Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

[Just Me]

Let's face it Kluwe is a Raider.

Most likely he will sign a huge deal with Oakland and punt that franchise back into prominence. The Bay Area rivalry between he and Andy Lee will become the stuff of legend culminating in the ultimate "Battle Royale" as both guys kick their teams all the way to the superbowl. The contest will be such a classic display of dynamic punting that even the Smithsonian will lobby for some scrap of Kluwe's clothing to display in it's museum.
All the publicity he gains for being MVP of the Superbowl will launch Tripping Icarus into elite band stauts and their number one song "Hang Time" featuring sampled sound bites of Ray Guy on acid will become the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" of it's generation. It will be seriously hardcore.

The Viking organization will rue the day they let go of this superstar in favor of some gimicky belief that a younger, hungrier left footer will give them any advantage at all at what is arguably the most important position in the game...after about 20 others. This will make the Herschel Walker trade seem like a bargain.

Udder madness will ensue....(that's the part where fans will resort to wearing hats that rsemble cows udders in protest)

I can't seem to shake the feeling there may be a slight amount of facetiousness in your post.

[The Breeze]

Does anyone else see the irony that most of us would oppose cutting Kluwe for expressing his views, and we are communicating about it on a message board where DISCUSSIONS OF POLITICS AND RELIGION ARE FORBIDDEN.

I was waiting to see if anyone would bring this up. It's a salient point along the lines of "fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"...to quote Rage Against the Machine.

But I really don't believe he was cut for his actual views....other than the fact that they had little to do with football and nothing to do with Vikings football. Kluwe's opinions on anything but those things are no more important than anyone else's, including all of us here.

The fact that his coach claims he won't listen to him and that it appears he's more concerned about his social media status than winning games is plenty enough reason to cut him loose for a cheaper guy who has more to prove by actually punting the football.

[The Breeze]

I can't seem to shake the feeling there may be a slight amount of facetiousness in your post.

Yes, i'm in it for the lols...

I do think it would be cool if we had an "udder madness" smilie....it would fill a void IMO.

[S197]

Does anyone else see the irony that most of us would oppose cutting Kluwe for expressing his views, and we are communicating about it on a message board where DISCUSSIONS OF POLITICS AND RELIGION ARE FORBIDDEN.

I don't think we should lift that restriction. Things have their proper times and places. We are all vikings fans and there is no need to allow those kind of wedges to be driven between us.

So why is it bad if the teams management applies the same standard as our forum moderators? Undoubtedly there are many devout Christians on our team who oppose gay marriage. Why even go there and allow divisive political talk like that into the locker room?

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. This forum is only one small medium for you and everyone else to express their opinions. Those rules apply solely to the public forum, if you were talking about religion or politics on twitter, facebook, a blog, or even here via private message, there's nothing we can or should do about that.

I think in general politics and religion should stay out of the workplace and most employers have some sort of rule about this. I had a fellow co-worker who was terminated for something along these lines. So I agree that these types of things should stay out of the locker room unless they're done privately between consenting members, but I think the issue here is often times Kluwe expressed himself in places where it should have been acceptable for the average person (twitter, online articles, etc.). The Ray Guy post-it was an example of using your employment to further your opinions, for which he was fined, but I don't recall any other incidents. In the other instances, he used the appropriate medium that any other person has the right to use.

[Just Me]

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. This forum is only one small medium for you and everyone else to express their opinions. Those rules apply solely to the public forum, if you were talking about religion or politics on twitter, facebook, a blog, or even here via private message, there's nothing we can or should do about that.

I think in general politics and religion should stay out of the workplace and most employers have some sort of rule about this. I had a fellow co-worker who was terminated for something along these lines. So I agree that these types of things should stay out of the locker room unless they're done privately between consenting members, but I think the issue here is often times Kluwe expressed himself in places where it should have been acceptable for the average person (twitter, online articles, etc.). The Ray Guy post-it was an example of using your employment to further your opinions, for which he was fined, but I don't recall any other incidents. In the other instances, he used the appropriate medium that any other person has the right to use.

I tend to avoid discussing religion on this forum (as it can be as polarizing as politics), but is it (the prohibition of religious discussion) actually in the board rules? I went to the Board rules and searched politics (gettting 3 matches) but got 0 matches on "religion".

As I said: I don't usually bring it up, but I didn't find it in the rules. I am missing it?

[Raptorman]

Chris did what he thought was right at the time. I think the "vote Ray Guy" thing was great. After all, how many of the younger generation ever even heard about him? He was fine with being fined. He knew he would be. But it brought forth an issue that some people get into the Hall of Fame and other who should be are not. I look at the HOF with some distrust because of the way some people are put in not just because of their efforts but because they were good players on good team. If Cris Carter had one Super Bowl ring, I guarantee you it would not have taken so long for him to get in.

As to the other issue Kluwe was pushing, I don't have a problem with what he did. Although I do think his initial response on Deadspin was a little over the top he made his point. As to the effects of it causing him to lose his job? I don't think it had anything to do with it.

[glg]

That being said, I don't think Kluwe's method helped him at all. When you write a letter to a sitting public official and say things like, "I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage, so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your closed-minded, totally-lacking-in-empathy pie hole" (and that's about the only non-profanity laced comment in the letter) ... well, it may be funny, but it's not going to engender true conversation about a very important topic. It's completely disrespectful, highly ineffective and incredibly immature.

I'm sorry, but the Maryland legislator wrote a letter to the Ravens' owner saying effectively "tell your boy to shut up". That isn't an action worthy of respect.

