Kansas Crimson

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:32 amBut I think the Chiefs played it as well as they could

I'd have to agree. The Chiefs have historically been terrible about handling just about everything not related to the actual game. Clark's just, different.

I think they're in a tough spot, here, but no fault of their own.

And, there is one feel-goodiness that comes out of this whole thing for which the Chiefs played a huge part of: Keitzman was collateral damage.

Time for on the field now, because that's what honestly and sadly truly matters to NFL teams..

The Chiefs offense is going to have 3 guys that run 4.4 and under in the 40 in Hill, Watkins and Hardman. A TE still in his prime in Kelce. A decent RB group in Damian Williams, Carlos Hyde, Darrell Williams and the rookie from Utah State. On top of the reigning MVP in his 2nd full season as a starter and could "regress" and still throw 40 TD and 4,500 yards.

On top of an improved defense and an improved scheme on defense. This team is probably the most stacked team in all of football.

I honestly think the Chiefs go 13-3. 4 of the last 6 games are very tough, but I think they will do very well this year.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:48 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:32 amBut I think the Chiefs played it as well as they could

I'd have to agree. The Chiefs have historically been terrible about handling just about everything not related to the actual game. Clark's just, different.

I think they're in a tough spot, here, but no fault of their own.

And, there is one feel-goodiness that comes out of this whole thing for which the Chiefs played a huge part of: Keitzman was collateral damage.

I agree the Chiefs ended up looking very smart for not acting when there wasn't a need to. The Hunt situation was different in at least two important ways: (1) the video, obviously, and (2) coming to light during the season.

It is also possible (likely?) that Hill told the Chiefs every detail right away (and that his account bore out as information became known/available).

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:53 am Time for on the field now, because that's what honestly and sadly truly matters to NFL teams..

The Chiefs offense is going to have 3 guys that run 4.4 and under in the 40 in Hill, Watkins and Hardman. A TE still in his prime in Kelce. A decent RB group in Damian Williams, Carlos Hyde, Darrell Williams and the rookie from Utah State. On top of the reigning MVP in his 2nd full season as a starter and could "regress" and still throw 40 TD and 4,500 yards.

On top of an improved defense and an improved scheme on defense. This team is probably the most stacked team in all of football.

I honestly think the Chiefs go 13-3. 4 of the last 6 games are very tough, but I think they will do very well this year.

The optimism isn't wrong or misplaced, but I'll eat Sevenyear's shorts if Watkins can run a 4.4 right now.

The Chiefs will probably win the Super Bowl unless the Patriots do.

Ok. He was an 4.4 coming out of college. Now he's probably a 4.6. But my main point is that he isn't slow. The skill guys are all fast and athletic as shit and will be tough to stop.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:39 am Great news if you ask me. I’ve never believed that sports should punish athletes for off the field conduct. That’s what the law is for

It definitely makes things really complicated. Once you go down that road, it's going to cause problems. If you have strict rules against PEDs for example, and suspend someone for 8 games or a year, and then you have someone do violence against a woman or a child and you give them anything less it sends a message that you care more about HGH than violence against women or the well-being of children.

"Should" or "should not" is certainly up for debate.

What I think we can all agree on, though, is if you are going to do it, create a good uniform process and apply it equally. You can and should tweak it as time goes on, but what frustrates all fans is the inconsistency and lack of transparency. NCAA and NFL are the kings of that. NBA and MLB, to an extent, is a lot better at it.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:50 am NFL needed to step up here and didn't.
It's not on the Chiefs.
I'm pretty surprised he didn't get at least 2 ( and figured 4 ) games.

How can the NFL "step up" if they genuinely cannot determine what happened and who was responsible?

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:32 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:50 am NFL needed to step up here and didn't.
It's not on the Chiefs.
I'm pretty surprised he didn't get at least 2 ( and figured 4 ) games.

How can the NFL "step up" if they genuinely cannot determine what happened and who was responsible?

I don't think Hill, or the union, would have raised an eyebrow at a 2-game suspension. He came into the league with a known issue. He obviously has not removed himself from a toxic relationship, that...caused? allowed?...things to happen to his son. He said words that, by their literal interpretation, are threatening/menacing.

I think there was enough there to support a modest suspension. I also think the Chiefs would be in a much better spot right now had a modest suspension been issued.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:22 am "Should" or "should not" is certainly up for debate.

What I think we can all agree on, though, is if you are going to do it, create a good uniform process and apply it equally. You can and should tweak it as time goes on, but what frustrates all fans is the inconsistency and lack of transparency. NCAA and NFL are the kings of that. NBA and MLB, to an extent, is a lot better at it.

I would totally understand a league taking an approach that they'll align with law enforcement and judicial process conclusions, and that's it.

"He came into the league with a known issue. He obviously has not removed himself from a toxic relationship, that...caused? allowed?...things to happen to his son. He said words that, by their literal interpretation, are threatening/menacing."

Yup.
I think that alone, if you look at prior judgements on these things by the NFL, would warrant at least a 2 game suspension.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:22 am "Should" or "should not" is certainly up for debate.

