Whitlock on Chad

[COB]

So the only reason I agreed with what Whitlock said is because of the color of MY skin?

No, but it's one reason. Sorry I offended you by making assumptions about your thinking.

Well shame on me.

Not really.

Then again, how do you explain the color of Whitlock's skin?

I don't. Like yourself, his race is just one factor of many that go into his perspective on things.

And how do you explain the color of YOUR skin if you agree that "Whitlock is right."

See above.

Finally, how am I showing guts? Is it an act of bravery to think that I can talk to you guys about these types of issues without most of you going all crazy angry on my poor white ass?

It's unusual, yes. An act of bravery? Sort of. Most white people won't criticize black culture, because when they do someone calls them a racist or tells them to mind their own business.

Was I wrong to think that?

No, you were clearly being facetious. Joking about stereotypes does not offend me, and the "crazy angry" black man who will resort to violence at the slightest provocation is definitely a stereotype. But you're not responsible for that stereotype. Who is? George Wallace, Bull Connor, J Edgar Hoover, The Klan, Fifty Cent, Snoop, Ron Artest, Ice Cube, Suge Knight. The list is really endless.

[COB]

Some guys are just undiscipline and unprofessional, some of the problems start in high school the way athletes are treated as gods and as if they are above the law because they perform well on Fridays, and part of the problem has to do with the break down on the family unit and the lack of discipline being instilled in kids at an early age.

Exactly.

[The PatternMaster]

But I'm not going to worry about offending someone when they clearly don't know what they are talking about, I mean Hair hands out verbal beat downs to people on this site on the regular when he feels they don't know what they are talking about, what's the difference, cause we are discussing race and socieo-economic issues, that's bs. I respect Hair, Whitlock not so much cause he should know better, but Hair I respect because he's being honest and open, you can't ask for more than that.

You haven't offended me, and if you think you've given me a verbal beat down I'm simply too stupid to have noticed. Just do me one favor as we go forward. Keep in mind that I'm not the guy popping off about minstrel shows and bojangling. Nor do I care a thing about hip hop culture. I'm just a football fan whose tired of watching a bunch of me-first players tear apart their own teams or showboat their way to riches.

In short, I'm interested in a debate about discipline, teamwork, professionalism, coachability, etc.

Skin color?

Not so much.

I wasn't trying to offend you or give a verbal beat down, I was just referring to CentralOhio's post in which he said I was attacking you, which I didn't feel I was doing.

There are plenty of guys who are disciplined, great teammates, professional, and coachable, but they don't make SportsCenter. They don't give reporters great quotes like "Get your popcorn ready" or "I love me some me". In today's media driven world were we fans what more access and insight to the innerworkings of our favorite form of entertainment, these types of guys make things more interesting so they get publicity.

Imagine what it would be like if there were no T.O.'s and Chad's, if every football player just showed up on Sunday, did their job, and went home. It wouldn't be the same, the NFL's buzz wouldn't be a loud. I guess my point is these guys are good for the promotion of the game but not so useful when it comes time to win actual games because the very prinicples that embrace end up hurting the teams that play on, regardless of their talent level. Call it their gift and their curse.

Honestly I think Whitlock is pandering to people's ignorance, mainly middle ages white guys ignorance regarding the hip hop culture. He's smart in a way because his article is getting him more promotion and that is how he judged as being a successful columnist, but he isn't being responsible which outweighs any success he may have achieved, it's like he's using steriods.

Lastly skin color is only used to divide people, THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE. We are all different variations of the human race and people all over the world have more things in common than they do differences. Respect for others culture and right to exist is a must if we are going to live in peace.

[HairOnFire]

An act of bravery? Sort of. Most white people won't criticize black culture, because when they do someone calls them a racist or tells them to mind their own business.

Well, I do lack the white guilt that many of my caucasion brothers share. In fact, when you trace my families roots and you'll find generation after generation of dirt poor appalachian farm folk, horse thieves, and moonshiners dating back to the mid 1800's...when they left first arrived in this country, having left behind dirt poor farms in northwestern Germany.

As for criticizing black culture, it's been pointed out that I'm not qualified to discuss the finer points of hip hop, and at first glance my vast collection of jazz and blues don't seem to relate to this debate. Then again, that's sort of the point, right? Because to my knowledge nobody in the NFL is making a mockery of teamwork, discipline, and professionalism by imitating the artists who achieved greatness playing those types of music.

