Vikings Message Board.Com

The Breeze wrote: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)

fiestavike wrote: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.

Just Me wrote:


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

fiestavike wrote: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?

S197 wrote: 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.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: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.

glg wrote: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.

glg wrote: 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.

Just Me wrote: 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.

DanAS wrote: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.

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.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: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 wrote: 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 wrote: ... 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.