe that’s not true and Dog was always there. Not only is that super interesting, but it works with one of my first observations. When I first watched the episode, I thought that the second time he sees Dog, first time as a grown dog and not a pup, and meets Leah, he didn't seem surprised to see Dog. So, I thought maybe he'd seen Dog a lot by then. I changed my mind for the sake of the symbolism. If it represents Grady, it makes more sense that Daryl simply recognized him as the pup me once met, but really had been separated from his for awhile. But I’m just saying this hallucination theory and the idea of Dog being there all along, just backs up my first impressions. That's all.

Also, weapon13whitefang left a long comment on my Tumblr post about Leah being a hallucination. It's really not so much about the show as about PTSD because they have some experience with it. I found it really interesting and enlightening, so it might interest some of you. You can read it HERE under the comments.

Why He Got Defensive at the Idea of Leah Leaving Him

A couple of my friends were talking about this, and this is just my contribution to the conversation. I think it's directly because Leah is predicated on his time with Beth. Even if he's not consciously aware of the delusion, some part of his UNconscious brain knows that Leah = Beth. And he knows Beth wouldn't have willingly left him. Not only because she said that, but because when she DID disappear, it wasn't her fault or her choice either time. So, when Carol says, "maybe she just left," Daryl's brain rails against that and he gets really defensive. And the interesting thing is that it's really not about him taking it personally or about his ego. It's about what he knows to be true of Beth. It's actually his brain being really logical in the midst of the delusion.

The Talk Dead to Me Podcast with Lynn Collins

I listened to the Talk Dead to me Podcast and this week’s guest was—no surprise—Lynn Collins. No huge TD smoking guns or anything, but it was interesting nonetheless. First of all, one of the really big C@ryl accounts was pretty much called out for being a toxic troll.

For anyone who doesn’t know, Lynn Collins gave a different interview a few days back (not this podcast; just a different one) in which she mentioned that Daryl and Carol’s relationship is very mother/son. Just after that, I won’t say the name but one of the most well known C@ryl accounts who can be REALLY nasty to…well…I was gonna say other shippers but pretty much anyone in the fandom who dares disagree with her, called Lynn an ageist for saying that Carol was mothering Daryl.

So, when the podcast began, Johnny O’Dell, who is the host, said that most TWD fans are super cool but a lot of the shippers can be toxic. He doesn't mention any particular ships in accordance to that (I actually think he briefly mentions all of them, saying people ship Daryl with Carol, Beth, Connie, and Rosita the most) but then after saying SOME of the shippers can be toxic, he talked about the post she made calling Lynn Collins ageist and said that was ridiculous and toxic and that we need to be cool to the actors. So, it's very obvious it was her comment he was talking about.

And of course, the ageist thing she accused Lynn Collins of is ridiculous. Not only is it true that Carol and Daryl’s relationship can be very mother/son at times, but saying so is not an insult to Carol. It’s a comment on the nature of the relationship, not on anyone’s actual age. Of course Carol isn’t old enough to be Daryl’s mom. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t mother him.

Then when Lynn Collins came onto the podcast, she addressed the ageist comment. She basically said everything I said above in more detail. She talked about how she was taken aback by being called that because, being a woman over 40 in Hollywood, she actually deals with a lot of ageism. And about how she's a mother, but became one a little later in life (in her thirties, rather than her twenties) and she was shocked that being called a mother can actually be derogatory to some people. It REALLY shouldn’t be. It’s really sad that people would take that as an insult. And then she went on to say that any character can be maternal, even if they're not the biological mother of the person they're mothering. She even said Daryl is somewhat paternal to Carol, teaching her how to gut a fish and everything.

Now, maybe this is neither here nor there when it comes to TD stuff. But one thing I thought was really interesting was that Lynn Collins said when she first started watching the show in S2 or S3, she was actually a Caryler. She wanted them together originally. She also said that eventually she realized that's not where they were going with it and kind of moved on. 

But the thing is, it just proves to me even more that she's being told to talk about it in a particular way. If everything she's said is true: that she was a raging fan and has been in the tags and talking about it a ton (and she says that on the podcast again; that she would get really excited about it and watch with friends and they would tell her to chill, lol) then why on earth would you talk about Daryl and Carol as a mother/son relationship...unless you were instructed to. 

She knows how passionate and sometimes toxic the Caryl ship is because she used to be one of them. So that just drove home for me that this isn't something she would just come up with on her own. And I did like what she said and how she said it. I honestly think she's trying to help the Carylers feel better about things, but also let them down gently. And of course there are some hardcore Carylers, like that account that said the ageist thing, that are just never going to give it up. Not much anyone can do about that.

The only other thing that struck me about the podcast, and also brought to mind stuff said on TTD, is that I'm more and more sure that everyone knows what's up with Leah's character. If she's an illusion (and I'll assume she is until we know different) I think everyone knows that. I think Lynn knows it, Norman, Melissa, all of them. 

For one thing, she said in this podcast that she didn't know if or when she'd be back. That was kind of a slip of the tongue, I think, because we already know she's signed on for S11, and she's announced it. And they're filming. So that's just untrue. And I thought that about Melissa on TTD, too. She said she didn't know what the Leah story line would be, they only told her a little bit back in Bonds when she had to say "her dog." But Melissa is a long time, mainstream cast member. I just don't believe that she doesn't know where the story is going. Again, just something they're instructed to say. But something else occurred to me, too.

When Melissa talked about the "her dog" line on TTD, she said, "there was a line that became a thing." From that, I have to assume she meant that people started to obsess about it online and wonder what the "her" was about. I honestly don't know if anyone other than TD picked out that line, but they might have. Either way, between this, and their reaction to the Caryler's "ageist" comment, it proves that they read the online theories. And of course we all already know that, but there's proof. That ageist comment was posted like 24 hours ago. And already they're addressing it and obviously don't like it and don't want people thinking the show or its actors are associated with that sort of thing.

Which is exactly why I think they HAVE to know about our Leah-is-a-hallucination theory. Even others outside our fandom suspect it. But the writers aren't addressing that. And don't get me wrong: I don't think they will. The Bonds line was literally MONTHS ago, and they waited until the Leah episode to address it. Because otherwise, they'd have to give spoilers and they weren't going to do that. But my point is, if the hallucination theory was not a thing (kind of like Rick being on TWB was not a thing and Lynn Collins being an ageist is not a thing and Beth not being BBQed at Terminus was not a thing) they would be addressing and discrediting it. They aren't. I’m definitely side-eyeing that.

Daryl’s Search for Rick/Beth’s Search for Liquor

This is something my fellow theorists and I were discussing back and forth for a few days. I’m not going to give you the entire conversation, but someone said something about Beth searching for liquor in Still and couldn’t that be a foreshadow? See—you’ll probably hear more about this in coming weeks—but we’ve been rewatching old episodes like Still, Alone, and others, with an eye toward what we’ve learned from S10 and especially the bonus episodes. And we’re realizing there’s a lot more foreshadowing in them than we ever realized before. Most of what’s in them we’ve looked at in terms of the Bethyl romance and of course Beth’s return, but I for one have never thought to go beyond that. Yeah, I REALLY should have.