[Bobcat Bengal]

Y'know, as someone WHO IS actively involved in Hip-Hop culture, I get pretty sick and tired of this culture somehow being the catalyst for all of society's ills.

Hip Hop is much deeper than that. And I agree some of the songs today may convey and portray the attitudes/mindstate of many, its no reason to assume that its the prevailing factor in developing these attitudes Whitlock is talking about.

Hip Hop is multi-faceted. In today's landscape, you don't see the balance of hip hop, and what you hear on the radio is in no way an accurate representation.

For Whitlock to even say something like that, shows that he probably didn't listen to hip hop when he grew up, because he might of heard about A Tribe Called Quest, Jungle Brothers, Mos Def (Medina Green, UTD), PM Dawn, etc.

Its much more diverse than that. Personally, I was listening to Ice Cube, 2pacalyspe now and Spice 1 through my sister, but branched out because at the time, I didn't want to hear about all the violent and street aspects all the time.

What Whitlock is saying is akin to me only seeing crime dramas at the movie theater. Nevermind there's comedies, sci-fi, children's, horror, etc. It's all those crime dramas that have corrupted me.

I call B.S. Whitlock is being a sensationalist.

[HairOnFire]

Some guys are just undiscipline and unprofessional, some of the problems start in high school the way athletes are treated as gods and as if they are above the law because they perform well on Fridays, and part of the problem has to do with the break down on the family unit and the lack of discipline being instilled in kids at an early age.

Exactly.

But athletes have always been treated differently than their peers due to their unique physical gifts. Where things appear to have changed is how often athletes will ignore their responsibilities to their teammates on the field, a place where they used to understand how their egos needed to be supressed for the common good. And Whitlock points out a very relevant example of this when he mentions Larry Johnson's late game spike that gave the Bengals another chance to win. Johnson's act made it clear that despite his status and skill level....his thought processes on the football field seem limited to his own individual circumstances. Because he was no longer "getting his" he threw a little tantrum that resulted in a penalty that stopped the clock. And along those same lines, Chad Johnson just claimed again that there's no reason for him to change his behavior because...his numbers are good.

Well, sorry Chad, but 1-4 isn't good enough, and your statement that your past behavior is no longer appropriate now that the team is losing...but would quickly return as soon as the team started winning again.....seems like one more example of a player who doesn't get it.

In short, it's never appropriate.

And winning only makes the inappropriate behavior easier to overlook.

[skyline]

Some guys are just undiscipline and unprofessional, some of the problems start in high school the way athletes are treated as gods and as if they are above the law because they perform well on Fridays, and part of the problem has to do with the break down on the family unit and the lack of discipline being instilled in kids at an early age.

Exactly.

But athletes have always been treated differently than their peers due to their unique physical gifts. Where things appear to have changed is how often athletes will ignore their responsibilities to their teammates on the field, a place where they used to understand how their egos needed to be supressed for the common good. And Whitlock points out a very relevant example of this when he mentions Larry Johnson's late game spike that gave the Bengals another chance to win. Johnson's act made it clear that despite his status and skill level....his thought processes on the football field seem limited to his own individual circumstances. Because he was no longer "getting his" he threw a little tantrum that resulted in a penalty that stopped the clock. And along those same lines, Chad Johnson just claimed again that there's no reason for him to change his behavior because...his numbers are good.

Well, sorry Chad, but 1-4 isn't good enough, and your statement that your past behavior is no longer appropriate now that the team is losing...but would quickly return as soon as the team started winning again.....seems like one more example of a player who doesn't get it.

In short, it's never appropriate.

And winning only makes the inappropriate behavior easier to overlook.

Of course the behavior isn't appropriate.

The question, though, is whether or not this negative behavior is having a serious (negative) effect on the team. If so, is it so negative that it counteracts all of the good things that Chad brings to the table?

It's my opinion that Marvin, Carson, Chad, etc. need to seriously work on avoiding those situations in the future, but that they are in no way the cause for this team's current record. Cutting/trading Chad isn't going to make this a magically good team. In fact, I don't see anything positive coming from it at all.

Now, if I'm wrong, and everyone in the locker room actually resents Chad, then it's another situation entirely. If he really is a cancer to this team, then he needs to go. Somehow, though, I don't think anyone in there is really upset by the guy. If he were to be let go, I think most of the players would resent the front office for making that particular decision. If you talked to them afterwards, I think they'd say he was treated unfairly. As always, I could be wrong...

