Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Just Me]

I could lie and suggest that it's hilarious that the only guy in the league willing to make a stand is a punter....but it's not hilarious.

Brendon Ayanbadejo, anyone? (And Kluwe is not in the league).

[S197]

Kluwe backs off the "he should never coach again" stance:

"After thinking about it, after reflecting on it, I don't think an appropriate punishment is if he never coaches again," Kluwe said during his appearance. "I think it would be better if he got therapy, if he got counseling, and then a year or two from now, come back into the league as a role model, help out with LGBT groups, and show people that this is an important issue.

"What he said is very hurtful, but people can change."

The Vikings have hired two attorneys to conduct an independent investigation. Priefer remains under contract with the team.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10261 ... -was-harsh

[Purple bruise]

Dang...not that I expect anywhere here to believe me but a musician buddy of mine is good friends with Kluwe: I guess Chris told my pal about this stuff back when it happened.

I thought Chris was awesome the one time I met him. His band played the bar I work at the day after he got cut and is into the same stuff I am: Music, video games, politics

Hey, I am just curious. You posted this earlier under the Manziel topic, "With the exception of a few people on MVB...nobody knows anything about Manziel. He likes to party with babes and is not your everyday QB. He for sure doesn't fit the family friendly terrible-to-average Viking player that we're accustomed to." Is this your same musician friend that has hung out with Kluwe that gave you the heads up on Manziel chasing women and partying or where did you get that information?

[Just Me]

Kluwe backs off the "he should never coach again" stance:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10261 ... -was-harsh

Thanks for posting. I think that adjustment in stance is to Kluwe's credit. Instead of possibly seeming like a disgruntled employee who was fired for underperforming, he comes across as a person who is trying to effect meaningful change (without the hate/vindictiveness).

[PurpleKoolaid]

Kluwe gets a lawyer, and then backtracks on what he originally said. Im betting it wont be long until most of his whole story breaks downs. Its already Walsh and Priefers word against the attention grabbing Kluwe's.

[CalVike]

A few more thoughts based on recent developments.

1. I've read Kluwe does not want to name names of witnesses unless investigators agree not to name names in the report and to cloak the identity of witnesses, such as by interviewing all 52 2012 Vikings and writing the report with players names redacted. Investigators have not agreed to do so. Investigation could die quickly over this point IMHO if Kluwe stays true to his request and Vikings investigators fail to agree.

2. As mentioned above, Kluwe is backing off his statement in the deadspin article that Priefer should never have a job in Coaching ever again. That's good for Kluwe. That part of the diatribe for me had too much an element of "my career is over, yours should be over too" irrespective of the other issues at play. He cannot make the implications of the assertion in his incendiary deadspin piece fully go away simply by taking it back though. His credibility took a big hit over this one.

3. I heard Jerome Felton on Judd & Dubay radio show (Mon 1/6) express disappointment that Kluwe targeted Frazier and express skepticism the coaches ordered the punter to kick high and short because coverage teams were horrible. Felton suggested coverage teams were among the best in the league so the Kluwe comment made no sense. Kluwe likely did not make any friends with his colleagues on special teams with that assertion so it will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out with potential witnesses to the alleged behavior among that group.

4. We have heard nothing from long snapper Cullen Loeffler. In my opinion, he may have been in the meeting where Priefer allegedly made the most inflammatory comment based on an interview I heard on KFAN with Kluwe last Friday (posted earlier in this thread by someone). Others would have been Walsh and Priefer, who have both given statements issued by the Vikings in opposition to Kluwe's claims. Loeffler's the key witness is my suspicion.

5. BGM pointed out the punting stats for Kluwe were just fine. I don't disagree there was no decline. One article I read (cannot remember where) made the point that Kluwe was the 6th highest paid punter in the league but had stats only middle of the road, meaning over time Kluwe's stats may have stayed the same but so many other punters got better that Kluwe was not cost effective anymore with his high salary. The article cited the past several years for this trend, not just 2012. I thought it was interesting in light of the team's claim he was cut on performance alone and Kluwe's claim his stats did not change.

David




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Me]

I don't think it's to his credit; he's been roundly criticized for being so vindictive.

And rightfully so. I don't like the man because of his methods not because of his particular stance(s). I'm saying that since it's unknown what the actual truth is, Kluwe is taking a stance that is without the vindictiveness/hate I've seen from him in the past. That is to Kluwe's credit. It makes me (and presumably others) less likely to dismiss his claims as a "disgruntled employee." He's not looking at "destroying a man," he's looking at correcting what he perceives as "wrong" (allegedly).

I also don't think anyone has been convicted of anything yet. The man Priefer has his rights as well. What if one were in his shoes? Or Priefer was a member of one's family, a brother, father, son, a friend??

Corrrect, but I'm not saying Kluwe is the "right" party here. If I were in Priefer's shoes and it DIDN'T happen the way Kluwe is asserting, I would still be a little relieved that I don't have to deal with a profane, outspoken individual continually campaigning for my job termination. It's not going to change the fact that I would initiate civil action against the party who issued the false allegations.

None of that diminishes the fact that Kluwe seems to be making a change (for the better) on handling this situation . That's to his credit. Not to acknowledge that seems to convict Kluwe of 'lying' before all the facts are known. I give credit where credit is due.

[Just Me]

A few more thoughts based on recent developments.

