Earlier today, I wrote a blog concerning how current Ohio State head coach Urban Meyer has received some scrutiny (and unfairly) in light of his former tight end Aaron Hernandez being arrested on a murder charge. While I rolled my eyes at that sad excuse of reporting, it was nowhere near the eye-rolling that would take place as I read Ashley Fox's article concerning the former New England Patriots' tight end.
Her article is titled, "No clean break from Aaron Hernandez," where she writes the following bits:
"But it isn't that simple and can't be that neat. New England has acted wisely and admirably in the immediate aftermath of this heinous story, but it can't be forgotten that New England was the organization that employed Hernandez. The Patriots chose Hernandez. Not once. Twice. They were the team that decided, since Hernandez had fallen into the fourth round of the 2010 draft, that the value of taking Hernandez trumped the risk of selecting a player with character issues."
Okay, so what's her point? That the New England Patriots are at least partially to blame for Aaron Hernandez possibly murdering someone because they gave him a job opportunity? So every organization who hires someone that has a great deal of talent, but comes along with some potential character issues, is partially to blame if this person commits a crime? How is that, Ms. Fox? Please, enlighten me...
"They were the team that picked Hernandez 113th overall -- after 31 other teams had repeatedly passed on a player who was viewed as a first-round talent -- because he was big and strong and could catch the football and make their team better."
So if New England hadn't have taken Hernandez with the 113th overall pick, no other team would have taken a chance on him? A man with first-round talent wouldn't have been seen as a potential steal by multiple teams in the 5th round? Right...
"And the Patriots were the team that renegotiated Hernandez's rookie contract -- a deal that was laden with financial incentives geared to encourage him to behave -- two years before it was set to expire. They were the ones who gave Hernandez a five-year deal worth $37.5 million, including a $12.5 million signing bonus."
This is because the man produced on the field. He hadn't gotten into trouble with the law yet and was a force to be reckoned with during the season. So what's an organization supposed to do with a person like that? Fire him? "I'm sorry, sir. While you've been great for our organization and really helped progress us more than we had ever expected, due to the character issues you had in college which have yet to be showcased at this level, we're going to have to let you go."
"Given what Hernandez now is accused of in a story that gets more grisly by the day, New England tarnished its brand by choosing Hernandez twice, and it will take more than a jersey exchange to wipe that tarnish away. It will take time. And better choices. And fewer risks."
Yes, because through the team management's psychic powers, they should have known that after being a very productive tight end for three years, that Hernandez would get charged with murder. Due to this, from this point forward, the Patriots should never select that raw prospect with loads of upside but limited experience. They should never go with a guy who is labeled as a can't miss Pro Bowler so long as he doesn't get lazy. They should never go with a player who could take them to the next level if there is even a subtle hint of a "character issue." No, they should stay away from gambles altogether, even if they're of the penny-slot variety.
"The team can try to collect and burn every No. 81 jersey it has sold, but it can't erase the fact that Hernandez wore a Patriots jersey for three seasons. Hernandez was part of the Patriot Way that seems to have gone awry."
Yes, and he did other things before placing on that Patriots jersey for three years. Should we go on blaming every single person in his life up until the time when he possibly murdered someone?
"Team owner Robert Kraft is to blame. So is coach Bill Belichick. They made the choice to gamble on Hernandez, and while they could not have foreseen that one day their star tight end would be charged with murder as well as five gun-related offenses, they knew he had issues, including reported multiple failed drug tests while Hernandez was at Florida."
Ah, so Ms. Fox seems to have answered my previous question with this paragraph.
Me: "...Should we go on blaming every single person in his (Hernandez's) life up until the time when he possibly murdered someone?"
Fox: "Team owner Robert Kraft is to blame. So is Bill Belichick..."
"Kraft is one of the most respected owners in the NFL, yet his organization -- his brand -- is now indelibly tarnished. He did the right thing once Hernandez was arrested, something Dallas owner Jerry Jones hopefully noticed, given Jones' refusal to part ways with Josh Brent. But for Kraft, it was too little, too late."
Ms. Fox does realize that Hernandez has not been found guilty yet, correct? What if he's found to be not guilty? Will she take all of this back?
"Kraft must now make sure that his franchise doesn't select players or gamble in the draft just because the Patriots hope the value outweighs the risk. It is going to take time, but the Patriots must be more selective, more cautious."
Yes, because this moment is the only time in the history of professional sports when a team took a gamble on a high-talent-character-issue guy, only to be burned by his issues in the end. Like with all the other teams whom had to endure such draft picks, the Patriots will continue to make picks they believe will be of the greatest benefit to the organization on the field.
"Hernandez was part of the Patriot Way because he could catch passes and make the team more successful. The franchise, led by Kraft, needs to recalibrate and be more selective going forward, starting now."