Now, if this turns into a Randy Moss situation where Chad stops trying, then I'd drop him in a heart beat. Everything I've seen from the guy, though, indicates that he tends to double his efforts when things aren't going the way they would like them to go.

And just for the record, let's please avoid the whole "If this were an office or any other workplace setting, then blah blah blah...". The reality is that this isn't a typical workplace. In the NFL, all that matters is winning. You have to make personnel changes based on whether or not you think a particular person can help you win. Their character and personality are certainly considerations, but they are only parts of the equation. The bottom line is what counts. Will he help you win or won't he?

[The PatternMaster]

Some guys are just undiscipline and unprofessional, some of the problems start in high school the way athletes are treated as gods and as if they are above the law because they perform well on Fridays, and part of the problem has to do with the break down on the family unit and the lack of discipline being instilled in kids at an early age.

Exactly.

But athletes have always been treated differently than their peers due to their unique physical gifts. Where things appear to have changed is how often athletes will ignore their responsibilities to their teammates on the field, a place where they used to understand how their egos needed to be supressed for the common good. And Whitlock points out a very relevant example of this when he mentions Larry Johnson's late game spike that gave the Bengals another chance to win. Johnson's act made it clear that despite his status and skill level....his thought processes on the football field seem limited to his own individual circumstances. Because he was no longer "getting his" he threw a little tantrum that resulted in a penalty that stopped the clock. And along those same lines, Chad Johnson just claimed again that there's no reason for him to change his behavior because...his numbers are good.

Well, sorry Chad, but 1-4 isn't good enough, and your statement that your past behavior is no longer appropriate now that the team is losing...but would quickly return as soon as the team started winning again.....seems like one more example of a player who doesn't get it.

In short, it's never appropriate.

And winning only makes the inappropriate behavior easier to overlook.

I agree that the attitude some guys display are bad for team chemistry and your right there is no place for it, but it does exist and we have to deal with it. Some guys get the fact that the individual must take a backseat for the greater good of the team and some guys don't. The ones who understand usually end up more successful in terms of wins and loses.

I disagree with what Whilock was saying regarding race and hip hop culture, I expect more from him but I guess that's my fault for having too high of expectations.

[HairOnFire]

I agree that the attitude some guys display are bad for team chemistry and your right there is no place for it, but it does exist and we have to deal with it. Some guys get the fact that the individual most take a backseat for the greater good of the team and some guys don't. The ones who understand usually end up more successful in terms of wins and loses.

And there it is.

I think the question facing the Bengals now is what do they do about something that we can all agree there's no place for, but isn't done maliciously. Complicating matters further is the fact that most of the so-called incidents don't seem serious enough to act upon, but almost have to be acted upon when taken as a whole, and are commited by the most visible and well known member of the team.

[The PatternMaster]

I agree that the attitude some guys display are bad for team chemistry and your right there is no place for it, but it does exist and we have to deal with it. Some guys get the fact that the individual most take a backseat for the greater good of the team and some guys don't. The ones who understand usually end up more successful in terms of wins and loses.

And there it is.

I think the question facing the Bengals now is what do they do about something that we can all agree there's no place for, but isn't done maliciously. Complicating matters further is the fact that most of the so-called incidents don't seem serious enough to act upon, but almost have to be acted upon when taken as a whole, and are commited by the most visible and well known member of the team.

Well that's what keeps Marvin up at night, how does he discipline one of his most talented and most visible player without ruining the relationship they currently enjoy. I know it's Marvin's job to be the guy's coach and not his B.F.F., however the hardest part of being a HC in pro sports is managing egos. Well it's seems as if Chad has a huge but fragile ego and Marvin has to figure out how to manipulate Chad to a degree where there is a healthy balance of Chad's personality but not to the point were it damages the team's chemistry.

It's not easy and alot of guys like Chad bring baggage with them that comes from childhood so the coach has to deal with issues that he really can't change or control, but that is the job.

[HairOnFire]

It's not easy and alot of guys like Chad bring baggage with them that comes from childhood so the coach has to deal with issues that he really can't change or control, but that is the job.

But doesn't that speak directly to Whitlock's point?

I mean it's all well and good to point out how complex a problem is, but in my experience the more complex a problem is...the harder the solution becomes, and as a result the easier it is for individuals to simply look for options that come with fewer problems.

