I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot

reply to post by LeatherNLace

average to poor punter by NFL standards.

Average by his 2012 stats for sure.

And also I would like to point out this part of the article.

I had also been repeatedly instructed by Mike Priefer to dial back the distance of my kicks to give our coverage team a better chance at getting down the field, a request I did my best to follow despite knowing it would mean sacrificing my own averages and allowing people to fashion an argument against me based on those numbers. His exact words were: "Chris, we need you to kick it higher and shorter, because our coverage team sucks. We need to force fair catches as much as possible." I complied, as I had always been taught to put the team before myself.

Now this is not proof. Merely 1 side of the story.
However it is interesting that he was being told to not kick as far.
A possible conspiracy.

And as well with this part of the article.

Near the end of November, several teammates and I were walking into a specialist meeting with Coach Priefer. We were laughing over one of the recent articles I had written supporting same-sex marriage rights, and one of my teammates made a joking remark about me leading the Pride parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." The room grew intensely quiet, and none of the players said a word for the rest of the meeting. The atmosphere was decidedly tense. I had never had an interaction that hostile with any of my teammates on this issue—some didn't agree with me, but our conversations were always civil and respectful. Afterward, several told me that what Mike Priefer had said was "messed up."

If Priefer was as homophobic as Kluwe claims he was. It could also ad fuel to the conspiracy that he was fired because of his views.
Luckily enough this could be verified by asking other players who heard the comments.

Now does this prove anything? No. Certainly as you think he could of been cut because of performance. I won't discount that line of thinking. Totally plausible. Getting a equal performing punter for 1/2 the price would definitely be a smart business decision.
However we shouldn't discount that it could of been a case retaliation because of Kluwes support of marriage equality.


But I found something interesting.

blogs.citypages.com...

It proves nothing of course and could just be kids joking around. But it's food for thought.

Sremmos80
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

But you bring up the fact that he has been declining for four years... So his past is relevant when it works for you but if it brings out a positive.. it doesn't matter.

Past performance might be relevant to you or I, but not to NFL organizations. In the NFL, you don't pay people based upon their past performance, you pay them based upon what they currently are. For Chris, he was aging (by NFL standards), was in decline, was expensive and just had a surgery on his knee.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Sure, I can see how using 16 more words comprising less than one line on most screens would add to the exacting precision of your post. Just makes the presentation of your evidence seem a bit one-sided, IMO.

There's no way we can know for certain unless more evidence comes to light. It's a strategic announcement on Kluwe's part though, so there might be more info on the way. Time will tell.

One thing that has not been brought up is that he was picked up by the Raiders over the summer and then cut before the regular season. They felt he wasn't that good of a punter.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Did you read the above? He was asked to dial back his punting.... Poor coaching strategy shouldn't be grounds for his termination based on performance. Short and high kicks are used when you are on the plus side of the 50. When you are just out side of field goal range. And you hope for it to bounce backward away from the goal line. So if you do those kicks on your own side of the field and it doesn't work, your punter looks horrible

Technically, at Oakland, Kluwe was in competition with another punter, Marquette King, who is also younger and also costs less. King won the competition, got signed, Kluwe thanked the Raiders for the opportunity. (Source)

Sremmos80
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

Did you read the above? He was asked to dial back his punting.... Poor coaching strategy shouldn't be grounds for his termination based on performance. Short and high kicks are used when you are on the plus side of the 50. When you are just out side of field goal range. And you hope for it to bounce backward away from the goal line. So if you do those kicks on your own side of the field and it doesn't work, your punter looks horrible

The problem is that his stats don't support that arguement. For example, there should be far more Fair Catches and a higher number of Touchbacks.

Sremmos80
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

Did you read the above? He was asked to dial back his punting.... Poor coaching strategy shouldn't be grounds for his termination based on performance. Short and high kicks are used when you are on the plus side of the 50. When you are just out side of field goal range. And you hope for it to bounce backward away from the goal line. So if you do those kicks on your own side of the field and it doesn't work, your punter looks horrible

Yes, I read that. But that was not the only factor in his release from the team. He was more expensive than his rookie replacement, his replacement's skill level was superior and he recently had knee surgery. That right there is the trifecta in terms of getting cut from an NFL team.

DocScurlock
reply to post by grey580

 

wow another non important person talking about a non issue being pushed on us by a media that is funded and controlled by a diabolical force that wants enslave us. Using tactics that cause separation amongst the peasants. You doing exactly what they want.

...or not.

reply to post by anton74


If all the kicks are coming form the plus side of the 50 yes, The returner will sit at the 10 and if its over then let it go, if he is under it then fair catch, yes you are right. But if you take those kicks and put them past the 50, then I don't see why you would see an increase of those numbers.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


So in your opinion, his cut was completely based on a business stand point and had no outside influence from the comments that he made?

Sremmos80
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

So in your opinion, his cut was completely based on a business stand point and had no outside influence from the comments that he made?

In my opinion, there were plenty of reasons to cut him without taking his comments into consideration. Now, were his comments a contributing factor? Perhaps; but I have no opinion on that, as it would be nothing more than speculation.

