Clark Hunt definitely doesn't like what Marcus Peters did this past season to sabotage team spirit.
And Clark definitely likes the NFL way more than he should.
In this ongoing series on the entity
Hunt which I am convinced is a critical factor in the interminable and excruciating inexplicable failures of the postseason Kansas City Chiefs, I want to focus on how much the entity
NFL also contributes to this wholly execrable state of affairs. And because Clark likes the NFL so much, much because he is such a respected power player in the thing, the incestuous relationship between the two is a factor.
I've written before quite often about this monolith
The National Football League. I must say that I really like pro football, and I really like the Kansas City Chiefs' participation in it. In one of these posts I'm thinking I'll elaborate a bit on my own visceral connection to it -- why indeed I spend so much time blogging about it. That's for later.
For now,
the NFL.
There are indeed a number of things I legitimately like about the NFL. It is very well organized, and it does a very good job of standardizing the product. There is an appealing consistency that runs through the process and is woven though its history. For instance the 16-game schedule is just about right, and the number of playoff teams and the way the playoffs are arranged is terrific. Lamar Hunt desperately wanted more playoff teams qualifying to have more action and, of course, revenue, but this was one of Lamar's lamest ideas and I hope the current NFL doesn't do it.
The NFL is also well-marketed, simply from an aesthetics perspective. The team names, the colors, the vibrant history, the whole NFL Films thing have all been extraordinary contributions to the game's appeal. I like some of the advances regarding the coordination of the scouting, the combine, and the draft, including making sure a team gets a compensatory pick for lost free agents. And pro football itself is just a really fun game to watch.
But that's it. I'm a fan of the Kansas City Chiefs, and well, Chiefs success has been nonexistent even in times when they've had a pretty damn good team. How often do you see a great postseason Chiefs game from over the past 50 years replayed on the NFL Network? Ha. There are some features showcasing some Chiefs things, every once in a while, like our great linebacker crew of the late 60's or our great defensive backfield of the 80's and early 90's.
The really infuriating thing is the number of times during a Chiefs postseason game you see this: "The Chiefs are the only NFL team in history to ___ [some agonizingly wretched thing]"? How many times do you see this, mostly in the midst of a typically pathetic 4th quarter collapse? Almost all the time. I am sure the Chiefs have some two dozen records for postseason rottenness, seriously.
Here's one of those I simply have to add, just one of those nonplussitudinal things that make this all meaningful. Did you know that this past season the Tennessee Titans had a
-22 point differential. Did you catch that?
Minus 22. The Chiefs had a +76 by the way, but yeah, the Chiefs lost their playoff game to a team that was outscored in the regular season by 22 points. I'd venture to say this insane anomaly (ahh, I see,
Chiefs again) was pointed out sometime as that game wound down, but think about that -- how many teams with a negative differential even
make the playoffs. There may have been a few, but how many have actually
won a playoff game? Now yeah, I don't know, and I really don't think I want to know.
Point is, because this kind of thing afflicts the Chiefs
incessantly,
Hunt is a factor. Indeed,
Hunt-plus-the-NFL is an even more liable culprit.
So what is it about the NFL that stinks? Well here's my take. It is my take, which means I know a lot of fans are not on the same page as I am, I understand that. But I do believe beyond my own idiosyncratic recommendations there is some truth to the rank complicity of the thing
NFL. This isn't even as much about the NFL but the ways it destroys the Chiefs, and much worse compromises simple human respect and decency.
I will also share that some of these things I've addressed a number of times before, so forgive me for belaboring certain items, but some blogging is certainly about writing and writing until you know what you want to say. I'm always thinking about these things so in a sense, here's the
latest Dave take.
Let's do it this way since I've seen others do it. With all due respect to a Roger Goodell who'd say "Okay smart aleck,
you try out this job!"
Great. Then yeah...
What I Would Do As Commissioner of the NFL.
-
Fire Roger Goodell. Oh, well, if I'm commissioner that's already been done. Thing is, Goodell should've been fired years ago. The
Hunt thing involved here is that Clark has made it clear that he is fully on board with Goodell continuing to do things the things he does, things that are clearly detrimental to pro football in this country. The key to this is
those are the same exact things that are detrimental to the Kansas City Chiefs.
