Sidelines is the best place to discuss your favorite sports, teams and players.
Sign Up for free!
L
FanHouse / Sporting News writer David Whitley seems to think Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana and the Mannings are good based on lack of ink. And then celebrates Jerry Richardson's quasi-offensive tattoo comments to Cam Newton. Writer also says it is OK for some white QBs to have tattoos. Lovely.
Beside the potential "whiff of the plantation" in the piece, it shows a complete lack of understanding. Talent and preparation usually lead to success, ink has nothing to do with it.
My guess is Mr. Whitely may be looking for a new job.
An athlete with tattoos is fairly standard, but a franchise quarterback? That's a new one. Colin Kaepernick's inked-up arms eventually could hoist the Lombardi Trophy, so SN's David Whitley is trying to curb his tattoo-ism. Read full article
If you don't have a Facebook or Twitter account, you can sign up with your email.
Discussion (11 Replies)
Offensive, and some QBs w/out tattoos have pretty bad reps. Big Ben is no saint...
I get that everyone is entitled to their opinion and controversial articles make for page views but a big serious WTF. I can't tell if Whitley is trolling or he is truly a moron.
Seems like "moron". The guy actually praises Jerry Richardson, so I think we kinda see where he's coming from...
La douche....
He longs for the days when real quarterbacks wore fur coats and had long hair.
"His ink-covered arms will one day raise the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Imagine the impact that could have."
JUST IMAGINE BECAUSE I CAN'T EVEN DESCRIBE IT TO YOU WITHOUT SOUNDING RACIST.
What a tool.
Wait, what is his f'ing thesis here? That tattoos are bad and somehow demean the person wearing them? That the QB is like the CEO of an NFL team and can't have tattoos? I feel like I've gotten dumber since reading this, not just because of the blatant racism couched in shitty humor, but because I cannot for the life of me figure out what the writer is actually trying to say.
He doesn't mean anything at all. Either he doesn't realize that his apparent hatred for tattoos is thinly veiled racism or he just thought that writing a provocative article was the only way to get people to read his junk.
Sporting news editor "defends" the column. Basically, says the writer is so bad at making his point, it just "seems" racist. Now both the editor and writer look like fools. Excellent.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-11-30/colin-kaepernick-tattoos-tattoo-san-francisco-49ers-david-whitley
I think it's a reasonable explanation, but again hurts the editor's credibility by saying that Bayless and Stephen A. did a good take on anything at all. Bayless is the sports equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and anything that quotes him should get discredited immediately.
Look, whether or not this guy has two adopted African-American kids is besides the point. He wrote some words, and it doesn't matter what he intended while writing them, all that matters is what those words represent. And it equates people with tattoos to lack of class / intelligence (besides obviously coming off as racist). I might have certain baeless biases, but I certainly wouldn't write a column airing such biases.