Bill Belichick coached special teams with Detroit, Denver, and with the Giants prior to becoming DC.
Chris Kluwe - "I was fired by 2 cowards and a bigot"
- Thread starter The Napkin
- Start date
I doubt the PR hit from Kluwe's activism or from the blowback from how the Vikings handled it have much of an impact on the Vikings' bottom line one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Vikings were afraid it could get worse down the road. Criticism of the Pope may have increased the scrutiny.
Good for Kluwe to speak his mind, but the idea that professional sports teams like to keep activism, criticism of religion, or political views from their players out of the spotlight isn't unreasonable. Teams are in the family entertainment business. Anything controversial is a distraction and has the potential to piss people off. Whether it is Kluwe, Luke Scott, Tim Thomas, whatever -- I don't think the views matter so much. Those activities just become another variable to evaluate what value a player brings to a team.
Good for Kluwe to speak his mind, but the idea that professional sports teams like to keep activism, criticism of religion, or political views from their players out of the spotlight isn't unreasonable. Teams are in the family entertainment business. Anything controversial is a distraction and has the potential to piss people off. Whether it is Kluwe, Luke Scott, Tim Thomas, whatever -- I don't think the views matter so much. Those activities just become another variable to evaluate what value a player brings to a team.
mascho said:
Interesting, thanks. I didn't know that about Harbaugh, Cowher, and Ditka.
The Wikipedia entries for Harbaugh and Cowher, though, say that they weren't both just ST coaches, but position coaches too, and seem to imply that there is (whether justifiable or not) a bias against a guy with only ST background becoming a head coach:
Again, I have no position on this, just remarking that it would seem odd that a guy with a ST background would be considered a frontrunner for a head coaching position when there are probably dozens of talented coordinators and position coaches around.
moondog80 said:
I was merely pointing out the contrast between the Ravens giving tons of support to the player, and the Vikings not, while privately telling him to STFU.
And yeah, they did cut him this spring. But he was 37 and I doubt had anything to do with his views, considering the amount of support they had given him in that area throughout his time there.
I fully support all of the social stances that Chris Kluwe has put out over the years, but if I was helping run an NFL team there's no chance I'd be interested in bringing him on. Your goal in managing a team is to make a smooth and efficient unit with as little drama as possible - not advancing social causes (as good as they might be). It's not rocket science to look at the average NFL locker room and see that the culture present in many teams is one that simply doesn't mesh with Kluwe's viewpoints. Why bring in someone who's going to potentially clash with that culture and create drama within the team? Kluwe is on the right side of history, but supporting the right side in this case probably doesn't leave you with a better football team. From a team perspective, it makes far more sense to get a league average punter who'll be one of the guys and effectively be invisible.
It sucks, but it is what it is. The right thing on a moral level doesn't always equate to being the right thing to do for business (or in this case, NFL) success.
It sucks, but it is what it is. The right thing on a moral level doesn't always equate to being the right thing to do for business (or in this case, NFL) success.
DrewDawg said:
There was certainly arguments and drama involved with a bigoted coach and other team management that clearly didn't want to talk with a punter about PR issues. There's no direct proof of any tensions between Kluwe and any teammates, but given the NFL's hypermacho culture you'd have to think that a portion of the players on the team wouldn't really care for him.
The overall point I'm driving at is that for Kluwe and his future team prospects, if I'm a GM I stay away from him like he's kryptonite. Because if you're in that position, you don't really want to find out if any of your coaching staff or players may be bigots. You don't want to run into a situation in where Kluwe ends up exposing player or team official X as a colossal idiot in a PR shitstorm. At the end of the day, you're not bringing people into your organization because they're morally good people, you're bringing people into your organization because you think they can help create/be a part of a top level football team.
So we have no idea how the Pats handled that issue, yet you know how they handled it?moondog80 said:
I fucking loathe references to the Patriot Way or the Belichick Way. BB wants to minimize distractions for sure, but there really isn't much evidence that Kluwe's statements were an issue with teammates or a distraction to the team. I like to think they would have just said make sure you are making it clear these are your personal viewpoints and not the team's, and otherwise you wouldn't have heard them comment on the story, but who knows.
