Why Should Chiefs Do the Right Thing ?

[liquidfriend 1,151]

4 hours ago, reesebobby said:

I will never believe Hunt was cut for lying to the front office.  I think he was cut for being on video all over the place kicking a woman.  I think the PR thing was just too much to live with. 

But I do agree with the idea that if a team cuts someone for behavior like this, then there should be some rules about who and when they can be picked up by another team.  Or make it cost a draft pick to sign someone cut for bad behavior.  A year ago, I'd have said cut Hill.  Now I'm reluctant and I think the Chiefs are too.  If he's just gonna go somewhere else and do his thing, then I'd just as soon he does his thing here and for less money.  The current policy is making teams reluctant to do the right thing. 

The PR right now is much, much worse than it ever was Hunt and the Chiefs haven't released Tyreek so far.  I'd probably walk that statement back.

[Adamixoye 604]

4 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Just a question of whether they want to give $700,000 to a guy for doing nothing but screwing us over next year. To me if Goodell will just give Clark Hunt the nod they will not let him play this year, I'd release him that day anyway and just get rid of the issue all together.

Still I do agree that than the money part, an indefinite suspension does let the Chiefs control the situation and makes some sense too. 

I'm pretty sure any actual suspension (not just being on the exempt list) would mean no pay. 

[reesebobby 5,664]

8 minutes ago, liquidfriend said:

The PR right now is much, much worse than it ever was Hunt and the Chiefs haven't released Tyreek so far.  I'd probably walk that statement back.

I don’t think so.  That video was everywhere.  

[Handswarmer 645]

2 hours ago, reesebobby said:

I will never believe Hunt was cut for lying to the front office.  I think he was cut for being on video all over the place kicking a woman.  I think the PR thing was just too much to live with. 

But I do agree with the idea that if a team cuts someone for behavior like this, then there should be some rules about who and when they can be picked up by another team.  Or make it cost a draft pick to sign someone cut for bad behavior.  A year ago, I'd have said cut Hill.  Now I'm reluctant and I think the Chiefs are too.  If he's just gonna go somewhere else and do his thing, then I'd just as soon he does his thing here and for less money.  The current policy is making teams reluctant to do the right thing. 

Cut because he Lied and the video.

What exactly is the "Right thing"?

 

Chiefs fans are more worried about compensation? I get it but has everyone lost sight of the fact a 3 yr old boy had his arm broken by his Daddy?

[Handswarmer 645]

4 hours ago, reesebobby said:

I will never believe Hunt was cut for lying to the front office.  I think he was cut for being on video all over the place kicking a woman.  I think the PR thing was just too much to live with. 

But I do agree with the idea that if a team cuts someone for behavior like this, then there should be some rules about who and when they can be picked up by another team.  Or make it cost a draft pick to sign someone cut for bad behavior.  A year ago, I'd have said cut Hill.  Now I'm reluctant and I think the Chiefs are too.  If he's just gonna go somewhere else and do his thing, then I'd just as soon he does his thing here and for less money.  The current policy is making teams reluctant to do the right thing. 

You would be wrong.

“Earlier this year, we were made aware of an incident involving running back Kareem Hunt. At that time, the National Football League and law enforcement initiated investigations into the issue. As part of our internal discussions with Kareem, several members of our management team spoke directly to him. Kareem was not truthful in those discussions. The video released today confirms that fact. We are releasing Kareem immediately.”

[Handswarmer 645]

4 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

I have a lot of thoughts on this whole thing.

First, to the point of the OP, I do think it's fundamentally unfair that a team like KC is expected to ceremonially cut these guys and some other team gets to pick them up.  Whatever you think the punishment should be - on a sliding scale from "NFL does nothing, just let the legal process play out" to "ban them forever from the NFL" - the randomness of who is on a team at a given time and then some other team getting to reap the benefits of their "second chance" is a bad system. There should be a mechanism in place that penalizes the team signing the cut player and compensating the cutting team= swap iof draft picks lets say. Similar to a College coach who resigns in scandal, he just goes on to the next team and the team left deals with the repercussions, nothing ever happens to the coach.

Second, the criticism of the Hunt case is exactly what Balto said - that they cut him over lying rather than violence against a woman, and that furthermore there was the implication that they considered the lying more serious than the violent act.  I don't know if that's entirely fair.  I felt like in the Hunt situation it was because there were multiple reports of incidents, and on top of that he lied, and fundamentally they just felt like they couldn't trust him, that he wasn't willing to work with them, etc. Trust is huge between pwners, coaches and players= the represent to the Shield, the Logo and themselves= alot of these knuckleheads just do not understand this.