So here’s the thing. We always talk about Daryl searching for people, but Beth was searching for liquor in that episode. I've never really thought to connect those two things. It either represents the same template of Daryl's search for her, or it might represent her searching for him. But then, those two templates may be one and the same. I need to think on it more and make more connections.

One thing it did make me think of, though, is that there's a theme about not accepting the first and only thing that comes your way, because there's something bigger, better, happier, more fulfilling down the road. So, Daryl didn't want Beth to drink the peach schnapps because that's a weak drink. He wanted her to have a REAL drink. And of course we've talked about this theme in terms of the peach schnapps before.

But we kind of see it everywhere, including in relationships. The small, short term relationships all follow this pattern. Maybe it’s not a terrible relationship, but it’s not true love, either. So they need to move on from it and find the more perfect relationship for them. The locations or homes do, too. So, in 4b, we saw each of the groups stop somewhere and try to stay. And it wasn't so much that they chose not to. More often than not, circumstances forced them to leave. But still. The theme is that it was better that they moved on so a bigger reunion could take place.

And on that note, Leah really still does fit the short-term relationship pattern. If the point was to always show short term relationships that weren't ideal and something better coming down the road, that's why they wanted to do something like this for Daryl. Beth is obviously going to be the much better, more fitting, more fulfilling relationship, where he belongs, etc. But I think they knew they couldn't do that without doing a disservice to Daryl's character. The only way to satisfy both criteria was to make her a hallucination. So the pattern is still there, but for him, it's not a real or literal relationship.

Find Me Theme

So, @wdway​ is the one who reminded me of this. Back in 9x05, Rick gets hurt and starts hallucinating right before blowing up the bridge and being taken to the CRM by Jadis, right? All on the same page? Well, in that episode, there’s a huge theme about Rick finding his family. In every hallucination, he tells the people he sees—Shane, Hershel, etc—that he’s looking for his family and needs to find them. Near the end, he hallucinates Michonne and the others being with him on the bridge, and Michonne tells him that they’re his family and he did find them. Then, just before he shoots the dynamite, he says, “I found them.”

And now we have this episode called “Find Me” where Daryl is obsessively searching for Rick, and there’s a ridiculous amount of Beth symbolism thrown in. Are we seeing the over-arching theme?

So, what does this mean? I don’t think I’ve really pinned it all down, yet. But I do think this is an over-arching theme for the entire show. I think in some ways, “home” and “family” are synonymous, because home is wherever your family is. It’s not a physical location.

But we started out with Rick looking for Carl and Lori. Then Merle went missing, and Daryl searched for him. Everyone searched for Sophia when she disappeared. And the list goes on and on. So it’s a big theme. I’ve always said Andy didn’t leave the show just to spend more time with his family. That’s a happy bonus, I’m sure. But this was always a planned part of the story. Now Michonne is actively looking for Rick, we see Daryl searching for his body. And the reason Beth symbolism is thrown in is because he searched for her, but they didn’t show us that and won’t because it would be spoilery. And Beth is alive, even if Daryl doesn’t know it. And yeah, I could go on and on. Just wanted to point out this theme and how important it is. Which leads me to….

The Three Spikes

The last thing I’ll mention is the grouping of the three spikes he sees both by the door and on the outside of the house that we’ve all been trying to interpret. I kind of had a breakthrough the other night. But the thing is, it’s not just a breakthrough on the three spikes.

It’s kind of a breakthrough on the ENTIRE rule of threes theme. It’s actually kind of epic.

So here’s how I came to this. I was going over the template in my head, yet again, that I mentioned is shown both here, in 6x03, and that will be in the spinoff. So let’s run through it. We’ll use this episode, 10x18, as the example. So, Daryl is searching for Rick, right? And Carol wants him to stop and come back with her to where Zeke and Henry are. Those are two possible choices for him. But there’s also a third: staying with Leah.

Similarly, in 6x03, Daryl goes searching for Rick, rather than staying with Sasha and Abraham. Those are the two things he’s trying to decide between, and he eventually goes back to Sashraham. 

Now, there is actually a third choice there. It’s just that Daryl doesn’t seriously consider it. The third choice is going back to Alexandria to help them. And this IS addressed in the episode because they talk about how they don’t know what happened, but some loud noise pulled half the herd off the road. We, the viewers, know it’s the Wolves, but Daryl, Sasha, and Abe really didn’t know what was going on there. And who is back in Alexandria, spear-heading the defensive against the wolves? Carol!

So you see what I mean. There are three possible choices there: find Rick, go with Carol, or stay with Sashraham. And I’ve said forever that Sashraham = Beth/Bethyl. And of course so does Leah. So the third choice is always the one that represents Beth.

Do you see where I’m going with this? If not, I’ll just tell you. This represents three different paths for Daryl. They’ll diverge at some point and he’ll have to make a choice about which one to take. And then I realized—duh!—they’re all actually represented for us here in this episode. Not only because of what I said above, but because Leah lays them out in her ultimatum. Where do you belong 1) out looking endlessly for your brother 2) back at the communities with your family (i.e. Carol) or 3) here with me.

So those are the three paths that he’ll have to choose between during the spinoff. That’s what the spikes are about, because they specifically dealt with his three choices in this episode. But that may even be the reason they used the rule of threes around Beth to begin with. She’s the third and correct path.

Want more proof this is a thing? @wdway​ sent me this pic after I first told her about it:

And guys, go back and watch this. When he gets to the crossroads, the camera pans around him, showing him being unsure about which path to take.

Then, while writing this up, I remembered that this did this in 6x03 as well:

On the left is Daryl on his bike, rejoining Sasha and Abraham who are coming down from the top.

Yeah, 3 paths. 3 spikes. Rule of 3s. Who’s excited for the spinoff? 🙋

Now, just one more thing not add to this I think you all will like. In re-watching 9x05, there’s the part where Rick hallucinates Shane, right? Well, part of their conversation there is about the “third man.” And I’ve talked about this before, but probably not nearly enough, because it’s more important than most of us give it credit for. Rick and Shane talk about when Rick was shot in 1x01 before the apocalypse hit. They say they thought there was only 2 men, but there was a third they didn’t know about and “that changed everything.”

I always saw that as perhaps a statement about Grady. Because they should have had three prisoners for the hostage exchange, where Dawn only had two (Carol and Beth). But after Rick killed Lambson, they only had two. If they’d had three, Dawn wouldn’t have been able to demand Noah back, because it would have been an even exchange. So the third man would have changed everything.

Another way to think about it is that, if the shot that hit Beth didn’t come from Dawn—and it REALLY didn’t, y’all) then there was another threat somewhere that they couldn’t see and didn’t know about. If they had, they might have been able to guard against it. See what I mean? I genuinely believe they used Rick’s arc in 1x01 as a jumping off point for planning what happened at Grady.

So, when I rewatched 9x05 and heard this conversation between Rick and Shane yet again, it made me think of the three spikes and Daryl’s 3 paths. So what if he only knows about the two paths he can take: look for Rick or go with Carol. But there’s a third path he’s not aware of, yet. But the third path changes everything. Because that’s where/how he’ll find Beth.

