This week, former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe wrote a scathing article for Deadspin, saying that he believes he lost his job as a result of his very public support of gay rights.
Is Kluwe the second high profile person to learn in recent weeks that the first amendment gives us the right to say what we feel, but it doesn't make us immune to the consequences?
I don't think so.
Kluwe, who is on the opposite end of the spectrum as Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on this issue but is also known for speaking his mind, is accusing his former position coach, Mike Priefer, of being a "bigot" and holding his public support of marriage equality against him – even berating him in front of teammates. He also accuses his former head coach, Leslie Frazier, who was fired as Minnesota Vikings head coach Monday, and general manager of being “cowards” and trying to “keep him quiet.” There’s too much detail to cover, so please read Kluwe’s account of what happened here: I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot
Kluwe was replaced as the Vikings punter before the 2013 season. His account of the 2012 season and offseason certainly shows that not everyone in the Vikings organization supported his public fight for marriage equality and gay rights.
But I don't think that was the reason he was released.
For those who don't follow football and simply read Kluwe's article, it certainly sounds like he was released because his coaches didn't "appreciate" his public support of gay rights. But what the former punter left out of the article is the quantifiable reason he was released - the numbers.
I read Kluwe's article and was sympathetic, and I appreciate his support of a topic he believes so strongly in. If Priefer did make the comments Kluwe claims, he should be punished, just as the Miami Dolphins did to Richie Incognito was for bullying a teammate and using the “n” word. The alleged comments made by his former position coach are hateful and the reason that no gay NFL player – and we all know they exist – has felt comfortable enough to be "out." While everyone is entitled to their beliefs, there is no room for hatred.
Of course, we've only heard one side of the story, and we can’t just take Kluwe's word as gospel. Priefer has responded, and his response deserves to be heard. In a statement released Thursday evening that he "vehemently denies" Kluwe's allegations, that he "does not tolerate discrimination of any type" and that he is "respectful of all individuals." Some of the current Vikings have also stated publicly that they've never heard Priefer use racist or homophobic language. Take that as you will.
Now for those numbers, the real reason I don't think the Vikings released Kluwe based on his support of gay rights: Kluwe averaged 45 yards per punt in 2012, ranking 22nd in the league. The Viking's 2013 punter, Jeff Locke, posted an average of 44.2 yards per punt this past season, ranking 24th in the league. However, being a rookie, Locke cost the Vikings $405,000 this year, whereas the Vikings would have had to pay Kluwe $1.45 million in 2013. Strictly by these numbers, releasing the veteran in favor of a rookie with the same output at 1/3 the price is a no-brainer.
In addition to the average-at-best play, I think Leslie Frazier did see Kluwe as a distraction; coaches tend to prefer players who keep a low profile and make football their primary “cause.” From his own account, Kluwe went against his boss’s wishes, no matter how just the cause, even refusing to take advice from the PR department. On a football team, someone who is a distraction and has only average performance is expendable.
Kluwe's points about the team telling him to keep quiet about his support of gay marriage, or to only show his support in certain ways, certainly show they were clearly uncomfortable with his "well-earned reputation for speaking his mind." Was it bigotry, as Kluwe accuses Priefer, or management wanting to avoid controversy at all costs? Was either the reason he was released?
Kluwe also wrote that team owner Zygi Wilf, the man who signs the checks, supported his beliefs on said subject. That fact definitely puts a large crack in the foundation of Kluwe's argument that he was released solely based on his outspoken support of gay rights.
So we’re brought back to the $1 million question: Was Kluwe cut because because of his outspokenness on the subject of gay rights? Or was he released because the Vikings were unhappy with his merely average output and lofty salary?
I think Kluwe was an aging veteran with a high salary and below-average performance; that partnered with the fact that the coaches were unhappy with the distraction they felt he brought to the team made it an easy decision. From a financial standpoint, cutting a 31-year-old veteran punter in favor of a rookie who could play for the team for many more seasons for less than 1/3 the salary is, frankly, a smart business decision. So even if he was the outspoken person that he is, I still think Kluwe would have been released. And that is the bottom line. Football is a business, and Jeff Locke was the better option.