I stand by what I said upthread, though, and that there is not much evidence that the Pats would look to muzzle someone for speaking their mind sincerely on a social issue like this that is important to them. This to me is much different from telling Gronk to cool it with the pictures of porn stars wearing his jersey.
moondog80 said:
The vibe I'm getting from your work in this thread is that you view Kluwe as someone who didn't have the standing to be an outspoken activist for a controversial cause. And therefore he should have been smart and STFU about the issue.
To be fair, I don't disagree with the general point you are making, which is that marginal players don't get cut a lot of slack. In that context, there's no question that Kluwe's activism gave the Vikings coaches an incentive to cut him the moment they thought they could replace his production.
Where I disagree with you is in how you are reading the tonality of Kluwe's article. You seem to be annoyed at it and wish he would let it go. And my question is this: why?
If Kluwe is to be believed, his position coach responded to his activism by repeatedly using bigoted language in his presence and by attacking Kluwe in front of his teammates whenever possible. Kluwe's payback is to expose this behavior not because he thinks it's going to get him a job in the league - to the contrary, he's pretty sure that he'll never get a job in the league after this - but because he feels that it's important for people to know who Mike Priefer is and how he treats his players and how Priefer's bosses ignored the situation.
After everything we've learned about NFL culture this year after the Richie Incognito/Jonathan Martin debacle, I can't blame him for doing so.
Where I disagree with you is in how you are reading the tonality of Kluwe's article. You seem to be annoyed at it and wish he would let it go. And my question is this: why?
In his defense he didn't read the article 'cause, like, reading's hard, man, so ... Wait. That's not really a defense at all.
In his defense he didn't read the article 'cause, like, reading's hard, man, so ... Wait. That's not really a defense at all.
Hextall said:
The guy who won the job over Kluwe led the league in Punting average.
Kluwe wrote a pretty good article about it in camp, King beat him out, and was cheaper since he is a rookie. The Raiders are a very progressive organization politically, and seemed to have nothing bad to say about Kluwe when he left, just that King did a slight bit better in camp / pre-season.
http://mmqb.si.com/2013/08/09/chris-kluwe-marquette-king-competition/
Average Reds said:
I have no problem with Kluwe calling out the position coach, for exactly the reasons you state. But that's not all he does. I think that he's a bit harsh on Frazier and Speilman, and more than that, I think he's falsely turning himself into a martyr when he says he was cut because of all this.
moondog80 said:
Im sure its slanted somewhat, and its inconclusive to me that he was cut for his views (Id guess it was a mix of performance and other factors, wouldnt hazard a guess as to the mix), but Frazier and Spielman aren't going to be adversely affected by that piece IMHO. Only the special teams coach is, and he deserves it unless Kluwe is making up stuff whole cloth.
Gunfighter 09 said:
Kluwe supported the Raiders decision to cut him.
Stitch01 said:
True:
Point being, Kluwe was well liked during his three months in Oakland and is not some kind of malcontent. Kluwe is right though, there is some challenge for more senior kickers, Punters, long snappers etc, in that vesting makes them more expensive.
I think Kluwe recognizes that he has a more of a future in writing and other media than he does in football and wants his side of the Minnesota story told.
moondog80 said:
If Kluwe's depictions of Mike Priefer's behavior are true, both Frazier and Speilman (who simply had to know) are cowards for protecting him.
Average Reds said:
That's a stretch, it doesn't mention anything at all about protecting Priefer or Kluwe voicing concerns about him that went unanswered. It's pretty clear his use of the word "coward" is about Frazier and Spielman asking him to keep a lower profile.
Can people read the damn article before commenting? He's a good writer and it's not that long.
It seems pretty clear that he is mostly trying to expose Preifer's behavior which shouldn't be acceptable in a locker room or any workplace regardless of anyone's opinion on gay marriage.
It seems pretty clear that he is mostly trying to expose Preifer's behavior which shouldn't be acceptable in a locker room or any workplace regardless of anyone's opinion on gay marriage.
The most annoying thing around these parts is the disparity between how people I know, and those in my immediate community, view Kluwe (amusing folk hero) and how he gets talked about by the meatheads on sports radio (idiot liberal agitator).
Before this even broke, a few days ago the local idiots were discussing possible replacements for Frazier, and it went like this:
Host A: "[Coach X] was in the Army. He's a smart guy. I think he'd make a great coach. He requires discipline. But, can you imaging him getting along with Kluwe in that locker room?"
