Mellinger: Marcus Peters is gone. The Chiefs have some explaining to do.

[DaFace]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...201907719.html

Marcus Peters is gone. The Chiefs have some explaining to do.

BY SAM MELLINGER
smellinger@kcstar.com
February 23, 2018 07:27 PM

Clark Hunt, Andy Reid and Brett Veach deserve an opportunity to explain, because as it stands right now they have cloaked their franchise with failure.

That word is not used without thought. That word is not used without intent.

The Chiefs on Friday agreed to trade Marcus Peters to the Rams, reportedly for draft picks. Without hearing from the men who made this decision, the explanation that makes the most sense is one lacking in guts, ambition, commitment to success, and realism.

A difficult situation presents itself, and the Chiefs hit the eject button.

Starting with Reid being hired and paid more than any NFL coach who has not won a Super Bowl, the Chiefs have branded themselves as a place for second chances, where strong personalities are welcomed and supported.

Here, then, they failed with their strongest-willed and one of their best players. This was supposed to be their edge. Let players show their personalities. Get the most out of them. Except with Peters, the Chiefs failed to do it, apparently allowing the situation to become so untenable they traded him without a strong market of interest.

Again, Hunt, Reid, and Veach should be allowed to explain. This has all the markings of the Chiefs pushing Peters out, but there is always a chance the trade return was so overwhelming the Chiefs couldn’t resist. So these words are an initial reaction, not the final judgment. Still, the following is true:

Peters plays one of the most important non-quarterback positions in football, creates more turnovers than anyone else in the league, and just turned 25 in January with a year left on his rookie deal plus up to three more years of club control.

And he’s gone. For what?

The Chiefs traded a cheap, young star at a premium position despite the limited leverage of just two teams interested.

Why?

For draft picks? So they have an opportunity to select Peters’ replacement? That’s not the action of a successful franchise.

That’s the action of a franchise with more blown leads than wins in playoff games.

One more time, maybe there is a better and more sensible explanation, but here’s what it looks like at the moment: Hunt, who cowered when given the opportunity to stand up for his players’ rights last fall, wanted the headache gone.

He has been outspoken about wanting players to stand for the anthem, and talked Peters into staying in the locker room for the song. Hunt is a conservative man by nature, and it’s not a stretch to believe he wanted one of the NFL’s least conservative players off his team.

Because the other explanations don’t make as much sense.

The Chiefs want you to believe they are serious about winning and just traded one of their best players.

The Chiefs are trying to get younger and just traded a 25-year-old star.

The Chiefs’ secondary was awful last year and they just dumped (by far) their best cornerback.

The Chiefs retained a defensive coordinator who was exposed in 2017, deciding it was more about a lack of talent, and just shipped off one of the league’s most productive and dangerous defenders.

The Chiefs’ defense emphasizes creating turnovers, and they just traded the man who has created more turnovers than anyone else since he entered the league.

The Chiefs, in other words, have a disconnected vision of their future, or no serious expectations of success this season, or both.

Peters is not without his faults. Obviously. He is hyper competitive, which is his greatest strength right until the moment it becomes his greatest flaw. You don’t know when he’ll draw a personal foul, but you can expect at least a few every season.

Kansas City Chiefs cornerback Marcus Peters has lost his cool or done something that has resulted in a fine several times during the 2017 season. Neil Nakahodo, Pete Grathoff, David EulittThe Kansas City Star

Reid is by reputation one of the league’s great players’ coaches, and along with Terrell Owens, Peters is one of just two players Reid has suspended in 19 years. Peters’ protests during the national anthem angered a loud portion of the Chiefs’ fan base, and despite handing out turkeys and coats in Kansas City last year, the drama was never going fully away.

There is little doubt he was unhappy in Kansas City. Some of this was inevitable, because the player and his adopted home were so different. Peters could have asked to be traded, but his only leverage was a threat to sit out (which would mean not being paid, and not accruing service time toward free agency) or to not sign an extension (but the Chiefs could’ve controlled him for up to four more seasons).

The Chiefs were not against the clock here. They had time on their side.

The Chiefs could have supported the player, could have worked with the player. They could have found common ground. They could have defended the player against unfair public criticism, if that’s what it took.

Good organizations do that. The Chiefs traded the player. Organizations whose last Super Bowl appearance is old enough to be a grandfather do that.

