Kluwe was a punter. He is completely expendable in the NFL. It is expected that kickers blend into the background and not say or do anything distracting. Kluwe broke the unbroken rules and he was just too much trouble so he was let go. No one else has picked him up. Was it really about the treatment of homosexuals? No, I think it would have been ANYTHING controversal. Had he been a pro-life zealot he would have gotten the axe. Had he been a big supporter of any real controversial issue he would have been shown the door. Had Kluwe been an elite QB or WR he would still be in the NFL. I honestly think Kluwe has every right to tell his side of the story, but I do not think that his myopic view of the situation is accurate. The coaches simply did not want a distraction, period.
Is this the reverse situation of A&E/Duck Dynasty? Assuming his story is true, do the Vikings have the right to fire him if they feel he could be alienating fans, even if he's morally right?
If you look at his net averages the last few years there wasn't much change. If you look at how many times he could pin a team inside the 20. There wasn't much change from 2011 to 2012 and not much different from 2009 while 2010 he did much better. The yards returned against him ballooned him in 2011 but they were greatly reduced and were closer to his career average in 2012. Keep in mind Jeff Locke's punting average was marginally worse than Kluwe's average for 2012 (44.2 for Locke and 45.0 for Kluwe), marginally worse in net yards (39.2 for Locke and 39.7 for Kluwe), somewhat better for number of times an opponent was pinned in the (23 times for Locke and 18 times for Kluwe) and somewhat better also for return yards allowed (318 for Locke and 349 for Kluwe). Neither player is stellar and about the middle of the pack for the NFL. I am leaning to that Kluwe was released for football reasons, primarily financial, but I find your argument that Kluwe was awful unsupportable. If he had been so bad all along or pulled a Matt Schaub and suddenly got terrible you would have a case but the numbers don't support that. He was fairly consistently middle of the road.
I'm not sure how much he was alienating fans. The anti-gay marriage amendment was defeated in Minnesota and a gay marriage bill passed this year. The team owners, the team has no official stance, has come out in support of gay marriage.
Well if wanted to coach or doing anything else with the NFL or maybe even football he effectively ended them. He could also be sued so he is risking a lot. Him speaking out DURING his career probably didn't help his case either.
I meant speaking out about his "treatment", not his speaking out about gay marriage, (which despite his delusions of victimhood, no one cares about his views on the issue)
He had that weakest leg in the NFL. When your team is on the 5 yard line this has the effect of putting your opponent 8-10 yards closer to scoring than Jeff Locke. Nothing about his numbers lead me to believe he was middle of the pack. A rookie did his job better than him, despite average, and rookie punters are historically terrible.
I don't get how you are making this argument. The fact that Locke's punting average is slightly below Kluwe's indicates that he isn't that much different than Kluwe. Net punt yards and punts within the 20 are heavily influenced by how the rest of the team does but punt average is solely on the punter. Again the numbers don't support your argument.
http://www.footballnation.com/content/2012-2013-final-season-nfl-punter-rankings/22826/ If he was middle of the road or if it was mostly about salary, he would likely have been employed for Game 1 or picked up after an injured punter hit the IR. He wasn't even though willingness to accept the vet minimum. 36 players landed jobs as punter in the NFL, not him. I watched 3 Vikings games and the punter never stood out so I guess if you are watching every week you have the advantage. My belief is salary and being a disruption came WAY after on field performance when the decision was made to cut him. What is my political agenda here? This is a football discussion. You are the one who is biased.
Or that he doesn't want a reputation for suing his closest colleagues or subordinates. Or doesn't have the time or energy to rehash the event to a succession of hucksters who are each already charging $250/hour for a consult. Very few people would rather convolute their career with some sociopolitical catfight than just get on with their lives.
Except salary is a huge factor in the decision to pic up players and for the Vikings they had a cheaper option. As far as another team picking hip up there are cheaper options than the vet minimum. That still doesn't rule out that other issues besides football performance might've been considered. I am not saying he ever stood out but Locke doesn't appear to be much of an improvement except from the salary angle.