Host B: [knowing laugh] "Forget it. Just forget it. I don't think those two would last a season."
Host A: "My word. Kluwe...sheesh. See ya buddy."
Before this even broke, a few days ago the local idiots were discussing possible replacements for Frazier, and it went like this:
Host A: "[Coach X] was in the Army. He's a smart guy. I think he'd make a great coach. He requires discipline. But, can you imaging him getting along with Kluwe in that locker room?"
Host B: [knowing laugh] "Forget it. Just forget it. I don't think those two would last a season."
Host A: "My word. Kluwe...sheesh. See ya buddy."
I firmly believe Chris Kluwe would still be punting in the NFL if he kept his mouth shut about gay rights. I also believe Tim Tebow would be on a NFL roster if was just another football player who loved Jesus and hadn't done a variety of things -- some intentional, some not -- which drew attention to his religiosity. (The Pats made a decision on the merits, but several teams where he would've made more sense didn't test the waters.)
Teams won't tolerate any potential distractions from marginal players. I don't like it, and it makes me love the NFL a little less, but it's the way it is.
Why the Vikings tolerate a special teams coach with an agenda is beyond me, and might point to why they are such a hapless organization. The decision to fire Leslie Frazier sure looks like a good one.
Teams won't tolerate any potential distractions from marginal players. I don't like it, and it makes me love the NFL a little less, but it's the way it is.
Why the Vikings tolerate a special teams coach with an agenda is beyond me, and might point to why they are such a hapless organization. The decision to fire Leslie Frazier sure looks like a good one.
Here's a piece from back when Kluwe was released that makes a pretty solid argument that it was not because of his advocacy:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/56119/chris-kluwe-release-the-role-of-advocacy
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/56119/chris-kluwe-release-the-role-of-advocacy
It would be nice if people were able to raise these somewhat outrageous issues without getting blamed.
He stood up for a civil right. People also told Jackie Robinson to quit remember. IT seems impossible for any player to come out as gay at the moment and this only supports that. This is a close are we are likely to get, a well spoken advocate of a civil rights issue.
There is no reason for his coach to start up with homophobic slurs, gay jokes etc, because a guy chooses to support a view.
The only way we get to hear about this is a guy like this says, 1) i have other options 2) i'm probably done in the NFL anyway. Or if a guy has had so far enough that he quits the game, the Martin scenario.
Personally, I (btw LIKE HE SAYS) don't know and am dubious he was cut just for this. More likely it caused a big clash with his homophobic and there coupled with the fact he wasn't very good and was more expensive than other options meant that he was probably not a guy that anyone was going to fight the special teams coach to keep.
Regardless of the roster part, what reason if there to accept a coach using homophobic slurs and general homophobic insults at a guy for supporting a cause. You don't agree, discuss it, or speak out for the other side.
This is public, and apparently to the point players were uncomfortable and making supportive comments to Kluwe about how outrageous some language was. I mean where the hell is the reaction to this? Why isn't a more senior coach pulling this ass aside and saying, this is not how you talk to people.
Frankly, I didn't love the article for the martyr element. It would have been better if he said this is the reaction to people having an opinion and this guy shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and I can afford to speak out. Which he did, but by bringing in the whole I got fired over it, and I'd do it again. Shut up. You weren't that good, and another team tried you out and cut you, which you skipped over as it didn't fit the point.
He stood up for a civil right. People also told Jackie Robinson to quit remember. IT seems impossible for any player to come out as gay at the moment and this only supports that. This is a close are we are likely to get, a well spoken advocate of a civil rights issue.
There is no reason for his coach to start up with homophobic slurs, gay jokes etc, because a guy chooses to support a view.
The only way we get to hear about this is a guy like this says, 1) i have other options 2) i'm probably done in the NFL anyway. Or if a guy has had so far enough that he quits the game, the Martin scenario.
Personally, I (btw LIKE HE SAYS) don't know and am dubious he was cut just for this. More likely it caused a big clash with his homophobic and there coupled with the fact he wasn't very good and was more expensive than other options meant that he was probably not a guy that anyone was going to fight the special teams coach to keep.
Regardless of the roster part, what reason if there to accept a coach using homophobic slurs and general homophobic insults at a guy for supporting a cause. You don't agree, discuss it, or speak out for the other side.