Without question this is an instance when Clark's loyalty to a proud hard-working individual is a very bad thing.
- End the racialist browbeating. Fomented by the progressively minded media this is the now very common practice of incessantly accusing white people of being inherently guilty of "systemic racism" and urging they be held to account for it. This is racialism, and its very ripe produce is seen in the kneeling, fist-raising, or in-some-way dismissing the national anthem played at NFL games.
Please know I don't really care what the NFL does with the national anthem. The problem comes in a number of distinct areas. One is that the NFL does expect all of its players to take a moment to show respect and stand towards the flag in whatever way the rules state. One of the main reasons it does that is not only to show everyone that the NFL has some demonstrative fondness for the U.S.A. but to respect the fans because
they expect it, and really they're the ones paying for it all to happen.
What fans hear NFL players saying to them is this, whether intended or not: "Hey white person you are a racist and you're too dumb to know it so I'm going to do this thing so you can start to listen to me tell you off like this, oh, and thanks for the millions of dollars you give me to say that to you." Sorry, but this is actually in a real sense what those NFL players are telling their fans.
Many fans resent it and you know because they've been leaving the NFL in droves. Who wants to be told that. The ones who stay don't care, agree with them, or simply themselves buy into the propaganda. The players may have a grievance, that's fine, they may make a statement about it, that's fine, they may feel they're being the most righteously principled people about it, that's all very good -- but there is a forum for it.
What do I do as commissioner?
I fully respect their feelings and have a vibrant interaction with as many players as I can about it, especially the ones considered the leaders of this cause. I would then hold a formal conference with those players and listen to them. I would set up an office of racial sensitivity or something similar and promise it would take action on items we can agree upon. If there is already one of these, I would ask what the NFL could do to make it better. I wouldn't announce it or make a big deal about it because I would insist it be about action and not presentation.
Another reason I would handle it that way is because I'd want the chance to go to each and every player who feels strongly about their racialist considerations and plainly ask them, "Would you commit then to stand for the national anthem?" and get an answer from them. If they say "Yes," then we're good. If they say "No," I'd ask them why and see what we can do to make things better. If they are resistant, however, to any reasonable concession or compromise, then I would very nicely and respectfully tell them that they may not play in the NFL then. They are welcome to find employment elsewhere and I would tell them that with a genuine consideration for their welfare. I would address personally each and every player that way.
Sorry, but if the commissioner did this, it is simple:
Problem solved.
What Goodell has done is leave it all to the teams to do what they will with their players. This is a terrible way to approach this. No given team wants to risk losing any of its players as a result of this racialist idiocy when other teams may not follow suit, severely weakening your team on the football field
as well as in the public eye. Because of this enabling feature of the commissioner's abject failure in this area, the players have felt they could get away with it all, and it just gets worse.
This of course leads us to the latest major event directly related to the Kansas City Chiefs, and I believe the racialism factor is a critical component of it.
Marcus Peters was traded.
Oh how the Chiefs Kingdom erupted about this. For good reason -- Peters is unquestionably one of the best defensive players in pro football. What is worse is that the Chiefs only got a couple middling draft picks -- and even had to give one up!
Please please please. We got totally robbed here people.
Some will say that getting anything for him was good because he was such a bad influence, what with he mercurial outbursts and all of that stuff.
We can work through the good and the bad till we can't breath anymore, just not going to do it now. I will however say this.
The fact that the Kansas City Chiefs are so disrespected by the NFL is a prominent reason we lost Marcus Peters. I will address this more when I write more about competitive duplicity later, but the racialist thing
does debilitate the Chiefs in this respect.
With Peters being traded there have been murmurings that it was racially motivated, that Clark didn't like Peters' anthem protests and, well, because those NFL players are so righteous in fighting for the cause then Clark must be a racist. Yes, people have said that -- and I don't even pay much attention to the buzz! Then because of the racialist passions among the most powerful media, the reputation gets spread, and the Chiefs are a racist organization.
Look at this story headline from Arrowhead Pride, really the very best Chiefs website there is. Here's the thing --
why on earth did the site feel the need to put this there? The story itself is really not much of anything, the whole thing merely pointing out that Andy Reid insists Clark had nothing to do with it --
not necessary if there weren't the consideration that he after all
did have something to do with it, and even if he did it wouldn't matter unless, of course, there was some squawking about there being some racist element involved.