What I think we can all agree on, though, is if you are going to do it, create a good uniform process and apply it equally. You can and should tweak it as time goes on, but what frustrates all fans is the inconsistency and lack of transparency. NCAA and NFL are the kings of that. NBA and MLB, to an extent, is a lot better at it.

But even that's easier said than done. I mean, what constitutes, for example a punch? What do you do in cases of domestic abuse cases where it gets real real murky? And then what about things that might not rise to the level of criminality, like a photos getting leaked from a boat sex orgy?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:55 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:22 am "Should" or "should not" is certainly up for debate.

What I think we can all agree on, though, is if you are going to do it, create a good uniform process and apply it equally. You can and should tweak it as time goes on, but what frustrates all fans is the inconsistency and lack of transparency. NCAA and NFL are the kings of that. NBA and MLB, to an extent, is a lot better at it.

But even that's easier said than done. I mean, what constitutes, for example a punch? What do you do in cases of domestic abuse cases where it gets real real murky? And then what about things that might not rise to the level of criminality, like a photos getting leaked from a boat sex orgy?

Can't disagree with that. Maybe that's where you do as jfish said and you leave it at a hard line of guilty plea or conviction. Even that's murky, though, given the inconsistencies of states' laws and the obvious susceptibility to flaws within the crim. justice system.

And I'm assuming the boat sex orgy is a dig at the Vikes, for which I take as a compliment.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:01 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:55 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:22 am "Should" or "should not" is certainly up for debate.

What I think we can all agree on, though, is if you are going to do it, create a good uniform process and apply it equally. You can and should tweak it as time goes on, but what frustrates all fans is the inconsistency and lack of transparency. NCAA and NFL are the kings of that. NBA and MLB, to an extent, is a lot better at it.

But even that's easier said than done. I mean, what constitutes, for example a punch? What do you do in cases of domestic abuse cases where it gets real real murky? And then what about things that might not rise to the level of criminality, like a photos getting leaked from a boat sex orgy?

Can't disagree with that. Maybe that's where you do as jfish said and you leave it at a hard line of guilty plea or conviction. Even that's murky, though, given the inconsistencies of states' laws and the obvious susceptibility to flaws within the crim. justice system.

And I'm assuming the boat sex orgy is a dig at the Vikes, for which I take as a compliment.

It wasn't necessarily, but was the obvious example to go to.

I don't remember if any charges were filed (prostitution or public indecency?) But it's the kind of thing where in a vacuum most people say, "who cares, it's consenting adults having sex" but when it's the lead story on sportscenter and makes national news, etc it's tough for a league to do nothing. And, in that case, you have boat employees seeing stuff they probably don't want to see, etc.

I mean, we're also in a climate where people want Louis CK to never be allowed to perform standup because he twice asked women at work if he could jerk off in front of them. We live in a culture obsessed watching people be punished for everything they do wrong, people are on twitter 24/7 demanding that people loose there jobs every time they act like an asshole.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:53 am
On top of an improved defense and an improved scheme on defense. This team is probably the most stacked team in all of football.

Kinda wait and see here.
Our corners are still pretty poor.
Same with our linebackers.

Our access to entertainers has certainly blurred the lines between accountability and shaming.

On the flip side, let's assume arguendo that Louis CK really did sexually assault (which unsolicited masturbating shows are) to females that he had power over, which power is likely a big part of something like that, then I do understand how some would think he should not be in that position for a very long time despite the absence of criminal convictions.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:45 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:32 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:50 am NFL needed to step up here and didn't.
It's not on the Chiefs.
I'm pretty surprised he didn't get at least 2 ( and figured 4 ) games.

How can the NFL "step up" if they genuinely cannot determine what happened and who was responsible?

I don't think Hill, or the union, would have raised an eyebrow at a 2-game suspension. He came into the league with a known issue. He obviously has not removed himself from a toxic relationship, that...caused? allowed?...things to happen to his son. He said words that, by their literal interpretation, are threatening/menacing.

I think there was enough there to support a modest suspension. I also think the Chiefs would be in a much better spot right now had a modest suspension been issued.

Huh? That's like saying you think Bill Self would OK with KU getting a postseason ban due to their relationship with bad actors at Adidas because they likely did "something" bad at some point. Sounds like Illy's support of that is rubbing off.

And the Chiefs are in a "worse spot" with their star re river being available right away? Yeah, OK. There will be 10 more NFL storylines between now and the start of the year. Any criticism of them right now is a big fat nothing burger compared to having Hill available when KC opens @ Jacksonville and @ Oakland.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:48 pm "He came into the league with a known issue. He obviously has not removed himself from a toxic relationship, that...caused? allowed?...things to happen to his son. He said words that, by their literal interpretation, are threatening/menacing."

Yup.
I think that alone, if you look at prior judgements on these things by the NFL, would warrant at least a 2 game suspension.

So let me get this straight, you think he should have been suspended because he is still in a relationship with the mother of his child despite her being of questionable character and because he said mean words to her?

So what, the NFL is now going to be the character police of who players are in relationships with?