Third, what Hill is alleged to have done (and what we already know he did) is a lot worse than what Hunt did.  What Hunt did crossed a line and there was no excuse for it, but it was a pretty brief altercation that didn't cause major injury.  When the TMZ headlines said he had "brutalized" a woman and I saw the video, I was kind of underwhelmed.  It was bad and wrong but I wasn't shocked or sickened by it, compared to how I felt when I saw the Ray Rice tape or read what Tyreek said in the recording (I still haven't listened to the audio).  So that's a factor.

Fourth, I know there is a lot of cynicism about the NFL, but I do honestly believe that Clark Hunt, Reid, Veach, etc. believe they are trying to help these guys, to give them a second chance and make them into better people, whether that was Kareem Hunt, Hill, or Frank Clark.  Now, maybe that's misguided and they're not doing a good job of it, but I do believe they have good intentions and aren't STRICTLY just looking at the football side of things. The league is full of 2nd chance Lance's...some figure it out, some never do.

Ultimately, I don't fully understand why the Chiefs are taking their time.  Is it to gather more facts because they just learned about this last week with the rest of us, unlike the Hunt situation?  Maybe, but it's hard to see how anything will change the damage done by the Hill audio.  Before that things were unclear and there was plausible deniability.  That's gone now.  Given Hill's history I do believe he's in for something much worse than the standard 6-8 games from the NFL.  1 year?  2 years?  Lifetime?  I don't know.  If it's only one year, do the Chiefs really hang on to him?  It's hard to see how they wouldn't take a crippling PR hit from that. NFLPA already has said they will fight anything more than an 8 game suspension. I find this troubling as the Hunt and Hill situation are nowhere equal so why would the punishment be?

In the end I don't have answers, those are just the relevant issues.

 

[reesebobby 5,664]

22 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

You would be wrong.

“Earlier this year, we were made aware of an incident involving running back Kareem Hunt. At that time, the National Football League and law enforcement initiated investigations into the issue. As part of our internal discussions with Kareem, several members of our management team spoke directly to him. Kareem was not truthful in those discussions. The video released today confirms that fact. We are releasing Kareem immediately.”

You are assuming that there is no PR processes at work in explaining.  Or that there's not a benefit under the contract for firing one way vs the other.  They may have been truthful as to why they cut him or they may not have been.  I think not.  But I could be wrong. 

[Adamixoye 604]

1 minute ago, reesebobby said:

You are assuming that there is no PR processes at work in explaining.  Or that there's not a benefit under the contract for firing one way vs the other.  They may have been truthful as to why they cut him or they may not have been.  I think not.  But I could be wrong. 

The wording of that press release regarding Hunt is also vague.  It doesn't say "we cut him because he lied."  It says, "We investigated and he told us one thing.  We now know the truth and therefore we are cutting him."  It doesn't really say that the "why" is specifically the lie vs. the act or vice versa.  It's just talking about the totality of the situation.

[Chiefmanzada 466]

I think this case is mostly relevant to the Adrian Peterson debacle. 

According to police reports, the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that “Daddy Peterson hit me on my face.” The child also expressed worry that Peterson would punch him in the face if the child reported the incident to authorities. He also said that he had been hit by a belt and that “there are a lot of belts in Daddy’s closet.” He added that Peterson put leaves in his mouth when he was being hit with the switch while his pants were down. The child told his mother that Peterson “likes belts and switches” and “has a whooping room.”

AP returned as a Viking. 

Biggest difference I see if the level of harm. Tyreek's child has a broken arm. This is the real cause of the issue, along with Tyreek telling his wife to be terrified of him. AP doesn't have that audio stain on his part, just some text messages expressing regret for beating a child with a stick. 

TBH, this Tyreek Hill story is different than anything out there. There's no comparison to Hunt, AP, or Ray Rice. What happens to this man is a mystery. 

[Handswarmer 645]

8 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

You are assuming that there is no PR processes at work in explaining.  Or that there's not a benefit under the contract for firing one way vs the other.  They may have been truthful as to why they cut him or they may not have been.  I think not.  But I could be wrong. 

 

[Mloe68 1,521]

30 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

 

Chiefs fans are more worried about compensation? I get it but has everyone lost sight of the fact a 3 yr old boy had his arm broken by his Daddy?

 At this point everyone knows that he did and the Chiefs have barred him from the building because of it. But how the team handles this beyond him being kept off the field is a completely different issue. A football issue!  Why let him walk to another team without a guarantee from the league he's not gonna turn up in a Cleveland uniform knocking us out of the playoffs next January when he should still be under contract with us. I'd rather just keep him in permant suspension and make sure that doesn't happen.