Whether it is true or not is not even the point (and I don't think anyone with the scantest of brain matter thinks it is true.) The point is this makes it good for the NFL that they now have a reason to enjoy seeing the Chiefs fail --
They don't deserve it because they're racist, or if anything they are now certainly down one of the best D-backs in the league. Again, this fits more with the competitive duplicity aspect regarding the disadvantages small market non-media darling teams must endure, but here the very pronounced racialism crap adds to the factors that unjustly afflict this entity
the Kansas City Chiefs.
As commissioner and now prominent member of the power broker class rubbing elbows with much of the politigencia, I may now contribute to sending out this message: Racist discrimination is despicable and if anyone is found to be doing it I wholeheartedly encourage the most proficient prosecution and appropriate penalty. But immediately dispense with the hypnotic embrace of a benighted media-pounded narrative that every white person is guilty of some crime and must be browbeat with some faux-moralistic censure that only serves to enable these wanna-be mandarins' insecurity and distended desire to spout about how virtuous they are. It is sick.
- Reject legal gambling websites clamoring for legitimacy. Another sick item that must go is any possibility that the NFL would even remotely connect in any way with these wretched fantasy football sites -- "Draft Kings" and "Fan Duel" a couple of the most prominent ones. Just being commissioner I can't make them completely against the law, but I would if I could.
So far the NFL has kept its distance from them, but there are rumblings the league may enter into an ugly relationship with them -- you know: "This is the official fantasy football wagering site of the NFL." The sites' overtures are incessantly persistent. Anytime I would be called on to do so, as commissioner I would never cease to remind them what kind of operations they are.
As far as I know, however, the NFL still does nothing to prohibit those sites from using any of the NFL's player names or anything related to the NFL. As commissioner, I would sue to keep any wagering site from doing that, fully protecting the intellectual property of the NFL from being exploited by these rackets.
I would also look into keeping
any wagering activity from being used in any way. Of course this would mean Vegas would not be allowed to offer any wagering on any pro football, and the NFL doesn't dare touch Vegas simply because of the massive interest it generates. Yes, it is a truly sad fact that much of the NFL's popularity comes from people who simply want to see if their wager pays off.
The problem all of this presents, of course -- it's been around for years -- is the risk taken when any given sports organization gets in too deep and the play on the field is compromised. How much do we know that happens or doesn't happen? Sure the NFL commissioner wants to reeeally police this, I know, even to an obsessive extent, that's not a bad thing at all -- the stakes for the integrity of the game are on the line.
But if there is even the smallest bit of compromise because of any of the slightest tie to gambling, the teams that the most influential wagerers favor have the advantage. Sure that team could be the Chiefs, but that isn't any better at all.
I merely want to Chiefs to win fair-and-square because they've played better football. It just isn't that hard.
- Intercede in the fan-advertising nexus especially with regards to alcohol. Another ugly thing that I would summarily terminate -- any and all relationships with alcohol manufacturers. Yep, I got it,
what a dangerous move to take down one of the largest revenue streams. Beer companies.
Here's the thing. People are going to drink alcohol. Okay, so? Why does the NFL have to be a part of endorsing such a destructive thing? Not only do they get truckloads of ad revenue, but they allow certain firms to be "The Official Alcoholic Beverage of the NFL." The NFL has claimed to be socially conscious, what better way to
actually show that than to completely end its relationship with the entities responsible for much of the health and social ills we endure?
To those who'd say, "Ahem, it's not the
companies that are to blame but the
poor behavior of the drinkers," I say that's fine, I understand that, but these companies are still
encouraging that behavior with ads shown during NFL games. That ad time is not bought just to provide entertainment. It is obviously intended to convince people to go drink alcohol and they pay millions to make that happen.
The whole "drinking culture" is also extraordinarily repulsive. You can see it in the simple idiotic behavior of many fans, and that is further evidenced in the mostly idiotic things shared in these new kind of sports talk television and radio shows
hosted by "the fan." To be honest, I confess in my sports celibacy I've rarely watched them, but what I've seen is abominable -- which is of course one of the reasons I don't watch them. They mostly showcase boorish behavior and the talk features asinine commentary -- all arranged so they can connect with the average fan.
