Vikings Message Board.Com

Kluwe was a "distraction", while we kept garbage like Erin Henderson and Chris Cook on the team.

Cliff wrote: Please refrain from singling out specific posters, that is not allowed.

Hey! What did I miss?

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:I don't recall Terrell Owens ever getting arrested. That's the only on the top of my head.

Owens was a major distraction on the field and in the locker room, publicly making a ruckus about his contract and guys on the team that lead to a toxic environment. Kluwe's activism was entirely off-the-field and had nothing to do with his on-field performance, nor a bad relationship between him and anybody except for Priefer and possibly Frazier and Spielman. If anything, Priefer's attitude/language was more Owens-like than Kluwe's.

But if a player is in the news making headlines and take the news off football teams won't like it.

That depends on the headlines. NFL players make headlines for all kinds of positive things (philanthropy, community service, etc.). Kluwe was making headlines over a "controversial" social issue. Why should that be "worse" than the headlines a player makes with his philanthropy? I suppose it may matter to what degree a player is making headlines. Kluwe essentially became a "somebody" in the national public conversation, whereas guys that are doing good things may only get a few local stories. A case could be made he was taking the focus off the team, though another could be made that he was drawing attention TO the Vikings with people that may not have been familiar with the team now following it.

And they're less likely to put up with it the lesser caliber the player is.

That's true. That doesn't make it right. It's possible the Vikings kept Chris Cook after his (alleged?) assault and booted Kluwe for speaking out in favor of gay rights. That doesn't reflect well.

NextQuestion wrote: Hey! What did I miss?

Nothing particularly offensive ... but people can make their points without dragging others into it.

Funkytown wrote:Context? What, was he practicing for his audition for Last Comic Standing? Seems like an excuse to me. Before people were all, "Oh, he probably didn't even say it. Kluwe is a liar." Now it is, "Okay well, he did say it, but let's learn the context." Really?

Go back through the thread. Context has been a part of the discussion from the beginning and yes, it matters. A lot of people say things that, when taken out of context and without the accompaniment of body language, facial expression, situational context, etc. can sound horrible. However, when viewed in context, the same statement may seem significantly different. Context is crucially important. What Priefer said shouldn't be viewed as more important than why he said it, how he said it, when and where he said it, what he meant, etc.

What will the next excuse/justification be? Considering their relationship, I don't think it was a "funny haha" type moment.

Maybe it was an "I want you to get your a## in gear and focus" moment. Maybe it was even just sarcasm. It's certainly not unheard of for coaches to use nasty language as a motivational tool, to get under a player's skin and try to get him angry, get him driven. Whether that's an approach that should be taken is a different question but it's certainly possible that Priefer might have been trying to get through to Kluwe by "hitting him where it hurts" so to speak.

Don't say stupid things unless you are prepared for the consequences. I know I'd take a comment from a friend a lot differently than from some pr!ck at my job. How's that for context? Regardless, if it wasn't a big deal to Priefer, and the context was okay in his mind, why lie about it multiple times?!

Because a vindictive former player wants to drive him out of his chosen profession after 20 years of coaching and a lot of people are eager to just take that player at his word? Priefer has a LOT to lose here.

I don't know Priefer. He could be a dirtbag of a human being or a good guy who said something he shouldn't have said and now has an ex-player gunning for him because that player needs someone to blame for the demise of his punting career. However, I don't know Kluwe either and given the nature of his behavior, I'm certainly not willing to just take him at his word on this matter, to assume he's a righteous champion doing the right thing. Maybe he is or maybe he's just a nasty narcissist. For someone who was supposedly discriminated against, pummeled with hurtful language and driven out of Minnesota, he sure did a good job of keeping his mouth shut about all of it until it became clear that no NFL team wanted him as a punter and he had a book to promote. Then he let fly with the accusations and painted a picture of himself as victim.

I don't think we should be too eager to believe anyone involved in this mess. Innocence or guilt should be determined by the evidence and we don't have the evidence yet so drawing firm conclusions about who's right and wrong in this situation (assuming it's that simple and "black and white" at all) amounts to little more than guesswork.

dead_poet wrote: Interesting. I hope you're not equating free speech to criminal behavior. Can you provide some examples of similar player distracting behavior that caused their release (that were not criminal/illegal acts)?
It's not that cut-and-dry. For example, Priefer apparently asked Kluwe to start kicking it higher/shorter to allow the sub-par coverage units time to cover the kick. That drops Kluwe's numbers, even if that's exactly what he was instructed to do.

So Kluwe says but I don't think that's even important. The Vikes don't need to point to stats. It's actually simpler than that. Kluwe was 31 and was in the final year of his contract. The Vikings, a rebuilding team, elected to go with a younger, cheaper option. That basic scenario is utterly commonplace in the NFL and the Vikings needed no more justification than that to make the move.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Anyone will tell you friends/NFL Locker Room talk is pretty filthy and a lot of stuff that could be considered hurtful/racist/homophobic/whatever out of context really aren't.

I agree 100%. However I hope you agree the presence of where a conversation takes place doesn't make it immune to being racist, sexist, hatespeech, etc.

Maybe Priefer thought he and Kluwe had a closer/friendly relationship where he could say things like that and not be offended.

Given their relationship at that time I find that really hard to believe. It was pretty obvious where Kluwe stood on the issue of gay rights and Prieffer (allegedly) said that anyway. It's the same thing as going up to someone that's devoutly religious and making a comment about putting all of that religion onto an island and nuking it. I'm not sure you could give that the proper context to make it OK. But what do I know?

