Vikings Message Board.Com

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 4:06 am**

They gained $1M in cap space by cutting Kluwe, but they didn't cut Kluwe to gain cap space.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 5:09 am**

If Kluwe wasn't such a social media star, the NFL world wouldn't be so quick to suggest it was more to do with off the field matters. He hasn't been performing for the last couple of seasons yet the non-NFL media seem to overlook this totally and hit on that it has to be due to his outspoken support of equal rights.

At the end of the day we will never know. RS could come out and say it was just on performance and still people would doubt his word. I just don't like the way the media are totally disregarding the probable reason being poor punting form.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 10:14 am**

If history is any indication I would guess that Kluwe would have much to say if it were the case. But, as Purple Jarl said, Kluwe's comments have all been around his stats and performance.

The old adgae, "there is no I in team" comes to mind. Regardless of any topic Kluwe chose to bring up it's possible that he represented a mildly mercurial concern for his bosses....specifically the ST coach. When a team player becomes a media darling it opens a can of worms when it comes to keeping everyone on a coachable level status.

Not that Kluwe is a raging Diva....it just could be that it was an opportunity to nip something in the bud. They definitely don't want to set the trend of having their players being more recognized for their comments on social issues than their profficiency at their position.

In Kluwe's case it strikes me more as a precedent being set at a position that it easily replacable. In the history of the game you have one punter who should be in the HOF..... it's just not a difficult position to fill.

So, IMO, it's not what he said but the fact that he is saying anything at all and generating a buzz when the staff and FO wants this young roster to eat sleep and breath FOOTBALL. Couple that with the facts that Locke is cheaper, younger and potentially an upgrade and it becomes an easy decision.

They want a culture that is focused on football... I applaud that.I don't applaud the fact that Kluwe is gone...but it is what it is.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 3:15 pm**

I'm more inclined to side with Kevin Seifert of ESPN on this one, he was an average punter getting up there in age (football wise) and even if he wasn't shooting his mouth off (which I have no problem with but I can see how a team would) the team would have an obligation to look for an upgrade. Yet if they couldn't find anything they liked he was still decent. I think they found someone who younger who they think can be at least the same, probably better, and Kluwe's public life probably was the nail in the coffin in his Viking career. They get a younger guy, with more upside, and one who won't be in the news so often. I would probably have done the same in the GMs position.

Looking at it away from his situation and just the general NFL picture at large. The NFL is a major business in our country with a powerful voice (whether right or wrong is not for me to decide). When someone speaks while wearing the NFL shield it will attract a large audience. The NFL understands that they have a very large and powerful bully pulpit and they're not gonna let someone (no matter who it is) use it for a message that isn't uniform throughout the league.

So overall, I can understand why he was cut. I don't have to agree or disagree with it but it is the reality of our sport.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 3:30 pm**

Captain wrote:I'm more inclined to side with Kevin Seifert of ESPN on this one, he was an average punter getting up there in age (football wise)

As far as punters/kickers are concerned, that's really not accurate. He's 31. 31 as a punter is a lot different than 31 as a receiver, corner or running back. He really wasn't declining. I see no reason why he couldn't kick effectively for another 5-6 seasons (or more).

Looking at it away from his situation and just the general NFL picture at large. The NFL is a major business in our country with a powerful voice (whether right or wrong is not for me to decide). When someone speaks while wearing the NFL shield it will attract a large audience. The NFL understands that they have a very large and powerful bully pulpit and they're not gonna let someone (no matter who it is) use it for a message that isn't uniform throughout the league.

That's a concerning statement.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 3:56 pm**

dead_poet wrote: As far as punters/kickers are concerned, that's really not accurate. He's 31. 31 as a punter is a lot different than 31 as a receiver, corner or running back. He really wasn't declining. I see no reason why he couldn't kick effectively for another 5-6 seasons (or more).
That's a concerning statement.

It is but I don't believe it's true.

It seems to me that one of the bigger questions related to Kluwe's departure is just what the relationship was like between Kluwe and coach Mike Priefer last season. Priefer's been painted in a pretty negative light because of his comments last year saying Kluwe needed to focus on punting and holding and that some of his behavior was "getting old". However, when asked if he would speak to Kluwe about it, Priefer responded, ""No. He won't listen." I'd really like to know why he felt that way and if that comment could be an indication that Priefer was finding Kluwe difficult to coach or unreceptive to his coaching. It could just mean that Priefer didn't feel Kluwe would be willing to change his off-field behavior but I think it's at least worth asking if it might have been indicative of a deeper, football-related issue. Maybe Kluwe did need to re-focus on football.