[Reignman]

The cap space is minimal. $1M is less than 1% of the cap. Brzezinski is one of the best in the business at cap management, so while everything helps, it's just not that big a deal.

My vote is yes, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's based on his opinions per se, but rather that he dares to have an opinion. ie, he's not being cut for what he believes in, but because he was vocal about it. I would guess this largely comes from Priefer, who seems to have the very common NFL coach attitude that players are children who should be seen and not heard. It's very common, very arrogant, and very pervasive.

That's kinda what I think too. It had more to do with him being distracted than what his actual stances are. Doesn't hurt to save a little money in the process, but now they just better hope Locke isn't a bust because Kluwe is still a good punter and has a lot of mileage left.

[Just Me]

I'm sorry, but the Maryland legislator wrote a letter to the Ravens' owner saying effectively "tell your boy to shut up". That isn't an action worthy of respect.

I don't think this is an apples/apples comparison here. If I understand Kapp correctly, I believe he is referring to the method (as Kapp states) in which the message is communicated (not the message itself). I have read only excerpts of the legislator's letter (I couldn't seem to find a full copy but didn't want to spend alot of time looking for it, quite frankly), but the legislator's writing was something that (ironically) I could feel comfortable with my child reading (simply because it's not an profanity laden letter) whereas Kluwe's was not - and this is irrespective of the actual message either sought to convey. The legislator actually wrote: "...inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist..." - not "shut up." Even if i concede the letter (regardless of how nice he dresses up the 'shut-up' message) is not worthy of respect, I don't believe that warrants a disrepectful response.

[J. Kapp 11]

I don't think this is an apples/apples comparison here. If I understand Kapp correctly, I believe he is referring to the method (as Kapp states) in which the message is communicated (not the message itself). I have read only excerpts of the legislator's letter (I couldn't seem to find a full copy but didn't want to spend alot of time looking for it, quite frankly), but the legislator's writing was something that (ironically) I could feel comfortable with my child reading (simply because it's not an profanity laden letter) whereas Kluwe's was not - and this is irrespective of the actual message either sought to convey. The legislator actually wrote: "...inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist..." - not "shut up." Even if i concede the letter (regardless of how nice he dresses up the 'shut-up' message) is not worthy of respect, I don't believe that warrants a disrepectful response.

Thank you. Simply disagreeing with someone is no reason to disrespect them.

Furthermore, Kluwe's letter goes well beyond disrespect. It's laced with profanity, belittling, name calling, and mocking -- about the maturity level I'd expect from a 7th-grader with an advanced vocabulary. Don't know about y'all, but I was taught that if you want people to take you seriously, act like an adult.

[Mothman]

Jim,

You are correct that there were multiple potential reasons to get rid of Kluwe other than his mouth. The problem is, allegations are floating around that at least certain coaches weren't happy with his mouth any more than the rest of us were happy with his punting. This inherently raises suspicions about their motives. So, it becomes incumbent on them to come up with the right words to use to demonstrate that it was ONLY the punting, and not also the mouth, that mattered.

I don't think it's necessarily incumbent on them and, in fact, they may be wise to say nothing. Fans are going to believe what they want to believe about this move, regardless of what the Vikings say. If they come out and say something more, I could see that just fueling the controversy. The allegations you referred to seem to be based on the flimsiest of evidence (comments by Mike Priefer in one press conference that came in the wake of Kluwe drawing attention to his support of Ray Guy during a game, not in the wake of Kluwe's comments regarding social issues). There's little more than belief to support the idea that the team released Kluwe because they didn't like what he was saying (or because he was saying anything at all) and I doubt anything the Vikes could express would change such beliefs. They're a choice in the first place and many of those who want to believe the worst would likely see a denial by the Vikings as nothing more than spin.

From what I can tell, they haven't bothered to make that demonstration. If it's true that all they've done is to simply assert, summarily, that the mouth had nothing to do with it, that's not how you earn the benefit of the doubt.

It seems to me they should be given the benefit of the doubt because this is a move that fits into the overall pattern of moves they've been making the last few seasons. I'm not sure they really need to earn it.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

I hope Jeff Locke is a great player for us. However, I think it would be hilarious if Jeff Locke comes in here and starts championing human rights and running his mouth.

[Eli]

I hope Jeff Locke is a great player for us. However, I think it would be hilarious if Jeff Locke comes in here and starts championing human rights and running his mouth.

I think it would be infinitely more humorous if he comes in and starts shanking punts.

Replacing Longwell last year was a no-brainer. Even if Walsh hadn't worked out, Longwell had to go. Kluwe's situation was much different. If the Vikings got rid of him just to get rid of him, then they'll have nobody to blame but themselves if Locke turns out to be a bum.

[Mothman]

I think it would be infinitely more humorous if he comes in and starts shanking punts.

Replacing Longwell last year was a no-brainer. Even if Walsh hadn't worked out, Longwell had to go. Kluwe's situation was much different. If the Vikings got rid of him just to get rid of him, then they'll have nobody to blame but themselves if Locke turns out to be a bum.

... and if they didn't get rid of him just to get rid of him?

I hope Kluwe lands with another team and does well for himself and I hope Locke has a great rookie season and career for the Vikings. After all the angst over this change in punters, I'd like to see it end well for everyone involved.

[Purple bruise]

... and if they didn't get rid of him just to get rid of him?

I hope Kluwe lands with another team and does well for himself and I hope Locke has a great rookie season and career for the Vikings. After all the angst over this change in punters, I'd like to see it end well for everyone involved.

Leave it to you Jim to be rational Of course wishing that the Vikings new punter comes in and starts shanking punts seems rather strange to say the least.