This is the average fan? Ugh, this is what the NFL does, appeal to the lowest denominator. Maybe an inconvertible truth, but extraordinarily sad nonetheless.
- Get the officiating on track. Yes, I can't neglect to mention this one yet again. You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, I can take it, but I am convinced that the NFL knew the Chiefs were the only team that could actually keep the Patriots from another appearance in the Super Bowl, and really, who do you think they would've wanted in the Super Bowl? The officials' calls in the Titans game were backbreaking, even if just missing the Mariota fumble after Derrick Johnson's sack is the only one we can legitimately call out.
That one was still the most critical.
That one cost us the game.
Roger Goodell recently said he wants fewer and shorter replay stoppages. The idea of tightening things up is a good one, I'm with him there. But Goodell will never be about the one thing that should happen no matter what.
How about just doing what it takes to get the damn call right?
Goodell's heart may be in the right place, but since I'm now commissioner here's how you do that.
1. Stop intimating (at its best) or flat-out telling the officials (at its worst) to favor certain teams. Sorry but the
Scorecasting evidence proves that the officials whether unwittingly (at best) or deliberately (at worst) make calls that favor certain teams. The Chiefs evidences are also proof that they do this. It wasn't only the Mariota non-fumble but there was the Hill non-TD-catch from the Dolphins game, and I mention it because
in this post about half-way in I describe in detail this phenomena, related directly to the behavior of officials in a given game.
For those who like a little less of a conspiracy-minded take, here're several significant practical changes to clean up the officiating.
2. Expand the eligible plays to
everything. Yes I understand this is challenging, but please. If a defender blatantly commits a pass interference call
it should be reviewed. I do know this is really getting into the realm of interpretation by
somebody, and the officials do the best they can. I do believe most times they get it right, and if it is close or questionable then I agree it should be left alone. Fine. Receiver and defender jostle a bit before the ball arrives, fine. Even with regards to the Chiefs I'm fine with calls that are borderline --
let them go, it was close enough. (Yes,
those kinds of calls most times go against the Chiefs, but those aren't the ones that really kill us.)
There are several obvious one that must be called out. What is the way to do that? How about we do this next thing...
3. Have two officials in a booth with television monitors in front of them and give them
initial call privileges. Now you have two sets of eyes looking at the same play. If either one sees something amiss they can blow
their "whistle," simply alerting the on-field referee to stop play in order to, yeah,
ahem, JUST GET THE PLAY CORRECT.
This will also allow the on-field officials to breathe easy that they don't have to wonder "Hmm did I get that call right" after working as best as they can to get it right and then going crazy wondering if they should blow the whistle and stop the offense from rushing to the line to keep a review from happening -- a really stupid part of all this that must change also.
If the two booth officials agree that there's been some poor call or discrepancy with a call then the referee's job is easy. If it is really close or controversial and they disagree, however, then the on-field referee makes the call and we're all good.
It also makes it easier in the sense that when both booth officials agree then it must be a pretty obvious call to get right. This also means, honestly,
the initial booth call should not happen too often. In a sense this is the thing that will indeed result in fewer and shorter review stoppages.
 |
Hunt clearly has control of ball, even when it touches the ground
it is still firmly in his grasp, but then after turning and lying on his back
he slightly bobbles it - apparently making it incomplete |
4. Return to common sense rules. The NFL has done some really ding-dong things with rules, and there are a number of them. Two in particular I want to call out.
First, the catch rule. Everyone is up in arms about this one, and rightly so. While some more high-profile rulings against obvious catches got people's ire, the Chiefs have also been victims, this year most notably when Kareem Hunt was not allowed the TD catch (shown in the photograph) because of what the officials surmised about that ridiculous rule. (The non-catch ended up not hurting the Chiefs in this late-season game against the Chargers.)
So what catch rule should be adopted? Why is this so difficult? Catch: grab ball, a full second of possession, a football move like two steps. The end. Who cares how much the ground bats it about
after there is a real-live catch made. The Dallas Cowboys receiver Butch Johnson did less with his iconic TD catch in Super Bowl XII.
 |
Right after Johnson makes the catch he stretches his body
into the end zone, then immediately drops the ball.