As with Harvin's departure, we'll probably never get the full story.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 4:02 pm**

The assumption that what he said in public got him cut is based on the people making the decisions not agreeing with the statements made by Kluwe. I don't think anyone knows whether those people agree with Kluwe or disagree with him. So it's hard to say, and Kluwe would be far from the first pro athlete to make his opinions known publicly. It's not a crime and certainly not a crime for a guy who is doing his job well.

I think Kluwe got the ax for the same reason Ryan Longwell got it the prior year - performance questions (in Longwell's case, not being able to hit longer field goals and consistently produce touchbacks on kickoffs), size of contract, and a solid rookie option. Kluwe struggled a bit last year with punts downed inside the opponent's 20 and consistency. He had some notable lapses. So unless someone can show his public opinions were not shared by decision makers within the Vikings organization, I'd say Spielman just made a conscious move to continue his youth movement and search for better value at his other kicker spot.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 4:22 pm**

31st in the League in punts inside the 20 and people want to make this about politics and social stances. Get outta here with this...

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 4:24 pm**

dead poet:
I'm not saying that personally I believe that he's getting old for a punter/kicker. He's still RELATIVELY young for his position. But if you look at the Vikings, we've been having a youth movement for a few years now (ever since Favre left). This position shouldn't be made an exception. Longwell was still by many respects a decent kicker, but we decided to move on and get a younger leg in. But I think I should make my point more clear. What I think Kevin is saying, backed up by the stats he provided in his blog, is that the Vikings let a punter who was average at best go for a younger guy they like and while his public life may not have been the primary reason to let him go, it did play a roll in the final tipping of his foot out the door. Maybe if he was less vocal a player, he has enough good will built up that he gets another season with the team. I've been here on VMB for 7 yrs now and one thing i've noticed in the game-day threads a lot especially the past few seasons is things like 'why'd he kick it there, why didn't he kick further instead of to the sideline, and plenty of frustration. I'm not gonna go digging for it but its there, so even fans have gotten frustrated with his punting in the past few years.

---

Lets take out the issue that he was talking about for a minute and think about it then. A player in your team that is average (basing this off of what i keep reading/seeing) goes out and speaks about a major political hot button issue along with other things, and his position coach is publicly showing signs of frustration with the player. As a GM wouldn't you go looking into the issue as well as searching for other plans?

As for my statement about the being a powerful bully pulpit. Thats my opinion, but i'm curious to see how its a concerning statement? I am an avid reader/follower of history/politics and while i don't profess to be a scholar, I think I know more than the average person walking down the street. So in my observations, every company wants to control and protect their brand. Why should/would the NFL be any different?

----
And for the record, I think Kluwe was absolutely within his rights to do what he was doing and on most accounts I tended to agree with him.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 5:06 pm**

Captain wrote:dead poet:
I'm not saying that personally I believe that he's getting old for a punter/kicker. He's still RELATIVELY young for his position. But if you look at the Vikings, we've been having a youth movement for a few years now (ever since Favre left). This position shouldn't be made an exception. Longwell was still by many respects a decent kicker, but we decided to move on and get a younger leg in. But I think I should make my point more clear. What I think Kevin is saying, backed up by the stats he provided in his blog, is that the Vikings let a punter who was average at best go for a younger guy they like and while his public life may not have been the primary reason to let him go, it did play a roll in the final tipping of his foot out the door. Maybe if he was less vocal a player, he has enough good will built up that he gets another season with the team. I've been here on VMB for 7 yrs now and one thing i've noticed in the game-day threads a lot especially the past few seasons is things like 'why'd he kick it there, why didn't he kick further instead of to the sideline, and plenty of frustration. I'm not gonna go digging for it but its there, so even fans have gotten frustrated with his punting in the past few years.

---

Lets take out the issue that he was talking about for a minute and think about it then. A player in your team that is average (basing this off of what i keep reading/seeing) goes out and speaks about a major political hot button issue along with other things, and his position coach is publicly showing signs of frustration with the player. As a GM wouldn't you go looking into the issue as well as searching for other plans?

As for my statement about the being a powerful bully pulpit. Thats my opinion, but i'm curious to see how its a concerning statement? I am an avid reader/follower of history/politics and while i don't profess to be a scholar, I think I know more than the average person walking down the street. So in my observations, every company wants to control and protect their brand. Why should/would the NFL be any different?

