Matt Waldman: 75% chance Bridgwater falls due to racism (1 Viewer)

GroveDiesel said:

God help us if this happens.

http://t.co/YmH5buLydm

Click to expand...

fatness said:

RBM said:

fatness said:

Bronco Billy said:

Gandalf the Grey said:

squistion said:

Bronco Billy said:

So race baiting is promoted in the Shark Pool?

That's disheartening.

Click to expand...

Not as disheartening as seeing this comment on page 13 of this thread. A staff member voices an opinion in a podcast and as a result the Shark Pool is promoting race baiting? Please.

Click to expand...

Bronco Billy is Pony Boy, a LONG time poster here. His views on this are not at all surprising if you've read him in the past.

Click to expand...

Actually Pony Boy is Bronco Billy - who was here before this site became FBGs (cheatsheets.net) - and neither one clouds the facts of this matter. Not sure why you think the information in your response is in any way pertinent.

Click to expand...

I remember Pony Boy. He was a thin-skinned guy, easily angered. He offered me a trade in one fantasy league which I thought was lopsided, and when I made a reasonable counteroffer he came over here to whine about my counteroffer, I think in the Assistant Coach forum.

Click to expand...

Let's hear the offer...

Click to expand...

It was years ago and the only player I remember of those involved was T. J. Houshmandzadeh. The general consensus was that he got his panties in a bunch over what was a reasonable counteroffer. See if Bronco Billy/Pony Boy/P Boy can dig it up. If he hasn't deleted it.

Click to expand...

fatness said:

This is the first prediction on this site where this much of a crowd gathered and demanded a retraction or firing because they disagreed with it.

Angry people demanding reparations. Over an opinion.

Click to expand...

fatness said:

This is the first prediction on this site where this much of a crowd gathered and demanded a retraction or firing because they disagreed with it.

Angry people demanding reparations. Over an opinion.

Click to expand...

MoveToSkypager said:

This is exactly what Waldman wants. Controversy causes his named to be repeated, and more and more people will buy the RSP because of it. This was well done on Waldman's part.

Click to expand...

Ramblin Wreck said:

MoveToSkypager said:

This is exactly what Waldman wants. Controversy causes his named to be repeated, and more and more people will buy the RSP because of it. This was well done on Waldman's part.

Click to expand...

I won't ever buy the RSP again because I think his evaluations might have racial bias in them. And I refuse to support someone with his views on racism.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

MoveToSkypager said:

This is exactly what Waldman wants. Controversy causes his named to be repeated, and more and more people will buy the RSP because of it. This was well done on Waldman's part.

Click to expand...

I won't ever buy the RSP again because I think his evaluations might have racial bias in them. And I refuse to support someone with his views on racism.

Click to expand...

We all know your views on race from the Trayvon thread.

Click to expand...

MoveToSkypager said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

MoveToSkypager said:

This is exactly what Waldman wants. Controversy causes his named to be repeated, and more and more people will buy the RSP because of it. This was well done on Waldman's part.

Click to expand...

I won't ever buy the RSP again because I think his evaluations might have racial bias in them. And I refuse to support someone with his views on racism.

Click to expand...

I didn't buy it this year because of that. At first, I wanted to go back and re-read old ones to see if there was any subtle weirdness he injected, but I decided not to. I'm not sure if I'll get another one. But none of that matters to him. The number of people like you or me is dwarfed by the number of new people that will buy his RSP because it's such a controversy now.

Click to expand...

BassNBrew said:

NE_REVIVAL said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

There's an awful lot of crazy in here.

Sterling has nothing to do with what Matt was talking about in the podcast. Sterling is an out-and-out racist. I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

How confident am I that I am right and Matt is wrong? Only somewhat. Matt's position is not exactly out of left field. It's consistent with lots of studies and experiments in human psychology, even very recent ones. I mentioned in a previous post an experiment where otherwise identical resumes were sent out to companies -- half with black-sounding names and half with white-sounding names. The ones with white-sounding names were more likely to get interviews, and the results were statistically significant.

Here is a more recent experiment:

In Written in Black and White, selected law firm partners were asked to evaluate a single research memo into which 22 different errors were deliberately inserted – 7 spelling/grammar errors, 6 substantive writing errors, 5 errors in fact, and 4 analytic errors. Half of the partner evaluators were told that the hypothetical associate author was African American and half were told that the author was Caucasian.

Sadly, you know what’s coming.

On a five point scale, reviews for the exact same memo averaged a 3.2 for the "African American" author and 4.1 for the "Caucasian" author. More surprising were the findings of "objective" criteria such as spelling. The partner evaluators found an average of 2.9 spelling and grammar errors for the "Caucasian" authors and 5.8 such errors for the "African American" authors. Overall the memo presumed to have been written by a "Caucasian" was "evaluated to be better in regards to the analysis of facts and had substantively fewer critical comments."

This is not Donald Sterling-style racism we're talking about. This is unintentional bias shared by even the African American partners (who, like their white counterparts, gave lower scores to briefs they believed were written by African Americans).

Is Matt crazy to think that NFL GMs are no better at putting aside unconscious bias than those law firm partners are? I don't agree with Matt's conclusion, but I certainly can't call it crazy. It's far less crazy, for sure, than a lot of what's been posted in this thread.

Click to expand...