Still a touchdown! |
Incidentally, while I didn't watch any of the Super Bowl this year, I did see a highlight of the last touchdown the Eagles scored, one in which the receiver caught the ball, held it, and made some deliberate football move -- the whole package, what could be wrong with that? When he entered the end zone and slammed the ball into the turf, it shifted about in his hands. Sure enough,
everyone's wondering if the obvious catch would actually hold up in the official's sometimes demented mind -- I mean we've seen it so often. Referee Gene Steratore actually grew a pair and after a video review wisely ruled it a completed catch and touchdown. Smart man.
It just isn't that hard, folks.
The second ding-dong rule of note is the 33-yard extra point kick. I know some will say this is a minor thing, but it really isn't, and it doesn't even have to do with the fact that it makes the point-after-touchdown harder. It actually doesn't, at least not by much. The point is it was a rule put in place simply because Roger Goodell-types wanted to spice up the game.
Please. This isn't American Idol.
The 33-yard PAT rule is also not good because it removes the possibility of faking a kick in order to try for two. Sure a team may try the fake for two from the 15, but still, you get my point.
One more rule change as I think about it, one that showed up in a
fine Jon Bois piece about kickoffs. I'd consider adopting the "4th-and-15" rule for kickoffs. Kickoffs have been messed with in order to reduce the number of injuries that happen on them, which is a very good thing. But they're still there, they still result in too many injuries when a player runs it out, and the way it is touchbacks happen most times anyway.
The "4th-and-15" procedure is when the "kicking team's" offense simply takes the field with the ball at the 35 yard-line and it is as if it were 4th down and 15 yards to go. If they want to punt -- this serves as the kickoff -- they may, and will most likely do so. But if they want to do an "on-sides kick" -- which itself lays out conditions that are likely to result in more injuries -- then they can just run a play. If they get the 15 yards or more for the 1st down, they have the ball right there. What if they score a touchdown on the play? That's fine too! But if they fail to get the first down, the opposing team gets the ball there with a very short field.
I'd talk with smart people who have pro football's best interests in mind -- I do understand there are some liabilities with the 4th-and-15 kickoff. Still as commissioner I'd very much consider
good rule changes like this one, and reject the very bad ones like that longer PAT kick.
- Reduce injuries. Sorry, but there
are things the NFL can do to limit the number of injuries there are, especially concussions. As commissioner I would promptly implement a number of policies and introduce a number of safety features that would definitely be instrumental in keeping players' health intact for the duration of their lives yet still keep the game vibrant and exciting.
Straight away this is something that has, yes,
also debilitated the Chiefs playoff chances far too often. In Indianapolis on that fateful January day in 2014 the Chiefs sideline was like a military infirmary. Most recently in the Tennessee game the momentum shifted the most when that Titans defender unnecessarily slammed into Travis Kelce's head giving him a concussion and taking him out of the game.
You know, I've seen the NFL Films highlight reel of the Chiefs' Super Bowl IV win a number of times, and the last time I watched it I noticed something in it I remember always seeing but never really considered. There was Otis Taylor getting off the turf very woozily, then having smelling salts shoved in his face. Now I don't know if that incident was before or after his iconic sideline catch and touchdown run -- it is interesting because his touchdown, as much as it was the game-clincher, occurred in the 3rd quarter. Yeah, huh, neither team scored points in the 4th quarter of that game.
Someday I'll watch the whole game -- it's on Youtube and I've seen parts of it, but it's there and you may watch the whole thing. Did Otis suffer a concussion before his big play? Would he have been out of the game because of the concussion protocol? I'm not saying anything about what would've been one way or another -- I am wholly in favor of an even more strict concussion protocol if you want to know.
What we do know is that there were 281 reported concussions in the NFL over the course of the 2017 season, and that is just the reported ones. We do know that players have suffered terribly from CTE, yet they're making progress in diagnosing it early. How about we do reasonable things to keep from having to make excuses for retired players' lives and livelihood being cut short, just shrugging by saying "they signed up for this gig didn't they?" Sorry but that attitude is reprehensible.
Here's what I'd do as commissioner. I'd eliminate
all helmet-to-helmet hits -- yes, exactly like the one that injured Travis Kelce. I understand that helmets will still clang against helmets, I got that. But the hit against Kelce is one I'd outlaw because that specific one was completely unnecessary, but excused because "Kelce was a runner" and all that crap. We can take some time and identify the hits that could easily be avoided and still allow for authentic tackling -- much of which the players already know about.
