This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

We cut Hunt by irishrock

And Hill likely will be cut pretty soon as well

Now, the question you have for KC is a fair one but should be directed at the NFL more than the Chiefs

The Chiefs got one good day of pr for the cutting of Hunt. How much backlash have the Browns taken for signing him?

I predict Hill is gone (Iactuallt think he may go to jail) and would be quickly signed by the Cowboys or the Saints shortly thereafter...he’s the most dynamic non-QB player in the NFL today

What you want is fair...and I agree with you. But the re-signing of the cut player seems like a league issue. Imagine the scenario where Hunt runs for four td’s against the Chiefs in the AFC championship game.