Browns sign Kareem Hunt

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

If he lies about it, and if they genuinely can't get their hands on the tape, what recourse do they have?

I'm sure they tried to do some due diligence on it, Hunt wasn't honest, it was he-said-she-said, and they hoped it would be buried going forward.

What do you think the Chiefs realistically could've done at that point?

Suspend him and keep his rights.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Suspend him and keep his rights.

Exactly.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Suspend him and keep his rights.

Ah, but now you're operating in a world with perfect information as to how this was ultimately going to play out.

So let's take us back to a year ago when his actually happened. Some allegations against Kareem. Unproven. It's Kareem's word and those of his friends versus the word of some girl who by most accounts was likely intoxicated. Presumably they have the body camera footage as well.

You're saying the Chiefs would've been right to suspend him on that basis? Does that sound like it would've been justified at the time? How many of you would've been bitching about his suspension owing to that information set? How much would CP have likely melted down when we might've lost the opener to the Chargers? Or the game at Denver?

So - you still think they should've suspended him at the time? Yes, if they had perfect foresight that a tape would come out and have that look, and if suspending him to start the season was the way the Chiefs could plausibly retain Hunt in the future, then we can all agree that maybe it would've been the right call at the time. (Though very possible we don't win the AFC West, don't win a home playoff game, and still would've possibly released Hunt given public pressure.)

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Ah, but now you're operating in a world with perfect information as to how this was ultimately going to play out.

So let's take us back to a year ago when his actually happened. Some allegations against Kareem. Unproven. It's Kareem's word and those of his friends versus the word of some girl who by most accounts was likely intoxicated. Presumably they have the body camera footage as well.

You're saying the Chiefs would've been right to suspend him on that basis? Does that sound like it would've been justified at the time? How many of you would've been bitching about his suspension owing to that information set? How much would CP have likely melted down when we might've lost the opener to the Chargers? Or the game at Denver?

So - you still think they should've suspended him at the time? Yes, if they had perfect foresight that a tape would come out and have that look, and if suspending him to start the season was the way the Chiefs could plausibly retain Hunt in the future, then we can all agree that maybe it would've been the right call at the time. (Though very possible we don't win the AFC West, don't win a home playoff game, and still would've possibly released Hunt given public pressure.)

Absolutely not. They should have suspended him when the video came out.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Absolutely not. They should have suspended him when the video came out.

You do realize I was responding to someone who posted that the Chiefs were to blame for not getting out ahead of this when they first learned of the allegations?

Unless you think that suspending Hunt after the tape was released after he was put on the commissioner's exemption list is getting out ahead of things?

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

You do realize I was responding to someone who posted that the Chiefs were to blame for not getting out ahead of this when they first learned of the allegations?

Unless you think that suspending Hunt after the tape was released after he was put on the commissioner's exemption list is getting out ahead of things?

You quoted my post so I assumed you were responding to me.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

You quoted my post so I assumed you were responding to me.

You had responded to me responding to someone else.

To quote you again directly about you this time (so there is no miscommunication here):

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Chief Fan is so ****ing stupid.

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

You had responded to me responding to someone else.

To quote you again directly about you this time (so there is no miscommunication here):

I'm quoting your post which indicates that you are now responding to him, explaining that you quoted his quote responding to a separate post. I just wanted in on this! Exciting!