Kansas Crimson

Chiefs got more than they could ask for from Hill. They got him on the cheap, made millions of of him and before signing him to a large guaranteed and long term deal they can wash their hands of him. The real question is what can the Chiefs do to try and salvage the moral side but also protect the football interests...

Draft picks mean you are building for the future. Instant value like Clark, were you have to leverage some of that future commodity you have built up mean you are trying to win NOW. That is the mode the Chiefs are in. I can see Veach being very aggressive between today and post June 1st to go get a corner and now WR in the draft or FA.

holidaysmore wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:03 am Chiefs got more than they could ask for from Hill. They got him on the cheap, made millions of of him and before signing him to a large guaranteed and long term deal they can wash their hands of him. The real question is what can the Chiefs do to try and salvage the moral side but also protect the football interests...

Draft picks mean you are building for the future. Instant value like Clark, were you have to leverage some of that future commodity you have built up mean you are trying to win NOW. That is the mode the Chiefs are in. I can see Veach being very aggressive between today and post June 1st to go get a corner and now WR in the draft or FA.

Just from a football and entertainment standpoint, the situation makes me sad. I feel robbed of 5+ years of supernatural highlights, a perfect match of QB and receiver.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:56 am Pshh. Whitlock’s never seen a narrative that gets him clicks that he doesn’t love.

I feel no sympathy for the chiefs on Tyreek Hill, you get what you pay for. But, the reason they’re making moves is because they have a super bowl caliber offense but desperately need 2 more playmakers on the defensive side of the ball.

It is incredibly awkward to introduce Clark today.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:41 am

holidaysmore wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:03 am Chiefs got more than they could ask for from Hill. They got him on the cheap, made millions of of him and before signing him to a large guaranteed and long term deal they can wash their hands of him. The real question is what can the Chiefs do to try and salvage the moral side but also protect the football interests...

Draft picks mean you are building for the future. Instant value like Clark, were you have to leverage some of that future commodity you have built up mean you are trying to win NOW. That is the mode the Chiefs are in. I can see Veach being very aggressive between today and post June 1st to go get a corner and now WR in the draft or FA.

Just from a football and entertainment standpoint, the situation makes me sad. I feel robbed of 5+ years of supernatural highlights, a perfect match of QB and receiver.

True. Hill won't be around anymore, and he was a nice WR for Mahomes. But I am also of the belief that Mahomes can make anyone look good. Conley was fairly quiet before this past year, and he had a good year. DeMarcus Robinson kind of in the same boat.

But they HAVE to get a WR today. WR and corner are probably the 2 positions they go after today with the 61st and 63rd pick.

They still have 7 picks in this draft. So although they don't have a first, they'll have some solid choices with 2 in the 2nd round and 2 in the 6th. Can get some productive players in those spots if they draft well.

They also have a ton of cap space. Maybe they can absorb someone's bad WR contract.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:55 am They also have a ton of cap space. Maybe they can absorb someone's bad WR contract.

Yeah they pushed Clark's contract numbers back a year basically to add a key piece.

I'd be cool with an AJ Green experience for a year before he becomes a FA.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:09 pm Thats enough evidence there.
Not sure how you can keep him on the team.

So where is the bar now? Do teams have to get rid of anyone who has ever done something scummy? Or just those who do it while under their contract? Why do the Chiefs have to release these guys, but other teams are free to sign them? There was no big protest when the Browns signed Hunt so why the heck did the Chiefs have to get rid of him?

It's all a bunch of faux outrage, selective morality and PR BS.

Lots of differences between hitting a grown woman, getting a DUI, spanking a child with a belt and whatever else compared to intentionally punching a 3 year old child in the chest and that child getting a broken arm while under your roof and it not be an accident. Adrian Peterson got a suspension for basically a year after using a switch to discipline his kids.

Hill did much worse, and has a previous history. He's on his 3rd chance, highly doubt he gets a 4th chance.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:40 amIt's all a bunch of faux outrage, selective morality and PR BS.

And people (likely) in jail and 3 kids with a broken life ahead of them, 1 with a broken arm.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:40 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:09 pm Thats enough evidence there.
Not sure how you can keep him on the team.

So where is the bar now? Do teams have to get rid of anyone who has ever done something scummy? Or just those who do it while under their contract? Why do the Chiefs have to release these guys, but other teams are free to sign them? There was no big protest when the Browns signed Hunt so why the heck did the Chiefs have to get rid of him?

It's all a bunch of faux outrage, selective morality and PR BS.

I don't think there's easy answers to any of this. At the end of the day, it's Clark's decision (and only his decision) on whether this type of behavior is something that can be tolerated by the team he owns.