Reality is right now they are looking for confirmation the tape we heard is actually him before they do anything. It's beyond ridiculous to me that anyone would have a problem with the timetable of his penalties. He's already in jail football wise and awaiting trial. 

[Handswarmer 645]

9 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

You are assuming that there is no PR processes at work in explaining.  Or that there's not a benefit under the contract for firing one way vs the other.  They may have been truthful as to why they cut him or they may not have been.  I think not.  But I could be wrong. 

 

5 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

The wording of that press release regarding Hunt is also vague.  It doesn't say "we cut him because he lied."  It says, "We investigated and he told us one thing.  We now know the truth and therefore we are cutting him."  It doesn't really say that the "why" is specifically the lie vs. the act or vice versa.  It's just talking about the totality of the situation.

"Earlier this year, we were made aware of an incident involving running back Kareem Hunt. At that time, the National Football League and law enforcement initiated investigations into the issue. As part of our internal discussions with Kareem, several members of our management team spoke directly to him. Kareem was not truthful in those discussions. The video released today confirms that fact. We are releasing Kareem immediately.”

 

What part of this does not confirm to the Chiefs that HUnt lied to them? "Kareem was not truthful in those discussions"?????

[Handswarmer 645]

2 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

 At this point everyone knows that he did and the Chiefs have barred him from the building because of it. But how the team handles this beyond him being kept off the field is a completely different issue. A football issue!  Why let him walk to another team without a guarantee from the league he's not gonna turn up in a Cleveland uniform knocking us out of the playoffs next January when he should still be under contract with us. I'd rather just keep him in permant suspension and make sure that doesn't happen.

Reality is right now they are looking for confirmation the tape we heard is actually him before they do anything. It's beyond ridiculous to me that anyone would have a problem with the timetable of his penalties. He's already in jail football wise and awaiting trial. 

I already said there should be a mechanism in place that prevents the player from just walking....serving a suspension and then re-signing with another team.

 

[Adamixoye 604]

Just now, Handswarmer said:

 

"Earlier this year, we were made aware of an incident involving running back Kareem Hunt. At that time, the National Football League and law enforcement initiated investigations into the issue. As part of our internal discussions with Kareem, several members of our management team spoke directly to him. Kareem was not truthful in those discussions. The video released today confirms that fact. We are releasing Kareem immediately.”

 

What part of this does not confirm to the Chiefs that HUnt lied to them? "Kareem was not truthful in those discussions"?????

Not at all what I'm saying.  He obviously lied to them, that is what they are saying in the press release.

We're talking about the "why."  Read the wording carefully.  Like I said above, the press release doesn't specify that they are releasing him for the lie as opposed to the act.

The press release says, "We looked into it.  He told us one thing.  We learned that the situation was different.  We're cutting him."

[Handswarmer 645]

Just now, Adamixoye said:

Not at all what I'm saying.  He obviously lied to them, that is what they are saying in the press release.

We're talking about the "why."  Read the wording carefully.  Like I said above, the press release doesn't specify that they are releasing him for the lie as opposed to the act.

The press release says, "We looked into it.  He told us one thing.  We learned that the situation was different.  We're cutting him."

So the why is the lie.....

 

JFC

[Adamixoye 604]

Just now, Handswarmer said:

So the why is the lie.....

Look my dude, I realize nuance is hard.

Kareem assaulted a woman and he lied about it.  No one disputes either of those facts.  If you think we're disputing either of those things then you are not comprehending what I think I am very clearly stating.

The statement by the Chiefs, in my reading, does not point to one half of that equation vs. the other as to why they cut him.

All of the above is relevant as it pertains to how the Chiefs move forward with Hill.  Do they care about abuse or just the players being honest?  If Hill had lied to the Chiefs would he have already been cut?  I don't know.  Maybe.

[reesebobby 5,664]

12 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

 

"Earlier this year, we were made aware of an incident involving running back Kareem Hunt. At that time, the National Football League and law enforcement initiated investigations into the issue. As part of our internal discussions with Kareem, several members of our management team spoke directly to him. Kareem was not truthful in those discussions. The video released today confirms that fact. We are releasing Kareem immediately.”

 

What part of this does not confirm to the Chiefs that HUnt lied to them? "Kareem was not truthful in those discussions"?????