Eh, eh?

Okay, well, I’ve given you enough to chew on today. These are just some things we’ve been discussing from the episode that just keeps on giving. ;D Meanwhile, episode 19 will be airing in a few days, and it will be fabulous, too. Probably not quite as epic as 10x18, but still fabulous. ;D Thoughts?

[flauntpage]

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick?

Colin Kaepernick is unemployed six weeks into the NFL season, and many believe it's because the league is blackballing him over his protests against social injustice, namely police violence against people of color.

According to Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman, Kaepernick has put that belief to the test by filing a grievance against the NFL's owners for collusion, which is a violation of the league's collective bargaining agreement. The filing states that owners "have colluded to deprive Mr. Kaepernick of employment rights in retaliation for Mr. Kaepernick's leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice and his bringing awareness to peculiar institutions still undermining racial equality in the United States."

So what is the evidence here, really? Everyone talks about blackballing and collusion when it comes to Kaepernick, but what can they actually prove? How can I, someone who knows nothing about football or Kaepernick and only just arrived on this planet yesterday after spending six years on a space station, believe this is truly happening?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that NFL owners would ever collude against anyone, especially players, whom they love and care about. It's insulting, really. Name one incident where there was even a whiff of collusion. You can't. If you could, you would have to go so far back that it wouldn't be relevant to today's league. Good luck finding that.

Hang on, I'm being told in May 2012 the NFLPA sued the league, alleging collusion designed to keep player contracts capped during the uncapped 2010 season.

Yeah, but a judge ruled in December 2012 and it was upheld in 2015 that, as part of the new CBA following the 2011 lockout, the NFLPA agreed to waive all "unknown claims" that may or may not have existed before the signing of the CBA. That's a win for the squeaky-clean, honestly run NFL, even if the ruling never says the NFL didn't actually collude.

Although, a clause in a CBA that says you can't sue for unknown things owners did prior to that CBA is like telling your significant other, "OK, I have to tell you something, and you have to promise not to get mad," and after they reluctantly agree, you say, "I may have been sleeping with your best friend for the past year." And just as they are about to get upset, you say, "Sorry, you promised you wouldn't get mad, therefore you have no grounds for any meaningful recourse against me."

But nothing was proven and that was seven years ago, so it's not as though the same owners are in power now. Nine new people have become NFL owners since 2010—that's nearly one-third of the league. So even if there were collusion back then, it can't apply now with so much ownership turnover.

I'm being told only two of the new owners—Kim and Terry Pegula with the Bills and Shahid Khan of the Jaguars—weren't family members of previous owners or already owners with a partial stake in a team. And Khan was one of only two owners to state publicly they'd have no problem with signing Kaepernick.

OK, fine, so what? So it's mostly the same owners that were accused of salary cap collusion in 2010. That doesn't mean they colluded here. It's inadmissible! Besides, we all know that Kaepernick isn't that good, right? The NFL is the highest level of football in the world, so it's silly to think that Kaepernick deserves a job just because he had one last year. Just look at his numbers:

12 games, 16 TDs, 4 INTs, 90.7 rating, 468 rushing yards, 2 TDs

Now compare that to starting quarterbacks around the league this year. Kaepernick doesn't meet the standards of a backup NFL quarterback, never mind a starting NFL quarterback.

I'm being told only 12 quarterbacks this season have a better than 90.7 rating. And 11 quarterbacks have already thrown more than four interceptions. And only three quarterbacks are on pace for more rushing yards.

But what this doesn't account for is age, and at 29, he may not be old, but he's NFL old.

I'm being told 29 is still young for an NFL quarterback.

But Kaepernick lacks big game experience, and nobody wants a quarterback who doesn't know what it means to win in the playoffs.

Damn it, now I'm being told he's 4-2 in the postseason and has been to the Super Bowl once and the conference championship twice.

This doesn't mean owners are colluding, though, because that would mean you'd need owners offering open disdain for what Kaepernick did—taking a knee during the national anthem as a form of protest. That would be very close to a smoking gun and only an idiot would do that. Show me one owner who has ever taken a public stance against the protest movement and threatened the employment of anyone who partakes in it.

I'm being told this is Cowboys owner Jerry Jones taking a public stance against the protest and threatening the employment of anyone that partakes in the protests: "But if there's anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play. OK? Understand? If we are disrespecting the flag, then we won't play. Period."

OK, but one argument from Kaepernick's legal team is that owners are taking cues from President Donald Trump. Come on. What President would ever meddle in the affairs of a private company or use the office of the President to pressure owners with the threat of hurting them financially?

Man, come on, I'm being told that the leader of the free world recently referred to the NFL's protesters as "sons of bitches" who should be fired and later hinted in a tweet that maybe the league would lose some of its tax breaks if the protests didn't stop.

But even with those threats, where is the proof that owners support Trump?

Alright, alright, I'm being told NFL owners donated at least $7.75 million to Trump's inaugural committee. That's a lot of money.

Yeah, but it's not as though any of the new, forward-thinking, socially conscious owners were part of that.

Yep, yep, Khan donated $1 million to Trump.

But that $7.75 million is probably a similar amount to what owners donated to Barack Obama's inaugural committees.

Apparently that number is twice as much as Obama got from owners in 2009.

Yeah, but Kaepernick opted out of his 49ers contract after last season, so he has no one to blame but himself for his lack of employment.

Sigh, I'm being told that if he had not opted out of his deal, the 49ers told Kaepernick they planned to cut him despite a season that showed he was one of the 15 best quarterbacks in the NFL, which surely isn't odd or something that could be considered a sign of blackballing.

But if owners truly were colluding to deny Kaepernick a job for unfair reasons, show me one reputable NFL reporter who has ever said that. It's just wild-eyed conspiracy theorists out to make a name for themselves. You're wasting your time with this collusion idea.

I'm being told that ESPN's Adam Schefter, a man who has built a career on cultivating and maintaining sources within the NFL and is now employed by a network that's more interested in protecting the NFL shield than people's rights, absolutely believes NFL owners have colluded against Kaepernick , saying in July, "Do I think that certain owners have blocked teams from visits or interest? I do, I do believe that."

Fine. There seems to be some credible evidence that NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick. But is there enough of it?

This is like one of those official reviews on a scoring play where you know the runner was down before he broke the plane of goal line and that the call on the field is wrong, but one angle on the play is obscured by a lineman's ass, another isn't dead-center along the goal line so it can't help, and the overhead shot is useless because you can't tell when the knee goes down, so the call can't be overturned.

In this grievance, the only thing not in dispute is whether Kaepernick's knee went down. You just have to hope there's another angle that proves conclusively what we all already know to be true: NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick.

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick? published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

[amtushinfosolutionspage]

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick?

Colin Kaepernick is unemployed six weeks into the NFL season, and many believe it’s because the league is blackballing him over his protests against social injustice, namely police violence against people of color.

According to Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman, Kaepernick has put that belief to the test by filing a grievance against the NFL’s owners for collusion, which is a violation of the league’s collective bargaining agreement. The filing states that owners “have colluded to deprive Mr. Kaepernick of employment rights in retaliation for Mr. Kaepernick’s leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice and his bringing awareness to peculiar institutions still undermining racial equality in the United States.”