MT I got no problem with your or Matt and I enjoy the work both of you do. You each have a forum to share your opinion and this is mine so please understand its all good

[SIZE=medium]I made my feelings known in this thread a long time ago (when u r a hammer, everything looks like a nail) and pretty much ignored it ever since. NextIQ makes a lot of money by finding bias and promoting diversity (inclusion). They created an experiment to find bias and shockingly the experiment showed that their services were needed. “I am shocked, shocked to find inherent bias going on in here” [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Matt and the woman who founded Nextiq are part of an increasingly politically correct elitist world of academia (hammers) and to them everything looks like a nail (please see earlier post). Diversity and “inclusion” are skin deep, there is no diversity of thought. You want to get anywhere, you get on board with the people giving you the money. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Does racism exist? Of course it does, do Matt and Arin Reeves really know whats going on in people’s minds and inside their hearts? Hell no, but they can believe and pretend they do and as long as other like-minded academics agree with them, well, then you got yourself some irrefutable science and the sky is the limit……..[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Are you saying Matt and Arin Reeves are married?

Click to expand...

I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

Click to expand...

Ramblin Wreck said:

cstu said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

MoveToSkypager said:

This is exactly what Waldman wants. Controversy causes his named to be repeated, and more and more people will buy the RSP because of it. This was well done on Waldman's part.

Click to expand...

I won't ever buy the RSP again because I think his evaluations might have racial bias in them. And I refuse to support someone with his views on racism.

Click to expand...

We all know your views on race from the Trayvon thread.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? Link?

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

cstu said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

MoveToSkypager said:

This is exactly what Waldman wants. Controversy causes his named to be repeated, and more and more people will buy the RSP because of it. This was well done on Waldman's part.

Click to expand...

I won't ever buy the RSP again because I think his evaluations might have racial bias in them. And I refuse to support someone with his views on racism.

Click to expand...

We all know your views on race from the Trayvon thread.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? Link?

Click to expand...

I apologize if I lumped you in with Carolina Hustler from that thread.

Click to expand...

fatness said:

by fatness:

Angry people demanding reparations. Over an opinion.

Click to expand...

by Maurile Tremblay:Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

Click to expand...

Great post, MT.

Click to expand...

BassNBrew said:

Bazinga! said:

For me, racism says a lot about a persons character and none of it is good.

I don't care if you are

- a racist

- defending a racist

- accusing someone of being a racist without facts

- thinking you know how the other side feels

- using race as a tool for leverage

- discriminating

- privately making racist comments

- Pretending racism doesn't exist

- Using an assumption of racism to explain why something didn't go as you think is should have when you don't have facts to support the claim

- Assuming you know something about someone based on the color of their skin

- Assuming the worst about other races

- etc

It is all disgusting to me.

What Matt is doing is contributing to racism by assuming the worst about people, without fact. I don't expect him to put his head in the sand and assume that racism doesn't exist (that would be bs too), but to add to the problem of racism by assuming the worst in people, without any real facts to support the claim, is just as much a racist act as assuming someone is a gang member due to the color of their skin.

I will not support organizations that allow it. That is why I won't pay to go to an NBA game again until they get Sterling out (assuming the facts prove he was the one talking). I won't pay for FBG or the RSP again until/if this is addressed the right way.

Click to expand...

J - I don't know how prevalent the thoughts above are, but hopefully you see how Matt's comments reflect upon the FBG organization. For the most part you and your staff have done an excellent job focusing on football and staying away from weaving social, political, religious commentary into your football analysis. Even if you or the staff were to do this, I suspect that you would at least attempt to back up commentary with some actually facts.

Click to expand...

B-Deep said:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2045751-from-first-overall-to-free-falling-what-happened-to-teddy-bridgewater

Click to expand...

B-Deep said:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2045751-from-first-overall-to-free-falling-what-happened-to-teddy-bridgewater

Click to expand...

• scary-bad armchair psychiatry,
  
• subjective wants by one or a few overruling the detailed work of many
  
• fear-based decision-making based on image and playing it safe
  
• processes that are far more lacking than the public realizes
  

cstu said:

I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

Click to expand...

Great post, MT.

Click to expand...

DAG said:

cstu said:

I think Matt would be the first to tell you that no NFL GMs are racists in the way that Sterling is. Matt's point, I think, is that a lot of people subconsciously nitpick the performance of black QBs more than they nitpick the performance of white QBs without even realizing that they're doing so. I'd agree with that point to an extent -- I just doubt that it will affect anyone's draft position. I suspect that NFL GMs (and people in team personnel departments generally) are particularly good at suppressing subconscious bias because their livelihoods depend on it.

Click to expand...

Great post, MT.

Click to expand...

I've been wondering about whether or not I wanted to wade into this thread/discussion and your post, plus Matt's immediately above, provide an opportunity. I might take a slightly different tack than Waldman on the question of race as psychological/interpersonal vs. cultural, though I think both clearly mix together and I'm supportive of his points. There's a pretty significant difference between overt racism (Sterling being a case in point) and racism that is inferred. When it comes to draft evaluations, and especially evaluations of QBs, GMs, coaches, draft gurus, and former players-turned-commentator are all operating within a framework where attributes associated with quarterbacking have been racially typed over a much longer history. Does that mean these individuals are racists in the very limited, personal/psychological sense that most people have in mind when that term comes up? Probably not, but that's just one part of an interpersonal/cultural dynamic. Does Ron Jaworski consistently rate white "pocket-passers" more highly than African American QBs because he belongs to a secret racist society that cooks up new ways to further the old stereotypes? No; he thinks through a framework that's been remarkably durable, even as we see very real signs of progress at the position in the NFL.