I didn’t say he didn’t lie to him. I’m sure he did. I also said I’m sure they were pissed.  But he was cut, in my opinion, for kicking a girl and having that video all over the world.   If he lied about his weight, he’d still be a chief. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

23 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

I already said there should be a mechanism in place that prevents the player from just walking....serving a suspension and then re-signing with another team.

 

My bad. That's all I'm saying. Maybe just let a team retain his rights for the length of the contract if he's released for an Article 46 violation. And then a team would have to work out a trade to get his rights from you. I'm sure somehow this wouldn't work, but it does make some sense in a simple form. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

1 hour ago, Adamixoye said:

I'm pretty sure any actual suspension (not just being on the exempt list) would mean no pay. 

That's great if true. But I'm pretty sure technically he's still on the with pay designation right now although its a moot point because players are paid only with bonuses and weekly game checks. So unless he's due a bonus he's not getting any money right now anyway. 

[Adamixoye 604]

7 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

That's great if true. But I'm pretty sure technically he's still on the with pay designation right now although its a moot point because players are paid only with bonuses and weekly game checks. So unless he's due a bonus he's not getting any money right now anyway. 

I'm really sure that's what has been reported.  The "Commissioner's Exempt List" is basically suspension with pay while they figure out the facts, but like you say, it's sort of irrelevant right now because players are paid during the season and not in the offseason.  At least one article I read noted that this would, I believe, be a first to use the exempt designation in the offseason.  Almost more ceremonial (that is, making a statement by the league) than anything else.

Regular suspensions definitely result in forfeited pay.

[wilkie 1,518]

Why can't the Chiefs pay Tyreek his rookie contract salary this year  ( Yes I know its a waste of money ) and not play him for a down,  then cut him before the UFA deadline for resigning.  This would mean 1 1/2 years of non participation.   It would be expensive and a waste of money perhaps,  but it would keep him off the market.   The time he is suspended by the league would also factor into this.  I am not saying it is financially a sensible decision but it does keep him off the open market where someone else could pick him up.  ANd he would have an extended time off the field from contact football.

 

I am asking a theoretical question here.  Why could they not do this?

[Thegoatee 1,786]

Kareem Hunt happened in the middle of the season when football news and conversation was everywhere. They eliminated a potential distraction in the locker room. Outside the draft, football is still 3 months away from really being newsworthy. The pressure to cut Hill isn’t as big now since NBA and NHL playoffs plus MLB are the big focus in the sports news. They will let it play its course and cut him as soon as more develops to the negative.

[reesebobby 5,664]

2 minutes ago, wilkie said:

Why can't the Chiefs pay Tyreek his rookie contract salary this year  ( Yes I know its a waste of money ) and not play him for a down,  then cut him before the UFA deadline for resigning.  This would mean 1 1/2 years of non participation.   It would be expensive and a waste of money perhaps,  but it would keep him off the market.   The time he is suspended by the league would also factor into this.  I am not saying it is financially a sensible decision but it does keep him off the open market where someone else could pick him up.  ANd he would have an extended time off the field from contact football.

 

I am asking a theoretical question here.  Why could they not do this?

I'm guessing they could.  I think beyond the money, there's the 53 man roster to think about.  I don't know if you can suspend without pay for 16 games without getting the union involved and I don't know if you can suspend 16 games with pay and not keep him on the 53. 

[Adamixoye 604]

4 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

I'm guessing they could.  I think beyond the money, there's the 53 man roster to think about.  I don't know if you can suspend without pay for 16 games without getting the union involved and I don't know if you can suspend 16 games with pay and not keep him on the 53. 

I thought this was a good point, but then I looked it up and found this, sounds like suspended players don't count against the 53:

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/8/31/17797904/explaining-pup-nfi-ir-other-injury-nfl-roster-designations-cuts-53-man-roster

[Handswarmer 645]

43 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

Look my dude, I realize nuance is hard.

Kareem assaulted a woman and he lied about it.  No one disputes either of those facts.  If you think we're disputing either of those things then you are not comprehending what I think I am very clearly stating.

The statement by the Chiefs, in my reading, does not point to one half of that equation vs. the other as to why they cut him.

All of the above is relevant as it pertains to how the Chiefs move forward with Hill.  Do they care about abuse or just the players being honest?  If Hill had lied to the Chiefs would he have already been cut?  I don't know.  Maybe.

Look dude, I know words are hard.

"Kareem was not truthful inn those discussions". Truthful- (of a person or statement) telling or expressing the truth; honest.

NOT TRUTHFUL

NOT EXPRESSING THE TRUTH

NOT HONEST

Maybe you are a lawyer in your day job; i am not. The Chiefs cut him because he lied. The video merely confirmed  the lie.