Reactions To Kareem Hunt’s Release

Less than an hour after the NFL placed Kareem Hunt on the Commissioner Exempt list, the Chiefs cut the Pro Bowl running back last night. The transaction followed the release of a TMZ video that showed Hunt pushing a woman to the ground and kicking her while on the floor in an incident at a Cleveland hotel this past February.

“Earlier this year, we were made aware of an incident involving running back Kareem Hunt,” the Chiefs said in their statement. “At that time, the National Football League and law enforcement initiated investigations into the issue. As part of our internal discussions with Kareem, several members of our management team spoke directly to him. Kareem was not truthful in those discussions. The video released today confirms that fact. We are releasing Kareem immediately.”

Predictably, there have been a number of reactions and observations following the transaction, which we’ve compiled below:

  • Yahoo’s Terez Paylor believes the Chiefs’ statement was “unusually firm,” noting that team chairman and CEO Clark Hunt was presumably acting in the best interest of the NFL. The writer says it wouldn’t have been much of surprise if the organization held on to Hunt and let him sit on the exempt list until there was some kind of resolution. Ultimately, Paylor believes the Chiefs were trying to avoid the narrative that they had “an indifferent attitude about violence against women,” especially following their selection of wideout Tyreek Hill and the tragic death of Jovan Belcher.
  • Michael David Smith of ProFootballTalk.com dives more into the different approaches the Chiefs took with Hill and Hunt. Hill was involved in a 2014 domestic violence case that saw him getting kicked off the Oklahoma State football team and being removed from a number of subsequent draft boards. Hill eventually pleaded guilty to domestic assault and battery by strangulation, and he was slapped with a three-year probation. The Chiefs still selected the wideout in the fifth round of the 2016 draft, and Smith surmise’s that their decision (especially when compared to the Hunt transaction) was attributed to a lack of video evidence. The writer notes that the Ray Rice case proves that “video makes things different,” and he also notes that Hill was already sentenced before he was selected.
  • Following the NFL’s decision to suspend Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott for six games following an alleged domestic violence incident, Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com wonders if the league has “softened its stern, unforgiving approach to off-field misconduct.” If the NFL didn’t actively pursue video of the Hunt video, the writer believes it’s an indication that the league is looking for a middle ground between the Elliott and Hunt ordeals.
  • Judy Battista of NFL.com writes that Hunt’s waiver status creates a “moral quandary” for the other 31 NFL teams. The writer says a potential waiver claim can’t be dismissed, especially after the Redskins claimed Reuben Foster (who was waived by the 49ers following his arrest for an alleged domestic violence incident). Battista ultimately believes that the biggest difference between Hunt and Foster is the presence of a video; a team can be willfully ignorant to any indiscretions if there isn’t any footage of an alleged incident.
  • NESN’s Doug Kyed points out one “messed up” aspect of Hunt being waived: assuming the running back passes through waivers and signs a deal before next season, he’ll end up earning more than the $667K and $735K he was set to make via his rookie deal (Twitter link). Kyed adds that if Hunt is claimed on waivers, it’d end up being worse for him financially, and if a team plans on eventually signing Hunt, it may be in their best financial interest to claim him.
View Comments (14)