So what is the evidence here, really? Everyone talks about blackballing and collusion when it comes to Kaepernick, but what can they actually prove? How can I, someone who knows nothing about football or Kaepernick and only just arrived on this planet yesterday after spending six years on a space station, believe this is truly happening?

Personally, I think it’s ridiculous that NFL owners would ever collude against anyone, especially players, whom they love and care about. It’s insulting, really. Name one incident where there was even a whiff of collusion. You can’t. If you could, you would have to go so far back that it wouldn’t be relevant to today’s league. Good luck finding that.

Hang on, I’m being told in May 2012 the NFLPA sued the league, alleging collusion designed to keep player contracts capped during the uncapped 2010 season.

Yeah, but a judge ruled in December 2012 and it was upheld in 2015 that, as part of the new CBA following the 2011 lockout, the NFLPA agreed to waive all “unknown claims” that may or may not have existed before the signing of the CBA. That’s a win for the squeaky-clean, honestly run NFL, even if the ruling never says the NFL didn’t actually collude.

Although, a clause in a CBA that says you can’t sue for unknown things owners did prior to that CBA is like telling your significant other, “OK, I have to tell you something, and you have to promise not to get mad,” and after they reluctantly agree, you say, “I may have been sleeping with your best friend for the past year.” And just as they are about to get upset, you say, “Sorry, you promised you wouldn’t get mad, therefore you have no grounds for any meaningful recourse against me.”

But nothing was proven and that was seven years ago, so it’s not as though the same owners are in power now. Nine new people have become NFL owners since 2010—that’s nearly one-third of the league. So even if there were collusion back then, it can’t apply now with so much ownership turnover.

I’m being told only two of the new owners—Kim and Terry Pegula with the Bills and Shahid Khan of the Jaguars—weren’t family members of previous owners or already owners with a partial stake in a team. And Khan was one of only two owners to state publicly they’d have no problem with signing Kaepernick.

OK, fine, so what? So it’s mostly the same owners that were accused of salary cap collusion in 2010. That doesn’t mean they colluded here. It’s inadmissible! Besides, we all know that Kaepernick isn’t that good, right? The NFL is the highest level of football in the world, so it’s silly to think that Kaepernick deserves a job just because he had one last year. Just look at his numbers:

12 games, 16 TDs, 4 INTs, 90.7 rating, 468 rushing yards, 2 TDs

Now compare that to starting quarterbacks around the league this year. Kaepernick doesn’t meet the standards of a backup NFL quarterback, never mind a starting NFL quarterback.

I’m being told only 12 quarterbacks this season have a better than 90.7 rating. And 11 quarterbacks have already thrown more than four interceptions. And only three quarterbacks are on pace for more rushing yards.

But what this doesn’t account for is age, and at 29, he may not be old, but he’s NFL old.

I’m being told 29 is still young for an NFL quarterback.

But Kaepernick lacks big game experience, and nobody wants a quarterback who doesn’t know what it means to win in the playoffs.

Damn it, now I’m being told he’s 4-2 in the postseason and has been to the Super Bowl once and the conference championship twice.

This doesn’t mean owners are colluding, though, because that would mean you’d need owners offering open disdain for what Kaepernick did—taking a knee during the national anthem as a form of protest. That would be very close to a smoking gun and only an idiot would do that. Show me one owner who has ever taken a public stance against the protest movement and threatened the employment of anyone who partakes in it.

I’m being told this is Cowboys owner Jerry Jones taking a public stance against the protest and threatening the employment of anyone that partakes in the protests: “But if there’s anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play. OK? Understand? If we are disrespecting the flag, then we won’t play. Period.”

OK, but one argument from Kaepernick’s legal team is that owners are taking cues from President Donald Trump. Come on. What President would ever meddle in the affairs of a private company or use the office of the President to pressure owners with the threat of hurting them financially?

Man, come on, I’m being told that the leader of the free world recently referred to the NFL’s protesters as “sons of bitches“ who should be fired and later hinted in a tweet that maybe the league would lose some of its tax breaks if the protests didn’t stop.

But even with those threats, where is the proof that owners support Trump?

Alright, alright, I’m being told NFL owners donated at least $7.75 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. That’s a lot of money.

Yeah, but it’s not as though any of the new, forward-thinking, socially conscious owners were part of that.

Yep, yep, Khan donated $1 million to Trump.

But that $7.75 million is probably a similar amount to what owners donated to Barack Obama’s inaugural committees.

Apparently that number is twice as much as Obama got from owners in 2009.

Yeah, but Kaepernick opted out of his 49ers contract after last season, so he has no one to blame but himself for his lack of employment.

Sigh, I’m being told that if he had not opted out of his deal, the 49ers told Kaepernick they planned to cut him despite a season that showed he was one of the 15 best quarterbacks in the NFL, which surely isn’t odd or something that could be considered a sign of blackballing.

But if owners truly were colluding to deny Kaepernick a job for unfair reasons, show me one reputable NFL reporter who has ever said that. It’s just wild-eyed conspiracy theorists out to make a name for themselves. You’re wasting your time with this collusion idea.

I’m being told that ESPN’s Adam Schefter, a man who has built a career on cultivating and maintaining sources within the NFL and is now employed by a network that’s more interested in protecting the NFL shield than people’s rights, absolutely believes NFL owners have colluded against Kaepernick , saying in July, “Do I think that certain owners have blocked teams from visits or interest? I do, I do believe that.”

Fine. There seems to be some credible evidence that NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick. But is there enough of it?

This is like one of those official reviews on a scoring play where you know the runner was down before he broke the plane of goal line and that the call on the field is wrong, but one angle on the play is obscured by a lineman’s ass, another isn’t dead-center along the goal line so it can’t help, and the overhead shot is useless because you can’t tell when the knee goes down, so the call can’t be overturned.

In this grievance, the only thing not in dispute is whether Kaepernick’s knee went down. You just have to hope there’s another angle that proves conclusively what we all already know to be true: NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick.

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick? syndicated from http://ift.tt/2ug2Ns6

[twdmusicboxmystery]

TWB 1x09/1x10: A Template for the Daryl/Carol Spinoff and a Bethyl Reunion

So, what did everyone think of TWB finale? I really enjoyed it. As I’ve been teasing, I had a HUGE lightbulb moment about this series and what it points to symbolically.  I know many in the fandom are asking what the point of this series is if we don’t see Rick. Well, I think I know. As I’ve said in Asks, I think plot-wise, we may still see Rick (or even Beth) in S2. The characters aren’t actually inside the CRM yet, but at least Hope and Silas are going there, so there will be more opportunity for them to run into Rick or Beth next season.

