Tag: Jason Whitlock (Page 4 of 4)

      Whitlock rips Herm Edwards for flubbing draft gig

      April 27, 2009 /

      Never one to shy away from giving his truthful opinion, Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star ripped former Chiefs head coach Herm Edwards for his less-than stellar performance on ESPN’s broadcast of the NFL draft last weekend.

      Herm spent two days on air making damn sure he didn’t offer one opinion that could potentially put him at odds with an NFL owner, general manager or remotely talented player. Edwards isn’t the first former coach to hit the television airwaves determined to pick up an easy paycheck and protect his future coaching prospects.

      If he’s not careful, his ESPN job is going to sabotage his coaching career. In two days of breaking down the draft, Edwards came across as sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. His commentary was a mixture of Mike Ditka, Sarah Palin and Michael Irvin.

      I fully expect to soon see Edwards standing in front of the pointless touch-screen prop that had promising Michael Smith looking and sounding more like Vanna White than the next Chris Mortensen during the draft weekend.

      For a man who was supposed to be a broadcasting natural, Edwards mumbled, stumbled and clichéd his way through two days of draft coverage. Kansas City’s 2-14 record made sense.

      Unfortunately I didn’t see Edwards’ performance on ESPN because my TV never left the NFL Network’s coverage of the draft, but it would make sense that Herm wouldn’t want to ruffle any feathers if he hopes to get another head coaching gig.

      Jon Gruden was an analyst for the NFL Network all weekend and while I didn’t think he did a bad job, he didn’t give any earth-shattering commentary either. I thought he played his role – talked about team needs, what a head coach looks for in prospects and gave his opinion on the state of certain franchises. I wouldn’t expect him to rip another head coach, owner or team given the fact that he’ll probably be in the league again next year. I would have to assume that NFL coaches share a brotherhood to some extent, which is why Herm probably didn’t feel the need to lambaste anyone either.

      It still would have been nice to see what Whitlock is talking about with Edwards though. Anyone agree with Whitlock’s assessment of Herm’s performance?

      NFL, NFL Draft

      Pro-BCS’er Jason Whitlock knows best

      November 24, 2008 /

      We took a poll last year and 90% of our readers said that the BCS should be trashed in favor of a playoff system. It takes guts (or something) to stand up against that kind of popular opinion, and Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock is the latest to take up the mantle, using President-elect Barack Obama’s pro-playoff stance as a starting point.

      Like I did with similar arguments from Tim Cowlishaw and John Walters, let me respond to Whitlock point-by-point…

      I realize I’m one of just a handful of American men unpleased by Obama using the weight of the presidency to pressure college presidents to disband the BCS. He knows this, too. It’s probably pretty much all he really knows about big-time college football. Fans — Republican, Democrat and Libertarian — are dissatisfied with the current system. There’s virtually no risk in bashing the BCS.

      Why is that? I’m not one to argue that the majority is always right, but when 90% of the populace agrees on something, we should probably go ahead and give it a try.

      President-elect Obama doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and he diminishes his high office and invites other politicians to join him by foolishly entering a debate that has life only because “Joe the Sports Writer/Broadcaster” can’t wrap his brain around sports issues of substance.

      Now Whitlock claims that anyone that is pro-playoff “can’t wrap his brain around sports issues of substance.” Mind you, he hasn’t yet made an actual point, but he is already declaring that anyone who doesn’t agree with him just simply isn’t as smart as he is.

      Yeah, by lending his name to this non-issue, Obama has pleased every Bubba in America and pretty much ensured that big-time college football will continue an escalation toward professionalism and exploitation of “amateur” athletes.

      Okay, here’s the big windup…

      Let me quickly repeat the argument I introduced in the mid-1990s:

      Division I-A college football has the greatest regular season in all team sports, and a playoff system would ruin that distinction. For decades, coaches and players focused on winning conference championships and were quite satisfied with a “mythical” national championship decided by poll voters. The advent of ESPN and sports-talk radio created the fallacy that the lack of a playoff system scars athletes, fans, women and children, contributes to global terrorism and delays Santa Claus’ delivery run on Christmas Eve.

      There’s nothing wrong with college football on the field. It is America’s healthiest sport in terms of consistent entertainment value. This is not even remotely debatable.

      So Whitlock’s argument is that the college football regular season is perfect as is, and that it was sports-talk radio that created a “fallacy” that the sport needs a playoff. Assuming this is correct, sports-talk radio was successful in convincing 90% of college football fans that the current system – the very system they were supposedly “fans” of – was broken. Wow, sports-talk radio must be really powerful. How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything?

      He also declares that it is “not remotely debatable” to say that any other sport is as consistently entertaining as college football. I know a few million NFL fans that would beg to differ.

      There’s a lot wrong with college athletics. Many football and basketball players are funneled through the system without receiving much of an education. Coaches and administrators are paid salaries that invite questionable ethics. Too many athletes arrive on campus completely unprepared to be educated and solely interested in the development of their bodies. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is out of control within most athletic departments.

      These and other issues are worthy of discussion at the presidential level.

      Who’s No. 1? How to set up an eight-team playoff format?

      Leave that to the idiots.

      This is a classic debate tool. Distract from the real issue by making points that almost everyone can agree with and then act like you’ve won the argument. Just because there are other issues to deal with in collegiate athletics, it doesn’t mean that Obama shouldn’t help to facilitate something that 90% of college football fans want to see.

      He didn’t say why a playoff would ruin the regular season, he just stated that it would, as if it were a fact.