----
And for the record, I think Kluwe was absolutely within his rights to do what he was doing and on most accounts I tended to agree with him.

I think the final point that keeps coming up is basically its POSSIBLE he was let go for his vocality but his PLAY was average enough to warrant the move so there is no way of ever knowing barring a tell all or an internal memo.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 5:41 pm**

Captain wrote: Longwell was still by many respects a decent kicker, but we decided to move on and get a younger leg in.

Longwell was 37. Kluwe is 31. That's a pretty significant difference. My point is I have a hard time believing age was a factor in this decision.

But I think I should make my point more clear. What I think Kevin is saying, backed up by the stats he provided in his blog, is that the Vikings let a punter who was average at best go for a younger guy they like and while his public life may not have been the primary reason to let him go, it did play a roll in the final tipping of his foot out the door. Maybe if he was less vocal a player, he has enough good will built up that he gets another season with the team.

That's certainly a strong possibility, though I'm disheartened that a non-football decision may have been made in regards to a player, and on an issue that is essentially free speech (and not, say a legal or character issue).

I've been here on VMB for 7 yrs now and one thing i've noticed in the game-day threads a lot especially the past few seasons is things like 'why'd he kick it there, why didn't he kick further instead of to the sideline, and plenty of frustration. I'm not gonna go digging for it but its there, so even fans have gotten frustrated with his punting in the past few years.

Sure, and I'm sure there are times when he didn't perform his job as well as he could have (just like every other player). And there are times when we don't know what he was instructed to do. I really didn't notice a significant decrease in production. One stat I would really like to see in comparison to other punters is average hang time. Kluwe has a pretty big leg. And it's best to add some context regarding his production. From another post, from Kluwe:

Ugh, I'll try not to get too ranty here, but ignorance annoys me. First off, all of you people so wisely spouting numbers, do none of you even bother to do research? I had almost EXACTLY my career average numbers for gross, and a career best for net, and while yes I mis-hit some punts, I also had a lot of very good punts, enough to continue being the statistically best punter the Vikings have ever had (which I hate having to say over and over but people don't seem to grasp the point). Do you know why my ranking was so low last year? Because that was the most drastically anomalous year in terms of punting averages in the HISTORY OF THE NFL. There's never been a year with that many guys having gross and net averages that high EVER. Not to mention, once again (for the seventh year in a row) I was asked by my coaches to try and hit the ball shorter, higher, and towards the numbers so our coverage guys would have an easier job. There were multiple times I hit a 48-52 yard punt with 4.6-4.8 seconds of hangtime (which is a perfectly good punt) and I got graded poorly by my special teams coach because it went over 44 yards. Not exactly conducive to putting up gaudy numbers. Also, you have got to be kidding me with the "30th in touchbacks" rating. Do you even know what that means? It means I was the third best punter in the league at NOT PUTTING THE BALL IN THE END ZONE ON +50s WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. As far as fair catches, well, feel free to watch the tape. As a team, we consistently face 6 man boxes on punt (leaving two guys to cover each gunner) because Cullen and I have the fastest get off time in the NFL (so opposing coaches know they won't have a chance to block a punt), and also because we haven't run a punt fake the ENTIRE time I've been with the Vikings (as well as our coverage teams being consistently not good over the years). Why on earth would an opposing special teams coach NOT double our gunners every time when that's clearly the best option available, and we haven't shown any game tape of breaking that tendency? Of course I'm not going to have many fair catches. Our gunners are usually getting down there the same time as our interior guys (through no fault of their own, it's amazingly hard to fight through a double team as a gunner and they do a hell of a job at it), which means the returner has time to run. I'll give you the punts inside the 20 this year, there were a few from the 50 to minus 45 I could have hit better that would have bumped me up a couple spots, but that's also dependent on our offense. We have Blair Walsh now. He makes long field goals. That means I don't take as many +50 opportunities as I used to and I'M OK WITH THAT BECAUSE I'D RATHER WE SCORE POINTS AND WIN THE GAME. I really really REALLY wish people would take the time to actually educate themselves on a subject instead of just cherrypicking numbers they think support their position without any idea of the context behind those numbers. The very fact you're posting on here means you have access to Google. Go do some research. (Or you can ask me, it's not like this isn't something I've spent almost 19 years of my life doing)

---

Lets take out the issue that he was talking about for a minute and think about it then. A player in your team that is average (basing this off of what i keep reading/seeing) goes out and speaks about a major political hot button issue along with other things, and his position coach is publicly showing signs of frustration with the player. As a GM wouldn't you go looking into the issue as well as searching for other plans?

