Skip to content

Chris Kluwe explains why he said what everyone was thinking

We usually single out an interesting clip from most PFT Live videos, then send you to the show’s homepage to watch the whole interview if you are interested.

Vikings punter Chris Kluwe’s call-in on Wednesday was so much fun that we didn’t feel like we needed to clip anything.

Kluwe explained why he called some of the game’s biggest stars d–bags, a stance that more people may agree with following last night’s Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins news.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 25 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, PFT Live, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Videos
25 Responses to “Chris Kluwe explains why he said what everyone was thinking”
  1. saturn1111 says: Jul 21, 2011 8:34 AM

    Nobody in PFT nation has explained why Reggie White’s receipt of a lifetime exemption from the franchise tag doesn’t stand as precedent in this case.

    White et. al. put their asses on the line for all of their fellow players. Their reward was just.

    I get that anyone who hasn’t faced up to an administration on behalf of their colleagues, despite fear of retribution, probably won’t understand that.

    So Mike, I really want your lawyer’s point of view on this: is White a precedent or not?

    Perhaps the plaintiffs in this anti-trust *have* been offered lifetime exemptions but they want the $$ instead?

    Fill us in.

    As for the punter, well…he makes for great copy, but he needs to do his homework. He’s just playing the emotions of millions of fans who want to see this thing over…playing them like a flute.

  2. edmazeing1 says: Jul 21, 2011 8:53 AM

    there Will be alot of head hunting on kluwe next season!!!

  3. m2karateman says: Jul 21, 2011 9:00 AM

    Tell me saturn1111, when Reggie White negotiated his lifetime franchise tag exemption, did he do it for the entire NFL, or himself?
    Reggie did it for Reggie, not his fellow colleagues. He used it for selfish purposes, not the greater good, didn’t he? And that is exactly what these players are doing, going about doing what they want for themselves, and in the process not giving a damn about anyone else affected by their choices. The very epitome of selfishness.

    Reggie White established a precedent of selfishness, to look out for number one via the legal system and using it for your own good and turning his back on his fellows. That’s the only precedent he established.

    AND, if you might recall, it was the PLAYERS who originally developed the franchise tag, thinking it was in their own interests. The owners simply use it to hold onto talent, but at great expense for one year rather than several years. Don’t blame the owners for knowing how to take advantage of the NFLPAs mistake.

  4. jcg23 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:05 AM

    Put their asses on the line? How? The owners couldn’t do anything toward them and it not be illegal. What they got was the exception, not the rule. These guys are making money at a level White never dreamed of. That should be reward enough.

    Add in the fact that VJ and Mankins missed out on their money last year, because they sat out… Dirt bags.

  5. managod777 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:09 AM

    Again, here we see uninformed people running off at the mouth. Remember, he’s a punter, not even a kicker. The only position under him is long snapper. He’s far, far, far from being highest paid. This “lawsuit” was filed when the union “decertified”. In other words, these players had the balls to put it on the line for their fellow players. Mankins and Jackson have been royally screwed by the “tag” exemption, which is a ploy to hold onto a high profile player you don’t want to sign to a contract. Oh well…what do I know?

  6. eagleswin says: Jul 21, 2011 9:12 AM

    Reggie White was fighting for free agency for all players. The risk he took at that time was far greater than anything today’s named plaintiffs are risking. I would go as far to say that the plaintiffs in todays case are risking nothing and stand for nothing. There have been several reports that some of the named plaintiffs joined the case only because they thought they could get something personal out of it (ie Jackson and Mankins).

    There is no fear of retribution by the named plaintiffs (except maybe by the fans). They are not standing up to the administration. They are not fighting the good fight. The main contribution of many of the plaintiffs was lending their name to the lawsuit. They had no part in the court hearings or negotiations. Heck, the NFLPA is the main reason that retired players benefits were in the sad shape they were in. The players were the ones holding up safety improvements, etc.

    The players are not the victims you portray them to be.

  7. nikesparq says: Jul 21, 2011 9:37 AM

    Packer fan here, but AGREE for once with a Viking player. Just get the deal DONE, everything is finally in place.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to hear more players come out in favor of Kluwe.

  8. ejmat2 says: Jul 21, 2011 9:44 AM

    saturn1111 says
    As for the punter, well…he makes for great copy, but he needs to do his homework. He’s just playing the emotions of millions of fans who want to see this thing over…playing them like a flute.
    ————————————–
    Really???? I think he was just making mockery of the players that were doing their best to prolong this crap. I say good for Klewe. He put it in perspective.