I take the broader point that Matt is making to fit within what MT is referring to as the "subconscious" nitpicking of QB performances according to racial schema, and in that sense I think he raises a still-relevant issue in draft evaluations. Calling Matt a "race-baiter" implies a very limited view of the conditions under which race remains relevant in sport.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

I had no intention to return to this thread because before I posted the first time I saw the vitriol that got personal. I felt that the thread would never be a setting for respectful discussion on this topic. I still feel this is the case because those who truly wanted to have a substantive discussion about this topic could have contacted me via PM or email--and a few have.

However, I am going to share my basic points, background, and experiences that contribute to my views so those of you who haven't thought to PM me or email me might feel encouraged to do so.

I gave my opinion on Bridgewater and race based on a variety of things.

1. The NFL is just like any other business organization out there. Some are managed well, others are managed poorly.

2. I talk with scouts, former scouts, and consultants with the league. They have or had regular interactions with players, coaches, and upper management. The stories they tell me concerning front office decision-making includes generous amounts of the following:

• scary-bad armchair psychiatry,
• subjective wants by one or a few overruling the detailed work of many
• fear-based decision-making based on image and playing it safe
• processes that are far more lacking than the public realizes

3. My 20 years of experience in operations management with a lot of experience recruiting, interviewing, training, and supervising employees. This includes seeing my share of HR issues and being asked to travel to locations and help repair and re-train employee teams that experienced these HR issues--race sometimes being a significant factor.

4. My personal experiences of what it means to be white in America.

5. My personal experiences of how that experience changes when you actually have a personal understanding of what non-whites in America can, and still often do, experience in society.

My statement is that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10 and there's a very strong chance that racism will be an unintentional factor. There is a strong psychological component to racism. People see the institutional racism and think politics. I could care less about politics. At its core racism is an interpersonal dynamic.

Just like relating to the opposite sex is interpersonal, so is relating to race. Neither types of relationships are taught well at an institutional level (school) and it is at best, hit-and-miss when families teach how to relate.

Think about how people learn to relate to the opposite sex. They may be "told" how to do so, but they learn the most from modeling the behaviors of those around them. Johnny is told to be respectful to women, but his dad is an abusive, alcoholic man that he saw verbally and physically abuse his mother and sister.

Johnny may not have grown up to be an alcoholic or hit and belittle his wife like his old man, but he has issues communicating to his wife and his wife still feels like he doesn't treat her the way a husband and wife should relate. The behavior Johnny modeled is still unhealthy and it lingered beyond a generation.

An example could be Johnny never expressing outright anger to his wife. Instead he's nitpicking her about things that have nothing to do with the real issue and then withdrawing from her and breaking out in some unexplainable rash because his behavior still doesn't compensate for the powerful emotion of anger that he's feeling.

Johnny doesn't realize he behaves this way until someone confronts him about it. For awhile, he's also in denial about this behavior until something shakes him to his core just enough that he decides to seek some help/knowledge to learn about this behavior, the root of the behavior, and how to address the expression of this behavior.

Once Johnny realizes that the behavior he was showing wasn't healthy and he works on fixing it, he begins to see how he relates to others and how they relate to him in a clearer light. He's no longer in denial. When he begins to recognize a layer of behaviors that other people use to interact that aren't healthy.

Racism is like that. You can be told not use epithets or treat people poorly because it's wrong, but you can model behavior that sends the wrong message without knowing it. It's easy to be white, read about the civil rights movement in a history book, see people different skin colors people living on your street or working at your company, and believe everything has changed.

A lot has changed. But my parents, in-laws, and grandparents experienced what it took for our country to begin changing first hand. I'm old enough and experienced enough to see a lot change. I'm also old enough and experienced enough to have seen first-hand what hasn't.

However, the attitudes of some--not all, but enough--people in power haven't changed a lot. Some have changed on how to play the game of "how do I not be called a racist," even though they may be unwittingly still engaging in racist behavior.

This leads to a huge issue our country has. People are deathly afraid to be called racist in America. They think of racism and they think of the White Supremacist movement or images of brutality and hatred.

Racism is rooted in ignorance, not hatred. Folks are so afraid of being accused of racism, they'd rather just avoid the issue entirely and they wind up making assumptions about what they know-don't know instead of making an honest inquiry and admitting ignorance.

The desire not to look ignorant, but behave ignorantly is the predominant form of racism that's around these days. A lot of America believes racism is over because slavery is over or that the Civil Rights Act passed a half century ago.

Institutional racism has been weakened. However ignorance and sometimes hatred still exists. Just like Johnny who doesn't beat up and belittle his wife, but nitpicks her for things that have nothing to do with his real anger, a lot of our country is still in denial about its ignorance or strong, negative feelings about race.

I've seen it, worked around it, and lived around it as a single white man with no interpersonal connections to people of color beyond casual friendships. I've seen how companies have added layers of interviews with candidates that are really no more than contrived, but legal a "do they pass the look" test.

I've seen individuals in workplaces try to work around people of color when they have to go to them as the designated authority. I've seen managers scared of employees who do great work because they thought they were somehow doing that person a favor by hiring them and then try to sabotage them.

This was before I became a member of a black family and I saw more. I saw behaviors of mine that were unintentionally racist. I saw my childhood family reveal its ignorance and either change its behavior or abandon the relationship altogether.

I've seen everyday people make decisions and communicate in ways towards my family - often in front of me, thinking I'm someone else waiting in line behind them or mulling around - that are far different than I've been communicated to for the same things.