The math for that is incredibly complex - of course winning matters, but so, too does perception in the community. Most directly, that means sponsors and ticket sales. I don't think the latter could possibly be jeopardized (#15 taking snaps will handle that), but certainly the former could.

The part that's impossible to quantify is the nature of the Hunt family's values. Even if it's bad business, if the Hunts decide they won't be part of making a guy like Hill rich...that's their prerogative. If they decide the juice is worth the squeeze...same.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:58 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:40 amIt's all a bunch of faux outrage, selective morality and PR BS.

And people (likely) in jail and 3 kids with a broken life ahead of them, 1 with a broken arm.

The police handle all of that. I am talking about the Chiefs role in this.

I mean, I get it. I work for a very conservative organization with a large regional footprint and if my name hit the papers as the perpetrator of these crimes, I doubt I would keep my job either.

But the whole cycle in pro leagues of auto-canning these guys only to see them scooped right back up by your competitors is such a joke.

Add in the hypocrisy of barring Tyreek Hill from team activities the same week you trade a first round pick for Frank Clark, who got arrested for domestic violence. The whole thing is such an obvious cycle of PR management dressed up as "morals".

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:21 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:58 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:40 amIt's all a bunch of faux outrage, selective morality and PR BS.

And people (likely) in jail and 3 kids with a broken life ahead of them, 1 with a broken arm.

The police handle all of that. I am talking about the Chiefs role in this.

Thought you were talking about the public reaction.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:29 pm I mean, I get it. I work for a very conservative organization with a large regional footprint and if my name hit the papers as the perpetrator of these crimes, I doubt I would keep my job either.

But the whole cycle in pro leagues of auto-canning these guys only to see them scooped right back up by your competitors is such a joke.

Add in the hypocrisy of barring Tyreek Hill from team activities the same week you trade a first round pick for Frank Clark, who got arrested for domestic violence. The whole thing is such an obvious cycle of PR management dressed up as "morals".

Absolutely.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:29 pm I mean, I get it. I work for a very conservative organization with a large regional footprint and if my name hit the papers as the perpetrator of these crimes, I doubt I would keep my job either.

But the whole cycle in pro leagues of auto-canning these guys only to see them scooped right back up by your competitors is such a joke.

Add in the hypocrisy of barring Tyreek Hill from team activities the same week you trade a first round pick for Frank Clark, who got arrested for domestic violence. The whole thing is such an obvious cycle of PR management dressed up as "morals".

I can't say you're wrong about any of this. And the NFL is, not unlike the NCAA, really just a trade association for its constituent owners. If the owners really wanted to ban bad actors, of course they could.

I have a hard time figuring out whether, again just like the NCAA, inconsistent enforcement and punishment is a feature, or a bug.

And, God, I have no idea what I'd do in Clark Hunt's shoes. I'd like to think I'd put ethics and my responsibility to the community over whatever incremental hit to my Super Bowl chances that would result from cutting Hill. But I also know it's got to be easy to tell yourself that your civic responsibility is to win Super Bowls.

Trading for Clark and releasing Hunt is a bit silly. It is a bad thing when competitors can benefit from domestic violence. A better solution is NFL-paid counselors who can lift suspensions (or not). Many people are damaged in broken homes and could use some professional intervention. I think Hill is one who needs real help.

Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:38 pm Trading for Clark and releasing Hunt is a bit silly. It is a bad thing when competitors can benefit from domestic violence. A better solution is NFL-paid counselors who can lift suspensions (or not). Many people are damaged in broken homes and could use some professional intervention. I think Hill is one who needs real help.

Does Hill's past not matter? He's had counseling. He's known that he's on the razor's edge between no career, and a nine-figure career.

I see Hill as a cautionary tail on barely any counseling versus a complete supervised continuing regimen.

Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:45 pm I see Hill as a cautionary tail on barely any counseling versus a complete supervised continuing regimen.

I don't follow.

Everything we were led to believe was that Hill was being a model citizen and up until this off season, at least to the public he was. In this case the age old additive of, 'you are who you are' is most likely true.

The first thing if I was Hunt is to realize that he has a job to do first, which is to act in the best interest of the football team. Unfortunately the morality has to be second. You don't win Super Bowls or get extensions because you did the 'right' thing. You release Hill now he will get picked up in a year. You then have a WR who was top 5 in his position with a year off who is STILL on his rookie deal. Either you wait for Goodell to make the call or you put him on the Reserved / Suspended list for the whole year and re-evaluate in another year.

Hopefully the Chiefs learned from the Hunt situation. They got peer pressured into the public outcry and gave away a top 5 RB for nothing.

It does suck that this is what this has come down to but if the Chiefs release Hill because it is the right and moral thing to do (which I agree. he should be done with football for life.) some team will come back in a year and pick him up. Now you have given away two of your best football players for nothing.