***As always, spoilers abound below for TWB 1x09 and 1x10. Don’t read until you’ve watched!***

So, what was my big lightbulb moment? Here it is:

Symbolically, this is foreshadowing what will happen with the Daryl/Carol spinoff, Rick, and how Daryl and Beth will reunite. The good news is, I’m more convinced than ever that she’s close. You’ll see why as we go along. The bad news is, we really probably won’t get a Bethyl reunion until the spinoff, which will come after S11. That’s a ways off. I was just praying we’d see her either in the flagship series or in TWB or FTWD before then, and then the news broke that she’ll be in the bonus episodes in flashbacks. I know that doesn’t prove she’s alive, but it was still kind of an answer to a prayer for me. Okay, so here goes.

This will be long, as I have a LOT of things to talk about here. Let’s establish names, first of all, as I’ll be referencing all these people. Iris and Hope’s dad is Leo. The woman with him (the same female scientist we’ve seen in the codas) is Lyla Belshaw. Felix’s boyfriend’s name is Will.

So, we finally met Will in ep 9. We see him in flashbacks. We see when he and Felix first met (which incidentally was when he first met Huck; that’s important). Then there’s a bedroom scene where they’ve obviously been in a relationship for a time. We see Felix talking to Will about how he really wants to go with Leo, but Leo has asked him to stay behind with Iris and Hope. Then we see Felix find out Will was going with Leo instead (which kinda crushed him) and then we see them all say goodbye.

This is a funny thing to say, but it was the bedroom scene that made it all click for me. Lol. It was because of the sleeve Felix wears on one arm. My fellow theorists tell me that they talked about this earlier in the season, but I either completely missed it, or it went in one ear and out the other. Hey, I’m human, too. ;D  

It reminded me of the plaid sleeve on Daryl’s coat when they went to Oceanside in 7x15 to take their guns. Remember that? 

At first, I thought he was missing the sleeve of his jacket. But then someone told me it was actually just that a different sleeve was sewn onto the jacket. As though someone had put it together piecemeal. Well, same thing, only this was black rather than plaid. Now, we’ve seen parallels between Felix and Daryl before, especially in the beginning. He talked about how he had a not-so-happy family background and specifically how his dad (like Daryl’s) was just not cool. He’s also like Daryl in that he’s kind of the badass protector of the group, right? So when I first noticed the sleeve, I went, “Okay, another Daryl parallel. Hmm.”

Then Will had an interesting line. As they got up, he said, “I’ll make pancakes if you made dinner later.” I went, “pancakes!” 

Cue first lightbulb moment. (Reminder: pancakes/Bisquik is a Beth/resurrection symbol.) Felix = Daryl; Will = Beth. That’s what these symbols are pointing to. And it actually makes perfect sense in a way I hadn’t really thought of before. Think about it: at the beginning of this series, we had Felix who was once in a romantic relationship with Will, but the two of them are separated. Felix hasn’t talked to, seen, or heard from Will in a long time, right? So, it’s a separation thing. You could even argue (and I think I did back in ep 1) that Felix keeping and wearing Will’s coat lines up with Daryl having Beth’s knife. At the end of ep 10, Felix runs into Will and they have a huge reunion. I’ll come back to that in more detail in a minute.

So here’s the thing: the more I thought about this, the more lightbulb moments I had. What do we know about Felix’s backstory, especially where Leo (Iris and Hope’s dad) is concerned? We know Felix and Leo became friends, Leo kind of adopted him, and Felix became part of the family, right? Well, that’s pretty much exactly what happened with Rick and Daryl. If Felix = Daryl and Will = Beth, Leo = Rick. Think about that. Leo left to join the CRM/helicopter group. Felix was left behind to protect his children. The biggest difference in TWD is that Rick didn’t go voluntarily, where Leo did. But other than that, same situation. Rick was taken into the CRM, and Daryl is now raising and protecting his children.

My next lightbulb moment came later in the episode. Felix gets hurt. He can’t walk very well. Huck says she has to leave him behind. Everyone is upset and saying goodbye and Felix hugs Huck and tells her he loves her. And of course this isn’t romantic love because, well, he’s gay. And THAT’S when it hit me.

From a Daryl standpoint, who is a woman Daryl loves, but not romantically? Carol. Gals, if Felix is Daryl and Will is Beth and Leo is Rick, then Huck is Carol. And think about it: if you set Iris and Hope and the boys aside for a minute, this entire story line is about the Daryl character (Felix) and the Carol character (Huck) taking off together to look for Leo. (Otherwise known as the Rick character.)

Boom. This entire thing is a foreshadow and parallel/proxy of the Carol/Daryl spinoff storyline. I guess you could say that my official theory now is that it’s new of Rick that will pull Daryl and Carol away from the community. They’ll go to find him. That’s why they’ll leave together after S11. But what happens here for Felix? On his journey to find Leo, he runs into Will, his love interest, who represents Beth.

So, Daryl will leave to find Rick, and somewhere along the way, he’ll finally find Beth and they’ll have their reunion.

Couple of thoughts/details here, just for clarification:

1) I’m not sure Huck’s exact arc here will be Carol’s. She’s a member of the CRM, which Carol is clearly not. And she really betrays Felix with all this. In the finale, the two of them get into full-on hand-to-hand combat, which I REALLY don’t see being the case with Daryl and Carol. But we also know Carol has betrayed TF in various ways over the years (Karen/David, letting Negan out of his cell, Connie) so it may be more about the type of character than about the exact arc.

2) I’m not sure how the kids fit in. Even though we’ve always thought Iris and Hope might be proxies to Beth and Maggie (and I still think that’s true) overall, I think they MORE represent Judith and RJ. Only because of Leo = Rick and they’re his kids. Now, obviously Iris and Hope are much older than Rick’s kids, and Judith and RJ aren’t going to take off to find Rick. So I don’t know if they’ll figure into this or not. It’s hard to say because in this show, Leo’s kids are with Felix. So will it be a matter of Judith and RJ being taken, or will he leave them behind? I honestly don’t know.

What I said above about Felix meeting Huck and Will at the same time? It just struck me as yet another parallel. Even though Daryl knew Carol before Beth (because S1), S2 was only days after s1. So really, he met them around the same time. And while he became besties with Carol, the romance lies with Beth. Same with Felix. Besties with Huck. In love with Will. Just saying.

Oh, and something @frangipanilove​ reminded me of: Tom Sawyer Theory. There have been tons of Mark Twain/Widow Douglas/Tom Sawyer references around Carol. Now this character’s name is Huck, and it’s a nickname that comes from Huckleberry Finn because she was found on a raft.

Okay, moving on. Um…let’s talk Percy for a minute.

Remember that I said last week he was a major Beth proxy, because he seems to have staggered off, wounded, and everyone assumes he’s dead, but there was no body.

In this episode, Elton finds him and guess what? He’s been shot. So in keeping with the Beth parallel (no body, staggered away, presumed dead) he was also shot, not stabbed. Not in the head, of course, but in the chest/shoulder. But it was important for Elton to find that because it made him realize Silas didn’t do it. Silas didn’t have a gun. 

Another thing I found interesting is that Elton was sure Percy would die. His hallucination of Percy kept saying, “you know I’m going to die, right? I’m not going to survive.” And things like that. But low and behold, Percy actually lives. So, yet another way to round out the Beth parallel. Got shot. Staggered away. No one correctly understood what actually happened there. But he runs into someone who helps him and saves him. And, he lives.

