Radio hosts seems to invoke Chiefs coach Andy Reid’s dead son in argument |

Radio hosts seems to invoke Chiefs coach Andy Reid’s dead son in argument

Matt Rosenberg
Chiefs head coach Andy Reid talks with an official during the third quarter against the Steelers Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018, at Heinz Field.

Kansas City radio host Kevin Kietzman is facing some criticism for seeming to invoke the death of Chiefs head coach Andy Reid’s son against him.

The “Between the Lines” host on WHB 810 AM in Kansas City on Monday questioned a Yahoo! Sports report that embattled wide receiver Tyreek Hill could return to the Chiefs.

In his bashing the potential move, Kietzman pointed to what he called Reid’s inability to discipline.

Kietzman referenced Reid’s family life, seeming to invoke Reid’s son Garrett, who died of a heroin overdose while at Philadelphia Eagles training camp in 2012.

“Discipline is not his thing,” Kietzman said during his show. “It did not work out particularly well in his family. … He wasn’t great at that either. Had a lot of things go bad on him.”

Kietzman, who is listed as a vice president of the station, later elaborated on Twitter and in an email to media-watchdog website Awful Announcing after taking flak for his comments. He said he was not pointing to Garrett’s death in his comments.

“I never once mentioned anything about Andy Reid’s son’s death and never once had it on my mind,” he wrote in the email to Awful Announcing. “A caller called in later and said something about the death and I quickly corrected him and pointed out that I was referencing two sons that were convicted drug dealers and drug addicts that he chose to try to fix by hiring them to work for his football teams.”

Matt Rosenberg is a Tribune-Review assistant multimedia editor. You can contact Matt at 412-320-7937, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | NFL
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.