I kinda think "but he lied" took care of that, but sure...
[Reply]

Ignore me, I just get persnickety about the passive voice. :-)
[Reply]

Interesting hill to pick. I respect your dedication.
[Reply]

Personally, I think Hunt might be one of those blackout drunks who doesn't remember what he did the next day.

Those guys are like liquor-fueled automatons or something. After they achieve a certain blood alcohol level, they no longer have higher brain function, just sheer id and physicality.

Or maybe he's just genetically pre-disposed to be a dumbass.

Either way, he's Dorsey's problem now ... again.

FAX
[Reply]

Not knocking you personally, it's just so often a way for conversations to actively avoid clear declarations, and tends to intone some kind of cosmic force directing people's actions.

Ex - It's not 'he raped her,' it's 'the genitals of the parties were intertwined prior to negotiation' It's not 'he shot him,' it's 'a projectile was propelled into decedent's chest cavity.'

No worries though.
[Reply]

In that case, I'm going on a "fewer/less" jihad.
[Reply]

We had to move on anyway. Yeah, ideally he doesn't kick the woman, get put on commissioner's exempt for the entire rest of the season, and then get 8 games tacked on to begin this season. Ideally he plays the rest of last year, all of this year, and then the next. But he did what he did, and then he got suspended. That means we had to find a suitable replacement during that time anyway. And if we were going to do it for that long, we may as well count on that being our solution for the immediate future, because we ain't keeping Hunt past his rookie deal. I get that's an entire extra year we're then missing out on, but sometimes it's just better to move on early than deal with the enormous headache he would have been.

We're better off in the long run.
[Reply]

How are we better off? Williams was already his backup. Hunt would currently be stashed and we would have likely drafted a back in the 5th with Hunt out for half the season.

What would actually be different, other than we would have had one more option available to us after week 8 or so? Perhaps we wouldn't have signed Carlos Hyde?
[Reply]

We likely wouldn't have drafted Darwin Thompson.

At worst, we're where we would have been if we kept him.
[Reply]

Well, except, we'd have a league-leading rusher coming in fresh after week 8 or so, ready to pound the **** out of defenses for absolutely zero cost. I mean, we'd have that.

(I DO love Darwin, BTW, and think we would have still drafted him and would NOT have signed Carlos Hyde).
[Reply]

I'll take what we have. Like the numbers show, the drop off from Hunt to Williams wasn't much of a drop off if at all. So yeah I'll take Williams and Darwin and maybe Hyde for 16 games over Williams for 8 and Hunt for the last 8.
[Reply]

There weren't many backs like Darwin in this draft. And it's always tough to count on what other teams are going to do. For all the Chiefs knew back when free agency started, some random team could have valued him several rounds higher than we did and stolen him long before the Chiefs thought about pulling the trigger.

I'm glad it worked out the way it did, but signing Hyde was a responsible move. We did not want to get caught with our pants down, depending Darrell Williams and a bag of dicks in case Damien Williams got hurt.
[Reply]

Serious Q. Do you find the lying to the face of the brass of the organization about matters you did that are presently vital to the health of the organization COMPLETELY irrelevant?

I know you posited this hypothetical that Mahomes could do it. But the utility of this hypothetical is essentially nil, premised on the fairly solid notion that Mahomes NEVER WOULD do it, . . . which is a not-insignificant portion of his value to the organization.

Do you think the business world is just chock full of people who lie to their bosses about conduct detrimental to organizational health?
[Reply]

Hunt was made the example and I am thinking what happened to him is one reason why Tyreek is still on this team.
[Reply]

You’ve nailed it here. :-)

I don’t know what world some of you live and work in where you can outright lie to your boss about something that directly affects his livelihood and think that it shouldn’t have some major repercussions. And if you were on the opposite end and had an employee who had Kareem’s consistent run-ins and then lied about it, would you really just write it off?

Putting all of that to the side:
Some seem to ignore that keeping Kareem would’ve likely brought all of the Tyreek Hill backstory back to the forefront as the Chiefs would’ve been labeled the NFL’s domestic abuse misfits. And then when Hill had his own vignette this offseason, the likelihood of our having stood by him would’ve been nil.

Regurgitating this discussion is so unnecessary.
[Reply]