|
"At least it would be something that didn’t leave the sinking suspicion that the Chiefs just caved to the ugliest parts of their fan base and the weakest part of human nature by avoiding discomfort even as it sets them back competitively."
Check me on this-- Is Sam saying many in the Chiefs fan base are....deplorable? And the Chiefs appear to have taken cues from bigots to make this particular personnel decision?
If that's what Sam suspects, that's quite a charge. Some might call it ugly.
I don't like Sam's insinuation the Chiefs caved to racist Chiefs fans. At all. To end his piece with that accusation not only isn't helpful, it's divisive and irresponsible. How do the Chiefs defend themselves?
Here's a thought: Peters may have been a poor fit for this locker room. He was kicked off his team in college. Was there subtle racism in that decision? Did Washington cave to a Neanderthal fan or alumni base? Or, was Peters out of line and deserved his punishment?
There's an arrogance and condescending tone to Sam's piece that I find off-putting. He has painted the top people in the Chiefs organization as weak, uncaring, cynical, and lacking character. Sam wanted Bob Sutton fired. Fine. Many of us would have welcomed that. But Andy Reid saw a different, more pressing problem: His defense was too old, too slow, and too soft. We also know Peters quit on his team and had to be suspended for, perhaps, for more than what happened on the field of play. So maybe his locker room was in trouble-- and that's not up for a vote. If Reid suspects his message or Sutton's isn't respected, he has to make changes. That's true in any company.
Sam obviously doesn't like the way Andy Reid is running his team and the defensive side of the ball. Got it. Good topic for all. But this?
"the sinking suspicion that the Chiefs just caved to the ugliest parts of their fan base and the weakest part of human nature"
Really? Where do we go from here?
Reid/Veach decided to rebuild their defense. But, not the way Sam declared necessary. Now that the Chiefs have traded Peters (accommodated Peter's request?), Sam says their motives are toxic, not the player who has a history of toxicity-- and I'm not talking about the anthem. I don't have to. There's so many other incidents to justify a trade. A trade that hasn't been announced.
The Chiefs drafted Peters. That's on them. If they move him and get fair value, what the hell is wrong with that? They are trying to correct a past mistake. A drafting mistake. We don't even know what we got back for Peters. Why write the article when the transaction isn't known beyond that a trade was agreed to? Why publish an insidious charge regarding the character of those running the Chiefs? It's hard to unring that bell. Does Sam know something we don't?
Marcus Peters is loaded with talent. Maybe he'll be a Hall of Fame DB. But the decision to move this particular player isn't prima facie evidence the Chiefs caved to a vocal, racist fan base.
This is something the writer should have to defend. He leveled the charge. Sam-- a brilliant writer-- does not stand on higher moral ground. Yes, there are some fans who harbor prejudice, but to accuse the Chiefs to caving to that distinct minority is a bridge too far. For me.
|