Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-23Mike Florio, the longtime NFL insider and host of ProFootballTalk on NBC Sports, set off a fresh round of debate this week when he suggested the New York Giants ought to replace backup quarterback Jaxson Dart with none other than Colin Kaepernick. In a segment airing Monday, Florio argued that the Giants lack a reliable second option behind Daniel Jones and that Kaepernick – despite being out of the league since 2016 – could provide a veteran presence with a proven arm.
Florio’s proposal is not coming from nowhere. The Giants’ quarterback room has been a topic of concern after Jones suffered a season-ending neck injury last year, and Dart – a 2023 third-round pick out of Ole Miss – has yet to demonstrate he can handle NFL defenses. Florio noted that Kaepernick has kept himself in shape and even held a private workout for interested teams in 2022. “If you’re the Giants, you have to ask yourself: do you want to win now, or do you want to develop? Kaepernick gives you a chance to win now,” Florio said on his podcast.
To understand the significance, one must recall the circumstances of Kaepernick’s departure. After leading the San Francisco 49ers to a Super Bowl appearance in 2012 and an NFC Championship game in 2013, Kaepernick became a polarizing figure in 2016 when he began kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial inequality. He opted out of his contract after the 2016 season and has not been signed by an NFL team since, despite multiple public statements from coaches and general managers suggesting his play had declined.
**Why It Matters**
The Giants are in a peculiar spot. Daniel Jones is under contract through 2026, but his durability has always been questioned. Behind him, Jaxson Dart has attempted only 47 passes in two seasons, completing 58% for a passer rating of 71.3. Meanwhile, Kaepernick – now 36 – hasn’t taken a regular-season snap since Week 17 of the 2016 season. Yet Florio’s suggestion taps into a persistent free-market question: why do teams ignore a quarterback who once threw for 3,369 yards and 21 touchdowns in a season, even if his last meaningful game was seven years ago?
From a pure talent standpoint, the case for Kaepernick is thin but not nonexistent. He had a career passer rating of 88.9, a 4.53-second 40-yard dash at his pro day, and a 58.3% completion rate – numbers that would place him in the middle of the pack among current backups. But his last two seasons (2015-2016) saw a steep decline: a 75.9 rating and a 1-10 record as a starter. The 49ers released him because his performance no longer justified his contract, not because of his protests alone.
**Analysis FORTIS**
Here is where free-market principles collide with public perception. In a truly unencumbered labor market, teams would assess Kaepernick’s current physical shape and sign him if the price is right. The NFL has no formal ban on him; the league repeatedly states it is up to individual clubs. Yet no team has made an offer since 2017. This is not evidence of a conspiracy; it is evidence that the perceived cost of signing Kaepernick – in terms of media scrutiny, fan backlash, and locker-room distraction – outweighs the marginal benefit of a mid-tier backup quarterback.
That is the free market at work. Owners are not charities; they allocate resources where they get the highest return. If Kaepernick were truly a top-64 quarterback in the world, some owner would take the PR hit for a playoff run. The fact that no one has suggests the market has accurately priced his current ability. Florio, for all his analysis, may be overestimating the demand for a player whose best years are almost a decade behind him.
**Contraponto**
Critics of Kaepernick’s blackballing point to the 2017 collusion grievance he filed against the NFL, which was settled in 2019 for an undisclosed amount. They argue that owners coordinated to keep him out because of his political stance. That argument, however, ignores that several players with similar political activism – such as Eric Reid and Kenny Stills – continued to be signed after 2016. The difference is that Kaepernick’s production sharply declined at the same time that his off-field actions became a liability. Correlation is not causation, but it is a plausible explanation.
Moreover, the Giants themselves have a history of conservative decision-making under owner John Mara. Mara was one of the loudest voices against the anthem protests during owners’ meetings. It would be deeply ironic – and improbable – for him to authorize signing the very figure who ignited that controversy. Florio’s suggestion may be more of a thought experiment than a realistic proposal.