2019 NFL Season

[NewtonHawk11]

whatever happened here is inarguably worse than what happened with Hunt.

Definitely.
But it is possible he didn't do it.
It is possible his lady friend did.

There's the issue with just cutting Hill if he says he didn't do it.

This is good.

Hunt would still be with Chiefs if he didn’t lie and video evidence proved something other than what he said. There is no evidence of who did what on this case, whether it be video or first hand account. He’ll be suspended a few games. Play out this year and see what happens next year.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Best light scenario for Hill here is that the mother did it, but Hill helped cover it up, or at the very least chose to protect the mother over the child.

Not sure what that means for suspension, but in general, it sure sounds like he could benefit from certain services.

[jfish26]

whatever happened here is inarguably worse than what happened with Hunt.

Definitely.
But it is possible he didn't do it.
It is possible his lady friend did.

There's the issue with just cutting Hill if he says he didn't do it.

Sure, it's possible. It doesn't make any fucking sense, but it's possible.

[pdub]

Not sure how you don't think it doesn't make sense but not worth going into.

[jfish26]

Not sure how you don't think it doesn't make sense but not worth going into.

It doesn't make any sense at all to look at this situation, and the known background, and put any serious thought into the possibility that (a) the mother did this on her own, and (b) what's really happening here is a coverup by Tyreek.

I am truly conflicted on what Clark Hunt should do (and make no mistake - this is about Clark and Clark alone). I would understand cutting Hill immediately. I would understand relying solely on the NFL's disciplinary functions. I would understand fighting any suspension tooth and nail.

But what frustrates me is the intellectual and ethical dishonesty of using the DA's decision not to charge as a way to make yourself feel better about the football decision to keep him around.

[CrimsonNBlue]

(a) makes no sense at all--virtually impossible
(b) more possible than (a)

What makes the most sense: mom is covering up for dad.

[Cascadia]

Without knowing what he’s ‘guilty’ of, I don’t understand the logic in giving him to your competition for free.

[jfish26]

Without knowing what he’s ‘guilty’ of, I don’t understand the logic in giving him to your competition for free.

Doing that wouldn't be a matter of logic, but of principle. And it's the privilege and the burden of the owner to get to choose how much that matters.

I'm not sure cutting him immediately is the decision I'd make. But I could understand where that decision would come from.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Without knowing what he’s ‘guilty’ of, I don’t understand the logic in giving him to your competition for free.

That's why if I were a chiefs fan i'd want the NFL to make a swift decision. Was reading earlier that the NFL's conduct policy can force a player to talk during investigation or they'd be suspended without pay.

Let the NFL do it's justice, and I think Clark can hide behind that IF he wants to keep him on the team. That's up to him. Maybe he goes ahead and trades him this weekend.

[jfish26]

Without knowing what he’s ‘guilty’ of, I don’t understand the logic in giving him to your competition for free.

That's why if I were a chiefs fan i'd want the NFL to make a swift decision. Was reading earlier that the NFL's conduct policy can force a player to talk during investigation or they'd be suspended without pay.

Let the NFL do it's justice, and I think Clark can hide behind that IF he wants to keep him on the team. That's up to him. Maybe he goes ahead and trades him this weekend.

I 100% believe that Clark is very much hoping the NFL acts quickly and strongly, and doesn't leave a gap to fill.

[Cascadia]

Without knowing what he’s ‘guilty’ of, I don’t understand the logic in giving him to your competition for free.

Doing that wouldn't be a matter of logic, but of principle. And it's the privilege and the burden of the owner to get to choose how much that matters.

I'm not sure cutting him immediately is the decision I'd make. But I could understand where that decision would come from.

Chance logic to principle if you want. Point remains the same. We all
Learned from the Hunt situation that other teams will gladly take your All-Pro players for free.

Morality is not regulated by professional sports.

[jfish26]

I can't say you're wrong. But, you don't get to make the football decision to keep him and say you give a shit about the community and its values, etc etc. Not if you're being honest, anyway.

[Cascadia]

Sure I can, because I don’t know what he’s ‘guilty’ of going.

Do you?

[CrimsonNBlue]

But, you don't get to make the football decision to keep him and say you give a shit about the community and its values, etc etc. Not if you're being honest, anyway.

Look here, you nancy, it's fucking football. And Guess WHAT:

[pdub]

Let's keep politics to the poli-bored.

[Cascadia]

Thinking it’s likely that someone did a bad thing, particularly to a child is a LONG way from knowing exactly what someone actually did.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Thinking it’s likely that someone did a bad thing, particularly to a child is a LONG way from knowing exactly what someone actually did.

This would make more sense in the context of someone saying: "Clark Hunt should definitely cut Tyreek Hill." But, I haven't seen anyone in this thread go there.

What is known: Tyreek's son's arm is broke. It was done by either mom, dad, or both, and it was determined that the son was no longer safe inside either of the parents' home(s). Tyreek has a violent history and his selection by the Chiefs was met with a lot of local controversy.

That's enough for (1) the NFL and/or the Chiefs to do their own investigation by their own rules and (2) Clark to have to make a decision and have his feet held to the fire by the community to do something. Both of those are fair.

[Cascadia]

Thinking it’s likely that someone did a bad thing, particularly to a child is a LONG way from knowing exactly what someone actually did.

This would make more sense in the context of someone saying: "Clark Hunt should definitely cut Tyreek Hill." But, I haven't seen anyone in this thread go there.

What is known: Tyreek's son's arm is broke. It was done by either mom, dad, or both, and it was determined that the son was no longer safe inside either of the parents' home(s). Tyreek has a violent history and his selection by the Chiefs was met with a lot of local controversy.

That's enough for (1) the NFL and/or the Chiefs to do their own investigation by their own rules and (2) Clark to have to make a decision and have his feet held to the fire by the community to do something. Both of those are fair.

Do we really know, like fact without a doubt, that the broken arm is a direct result of the action of another person?

[CrimsonNBlue]

Yes. Do you think kids are removed from homes and an abuse/neglect case is opened because a kid fell off a trampoline?

I've represented people in Tyreek's position in these courts in KC for the better part of a decade.

[Cascadia]

Yes. Do you think kids are removed from homes and an abuse/neglect case is opened because a kid fell off a trampoline?

I've represented people in Tyreek's position in these courts in KC for the better part of a decade.

I think you’re being disingenuous with your answer.

I haven’t followed every move of this case, but my understanding is that we do not know for a fact that this broken arm is the direct result of the actions of someone else.

If you have hard evidence to the contrary, please provide. I’m genuinely interested.

And, yes, I know from personal experience that Child Services can and will overreact based on acquisitions alone.