This is public, and apparently to the point players were uncomfortable and making supportive comments to Kluwe about how outrageous some language was. I mean where the hell is the reaction to this? Why isn't a more senior coach pulling this ass aside and saying, this is not how you talk to people.
Frankly, I didn't love the article for the martyr element. It would have been better if he said this is the reaction to people having an opinion and this guy shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, and I can afford to speak out. Which he did, but by bringing in the whole I got fired over it, and I'd do it again. Shut up. You weren't that good, and another team tried you out and cut you, which you skipped over as it didn't fit the point.
Yes. He focuses on it too, much while trying to go out of his way to say he cant prove it.moondog80 said:
The part of the article that matters is the part where the coach was a total asshole and no one called him on it. At least IMO.
That's what stuck out to me as well. Though it shouldn't come as much of a shock to anyone how common such attitudes are throughout the league considering the pretty obvious blackballing of Kerry Rhodes, who ranked out in the top 5 last season at a position of need for most teams.LondonSox said:
That's a poor statistical evaluation by Seifert. It needs to consider where Kluwe was punting from relative to the GB and CHI punters (hint: considering their nearly identical nets and Kluwe's lower TB numbers, it's probably farther back) and the context of net punting in general. Not important in the grand scheme: if the nuke drops, Kluwe's punting capabilities are barely in the fallout range.
Anyway, I tend to doubt that Kluwe got cut primarily because of his advocacy. Wilf supported him, and even if Frazier and Spielman are cowards, I don't see a great reason to kowtow to a ST coach who hasn't put out exceedingly good results. I believe it's because they could get a similar performance (which they have from Locke this year) for a fraction of the financial cost.
With that said, I don't have much of a reason to disbelieve Kluwe. He's a smart guy, he knows this probably ends his NFL career if it's not over already. I see no reason he would waste his bridge burning on an ST coach unless there's more to it than "he cost me my punting job and no one else signed me," especially with the specific quotes he's giving. There are supporters of Priefer aren't really denying what Kluwe said, and aren't in a position to. Kluwe has repeatedly proven to be a thoughtful, well-spoken man, and the timing and relative transparency in his statements all make sense to me.
Preifer's son isn't exactly covering himself in glory either.
Anyway, I tend to doubt that Kluwe got cut primarily because of his advocacy. Wilf supported him, and even if Frazier and Spielman are cowards, I don't see a great reason to kowtow to a ST coach who hasn't put out exceedingly good results. I believe it's because they could get a similar performance (which they have from Locke this year) for a fraction of the financial cost.
With that said, I don't have much of a reason to disbelieve Kluwe. He's a smart guy, he knows this probably ends his NFL career if it's not over already. I see no reason he would waste his bridge burning on an ST coach unless there's more to it than "he cost me my punting job and no one else signed me," especially with the specific quotes he's giving. There are supporters of Priefer aren't really denying what Kluwe said, and aren't in a position to. Kluwe has repeatedly proven to be a thoughtful, well-spoken man, and the timing and relative transparency in his statements all make sense to me.
Preifer's son isn't exactly covering himself in glory either.
moondog80 said:
LondonSox articulates the point of the article very well: the bigotry and unprofessional behavior exhibited by Kluwe's position coach is unacceptable and he is holding the coach (Priefer) and his enablers (Frazier, Speilman) accountable.
Average Reds said:
I'm sure that was part of his motivation, and good for him. But he sure does spend a lot of time buidling his case about losing his job. At least twice as much space is devoted to that instead of Priefer, whose name isn't even brought up unti the 13th paragraph. Look at the headlines. Look at the original post of the thread. Look at the first and last few paragraphs of the article. The thrust is that he spoke up, would not stop, and was fired as a result.
moondog80 said:
Here is Kluwe's quote from the last paragraph, he knows the score:
The article you linked is interesting, in that it provides the best explanation to date in terms of salary considerations. Kluwe's admitted (slightly below) league average punting is not worth $1.5M, league average punting is worth a little under $1M, see the link below. No punter makes more than $3.9M and 16 punters make less than $1M. Regardless of the PITA factor, there was an entirely defensible economic reason to cut Kluwe.
http://overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=P
Surprised it has not made the thread so far that several Vikings, including kicker Blair Walsh, who, along with the long snapper, would have a very similar relationship to the special teams coach as Kluwe, are denying the validity of Kluwe's story.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/238524261.html
I have no idea where the truth actually lies, though I would be well and truly shocked if Kluwe is fabricating some of the quotes. He seems like a man of character who genuinely wants a media/writing career career. Getting caught fabricating would cost him any chance at that career.