      I guess that’s just one of those “sports issues of substance” that we mere mortals just can’t wrap our brains around. Jason Whitlock says he knows best, and therefore he must.

      College Football, NFL

      For Jason Whitlock, it’s all about race

      August 22, 2008 /

      In his column about the death of Gene Upshaw, Jason Whitlock can’t seem to get beyond the issue of race. Yes, Gene Upshaw was black, and that’s an important part of his story, but from Whitlock’s point of view it’s the only thing that matters.

      Leaders who happen to be black spend most of their days in this country dodging arrows … until they’re dead or rendered harmless.

      It’s why most Americans are uncomfortable with Jim Brown and love Muhammad Ali, the two transcendent athletes from the 1960s who represented black empowerment. Ali, felled by Parkinson’s Disease, lit the 1996 Olympic torch and is a beloved figure now that he mumbles and shakes.

      Brown is the same unbending, uncompromised free-thinker who makes people uncomfortable because he wears a funny hat and believes gangbangers and parolees can be productive U.S. citizens.

      Muhammad Ali was a beloved figure long before he got sick, primarily because he was one of the greatest and most charismatic athletes of the 20th century. Jim Brown never had that charisma, and this “unbending, uncompromised free-thinker” also got convicted of destroying his wife’s car with a shovel. He was never a warm and fuzzy character, so naturally that affected his popularity. Yet despite that Brown was widely praised for his efforts to help gang-bangers.

      Whitlock, however, is just getting warmed up.

      Now that Upshaw is dead you’ll be hearing and reading a lot about his leadership-through-accommodation method. It actually worked. It grew the league to the point where all the old NFL players are insanely jealous and feel as if the current players owe them money.

      Yep, the whole “reparations” movement powered by Mike Ditka and all the other angry old men is a direct byproduct of the success of the NFL, which Upshaw played a huge role in.

      Of course, when he was alive Upshaw was trashed for his inability to convince the current players (mostly black) to hand over a portion of their earnings to the retired players (mostly white) who built the game. There is no precedent for retired workers having their post-career benefits significantly improved … other than retired NFL players.

      Somehow, Whitlock sees the entire issue of benefits for broken down older players through the lense of race. Never mind that a federal judge reprimanded the NFL for their disgraceful treatment of Mike Webster. Never mind that many ex-players in their 40’s can’t walk or work. Whitlock is quick to point out the brutal nature of the NFL when defending Upshaw for not getting guaranteed contracts, but somehow can’t see that the issues facing ex-NFL players are unique, even when compared to other sports, precisely because the sport is so brutal. Few people realized just how destructive an NFL career could be later in life. To suggest that Upshaw owed nothing to these players, and to reduce it to a black vs. white issue, is ridiculous.

      Also, this wasn’t just about benefits for older players. The issues also involved the lack of disability benefits for players who played under Upshaw’s watch.

      Upshaw did some great things, and he deserves praise for helping to grow the NFL. Like anyone else, however, he made choices about what was important, and by doing so he also decided which issues were less important. It’s entirely reasonable for players who disagreed with him to criticize him and challenge him. By focusing so much on Upshaw’s race, Whitlock implies that any criticism if Upshaw is somehow inappropriate.

      The best way to honor Upshaw’s accomplishments is to address his success and the controversies surrounding his decisions on their merits. Let him be judged by his actions. Contrary to Whitlock’s claim, even before he died, Upshaw received tons of praise for his role in the modern NFL. Sure, he was also criticized, but that comes with the territory. Upshaw had a high-profile job that earned him millions.

      Unfortunately, Whitlock only heard the criticism.

      NFL

      Whitlock: Blame the white media for Imus’ coverage

      June 28, 2008 /

      Jason Whitlock made some interesting points in his latest article for FOX SPORTS about how the “white media” jumped on Don Imus’s recent comments about Adam Jones not wanting to be referred to as “Pacman” from now on.

      The hosts are generally clueless about the topic and, worse, scared to death that they’ll say something that provokes Sharpton to call their boss. The other guests are generally just as clueless, afraid they’ll say something that provokes Sharpton to call them an Uncle Tom or a bigot and are primarily concerned with demonstrating they’re worthy of an invite back or their own TV show.

      Imus suggested Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam “Pacman” Jones’ six arrests were rather predictable given his African-American heritage. A day later, Imus clarified his statement — and tried to avoid trouble — by stating that he was making a sarcastic point about America’s unequal criminal-justice system.

      Imus was right both times. But Imus being right doesn’t make for good television and certainly does not pay for the conk in Rev. Sharpton’s wig.

      No, sir. This was a full-blown racial controversy, a Nielsen-ratings-mover, a chance for white talk-show hosts to climb into the Octagon and let Kimbo Slice and Jimbo White Rice knuckle up until the viewers tapped out.

      I digress. My point is that what Imus said warrants discussion. We just don’t need to discuss Imus. He is not our problem. Pacman Jones, with his off-field antics and stupidity, has done more damage to the image of American black men than Don Imus could ever hope to do.

      I know this wasn’t Whitlock’s main point, but he hit the nail on the head when he wrote about media hosts and guests being scared when the topic of race in sports is approached. But they’re not only scared because of Sharpton – they’re scared because there are too many sensitive people in this country. It’s gotten to the point where you can’t even have a reasonable debate nowadays because some people just roll out of bed offended at something or somebody. It’s a shame we as a society can’t talk more openly about the topic of race without the discussion turning into one big defensive mechanism.

      General Sports, NFL

      Newer posts »

      © 2025 The Scores Report – The National Sports Blog

      Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