All this said, I support Kluwe's public support of gay rights and marriage equality. But that wasn't the reason he was released from the Vikings.
Showing posts with label Vikings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vikings. Show all posts
Friday, January 3, 2014
Monday, November 16, 2009
Type-casting teams
It's been FAR too long, but I think I have a great excuse this time... my little girl who was born June 24. All is well with her and I, and I'm back to writing a sports column each week, so I'll keep y'all updated as I do so.
Enjoy!
Type-casting teams (ran 10/22)
In life, there are the blessed, the cursed, the lazy and the hard-working.
It is the same in sports.
There are those teams blessed with talent – the teams that can do no wrong; then, on the opposite side, there is the team that can do no right – the blooper never drops in, the hole in the defense never opens.
Some can overcome lack of talent or a lower payroll with a four letter word: T-E-A-M. When a group of athletes plays together as one cohesive unit, there is no limit to the heights they can achieve.
There are those teams that exceed our expectations (this year’s Denver Broncos and Minnesota Vikings), and those teams that have all of the talent in the world, but can’t do anything with it (I'm talking to you, Tennessee Titans).
After Sunday’s NFL games, I’d like to discuss three kinds of teams: The lucky, the loveable losers, and the underachievers.
Type one: the lucky
Luck-y – adjective. Having or marked by good luck; fortunate.
If you watched the Vikings game yesterday, "luck" is probably one of the first words that came to mind.
It seemed like Minnesota had the game wrapped up, but then Baltimore made a 17-point comeback. With two seconds left in the game, Ravens’ kicker Steven Hauschka lined up for a 44-yard field goal… and it sailed left to give the Vikes the win.
If you play for a lucky team, you always recover the clutch fumble, or the other team’s kicked always misses the game-winning field goal.
So far this year Minnesota, despite having a hasn’t-even-hit-his-prime Adrian Peterson and at-the-top-of-his-career Jared Allen, has relied heavily on luck. Even the fact that a 40-year-old Brett Favre is playing as well as he is seems lucky for the Vikings.
Type two: the lovable losers
Los-er – noun. A person, team, thing, etc., that loses.
Every person loves their team, but sometimes they just don’t have "it."
They’re like the Bad News Bears, or the 2009 St. Louis Rams – no matter what they do, they just can’t win.
They don’t really have the talent, and they don’t have the necessary experience, or they have "too much" experience (i.e. old guys), and those three things put together add up to an oh-and-whatever season.
But sometimes, for the team that you thought was the lovable losers, it finally comes together: the defense starts blocking, players start making hits, and holes start opening for the runners. Then, suddenly, they aren’t the lovable losers, but the overachievers. That’s when it’s fun.
Unfortunately, St. Louis fans, I don’t see that happening for your guys this season. Sorry.
Type three: the underachievers
Un-der-a-cheive-er – noun. A person or thing that performers below expectations.
The worst of all of the teams - the underachieving team has all of the talent in the world, but can’t seem to get it together.
This team has the all-star lineup, the high payroll; maybe they had a great season last year. But when it comes to playing as a team … well, let’s just say that, sometimes, there is an ‘I’ in team - but it’s not a very good team.
This is the team that, after a loss, can’t believe they were beaten by a team that seemed inferior.
The best example of this is the Tennessee Titans.
Last year they were 12-0 at one point. They have most everyone back (minus Albert Haynesworth), LenDale White came back looking like a real tailback and not a regular at the all-you-can-eat buffet, and Chris Johnson is playing great football, but they just can’t seem to put it together this season.
Sunday, they put up a big ol' goose egg on the scoreboard, gave up 59 points to New England. It was pathetic to watch, and there is nothing I hate more than a team who gives up.
Everyone thought Tennessee would be good – very good even – but instead, they are essentially out of any playoff contention, and need to go back to the drawing board for next season, mainly finding out who the real Vince Young is (let’s hope it’s the 2007 version, and not 2008), and maybe even re-evaluating the future of Jeff Fisher.