One more time for the people in the back: Hunt, Reid, and Veach deserve the opportunity to explain. Chiefs fans deserve that, too. Maybe there is something that brings it all together.

But at the moment, only two explanations come to mind that make more sense than Hunt wanting the player out.

The first is that Peters had somehow become such a problem that he was breaking the locker room, and the organization made the advance decision to deal him now before he made more money and his trade value slipped.

That would have to account for the Chiefs players upset by the trade, require something much worse than what’s known so far, and be a tacit admission of failure by a coach hired in part because of his ability to get the best out of strong personalities.

The second apparent explanation would be that the Chiefs are fully embracing a rebuild, and selling off all valuable parts while they reset around quarterback Patrick Mahomes. If that’s the case, then more big trades should be expected.

There are varied holes in this logic, too, from the Chiefs having a good roster already to the NFL’s established history of teams winning with quarterbacks on rookie contracts.

But, at least it would be something.

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.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by notorious

Is it possible that Peters ****ed up on his assignments so much that it compromised the defense?

I'd lean towards no, but he is a freelancer style. The reason he's traded has zero to do with his on field production.

[lcarus]

Assuming, just for fun, that the return the Chiefs will get is a late 1st, late 5th, and next years probably-late 2nd, that's a win for the Rams. I mean, if you had 3 picks like that you'd be damn lucky to get 1 player who is among the best of the best at his position. Especially as important as a corner is on a modern-day NFL roster.

I see no way this is a win for KC. Unless the return is quite a bit more than we all expect. They're either stupid or they were forced into a position where they had to take a loss and get back whatever they could. It's sad that I don't know 100% for sure it's not the stupid option.

Also, Peters won in this trade. I'm sure he's happy to go to LA....

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Assuming, just for fun, that the return the Chiefs will get is a late 1st, late 5th, and next years probably-late 2nd, that's a win for the Rams. I mean, if you had 3 picks like that you'd be damn lucky to get 1 player who is among the best of the best at his position. Especially as important as a corner is on a modern-day NFL roster.

I see no way this is a win for KC. Unless the return is quite a bit more than we all expect. They're either stupid or they were forced into a position where they had to take a loss and get back whatever they could. It's sad that I don't know 100% for sure it's not the stupid option.

Also, Peters won in this trade. I'm sure he's happy to go to LA....

All of this is probably the truth. Other than at this point we're still debating over what we got in return.

[Coochie liquor]

What am I gonna get in return for buying my first jersey in at least a decade? ****ing loved rocking my fairly new MP22 Jersey. The Clarks owe me a new jersey. If I knew buying a jersey would end this way, I woulda got a ****ing Sutton jersey.

[007]

Originally Posted by Coochie liquor

What am I gonna get in return for buying my first jersey in at least a decade? ****ing loved rocking my fairly new MP22 Jersey. The Clarks owe me a new jersey. If I knew buying a jersey would end this way, I woulda got a ****ing Sutton jersey.

Thats why I got a jersey number hardly any player for the Chiefs ever chooses and put my last name on it.

"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.

[Warrick]

Classic cp meltdown

[jspchief]

Lol at the the Donald speculation. And they aren't getting a first either. I'll bet dollars to dimes that this is a net loss in talent.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by notorious

Is it possible that Peters ****ed up on his assignments so much that it compromised the defense?

Did you watch the games? Peters was almost never thrown at. The guy shut down his half of the field.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by notorious

Is it possible that Peters ****ed up on his assignments so much that it compromised the defense?

I'm going to go with yes here. Numbers back it up. So does the eye test.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Coogs

I'm going to go with yes here. Numbers back it up. So does the eye test.

You have to be joking. His play on the field is the last thing to factor into this.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by jspchief

You have to be joking. His play on the field is the last thing to factor into this.

No, I'm not really joking. I think he compromised the entire defense on a play by play basis.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Warrick

Classic cp meltdown

Justified.

[KCCHIEFS27]

Originally Posted by BlackOp

I know...3 of the top 11 picks were CBs in 2016. How dare they think that.

CHunt has his "yes men" in place...

Name me one CB, if they went down with injury, a teams playoff chance/super bowl chances would greatly diminish.

[Red Beans]

Originally Posted by jspchief

You have to be joking. His play on the field is the last thing to factor into this.

Maybe, but maybe not. There's the possibility that he said, "**** the old man, and this scheme" and was freelancing a shit ton. I don't watch enough film to know. But it is a possibility.