Whitlock says the Patriots = Blue Devils

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm not sure what he's implying, if it's a complement, or an insult, or both.

If you had to compare Bill Belichick’s Patriots to a basketball team, only the WASPy, boys-next-door Duke Blue Devils fit the description.

At first that sounds bad, but then he goes on to say Belichick chooses character over talent. Here is the article. (Which really has nothing to do with basketball, but that one line stood out.)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/n...ure-war-011611

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I'm not sure what he's implying, if it's a complement, or an insult, or both.


At first that sounds bad, but then he goes on to say Belichick chooses character over talent. Here is the article. (Which really has nothing to do with basketball, but that one line stood out.)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/n...ure-war-011611

It's a complement. I take it that way, anyway.

In winning three Super Bowls early in the new millennium and consistently fielding outstanding regular-season squads, Belichick perfected the art of choosing overall team character, locker-room chemistry and adherence to rules of media secrecy over loading up on individual talent.

Now I think we also have outstanding individual talent as well, but maybe we pass on some of the one and done's who don't possess the character qualities of a Kyrie Irving, although we've gone after a number of them very hard, even had a commitment from one of them before letting him go elsewhere when it became apparent he wouldn't be a good fit.

[DevilHorns]

Bill Belichick has 3 super bowl titles to his name, all of which have been tainted by 'Spygate' (interesting that he has not been able to replicate super bowl success since being caught, eh?). In an era where individual athletes are chastised for bending the rules, he has pretty much come away unscathed. Nobody ever talks about his cheating history, which is absurd to me. Obviously this is a comparison that I deeply dislike.

[theAlaskanBear]

Bill Belichick has 3 super bowl titles to his name, all of which have been tainted by 'Spygate' (interesting that he has not been able to replicate super bowl success since being caught, eh?). In an era where individual athletes are chastised for bending the rules, he has pretty much come away unscathed. Nobody ever talks about his cheating history, which is absurd to me. Obviously this is a comparison that I deeply dislike.

Especially with the Josh McDaniels nonsense. You kind of feel like it was a culture over there in New England, not just an isolated incident.

[moonpie23]

the cheating stops...so do the superbowls...

[taiw93]

Another glaring difference between Belichick and K is the atmosphere that they build. Coach K's Duke Teams have always been characterized by their warm, family-like atmospheres, whereas Belichick's Patriots teams have always come across as cold and corporate more than anything else. And while I don't know either man personally, it is rather apparent that Krzyzewski is a much nicer, friendlier, and more cordial man than Belichick, who seems like a bit of a jerk.

[_Gary]

the cheating stops...so do the superbowls...

What a crock. Now you are sounding like all the conspiracy people that say Duke only wins because they get all the calls. The Patriots didn't win any Super Bowls because of "cheating", which was blown way out of proportion by bitter people like Sen. Specter. And if New England's success was really all about that then explain to me how they've continued to excel, posting winning seasons each year since. I guess the rest of the league just laid down for them in the regular season this year, huh.

[toooskies]

I was thinking just the same thing, but in another way, and more pertinent to this year's teams: the Patriots don't beat themselves very often, but they can be beaten by a team that plays a great game. They have a consistently high standard of play, but it isn't so high that it's unbeatable.

[WiJoe]

The Patriots didn't win any Super Bowls because of "cheating",

Look at your tag line, buster.

[wilson]

Jason Whitlock says a lot of things. The overwhelming majority of them are not worth listening to.

[Sgt. Dingleberry]

So, the Patriots' 3 Super Bowls are now irrelevant because the Jets beat them in an AFC semi-final game?

Yes, the Jets won the game, but "The Patriot's Way" has led to them dominating the league for the last 10 years. Where is the problem in that?

If the Jets go on a run of Patriotesque proportion over the next 10 years, then, Jason, we can have this discussion, but this is more than a little premature.

[loran16]

Jason Whitlock says a lot of things. The overwhelming majority of them are not worth listening to.

I'm with you on this one. I once had respect for Whitlock because he basically quit ESPN's Page 2 out of disgust at the tones of the new writers basically fitting stereotypes, but he's basically just a caricature at this point....sort of like a shock jock who writes instead of talks.

Just ignore him.

[_Gary]

Look at your tag line, buster.

My point exactly. Their record since "Spygate" speaks for itself. Heck, they went 11-5 when Brady wasn't even in the lineup a couple of years ago. I guess the truth there is a little too inconvenient for some folks. It's often much easier to perpetuate a myth than dig for the truth.

[WVDUKEFAN]

As a Duke fan for over 20 years, I take offense to the comparison. Coach K, like him or not, has never done a single thing to bring any negativity to the university or the sport. He has won and lost with dignity. His players have always conducted themselves as gentlemen (outside of Laettner stepping on Timberlake, which Coach K. promptly addressed) on and off the court. We have a lot to be proud of as Duke fans. Not too many programs have gone as clean as we have over the years. LET'S GO DUKE!!!

[DevilHorns]

My point exactly. Their record since "Spygate" speaks for itself. Heck, they went 11-5 when Brady wasn't even in the lineup a couple of years ago. I guess the truth there is a little too inconvenient for some folks. It's often much easier to perpetuate a myth than dig for the truth.

Belichick is a great coach in the same way that Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds were great baseball players. Regardless of how many statistics and numbers you bring to the table, those superbowl wins deserve '*' next to them in the same way that these individual baseball players' stats do.

If Belichick was cheating in the superbowl against the NY Giants, do you think they win? I sure as hell do.

If Belichick was NOT cheating in his superbowl wins* (with wins of 32-29 against Carolina, 24-21 against Philly, and 20-17 against the Rams), does he win any superbowls AT ALL? Who knows... we all have our inclinations.

[dukelifer]

Waspy and boys-next-door? According to Wikipedia "The term (WASP) more generally refers to high status Americans of Western European descent (not necessarily British), but it typically excludes Catholics, Jews, Slavs, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians."

Sort of excludes a lot of Duke players of last year's team and really how many boys living next door to you are 6' 11".

[CDu]

Waspy and boys-next-door? According to Wikipedia "The term (WASP) more generally refers to high status Americans of Western European descent (not necessarily British), but it typically excludes Catholics, Jews, Slavs, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians."

Sort of excludes a lot of Duke players of last year's team and really how many boys living next door to you are 6' 11".

Technically, the term WASP is an acronym for white Anglo-Saxon protestant. So, by definition it excludes Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. But I suspect he was referring more to the image of the student body rather than the players. Although Duke's roster is often whiter than the average major conference roster, especially in recent years.

But I concur with others in this thread who say that Whitlock should generally be ignored. This article wasn't well thought out, nor well argued. Occasionally Whitlock has a good point. More often than not though, he just tries to say something controversial or inflammatory.

[Exiled_Devil]

Not reading the article, I can tell you that there are some similarities. Both teams have had a high level of success and both teams attract criticisms from non-fans. Spygate. Coach K's season out with his back. The criticisms are extremely significant to the non-fans, but the fans blow them off. Whether you think that is appropriate is based on your affiliation, typically.

In all seriousness, the Spygate scandal is as substantial as the Coach K throwing his losses to an assistant.

[Bluedog]

In all seriousness, the Spygate scandal is as substantial as the Coach K throwing his losses to an assistant.

Huh?

Blatant rules violations that potentially give your team a better chance of winning is the same as a school assigning certain wins/losses to a different coach? Duke's decision to gives Pete Gaudet the wins/losses did NOT give Duke any advantage whatsover to win. Even the most ardent critic would admit that. I guess the outside criticism is directed towards Coach K in that "bailed" on the team by faking an injury. But they still don't think the team cheated, just that Coach K is dishonorable or whatever.

Also, the Patriots rules violation actually has evidence while the Coach K faking an injury has no evidence or proof whatsoever. Apples and oranges.

Having said that, personally I think spygate was overblown and that the Patriots are a great organization and Belichick is an amazing coach. Whitlock wasn't equating spygate with a similar situation at Duke anyways...

[Indoor66]

Having said that, personally I think spygate was overblown and that the Patriots are a great organization and Belichick is an amazing coach.

I don't care how anyone varnishes it, it was cheating. For that it is not a great organization and he is not an amazing coach, only a serial cheater.