The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Jason Whitlock gets it. Good article.

I'm dissapointed that he felt the need to bring race into it.

Yea. That was about the most haphazard article I've ever read. Hopefully one day people won't need to be ashamed by the misdeeds of another person who happens to be the same race. I don't think Rothlesberger's race has any more to do with his stupidity than Vick's does. As a result, I see no reason to feel ashamed or "set back" by either Ben or Vick's behavior. Whitlock is a race baiter.

I isn't an article... it is a blog... an opinion piece... and, as such, is completely legitimate.

Jason Whitlock believes what he is saying... just happens that he also believes his job to be about provoking thought and discussion, and frequently, about being controversial and pissing people off. He says what he thinks. Not everyone likes it.

I didn't find it haphazard at all... it was focused... you happen to disagree with his conclusion.

I happen to believe he's onto something.

If you saw his blog as "race baiting"... then that's just unfortunate.

It is what it is - a blog, an editorial ...whatever - I take it for what it is - just another opinion - IMO something that is mean't to get a reaction more than something that the 'author' knows more about about but just wants to get somebody to react to - this is the era of putting 'something' out there and you really have lost it if nobody responds so why not try and let your creative thinking guide you

who really cares about the facts anymore - it's a lot more fun to make something up

Countertrey wrote:Jason Whitlock believes what he is saying... just happens that he also believes his job to be about provoking thought and discussion, and frequently, about being controversial and pissing people off.

OK - I agree - IMO it is more "about being controversial and pissing people off" than it is about putting out points of view that are factual AND get no response = NOT GOOD

I think it's a garbage piece.

He went from the timeline of the nightclub, to a weird reference to The Wire, to Philly deserves Vick for beating up on McNabb, to black people deserve Vick since black people unconciously support him, to Vick sets back black quarterbacks.

Haphazard to say the least. He's setting back journalism with that op ed piece - but I digress.

I'm just sick of every moron who gets into trouble having his race brought up all of the time. Fools make generalizations. Whitlock is a fool.

When Tom Brady, or even Matt Ryan goes into work - I doubt he's thinking that he has to "represent" for white quarterbacks since Ben Rothlesberger gave them a bad name. Just nonsense.

I don't see what's wrong with this article. McNabb was always hated in Philly and it was never clear why. Vick has had more chances than any person could ask for, and he still squanders them. Whitlock puts these facts in pretty sharp language.

Just because the guy uses the term "black community" or mentions the fact that black QBs are uncommon doesn't make it race baiting . . .

This was a pretty accurate piece for someone that describes his work as "humorous, thought-provoking, agenda free, honest and unpredictable". McNabb played a major role in bringing Vick to Philly, and helping him get back into League only to be run out of town the next year. Donovan was booed by Philly fans the day they drafted him and the booing never stopped yet most Philly fans loved the move to get Vick.

They do deserve Vick in Philly, McNabb's leadership will create opportunities for other black QBs, and he was criticized when he transitioned into a dropback passer.

The Hogster wrote:He went from the timeline of the nightclub, to a weird reference to The Wire, to Philly deserves Vick for beating up on McNabb, to black people deserve Vick since black people unconciously support him, to Vick sets back black quarterbacks.

The nightclub timeline is what has Vick in hot water now (in addition to his stupidity), the reference to "The Wire" wasn't weird, it was the bases for his opinion that "Philly deserves Vick". The black community does show too much loyalty to Vick (considering his body of work when compared to other QBs). He didn't say Vick set back Black QBs he said Vick undermines black folks progress.

Irn-Bru wrote::hmm: I don't see what's wrong with this article. McNabb was always hated in Philly and it was never clear why. Vick has had more chances than any person could ask for, and he still squanders them. Whitlock puts these facts in pretty sharp language.

Just because the guy uses the term "black community" or mentions the fact that black QBs are uncommon doesn't make it race baiting . . .

First off McNabb was hated in Philly by white and black alike. So, I'm not sure where he's going with that logic.

Yea - white running backs are uncommon too - that doesn't mean it's Mike Alstott's fault. White wide receivers are uncommon too - that doesn't mean it's Matt Jones' fault. White cornerbacks are uncommon too - that doesn't mean it's Jason Sehorn's fault.

Bottom line is in order to subscribe to Whitlock's point of view, you have to unconciously agree that Vick - because of his blackness rather than his stupidity - is hurting the chances of Josh Freeman or Jason Campbell. Totally ridiculous. Unless you are agreeing that there is a correlation between Vick's race and his stupidity - then race shouldn't even be raised as an issue in his case and not in Rothlisbergers.