You may not find it easy to understand, but racism is an added layer of society that white people generally don't fully grasp or know how to negotiate. Once you have people--often the same people--treat you differently because they no longer identify you as a white individual but a member of a black family, you begin to see that layer a little clearer.

When you begin to see how people of color often have to navigate a white society, you begin to see the unwritten rules of that society that you just accepted because there was nothing inherent about you that chafed against them and created a negative reaction.

It doesn't happen everywhere or all the time. But as a white man who has seen how the world treats me as an individual and how it treats me or the people I am in relationships with either up close or from an observable distance, I can tell you it still happens enough to matter.

In my opinion, there are three types of racists:

1. People who are truly intolerant and hateful.

2. People who are clearly uncomfortable with diversity and have preconceived, deep-seated fears or discomfort, but are scared to death of confronting the fact that they are behaving this way.

3. People who are against racism/sexism/gender inequality and would be mortified if they were labeled intolerant, but they don't really have a true understanding that their behaviors or others behaviors as individuals and/or institutions are supporting ignorant or intolerant thinking. These people are benevolent racists.

So when I talk to NFL people and they have no physical-performance issues with Bridgewater that differ from other prospects, but they are nitpicking "soft skills" like leadership, toughness, and communication skills and some of these criticisms are based on the same arm-chair psychiatry I've seen managers make about black employees in my work places or assumptions I've seen made by teachers, doctors, or everyday business people with whom me and my family interact with, it becomes evident that there's still some sentiment in the NFL -- that's not always intentional -- that doesn't recognize it's bias.

And that bias isn't against drafting black quarterbacks. It's a very specific one regarding a top-10 pick being the face of the franchise and not having the game-changing athletic ability that no one can deny.

Cam Newton, RGII, McNabb, Vick, Russell, McNair, and Akili Smith were all quarterbacks with enough mobility to be considered threats with their legs. None of them were purely heralded as pocket passers who won on their intellect for the game. Newton "shocked" many for his skill in the pocket. McNabb and McNair had to transition from runners to pocket players.

The only black quarterback drafted in the top 10 in the past 20 years that has been drafted for his pocket skill sans mobility is Byron Leftwich. His general manager was James Harris, a dark-skinned black man.

Bridgewater relies on his arm and intellect more than his legs. Teams are nitpicking Bridgewater for being soft and using Leftwich as an example. That's like saying, "that cookie isn't sweet--it reminds me of that soft drink." Leftwich might have been a bad starter due to his windup, but saying he isn't tough is like saying he doesn't breath air. The fact that we're hearing glorified PR from folks like Phil Savage that no team had Bridgewater as a high first round pick and that it was media-driven fits into the point former scout Daniel Jeremiah has made weeks ago: "At this final month before the draft, it's time to stop believing most of what you hear or read."

Our country still has special biases reserved for dark-skinned black people. One of those biases has long been that dark skinned black people aren't fit for mental work. These overtones still exist in our general society. It's not always the case, but it happens often enough to notice it. It's often ingrained in this form of benevolent racism I described earlier.

Top 10 players are often the face of the franchise and earn an extra layer of scrutiny. They want these guys to project a CEO-quality. Nitpicking soft skills and doing so inaccurately is a huge red flag that there are teams that are hung up on what they see in front of them. Using the "Has 'It'" reason is about as subjective of an excuse these teams can invent to stand behind their bias without looking deeply into them.

And they don't look deeply into their issues. I know a former scout who had stints with four teams does analytics consulting for numerous teams. He's in demand with them and turns down more work than he takes. He has told me that scouting and decision-making with the draft is still in the dark ages.

He went on to tell me that he was shocked to read the RSP in 2007-2008 and see someone who not only saw behind he veil of NFL scouting process but tried to do something to make it better.

I'm not saying I'm a better scout. There are great scouts out there that I could learn a lot from. However, he has told me my process and structure is light years ahead of most NFL teams that he has seen -- and he has seen a lot.

I was also approached by an NFL exec last month to provide the team analysis on a player that they're interested in and they want to fill in the gaps. I learned that he has been reading my work for two years and agrees with a lot of my analysis. I have media people who are former players and scouts who read and value my work, but cannot give testimonials because of their work commitments.

Some of these people see and my points and agree; others disagree but understand how I arrived at that argument.

I originally didn't address my opinion on the thread for several reasons. One, it was my opinion and not a part of my RSP analysis. I don't project talent based on draft position. If I did, my takes would be far different.

Two, I had been sleeping three to five hours a night for two months to finish writing the RSP. I have three jobs and a family. My immediately priority wasn't to devote to a forum thread--especially when the responses I've gotten outside of this thread have been wholly positive.

Three, my opinion is based on a lot of established race theory, 20 years of anecdotal observation, and an understanding of the psychology of this issue that few will respond to with any level of grace, maturity, or openness.

Twitter has been almost 100 percent positive and those who disagreed strongly were respectful about how they chose to engage me. This forum from what I'm gathering had a solid mass of criticism for my opinion, which I expected to get some. However when I went to check this thread for the first time on the Saturday(?) before I published the RSP, I read enough of the thread to see that the behavior also included a good bit of hatred or inappropriate commentary that got deleted such as posts about my family.

I've made a choice to respond in more detail so that those of you who are reading this thread and are curious as to why I formed my opinion (and the background behind) can have that information. Then if you choose to contact me and engage in a respectful discussion that you'll know that I am open to doing so with those of you coming from a place of respect--whether you agree or not.