For example, if you claim that the real problem facing NFL coaches today is the breakdown in the family unit and poorer parenting skills....problems so vast that they would overwhelm any coach....why wouldn't that coach be well served to do exactly as Whitlock suggests? That being, look for players who come from more stable backgrounds and bring less emotional baggage.

Doesn't coachability become as important as a players time in the 40-yard dash? Doesn't a players willingness to work within a team structure become as important as his ability to perform individually?

If Chris Mortenson's insider is to be believed the Bengals have concluded that Chad is so emotionally immature that any form of discipline will cause him to quit. As a result they do nothing, a message that is heard loud and clear by the other players on the roster. Thus, small problems become big and all possible solutions seem unacceptable.

A proverbial Catch-85?

[The PatternMaster]

It's not easy and alot of guys like Chad bring baggage with them that comes from childhood so the coach has to deal with issues that he really can't change or control, but that is the job.

But doesn't that speak directly to Whitlock's point?

I mean it's all well and good to point out how complex a problem is, but in my experience the more complex a problem is...the harder the solution becomes, and as a result the easier it is for individuals to simply look for options that come with fewer problems.

For example, if you claim that the real problem facing NFL coaches today is the breakdown in the family unit and poorer parenting skills....problems so vast that they would overwhelm any coach....why wouldn't that coach be well served to do exactly as Whitlock suggests? That being, look for players who come from more stable backgrounds and bring less emotional baggage.

Doesn't coachability become as important as a players time in the 40-yard dash? Doesn't a players willingness to work within a team structure become as important as his ability to perform individually?

If Chris Mortenson's insider is to be believed the Bengals have concluded that Chad is so emotionally immature that any form of discipline will cause him to quit. As a result they do nothing, a message that is heard loud and clear by the other players on the roster. Thus, small problems become big and all possible solutions seem unacceptable.

A proverbial Catch-85?

I read were Whitlock suggested "whitening" up the NFL because Hip Hop was ruining today's youth to a point were any perceived attitude problem is blamed on the music they listen to.

Imo, coachability should always be an important aspect of a players ability because if they won't listen to the coach how good are they? But extremely talented guys do get more of a leash because they are talented and they can help the team win, not fair but that's the way it is. Guys with marginal talent have to be good guys(i.e. John Thornton) and guys will talent out the waazoo can be part-time a**h***s(i.e. Chad Johnson).

Chad is not above the other 52 guys on the roster, meaning he has to be disciplined like every other guy on the roster, that is what Bellicheck has right..humble pie...If Chad can't handle that then that's his problem, I trust Chad isn't as emotionally immature as people make him out to be.

[HairOnFire]

Chad is not above the other 52 guys on the roster, meaning he has to be disciplined like every other guy on the roster, that is what Bellicheck has right..humble pie...If Chad can't handle that then that's his problem, I trust Chad isn't as emotionally immature as people make him out to be.

If Chad can't handle discipline it becomes everyones problem. And most important, we're hearing over and over again that this isn't a decision the Bengals are facing, but one that they've already reached. And that's pretty messed up. Because if they've concluded that Chad will react to any discipline by quitting then there's only one option left. And that's do nothing until the problem becomes so pressing that all ties have to be severed.

[HairOnFire]

I read were Whitlock suggested "whitening" up the NFL because Hip Hop was ruining today's youth to a point were any perceived attitude problem is blamed on the music they listen to.

And you claimed that was so much simplistic crap...pointing instead to the breakdown in the family structure and the poor parenting that results. If I agree with you, and I do, then haven't you defined an even greater problem that might be best addressed in almost the same way Whitlock suggested? (Obviously that means dropping the suggestion of whitening the NFL and replacing it with an emphasis on stability and maturity.)

After all, football coaches can't be babysitters. They simply don't have the time.

[ONYX]

Jason Whitlock is the illegitimate child of Hattie McDaniel and Clarence Thomas. Whitlock's article is

shallow and all it does is stereotype black athletes and blacks in general. Garbage like this is the reason he

was let go by ESPN and is no longer at Yahoo Sports.....its only fitting that now this fool works for Fox.

Whitlock is a bitter clown who obviously knows more about food than he does the problems

within the African-American culture.

[HairOnFire]

Yesterday evening I was plugging away at work in familiar fashion, with my head buried in numbers and my ears tuned to ESPNRadio. And much to my suprise the local Los Angeles based yammering was suspended for more than an hour courtesy of a fairly loud debate over Chad Johnson, Jason Whitlock, and the whitening of the NFL. Yup, as hard as it is for me to believe, Los Angeles sports radio went Bengal. Or perhaps more correctly, it brought back the sexy, Chad Johnson style.