Moreover, while I acknowledge that this is an "opinion piece" he makes generalized statements like"

What’s always bothered me about Vick is that he’s far more beloved in the black community than McNabb.

Really???? So, lemme get this straight, the black "community" (which is in and of itself a misnomer) loves Vick more than McNabb??? When did this poll happen? If it didn't, it's just an opinion, a sloppily constructed one I might add. Just because Vick's community in Virginia loves him doesn't mean that black folks across the nation like him more than McNabb. But whatever.

And we wonder why NFL management (Jeff Ireland) chooses to ignore common decency and bombard young black kids (Dez Bryant) with insulting pre-draft questions.

So, Ireland's question is acceptable and should be expected in the "black community" because of Michael friggin Vick??? Huh? So, let me get this straight, the article lauds a guy like McNabb, but excuses ignorant behavior of an NFL GM because of Vick? So I guess Vick's bad behavior outweighs McNabb's good behavior? Okay, sound logic there. Oh, here's the intelligent rationale for that profound statement.

They’re afraid of getting in bed with the next Michael Vick. But he’s a hero, a ghetto icon.

Okay - I think GM's are afraid of getting in bed with the next Michael Vick and the next Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell, Heath Shuler, Andre Ware, Joey Harrington, or a litany of other busts. But, I guess race only trumps individual irresponsibility and dumbness when it's a black quarterback. I wonder what Warren Moon, or Doug Williams think of that one.

I wonder what "ghetto" Whitlock polled when coming up with that icon-bit. And, BTW - all black people don't come from or live in the "ghetto" yet he uses it interchangably with the "black community."

And maybe we (black folks) deserve Vick, too. We shower him with undying loyalty even though his actions undermine our progress.

Maybe the single-most dumb thing about this post. How much self-loathing does Whitlock do on a daily basis. He spends the whole article distancing himself from Vick and castigating those who "support him" but then say "WE" deserve Vick because "WE" shower him with undying loyalty? Uhh HUH?? That is how stupid one can sound when they make racial generalizations. Whitlock - who by all accounts is black - is an example of how misinformed his own article is. HE doesn't support Vick, and HE isn't the only black person who doesn't.

Maybe some agree with group think and subliminal racism, but I'll call it for what it is. A horribly written, ridiculous, race-baiting article. I wonder if Whitlock thinks that he set back black journalists with this.

yupchagee wrote:I'm dissapointed that he felt the need to bring race into it.

It was about two black QBs and how they have been treated and veiwed by the black community.

1niksder wrote:He didn't say Vick set back Black QBs he said Vick undermines black folks progress.

Jason Whitlock wrote:

No QB in the history of the league has done more damage to the reputation of and the opportunities afforded to black quarterbacks than Michael Vick

.

Read slower.

The Hogster wrote:

1niksder wrote:He didn't say Vick set back Black QBs he said Vick undermines black folks progress.

Jason Whitlock wrote:

No QB in the history of the league has done more damage to the reputation of and the opportunities afforded to black quarterbacks than Michael Vick

.

Read slower.

That doesn't mean he set back black QBs and the only thing he came up with to backup the "Damaging Reps and Opportunities" he's doing was to point out something that happened to a WR at the combines. Has there been a issue with any QBs based on Vick's actions?

It seems as your post are the only ones that call it race baiting, I see it as a writer talking about how his favorite QB was treated in Philly, others will see it other ways.

I have to say I agree with Hoggster. It would have been different if we was simply comparing Vick and McNabb. But the whole premise was based on race IMO. Negative black and positive white (the other QB references). I didn't like it, but I'm not getting in to a pissing contest over my reaction to the garbage blog.

1niksder wrote:

yupchagee wrote:I'm dissapointed that he felt the need to bring race into it.

It was about two black QBs and how they have been treated and veiwed by the black community.

It was about 2 QB's. Black QB's aren't that rare anymore. I think race is only an issue here because the writer choose to make it 1.