I would want to determine:

1) Is his activism negatively affecting his performance?
2) Is his activism negatively affecting the locker room?

But if I'm a GM I'm always looking to upgrade my roster, no matter the position. I have no problem if this move was made because Locke is going to be an upgrade.

As for my statement about the being a powerful bully pulpit. Thats my opinion, but i'm curious to see how its a concerning statement?

I have a problem with any organization attempting to silence a person's free speech. So when you say, "they're not gonna let someone (no matter who it is) use it for a message that isn't uniform throughout the league" I say that while they might wish for that (there's no evidence that's accurate) they do not have the right to do so.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 6:04 pm**

Well, if he's that good of a punter and his numbers really don't tell the truth, then he should get signed by someone else then and he can put up better numbers in the coming years.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 6:14 pm**

dead_poet wrote:Longwell was 37. Kluwe is 31. That's a pretty significant difference. My point is I have a hard time believing age was a factor in this decision.

I don't think it was a major factor either I'm just pointing out a bunch of things put together that could be factors.

I would want to determine:

1) Is his activism negatively affecting his performance?
2) Is his activism negatively affecting the locker room?

But if I'm a GM I'm always looking to upgrade my roster, no matter the position. I have no problem if this move was made because Locke is going to be an upgrade.

I recall seeing stuff about his position coach being unhappy with him for a number of reasons, but I think your questions are valid. I don't know if we'll ever find out the answers to them but if Locke works out for us then would they have mattered?

I have a problem with any organization attempting to silence a person's free speech. So when you say, "they're not gonna let someone (no matter who it is) use it for a message that isn't uniform throughout the league" I say that while they might wish for that (there's no evidence that's accurate) they do not have the right to do so.

I have a problem with any organization silencing a person's free speech. I would have major problems with that. At the same time do you think an organization like say Emily's List allow someone thats not for pro-choice use their podium to campaign for something they believed in? I would think no. I'm not saying the NFL is agains't gay marriage or whatever other issue there might be is or trying to silence anyone, what I'm saying is that until they decide what their message is going to be they'll protect their pulpit just like any other organization would. But having said that, I DON'T think the reason he got cut was because the NFL or the Vikes doesn't want him speaking out.

I think he got cut mainly for his performance with the team just getting tired of the other stuff and deciding it wasn't worth it to keep an average player + media attention.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 7:25 pm**

Captain wrote:I recall seeing stuff about his position coach being unhappy with him for a number of reasons,

I think you're probably referencing the one interview he gave. But if I'm a coach or GM I don't make a starting roster change on account of a personality conflict unless Kluwe was being purposefully insubordinate.

but I think your questions are valid. I don't know if we'll ever find out the answers to them but if Locke works out for us then would they have mattered?

Because I don't like the message that it sends. But, from a football perspective, IF Locke is as good or better than Kluwe it will have mattered little.

At the same time do you think an organization like say Emily's List allow someone thats not for pro-choice use their podium to campaign for something they believed in? I would think no.

If it's not during work hours or otherwise affecting their job, I don't see what legal authority they have to silence that person. There's a gulf of difference between not liking someone's views and preventing them from voicing them, as a person OR a business.

I'm not saying the NFL is agains't gay marriage or whatever other issue there might be is or trying to silence anyone, what I'm saying is that until they decide what their message is going to be they'll protect their pulpit just like any other organization would.

And I'm saying they don't have the right to alienate, silence or condemn players for their opinions. "Protecting their pulpit" as you call it, to me, is a gentler way of suppressing a player's free speech because any act to "protect' this would likely infringe on their rights, would it not?

I think he got cut mainly for his performance with the team just getting tired of the other stuff and deciding it wasn't worth it to keep an average player + media attention.

That very well may be the case. I'm just struggling a bit with a team that cut a guy like Kluwe and kept a guy like Cook, both of which are average (or slightly above average) at their respective positions and, given the nature of their "experiences" (we'll call them) the message they send by the actions they took.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 11:12 pm**

dead_poet wrote:That very well may be the case. I'm just struggling a bit with a team that cut a guy like Kluwe and kept a guy like Cook, both of which are average (or slightly above average) at their respective positions and, given the nature of their "experiences" (we'll call them) the message they send by the actions they took.

Simple. They have a replacement that they know can do the job Kluwe was doing. Replacing Cook, while "average"(your words), do they have someone to replace him?

Vikings Message Board.Com

Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

Re: Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?