If anyone thinks that my belief (that Bridgewater's race created a layer of negative bias in 3-5 teams that could pick a quarterback in the top 10) somehow distorts my view of what happens on the field when I grade a player hasn't read the RSP. I don't rank by draft position or character. If I lose credibility to those of you who feel that way, I think it's a ridiculous, emotion-filled jump to make, but so be it.

If my reasons are too anecdotal for someone to consider, so be it. I'd think my fairly unique experiences would provide some insights that are worthwhile, but I imagine for some it's easy to dismiss me as biased.

If the fact that there are more quarterbacks in the NFL who are black than ever is a data point to make in response to my opinion, then I think they are missing the point of my argument, which is the top-10 and specifically dark-skinned black quarterbacks who don't offer the running back element. It's a very specific point.

But all some people heard was "racism", didn't consider the specificity of my point beyond the 75 percent number (which if you're latching onto that and not the explanation then you're missing the point). Bloom and Dr. Octopus have been pretty on-point about my take and still there are folks who saw something very different. I wasn't surprised that some of those reacting had even read any of my work or even listened to the podcast until those two went point-by-point.

It's an opinion that I could be wrong about, but I said it because I believe it needed to be said. Those who protest vehemently about it beyond, "I disagree and don't think he's right about it," and they have decided that I've somehow lost credibility for the work that I do they have their own issues to work out. I can't help them.

What I tell them will never be enough--especially if it forces some of them to confront something that feels uncomfortable.

Then again, I'm not sure why anyone cares so much about what I have to say, I'm just a fantasy writer.

Click to expand...

BassNBrew said:

Addressing your points in defense of your assertion
1. I'll name three poorly managed franchises and a potential fourth…Oakland, Carolina, Washington, Tampa. What do they have in common? They drafted black QBs in the first round, most of them early. Let's name two well run franchises who have done well in the draft…SF and Sea. Their starting QBs weren't drafted in the first round.

2. You say scouts and consultants think upper mgmt does a poor job. That's like saying water is wet and racism exists in America. 95% of the time the workers think management does a poor job and makes bad decisions. The fact is that QBs and NFL players in general drafted higher generally outperform those drafted lower. Upper management may not be right all the time, but they get it right more often than not.

3. Your experience outside of the NFL has nothing to do with how things operate inside the NFL. It's very rare that an industry has a playing field as level as the one in the NFL. You may be able to have operations that are successful despite racism in most of our society, but not in todays NFL.

4-5. Your personal experiences in America have nothing to do with the NFL. While I may agree with most of your social commentary, I don't see it playing out in the NFL.

Lastly, you have now changed the re-phrased the argument in a way where it's impossible to debate you. You now say black running QBs aren't allowed to be used as a counter to your argument and their aren't enough examples of non-running black QBs to be statistically significant. Most of the QBs leading playoff teams last year were running QBs. The best non running QBs played against each other in the AFC and the champion of the non running QBs got thumped in the Super Bowl. Maybe the reason Bridgewater's stock is dropping is because he doesn't run, not because of his color.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

I had no intention to return to this thread because before I posted the first time I saw the vitriol that got personal. I felt that the thread would never be a setting for respectful discussion on this topic. I still feel this is the case because those who truly wanted to have a substantive discussion about this topic could have contacted me via PM or email--and a few have.

Click to expand...

jurb26 said:

J. Russell amassed 79 yds rushing in 3 season at LSU and he was considered a running QB or guy with mobility?

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

To clarify, it's what this thread has devolved into and not your act of posting the topic. I'd like to assume the orginal intent was the desire for substantive discussion. However, by the time I arrived to the thread to make points I saw enough inappropriate behavior that I came to the conclusion that having a productive discussion in this thread would be difficult, at best.

The only thing I do regret is not encouraging that kind of discussion that I offered today. However, when you see folks engaging in personal attacks it's easy to write off the thread in its entirety. So yes, your original post--I haven't seen it, but I presume--was fine.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

To clarify, it's what this thread has devolved into and not your act of posting the topic. I'd like to assume the orginal intent was the desire for substantive discussion. However, by the time I arrived to the thread to make points I saw enough inappropriate behavior that I came to the conclusion that having a productive discussion in this thread would be difficult, at best.

The only thing I do regret is not encouraging that kind of discussion that I offered today. However, when you see folks engaging in personal attacks it's easy to write off the thread in its entirety. So yes, your original post--I haven't seen it, but I presume--was fine.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

BOOM.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

BOOM.

Click to expand...

cstu said:

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

BOOM.

Click to expand...

Ramblin Wreck said:

Matt Waldman said:

To clarify, it's what this thread has devolved into and not your act of posting the topic. I'd like to assume the orginal intent was the desire for substantive discussion. However, by the time I arrived to the thread to make points I saw enough inappropriate behavior that I came to the conclusion that having a productive discussion in this thread would be difficult, at best.

The only thing I do regret is not encouraging that kind of discussion that I offered today. However, when you see folks engaging in personal attacks it's easy to write off the thread in its entirety. So yes, your original post--I haven't seen it, but I presume--was fine.

Click to expand...

Who is personally attacking you? Aren't you personally attacking decision makers in the NFL front offices by basically saying they are racists if they don't draft Bridgewater where you believe he should be drafted?

Click to expand...

Ramblin Wreck said:

cstu said:

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

BOOM.

Click to expand...

Is it because he's black? Or because he's quiet or some other reason?

There are 32 teams. How many of them have a black guy as the face of the franchise?