Mothman wrote:So Kluwe says but I don't think that's even important. The Vikes don't need to point to stats. It's actually simpler than that. Kluwe was 31 and was in the final year of his contract. The Vikings, a rebuilding team, elected to go with a younger, cheaper option. That basic scenario is utterly commonplace in the NFL and the Vikings needed no more justification than that to make the move.

And that I can agree with. Definitely a plausible explanation. My gut says that his activism and relationship with Priefer played a role in their moving on, but I think it was a minority reason.

Valhalla wrote:Kluwe was sending out public letters and addressing a congressman with profanities, that is very high-profile.

I disagree. There are literally thousands of public letter sent to congressmen every year laced with profanities. It was slightly high-profile because an NFL player sent it. It became high profile because it struck a chord with so many and, therefore generated media coverage. The act itself wasn't all that high profile.

He did other things that are very high profile.

Such as? Putting a patch on his uniform? Hardly high profile. Speak at conventions and in the media? Sure. But active NFL players are keynote speakers all the time and in front of the media. Peyton Manning was the keynote speaker at the University of Virginia's Valedictory Exercises in 2014. In the public eye? Again, that comes with the territory. Peyton Manning, again, was on SNL. NFL players do high profile things. The difference was the status that others placed upon him (that, granted, he accepted willingly) and the topic.

Those kinds of acts are a bad reflection on the team.

This needs further clarification. I don't know how standing up for equality is a bad reflection on the team.

Edit: Didn't the Vikings issue a statement following his original letter saying they supported him? I know the Ravens issued a statement in support of Ayanbadejo at the time. I seem to recall the Vikings taking a similar approach after Kluwe's letter.

He could have sent that congressman a letter without that kind of arrogance displayed.

Yes, because a kindly-worded, polite letter would've helped the public conversation and gotten noticed to further his cause of equality for everyone.

What if he addressed a letter such as that to the Governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota or Iowa??

Pretty sure Governor Dayton signed the bill to allow same-sex marriage and Iowa has allowed same-sex marriage since 2009. I think in Wisconsin you were allowed to marry for a week? I may be wrong. I think it's caught up in the courts. But what if he would've done it? I don't see your point.

That was an error in judgement, it looks like Kluwe was out of control.

What was his error in judgement? Supporting same-sex marriage or doing it in a way you don't agree with? I don't think the was "out of control." He wrote a #### letter.

No way could a Viking address a major politician calling him cusswords in a public letter then claim, well, it doesn't have to do with my on-the-field performances.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Pretty sure it's not that hard to say/write some things in the morning and kick a ball in the afternoon.

Valhalla wrote:1000s of letters go out to congressmen but 1000s of letters with cusswords calling someone names in a public forum like deadspin did not happen.

Right. People never comment/cuss publicly in online forums about congressmen.

He also was knocking some religions as well.

Uh...wut?

Reports are Winterpark even got complaints about Kluwe's statements.

Well of course they did. Not everyone is going to agree with Kluwe's comments. They probably got quite a few letters/emails/etc. on both sides of the issue.

Valhalla wrote:1000s of letters go out to congressmen but 1000s of letters with cusswords calling someone names in a public forum like deadspin did not happen.

He also was knocking some religions as well. Reports are Winterpark even got complaints about Kluwe's statements.

I don't think there's much doubt that he eventually drew attention to himself in a way that may have raised concerns within the Vikings organization about how his behavior could affect their public image.

It's a complex situation with almost no evidence available for us to consider. There are certainly legitimate 'football" reasons the Vikings could provide to explain why he was released so if he's going to make a case that he was discriminated against and essentially railroaded out of the league because of his personal beliefs, he'd better have some compelling evidence and eyewitness testimony to back it all up.

I just get tired of the idea this guy is a "distraction" or "attention whore" for being pro-gay rights and calling out his former coach. Is he outspoken? Yes. However, he's not like half of my liberal friends on FB who post conspiracy theory article after another with no fact checking. You should have heard Kluwe absolutely embarrass the kid running from "MN for Marriage" (oppose same sex marriage group) on FoxRadio one night in a friendly debate. Kluwe isn't an idiot...he gets attention because media loves him.

dead_poet wrote:

Religious discrimination as in: Kluwe's agnostic beliefs (pardon the oxymoron) were discriminated against? Or are there allegations that Priefers religious beliefs were discriminated against? I don't think atheism is considered a religion (legally speaking anyway-if it were, lawsuits to remove Christian symbols could be construed as "discrimination" by Christians with the government endorsing the "religion" of atheism.)

Or (more likely) is Priefer alleged to have made derogatory comments/actions against other religions besides Christianity?

Regarding the context affecting the situation, I would refer everyone to a hypothetical that I posted earlier in this thread where Priefer made the exact statements he's alleged to have made but the meaning is slightly less inflammatory (one sarcasm was being used). I'm not justifying the statement, I'm just reminding everyone of the possibilities that could have occurred. Previous post link

As to whether or not Kluwe can sue if he is not gay, goes to a legal principle called "standing". That's up to his lawyer to prove that he does have standing to file the suit, so he must have a legal strategy for doing so. On its surface, the attorney will have to do some work to establish standing, but I'm sure the attorney has far more legal background for that than I.

Just Me wrote: Religious discrimination as in: Kluwe's agnostic beliefs (pardon the oxymoron) were discriminated against?

I think that's the claim but I'm not 100% sure.