Jump to content

Why Should Chiefs Do the Right Thing ?


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Playing in the NFL is a priviledge, not a right. If he entered the league under this guise he was already on strike one (which the NFLPA is already disputing), then this is strike two and an automatic one year suspension. Also puts him one strike away from permanent exodus as it should. That said I'm not so sure the girl didnt' break his arm after what we learned yesterday. His pattern of abusive behavior should cost him no matter, but if the girl broke the arm and not him and somebody can prove that. Its going to get ugly. Most likely the Chiefs will release him as soon as they get word from the NFL he's gonna be suspended in 2019. But they absolutely should not release him until at least that time. 

What did we learn yesterday?  I must have missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 4/29/2019 at 5:05 AM, Docbarnabee said:

The Kansas City Chiefs did the Right thing with Kareem Hunt according to a lot of pundits.   It gets an 8 game suspension and is immediately picked up by the Cleveland Browns.

Chiefs lose an excellent player ,  are still bashed by the media for Hunt  and they receive absolutely no compensation for Kareem Hunt.  The Browns will be universally praised at some point , for taking a chance on Hunt after he comes off of suspension and becomes a productive part of their football team.  

 

Here we go with Tyreek Hill.   Optics are bad.  Media is turning up the heat on " Why have the Chiefs not released him , yet "   NFL players association have come out strongly in Defense of Hill , saying that they will fight any sort of ban by the NFL to the end.  So we are looking at worst a year long suspension  with a likely scenario that he is suspended somewhere around 8-12 games.  There is a chance he goes to jail, but I think that may not be a done deal and in the end I think he does not.   Given Hills productivity, he will get picked up by another NFL team and he will play football again.    So, my question is why should the Chiefs do the right thing and release him.  We lose the talent,  still get bashed for drafting him, and get nothing in return for him  when another team picks him up after we release him.   Just seems to me that there is absolutely no incentive for the Chiefs to release him right away and do the right thing.  Do not get me wrong.  I think we should move on from him.  It just really ticks me off that in a  year from now, he will be a star player for the Las Vegas Raiders  or Cleveland Browns and those teams will be universally praised for giving him another chance.

 

Oh, boo hoo!

The Chiefs should do the right thing, always.  We are not the old Oakland Raiders.  There are plenty of great players who are not criminals or beat their wives or girlfriends.  With Mahomes, we don't need those kinds of characters to win a championship. This is an era where the spotlight is on.  We don't need to get momentum going during a season only to lose a key player to legal or domestic misbehavior. That is a quicker way to die on the vine by drafting and keeping people like that and put a hex and a could over the entire team. 

THAT'S why.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, PhataLerror said:

Why is it that every time a team releases Alex Smith, they end up with a flood of domestic violence and other criminal issues within the next couple of years? The worst guys (like Aldon Smith) had problems while Smith was on the roster, but those were nothing compared with the stuff that followed.

Maybe "Locker Room Guys" are underrated. Maybe if Smith were still here, we wouldn't be talking about Hunt or Hill as former Chiefs players.

Just a thought.

You apparently missed Marcus Peters imploding on the field and then flat walking out on his team in a close loss to the Jets. This is something tangible you would think a QB with enough credibility could keep from happening as Tom Brady seems too. It was only the second time in Andy Reids almost two decades that he had to suspend a player. What in the world does a QB have to do with the home life of a player and how he's raising his kid? Or what some guy does in the offseason in a hotel room 1000 miles away? Answer is nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I'm assuming they won't do anything yet until the criminal deal plays itself out. Either way the Chiefs need to just stand pat and play this out as well.  This critics can just suck it..LOL

Per NFL Network Mike Garfolo: the NFL doesn't plan to take any action against Chiefs WR Tyreek Hill. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
17 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Now I'm assuming they won't do anything yet until the criminal deal plays itself out. Either way the Chiefs need to just stand pat and play this out as well.  This critics can just suck it..LOL

Per NFL Network Mike Garfolo: the NFL doesn't plan to take any action against Chiefs WR Tyreek Hill. 