John Ireland and Steve Mason opened their show by reading the now infamous clips from several recent Jason Whitlock articles. They then claimed that while preparing for the show they assumed that the reaction to Whitlock's remarks would be overwhelming negative, and would be deemed unfounded if confronted by experts opinions. So they prepared for the show by calling insiders they felt would be willing to debate the issue on the air. And much to their suprise each so-called expert offered varying levels of support for the core points Whitlock was claiming.

A brief recap...

An active NFL scout backed Whitlock's claim that NFL teams had placed a stronger emphasis on player stability, and agreed that because of that demand it was no coincidence that the NFL's two best teams were also it's whitest. In fact, his only disagreement centered on Whitlock's suggestion that this was a new trend, stating flatly that Indianapolis and New England had deliberately begun building their teams in this manner, dating back 6 to 8 years. He then agreed that the trend was growing and named Green Bay and Pittsburgh as two other teams that now place a greater emphasis on stability than before. "There's a reason Green Bay is playing better than it's talent level would suggest."

The scout claimed that too much attention is being paid to the idea the NFL is being whitened due to concerns over character. "The real buzzword should be stability, not character. The NFL doesn't care what color your skin is. But they do care about headlines, and if a player comes from a stable background there's a much smaller chance he'll get in trouble...often in ways you could never predict."

After quite a bit of discussion the scout suggested the NFL is only the latest sport to move in this direction. Take notice because this is the first time the subject of hip-hop culture was discussed. The scout noted how the behavior often associated with that culture had made the smallest impact in the so-called whitest sport, baseball. And that was said to be true due to the dramatically larger pool of talent that baseball draws from, including Japan, Mexico, and Latin-America.

The conversation then turned to the NBA, and you can probably predict what was discussed. The staggering influence of hip-hop culture within that sport was noted, as well as the dramatic loss in popularity the sport has suffered in recent years. The scout claimed that this wasn't considered a coincidence, and as a result more and more teams had followed the championship winning example of the San Antonio Spurs, a team that was built using far more foreign talent than any previous NBA. "They didn't go to Europe looking for white players. They were looking for players who were more skilled, more mature, and capable of doing more than dunking." After some back and forth the scout suggested the NFL faces an even greater challenge than the NBA. "They don't have the huge pool of players to choose from that MLB can, and they can't add enough foreign players to make much of a difference. So they have to keep going back to the poorer neighborhoods for talent."

The show then introduced a retired CPA whose business had represented many NFL players. Asked to name names the CPA politely refused, but admitted that his business hadn't been Los Angeles based, and had focused on representing Pittsburgh Steeler players. With his bonafides now established, he explained that he had agreed to be interviewed because he supported the claim of the NFL and related businesses placing far more value on stability, and as a result was devaluing players who came from predominantly poorer areas. "Players who have only known poverty have no appreciation for wealth. They're only concerned with what it can do for them today, and that not only results in needless waste, but real problems. Most of the things associated with poor character are linked to how players spend their money on entertainment." (Drugs, strip clubs, exotic cars, nightclubs, etc.)

The CPA finished by noting that due to the unusual amount of player movement within the NFL many accounting firms network, including attending or participating in official NFL meetings. Based upon many of those discussions it was believed more than 90% of NFL players burn through all of their NFL pay within 4 years of retirement. That doesn't mean they're broke...just that their NFL money is long gone. He admitted that many CPA's have nicknamed a certain type of NFL player as a "Bling" and after some prodding described a "Bling" as a player who overestimates how highly he'll be drafted, spends all of his expected signing bonus before draft day, and as a result begins his NFL deeply in debt to his agent. More common though was the NFL player who never adds any funds to the investments first made after signing. "They do nothing but withdraw from their portfolio, over and over, until it's gone, often when they're still playing. They leave the game with almost nothing."

After taking a few phone calls the hosts freely admitted that by playing sound bites of Chad being Chad they were quilty of laughing along with Chad Johnson even as they agreed his antics were harmful to the team he played for, if not the game itself. They also agreed that Jason Whitlock was known within media circles as a "bomb thrower or grenade tosser"...a writer who wrote in a deliberately provocative style for the purpose of drawing attention to the writer. However, they closed by saying that it would be a mistake to ignore what Whitlock what claiming simply because of his style of writing.