But no matter what type your team is, lucky, loveable losers, underachieving, unstoppable, or just plain bad, keep rooting them on, because the only thing worse than a bad team is a fair-weather fan.
Enjoy!
Type-casting teams (ran 10/22)
In life, there are the blessed, the cursed, the lazy and the hard-working.
It is the same in sports.
There are those teams blessed with talent – the teams that can do no wrong; then, on the opposite side, there is the team that can do no right – the blooper never drops in, the hole in the defense never opens.
Some can overcome lack of talent or a lower payroll with a four letter word: T-E-A-M. When a group of athletes plays together as one cohesive unit, there is no limit to the heights they can achieve.
There are those teams that exceed our expectations (this year’s Denver Broncos and Minnesota Vikings), and those teams that have all of the talent in the world, but can’t do anything with it (I'm talking to you, Tennessee Titans).
After Sunday’s NFL games, I’d like to discuss three kinds of teams: The lucky, the loveable losers, and the underachievers.
Type one: the lucky
Luck-y – adjective. Having or marked by good luck; fortunate.
If you watched the Vikings game yesterday, "luck" is probably one of the first words that came to mind.
It seemed like Minnesota had the game wrapped up, but then Baltimore made a 17-point comeback. With two seconds left in the game, Ravens’ kicker Steven Hauschka lined up for a 44-yard field goal… and it sailed left to give the Vikes the win.
If you play for a lucky team, you always recover the clutch fumble, or the other team’s kicked always misses the game-winning field goal.
So far this year Minnesota, despite having a hasn’t-even-hit-his-prime Adrian Peterson and at-the-top-of-his-career Jared Allen, has relied heavily on luck. Even the fact that a 40-year-old Brett Favre is playing as well as he is seems lucky for the Vikings.
Type two: the lovable losers
Los-er – noun. A person, team, thing, etc., that loses.
Every person loves their team, but sometimes they just don’t have "it."
They’re like the Bad News Bears, or the 2009 St. Louis Rams – no matter what they do, they just can’t win.
They don’t really have the talent, and they don’t have the necessary experience, or they have "too much" experience (i.e. old guys), and those three things put together add up to an oh-and-whatever season.
But sometimes, for the team that you thought was the lovable losers, it finally comes together: the defense starts blocking, players start making hits, and holes start opening for the runners. Then, suddenly, they aren’t the lovable losers, but the overachievers. That’s when it’s fun.
Unfortunately, St. Louis fans, I don’t see that happening for your guys this season. Sorry.
Type three: the underachievers
Un-der-a-cheive-er – noun. A person or thing that performers below expectations.
The worst of all of the teams - the underachieving team has all of the talent in the world, but can’t seem to get it together.
This team has the all-star lineup, the high payroll; maybe they had a great season last year. But when it comes to playing as a team … well, let’s just say that, sometimes, there is an ‘I’ in team - but it’s not a very good team.
This is the team that, after a loss, can’t believe they were beaten by a team that seemed inferior.
The best example of this is the Tennessee Titans.
Last year they were 12-0 at one point. They have most everyone back (minus Albert Haynesworth), LenDale White came back looking like a real tailback and not a regular at the all-you-can-eat buffet, and Chris Johnson is playing great football, but they just can’t seem to put it together this season.
Sunday, they put up a big ol' goose egg on the scoreboard, gave up 59 points to New England. It was pathetic to watch, and there is nothing I hate more than a team who gives up.
Everyone thought Tennessee would be good – very good even – but instead, they are essentially out of any playoff contention, and need to go back to the drawing board for next season, mainly finding out who the real Vince Young is (let’s hope it’s the 2007 version, and not 2008), and maybe even re-evaluating the future of Jeff Fisher.
But no matter what type your team is, lucky, loveable losers, underachieving, unstoppable, or just plain bad, keep rooting them on, because the only thing worse than a bad team is a fair-weather fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)