I don’t mean collusion when I say blacklist. I think some teams do not want anything to do with him cause of everything surrounding him, so they ante blacklisting. He has to show that at least two teams basically conspired together to not hire him. Which bad qb play can’t do. What I said wasn’t mutually exclusive.In post 772, Nero Cain wrote:If he's being blacklisted the bold can't be true but if the bold is true then he's not be blacklisted. There's a fine line between "teams don't want him b/c X reason(s)" and some conspiracy to keep teams from signing him. I feel like the biggest piece of evidence AGAINST his collusion case is that he was given an opportunity in both Denver and Baltimore and he burned those bridges. The NFL, as in life, has more to do with just being "good" but you also need interpersonal skills and I think he has 0 of those.In post 768, scotmany12 wrote:I do think he is being blacklisted.But take the idea that he probably isn’t back material, don’t know how much of a coach he can be (big part of backup qbs), he hasn’t played professional football in about two years, and the media circus that would happen when he is signed, it really shouldn’t be surprising that he remains unsigned.
On the flip side, the biggest piece of evidence for his collusion case is that bad QBs do get to play. But coaches/gm's have egos and when they draft a pick they want to play him and hope he gets better with time and experience. See Jarred Goff/Mitch Tribusky, though I think most ppl think he(they) got better with a coaching change.
Any nfl team can choose to not hire, interview, interact with Kaep for basically whatever reason. And any team with a qb injury is probably gonna go with their backup who knows the playbook rather than look for another qb midseason. Now yeah, Buffalo was a weird situation as they did signed both Anderson and Barkley.