How about redesigning the helmet? With the technology we have available and the medical advances we've made I can't understand how we can't make a helmet that does a much better job of absorbing much more of the impact of hits.
I'd also outlaw the kinds of plays that injured Odell Beckham Jr. This year he was injured for the season in a gruesome take down -- literally -- when a Chargers defender grabbed him as he went up high for a pass and yanked him down on his ankles. Another was when Aaron Rodgers injured his shoulder when after sacking him the lineman pretty much just dropped his body on top of him -- completely unnecessary. I agree injuries occur when players run over other players just doing their jobs, but the kinds of injuries that happened to Beckham and Rodgers are simply particular ones
that can be expressly prohibited.
I know the NFL does things to monitor this and if an illegal hit is determined to have taken place after the game is over and all is said and done, then legitimate action can be taken against the offender. I'd just like to step up that enforcement, work on some things to function as more of a deterrence, again strictly in the interest of keeping the players healthy. My goodness when your best players are on crutches on the sideline all the time, it does impact the bottom line! I'm just as interested in them as human beings who should be afforded a future without
any kind of mental impairment because of their participation in the game.
- Call out the duplicity for what it is and restore true competitive integrity. Who does the NFL really want to see in the playoffs? Really, answer that question for me honestly. Let's put it this way, do you think that powerful people in the ivory towers of pro football, not just in the executive offices but among the media, the commercial interests, and any other power broker who benefits financially from
whatever it is that happens that is this thing
NFL -- Do you think those people ever think to themselves or hope for or even let out that they'd like a larger market media darling team to win at a given time?
Is there even a single advertiser who brazenly expresses a genuine desire to see --
and pay more for -- a New York-Los Angeles championship matchup as opposed to a, say, Kansas City-New Orleans one? I believe the advertising rates are already set, but please. Is it possible
any of them gleefully recognize the far larger audience of the former and simply wouldn't mind
that much if even a few things were tweaked to try to make it that way?
Seriously, do any
one of the major influencers of NFL things ever feel these things in any way to any degree?
If you say "No" you are either delusional or copping out on addressing this issue. If you say "Yes" and it is indeed true that should
any of these people do that, however few it may be, then
Competitive duplicity does indeed truthfully exist.
And yes, it is a slap in the face of the Chiefs Kingdom.
Let's just cut to the chase: The NFL loathe having the Chiefs successful in the postseason. Look at it this way. What do you think these power brokers the world 'round thought about this slate of teams among those participating in the NFL playoffs
this year? They were:
Atlanta. Buffalo. Carolina. Jacksonville. Kansas City. Minnesota. New Orleans. Tennessee.
Yeah.
Ee-yhee.
Fortunately for them (or in some instances I think more
purposefully) when it was all done they got the New England-Philadephia Super Bowl matchup they coveted --
::whew:: Sure most of the country (they were actually polled on this) desperately wanted the Patriots to lose for once, but that's just part of the appeal --
more people will watch just so they have a real shot at reveling in a Patriots loss on the biggest stage of sports entertainment.
The ratings for all the games involving the aforementioned teams were abysmal. Certainly the racialist stuff was a factor in pushing fans away, yes. The Kansas City-Tennessee playoff game was the
least watched playoff game in five years. Two podunk Midwest teams playing at a time when people could be out and about on a fun Saturday afternoon picnicking and hiking, west coast -- Saturday early evening preparing for a nice night on the town, east coast.
Here's the slate the ivory tower dwellers salivate over (be honest -- you know it is true):
AFC:
Cleveland, Los Angeles, New England, New York, Oakland/Las Vegas, Pittsburgh
NFC:
Chicago, Dallas, Green Bay, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco
Wah-oww! That would just be the greatest because
the entire NFL would get gazillions. (Yeah, I know: this slate isn't possible because there are no representative AFC South and NFC South teams, but the powers-that-be really cringe if
any of those teams are successful.) I am convinced the NFL and whoever has the capacity to do so in whatever way that is
do engage in competitive duplicity to make these teams much more likely to enter the playoffs.
