If I owned a pro football team and have a player under contract who refuses to play, he's gone.
You sound a tad high maintenance Sally. What are you wearing?
Were you even watching the Detroit game? Name ANOTHER defensive player, not wearing a Seahawk uniform, that could have pulled off that play on the 2 inch line!!!
Hey girl! I was pissed too. But upon reflection Kam did have a point. He is one of just a couple of Safeties in the NFL that could have saved Monday night's game. The other two are also wearing Seahawk blue and green.
He certainly isn't holding back his talent just because he didn't get his way...why should WE?
You're the problem. As long as fans like you allow extortion and coercion, players will keep pulling this crap. Is your desire to win so fierce that you'll ignore corrupt behavior?
OH for CRIPES SAKES!!! Who allowed the extortion and the corruption?? Did Chancellor get what he demanded? Did the Seahawks hold the line? Now I'M the problem? Geez!! We sure are not getting off on the good foot now aren't we Sugar Britches!!
Astonishing.."I'm the problem"! If you could be so GOOD as to offer some constructive criticizing I'm all ears.
He should be traded for doing what he did.
He refused to play while under contract. He gets a pass because he's a good player. Bullshit.
He did not report. That isn't the same thing as refusing to play. I don't know your depth of knowledge on the subject but there is a very definite difference. A player is within his rights to refuse to report. That circumstance is looked upon as different than a player that has reported and gone through camp with no medical reason and refuses to play once suited up.
There is nothing technically wrong with refusing to report. There are methods to address the situation from the team's and leagues standpoint. The player CAN be penalized X amount every day he holds out and of course the player loses the weekly allotment of his salary plus a pro rated amount of his signing bonus and any guaranteed money. It is a little more complicated than that but those are the broad strokes.
On the teams side they can evaluate the situation and cut a player just about any time they choose for just about any reason they choose.
Obviously Schneider and Carroll feel that Kam is worth more trouble than he has caused or he would already be gone.
Let's say that Chancellor showed up out of shape and for that reason he could not play. That would have certainly changed his value to the team. But that is NOT what happened. He was clearly IN the best shape of his career as was verified by the medical people and trainers.
What we as fans feel about it is practically worthless to the team as far as concerning a players worth to the team. That CAN change though in certain situations like say Michael Vick's dog fighting and things of that nature such as spousal abuse or drugging and drinking. There are definite morals clauses that can be exercised against any player with sufficient cause.
So...to answer your question...YES. A better player is tolerated more than a player that has less value. Marshawn Lynch is a very good example. He gets to do things during training and during the week before a game that no other player would be allowed. Carroll is quick to support Lynch's odd behavior as the results clearly outweigh the inconvenience.
