Re: Jamie Dukes Predicts?
posted at 10/22/2010 12:27 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Jamie Dukes Predicts?
[QUOTE]No. Not at all. I am not singling him or anyone else based on color. Not at all. I think Dukes sort of comes from that position, though. Jamele Hill or Howard Bryan't columns on ESPN do the same thing (more blatantly - this is a another thread altogether), even though Dukes's is more subtle. Can we admit that Jesse jackson, Sharpton, etc are race baiters? If we can, then we can sort of tap into what I am talking about. They sort of start with the insinuations, not people who see right through their race based agendas. Personally, I think that is absolute junk and no one should give peolpe who use that to make money off it, the time of day. It's disgusting. With Dukes, I am not sure he realizes he hints at this. I know what the agenda is of Merrill Hoge. NE beat his Steelers repeatedly. Hoge never won a title. He's angry and jealous. He'll pretend Spygate actually meant NE had some mystery advanage and that's what allows him to sleep at night and attend the Bill Cowher 4x at home loser AFC Title parties once a year. There's a difference with that agenda, and even Marshall Faulk's (SB 36). Faulk is African-American, but his agenda is different than Dukes's. Look at Michael Irvin now saying Brady will never win another SB now that Moss is gone. What on earth is the reasoning behind that premise? I think other talking heads do not like NE for other reasons I have mentioned here before, but the theme is they all have a selfish/personal agenda behind it. You could argue Irvin's recent agenda is to protect his own Dynasty OR is it to highlight Moss's high impact at the WR position AND prima donna style? I argue the latter, because Irvin was not this vocal in 2007 when NE was going to the SB. So, that is his agenda now (WR importance/prima donna defense). My premise is that Dukes, who has never won a SB, probably cannot stand the fact NE had 3 in 4 years and runs their operation very "tightly". Not sure how else to phrase it. Yes, I feel NE has a model some people can't handle. I get it, but why would something that works and possibly does isolate people who "don't get it" (look no further than poorly run SD or Dallas teams), be a bad thing? Isn't team work better than selfish millionaire NFL players? Also, I know plenty of diehard NFL fans who call NE "cheap", "they cheat", etc, In other words, they attach a trigger word to mask their jealousy for NE. With Dukes, there was always a snide remark that just reeked of jealousy, but I get the impression, Dukes, like a Hoge on ESPN, or 95% of ESPN heads, or a Marshall Faulk, etc, had their obvious agendas. Dukes is no different, but he doesn't have anything to protect. But, with his comments, through the years, he seems to also demean the NE approach aka "The Patriot Way". I think he sees it as a program where Belichick turns people into robots and BB being sort of a coach who tries to control the individual. I.E., Terrell Owens and certain prima donna, yes, African American players, would never play in NE. I think Dukes takes this personal. When in reality, it has to do with the person and the fit in NE, not the color. See what I mean? I think Dukes sees this as arrogant. He's made comments in the past. Not direct comments, but little veiled comments that support this. Anyway, it's just on observation, I can guarantee you others who read this know what I am talking about. I do agree it's not a race thing and I don't want it to be. In the end, my issue is with selfish media people who use their position as one to promote an agenda. A selfish agenda. It could be Ron Borges or Jamie Dukes. No bearing on color, unless someone speaks from that place and wants it to be an issue of that. If anyone finds this touchy subject offensive, I apologize ahead of time. I just feel the selfish agenda driven media/talking heads are over the top and out of line.
Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
Appreciate the rebuttal. You're now tackling the "Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race baiters subject." I'll ask again, are you sure you don't have an agenda?! I've seen a number of things written on this board over the years that I found offensive, but I picked my battles wisely and when called on it the perp (for lack of a better word) would take the I don't know what you're talking about road. I still find it curious you highlighted all players and scribes who are black to prove a point when you had other means.
Having said that, there are certain talking heads I avoid: Hoge, Schlereth, Michael Irving, Trey Wingo and Faulk. As a fan, do you think Hoge enjoys talking about a team he continually lost to as a player. The same holds true for Faulk. Schlereth during his time in Denver got the best of NE, so, his analysis comes across as smug to me because of the Broncos history.
Michael Irving is no Deon Sanders. Sanders is loud, with a personality to match, but he's no fool. When Mike opens his mouth I hit the mute button. Finally, we come to Mr. Wingo, I'm not sure what to make of him.
I can think of a number of players and writers who appear to be biased in their commentary of the Patriots, some more than others: Shannon Sharpe, Dan Marino, Terrell Davis, the gap toothed former Giant whose name escapes me, Ditka, Trey Wingo and Michael Wilbon. I ask you, do you see any similarities?