After reading Ms. Fox and Dan Graziano's recent columns, I'm thinking ESPN.com should be more selective going forward as well, starting now.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9441388/nfl-new-england-patriots-stained-aaron-hernandez-saga
Her article is titled, "No clean break from Aaron Hernandez," where she writes the following bits:
"But it isn't that simple and can't be that neat. New England has acted wisely and admirably in the immediate aftermath of this heinous story, but it can't be forgotten that New England was the organization that employed Hernandez. The Patriots chose Hernandez. Not once. Twice. They were the team that decided, since Hernandez had fallen into the fourth round of the 2010 draft, that the value of taking Hernandez trumped the risk of selecting a player with character issues."
Okay, so what's her point? That the New England Patriots are at least partially to blame for Aaron Hernandez possibly murdering someone because they gave him a job opportunity? So every organization who hires someone that has a great deal of talent, but comes along with some potential character issues, is partially to blame if this person commits a crime? How is that, Ms. Fox? Please, enlighten me...
"They were the team that picked Hernandez 113th overall -- after 31 other teams had repeatedly passed on a player who was viewed as a first-round talent -- because he was big and strong and could catch the football and make their team better."
So if New England hadn't have taken Hernandez with the 113th overall pick, no other team would have taken a chance on him? A man with first-round talent wouldn't have been seen as a potential steal by multiple teams in the 5th round? Right...
"And the Patriots were the team that renegotiated Hernandez's rookie contract -- a deal that was laden with financial incentives geared to encourage him to behave -- two years before it was set to expire. They were the ones who gave Hernandez a five-year deal worth $37.5 million, including a $12.5 million signing bonus."
This is because the man produced on the field. He hadn't gotten into trouble with the law yet and was a force to be reckoned with during the season. So what's an organization supposed to do with a person like that? Fire him? "I'm sorry, sir. While you've been great for our organization and really helped progress us more than we had ever expected, due to the character issues you had in college which have yet to be showcased at this level, we're going to have to let you go."
"Given what Hernandez now is accused of in a story that gets more grisly by the day, New England tarnished its brand by choosing Hernandez twice, and it will take more than a jersey exchange to wipe that tarnish away. It will take time. And better choices. And fewer risks."
Yes, because through the team management's psychic powers, they should have known that after being a very productive tight end for three years, that Hernandez would get charged with murder. Due to this, from this point forward, the Patriots should never select that raw prospect with loads of upside but limited experience. They should never go with a guy who is labeled as a can't miss Pro Bowler so long as he doesn't get lazy. They should never go with a player who could take them to the next level if there is even a subtle hint of a "character issue." No, they should stay away from gambles altogether, even if they're of the penny-slot variety.
"The team can try to collect and burn every No. 81 jersey it has sold, but it can't erase the fact that Hernandez wore a Patriots jersey for three seasons. Hernandez was part of the Patriot Way that seems to have gone awry."
Yes, and he did other things before placing on that Patriots jersey for three years. Should we go on blaming every single person in his life up until the time when he possibly murdered someone?
"Team owner Robert Kraft is to blame. So is coach Bill Belichick. They made the choice to gamble on Hernandez, and while they could not have foreseen that one day their star tight end would be charged with murder as well as five gun-related offenses, they knew he had issues, including reported multiple failed drug tests while Hernandez was at Florida."
Ah, so Ms. Fox seems to have answered my previous question with this paragraph.
Me: "...Should we go on blaming every single person in his (Hernandez's) life up until the time when he possibly murdered someone?"
Fox: "Team owner Robert Kraft is to blame. So is Bill Belichick..."
"Kraft is one of the most respected owners in the NFL, yet his organization -- his brand -- is now indelibly tarnished. He did the right thing once Hernandez was arrested, something Dallas owner Jerry Jones hopefully noticed, given Jones' refusal to part ways with Josh Brent. But for Kraft, it was too little, too late."
Ms. Fox does realize that Hernandez has not been found guilty yet, correct? What if he's found to be not guilty? Will she take all of this back?
"Kraft must now make sure that his franchise doesn't select players or gamble in the draft just because the Patriots hope the value outweighs the risk. It is going to take time, but the Patriots must be more selective, more cautious."
Yes, because this moment is the only time in the history of professional sports when a team took a gamble on a high-talent-character-issue guy, only to be burned by his issues in the end. Like with all the other teams whom had to endure such draft picks, the Patriots will continue to make picks they believe will be of the greatest benefit to the organization on the field.
"Hernandez was part of the Patriot Way because he could catch passes and make the team more successful. The franchise, led by Kraft, needs to recalibrate and be more selective going forward, starting now."
After reading Ms. Fox and Dan Graziano's recent columns, I'm thinking ESPN.com should be more selective going forward as well, starting now.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9441388/nfl-new-england-patriots-stained-aaron-hernandez-saga
Comments
Post a Comment