Well, as a guy who was raised and still lives in the 'ghetto' (trust me on this, if you have been to LP you'd agree) even before he got here, McNabb's always been my preference. I mean, strictly black QBs-QBs I'm talking about. Simple reason, he stays out of trouble. This guy is a fool, how the hell is Mike Vick a ghetto hero? You know what most of the black people think about Vick, he's a damn idiot and he's lucky he got another chance to play. I say most of the black people meaning all my black friends, not like I did a poll or anything. Allen Iverson is loved waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than Vick in that area and I know this because of family down there. See, AI got a bum deal with his criminal past and he's always been a stand up guy. Vick is just dumb.. dumb dumb dumb. I personally don't think Vick set black QBs back at all, or progress or whatever the term he used. Vick- dumb, McNabb- smart, fans of eagles- too stupid for their own good. Let's see, Vick gambled on dog fighting (or he did the fighting, I don't know or care), Jamarcus got caught "sippin on some syzurrrp" (go ahead and laugh, I did).. those are the only 2 knuckle-headed black QBs I can think of. Oh wait, I forgot there's another idiot named Dante Culpepper who thought he was the captain of the love boat. On the other hand we have Randal Cunningham, Doug Williams, Warren Moon, Donovan McNabb, Jason Campbell, Steve McNair (included because he didn't do crimes that we know of) are/were good players who kept out of trouble.

So I guess my point is those few idiot black QBs who do dumb stuff are not setting anything or anyone back except themselves.

*make sure you sign up for THN Fantasy Football*

I think some people maybe don't understand the mentality of the black community and the certain way of thinking that goes on within it. Now, I am not claiming to "know" the black community, but I do have "ties that bond" so I have a keen interest in understanding their culture. I am thinking the author of the article has seen or heard comments that made him think "why are they celebrating Vick when McNabb has been a perfect role model for young black athletes?" It is the attraction and celebration of the "bad guy" who is thuggish in nature instead of the "sellout" type of people like McNabb that is a class act that probably is most disturbing to Whitlock. It is the constant one step ahead and two steps back that is type of image that is projected especially when its done in the media and in front of white America that the author is sick of. And yes, in regards to philly, they don't deserve McNabb and never have. He was welcomed here with open arms instead of the booing he received when introduced to the Eagles fan base in NYC.

I guess if this was a NAACP piece, then it would be fine, but it's not. Whether they're black or white or asian or middle eastern, Vick is still a bone head and McNabb was hated undeservedly. THAT'S my issue, that race WAS brought in and didn't need to be.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I guess if this was a NAACP piece, then it would be fine, but it's not. Whether they're black or white or asian or middle eastern, Vick is still a bone head and McNabb was hated undeservedly. THAT'S my issue, that race WAS brought in and didn't need to be.

Why on earth is Whitlock only permitted to discuss race and racial issues under the guise of an "NAACP piece"? Are we really so far beyond racism that we can once again return to segregating racial discussion from our general discourse? Being black isn't why Vick is a bone head. Being a bone head, who's black and in a public light was needed since a main point in the article was how he is received in a portion of the black community.


The point of the article was that Vick is a moron who craves street cred within the black community more than he does becoming a difference making leader at the quarterback position. That is where the original comparison in the article (McNabb) originates and where the 1 sentence mention of Brady and Peyton (aka leaders) comes from.

The Hogster wrote:Yea. That was about the most haphazard article I've ever read. Hopefully one day people won't need to be ashamed by the misdeeds of another person who happens to be the same race. I don't think Rothlesberger's race has any more to do with his stupidity than Vick's does. As a result, I see no reason to feel ashamed or "set back" by either Ben or Vick's behavior. Whitlock is a race baiter.

The secondary point of the article, that his enablers are morons too, is how we get into a discussion of the black community. Quite frankly, a poll is not needed to figure out that the majority of his supporters are from the black community and within that group, his legend is most prominent within the ghetto, thus making him a "ghetto icon" By the way, that is the only time Whitlock mentions ghetto in the whole piece. For that very specific segment of the black community, it turns out that identifying a true leader to emulate would be a McNabb, not a Vick. Whitlock isn't ashamed of Vick because he's black. He's ashamed of the resonance he has in the black community, namely the ghetto, because he's black. He knows that this segment is going to stupidly rush to his defense out of some kind of loyalty to their "ghetto icon."

This isn't race baiting. This is sociology, with a little bit of physocolgy thrown in. Seems to me its only race baiting if you've accepted the premise that this country has no racial issues any longer and that race should be divorced from all discussions regarding (in this instance) sports. Remind me, what is our collective favorite misqouted question asked of Doug Williams prior to Superbowl 22? Yeah, that was 12 years ago. I guess we've just completely done away with the kind of subconscious racism underlying the media and the public's reaction to that.