Look at the possible matchups! Cleveland-Pittsburgh. Dallas-San Francisco. Green Bay-Chicago. New York-New England. Pittsburgh-Oakland. Los Angeles-Dallas.
Any combination works in some delightful (and profitable) way!
Furthermore to what degree does Clark hope for these eventualities, merely for the reason that when the NFL does well, the Chiefs do well even if the Chiefs themselves are not in the playoffs? The Giants or Jets or Cowboys or Patriots in,
good for them and the NFL. The Chiefs in?
Only good for the Chiefs. If he does so in even the smallest way, then Clark is part of the problem.
And this thing "Hunt" splays a bit more of its brutality over the Chiefs Kingdom.
This even relates to the Marcus Peters situation. Let me ask you this question. Was it easier for Marcus Peters to act like a total aye-hole because he knew it might eventuate in his dismissal from a team that is not one of the favored teams? In fact when this deal came around last week I came across a remark by Ian Rapaport, a top NFL beatwriter, who said something about "leveraging a small market."
What does
that mean, "leveraging a small market"? I'm not sure, but I think it means the Chiefs could've enjoyed seeing another team or other teams involved who had no real interest in Peters but who'd bid in order to raise the price. Because only one team expressed interest in Peters it was much more likely the Chiefs would get diddly for him --
and they did. They should've gotten at least a No. 1 pick, but the price was artificially low because only one team was interested. My gut tells me this was not because no one else wanted him but because they didn't want to make the Chiefs any better, and the NFL just looked the other way.
Look at where Peters ended up -- in large market media darling Los Angeles, perfect for him, but terrible for the Chiefs. Who's wagging the dog here?
I really wonder about this: Do any Chiefs players chafe at the Chiefs being treated as poorly as they are in this environment, and do
they have an unspoken desire to leave? Are they tired of seeing
Hunt show up in every stinkin' playoff game they play? Do they even care as long as they get a nice paycheck? Or to their endearing credit do most genuinely appreciate the very good things about this thing
Kansas City Chiefs?
Do they have some measure of appreciation for Clark Hunt?
I do wonder. Not saying they don't! I actually do wonder because I don't really know.
As commissioner then I'm going to ensure that each team is treated fairly and above board. Sure the NFL
says it does that. Don't think the NFL is factually duplicitous now with regards to the Chiefs? How about this item, a definitive way the NFL specifically targeted the Chiefs and actually put a real hurt on their ability to improve their team.
A few years ago the Chiefs sought soon-to-be free agent Jeremy Maclin and did things in their interactions with him that were considered tampering. As a penalty the Chiefs lost a couple of draft picks. The problem is that
teams do what the Chiefs did all the time. When
they've done it the NFL looks the other way. Sure they should change the rules to be -- yes --
fair and above board with every team. Instead the NFL went after
the Chiefs.
This article explains it all. Its title is about how Clark and Andy should be furious with the NFL.
Please, every single fan and member of the Chiefs Kingdom is
already furious about it.
There may be other things the NFL could do to be better which I haven't covered here, I'm sure I'd think of other things and new things will arise. Ultimately in whatever I would do as commissioner I would give the highest and greatest respect to what it is that is right and true and just, even as it relates to love and mercy and grace. The current commissioner is really just sold out to the ideas he thinks will make him look good through whatever the NFL and its power brokers tell him. Regarding the Chiefs, I just want what is just and fair in the NFL front office to translate to the playing field, and it just hasn't happened. Kinda funny that I want justice -- that's all, just an honest evaluation of what's going on -- ironically much like those anthem protesters, interesting isn't it.
I don't ask for any special advantages at all, of course -- but I also don't want the things listed above to destroy the chances for my team to win football games, or even more, for the Chiefs Kingdom to thrive. Things will get better, however, only if people honestly confront those things and want the same just and righteous things.
More on all this next time, and yes, there will be more positives! They're there! We'll get to them!
___
(Episode V)
___
One of the key elements of the very good present-day Hunt is that family is emphasized -- the Chiefs Kingdom should be a place where the fellowship is rich and vibrant in spite of what happens on the field. After a Chiefs win I've been taken with looking for that one video and peeking in on the post locker room hollering and high-fiving, and the thing I like the most is when they join close, gather hands, and shout "Fam!"