 

Now, how about telling the entire headline?

NFL not expected to take action on Tyreek Hill this week

What part of "this week" do you not understand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just don’t know about this whole situation. Unless I am remembering incorrectly. Two of the 912 calls back in the day were him calling on her. They seem like fire and gasoline to me. Wish I know why she was passed out when he called the police. Either way, I am sad they have twins on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, reesebobby said:

What did we learn yesterday?  I must have missed something.

Orginally they thought Tyreek was the only threat so they let her keep the kid if he moved out at least until they could figure out what was going on. But then at some point she passed out for some undisclosed reason and left the kid unattended as such for hours. After that they took the kid away from her as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
16 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Now, how about telling the entire headline?

NFL not expected to take action on Tyreek Hill this week

What part of "this week" do you not understand?

The words "this week" were not posted in the report twitter post I just read. But it makes zero difference. The point here is that the Chiefs should not act until the league is prepared to back them up. Whether thats next week or next August. Just keep him in the indefinite suspension. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 4/30/2019 at 6:03 AM, Handswarmer said:

Rams were the home team in the Mexico game last year. Thats why when it was cancelled they played in LA.

Thank you, but I was talking about a prior season. The Chiefs played in London in 2017 or 2016(?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
4 hours ago, KCSLC2008 said:

Thank you, but I was talking about a prior season. The Chiefs played in London in 2017 or 2016(?).

It was the Lions game in 2015. Definitely the most boring NFL game I've watched in the stadium as most people were just soccer fans that sort of enjoy football but don't care as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
5 hours ago, sith13 said:

It was the Lions game in 2015. Definitely the most boring NFL game I've watched in the stadium as most people were just soccer fans that sort of enjoy football but don't care as much.

It was a blowout is why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
32 minutes ago, dksww said:

It was a blowout is why

But the Brits more likely than not don't really give a shit.  

The NFL is trying to build a market there. It's like trying to build a market for snow shoes in Calcutta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
23 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

But the Brits more likely than not don't really give a shit.  

The NFL is trying to build a market there. It's like trying to build a market for snow shoes in Calcutta.

I think it's stupid too, I don't like the NFL trying to play games in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
56 minutes ago, Fmbl2187 said:

But the Brits more likely than not don't really give a shit.  

The NFL is trying to build a market there. It's like trying to build a market for snow shoes in Calcutta.

They literally don't give a shit. It has some value for the Americans living there, but even then most aren't fans of the teams playing. There's no football atmosphere to get in the mood and watching online is definitely much more fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
2 hours ago, dksww said:

I think it's stupid too, I don't like the NFL trying to play games in Europe.

Plus, it screws up practice schedules, causes jet lag and influences the game before and after...a total of three games out of whack with the team routine all screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, sith13 said:

They literally don't give a shit. It has some value for the Americans living there, but even then most aren't fans of the teams playing. There's no football atmosphere to get in the mood and watching online is definitely much more fun. 

Maybe it's just that the beer is warm?  ☺️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
4 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Maybe it's just that the beer is warm?  ☺️

Thats a misnomer in that the beer in Europe is generally between 40 and 45 degrees F

So, yes it is 'warm' compared to the -300 fegrees F Americans like to drink their beer.....because its so bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

Thats a misnomer in that the beer in Europe is generally between 40 and 45 degrees F

So, yes it is 'warm' compared to the -300 fegrees F Americans like to drink their beer.....because its so bad

Gotta admit that Brits beer is !00% better than the sugar water they serve in American stadiums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, jetlord said:

Gotta admit that Brits beer is !00% better than the sugar water they serve in American stadiums. 

Absolutely-> on my Kaserne in Germany, they had a Volksfest every year where they just backed up a Tanker of Kirner Pils and Carlsbad....like it or leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
Just now, Handswarmer said:

Yeah. because the lawyer said so.

 

Good grief

First off, maybe you should learn to recognize sarcasm better.  Second off, you have accused him a systematic torture with absolutely zero evidence other than the word of his fiancé who you know nothing about.  This attorney is as credible as anything you have cited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
  • Create New...