  9. davikes says: Jul 21, 2011 9:52 AM

    I agree with eagleswin. In addition, the reason Brady and Manning the original plaintiffs is exactly because they had no fear of retribution and no real risk.

  10. prior0knowledge says: Jul 21, 2011 9:55 AM

    the 2 cases are completely different. First, in white’s case the players were striking, but now the owner’s are locking out the players. So the power is completely different. In white’s case, they plaintiffs really were taking a chance, because there was no free agency and they were trying to create it. Also, in white’s case, they clearly were in the right with a winning case, not so today.

    and that is just off the top of my head…

    So the 2 cases were completely different and therefore there was no precedent.

    so tell the Jackson and Mankins to go sit down.

  11. schmitty2 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:01 AM

    And the Vikes play the Chargers in week one. I wonder if V-Jax will beg to be on defense when Kluwe is punting

  12. saturn1111 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:09 AM

    First of all, I want you all to know that I’m taking the other side in this to generate discussion that goes beyond the usual “these guys are d-bags” level. And nothing wrankles me more than when there is an elephant in the room and nobody is willing to point it out.

    You guys are coming up with good responses.

    Regarding the notion that Reggie “negotiated his own reward for himself,” I’m sorry. Eagleswin said it best when he said “Reggie White was fighting for free agency for all players.”

    But eagleswin went on to write: “There is no fear of retribution by the named plaintiffs.”

    And davikes writes:

    “I agree with eagleswin. In addition, the reason Brady and Manning the original plaintiffs is exactly because they had no fear of retribution and no real risk.”

    Well….if those of you who feel that Brady et. al. don’t deserve a reward for affixing their names to the suit are going to argue this way, you are making my argument for me.

    If the players had to find guys who are made of teflon to put their names on the lawsuit, then there *is* fear of retribution. Therefore, Brady et. al. really are doing them a solid.

    I don’t agree that today’s plaintiffs are in a different position than those in ’93. You could make the same argument about Reggie that you’re making about Brady.

    I know I brought up fear of retribution, but whether Brady or Manning have to fear it doesn’t really answer the question I posed.

    I’ll ask it again in a different way:

    On the face of things, since there was already the 1993 precedent, those who have affixed their names to the anti-trust suit shouldn’t even have to ask for anything. It should be automatic. We shouldn’t even be talking about it, it should just be there, right? Has anyone from the NFLPA* commented on the Reggie White precedent? Have they thought about it? Or are they in complete ignorance of it? The punter sounds like he has no clue regarding the history of this sort of thing.

  13. ThatGuy says: Jul 21, 2011 10:21 AM

    “If the players had to find guys who are made of teflon to put their names on the lawsuit, then there *is* fear of retribution. Therefore, Brady et. al. really are doing them a solid.”

    I think it was probably more of the NFLPA* pushing for big name players to be the plantaifs than the players themselves. It makes for better print to have the stars of the league sueing, showing they are unhappy and are working for the everyman then have 4th/5th WRs or Nicklebacks the casual fan had never heard of sueing to try get theirs.

  14. ejmat2 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:23 AM

    The Punter may have no clue but what difference does that make? In fact, the NFLPA should be the ones with the clue. They are the ones the Punter (i.e. players) hired to represent them. The sad part is the NFLPA don’t have a clue with this man in charge.

  15. drbob117 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:31 AM

    Their reward should be that they know they helped bring the settlement to fruition; there is no way to justify the most compensated members of a particular class receiving even more benefits. Let’s not overstate White’s role. Norman Braman was the Eagles owner at the time; he was unwilling to make legit offers to free agents because A) he only cared about the bottom line , not football and B) intentionally sabotaged the team Buddy Ryan had built , because he didn’t like Ryan; for me Braman will always be the worst owner in Philly sports history. Over a two to three year period, Braman refused to sign key players that deserved high pay like Jerome Brown, Keith Jackson, Clyde Simmons and others. Reggie was outspoken, and Philly fans never gave these players any hassle because they knew who and what this owner was; but they were in that particular class due to circumstance; let’s not confuse the guy with Curt Flood. Kluwe is absolutely correct about what he is saying , even if he hasn’t chosen the classiest way to say it, Brees, Brady, and Manning etal. should be honored that they are the most decorated, and therefore least vulnerable of the class and leave it at that.