So then Elton and Percy find Silas. And this was super cool from a TD standpoint as well. Silas accidentally starts a fire. The smoke from it, while less, looks EXACTLY like the smoke from the moonshine shack in Still. (Ah foreshadows.) Elton sees the smoke and follows it, hoping to find Silas, which he does.

And here’s where, again, it gets interesting. They have a small but sweet reunion. Elton runs up and hugs Silas really tight and says that he found him and also that he brought Silas’s bag and that he found his walkman and headphones in the road. 

It was the way he said that that caught my attention. He found them in the road. Last week, we totally compared the headphones to the music box, but I didn’t think about the fact that he dropped them in the middle of the road. I didn’t think to compare them to Daryl finding the green jasper in the middle of the road. But Elton found Silas’s MUSICAL DEVICE in the middle of the road and brought it back to him. Also, Rock in the Road story/theory. And @wdway​ pointed out Daryl’s line to Beth in Alone: “Go up the road a ways; I’ll meet you there.”

So, think about this. We have this rock-in-the-road reference, and a reunion between Elton and Silas. In the same episode, we see Felix, out on the road, walking through the woods, stumble onto his romantic partner, who he hasn’t seen in a LONG time. They hug, have a reunion, both are crying, and Will cries out, “I thought you were dead.” 

Let’s talk about Leo, Iris and Hope’s dad. In terms of the plot, I actually have a lot of questions, but I suppose that’s the point. In ep 10, we have lots of scenes of Iris and Hope’s dad. The woman from the codas, Lyla is in them, too. She and Leo are in a romantic relationship. But it’s obvious that she’s a plant by the CRM and that she’s feeding them information. I wasn’t sure if these scenes were meant to be present day, or flashbacks. I THINK they’re present day. So, he’s actually fine and not really in any danger.

We were right in thinking that Hope is the asset. In this episode, they say they just want her for her smarts, to help her father in his research. To some extent, it’s like she’s Eugene for this show (except for real, lol). Her dad says of her at one point, “maybe she’ll save the world.” Which feels like a foreshadowing. So maybe she really will find the cure or something. We’re also wondering if there’s something more they aren’t telling us. Like some sort of immunity thing. But they haven’t said anything like that in this episode.

The other reason I’m not sure about what Hope’s role will be is that she is obviously a proxy for Beth on her own. (In one flashback, everyone is eating dinner together and she says, “I made the carrots.” So yeah, self-proclaimed Beth proxy.) Carrot Theory Here.

So maybe she’ll find the cure and save the world. Or maybe all these characters will die at the end and she’s just functioning as a Beth proxy. Beth isn’t the super-smart Eugene type that will save the world in that way, but I do think the fact that Hope is the “asset” and the CRM wants her is probably a proxy for Beth in some way. Just not sure how it will play out.

So, back to the dad. In these Leo scenes, it’s obvious that he’s suspicious about things having to do with the CRM. He says that he recognizes they do good things, but he’s suspicious about the military. He says that Will’s scouting mission should have been back days ago. (Yes, Felix’s Will.) But he’s not. And Lyla just passes it off as “lots of things can happen that might have delayed him.”

So, I wasn’t sure if Will’s group, which we only see for a few seconds at the end, is part of the CRM and has just been delayed in returning, or if they’re purposely not returning because they know what the CRM did to the people at the university and have become a rebel group. My first impression was that they were rebels, hanging out in the forest, but they honestly don’t tell us much, here.

Well, that was because, the first time through, I missed the coda at the end of episode 9. You guys gotta see this shot! What happens is basically that we see Will running. He trips and falls by this walker, stares at it a moment, and then jumps up to run again. We see CRM soldiers running after him. So, that confirms that he’s now a rebel. Hiding from and rebelling against the CRM because he saw what they did at the University.

And the only reason that even matters is that we’ve conjectured that Beth might be leading a rebel group against the CRM. This is a confirmation of that theory (because Will = Beth).

But look at this shot:

It’s a blond walker who’s literally rising from her grave. If that’s not confirmation that Will = Beth, I don’t know what is.

Oh, let’s go back to Silas for a minute. I said last week that he might be headed toward Beth, right? Yeah, I still think he might be. So, after Elton, Percy, and Silas reunite, Silas is happy to know that he didn’t kill Tony or hurt Percy. Huck did. But he and Elton want to go find the girls and tell them about Huck. Before they can, the CRM soldiers arrive. They probably followed Silas’s smoke, and also at one point Percy talked to Huck, very briefly on the walkie on an open channel. 

So, the CRM knows they’re around and is looking for them. They try to sneak away, and come to a chain-lined fence with a locked gate. They unlock it to go through, but Percy is still bleeding a lot from his GSW. He tells them to leave him behind because he’s slowing them down and the dripping blood will be a trail right to them.

Silas makes a choice to save his friends. He pushes them through the gate and turns himself into the CRM, even cutting his hand to account for the dripping blood. He locks it so they can’t come back in and says, “go save Iris.” The CRM does take him into custody and Elton and Percy get away. So again, if Rick and Beth are inside the organization somewhere, he really could run into them.

What this really reminded me of was Sasha and Rosita. Major parallel there. Which, sadly, makes me wonder if Silas will die next season. A proxy, just as Sasha was. I thought it was interesting that Silas cut his hand across the palm. It’s a Christic wound and he sacrificed himself for his friends. But he’s also inside the CRM now, which means he could potentially run into Rick or Beth next season.

I wrote down other, smaller symbols. Things we always talk about like dialogue and background symbols. There’s a part where Elton kills some walkers and a bright red leaf flies across the screen. One of our red objects, I think. And that’s while he’s saving Percy, who should have died, but lived. Percy calls Elton Corduroy at one point, which is a bear reference.

Oh! Here’s an interesting one, though it’s not directly related to Beth. At one point, when Felix gets hurt, he and the ladies (Hope, Iris, Huck) go to a particular building. I believe it used to be a retirement home, though it honestly doesn’t look medical at all. More like a manor house. Like Hilltop, only in major disrepair. When they go in, Iris says, “This place feels haunted.” And Hope says, “the whole world is haunted.” 

That’s a shockingly exact echo of Tyreese saying that to Carol in 4x14. He said, “the whole world is haunted now.” It’s so lovely and sad, it was always one of my favorite lines. So, I sat and thought about what the parallel is supposed to be. 

I think it may be about the truth coming out. Because the biggest thing about 4x14 was Lizzie and Mica’s deaths, but nothing happened in this episode to really mirror that. No one died. But Carol also told Ty the truth about her and how she’d killed Karen. And remember that Huck is the Carol character. Here, they all find out who Huck really is and what she’s doing. It’s like, deceptions fall away and the truth is revealed. So yeah, not really a TD thing, but I thought that was super interesting.

One other thing: at one point, Hope and Huck run into walkers on the road and have to fight them. Hope has Felix’s gun, but she drops it. They’re standing on a bridge (Bridge Theory) but it’s not a huge bridge or an overpass. It’s one of those little wooden bridges over a pathetic little stream. Like, literally four feet down and they could jump off the bridge without being hurt, right? Well, when Hope dropped the gun (because she’s fighting a walker) and it slid down off the bridge and into the stream.

