Red Beans |
04-26-2019 12:53 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of Thunder
(Post 14233056)
This is likely about the court of public opinion now. Can the Chiefs keep a guy on the roster who everyone "believes" hurt is child on purpose?
|
What is generally problematic for me, is that if the Chiefs cave
to the court of public opinion and release him, there will be a dozen other teams that will gladly pick him up. And for the most part, those fan bases, and the media will not bend over backwards to vilify the team, the man, and the decision. That's what bothers me. Taking the moral high ground and releasing Hill allows some other team to come in and claim him. This also allows that team the opportunity to look like a moral savior in the sense that they will allow Hill to serve out his suspension and then publicly advocate the fact that they are helping he'll get his life turned around. The Chiefs need to sit on this, let the NFL weigh in allow Hill to play the remainder of his contract and then make a decision. Unless the NFL issues a lifetime ban, then this is the Chiefs problem, and the Chiefs should be the team to help Hill " get his life together." Whatever the **** that entails. Then make the decision once his contract has expired. Piece of shit or not, he needs to be our problem to deal with whether he plays another down under his current contract or not. Otherwise he'll be some other team's piece of shit and I guarantee he won't smell nearly as bad.
|