  16. m2karateman says: Jul 21, 2011 10:34 AM

    managod777 says:
    Jul 21, 2011 9:09 AM
    Again, here we see uninformed people running off at the mouth. Remember, he’s a punter, not even a kicker. The only position under him is long snapper. He’s far, far, far from being highest paid. This “lawsuit” was filed when the union “decertified”. In other words, these players had the balls to put it on the line for their fellow players. Mankins and Jackson have been royally screwed by the “tag” exemption, which is a ploy to hold onto a high profile player you don’t want to sign to a contract. Oh well…what do I know?
    ——————————————————
    One…if this punter is so useless, let’s see Brady, Manning, Mankins or Jackson do his job. Can they kick a ball 55-60 yards from where they stand in the face of oncoming rushers, hanging it for about 4 seconds in the air, if not longer? Don’t underestimate the usefulness or difficulty of being an NFL punter and what they can do for the success of a team.
    Two…how is Manning and Brees asking to be exempt from the franchise tag benefitting the rest of the NFL players? How is Mankins and Jackson asking for $10 million benefitting the rest of the NFL players?

    Three…Mankins and Jackson royally screwed? How? They were offered the franchise tag, which pays them more money than most of the players at their respective positions. That isn’t getting royally screwed, that’s getting the royal treatment.

    Four…Players demand high paying, long term contracts, and RARELY meet the expectations for the length of those deals, often causing their team to have to release them prior to the contract length and carry “dead money” on the books. If they DO happen to play at a high level, in two or three years they feel that they are “underpaid” and go right back to demanding more money, and holdout in an unwillingness to accept that they have signed a CONTRACT that THEY demanded and signed.

    I would say that it would be fair to have verbiage in the new CBA that the franchise tag cannot be used on a single player two years in a row. But getting paid as a top five player at your position is NOT getting royally screwed. Those two idiots sat out most of the season last year and screwed themselves. They want long term security because they know playing in the NFL runs a high risk of them suffering a serious injury. But the last time I checked, nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to play football. They have a choice.

  17. saturn1111 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:38 AM

    ThatGuy writes:

    “I think it was probably more of the NFLPA* pushing for big name players to be the plantaifs than the players themselves.”

    I write: Ummmm…the NFLPA* isn’t made up of the players themselves?

  18. baddegg says: Jul 21, 2011 10:48 AM

    I get folks either agreeing or disagreeing with Kluwee on his points, but this ragging on him or acting like his opinion is not important because he is a punter is absurd. Newsflash: punters are legitimate football players on every professional football team. Anyone who truly understands football knows that special teams and field position changes brought on by good or bad punting is absolutely CRITICAL and can seriously impact who wins or loses a game. No, he’s not out there laying Ronnie Lott hits on people, but he’s an important part of the team nonetheless. Jeeze. :-)

  19. bravin4evr says: Jul 21, 2011 11:02 AM

    IDIOT KICKER!

  20. vikingsinla says: Jul 21, 2011 11:07 AM

    He’ll have lots of fans rooting for him when he’s on the West Coast, playing home games for the LA Vikings

  21. ThatGuy says: Jul 21, 2011 11:25 AM

    saturn1111- The NFLPA* is made up of the players, but you know and I know that it is the executives like De Smith making the negotiating strategy. And the Class Action lawsuit by big name players is part of that strategy.

  22. billsfan27 says: Jul 21, 2011 11:30 AM

    Smartest punter in the NFL.

  23. chatham10 says: Jul 21, 2011 11:40 AM

    Why is it when Kluwe speaks out the writers rip him, but when Harrison speaks out it is “free speech? This has nothing to do about him being a punter or Harrison been a tough linebacker. I don’t understand why Kluwe said anything but at least he did not rip his own members of his team.

  24. imlaughingnow says: Jul 21, 2011 1:35 PM

    It’s annoying when people comment and know nothing about the game. Play the sport, then talk.

  25. CKL says: Jul 21, 2011 1:38 PM

    baddegg says:
    Jul 21, 2011 10:48 AM
    I get folks either agreeing or disagreeing with Kluwee on his points, but this ragging on him or acting like his opinion is not important because he is a punter is absurd. Newsflash: punters are legitimate football players on every professional football team. Anyone who truly understands football knows that special teams and field position changes brought on by good or bad punting is absolutely CRITICAL and can seriously impact who wins or loses a game. No, he’s not out there laying Ronnie Lott hits on people, but he’s an important part of the team nonetheless. Jeeze.
    __________________________________
    They remind me of the people who think that if a player is great he will be a great coach or if a player is average he can’t evaluate other payers on tv nor is he capable of being a good coach, GM or announcer. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather have an elite pass rusher than an elite punter, but after watching (GAG) Chris Hanson and Ken Walter punt for my Pats, I ain’t gonna lie, I love me some Mesko.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!