Patriots' Hernandez arrested in homicide investigation

[Jauronimo]

I don't understand the criticism of Whitlock's article.

 

I know he's a polarizing figure and I think that colors some of the opinions of his work here.

 

I'm not a big Whitlock fan either and I think he states the obvious and isn't a very good writer but nothing he writes here seems inaccurate to me excepting the issue that Dorkington brings up which has been debated for decades:

 

Is the violence in society a reaction or a reflection of our media?

 

Does our love of movies like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Good Fellas, etc have an effect in making some individuals more violent? Personally I don't think there's any question of that. It hasn't made me more violent but I'm not every person in society.

Neither. Man is an animal with limited capacity for logic and reason. Man has been killing man since the day we ceased to be monkeys/humanoids who slaughtered one another. Violence is woven into our very makeup.

 

We are currently living in the most peaceful times man has ever known.

[Dorkington]

Neither. Man is an animal with limited capacity for logic and reason. Man has been killing man since the day we ceased to be monkeys/humanoids who slaughtered one another. Violence is woven into our very makeup.

 

We are currently living in the most peaceful times man has ever known.

 

Whether or not this is true, it brings up an interesting point.

 

If we were in the middle of a REALLY violent war, would we glamorize social violence as much?

[Jauronimo]

Whether or not this is true, it brings up an interesting point.

 

If we were in the middle of a REALLY violent war, would we glamorize social violence as much?

I think its a safe bet that we would. It may become gauche for a time, but it would bounce back. Even the most violent of wars is not going to change what excites human beings.

[Nanker]

 

 

It is a perception -- perpetuated by ESPN and their ilk -- that because the Pats* organization is so strong, each and every player who comes into the fold immediately must conform to the strict culture that has been established. No media circuses, no discipline problems, etc., etc.

 

Speaking of which, just how is Tim Tebow doing these days?

[Doc]

The Pats should be criticized for AH's extension just as much as the Bills should be for Fitz' extension.

[Prickly Pete]

It's crap. It's another Whitlock regurgitation form his "sports writing" vomitorium. In fact he alerts us to this right away, in case we don't know what's coming:

 

"Let me explain. For nearly two decades, I’ve been writing columns detailing the impact on the sports world of popular culture’s glamorization of prison/gangster/hip-hop culture."

 

There was really no need to write the rest of this particular column. Very little of is about Hernandez, actually. He drops in that Matt Light " could easily see Hernandez’s character flaws" and that "a dozen" teams took him off their draft boards, etc. Real deep stuff that has never been reported, Jason.

 

The majority of the piece spent with his usual "I'm a black man railing against popular (black) culture" stuff--full of hackneyed pop references. My favorite: Tony Soprano is "America's most celebrated and revered icon". And the guy he replaced was.....Joe Montana??

 

Look, you should read Whitlock for laughs, because he's a clown. He's a caricature of the "sports writer" who writes the same story all the others write on the same topic.

 

Thanks.

I thought I was going to come back to the board and have to try to explain to a bunch of posters why I found that article to be mush, but you took care of it for me.

 

It's Whitlock grandstanding.

[Prickly Pete]

I'm not going to give Urban Myer a free pass on the way he handled his program. Of course he had no inkling that the player he had bible study classes with would end being a cold blooded killer. He couldin't forsee that. But what he did know was that AH failed a number of drug tests as a player. Was he held accountable? I don't know what AH's academic standing was. But if I had to guess odds are that he didn't attend classes on a regular basis. It's been reported that off the field AH had some questionable associations with some tough street characters. You don't think that Urban Meyers, the HC of a very prominent program in a college town, would find out about it?

 

Urban Meyer recruited a very good football player from a tough neighborhood. He knew what he was getting because he recruited a number of good players from similar backgrounds. As long as these type of kids are producing for the team and the coach wide accommodations are made to keep them playing. As soon as they are no longer useful to them they will be dispatched back to the streets.