Visually, it reminded me a lot of when Beth kicked the gun down the elevator shaft in Coda. So I watched closely to see if they would retrieve it. They didn’t. Huck even said something like “well, the pistol is gone, so let’s just keep going.” And I had to laugh at that. Not realistic at all. The pistol isn’t gone. It’s right there. They just had to jump down and get it. No way the little bit of water would have been enough to carry a metal gun away. So yeah, I feel like that was a purposeful parallel to Beth at Grady.

That’s most of the big stuff. My overall theory, following the template TWB is laying out for us is this: Daryl and Carol will take off together after S11, either because they have word of Rick or something to do with the kids. Just as Will is inside the CRM with Leo, Beth is inside the CRM with Rick. Somewhere on that journey, Daryl will run into Beth on the road. What happens next season in TWB will give us a better idea of what will happen where Rick is concerned in the story. But this is definitely a foreshadow of the spinoff and how Daryl and Beth will reunite.

And now, with word of Emily being in the bonus episodes, even if they’re just flashbacks, it makes me think we’ll see her in the second season of TWB. The flashbacks are priming the audience for her true return. I literally wrote the above to @wdway​ and @frangipanilove​ on Friday morning. Friday afternoon, news of Emily being in the bonus episodes broke. For me, it was just everything falling perfectly into place.

Thoughts?

[flauntpage]

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick?

Colin Kaepernick is unemployed six weeks into the NFL season, and many believe it's because the league is blackballing him over his protests against social injustice, namely police violence against people of color.

According to Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman, Kaepernick has put that belief to the test by filing a grievance against the NFL's owners for collusion, which is a violation of the league's collective bargaining agreement. The filing states that owners "have colluded to deprive Mr. Kaepernick of employment rights in retaliation for Mr. Kaepernick's leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice and his bringing awareness to peculiar institutions still undermining racial equality in the United States."

So what is the evidence here, really? Everyone talks about blackballing and collusion when it comes to Kaepernick, but what can they actually prove? How can I, someone who knows nothing about football or Kaepernick and only just arrived on this planet yesterday after spending six years on a space station, believe this is truly happening?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that NFL owners would ever collude against anyone, especially players, whom they love and care about. It's insulting, really. Name one incident where there was even a whiff of collusion. You can't. If you could, you would have to go so far back that it wouldn't be relevant to today's league. Good luck finding that.

Hang on, I'm being told in May 2012 the NFLPA sued the league, alleging collusion designed to keep player contracts capped during the uncapped 2010 season.

Yeah, but a judge ruled in December 2012 and it was upheld in 2015 that, as part of the new CBA following the 2011 lockout, the NFLPA agreed to waive all "unknown claims" that may or may not have existed before the signing of the CBA. That's a win for the squeaky-clean, honestly run NFL, even if the ruling never says the NFL didn't actually collude.

Although, a clause in a CBA that says you can't sue for unknown things owners did prior to that CBA is like telling your significant other, "OK, I have to tell you something, and you have to promise not to get mad," and after they reluctantly agree, you say, "I may have been sleeping with your best friend for the past year." And just as they are about to get upset, you say, "Sorry, you promised you wouldn't get mad, therefore you have no grounds for any meaningful recourse against me."

But nothing was proven and that was seven years ago, so it's not as though the same owners are in power now. Nine new people have become NFL owners since 2010—that's nearly one-third of the league. So even if there were collusion back then, it can't apply now with so much ownership turnover.

I'm being told only two of the new owners—Kim and Terry Pegula with the Bills and Shahid Khan of the Jaguars—weren't family members of previous owners or already owners with a partial stake in a team. And Khan was one of only two owners to state publicly they'd have no problem with signing Kaepernick.

OK, fine, so what? So it's mostly the same owners that were accused of salary cap collusion in 2010. That doesn't mean they colluded here. It's inadmissible! Besides, we all know that Kaepernick isn't that good, right? The NFL is the highest level of football in the world, so it's silly to think that Kaepernick deserves a job just because he had one last year. Just look at his numbers:

12 games, 16 TDs, 4 INTs, 90.7 rating, 468 rushing yards, 2 TDs

Now compare that to starting quarterbacks around the league this year. Kaepernick doesn't meet the standards of a backup NFL quarterback, never mind a starting NFL quarterback.

I'm being told only 12 quarterbacks this season have a better than 90.7 rating. And 11 quarterbacks have already thrown more than four interceptions. And only three quarterbacks are on pace for more rushing yards.

But what this doesn't account for is age, and at 29, he may not be old, but he's NFL old.

I'm being told 29 is still young for an NFL quarterback.

But Kaepernick lacks big game experience, and nobody wants a quarterback who doesn't know what it means to win in the playoffs.

Damn it, now I'm being told he's 4-2 in the postseason and has been to the Super Bowl once and the conference championship twice.

This doesn't mean owners are colluding, though, because that would mean you'd need owners offering open disdain for what Kaepernick did—taking a knee during the national anthem as a form of protest. That would be very close to a smoking gun and only an idiot would do that. Show me one owner who has ever taken a public stance against the protest movement and threatened the employment of anyone who partakes in it.

I'm being told this is Cowboys owner Jerry Jones taking a public stance against the protest and threatening the employment of anyone that partakes in the protests: "But if there's anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play. OK? Understand? If we are disrespecting the flag, then we won't play. Period."

OK, but one argument from Kaepernick's legal team is that owners are taking cues from President Donald Trump. Come on. What President would ever meddle in the affairs of a private company or use the office of the President to pressure owners with the threat of hurting them financially?

Man, come on, I'm being told that the leader of the free world recently referred to the NFL's protesters as "sons of bitches" who should be fired and later hinted in a tweet that maybe the league would lose some of its tax breaks if the protests didn't stop.

But even with those threats, where is the proof that owners support Trump?

Alright, alright, I'm being told NFL owners donated at least $7.75 million to Trump's inaugural committee. That's a lot of money.

Yeah, but it's not as though any of the new, forward-thinking, socially conscious owners were part of that.

Yep, yep, Khan donated $1 million to Trump.

But that $7.75 million is probably a similar amount to what owners donated to Barack Obama's inaugural committees.

Apparently that number is twice as much as Obama got from owners in 2009.

Yeah, but Kaepernick opted out of his 49ers contract after last season, so he has no one to blame but himself for his lack of employment.

Sigh, I'm being told that if he had not opted out of his deal, the 49ers told Kaepernick they planned to cut him despite a season that showed he was one of the 15 best quarterbacks in the NFL, which surely isn't odd or something that could be considered a sign of blackballing.

But if owners truly were colluding to deny Kaepernick a job for unfair reasons, show me one reputable NFL reporter who has ever said that. It's just wild-eyed conspiracy theorists out to make a name for themselves. You're wasting your time with this collusion idea.

I'm being told that ESPN's Adam Schefter, a man who has built a career on cultivating and maintaining sources within the NFL and is now employed by a network that's more interested in protecting the NFL shield than people's rights, absolutely believes NFL owners have colluded against Kaepernick , saying in July, "Do I think that certain owners have blocked teams from visits or interest? I do, I do believe that."