1. I've read Kluwe does not want to name names of witnesses unless investigators agree not to name names in the report and to cloak the identity of witnesses, such as by interviewing all 52 2012 Vikings and writing the report with players names redacted. Investigators have not agreed to do so. Investigation could die quickly over this point IMHO if Kluwe stays true to his request and Vikings investigators fail to agree.

A party (or victim) in the investigation does not mandate how it is to be conducted. How can Wilf effectively manage his team without that information. Suppose, for the sake of argument, Priefer did make the comments, and another player pumps his fist and says, "spot on, coach!" Management cannot address these systemic issues because they don't know who the other parties are. The investigation is not going to "die" at this point, and Kluwe has no control over it. Kluwe may choose not to cooperate, but that will diminish his credibility if he chooses to go that route. The 'investigation train' has left the station, and it's not stopping until the investigation is completed.

2. As mentioned above, Kluwe is backing off his statement in the deadspin article that Priefer should never have a job in Coaching ever again. That's good for Kluwe. That part of the diatribe for me had too much an element of "my career is over, yours should be over too" irrespective of the other issues at play. He cannot make the implications of the assertion in his incendiary deadspin piece fully go away simply by taking it back though. His credibility took a big hit over this one.

I think that's accurate. That's why many of us were reluctant to jump on the "lynch Priefer" wagon. It still may turn out to be the truth, to have elements of truth, or to be totally false. I still disagree with Kluwe's methods, but saw that 'relaxing of his stance' a step in the right direction. I hope he can learn something from this and that the truth (whatever that may be) will win out.

4. We have heard nothing from long snapper Cullen Loeffler. In my opinion, he may have been in the meeting where Priefer allegedly made the most inflammatory comment based on an interview I heard on KFAN with Kluwe last Friday (posted earlier in this thread by someone). Others would have been Walsh and Priefer, who have both given statements issued by the Vikings in opposition to Kluwe's claims. Loeffler's the key witness is my suspicion.

That's a pretty logical theory. Loeffler may choose not to come to Priefer's defense (or Kluwe's support) simply because he'd prefer not to be the "centerpiece" for this conflict.

5. BGM pointed out the punting stats for Kluwe were just fine. I don't disagree there was no decline. One article I read (cannot remember where) made the point that Kluwe was the 6th highest paid punter in the league but had stats only middle of the road, meaning over time Kluwe's stats may have stayed the same but so many other punters got better that Kluwe was not cost effective anymore with his high salary. The article cited the past several years for this trend, not just 2012. I thought it was interesting in light of the team's claim he was cut on performance alone and Kluwe's claim his stats did not change.

David




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the info...

[Funkytown]

What if one were in his shoes? Or Priefer was a member of one's family, a brother, father, son, a friend??

...the comments would still be as equally idiotic and uncalled for. And consequences should be expected to follow.

[Just Me]

...the comments would still be equally idiotic and uncalled for.

...assuming Priefer actually made them, I would agree. I'd like to see the investigation completed before I reach that conclusion, though.

[Mothman]

Thanks for posting. I think that adjustment in stance is to Kluwe's credit. Instead of possibly seeming like a disgruntled employee who was fired for underperforming, he comes across as a person who is trying to effect meaningful change (without the hate/vindictiveness).

... or at least he comes across as a person who's recently retained legal counsel advised him to back off of the vindictive stance he had taken.

[Funkytown]

No, there is nothing idiotic about the comments if he didn't make them.

And "what if" he did make them?

The point was: If the comments were made (and let's be real here, they probably were), it doesn't matter who made them. They're still foolish and disgusting. The idea that they would somehow be less disgusting if they were made by someone we cared about is ridiculous. So, no, I wouldn't see it much differently if the dude was family or a friend. I get it: "Wait and see blah blah blah". Yeah. Okay. But people aren't waiting and seeing before they assume Chris is lying, so I don't have to wait and see if he's telling the truth. I believe he is. I guess we'll see who is making dumb assumptions by the end of this.

[Just Me]

... or at least he comes across as a person who's recently retained legal counsel advised him to back off of the vindictive stance he had taken.

A valid point, and perhaps that was his motivation. Nonetheless, Kluwe has to choose to heed or disregard counsel's advice. In this isolated case (whatever his motivation), he chose wisely, IMHO.

[BGM]

I'm not going to engage in a lynch mob mentality, I believe an individual still has his rights. Believe what you want.

I am afraid you are being a little selective here. You have accused Kluwe of bashing and vindictiveness and dismissed his position out of hand. There have been very few here who have called for Priefer's dismissal without knowing the full story. Any calls for his firing have been qualified with, "if this is true." Just because some have tended to believe Kluwe doesn't mean they have a lynch mob mentality. In fact, if you compare the language leveled in criticism of Kluwe versus the language leveled in criticism of Priefer, there has been far more vitriol in opinions about Kluwe.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

[Just Me]

I get it: "Wait and see blah blah blah". Yeah. Okay. But people aren't waiting and seeing before they assume Chris is lying, so I don't have to wait and see if he's telling the truth. I believe he is.

I'm not assuming Chris is lying. I'm still considering the possibility that he may be less than fully accurate with what he as asserted. I'm also not assuming Priefer did not make the statements he has alleged to have made. I'm also considering the possibility that it may have transpired exactly in the manner Kluwe described. I'm waiting until someone can interview the parties to actually get a better idea of what actually transpired before I assume anything. So all "blah-blah-blah" aside, we all know what happens when you assume, right?