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

Matt Waldman said:

To clarify, it's what this thread has devolved into and not your act of posting the topic. I'd like to assume the orginal intent was the desire for substantive discussion. However, by the time I arrived to the thread to make points I saw enough inappropriate behavior that I came to the conclusion that having a productive discussion in this thread would be difficult, at best.

The only thing I do regret is not encouraging that kind of discussion that I offered today. However, when you see folks engaging in personal attacks it's easy to write off the thread in its entirety. So yes, your original post--I haven't seen it, but I presume--was fine.

Click to expand...

Who is personally attacking you? Aren't you personally attacking decision makers in the NFL front offices by basically saying they are racists if they don't draft Bridgewater where you believe he should be drafted?

Click to expand...

Hi RW

I realize it's impossible to see but multiple posts have been deleted. Posts like, "He has definitely succeeded in stirring up the masses in a frenzy of Waldman hate. Race baiters like him piss me off to no end. Hopefully he gets what's coming to him. I'm sure he'll cross paths with someone who feels the same way as I do."

That's what Matt's talking about. And he's right.

Discussing opinions is what we want to do here. But we can discuss it without devolving into that.

J

Click to expand...

Kevrunner said:

cstu said:

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

BOOM.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? This is a quote from the link and please point me to the part where Maylock even hints that race is an issue:

"What I'm hearing is two things. Number one, when we saw him throw live we didn't see arm strength and didn't see accuracy. Number two, when you draft a quarterback in the first round you expect him to be the face of your franchise, you expect him to embrace the moment. I think people had some concerns about whether or not this young man is ready to step up and be the face of a franchise."

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

Matt Waldman said:

To clarify, it's what this thread has devolved into and not your act of posting the topic. I'd like to assume the orginal intent was the desire for substantive discussion. However, by the time I arrived to the thread to make points I saw enough inappropriate behavior that I came to the conclusion that having a productive discussion in this thread would be difficult, at best.

The only thing I do regret is not encouraging that kind of discussion that I offered today. However, when you see folks engaging in personal attacks it's easy to write off the thread in its entirety. So yes, your original post--I haven't seen it, but I presume--was fine.

Click to expand...

Who is personally attacking you? Aren't you personally attacking decision makers in the NFL front offices by basically saying they are racists if they don't draft Bridgewater where you believe he should be drafted?

Click to expand...

Hi RW

I realize it's impossible to see but multiple posts have been deleted. Posts like, "He has definitely succeeded in stirring up the masses in a frenzy of Waldman hate. Race baiters like him piss me off to no end. Hopefully he gets what's coming to him. I'm sure he'll cross paths with someone who feels the same way as I do."

That's what Matt's talking about. And he's right.

Discussing opinions is what we want to do here. But we can discuss it without devolving into that.

J

Click to expand...

datonn said:

Ramblin Wreck said:

cstu said:

Matt Waldman ‏@MattWaldman 7m

Lo and behold... RT @NFL_CFB: Mayock: Bridgewater's ability to be face of franchise concerns some teams.

Click to expand...

BOOM.

Click to expand...

Is it because he's black? Or because he's quiet or some other reason?

There are 32 teams. How many of them have a black guy as the face of the franchise?

Click to expand...

RGIII, Cam Newton, Adrian Peterson, and maybe Colin Kaepernick? Those are the guys that come to my mind, without giving it a lot of thought. 1 in 8? 12.5 percent?

Roughly 65% of players in the league have at least one parent who is African American...though that also includes the few NFL players who are of Polynesian and Samoan decent. Compared to 12.6% of Americans (roughly 39 million) self-identifying as African American in the Census.

Click to expand...

Matt Waldman said:

I had no intention to return to this thread because before I posted the first time I saw the vitriol that got personal. I felt that the thread would never be a setting for respectful discussion on this topic. I still feel this is the case because those who truly wanted to have a substantive discussion about this topic could have contacted me via PM or email--and a few have.

However, I am going to share my basic points, background, and experiences that contribute to my views so those of you who haven't thought to PM me or email me might feel encouraged to do so.

I gave my opinion on Bridgewater and race based on a variety of things.

1. The NFL is just like any other business organization out there. Some are managed well, others are managed poorly.

2. I talk with scouts, former scouts, and consultants with the league. They have or had regular interactions with players, coaches, and upper management. The stories they tell me concerning front office decision-making includes generous amounts of the following:

• scary-bad armchair psychiatry,
• subjective wants by one or a few overruling the detailed work of many
• fear-based decision-making based on image and playing it safe
• processes that are far more lacking than the public realizes

3. My 20 years of experience in operations management with a lot of experience recruiting, interviewing, training, and supervising employees. This includes seeing my share of HR issues and being asked to travel to locations and help repair and re-train employee teams that experienced these HR issues--race sometimes being a significant factor.

4. My personal experiences of what it means to be white in America.

5. My personal experiences of how that experience changes when you actually have a personal understanding of what non-whites in America can, and still often do, experience in society.

My statement is that Bridgewater will fall out of the top 10 and there's a very strong chance that racism will be an unintentional factor. There is a strong psychological component to racism. People see the institutional racism and think politics. I could care less about politics. At its core racism is an interpersonal dynamic.

Just like relating to the opposite sex is interpersonal, so is relating to race. Neither types of relationships are taught well at an institutional level (school) and it is at best, hit-and-miss when families teach how to relate.

Think about how people learn to relate to the opposite sex. They may be "told" how to do so, but they learn the most from modeling the behaviors of those around them. Johnny is told to be respectful to women, but his dad is an abusive, alcoholic man that he saw verbally and physically abuse his mother and sister.