 

The starting qb at Nortre Dame is ineligible. That type of academic accountability rarely happens in the SEC, and especially for the marquis players. The relationship between the schools and the major football programs is twisted, especially in the SEC. The football programs and the alumni are driving the bus and the school is at the back of the bus having little influence as to the direction it is going.

 

I have no problem recruiting athletes who to put it mildly marginally qualify for these football schools. The problem I have is that once they are in the programs there is little accountability for behavior and academic effort. A lot of these coaches who are put on a pedestal are nothing but pimps using up the whores and then discarding them once they are no longer useful. Then they go on to the next batch of fresh whores and continue the short cycle of pimping. What makes it even more outrageous is that these pimps who are widely esteemed conduct bible classes.

 

I get all this, but how would changing any of this have prevented him (or anyone else) from killing people (allegedly)?

 

In essence, these have been his jobs... are employers in other fields now responsible for the actions of their employees too? Should people that haven't even been convicted of anything, not be offered jobs now? Or is it okay to hire them, but even if they do their job really well, they shouldn't receive raises?

Edited July 2, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro

[Mr. WEO]

I don't enjoy Whitlock's stuff so I won't comment on his article, but something that seems to be lost in all of this is that the Pats* have pretty much failed at nearly every "reclamation" project they've attempted since winning their last Super Bowl almost a decade ago. The only success story that immediately pops into mind is Randy Moss -- and he was never a criminal, it's just his work ethic that was questioned. Belichick has been grasping at straws for years, and this time it really bit him in the ass. Anyone who believes the Pats* were "unaware" of Hernandez' proclivities prior to them extending him a year ago is completely naive. Matt Light, a team leader, is the only player who thought the guy was a douche? And if the Pats* really didn't have reservations about Hernandez, why not publicly support him until the criminal process plays out? No, instead the public relations machine is spinning overtime to completely divorce the organization from a player to whom they just 12 months ago made a long term commitment.

 

The "Patriot Way" is a joke. That team is about Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, plain and simple. They haven't "straightened anyone out" or made bad guys into great players. They just happen to have a future HOFer at the two most important positions -- QB and HC. Belichick is a fantastic coach and strategist, but his efforts to add questionable characters to complete his deficient roster have not paid off.

 

Yes, I thoroughly enjoy the schadenfreude aspect of watching the Pats* take their hits, particularly in the context of the "Patriot Way" nonsense. I'll continue to say it -- they're one hit to Brady's knee away from being an average football team.

 

So you are saying because he failed a few drug tests in college, the pats should have known he would, within a few years, be killing people? Who knows how many murders Bruce Smith has committed!

 

That, because Matt Light might have considered him "a douche", they should not have extended AH's contract? For real?? How long do you think he would have lasted on the open market? Tell me why, at that time, YOU thought they should not have given him a new contract?

 

And logic tells you that because they renewed his contract, they should "publicly support him" now, when there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt even to the lay public? Why on earth would you connect the two?

[JohnC]

I get all this, but how would changing any of this have prevented him (or anyone else) from killing people (allegedly)?

 

In essence, these have been his jobs... are employers in other fields now responsible for the actions of their employees too? Should people that haven't even been convicted of anything, not be offered jobs now? Or is it okay to hire them, but even if they do their job really well, they shouldn't receive raises?

 

It's not going to change who he is and what his tendencies are. I'm not arguing that. My point dealt with the issue that he being a student at all was a fraud. His behavior, at least what has been reported, indicated that although he failed a number of drug tests he was still kept on the team. He should have been kicked off the team and out of school after a certain number of drug violations. I don't have access to his academic records but it is more than likely than he didn't spend too much time in study hall. The football program kept him eligible when in reality if the academic rules that applied to other students applied to him he would have beendisqualified from the program and school.

 

You don't have to be arrested to be kicked out of school. He had a football scholarship that paid for his schooling. It isn't a carte blanche entitlement. With that scholarship he is obligated to conduct himself to a particular standard. Failing numerous drug tests at the University of Florida certainly doesn't indicate that he lived up to that standard. Yet, he was kept on the team.

