Chiefs Are you in favor of releasing Tyreek Hill? - Page 34

Originally Posted by BlackHelicopters:
No excuse to abuse women or children. Bye Reek.

I don't think you are catching on to the current mood. Move along.
[Reply]

Will he be suspended at all?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by MAHOMO 4 LIFE!:
Will he be suspended at all?

The report of the NFL not making a decision on it in the near future kind of tells me they want to try and weather the already decreasing storm. But the ruling of the CPS decision might play into factor. I honestly have no idea what to expect with this but I will be fine as long as the Chiefs retain the rights of this POS.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by BlackHelicopters:
No excuse to abuse women or children. Bye Reek.

So if he's only suspended for a few games in even half the season, you wouldn't want to keep him?
[Reply]

If we're waiting for the NFL to take action and the result is that he's suspended for 8-10 games, then we would be dumb as hell to release him.

The alternative is for John Dorsey to sign him and for the media to suck Buddy Boy off for building the team that led the Browns to the Super Bowl.

Guarantee you there wouldn't be a thing said about Hunt or Hill.

So no, Fuck that. IF Hill is continued to allow playing, and that's a huge if, then it needs to be for us.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by TLO:
And if you vote no - you'd better have a good damn reason for doing so.

What's your reason for wanting to release him right now?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
What's your reason for wanting to release him right now?

I’m guessing his emotional side and trust in the media got the best of him.
[Reply]

Is it too late to change my answer to a resounding NO?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by comochiefsfan:
Is it too late to change my answer to a resounding NO?

We all make mistakes. It's all good.

I mean, I didn't make a mistake. I'm the fucking king.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
I voted no. I am not in favor of it.

I seem nice
[Reply]

Internets outrage, lol. Y'all who voted "yes" and still say "yes" should put up a frame on your Facebook profile pic in support of having him kicked off the team. That'll show em.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by comochiefsfan:
Is it too late to change my answer to a resounding NO?

Why would anyone say yes in the first place? Honest question. How would that help the Chiefs in ANY meaningful way?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Why would anyone say yes in the first place? Honest question. How would that help the Chiefs in ANY meaningful way?

This. I said NO right out of the gate. Innocent until proven guilty. IF he did indeed break his son's arm (which i do not believe) then YES get the hell out of dodge.

He is a HUGE part of this team. Losing Peters did not change anything. Losing Hunt changed some but not enough in my opinion. Losing Hill would change this team immediately.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Stryker:
This. I said NO right out of the gate. Innocent until proven guilty. IF he did indeed break his son's arm (which i do not believe) then YES get the hell out of dodge.

He is a HUGE part of this team. Losing Peters did not change anything. Losing Hunt changed some but not enough in my opinion. Losing Hill would change this team immediately.

The Chiefs were wrong to release Hunt as well. That was clear from the beginning.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Why would anyone say yes in the first place? Honest question. How would that help the Chiefs in ANY meaningful way?

Some people want to do the right thing even if it doesn't immediately provide some benefit to them.
[Reply]