Kluwe's book: http://www.amazon.com/Beautifully-Unique-Sparkleponies-Football-Absurdities/dp/0316236772/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388725765&sr=8-1&keywords=kluwe
Gunfighter 09 said:
FWIW, I sort of referenced this in the supporters part of what I posted.
I can't place any value in Locke or Walsh on this. This isn't because they're untrustworthy or wrong, but I don't see how they have any professional choice on this. Even a "no comment" or referring reporters to the team will be considered a tacit admission of Kluwe's statements, and at this point, he still decides their professional fates.
Plus, as Drew points out, both Walsh and Locke were brought in under the current ST coach's regime, and Kluwe does note a contextual change in personalities. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sense of loyalty and that they don't hear much of anything that was said to Kluwe.
It's not just the NFL, it's the nature of the US economy as well. With unemployment so high, many employees are replaceable. Only a small number of employees have a unique enough set of skills that employers will gladly tolerate other annoyances like workplace disruption or actions that reflect poorly on the company. In the NFL the valuable players are guys like Manning and Dez Bryant and TO. In the job market those are partners at a law firm with a good practice niche where the value they bring in makes them tolerable.maufman said:
Companies don't usually tolerate any distractions from marginal employees.
The NFL employment market is different in some ways: because the teams are a monopoly, and compensation is very high relative to other jobs players could get. Which means the teams hold all the power. For example players don't quit because they dislike the team or coach; Martin is a rare exception. But the general point still applies: inability to tolerate distractions is a natural attribute of a big organization. And both in the NFL and in the general labor market, most employees don't have enough negotiating power from their market value to resist that desire to remove distractions.
In addition to the their obvious self-interest in supporting the curreng regime, Walsh et al. aren't denying that Priefer said what Kluwe alleges he said. Their support is in broad terms of "leadership" and "professionalism." Those are entirely subjective terms, and frankly meaningless. Likewise, their opinion on why Kluwe was released is useless, because they would have had less awareness of it than even Kluwe.
I mean, this would be as if, in a sexual harassment lawsuit against a corporate VP for saying "nice tits, sugarplum", the defense team trotted out some current employees who said "Mr. VP is a great boss, and he really does a great job."
I mean, this would be as if, in a sexual harassment lawsuit against a corporate VP for saying "nice tits, sugarplum", the defense team trotted out some current employees who said "Mr. VP is a great boss, and he really does a great job."
Frank Ganz of the Chiefs was a special teams coach who lasted one year in the late 1980's as the head coach of the Chiefs.OilCanShotTupac said:
Gunfighter 09 said:
I'm certain there's a "field position" joke somewhere in all this discussion but I can't find it.
ZP1 said:
Yeah, but who do you blame for causing the disturbance? It sounds like his teammates didn't have a problem with it, just Preifer, and if Preifer wanted people not to know he was a bigot he could shut up. So while I understand the point about not wanting the boat rocked, I disagree with what is often the conventional wisdom of who's responsible for the rocking here.
I'd like to know what the owner thinks about all this, given the part about him in the piece.
moondog80 said:
I think you may be putting what I think is undue emphasis on the format of the piece. It's a narrative, not an essay. So yes, a lot of it is about him because he is offering his narrative.
Writing a narrative in situations like this is often a very good idea. Lawyers and investigators will often (Generally? Is there a lawyer in the house?
) advise a person in such situations to write out a narrative account of what happened. He could easily have been thinking he might some day file a grievance or law suit, or think he might some day go public with his story and open himself to a possible law suit. I wouldn't even be surprised if he consulted a lawyer who advised him to write it up.One way or another, though, writing a narrative account for stuff like this is a good practice. I don't see any reason to hold it against him that he decided to just go ahead and alter it a bit and make it public rather than write a new essay. This form is probably more comprehensive informationally than an essay anyway; we could amend the point to, "this guy is a bigot and those two guys are cowards and here's how I know," which provides evidence. So yeah, he's in the story a lot because it's about him.