As an aside, here is an article penned today by a beat writer who follows the Minnesota Vikings. Being imbedded with the team, he would know better than most about this issue.

espn.go.com...

Here is snippet of the article, it's too long to post it all:

From the top, Kluwe was not released in April 2013 solely because he advocated for gay rights, no matter the portrait he painted in the piece. A more objective explanation, as we discussed at the time, would note that he was a 31-year-old veteran who had produced a below-average performance in 2012 based on the criteria the Vikings most valued. He was entering the final year of his contract, one that carried no salary cap hit if he were released, and was playing for a team that had been systematically replacing older players with younger ones.

If anything, Kluwe's advocacy was the final push off the plank. Fair or otherwise, NFL teams don't have much tolerance for middling performers who draw more attention off the field than on it, be it for social causes or television commercials. Kluwe's stated confidence that his "activism was the reason I got fired" is a convenient storyline, one that has already drawn a great deal of attention, but it isn't supported by the full set of facts.

Also mentioned in the article is a response from the coach that Kluwe accused of making discriminatory remarks:

Priefer said in a statement released Thursday evening that he "vehemently denies" Kluwe's allegations, that he "does not tolerate discrimination of any type" and that he is "respectful of all individuals."

I think most likely he was let go because of his performance. Let's suppose that what he is saying is true though, for the purpose of this thread. He did receive permission initially but then was later asked to stop or modify the way in which he was speaking out. I think it was wrong of the owners and management to ask him to stop, but it's their right to do so.

I admire his choice to keep speaking on an important matter but the Vikings have every right to disassociate with any person that is presenting an image they don't want attached to their name. This, like Phil Robertson debacle, isn't a free speech issue. Kluwe's freedom is not under threat if he chooses to keep speaking on marriage equality.

reply to post by Kali74


Hold on a sec.

During the summer of 2012, I was approached by a group called Minnesotans for Marriage Equality, which asked if I would be interested in helping defeat what was known as the Minnesota Gay Marriage Amendment. The proposed amendment would have defined marriage as "only a union of one man and one woman." (It was voted down, and same-sex marriage is now legal in Minnesota.) I said yes, but that I would have to clear it with the team first. After talking to the Vikings legal department, I was given the go-ahead to speak on the issue as long as I made it clear I was acting as a private citizen, not as a spokesman for the Vikings, which I felt was fair and complied with. I did several radio advertisements and a dinner appearance for Minnesotans for Marriage Equality. No one from the Vikings' legal department told me I was doing anything wrong or that I had to stop.

And this.

On Sept. 9, before our game against the Jacksonville Jaguars, the owner of the team, Zygi Wilf, came up to me, shook my hand, and told me: "Chris, I'm proud of what you've done. Please feel free to keep speaking out. I just came from my son's best friend's wedding to his partner in New York, and it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen."

It would seem that his coach was the one dialing him back so that he could get rid of him later on.

At least that's my take on it.

reply to post by grey580


If true then that sounds like discrimination when they could have fired him outright since they asked him to stop and he didn't. However as another poster pointed out, the Raiders didn't think much of his punting either. If he thinks he has a discrimination case he should pursue it, but it seems like it would be very hard to prove as he has the misfortune of not playing well even after the fact.

Kali74
reply to post by grey580

 

If true then that sounds like discrimination when they could have fired him outright since they asked him to stop and he didn't. However as another poster pointed out, the Raiders didn't think much of his punting either. If he thinks he has a discrimination case he should pursue it, but it seems like it would be very hard to prove as he has the misfortune of not playing well even after the fact.

He has a case if he can get his team mates to corroborate and show a pattern of discrimination.
Without his team mates that will be hard.

What I do see happening is the league coming in and cleaning house just like they are doing with the Dolphins.

The league cannot, will not tolerate and sort of hazing or discrimination.

Kluwe is done playing football. But don't think this one will go away. Expect an investigation.

Darth_Prime
hypothetically he was fired for his stances...

Hardly. Hell we don't live in Hypothetical. Lovely this time of year though I hear. If one want to take this, or anything, "hypothetically" to prove their point, or to be pissed at something/one, then they aren't dealing with reality. The NFL doesn't tolerate ANY type of discrimination. If they didn't look into this it's because there is nothing to look into.

As to the stats, them members are right. You can't just go by them for punters like you can with, say, sacks. There are many variables. Andy Lee is the Niners punter. He usually has a shorter field to deal with and that will affect the numbers. Also hang time is important to allow the coverage team to get downfield. Angling balls out of bounds inside the 10 is also valuable. Kluwe isn't in the same league with Andy even though his numbers seem better. As a Niners fan I wouldn't trade Andy for anyone.

reply to post by intrepid


Now there's an investigation.

www.usatoday.com...

The Minnesota Vikings have retained two lawyers to conduct an independent review into allegations made Thursday by former punter Chris Kluwe, who claimed in an Internet blog post that the team released him because of his public stance in support of same-sex marriage.

Eric Magnuson, the former chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and Chris Madel, a former U.S. Department of Justice Trial attorney, will lead the investigation.

Interesting to see what they turn up. If anything at all.