Johnny may not have grown up to be an alcoholic or hit and belittle his wife like his old man, but he has issues communicating to his wife and his wife still feels like he doesn't treat her the way a husband and wife should relate. The behavior Johnny modeled is still unhealthy and it lingered beyond a generation.

An example could be Johnny never expressing outright anger to his wife. Instead he's nitpicking her about things that have nothing to do with the real issue and then withdrawing from her and breaking out in some unexplainable rash because his behavior still doesn't compensate for the powerful emotion of anger that he's feeling.

Johnny doesn't realize he behaves this way until someone confronts him about it. For awhile, he's also in denial about this behavior until something shakes him to his core just enough that he decides to seek some help/knowledge to learn about this behavior, the root of the behavior, and how to address the expression of this behavior.

Once Johnny realizes that the behavior he was showing wasn't healthy and he works on fixing it, he begins to see how he relates to others and how they relate to him in a clearer light. He's no longer in denial. When he begins to recognize a layer of behaviors that other people use to interact that aren't healthy.

Racism is like that. You can be told not use epithets or treat people poorly because it's wrong, but you can model behavior that sends the wrong message without knowing it. It's easy to be white, read about the civil rights movement in a history book, see people different skin colors people living on your street or working at your company, and believe everything has changed.

A lot has changed. But my parents, in-laws, and grandparents experienced what it took for our country to begin changing first hand. I'm old enough and experienced enough to see a lot change. I'm also old enough and experienced enough to have seen first-hand what hasn't.

However, the attitudes of some--not all, but enough--people in power haven't changed a lot. Some have changed on how to play the game of "how do I not be called a racist," even though they may be unwittingly still engaging in racist behavior.

This leads to a huge issue our country has. People are deathly afraid to be called racist in America. They think of racism and they think of the White Supremacist movement or images of brutality and hatred.

Racism is rooted in ignorance, not hatred. Folks are so afraid of being accused of racism, they'd rather just avoid the issue entirely and they wind up making assumptions about what they know-don't know instead of making an honest inquiry and admitting ignorance.

The desire not to look ignorant, but behave ignorantly is the predominant form of racism that's around these days. A lot of America believes racism is over because slavery is over or that the Civil Rights Act passed a half century ago.

Institutional racism has been weakened. However ignorance and sometimes hatred still exists. Just like Johnny who doesn't beat up and belittle his wife, but nitpicks her for things that have nothing to do with his real anger, a lot of our country is still in denial about its ignorance or strong, negative feelings about race.

I've seen it, worked around it, and lived around it as a single white man with no interpersonal connections to people of color beyond casual friendships. I've seen how companies have added layers of interviews with candidates that are really no more than contrived, but legal a "do they pass the look" test.

I've seen individuals in workplaces try to work around people of color when they have to go to them as the designated authority. I've seen managers scared of employees who do great work because they thought they were somehow doing that person a favor by hiring them and then try to sabotage them.

This was before I became a member of a black family and I saw more. I saw behaviors of mine that were unintentionally racist. I saw my childhood family reveal its ignorance and either change its behavior or abandon the relationship altogether.

I've seen everyday people make decisions and communicate in ways towards my family - often in front of me, thinking I'm someone else waiting in line behind them or mulling around - that are far different than I've been communicated to for the same things.

You may not find it easy to understand, but racism is an added layer of society that white people generally don't fully grasp or know how to negotiate. Once you have people--often the same people--treat you differently because they no longer identify you as a white individual but a member of a black family, you begin to see that layer a little clearer.

When you begin to see how people of color often have to navigate a white society, you begin to see the unwritten rules of that society that you just accepted because there was nothing inherent about you that chafed against them and created a negative reaction.

It doesn't happen everywhere or all the time. But as a white man who has seen how the world treats me as an individual and how it treats me or the people I am in relationships with either up close or from an observable distance, I can tell you it still happens enough to matter.

In my opinion, there are three types of racists:

1. People who are truly intolerant and hateful.

2. People who are clearly uncomfortable with diversity and have preconceived, deep-seated fears or discomfort, but are scared to death of confronting the fact that they are behaving this way.

3. People who are against racism/sexism/gender inequality and would be mortified if they were labeled intolerant, but they don't really have a true understanding that their behaviors or others behaviors as individuals and/or institutions are supporting ignorant or intolerant thinking. These people are benevolent racists.

So when I talk to NFL people and they have no physical-performance issues with Bridgewater that differ from other prospects, but they are nitpicking "soft skills" like leadership, toughness, and communication skills and some of these criticisms are based on the same arm-chair psychiatry I've seen managers make about black employees in my work places or assumptions I've seen made by teachers, doctors, or everyday business people with whom me and my family interact with, it becomes evident that there's still some sentiment in the NFL -- that's not always intentional -- that doesn't recognize it's bias.

And that bias isn't against drafting black quarterbacks. It's a very specific one regarding a top-10 pick being the face of the franchise and not having the game-changing athletic ability that no one can deny.

Cam Newton, RGII, McNabb, Vick, Russell, McNair, and Akili Smith were all quarterbacks with enough mobility to be considered threats with their legs. None of them were purely heralded as pocket passers who won on their intellect for the game. Newton "shocked" many for his skill in the pocket. McNabb and McNair had to transition from runners to pocket players.

The only black quarterback drafted in the top 10 in the past 20 years that has been drafted for his pocket skill sans mobility is Byron Leftwich. His general manager was James Harris, a dark-skinned black man.

