stevo3883 said:
no one knows what decisions he is making. no one knows if he studied for the test or not. no one knows why he picked the people for his team.
people just decide whatever reasons they want and just go from there. its so ridiculous.
Steve-O, this is pretty much the truth of the matter.
Whitlock's article contains some truth and a lot of speculation regarding Vince, though I believe he overemphasizes the impact it is going to have on his bottom line. Nothing about Vince's game has changed since the Rose Bowl - he is still the same exciting athlete with a lot of potential and a few serious question marks hanging over his head.
The MB discussion that was prompted by this somewhat factual, somewhat whimsical article has revealed far more "truth" about the status of fans on this board than it has anything about Vince or his game.
For months now, people have leveled criticism after criticism (many of them borderline or outright insults) at David Carr, the majority of this rhetoric being of equally baseless or speculative value as those Whitlock provides against Young. For instance, most recently: many of the pro-Vince crowd were resolute that Carr's teammates hated him, disrespected him, etc., that it was so "obvious" ... well, Steve McKinney gets on his radio show and says Carr is an alright kind of guy, and now, of course, he's just pumping up his teammate and hiding what he feels. Meanwhile, Huff comes out in support of Vince Young, and dear God, stop the presses, we need to add a new chapter to the Bible. People can speculate for days on end regarding Carr's practice habits and passion for winning and tout these mystical revelations as fact, but nooo ... who is Jason Whitlock to dare question Vince? Seriously, he is a "fat-***" and a "racist" (deep, by the way: that demonstrates a lot of class or intelligent thought on your part, and I am absolutely sick of the race card being played every time anyone says something negatively against a black guy) who should just keep his mouth shut, because if there is one thing you can say with certainty about Vince Young fans everywhere, is that they are all absolutely right.
For that matter (ignore this paragraph if you are already heatedly preparing your "homer" rant), many of the David Carr fan set have behaved similarly toward Vince, ignoring any of Carr's football deficiencies while attributing 100% of the blame for our 2-14 season to anybody but the man himself, while making much ado over almost nothing regarding such non-factors as Vince's Wonderlic score (even if he really did get a 6, does that mean he can't throw a football? I doubt it.) While Vince has made a handful of suspect decisions lately, his off-field "troubles" are hardly of the caliber of a Marcus Vick or Maurice Clarett. In the end, no matter how rocky his NFL start is shaping up to be, his game remains the same, and to the observer clinging to even a shred of objectivity, there is little reason to doubt he will have success -and quite possibly a high degree of it - at the pro level.
The bottom line is that most people will do or say just about anything to believe what they want to believe. That, unfortunately, has characterized too much of this Vince/Carr debate.
Read Whitlock for what he is worth, take what truth there is to be had, and ignore the fluffy stuff, "player-hating" if that's what you want to call it. Or better yet, meaningfully dissect his errors and talk about that. But as I read through the list of names that have so eagerly jumped to VY's defense, I can only shake my head in memory of some of what some of them have written against Carr and others, using precisely the same ambiguous and highly speculative, inflammatory style of rhetoric. To those posters, I say: it's cool to like Vince, it's great to support your guy, but stop talking as if their is some grand conspiracy against him, as if he is the only player on the face of this earth (or this board) to receive much undue criticism.
Then again, fire away, if that's what helps you to sleep at night. Just know your opinions for the foolishness they are.