[Nanker]

When does the trial start. Wonder if it'll get better ratings than the OJ Trial.

[Prickly Pete]

It's not going to change who he is and what his tendencies are. I'm not arguing that. My point dealt with the issue that he being a student at all was a fraud. His behavior, at least what has been reported, indicated that although he failed a number of drug tests he was still kept on the team. He should have been kicked off the team and out of school after a certain number of drug violations. I don't have access to his academic records but it is more than likely than he didn't spend too much time in study hall. The football program kept him eligible when in reality if the academic rules that applied to other students applied to him he would have beendisqualified from the program and school.

 

You don't have to be arrested to be kicked out of school. He had a football scholarship that paid for his schooling. It isn't a carte blanche entitlement. With that scholarship he is obligated to conduct himself to a particular standard. Failing numerous drug tests at the University of Florida certainly doesn't indicate that he lived up to that standard. Yet, he was kept on the team.

 

There have been far worse transgressions, he just happened to become a murderer. College football (High School as well!) has been a sham for as long as I can remember, but I don't think it is causing any ills to society. This case shouldn't suddenly get people interested in it, it's a different subject. How will your life change if the college football regulations are actually enforced?

 

Why do YOU care? Is it because you don't want to see athletes exploited? A sense of fair play? For the children of America to see rules are important?

 

It isn't of consequence to me. College Football exists in it's own bubble, making billions for schools, and television. It has developed it's own culture, and rules of conduct, and I can't see how any of it effects the average person's life. It's unfortunate that rules are bent, but it has no bearing on violent crime statistics.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro

[eball]

So you are saying because he failed a few drug tests in college, the pats should have known he would, within a few years, be killing people? Who knows how many murders Bruce Smith has committed!

 

That, because Matt Light might have considered him "a douche", they should not have extended AH's contract? For real?? How long do you think he would have lasted on the open market? Tell me why, at that time, YOU thought they should not have given him a new contract?

 

And logic tells you that because they renewed his contract, they should "publicly support him" now, when there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt even to the lay public? Why on earth would you connect the two?

 

You certainly love to defend the Pats* organization, I'll give you that. The issue here isn't whether anyone knew or should have known AH would kill someone; the issue is the fact the Pats* (a) drafted a guy with a questionable background and character; (b) knowingly handed him a handsome new contract despite the almost certain knowledge he was not universally liked or respected in their own locker room; and ( c) within two weeks of "learning" of the murder investigation kicked him to the curb without allowing the legal process to play out.

 

It's completely irrelevant what I would have done a year ago because I don't know anything about Aaron Hernandez aside from what I've learned recently. Looking backwards, however, one can certainly surmise that if any team should have known anything about AH it was the Pats*. They took a calculated risk that, looking back, was solely about winning on the football field. By immediately cutting him and going on their public relations "exchange the killer's jersey" campaign, they're admitting as much. My point in asking why they aren't supporting AH through this process is to show that they knew he was a dirtbag already -- the murder charge just meant they could no longer try to hide (or ignore) it.

 

It's easy to understand why they extended him; Belichick knew his weapons on offense were weakened. Welker coming off an ACL (and disgruntled), Gronk with his injury concerns, no other proven WRs on the roster, and an average (at best) defense...it was a total football move, plain and simple. But let's call it what it is and dispense with the b.s. "Patriot Way" nonsense always pushed down our throats. They knew what they had and it backfired on them.

Edited July 2, 2013 by eball

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I doubt the trial will be televised

 

CBF

[LancasterSteve]

I get all this, but how would changing any of this have prevented him (or anyone else) from killing people (allegedly)?

 

In essence, these have been his jobs... are employers in other fields now responsible for the actions of their employees too? Should people that haven't even been convicted of anything, not be offered jobs now? Or is it okay to hire them, but even if they do their job really well, they shouldn't receive raises?