The NFL, IMO, spans across all races. Do we really need to bring in race as a divider to 'provoke discussion?' Big Ben and Peyton Manning weren't compared when Ben got involved in his trouble, were they?

My point is that this blog, to me, IS in fact trying to keep that line that decides the double standards to race and how they're perceived. I don't see any athletes as black or white when having any discussion. I tire of hearing about 'black and white.' And that's why this blog irritates me. They're all athletes (Tom, Peyton, Michael, and Donovan) and that should be how they're compared. To segregate them in the discussion enables the racist stereotypes to continue. Just b/c they're black, white, asian, or wtfever they are should be irrelavent. Skin color should not be a determinant of discussion and/or comparison.

VetSkinsFan wrote:The NFL, IMO, spans across all races. Do we really need to bring in race as a divider to 'provoke discussion?' Big Ben and Peyton Manning weren't compared when Ben got involved in his trouble, were they?

My point is that this blog, to me, IS in fact trying to keep that line that decides the double standards to race and how they're perceived. I don't see any athletes as black or white when having any discussion. I tire of hearing about 'black and white.' And that's why this blog irritates me. They're all athletes (Tom, Peyton, Michael, and Donovan) and that should be how they're compared. To segregate them in the discussion enables the racist stereotypes to continue. Just b/c they're black, white, asian, or wtfever they are should be irrelavent. Skin color should not be a determinant of discussion and/or comparison.

Exactly right. Jason Whitlock, Mike Florio etc are bloggers. If I wanted to hear something unnecessarily racial - I'd turn on Rush Limbaugh or Al Sharpton.

I don't think I'm alone when I'd like Sports, the one thing that all men hold sacred, to be discussed for what they are...Sports. Ryan Leaf is not a moron because he's white, and Michael Vick is not a moron because he's black. They're morons because they're morons - they occur in nature.

The Hogster wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The NFL, IMO, spans across all races. Do we really need to bring in race as a divider to 'provoke discussion?' Big Ben and Peyton Manning weren't compared when Ben got involved in his trouble, were they?

My point is that this blog, to me, IS in fact trying to keep that line that decides the double standards to race and how they're perceived. I don't see any athletes as black or white when having any discussion. I tire of hearing about 'black and white.' And that's why this blog irritates me. They're all athletes (Tom, Peyton, Michael, and Donovan) and that should be how they're compared. To segregate them in the discussion enables the racist stereotypes to continue. Just b/c they're black, white, asian, or wtfever they are should be irrelavent. Skin color should not be a determinant of discussion and/or comparison.

Exactly right. Jason Whitlock, Mike Florio etc are bloggers. If I wanted to hear something unnecessarily racial - I'd turn on Rush Limbaugh or Al Sharpton.

I don't think I'm alone when I'd like Sports, the one thing that all men hold sacred, to be discussed for what they are...Sports. Ryan Leaf is not a moron because he's white, and Michael Vick is not a moron because he's black. They're morons because they're morons - they occur in nature.

The both of you hit it on the nose!

Hey Vet.. the WTFever thing.. dummy like me read it as "WT, Fever".. LMAO!

VetSkinsFan wrote:The NFL, IMO, spans across all races. Do we really need to bring in race as a divider to 'provoke discussion?' Big Ben and Peyton Manning weren't compared when Ben got involved in his trouble, were they?

No, but neither do Petyon and Ben make up about half of the white QBs in the league.

They're all athletes (Tom, Peyton, Michael, and Donovan) and that should be how they're compared. To segregate them in the discussion enables the racist stereotypes to continue. Just b/c they're black, white, asian, or wtfever they are should be irrelavent. Skin color should not be a determinant of discussion and/or comparison.

I'm not sure which "[continuing] racist stereotypes" you have in mind with respect to Vick and McNabb, but this reasoning puts the cart before the horse, IMHO. No one is making claims about the success of these QBs based on their race. The question is: here is a successful quarterback who is black, and is acting really foolishly in ways that set terrible examples for the black kids who are looking up to the pros for a role model.

I don't think it works to pretend that black quarterbacks aren't black. As such they will have an impact on the black community that can be positive or negative. This is what Whitlock is commenting on, it seems to me. Having a knee-jerk about color blindness doesn't really constitute a response, because there is a reason to bring his race up: it's having a real effect on the black community. And, in contrast to Vick, is a black man who has been viritually ignored for his good qualities in Philly.

Now, why should those thoughts only be the subject of an NAACP newsletter? That doesn't make sense to me.