Bridgewater relies on his arm and intellect more than his legs. Teams are nitpicking Bridgewater for being soft and using Leftwich as an example. That's like saying, "that cookie isn't sweet--it reminds me of that soft drink." Leftwich might have been a bad starter due to his windup, but saying he isn't tough is like saying he doesn't breath air. The fact that we're hearing glorified PR from folks like Phil Savage that no team had Bridgewater as a high first round pick and that it was media-driven fits into the point former scout Daniel Jeremiah has made weeks ago: "At this final month before the draft, it's time to stop believing most of what you hear or read."

Our country still has special biases reserved for dark-skinned black people. One of those biases has long been that dark skinned black people aren't fit for mental work. These overtones still exist in our general society. It's not always the case, but it happens often enough to notice it. It's often ingrained in this form of benevolent racism I described earlier.

Top 10 players are often the face of the franchise and earn an extra layer of scrutiny. They want these guys to project a CEO-quality. Nitpicking soft skills and doing so inaccurately is a huge red flag that there are teams that are hung up on what they see in front of them. Using the "Has 'It'" reason is about as subjective of an excuse these teams can invent to stand behind their bias without looking deeply into them.

And they don't look deeply into their issues. I know a former scout who had stints with four teams does analytics consulting for numerous teams. He's in demand with them and turns down more work than he takes. He has told me that scouting and decision-making with the draft is still in the dark ages.

He went on to tell me that he was shocked to read the RSP in 2007-2008 and see someone who not only saw behind he veil of NFL scouting process but tried to do something to make it better.

I'm not saying I'm a better scout. There are great scouts out there that I could learn a lot from. However, he has told me my process and structure is light years ahead of most NFL teams that he has seen -- and he has seen a lot.

I was also approached by an NFL exec last month to provide the team analysis on a player that they're interested in and they want to fill in the gaps. I learned that he has been reading my work for two years and agrees with a lot of my analysis. I have media people who are former players and scouts who read and value my work, but cannot give testimonials because of their work commitments.

Some of these people see and my points and agree; others disagree but understand how I arrived at that argument.

I originally didn't address my opinion on the thread for several reasons. One, it was my opinion and not a part of my RSP analysis. I don't project talent based on draft position. If I did, my takes would be far different.

Two, I had been sleeping three to five hours a night for two months to finish writing the RSP. I have three jobs and a family. My immediately priority wasn't to devote to a forum thread--especially when the responses I've gotten outside of this thread have been wholly positive.

Three, my opinion is based on a lot of established race theory, 20 years of anecdotal observation, and an understanding of the psychology of this issue that few will respond to with any level of grace, maturity, or openness.

Twitter has been almost 100 percent positive and those who disagreed strongly were respectful about how they chose to engage me. This forum from what I'm gathering had a solid mass of criticism for my opinion, which I expected to get some. However when I went to check this thread for the first time on the Saturday(?) before I published the RSP, I read enough of the thread to see that the behavior also included a good bit of hatred or inappropriate commentary that got deleted such as posts about my family.

I've made a choice to respond in more detail so that those of you who are reading this thread and are curious as to why I formed my opinion (and the background behind) can have that information. Then if you choose to contact me and engage in a respectful discussion that you'll know that I am open to doing so with those of you coming from a place of respect--whether you agree or not.

If anyone thinks that my belief (that Bridgewater's race created a layer of negative bias in 3-5 teams that could pick a quarterback in the top 10) somehow distorts my view of what happens on the field when I grade a player hasn't read the RSP. I don't rank by draft position or character. If I lose credibility to those of you who feel that way, I think it's a ridiculous, emotion-filled jump to make, but so be it.

If my reasons are too anecdotal for someone to consider, so be it. I'd think my fairly unique experiences would provide some insights that are worthwhile, but I imagine for some it's easy to dismiss me as biased.

If the fact that there are more quarterbacks in the NFL who are black than ever is a data point to make in response to my opinion, then I think they are missing the point of my argument, which is the top-10 and specifically dark-skinned black quarterbacks who don't offer the running back element. It's a very specific point.

But all some people heard was "racism", didn't consider the specificity of my point beyond the 75 percent number (which if you're latching onto that and not the explanation then you're missing the point). Bloom and Dr. Octopus have been pretty on-point about my take and still there are folks who saw something very different. I wasn't surprised that some of those reacting had even read any of my work or even listened to the podcast until those two went point-by-point.

It's an opinion that I could be wrong about, but I said it because I believe it needed to be said. Those who protest vehemently about it beyond, "I disagree and don't think he's right about it," and they have decided that I've somehow lost credibility for the work that I do they have their own issues to work out. I can't help them.

What I tell them will never be enough--especially if it forces some of them to confront something that feels uncomfortable.

Then again, I'm not sure why anyone cares so much about what I have to say, I'm just a fantasy writer.

Click to expand...

NE_REVIVAL said:

You list 3 types of racists and it never dawns on you that maybe, just maybe there are millions and millions and millions of non blacks who don't fall into any of your neat and tidy 3 racist categories.

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

NE_REVIVAL said:

You list 3 types of racists and it never dawns on you that maybe, just maybe there are millions and millions and millions of non blacks who don't fall into any of your neat and tidy 3 racist categories.

Click to expand...

Do you mean that there are millions of non-black racists who don't fall into those three categories? (If so, what other categories of racists would you suggest adding?)

If you mean that there are millions of non-black people (not just racists) who don't fall into those categories, of course there are. Matt listed three types of racists, not three types of people.

Click to expand...