 

Ever hear of Background Checks ??? Many employers run them and yes employment can be denied. Where did this entitlement attitude come from ??? I FILLED OUT A JOB APPLICATION AND I DEMEND THE JOB !!!! I have talked with other employers I have known throughout years and I can assure anyone here that a cocky, in your face attitude will not get you the job. IM not going to invest my time and money on a head case or presents himself as a "Gangsta' when applying for employment. Not going to happen. Nada, Nope, Never. There are plenty of applicants to choose from that do present themselves as mature young adult men and women. Another thing; we do check with past employers and the top two red flags are, not dependable and lazy. So you young men and women, everything you do will follow you throughout your working years either as a positive or a red flag.

[bbb]

It's crap. It's another Whitlock regurgitation form his "sports writing" vomitorium. In fact he alerts us to this right away, in case we don't know what's coming:

 

"Let me explain. For nearly two decades, I’ve been writing columns detailing the impact on the sports world of popular culture’s glamorization of prison/gangster/hip-hop culture."

 

There was really no need to write the rest of this particular column. Very little of is about Hernandez, actually. He drops in that Matt Light " could easily see Hernandez’s character flaws" and that "a dozen" teams took him off their draft boards, etc. Real deep stuff that has never been reported, Jason.

 

The majority of the piece spent with his usual "I'm a black man railing against popular (black) culture" stuff--full of hackneyed pop references. My favorite: Tony Soprano is "America's most celebrated and revered icon". And the guy he replaced was.....Joe Montana??

 

Look, you should read Whitlock for laughs, because he's a clown. He's a caricature of the "sports writer" who writes the same story all the others write on the same topic.

 

I agree with him on what pop culture does to society...............There is no effing way that he's "a caricature of the "sports writer" who writes the same story all the others write on the same topic."

[Prickly Pete]

Ever hear of Background Checks ??? Many employers run them and yes employment can be denied. Where did this entitlement attitude come from ??? I FILLED OUT A JOB APPLICATION AND I DEMEND THE JOB !!!! I have talked with other employers I have known throughout years and I can assure anyone here that a cocky, in your face attitude will not get you the job. IM not going to invest my time and money on a head case or presents himself as a "Gangsta' when applying for employment. Not going to happen. Nada, Nope, Never. There are plenty of applicants to choose from that do present themselves as mature young adult men and women. Another thing; we do check with past employers and the top two red flags are, not dependable and lazy. So you young men and women, everything you do will follow you throughout your working years either as a positive or a red flag.

 

I don't think you are very realistic about big time sports. You are applying McDonalds-style employment screening, to a billion dollar industry that seeks out cocky, in your face, violent individuals. It's not a sport for healthy, well-adjusted people. That's news to you?

 

It's not like he is in a constant rage or something. He is reasonably well spoken, and can be easy going etc. There were red flags, but this is a billion dollar industry, filled with all kinds of troubled backgrounds etc.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B70pVcuHVmI

Edited July 2, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro

[Doc]

The Patriots should have waited until this coming season to extend Hernandez. What fools.

[Jauronimo]

Ever hear of Background Checks ??? Many employers run them and yes employment can be denied. Where did this entitlement attitude come from ??? I FILLED OUT A JOB APPLICATION AND I DEMEND THE JOB !!!! I have talked with other employers I have known throughout years and I can assure anyone here that a cocky, in your face attitude will not get you the job. IM not going to invest my time and money on a head case or presents himself as a "Gangsta' when applying for employment. Not going to happen. Nada, Nope, Never. There are plenty of applicants to choose from that do present themselves as mature young adult men and women. Another thing; we do check with past employers and the top two red flags are, not dependable and lazy. So you young men and women, everything you do will follow you throughout your working years either as a positive or a red flag.

Your choice of night manager or fry technician doesn't have multimillion dollar implications on your franchise. There's little risk of the fry tech you just turned down going to a competitor and causing your business to suffer greatly. Its unlikely that your choice between qualified applicants is going to vault you among the most successful managers in the business and bring you immortality among the fans of your product.

 

 

Risk and reward. Make better analogies.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Jauronimo

[JohnC]

There have been far worse transgressions, he just happened to become a murderer. College football (High School as well!) has been a sham for as long as I can remember, but I don't think it is causing any ills to society. This case shouldn't suddenly get people interested in it, it's a different subject. How will your life change if the college football regulations are actually enforced?

 

Why do YOU care? Is it because you don't want to see athletes exploited? A sense of fair play? For the children of America to see rules are important?

 

It isn't of consequence to me. College Football exists in it's own bubble, making billions for schools, lland television. It has developed it's own culture, and rules of conduct, and I can't see how any of it effects the average person's life. It's unfortunate that rules are bent, but it has no bearing on violent crime statistics.

 

We'll just respectfully disagree and leave it at that. You are making the point that big time school athletics is completely separate from the educational system. I agree that to a great extent they do exist separately from the educatiional system, but not completely. When drug rules exist in the football operation and they are ignored by the coaches and players then in my view things have gotten out of hand.

 

If you are promoting an athletic system that is completely divorced from the educational system, then that is a reasonable point of view. The problem with your position is that as it currently exists it is still associated with the educational institutiion, although in some places it is a very thin relationship. If you have drug rules in your athletic program and they are ignored then what is the point of even having those rules.

[Mr. WEO]

You certainly love to defend the Pats* organization, I'll give you that. The issue here isn't whether anyone knew or should have known AH would kill someone; the issue is the fact the Pats* (a) drafted a guy with a questionable background and character; (b) knowingly handed him a handsome new contract despite the almost certain knowledge he was not universally liked or respected in their own locker room; and ( c) within two weeks of "learning" of the murder investigation kicked him to the curb without allowing the legal process to play out.

 

It's completely irrelevant what I would have done a year ago because I don't know anything about Aaron Hernandez aside from what I've learned recently. Looking backwards, however, one can certainly surmise that if any team should have known anything about AH it was the Pats*. They took a calculated risk that, looking back, was solely about winning on the football field. By immediately cutting him and going on their public relations "exchange the killer's jersey" campaign, they're admitting as much. My point in asking why they aren't supporting AH through this process is to show that they knew he was a dirtbag already -- the murder charge just meant they could no longer try to hide (or ignore) it.

 

It's easy to understand why they extended him; Belichick knew his weapons on offense were weakened. Welker coming off an ACL (and disgruntled), Gronk with his injury concerns, no other proven WRs on the roster, and an average (at best) defense...it was a total football move, plain and simple. But let's call it what it is and dispense with the b.s. "Patriot Way" nonsense always pushed down our throats. They knew what they had and it backfired on them.

 

My pointing out the flaws in your post are hardly evidence of "defending the pats". Nice misdirection.

 

Exactly what did Hernandez do while a member of the patriots prior to this month that has led you to conclude that the pats "knew he was a dirtbag" and therefore should not have given him a new contract last year? Enlighten us all.

 

Hernandez told teams at the combine about his drug use. The pats gave him a tiny signing bonus and an incentive laden rookie contract that he would earn in full if he behaved. He did and they rewarded him with a new contract early. You are unable to articulate why this was a mistake.

 

And since your arguement that they were wrong (or very bad men) for giving a new contract is nonsense, your claim that they should have stood by him until conviction is even less logical.

 

 

I agree with him on what pop culture does to society...............There is no effing way that he's "a caricature of the "sports writer" who writes the same story all the others write on the same topic."

 

Holy cow...have you ever read Whitlock? Even ESPN let him go.

 

By the way, as for writing the same articles.....Whitlock himself wrote essentially the same piece after Jovan Belcher's murder suicide referencing "the gun culture" as the reason this kid murdered his kid's mother.

 

And this in 2000: http://news.google.c...pg=5351,2991522

 

Browse his archive. A couple of years ago, he was chastising (white) America for not cheering for the USA olympic basketball team because they are black and have too many tattoos. Now he's saying AH and other NFLers are emulating gang bangers becuase...that's right--they are covered in tattoos!

 

He is a total clown. The most reasonably derided columnist in sports pages anywhere.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Mr. WEO