Richard Sherman's name has been mentioned in just about every media outlet over the past week. His recent popularity (or infamy) stems from an on-field interview following one of the biggest plays of his young career. He tipped away a pass intended for Michael Crabtree of the San Franciso 49ers that solidified an appearance for his Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl. Immediately following this play, a reporter shoved a microphone in his face and asked him to expound on the final play of the game. Sherman's response could be called a rant, but he was honest about his feelings. He basically said that he was the best cornerback in the NFL, that Michael Crabtree was not a good football player, and that the opposing quarterback should have never attempted to throw a pass is his vicinity (see video clip below). The media storm following the interview has been well covered. Somewhere in this storm, Richard Sherman has been called a thug. I decided to look into the merits of this title to see if it accurately describes Sherman.
THUG
When I hear the term "thug," I think of convicted criminals. Some of the more infamous thugs I can think of are Al Capone, Bumpy Johnson, and Alpo Martinez. In the fiction realm I think of characters like Nino Brown from New Jack City, Birdie from Above the Rim, and Ole Dog from Menace II Society. None of these people--fiction or non-fiction--attended college, or held legal jobs. According to Merriam Webster's dictionary, a thug is defined as a brutal ruffian or assassin. So with that context in place, let's take a look into Richard Sherman's life to determine if he deserves the thug moniker.
EDUCATION
Richard Sherman is an interesting individual; he is a very gifted football player and is also supremely confident in his ability. He was born and raised in Compton, California where gang-violence and poverty were just a few of the challenges faced by him. Despite his humble beginnings, he graduated from Dominguez High School with a 4.2 grade point average. His high academic accolades were very impressive, but his on-the-field exploits helped him earn a football scholarship to one of the most prestigious universities in the world--Stanford University. While at Stanford, he also ran track and earned a degree in Communications. Nowhere in my research have I seen evidence that Sherman has a criminal record or otherwise conducted himself in a thuggish manner befitting a "thug."
TIMING
Timing is everything. Although I am not a reporter, it is fairly obvious that reporters are trained to search for a story that will attract the most viewers. In Sherman's case, the timing was perfect. The reporter likely was aware of Crabtree and Sherman's history with each other. Apparently, some sort of altercation nearly occurred last summer at a celebrity event between Crabtree and Sherman. Needless to say, they are certainly not friends and their respective positions on the football field are in direct opposition to each other. In other words, the nature of their encounters on the football field are adversarial by nature. When the reporter interviewed Sherman right after the play, she knew his response would likely lead to great television ratings. Her timing was perfect.
BACKLASH
Since the famous interview, Sherman has been questioned regarding his response during the on-field interview. Judging by the interviews I have seen, he is certainly not a thug. He is intelligent and well-spoken; this is to be expected of a Stanford graduate. He is unapologetic for his comments other than to say that he should not have attacked Crabtree on a personal level. He is standing firmly behind his other comments which amount to him basically saying that he is the best cornerback in the NFL. This kind of statement has been made by many other athletes and is usually not a big deal. I have seen and heard celebrities say much more offensive comments yet receive far less backlash than Sherman. That begs the question: What is it about Sherman that makes him a prime target?
Sherman was in the heat of the battle in the biggest game of his career when he was interviewed. His response may not have been conventional, but it was brutally honest. Lastly, there is no evidence to support a thug moniker. It is completely unfounded and offensive that he has been called a thug simply because of his 20 second interview.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment