Jake Scott piece

Don't forget Mike Wagner. You're big on him, too. Bigger on Wagner, apparently, than you are on Webster. Daniel. Not Mike.

 

I suppose the nuts and bolts of tracking him down might have added something to the story, but I really don't think it was necessary. He set it up perfectly with the three questions and set about answering them. Plus, anyone who's done a semi-long feature like this knows that things get cut, they get moved around, they get changed during the course of the editorial process. This story is very good as it is.

Someone mentioned "social conscience" and "giving back" earlier, and I'm just wondering what relevance that has here. Is Scott under some obligation to have a social conscience or give back? Because Ray Lewis goes to Africa and becomes God's linebacker, does that mean Scott has to be God's safety? And what if he does --- is he obligated to talk about it? And anyway, isn't his fierce loyalty to his friends evidence of a social conscience?

 

it's a profile of scott. are you saying his personality isn't relevent? his values aren't relevent? bullshit. hyde was so grateful scott talked to him he forgot to put scott into perspective. there is nothing terribly admireable about scott - it needed to be in there - maybe not directly - but hinted at.

 

So it's a requirement that every profile include at least a hint of where a person lies on the henryhecht social conscience meter. Got it. THAT's bullshit. Personality does not equal social conscience necessarily. It's pretty clear how the man spends his time, and we know him a little better than we did before we clicked the link to the story, which, by the way, covered the major conflicts in his football life fairly well, and his personality seemed pretty clear to me. What exactly do you think Scott should be "giving back"?

The term "giving back" bothers me, by the way. At face value it implies that successful people got that way through handouts, that they did not earn whatever success they achieve. Very few people outside lottery winners fall into that category. Was Jake Scott talented? Absolutely. Dooley said he was the most talented player he ever had. But Scott didn't get to be the player he was on talent alone. He had to work to get there. Now, if he chooses to get involved in things that would be viewed as "giving back" that's one thing. But he doesn't owe that to anyone.

 

I think it was hinted at. It allowed readers to use their intuitive thinking to come to the conclusion that Scott was pretty much living the life of a barfly.

One thing I thought was missing was whether Scott had any offspring. It mentioned a girlfriend but little about any kind of family life.

 

He hit on plenty of perspective.

What the fuck did you want, the script of The English Patient?

 

A great read.
And a great example of an editor saying, "Hyde, go and seek!"

 

Great post.

 

Just curious, does anyone know if Scott showed up for the coin toss at last Saturday's Georgia-Georgia Tech game?

I didn't see Sunday's AJC, but haven't read anything about him being there in any wire stories about the game.

 

you missed the point again. if scott gives back or doesn't give back - all the same to me. it's the story - not scott - that i'm talking about. the story needs to put him in perspective - instead of idealizing his life. by the way, your notion of "giving back" is whacko. everybody who is successful had a helping hand. it is moral and ethical to return the favor to those who follow.

 

Henry, the story put him in perspective. He doesn't make public trips back to the CONUS because, well, he doesn't want to. He doesn't seem as bitter as some would make him out to be. He had fallings-out with Shula and Dooley, and accused Shula of telling him to fuck off. He cares about his small circle of friends and is fiercely loyal to them. That's plenty of perspective.

 

How did the story idealize his life? If anything, the perspective cast Jake Scott as a reclusive loner who disappeared because of old wounds. It's not Hyde's job to give a sermon about what that means...some readers may find that sad, others may find it admirable.

The fact that we're still debating it a week later is a pretty good indication Hyde left the readers with something to think about. I'd rather decide for myself, than be manipulated by a writer who can't resist deciding for all of us.