Well but if the minnesota coaches really said those things, i'm glad he brought it to light. Problem is no one has stepped forward to confirm it, but then why would they? They'd be blacklisted as well.
The only coach that said anything potentially troublesome to me is the special teams coach and I have no issue with Kluwe making that known
So then why hire michael vick the dog killer? Why put up with culliver's "Gays gotta get up out of here" on super bowl week? Distractions come with the territory, they're used to it. . That's a piss poor excuse to cut someone.
You...watch football right? And you read my posts that in terms of distractions it's a balancing act?
Mike Vick was a multi-time pro bowl talent at QB, widely regarded as the most important position in the league. He came onto a team with a clear and undisputed #1 QB, reducing the chance for the "distraction" that'd come in a place where he'd maybe be pushing to start (Similar to why Tebow was less of a distraction for the Patriots and thus a better gamble for them then say the Jaguars). He was also multi-years removed from the height of his controversy.
Culliver was their nickel cornerback, didn't have a history of causing distractions, and made a comment the week of THE SUPER BOWL. Yeah, a team's probably not cutting a person at that point due to a distraction. Just like the Vikings didn't cut Kluwe when he posted his letter to Deadspin and started getting a ton of attention...or with the Ray Guy thing...or when he was writing articles about the owners in the Lockout...or any of the other immediate instances that caused distractions.
I never claimed that no NFL team will ever deal with any player causing a distraction in any way at any given time no matter the value. Let me perhaps clarify for you again what I was suggesting.
As I've stated, a team is unlikely to cut someone whose causing a distraction if they're ALSO playing very well. If Peyton Manning came out tomorrow and proclaimed that 9/11 was an inside job by the jews and George Bush in an effort to ceed control to a New World Order I'd almost guarantee he'd still be the starting QB for Denver's game next week let alone come next season. Why? Because the VALUE of him as a player outweighs the negative of him being a distraction.
I did however suggest that if you're playing poorly, at a position of little value, have a bad contract situation, or a combination of the three...
AND you're causing a distraction...then there's a better chance you may get cut.
You're right it's a poor excuse to cut someone JUST because they're causing a distraction. Thankfully I've not suggested that a team should, or has done that. I suggested that Kluwe was released primarily because of poor production and a bad contract situation, and that at BEST (worst depending how you look at it) the fact he was a distraction simply made the decision a lot easier to make.
Arguable, but for the most part yes. But can you say he's worse than the roughly 64 to 96 other QB's in the league? Regardless of peoples views on his mechanics or anything else, he did lead his team from a losing season when he took over to a playoff birth and victory. Having been here to witness JOHN BECK as a starting Quarterback, I can absolutely say that I find it hard to believe that Tebow isn't better than one of those 96 or so QB's out there in the league. However, I CAN understand that his VALUE as a 3rd string QB isn't greater than the negative his distracting presence would bring.
you're making the same false accusation as Kluwe.
What false accusation?
That Kluwe's actions were causing a distraction? Kluwe's own article notes that.
That Kluwe was average at best last year? That's an opinion, but the cold hard stats I posted to support it aren't opinion. Net, total, inside the 20? Bottom half of the league, at best, for all of them.
That Kluwe's contract situation was a poor one for the team? Again, how is that a false accusation? Their kicker this year is putting up comparable, if not better, numbers than Kluwe for $1 million less against the cap.
He may or may not be, but if what he heard from the coaches is accurate, i understand his outrage, even if that's not why he was cut. So he should phrased it differently, like: "Minnesota coaches are bigots who want to nuke gays" etc. By saying he was cut for this reason, only scares other players from speaking up.
Well, first...he'd still be incorrect with that statement since it seems like it was
one coach that had that instance. Nothing that he said indicated Frazier had any issue with his VIEWS, but simply with his activism about those views. Second, I'd have no issue with Kluwe's article if he was just ranting about the things that the Special Teams coach said. That's him responding to something he directly heard and recalling it. That's ENTIRELY different then this sour grapes article alleging intent and reasons behind his release while continually making excuses for himself and largely glossing over the rather glaring other reasons why he'd likely have been cut.