Fine. There seems to be some credible evidence that NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick. But is there enough of it?

This is like one of those official reviews on a scoring play where you know the runner was down before he broke the plane of goal line and that the call on the field is wrong, but one angle on the play is obscured by a lineman's ass, another isn't dead-center along the goal line so it can't help, and the overhead shot is useless because you can't tell when the knee goes down, so the call can't be overturned.

In this grievance, the only thing not in dispute is whether Kaepernick's knee went down. You just have to hope there's another angle that proves conclusively what we all already know to be true: NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick.

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick? published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

[flauntpage]

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick?

Colin Kaepernick is unemployed six weeks into the NFL season, and many believe it's because the league is blackballing him over his protests against social injustice, namely police violence against people of color.

According to Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman, Kaepernick has put that belief to the test by filing a grievance against the NFL's owners for collusion, which is a violation of the league's collective bargaining agreement. The filing states that owners "have colluded to deprive Mr. Kaepernick of employment rights in retaliation for Mr. Kaepernick's leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice and his bringing awareness to peculiar institutions still undermining racial equality in the United States."

So what is the evidence here, really? Everyone talks about blackballing and collusion when it comes to Kaepernick, but what can they actually prove? How can I, someone who knows nothing about football or Kaepernick and only just arrived on this planet yesterday after spending six years on a space station, believe this is truly happening?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that NFL owners would ever collude against anyone, especially players, whom they love and care about. It's insulting, really. Name one incident where there was even a whiff of collusion. You can't. If you could, you would have to go so far back that it wouldn't be relevant to today's league. Good luck finding that.

Hang on, I'm being told in May 2012 the NFLPA sued the league, alleging collusion designed to keep player contracts capped during the uncapped 2010 season.

Yeah, but a judge ruled in December 2012 and it was upheld in 2015 that, as part of the new CBA following the 2011 lockout, the NFLPA agreed to waive all "unknown claims" that may or may not have existed before the signing of the CBA. That's a win for the squeaky-clean, honestly run NFL, even if the ruling never says the NFL didn't actually collude.

Although, a clause in a CBA that says you can't sue for unknown things owners did prior to that CBA is like telling your significant other, "OK, I have to tell you something, and you have to promise not to get mad," and after they reluctantly agree, you say, "I may have been sleeping with your best friend for the past year." And just as they are about to get upset, you say, "Sorry, you promised you wouldn't get mad, therefore you have no grounds for any meaningful recourse against me."

But nothing was proven and that was seven years ago, so it's not as though the same owners are in power now. Nine new people have become NFL owners since 2010—that's nearly one-third of the league. So even if there were collusion back then, it can't apply now with so much ownership turnover.

I'm being told only two of the new owners—Kim and Terry Pegula with the Bills and Shahid Khan of the Jaguars—weren't family members of previous owners or already owners with a partial stake in a team. And Khan was one of only two owners to state publicly they'd have no problem with signing Kaepernick.

OK, fine, so what? So it's mostly the same owners that were accused of salary cap collusion in 2010. That doesn't mean they colluded here. It's inadmissible! Besides, we all know that Kaepernick isn't that good, right? The NFL is the highest level of football in the world, so it's silly to think that Kaepernick deserves a job just because he had one last year. Just look at his numbers:

12 games, 16 TDs, 4 INTs, 90.7 rating, 468 rushing yards, 2 TDs

Now compare that to starting quarterbacks around the league this year. Kaepernick doesn't meet the standards of a backup NFL quarterback, never mind a starting NFL quarterback.

I'm being told only 12 quarterbacks this season have a better than 90.7 rating. And 11 quarterbacks have already thrown more than four interceptions. And only three quarterbacks are on pace for more rushing yards.

But what this doesn't account for is age, and at 29, he may not be old, but he's NFL old.

I'm being told 29 is still young for an NFL quarterback.

But Kaepernick lacks big game experience, and nobody wants a quarterback who doesn't know what it means to win in the playoffs.

Damn it, now I'm being told he's 4-2 in the postseason and has been to the Super Bowl once and the conference championship twice.

This doesn't mean owners are colluding, though, because that would mean you'd need owners offering open disdain for what Kaepernick did—taking a knee during the national anthem as a form of protest. That would be very close to a smoking gun and only an idiot would do that. Show me one owner who has ever taken a public stance against the protest movement and threatened the employment of anyone who partakes in it.

I'm being told this is Cowboys owner Jerry Jones taking a public stance against the protest and threatening the employment of anyone that partakes in the protests: "But if there's anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play. OK? Understand? If we are disrespecting the flag, then we won't play. Period."

OK, but one argument from Kaepernick's legal team is that owners are taking cues from President Donald Trump. Come on. What President would ever meddle in the affairs of a private company or use the office of the President to pressure owners with the threat of hurting them financially?

Man, come on, I'm being told that the leader of the free world recently referred to the NFL's protesters as "sons of bitches" who should be fired and later hinted in a tweet that maybe the league would lose some of its tax breaks if the protests didn't stop.

But even with those threats, where is the proof that owners support Trump?

Alright, alright, I'm being told NFL owners donated at least $7.75 million to Trump's inaugural committee. That's a lot of money.

Yeah, but it's not as though any of the new, forward-thinking, socially conscious owners were part of that.

Yep, yep, Khan donated $1 million to Trump.

But that $7.75 million is probably a similar amount to what owners donated to Barack Obama's inaugural committees.

Apparently that number is twice as much as Obama got from owners in 2009.

Yeah, but Kaepernick opted out of his 49ers contract after last season, so he has no one to blame but himself for his lack of employment.

Sigh, I'm being told that if he had not opted out of his deal, the 49ers told Kaepernick they planned to cut him despite a season that showed he was one of the 15 best quarterbacks in the NFL, which surely isn't odd or something that could be considered a sign of blackballing.

But if owners truly were colluding to deny Kaepernick a job for unfair reasons, show me one reputable NFL reporter who has ever said that. It's just wild-eyed conspiracy theorists out to make a name for themselves. You're wasting your time with this collusion idea.

I'm being told that ESPN's Adam Schefter, a man who has built a career on cultivating and maintaining sources within the NFL and is now employed by a network that's more interested in protecting the NFL shield than people's rights, absolutely believes NFL owners have colluded against Kaepernick , saying in July, "Do I think that certain owners have blocked teams from visits or interest? I do, I do believe that."

Fine. There seems to be some credible evidence that NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick. But is there enough of it?

This is like one of those official reviews on a scoring play where you know the runner was down before he broke the plane of goal line and that the call on the field is wrong, but one angle on the play is obscured by a lineman's ass, another isn't dead-center along the goal line so it can't help, and the overhead shot is useless because you can't tell when the knee goes down, so the call can't be overturned.

In this grievance, the only thing not in dispute is whether Kaepernick's knee went down. You just have to hope there's another angle that proves conclusively what we all already know to be true: NFL owners are colluding against Kaepernick.

Are NFL Owners Really Colluding Against Colin Kaepernick? published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv